#101 Posted by TentPole (1858 posts) -

fuck

#102 Posted by MormonWarrior (2534 posts) -

@Demoskinos said:

What I also get is that games are also expensive to make and that most times unless your a Call of Duty or Halo most games barely break even if they even see a profit.

That can't possibly be true or the industry wouldn't be able to sustain itself and every company other than Bungie, EA and Activision would be dead by now. Games are expensive, yes, but if a company stays alive, their games have made a profit. If there's no profits, the companies close down (which happens, but not as often as your stats would suggest). THQ is only struggling right now because of their badly-thought-out uDraw product. Other companies or developers struggle because their game wasn't marketed well or was crummy. I don't believe for one second that companies are closing down or struggling mainly because of the used games market. It might have some impact, but that's not the full story. Overblown budgets and bad marketing are bigger problems, as well as terrible games.

#103 Posted by darkdragonmage99 (740 posts) -
@Tennmuerti:  The new pc game market is small and it's that way because of the way it went it's not  used games or piracy that killed the pc game market it's the draconian DRM they used no one wanted to put up with it so they moved to consoles.  Now console publishers want to drive the console market off the same cliff. 
 
what about the 40% of the first world that doesn't have a high speed internet connection ?   How about those of us who don't trust digital distribution I sure as hell don't ?  
#104 Posted by darkdragonmage99 (740 posts) -
@iAmJohn:  Yeah and in the process  digital distribution and The DRM don't kid yourself Steam it's self is DRM  killed the PC game market . There is a reason 60% of sales go to the xbox and 30 % go to the ps3 and 10% goes to the pc .   
 
Everyone seems to forgot there is a vast population of people who still don't even have a internet connection let alone one fast enough to down load large files like video games. 
#105 Edited by Demoskinos (14524 posts) -

@MormonWarrior: Exactly. Well look at the list of developers that closed house in 2011. If you have one or two big bombs your studio is done. Its also why some companies re-evaluate their strategy in the market. Look at Majesco back in the early 2000's they ended up biting it big time over Psychonauts and Advent Rising not doing shit for them. They ended up doing Nickelodeon kids products for years because it was safe easy money and a way to recoop losses. Even on a retail level the markup of video games provides almost zero profit. Thats why gamestop can not survive without used game sales. The markups are piss poor.

The only ones making any real money are the publishers not the developers. See the attached picture.

#106 Posted by MormonWarrior (2534 posts) -

@darkdragonmage99 said:

@MormonWarrior: tech estimates 20 years everyone in the first world will have high speed internet as things are right now it's more like 60 %.

Respectfully: (not rudely) What does this have to do with my posts? Was this actually directed at the moderator talking about how all media will eventually go digital?

#107 Posted by darkdragonmage99 (740 posts) -
@MormonWarrior: Until everyone has a high speed connection it's simply not going to happen so 20 years is estimated to be soonest. 
#108 Edited by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

The biggest problem with the argument against used games is that the claims about "lost sales" cannot be substantiated. It's as absurd as the supposed losses due to piracy. For example, I got a good laugh when the RIAA once cited its figure of claimed losses due to Limewire. The only problem is that it was a figure that represented more money than actually exists on Earth.

The cries against used games flies in the face of the fact that the used video games market has been around for roughly three decades while the industry has enjoyed exponential growth and currently supports more platforms than ever thought possible. Several handhelds, multiple operating systems, and three game consoles, and I'm supposed to believe that the secondhand market is killing gaming? The ends are meeting like a motherfucker.

You simply cannot counter the fact that a consumer will always gladly purchase a product at its full price if it is a product they deem worthy of a purchase. That will never change.

#109 Posted by Sergio (2038 posts) -

I have no problem with people selling games and buying used games. I also have no problem with developers/publishers adding online passes or DLC for new copies. I haven't ceded anything as a consumer. Those who feel they have are suffering from a sense of self-entitlement.

