Log in or sign up to comment
328 Comments
Posted by fini_fly

In the last 5 years I have only bought a handful of game on or near the launch date. Heavy Rain was one of these. I beat it in 2 days, had no desire to go back and acquire trophies, then sold it to a friend. Games are expensive and multiplayer has justified the price of some games due to their continued use.

Posted by FresherThanAir

LOL I bought this game on day of release and took me about a day and a half to complete it (Inbetween School etc). Then after its completion the only thing left to do was collect the other trophies. I feel a total fool for paying £50 for a game that once you have played through once it leaves hardly anything left. Those who bought it second hand had the right idea. It's not really Sonys fault or the gamers fault, It's the game itself. If it had some stronger replay value than just a linear story line this game would have sold more.

Posted by TheKreep

@TekZero: Except it's not anything like piracy at all?

Posted by TheKreep

I'm sure that this has been said, but clearly, his two complaints aren't unrelated.

He thinks Heavy Rain didn't sell as well as he would've liked BECAUSE it was too expensive, and the price is something that's entirely out of the hands of him and his company.

Posted by Alex_Carrillo

Funny. I'm mad Heavy Rain contained so many plot holes.

Posted by Wokiie

i feel sorry for Guillaume, it should not be allowed to buy used games! can't you see that he wants the money?!

Posted by miva2

Games aren't too expensive for me. But I don't think I buy as many games as most other 'hardcore' players.

I would gladly give €50 for a good singleplayer game.

Many of those 1 million people who didn't buy the game at retail price would probably never have played the game at all if it wasn't cheaper. If I was in his place, I would be happy i reached another 1 million players besides the 2 million that bought the game at retail price.

Posted by Cretaceous_Bob

If that man is expecting everybody who plays a short singleplayer game to pay full price for it, he'll always have quotes about people pissin' on his pancakes.

Posted by Prv8J0k3r

There are already too many DRM's on PC games...are they going to try to transfer that to console too?(It's not slowing down pirating either, where there is a will there is a way, so stop complaining) It reminds me of that South Park about pirating music(Faith Plus One), I'm not saying that these dev's shouldn't be rewarded for their work, but how greedy are you? Games are already over-priced to begin with you have to spend a small fortune for a couple of hours of enjoyment these days. I.E. - if you bought COD: Black Ops brand new thats roughly you paid roughly $59.99(USD), then if you want all the DLC(including the new Rezurrection DLC) it's another $59.96 for all of that bringing you to a total of 119.95 for a complete game with a lot of stuff that would have just been included back in the day.

Edited by Brackynews

I pre-ordered my copy of Heavy Rain sight unseen from HMV in ENGLAND, I wanted the proper box so much.

If I wasn't so sure, I probably would have rented it, and then decided to buy. Pity his math doesn't account for all the possibilities of where that extra 1 million trophy accounts comes from.

I already ranted my face off over on the GameSpot article and don't care to repeat it here. Generally I feel every developer and author and artist (including myself) has a right to complain when it's "food off their table". But that doesn't make the complaint any less hypocritical, because it's fairly likely we all have purchased college textbooks used, and used cars, and go to garage sales, and watch movies at friends' houses... The notion that our society in all its capitalist glory should become 1 sale = 1 experience is demented, and a very significant reason of why I chose library sciences as a career.

Posted by beritbunny

He should have made a better game that people didn't want to sell. Look at it this way: Somewhere around half of people who purchased the game didn't like it enough to keep it.

Neither I nor my BF sell games from The Library, but I hustled this one out the door in disgust within 6 months of buying it. We were so excited about this one, but I feel that it was not As Advertised. Do I remember why? No. I've put my precise reasons for dissatisfaction and self-loathing at the money I wasted out of my head.

I sold it not for money, but to get the visual reminder of a disappointment out of my home. At some point, the collection needs culling. (I also pruned some PS2 and Wii shovelware. Your Dreamcast's Samba de Amigo is not your Wii's SdA.)

Make a game that people want to keep close and you'll starve the secondhand market.

Posted by YukoAsho

@Rasgueado said:

Perfectly valid argument. Let me posit this...

I would argue that movie companies do actually have problems with used sales, but the number of open marketplaces where the practice takes place is limited in terms of its scope when compared to video games. Most retailers--even major retailers like Best Buy--have taken stabs at used video game sales. I have yet to see a major retail chain (take note I live in Canada) that executes this practice with movies. The stores that I know of who deal in used sales are small, community based propositions.

