• 65 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by ProfessorEss (7283 posts) -

I'm convinced that videogame consumers are the dumbest, most naive, and most short-sighted market that has ever existed.

On one hand I dread the day that family members can no longer share the same copy of a game, but at the same time I relish the thought of all you clowns realizing how wrong you all were (well after it's too late of course).

#52 Posted by usgrovers (166 posts) -

@LordXavierBritish said:

@OppressiveStink: You're right, you can't prove someone who torrents a game would ever buy it.

But I guarantee you the guy buying Modern Warefare 3 for $55 used would buy it for new $60 if the option wasn't available.

Is every used sale a lost sale? No, but almost every used sale within the first two months or so of release is. The only games that aren't losing sales are year one of two year old titles, titles publishers aren't counting on to bring in revenue anymore.

But in that window after launch, you can bet your ass a used sale is a 1:1 loss.

What about the guy who brings in MW2 and Black Ops to trade in towards his cost of MW3? I confess that many times I have taken my old games to my local shop (not GameStop) so I can get the latest release for $20 or $30 off. I really don't think the $5 or $10 matters as much to people as the ability to "upgrade" their old games for savings.

#53 Posted by j3ffro919 (243 posts) -

Used video game sales have absolutely no comparison to used car sales. Video game repair isn't a cottage industry, car repair is. A five year old Halo disc that's had three different is virtually identical to a new one, that can't be said about any car.

Not trying to paint people who buy used games as the enemy or less than in any way, but trying to compare the business model of a company who makes cars to a company who makes video games is silly.

#54 Posted by Jimbo (9776 posts) -

@LordXavierBritish said:

@Jimbo said:

@LordXavierBritish said:

Morally, not legally, there is no difference between buying used and downloading a game off the pirate bay, that is where my point begins and ends.

OK, I disagree.

And you're right about where this is inevitably heading, but for now, retailers remain a critical link in the game distribution network. Publishers have to walk a fine line between getting as much as they can and not forcing these companies out of business, at least until they are comfortable to switch completely to digital sales.

Even when that does happen the game creators will still get screwed, they'll just be getting screwed by the console operators instead. Once the competing retailers are gone and digital sales are all that remains, who is gonna stop Microsoft when they decide they want 50% of the sale price, or whatever % they decide to take. If you want to play a game on your Microsoft console you will have no choice but to buy it through Microsoft's storefront in your living room, and there will be virtually no downward pressure on prices from anywhere.

I think the industry should be very careful about what they're trying to do here. In the long run I think they're much better off with retailers than without them.

If any of the consoles' parent companies tried to pull shit publishers would just get up and leave. Would it hurt them in the short term? Yes, but it would companies like Microsoft and Sony even more. If Microsoft tired to take a 50% cut of all sales and Activision decided to jump ship to Sony, and announce they were doing so before the next console cycle, that's it. Microsoft is done.

And as long as PCs exist publishers and developers are going to have the option to sell their products directly, and that's if fronts like Steam, Desura, and Greenman didn't already exist.

Eventually consoles should probably just die, but that's not going to be for a long time. I guess I just assume Microsoft and Sony aren't retarded enough to run off every single publisher that likes money.

It won't happen before the next console cycle. It might not even happen during the next console cycle - it can't happen while retail is still such a big player, and how long that lasts will depend on how proactive the console manufacturers are in forcing digital distribution. The console owners' cut will start creeping up once the model and install base is established, when it's too late for consumers or publishers to do anything about it. The publishers wouldn't be able to do shit if Sony was asking a similar cut - and I really don't see those companies getting into a price war with each other when they can establish a status quo which serves both of them extremely well. The publishers wouldn't cut off their nose to spite their face by just no longer making games, and assuming a relatively even split in the install base again, they'd still probably be better off selling on both consoles at 50% than on one console at 30%.

In fact, they typically only make about 50% of the current retail price anyway after retailer cut, console tax and distribution costs, so Microsoft or Sony could even make a decent case that they would now be supplying all of those things and as such should now get paid for all of those things. The publishers aren't going to end up winning from digital distribution on console because the console operators hold all the cards. Perhaps the very biggest publishers would have enough clout to not let themselves be bullied in this situation, and even if they had to make exceptions in those cases, everybody else would still have to bend over and take it.

Imagine if it became impossible tomorrow for any PC game to be sold without going through Steam. They'd be able to jack their cut to pretty much whatever they wanted and publishers would have to accept it as the cost of doing business. That's the situation which will effectively exist on consoles once your only option to buy games for your Microsoft console is to buy them through Microsoft.

Personally I'm half expecting the next Microsoft and/or Sony consoles to offer two SKUs. One at full price which takes physical media (I think it's still too soon to cut retail out as an option) and a significantly cheaper, subsidised option which doesn't. As long as they guarantee day and date digital releases, the digital-only consoles will be a license to print money.

#55 Posted by phantomzxro (1565 posts) -

@Commisar123 said:

It's all about implementation. Online passes are fine, but the pricing and what they choose to hide behind the DRM wall is important. Personally I really like the way Mass Effect 2 handled it by giving you an awesome extra character who was not essential to the story, but was a lot of fun and worth the extra money to buy it new.

I'm of the same mind as well, i thought mass effect 2 handle it well by giving new buyers some cool dlc and used buyers will have to buy that content if they wanted. I feel you should be able to sell your game or buy used if need be. Having special content for the new users or first owners seems like a fitting middle ground in my book.