I buy new games because I want the developers I like to continue making games. I want publishers to know that I like the games a particular developer makes, so that they will fund their next project. And I'd like that developer to make a bit of profit once the publisher has made their share. If someone chooses to buy their game used, then that's their prerogative. Just as I have no basis to complain that I didn't get some preorder bonus if I didn't preorder, they don't have the right to whine when the publisher/developer reward those buying new games with a bonus pack of some sort.

#110 Posted by MB (11905 posts) -
@Unknown_Pleasures Read the rest of what I said instead of truncating quotes. I did say years.
Moderator
#111 Posted by MormonWarrior (2534 posts) -

@darkdragonmage99 said:

@MormonWarrior: Until everyone has a high speed connection it's simply not going to happen so 20 years is estimated to be soonest.

Makes sense and I'm with you on that. As long as console developers figure out a way to implement what Steam does, I'd be just happy owning all my games digitally (or even having some kind of digital rental service would be nice.) I have no need to sell or trade away a $10 full retail game. When it's more like $50 just sitting on my shelf, I have a hard time keeping it (like Arkham City.)

#112 Edited by Jay444111 (2441 posts) -

@Rolyatkcinmai said:

@MB said:

This entire argument will soon be moot with a fully digital video game space looming just years away.

I'm pretty excited for this, just to shut everyone up.

There is no way in hell it is going to happen until 10 to 20 years from now. No way in the deepest corridors of hell is it going to happen until.

1. Internet is a right for everyone to have.

2. DRM/account based content/licensing shit gets resolved.

3. A pure digital game system would be suicide for any company. Look at the PSPgo for a moment. Also the fact that many bigger companies know nothing of sales or good pricing shows that a pure digital console would waste peoples money massively.

4. What happens when a game is unable to be bought because the license wears out and you can no longer get it? It will be Earthbound all over again.

If a game system is going to go digital, it needs to have BOTH options. much like music if it doesn't want to crash and burn. I like owning my music, I don't like it being held hostage due to digital companies that own the license! Much like Xbox live.

#113 Posted by iAmJohn (6107 posts) -

@darkdragonmage99 said:

@iAmJohn: Yeah and in the process digital distribution and The DRM don't kid yourself Steam it's self is DRM killed the PC game market . There is a reason 60% of sales go to the xbox and 30 % go to the ps3 and 10% goes to the pc . Everyone seems to forgot there is a vast population of people who still don't even have a internet connection let alone one fast enough to down load large files like video games.

Of course Steam is DRM. It's also incredibly fair, flexible DRM that allows me to access my games at all times, the only conditions being I'm on a computer that can run them and have an internet connection to download them (unless they're already saved on the hard drive, in which case I'm good to go). It's perfect for that market, and to try and suggest that somehow Steam is partially responsible for "killing the PC game market" simply by virtue of having DRM exist is laughable.

But let's be honest, this has nothing to do with consoles, as the two are very different markets with very different expectations.

#114 Posted by Sander (409 posts) -
@MB said:

@Sander said:

@MB said:

This entire argument will soon be moot with a fully digital video game space looming just years away.

I read a couple of years ago that 27% of all xbox 360 owners have never connected their console to the internet(and those that do often must deal with usage caps).So I don't think Microsft, Sony or Nintendo are prepared to toss away that segment of the market just yet.

Of course not...that's why I said it's probably years away. Eventually that statistic won't matter because consoles will require internet connections, it's as simple as that. Publishers definitely want this because they can not only do away with the used game market as a whole, but it gives them highly expanded DRM options for console games as well. Such consoles will be cheaper to produce, too...no disc drives to worry about.
 

You guys may as well embrace this and enjoy used games while you can, it's not that far off, 


I've been known to gamble and my prop bet says that we still won't be completely digital for even the Playstation5 generation so I think it's pretty far off. However, I might guess there'll be a cheaper version of consoles in the next generation that doesn't include a disc drive for those who only want to do digital.

#115 Posted by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

@theguy said:

@Tidel said:

@Tennmuerti said:

PS: Also I find your Isaac Asimov quote usage disgusting.