Libraries again fall into the same vein as video rental stores. As someone else in this thread already pointed out, these businesses pay a higher premium for the games they rent out which generate royalties for the publisher/developer to receive. Libraries are also generally public affairs that are linked with multiple branches throughout a single municipality. Authors who have their books stored in libraries (the number of copies of which are generally *very* limited throughout the library system) are usually agreed to be there as a means of archival and public access. With one or two books in a system with a 14-30 day policy for checkout, I would argue that this is generally viewed as not being a detriment to printing sales as these constitute a fraction of the press run. Books make back money on the number of physical copies that they sell. If a publisher sells out of an entire run of books they will print more to meet demand, but generally the practice has been to not monitor the marketplace for used sales as they have already made their money on the initial purchase of the printed book.

This is where, I believe, Guillauame's argument comes into play. He is suggesting that the economics of producing a big budget title are outstripping the size of the marketplace for the price point they are charging. Part of the problem they have at the moment is that they might produce 3 million copies of the game, but only 2 million of them are sold because a large segment of the marketplace is accustomed to acquiring games at a lower price through the vehicle of used sales. This practice, unlike with most major media industries (music, movies, books) is openly supported by the major retailers in the business (again... Best Buy doesn't sell used CD's, and Chapter's/Indigo/Barnes & Noble don't sell used books... at least *in* the store). Making this kind of direct comparison at this juncture of the retail marketplace isn't making a good comparison between like products, or markets.

Your arguments as to the direct value of the game in your mind are perfectly valid. For many people the proposition of spending that much money for the type of title that the game is would be something that anyone cannot argue with due the subjective nature of "want." That being said... many people still wanted to play it enough to acquire it via *some* means, so the value is there to be derived, just not for the asking price of the manufacturer. This I believe, again, is where Guillaume's statements come into play. He is openly stating that he agrees with this point of view, and feels that games are far too expensive. At the same time, he would like to explore other means of locking his product down so that his company can benefit from each sale of the game, as opposed to a retailer that had nothing to do with the development (like Gamestop).

My original post did not, in fact, disagree with the idea that there were issues to be discussed with the statements made from Quantic Dream. I clearly stated that it was perfectly valid to disagree with those sentiments. My issue was purely with Alex mischaracterizing the statements made, and painting the developer as a cry baby.

A few things. Firstly, at least in the states, there really isn't much of a "higher premium" with game rentals. Rental chains straight up buy the game at retail prices, but even with all your other points being equal, it does point to the fact that, for many, $60 is way too damned much money.

Also, with regards to Best Buy entering the used games market, while it's true they're testing the waters, it's not the first time they've tried it, and the selection there for used games tends to be outright pathetic compared to new, which is different from the situation where you can get damned near anything after a month used at the Stop.

This brings us to the issue we both agree with, and that we both share Guillauame's point - price. $60 is simply asking too much, and if game prices go up to $70 in the next generation, we're going to see major market contraction, at least in the new games market. At the end of the day, the used game "problem" is simply a creation of the games industry living well beyond its means and expecting everyone else to come along for the ride. No one's buying used movies, books or CDs in part because they're pretty damned cheap nowadays, $10-$15 for a CD, $15-$20 for a DVD, $25 for a Blu-Ray, $10-$20 for a paperback book, maybe $40 for a hardcover. Video games are the only entertainment home entertainment that asks for so damned much money per item. The others don't even come close, and until that changes, the problem's not changing. Maybe the problem would be less if games were $30 or $40, but at $60, people are going to cop deals wherever they can.

And honestly, I don't much take issue with your opinions on Navarro's patently unprofessional reporting, but you have to admit that when a game hits 2 million in sales (a rarity in the present game industry) and the devs cry poor mouth, it doesn't make for good PR.

Edited by Sooty

@zels said:

@TheMasterDS: @TheMasterDS said:

And a policy of only buying games used is as bad as a policy of only pirating games because when you buy a copy of a game, you're not paying for the box or the disc, but the content that's on the disc, and that content is not Gamestop's to sell, it belongs to the people who spent a ton of money and time making it.

I will never agree that it's as bad as piracy.

Then don't. But in the eyes of publishers it is still money they are not getting, it's as simple as that.