#56 Posted by david3cm (635 posts) -

What I can't stand is when people say that a company (EA, THQ, whoever it may be) is charging the consumer twice for content, implying that you first have to buy the game and then buy the online pass if you are getting a used copy. If you like a product enough to buy it why not support the company that made it, that may mean spending a few dollars more, but I would rather my money go to the people who made it possible for that product to be in my hands, not Gamestop.

#57 Posted by upwarDBound (654 posts) -

It sounds to me that the publishers are the ones with a sense of entitlement, not the consumer. They need us more than we need them. They should do whatever they can to stay in our good graces.

#58 Posted by ShadowSkill11 (1783 posts) -

@upwarDBound said:

It sounds to me that the publishers are the ones with a sense of entitlement, not the consumer. They need us more than we need them. They should do whatever they can to stay in our good graces.

Why would they care about your good graces when you give Gamestop and other used game retailers all of your money instead of them?

#59 Posted by Grimluck343 (1148 posts) -

@usgrovers said:

@SteamPunkJin said:

Been saying for at least a year that people need to get ready for this next-gen. Online passes will be gone and you will miss them, your console will become a PC and there will be no second hand market. It just makes sense, hopefully they'll get wise and do massive sales a la Steam, but since consoles are a closed system and economy it's not guaranteed, for the first few years we'll likely see consumers bent over a barrel. I'm not saying I support, but I have a hard time seeing things go any other way.

If this happens, I am convinced that the sales numbers for console games will begin to resemble the sales numbers for PC games.

PC sales are where they are in part because the price of a gaming rig is a prohibitive barrier to entry, not because a second hand market for games doesn't exist.

I think the best case scenario is a Steam model for consoles. One of the greatest consumer experiences you can have is downloading a digital copy of a game at 12:00AM instead of standing in line out in the cold hoping the publisher sent enough copies to the GameStop you're standing in front of.

#60 Posted by upwarDBound (654 posts) -

@ShadowSkill11 said:

@upwarDBound said:

It sounds to me that the publishers are the ones with a sense of entitlement, not the consumer. They need us more than we need them. They should do whatever they can to stay in our good graces.

Why would they care about your good graces when you give Gamestop and other used game retailers all of your money instead of them?

They should care because they want people to buy their games. If you upset a consumer base enough they might just throw up their hands and cease buying your product entirely. Without that revenue the game companies will shrivel up and die.

All this online pass nonsense smacks of greed. Wanting to get every penny from every person who plays your game smacks of greed. I buy both new and used games and even rent, but what happens when I stop buying them entirely because I disagree with these practices? They lose any potential revenue they might have had from me. They are not entitled to extra money just as I am not entitled to play their games. They provide a service and I compensate them with money. When I am no longer satisfied with that service they get no money. And believe me I can live without video games, game companies can't survive without people buying those games.

It's true that I am just one person but I think there are many others who agree with the way I feel. Yes, people who think they deserve something without compensation if it doesn't meet their standards have a sense of entitlement. On the other hand I don't think it's fair to call paying consumers who want to be treated fairly and with respect as having a sense of entitlement. And if they don't have the money and buy used, or are not interested in buying new, let them. It's their right.

#61 Posted by MideonNViscera (2257 posts) -

I dunno where this thread has gone since the OP, so maybe this has been brought up, but I never seem to see it. What does this do to rental games? I've been told that a business pays a fee to the developer for the right to rent the game. Well, why the fuck do I then not get to play the full game when I rent it? The devs got their money, the videostore gets theirs, and I'm the only one actually being screwed. Devs never had a problem letting people rent entire games back when people actually rented tons of games. It's not like used games where it's gotten worse.

It's dumb. I rented Batman and couldn't play some of the game. Well guess what, that game wasn't fucking worth buying with or without all the content. Next time they don't even get to advertise it for free to my friends list, cause I won't be playing at all. It wasn't even a terrible game, nor was the withheld content any good. Those 2 things combined annoyed the hell out of me though.

In the end I am still being a dick and consuming $80 games for $5, but that's what we agreed upon back in like 1987. Their tactics aren't making them any money, while screwing over my local videostore.

#62 Posted by ShadowSkill11 (1783 posts) -

Hence the incredible feeling of entitlement some gamers like yourself have. Hiring a hundred people to make a video game for 2-3 years isn't done because it's a fun thing to do. It cost money and more money is expected to be made back than invested to cover the salaries, equipment, and other upkeep costs of the game studio. When one person buys a license to use a game for $60 making a 75% profit and sells it back to a retailer for $30 a month later and said retailer sells the game two more times at $55 and $50 in the same year while keeping 100% of the $105 something is wrong. That is what you are arguing for. It is short sighted and ignorant.

#63 Posted by Moncole (636 posts) -

I had a friend who would get a new game each week and than get bored of it and sell it the following week for 7$

#64 Posted by Lind_L_Taylor (3962 posts) -
@ShadowSkill11 said:

Background: In recent years to combat the huge loss in profits to retailers such as Gamestop console game companies have began using online passes to regain some of their lost profits. Other large companies such as Microsoft have been rumored to be using anti-used game technology in their next generation consoles.


What "huge loss in profits"??? Last I heard the gaming industry was
making fuckin billions hand over fist!  It's just fucking greed is what it
is & I don't give a rat's ass about DLC or other bullshit.  Brand new
games have an EXPIRATION date & it has nothing to do with used
games.  It's called glut.  More, newer games come out that fight for
the kiddies attention & they stop paying attention to existing or 
older games.  Retailers have no choice to but to lower prices to 
get rid of inventory.  Online passes can suck it.
#65 Posted by ShadowSkill11 (1783 posts) -

@Lind_L_Taylor: ...so many things wrong with what you said.