Why?

It does come across as a little pompous and douchbaggy.

It does have that self-important yet, "trying too hard" vibe.

#116 Edited by Tennmuerti (7957 posts) -

@darkdragonmage99 said:

@Tennmuerti: The new pc game market is small and it's that way because of the way it went it's not used games or piracy that killed the pc game market it's the draconian DRM they used no one wanted to put up with it so they moved to consoles. Now console publishers want to drive the console market off the same cliff. what about the 40% of the first world that doesn't have a high speed internet connection ? How about those of us who don't trust digital distribution I sure as hell don't ?

No mate. Speaking as a person who formerly pirated games, piracy crippled the PC market period (nothing killed it). It still does, visit the torrents some time, there are still many many more people on PC that pirate games then buy. Witcher 2 an excelent game from one of the most beloved PC developers with with no DRM got pirated to shit. Most people who pirate on PC don't do it out of some stand against DRM, the vast majority do it because it's free. Draconian DRM did not start to get introduced by publishers untill piracy started to hit them hard. Another indie dev (can't remember the name now) released their game publicly on PC without DRM as a goodwill gesture a couple years back ... pirated to all hell. If you have delussions that DRM crippled the PC market and not piracy there is nothing further to discuss.

To say that most people moved from PC to consoles because of DRM (and not cheaper prices, easier accesibility, or the fact that last/current gen consoles expanded the videogame market) is even more laughable.

Those 40% who don't have the high speed internet connection don't pirate either. If you are talking about console internet connection, like I mentioned in the previous post untill that number decreases to a much smaller % publishers won't kill the used game market anyway, they are making money off of it. If you don't trust digital distribution, tough, it's the future of videogames, PC are already all the way there, the only question for consoles is how soon will they join, 5 years, 10, 20?

Your lack of knowledge of the PC market both past and present is extremely apparent.

Sorry if I come of as a harsh asshole in this post. I'm tired of being polite and patient like earlier in the thread, especially since I politely retired from it earlier and now get dragged back in with such nonsense as "DRM killed the PC market" when the biggest market right now on PC, Steam, is DRM in and of itself and Steam saved the PC market that was plummeting into oblivion before it, with most PC gamers rallying behind it (even tho it's DRM is second in harshness only to "limited installs" and "always online").

#117 Posted by Rolyatkcinmai (2682 posts) -

@Jay444111 said:

@Rolyatkcinmai said:

@MB said:

This entire argument will soon be moot with a fully digital video game space looming just years away.

I'm pretty excited for this, just to shut everyone up.

There is no way in hell it is going to happen until 10 to 20 years from now. No way in the deepest corridors of hell is it going to happen until.

1. Internet is a right for everyone to have.

2. DRM/account based content/licensing shit gets resolved.

3. A pure digital game system would be suicide for any company. Look at the PSPgo for a moment. Also the fact that many bigger companies know nothing of sales or good pricing shows that a pure digital console would waste peoples money massively.

4. What happens when a game is unable to be bought because the license wears out and you can no longer get it? It will be Earthbound all over again.

If a game system is going to go digital, it needs to have BOTH options. much like music if it doesn't want to crash and burn. I like owning my music, I don't like it being held hostage due to digital companies that own the license! Much like Xbox live.

You're wrong, simply because it's already happened to one of the three major platforms, and it's proven to be a way better model for everyone involved.

#118 Edited by darkdragonmage99 (740 posts) -
@Tennmuerti:  I wouldn't say it saved it  little profit to be made selling games for 2 bucks prolonged is a more apt word.   Supply and demand when it's digital it's infinite supply and finite demand great way to drop prices for consumers horrible for the retailers. 
 
 It's not the pirated that sent the sales of the games off a cliff it's the lose of legitimate costumer.  The pirates weren't going to pay to begin with the consumers you run away with all the DRM  that's where you start losing sales.   
 