Piracy is worse because of the easy methods of distribution and the ability to make multiple copies, but the end result is the same: No money to the developer. Unlike piracy used games don't require modified consoles either which is a barrier that your average joe can't be bothered to pass, so if they want the game cheap they will buy it used or borrow it instead.

If you primarily buy used games and only play offline you might as well just pirate them instead. Save yourself money because you're not supporting the developer either way unless you intend to buy DLC or purchase an online pass for certain titles. Personally I can't be bothered with having a modified 360 anymore, I got banned from Xbox Live twice so I'm legit now, I just buy used games now and then instead of taking risks with my consoles. Still buy plenty of games new, though. I buy all my games new on PC. (you kinda have to anyway)

Just speaking frankly. In the UK we have a big store called CeX who sell a ton of second hand stuff, they have huge gigantic stores with DVDs, consoles, dvd players, computer parts, games...you name it. I would rather pirate a game than give money to a store like that, I really don't like places where you can trade almost anything into, I worry where a lot of it comes from. (home invasions!)

Posted by zels

@TheMasterDS: @TheMasterDS said:

And a policy of only buying games used is as bad as a policy of only pirating games because when you buy a copy of a game, you're not paying for the box or the disc, but the content that's on the disc, and that content is not Gamestop's to sell, it belongs to the people who spent a ton of money and time making it.

I will never agree that it's as bad as piracy. Piracy creates multiple copies of 1 disc and as a result both parties end up with a copy of the game. When a used game is sold the first owner no longer has access to it, and as a result if he ever wants to play that game again he'll have to buy it for the second time. I firmly believe that used media market should follow the very same rules as any other used market. Saying that because a certain product doesn't diminish in value due to use, the creator should therefore have a cut each time it is sold is imo ridiculous - like a painter getting a cut each time his work moves from hands to hands.

Posted by vexidus

This was a great read, thanks for this article Alex. Of course, being drunk might have something to do with that, but not too much. I loved Heavy Rain, but I feel no need to replay it again, so I definitely understand how so many copies weren't bought "new". Also, I'm surprised it sold 2 million copies new, and agree with the general consensus that a developer should be happy with a number like that. I'm sorry to say, but this guy kind of soured me to future new purchases from Quantic Dream. I feel like my money is somehow not good enough for him.

Posted by Rasgueado

@YukoAsho said:

@Rasgueado said:

Perfectly valid to disagree with his sentiments... but was it necessary to be such a dick about it?

I don't often think highly of Alex Navarro. In fact, I think he's a piece of shit writer who would be laughed out of Kotaku, let alone any respectable establishment. That said, he's got a point. The video game industry isn't a "victim" of anything in the used games market, save to a fundamentally broken and unsustainable business model. Tell me, why is it you only ever hear complaints from the game industry. No one's bitching about used movies or anything, and no one's trying to ban libraries. If game companies don't want to deal with the First Sale Doctrine, then they're more than welcome to leave the US market, but they're not entitled to any of my sympathies if they make a $60 semi-interactive movie that can be burned through in a night, especially when they made as much money as they did.

Perfectly valid argument. Let me posit this...

I would argue that movie companies do actually have problems with used sales, but the number of open marketplaces where the practice takes place is limited in terms of its scope when compared to video games. Most retailers--even major retailers like Best Buy--have taken stabs at used video game sales. I have yet to see a major retail chain (take note I live in Canada) that executes this practice with movies. The stores that I know of who deal in used sales are small, community based propositions.

Libraries again fall into the same vein as video rental stores. As someone else in this thread already pointed out, these businesses pay a higher premium for the games they rent out which generate royalties for the publisher/developer to receive. Libraries are also generally public affairs that are linked with multiple branches throughout a single municipality. Authors who have their books stored in libraries (the number of copies of which are generally *very* limited throughout the library system) are usually agreed to be there as a means of archival and public access. With one or two books in a system with a 14-30 day policy for checkout, I would argue that this is generally viewed as not being a detriment to printing sales as these constitute a fraction of the press run. Books make back money on the number of physical copies that they sell. If a publisher sells out of an entire run of books they will print more to meet demand, but generally the practice has been to not monitor the marketplace for used sales as they have already made their money on the initial purchase of the printed book.

This is where, I believe, Guillauame's argument comes into play. He is suggesting that the economics of producing a big budget title are outstripping the size of the marketplace for the price point they are charging. Part of the problem they have at the moment is that they might produce 3 million copies of the game, but only 2 million of them are sold because a large segment of the marketplace is accustomed to acquiring games at a lower price through the vehicle of used sales. This practice, unlike with most major media industries (music, movies, books) is openly supported by the major retailers in the business (again... Best Buy doesn't sell used CD's, and Chapter's/Indigo/Barnes & Noble don't sell used books... at least *in* the store). Making this kind of direct comparison at this juncture of the retail marketplace isn't making a good comparison between like products, or markets.

Your arguments as to the direct value of the game in your mind are perfectly valid. For many people the proposition of spending that much money for the type of title that the game is would be something that anyone cannot argue with due the subjective nature of "want." That being said... many people still wanted to play it enough to acquire it via *some* means, so the value is there to be derived, just not for the asking price of the manufacturer. This I believe, again, is where Guillaume's statements come into play. He is openly stating that he agrees with this point of view, and feels that games are far too expensive. At the same time, he would like to explore other means of locking his product down so that his company can benefit from each sale of the game, as opposed to a retailer that had nothing to do with the development (like Gamestop).

My original post did not, in fact, disagree with the idea that there were issues to be discussed with the statements made from Quantic Dream. I clearly stated that it was perfectly valid to disagree with those sentiments. My issue was purely with Alex mischaracterizing the statements made, and painting the developer as a cry baby.

Posted by YukoAsho

@Rasgueado said:

Perfectly valid to disagree with his sentiments... but was it necessary to be such a dick about it?

I don't often think highly of Alex Navarro. In fact, I think he's a piece of shit writer who would be laughed out of Kotaku, let alone any respectable establishment. That said, he's got a point. The video game industry isn't a "victim" of anything in the used games market, save to a fundamentally broken and unsustainable business model. Tell me, why is it you only ever hear complaints from the game industry. No one's bitching about used movies or anything, and no one's trying to ban libraries. If game companies don't want to deal with the First Sale Doctrine, then they're more than welcome to leave the US market, but they're not entitled to any of my sympathies if they make a $60 semi-interactive movie that can be burned through in a night, especially when they made as much money as they did.

Posted by sopranosfan

I buy 90% of my games new and half of the games that I buy used are simply games that I can't find new anywhere and I may have traded or sold 5-10 games used. I literally had a Gamestop employee ask me why I had the card if I wasn't going to buy a used copy when available. HOWEVER, after I buy something I own it and I'm not paying $60 for something that I don't own and if I can't sell if I choose to then I don't truly own it.

Posted by CL60

Off topic, but related to picture. Does anybody else find it hilarious that the "rent is too damn high" guy got kicked out of his apartment because his rent was too low?

Posted by cyberfr3akgamer

I bought it, i play it, and sell it again, and i bought it again its a great game ^^

Posted by plaintomato

He should be bitching at MS & Sony for sheltering brick & mortars with their (I assume it's "their", correct me if it's not MS/Sony) refusal to release new games for download the same day as the retail release. I don't know, maybe it's publishers that are trying to avoid the MS/Sony cut, but either way, lazy sods like me would buy games online for consoles if they were available just to avoid the drive to the store.

As long as they make me drive to the store, I'll buy and sell used games and call it their own damn fault for not taking advantage of my laziness.

Edited by TheMasterDS

@zels: 1. Yeah, that's definitely true, and also possibly the only reason it hasn't already happened on consoles. On the PC it's a standard practice if you don't just buy it digitally, but consoles aren't there yet.

2. Multiple consoles with multiple accounts has to be a series fringe case, but even then I'd say that the general Xbox Live Game rules apply - you can play it with any account on the system you downloaded it to first, or any console with the account on it. Then again, I don't know how that works if you're taking one stick around everywhere.

And a policy of only buying games used is as bad as a policy of only pirating games because when you buy a copy of a game, you're not paying for the box or the disc, but the content that's on the disc, and that content is not Gamestop's to sell, it belongs to the people who spent a ton of money and time making it.

Posted by xyzygy

Heavy Rain was not worth 60 dollars. I rented it and got the complete experience with 5 days left to return the game.

Online
Posted by Boopie

Heavy Rain was OK but I would have felt raped at 60 bucks, robbed at 40 bucks, and consensually cornholed at 30 so borrowing it for free from my rich brother worked out just fine

and I won't cry any tears if they never make a sequel or another game

Posted by Quipido

@ModerateViolence said:

@TekZero said:

I've said it all along, buying used games is no different than piracy.