I also swear this point is ignored so very much not everyone has a internet connection you cannot sell something to someone who doesn't have the requirements to use it.  
 
@Rolyatkcinmai:  a platform forced into scraping for cash and the smaller games  and cutting it's self off from a large % of consumers  the PC market now days is easier to compare to Iphone games then console games. 
#119 Posted by Jay444111 (2441 posts) -

@Rolyatkcinmai said:

@Jay444111 said:

@Rolyatkcinmai said:

@MB said:

This entire argument will soon be moot with a fully digital video game space looming just years away.

I'm pretty excited for this, just to shut everyone up.

There is no way in hell it is going to happen until 10 to 20 years from now. No way in the deepest corridors of hell is it going to happen until.

1. Internet is a right for everyone to have.

2. DRM/account based content/licensing shit gets resolved.

3. A pure digital game system would be suicide for any company. Look at the PSPgo for a moment. Also the fact that many bigger companies know nothing of sales or good pricing shows that a pure digital console would waste peoples money massively.

4. What happens when a game is unable to be bought because the license wears out and you can no longer get it? It will be Earthbound all over again.

If a game system is going to go digital, it needs to have BOTH options. much like music if it doesn't want to crash and burn. I like owning my music, I don't like it being held hostage due to digital companies that own the license! Much like Xbox live.

You're wrong, simply because it's already happened to one of the three major platforms, and it's proven to be a way better model for everyone involved.

Xbox live is DRM much like a baseball player who takes steroids in secret. You don't know if they are taking it until you look at the evidence. I have personal expierence with this DRM mess on consoles and honestly, digital only will in fact KILL all things to do with gaming because of how nightmarishly hellish it truly is. PSN is a little more like steam. Yet it is still based around the DRM formula. Wii is actual the most DRM free service so far on the consoles.

Steam is what all online services SHOULD try to be, instead we get xbox live, which is quite possibly the most draconion thing I have ever had the pleasure of dealing with.

Not everyone wants online game consoles, and no one wants to pay for it most times. This alone should already stop people from buying a new only console outright. Not unless the internet becomes a RIGHT for everyone to have and use as they see fit. I don't see that happening for a good 30 years still.

PSPgo is basically what publishers want but we all know it will fail. and hard because it IS a DRM filled mess of crap. It costs insane amounts of money, and it will overall fail just due to the fact that as soon as one customer has a bad expierence like with all DRM, they WILL post it online and it will kill most sales for it if proven to be true about the system.

I own my games, they are not borrowed like how some publishers want them to be, I own fallout 1/2/3/nv and proud of it. I own brutal legend from the very day it came out. I own so many games, yet if the new consoles go ahead and do this with the current formula we have now. My games WILL be held hostage in front of me. I like collecting my damn games and having plenty of them, yet if say, on new only system, what happens if the game goes offline? How will I get it from anywhere unless I pirate it? This new idea for a non-used system will make me pirate video games from then on and I will honestly have no problems with it just so I can destroy whoever supports the idea of owning the games that I bought with my own money! Fuck that noise and fuck anyone who supports such anti-customer ideas!

#120 Posted by Rolyatkcinmai (2682 posts) -

@darkdragonmage99 said:

@Rolyatkcinmai: a platform forced into scraping for cash and the smaller games and cutting it's self off from a large % of consumers the PC market now days is easier to compare to Iphone games then console games.

That's a pretty unsubstantiated view of the platform everyone has been saying will die for 15 years. Steam has as many users as XBL. The PC is healthier now than it was a year ago, and will continue to be until new consoles come out.

Thus the cycle repeats itself.

#121 Posted by MB (11905 posts) -
@Jay444111 Have you read the EULA's on some of these games you "own"?
Moderator
#122 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -

@MB: I did read all of what you said I was simply responding to one portion of it....I think I'm confused with your definition of soon, to me soon is within a year....your talking about soon being not that far off but still years away which is confusing

#123 Posted by darkdragonmage99 (740 posts) -
@Rolyatkcinmai:  Healthier but living off of indie games and massive sales   and forcing people to have a internet connection which cuts of 20 % of the population. Now I'm sure you are going to say if you own a pc you have a net con but that's not quite true. 
#124 Posted by iAmJohn (6107 posts) -

@MB said:

@Jay444111 Have you read the EULA's on some of these games you "own"?