You've been wrong all this time then.

I agree. Used games are entirely legal. Piracy is not. If developers feel it's the same thing, there must be change in law. I am living in a state where everything is determined by law, so if you want me to change my behavior, make the law apply to this problem and I will start to think about game purchases as licences to play, not a physical copy which I am free to do whatever I want to with.

Also I bought Heavy Rain new and I am still waiting for the promissed DLC, which should have explained at least some of the majoyr plotholes. That DLC will never come, right?

Posted by Sharpless

I really wish he looked like the guy in that image.

Posted by zels

@TheMasterDS: While I do agree that online passes for games that have an online component make sense, I just can't agree on the online passes for single player games part.

First of all, it doesn't make any sense from a technical perspective - there's simply no way to apply that, since:

1. Not all console users are connected to the internet or have such a connection.

2. People may have multiple consoles with multiple accounts of their own and they should be able to play on all of them and not have to buy a new copy for each system.

Secondly, I just don't see why the users who bought a used product should owe any money to the developers or publishers - the cost of producing that copy of the game, manual and case included was covered in the initial sale and no further loss of money was sustained. If there is a problem with the way the copy was acquired it should be taken up to the retailer that offers used copies and an agreement should be reached with them, not the customer.

Also, I'd like you to see my first point as the stronger one of the two, since it's less of an opinion and more of a fact.

Posted by Kato

Why not make downloadable (XBL, Steam, and PSN) games?

They're cheaper and cannot be sold used.

Posted by Corvak

The games industry wants to live in some sort of dream world, where people just give them truckloads of money every year.

Saying that used games are equal to piracy is like saying eBay and Craigslist are equal to breaking into someones house and stealing their TV.

I don't often buy used games. But since retailers seem to want to get rid of a product six months after it's release, i'm often forced to do so.

Edited by MrKlorox

@Pepsiman: Oh so royalties still do get paid per rental? If that's the case, then it's not as bad as I was thinking. I was under the assumption that rental services simply paid a lot more per copy for the right to rent, but didn't pay any royalties beyond that.

Posted by Rasgueado

"Furthermore, de Fondaumiere is essentially complaining that two million copies of a game sold is somehow detrimental to his studio's health."

Really Alex? I though he was lamenting the notion that 1 million people can play their game without them seeing any money for it.

There are enough issues to take to task here without painting this guy like a cry baby. He has a vallid concern, and he adresses it directly by stating the issue stems from selling a physical medium that can be easily re-sold or rented from video stores.

Perfectly valid to disagree with his sentiments... but was it necessary to be such a dick about it?

Edited by Pepsiman

@CatsAkimbo said:

@MrKlorox said:

@vinsanityv22: Sorry, but using Gamefly is just as wrong as buying used.

How's that exactly? I thought rental companies pay a premium for the rights to rent out games, leading to more money in the pockets of developers. It's not like GameFly just picks up a hundred copies at Best-Buy and rents them to a thousand people.

This is correct. Legally speaking, the sort of license you get as a consumer with a commercial product tends to be different than that which a corporation gets and it's all because of intent. An average joe who picks up a game at that aforementioned Best Buy is legally allowed by the developer/publisher to use it only for personal, private purposes such as actually playing the game in their own home. The customer agrees to not use the game as a means of making a (significant) profit or in a business context and, in exchange, has the right to play that game for as much as they like. By opening the box and putting the disc in the system, they agree to this whether they know it or not.

Conversely, companies like GameFly, which take these same games and use them in a profit-making context, have to agree to a separate legal contract based on the extent and purpose for taking that game and using it to make money. Instead of simply buying the game as a means to entertain oneself, the game is being bought as a means of supporting a business model, which, in GameFly's case, involves making money repeatedly off of the same stock of copies they have. They're using someone else's product to survive and make a profit and that legally means that the creators are entitled to have a share of that.

This sort of stuff is almost always covered in the end user license agreements that appear in manuals and/or when the game starts up (or even in a menu option, in some instances.) If you take the time to read them, there tends to be a dedicated section specifically set up for the purpose of describing rental clauses, which can be basically summarized as "it's prohibited without prior written permission." Any legitimate rental business has to have agreements with (presumably) each game's publisher to set up an appropriate royalty stream that then gets siphoned back to the developers. If this wasn't the case, you could bet that a service with as prominent of advertising as GameFly would have faced litigation by now and lost.

All of this is also deeply related to fair use laws and, in turn, affects why GameStop is able to keep doing what it's doing without much in the way of significant repurcussions, but I'll just stick exclusively to the topic of rentals. As a very slight tangent, though, these legal hurdles for rentals are also the exact same case for movie services, too, from Netflix to Blockbuster.

Posted by PenguinDust

This can all be solved by every game sold being registered to a single console that way no game can be rented or shared with friends. That's where we're going, isn't it?

Posted by Tennmuerti

I don't like Heavy Rain.

But this seems like a clear and deliberate misrepresentation of what the person was trying to say and read like tabloid journalism. It was honestly an unpleasant article to read.

Posted by twillfast

@Dudevid said:

Alex Navarro's snarky cynicism can get a bit tiresome at times. Navarro's effectively saying Fondaumiere is being a hypocrite by bemoaning how expensive games are and then going on to demand more people buy his game despite that. Clearly Navarro's got it backwards; Fondaumiere's saying there's a bunch of people who didn't buy the game, and in an attempt to answer why, he's proffering that games are too expensive. The guy really doesn't deserve this kind of snickering sardonicism. It's not good journalism, and I don't expect it from Giant Bomb. At least Patrick Klepek wouldn't put out trite like this.

Agreed. Alex seems to only want to write articles where he can dispute wildly. While I think criticism is very much needed in any business, cynisism and arguing for the hell of it is really not something we need.

I partly agree with de Fondaumiere, but maybe he's a bit excessively cynic too.

Posted by Dudevid

Alex Navarro's snarky cynicism can get a bit tiresome at times. Navarro's effectively saying Fondaumiere is being a hypocrite by bemoaning how expensive games are and then going on to demand more people buy his game despite that. Clearly Navarro's got it backwards; Fondaumiere's saying there's a bunch of people who didn't buy the game, and in an attempt to answer why, he's proffering that games are too expensive. The guy really doesn't deserve this kind of snickering sardonicism. It's not good journalism, and I don't expect it from Giant Bomb. At least Patrick Klepek wouldn't put out trite like this.

Posted by aspaceinvader

The only way i see the second hand market for games being wiped out is to make all game digital downloads only, that way they can never be sold on, In saying that, the price for digital downloads would have to come down a fair bit, no more $60 price tags for a game would be a start. Until this happens and there is a physical copy that you can hold and sell on, the second hand market will never be wiped out.

Posted by Grillbar

to be honest i dont think that, that many people would have bought it new if it cost lets say 50 bucks instead

Posted by Rongaryen

I like how Alex made the phrase "balls out ludicrous" sound professional.

Posted by Asurastrike

@MrKlorox said:

@vinsanityv22: Sorry, but using Gamefly is just as wrong as buying used.

So you don't use Netflix, then?

Posted by CatsAkimbo

@MrKlorox said:

@vinsanityv22: Sorry, but using Gamefly is just as wrong as buying used.

How's that exactly? I thought rental companies pay a premium for the rights to rent out games, leading to more money in the pockets of developers. It's not like GameFly just picks up a hundred copies at Best-Buy and rents them to a thousand people.

Posted by MrKlorox

@vinsanityv22: Sorry, but using Gamefly is just as wrong as buying used.

Posted by TPoppaPuff

$60 for a new game is fair, but not for a $20 title like Heavy Rain

An 8-10 hour game with no replay value (or maybe an hour's worth to see some alterations to the ending) is not worth $60 and charging for a game with rental value is asinine and part of the reason "used" sales killed this game. Truth be told used sales wasn't the issue. Nobody bought bought this game at $55 either cause that would be almost as stupid as paying $60. Rentals and Gamefly are the source of those extra IDs with trophies. Hell, what about lent copies? Does that kill the industry too? Truth is if the game was worth anywhere close to $60 he would have seen more sales of the game. There's no multiplayer and nowhere near enough single player to keep people hooked. You know what game didn't get killed by used sales? Mass Effect 2. You know, the single-player game with 5-6x more content, higher quality cinematics (visuals are much better and the voice acting isn't laughably terrible) and ACTUAL REPLAY VALUE. And then there's the free online pass for new copies. The code (sold seperately for $15) gave you a bunch of integrated story content. The extra content in those multiple packs released for that code lasted as long as the entirety of Heavy Rain! And that's EXTRA content! That's not even including more integrated DLC sold seperately that came out in regular intervals and kept people hooked and not reselling copies of their game.

You want more sales for Heavy Rain? Sell it at an honest price. The game should've been download only and sold for $15, $20 max. Then again, you probably wouldn't have made as much money as you did by swindling those poor, uninformed souls who spent $60 on a rental.

I don't even hate the game, I'm just being honest.

Edited by Pr1mus

The best solution would be to lower the price of games faster. 60$ at launch and a month later drop it to 30$. I know plenty of games i would still buy day one and pay the big price for, even some that are single player only.

Most of my games i got when they became greatest hits at 20 or 30$. If for some reason a year after it's release a game is still 40 or more then screw it, i'll buy used. I'm willing to wait but there is a certain amount of decency that publishers should have.

Take Final Fantasy XIII for example. when aligning the launch on both consoles and in every market that game sold 3,5 million copies in its first week. It's been out of a year and a half now and is standing at 6.5 millions... so more then half in it's first week alone and another million or so in the next 3 weeks.. at that point there really was no reason to not drop the price.

That would also make the used game market look less ridiculous with games sold for 55$ 2 days after they came out.

Online
Posted by ryanwho

Yep they should be 20-30 a pop. There's a market of people publishers don't even know about because they only buy used games at aorund 20-30 dollars. Sell new stuff at that price, and they enter the market.

Posted by TheMasterDS

@Pr1mus said:

@TheMasterDS said:

@Pr1mus said:

@TheMasterDS said:

at least pirates don't waste their money on people who don't deserve it, and they know that they're wrong.

Pirates don't inject much needed money in a waning economy.

My point is that neither do people who buy used.

You might want to rethink that...

Someone buy a used game in a retail store, which employs people, who earns a salary, which in turn uses said salary to buy various everyday goods bought in stores which themselves employ people, which... you get the point, ya know, economy.

You don't support the used game market, fine. To each his own. But don't compare people who buy used to pirates much less imply that pirates are better which the first comment i quoted does.

Oh, I thought you meant the game business, you meant the economy in general. Well to that I say "Oh well." Besides, if a pirate doesn't spend 20 bucks at Gamestop he'll spend it elsewhere. It's not like he says "I want to buy a game" and the economy fairy comes down and gives him $20 that did not exist before to spend.

I want to say though, though I say used games and piracy and indistinguishable, and thus would imply that piracy was the more sensible option, I will say this for used games - it's a lot easier with consoles. Hell, though I make every effort to buy games I actually want new, when the end of the year rolls around the mood often strikes me to acquire the games of the year I half way sorta cared about through Gamestop. Whether this is alright is debatable - on one hand I didn't pay Rocksteady for Arkham Asylum, on the other I'm going to buy Arkham City day 1 provided it reviews well since I enjoyed Arkham Asylum. Darksiders 2 will also probably be purchased sooner rather than later so long as it looks better than the first. One can say, with justifications like that, that all will work itself out in the end.

However, these defenses are akin to those I hear from pirates who say "I don't have money" or "I use piracy as a way to demo games - I pay for those I deem to be solid" and that is my ultimate point. Arguably there's something noble there that allows them to seek out and reward those who have created the best content, just as there's something to using used games to catch up and get on a bandwagon that will pay off later. Thing is, the reality is that these justifications are all very contextual, and they vary from person to person. While there are some who try to be aware of the impact of their decisions, and support developers when they see fit, there are those who see used games as just desserts for the high price of games and will not humor 60 dollar purchases. For every pirate who wants to test out a little of everything to find what he wants to support, there are many who feel that piracy is just desserts for DRM. For everyone who buys Used Games or Pirates responsibly, there are those who just do it without thinking, and it is those who I take issue with.

Posted by hoossy

@J4S0N said:

If the game wasn't a PS3 exclusive, he would have sold two million and one.

but if it wasn't.. it wouldn't have been the game it was, wouldn't have looked the way it did, and maybe wouldn't have been released to begin with.

Posted by sthusby

How about making a good game first? Come on, Heavy Rain was pretty shit. And it had the worst plot holes ever, and som of the worst voice acting I've ever heard, and that is kind of a deal breaker in a story driven game like HR was.

Posted by Levio

Boo hoo Mr. Game Developer.

Boo hoo.

Posted by teekomeeko

Reads headline; assumes Alex; yes Alex.