The point could be made that none of these EULAs and their binding agreements have ever stood up in court and cannot be considered legally binding in certain parts of the world. The only problem is that no one has bothered to challenge it in America, so it gives them grounds to take away more and more privileges of ownership. It's pretty damn anti-consumer, dude, straight up.

#125 Posted by Jay444111 (2441 posts) -

@MB said:

@Jay444111 Have you read the EULA's on some of these games you "own"?

Yet I own the disc and am allowed to put it on any game system I want it to. I therefor OWN the game disc. Which happens to have a video game on it. They own the copyright but they do not own MY disc.

What a digital age would do now is fucking destroy whatever is left of customer choice in anything. No matter what, if I buy something like... Portal, what would happen if they stopped supplying it online? What would happen if the game was to go offline? Where would I be able to get a copy legally?

In fact, this is the same debate as in Earthbound, what happens when the publisher just stops having it out to sell but holds a monopoly on the franchise to hunt down people who do want it but are unable to unless they actually do illegal things.

Copyright laws and this digital things need massive, and I truly do mean MASSIVE changes so we the people have the actual power back in our hands... if not... I can garentee that the gaming industry will crash again. and it won't come back.

#126 Posted by benspyda (2018 posts) -

I have no issue either way. I never trade games in because if its a good game, I may want to play it again, and if its a bad game generally I could only get like $5 for it so who cares. Even when I was younger and couldn't afford many games I still didn't trade any in. What I did do was buy a lot of used games though. I think that part is more important for someone with limited cash. But now I always buy new so this dilemma does not affect me at all.

What I hate though is preorder bonuses, f@#$ that! Games never sell out, you can always find a copy so preordering for games is stupid.

#127 Posted by Jay444111 (2441 posts) -

@iAmJohn said:

@MB said:

@Jay444111 Have you read the EULA's on some of these games you "own"?

The point could be made that none of these EULAs and their binding agreements have ever stood up in court and cannot be considered legally binding in certain parts of the world. The only problem is that no one has bothered to challenge it in America, so it gives them grounds to take away more and more privileges of ownership. It's pretty damn anti-consumer, dude, straight up.

This as well, the legal system of all this is so fucked up that honestly. This shit will get challanged in court and suspect that many video game companies will fall because of it.

#128 Posted by Tim_the_Corsair (3065 posts) -

Agree wholeheartedly about this weird opinions are sacrosanct bullshit.

Opinions can be wrong.

#129 Posted by Deeveeus (479 posts) -

@MB said:

This entire argument will soon be moot with a fully digital video game space looming just years away.

Which is depressing..."thanks for 60$ for something you can't transfer and is basically an extended rental". I don't have a problem with no physical pacakage, but ridding trade in's or pass along practice is bullshit and will only stunt the industry. I never would have picked up a copy of RDR if I had not gotten to borrow it from a friend and realized it wasn't just "Grand Theft Horse"

#130 Posted by Jay444111 (2441 posts) -

@Deeveeus said:

@MB said:

This entire argument will soon be moot with a fully digital video game space looming just years away.

Which is depressing..."thanks for 60$ for something you can't transfer and is basically an extended rental". I don't have a problem with no physical pacakage, but ridding trade in's or pass along practice is bullshit and will only stunt the industry. I never would have picked up a copy of RDR if I had not gotten to borrow it from a friend and realized it wasn't just "Grand Theft Horse"

This, right now game downloads for full cash are trying their best to mimic rentals that can be taken away as fast as possible. This needs to change and fast, hell, at least give us the option to trade online somehow. We own the fucking game which we bought with our money. We deserve to choose what we want to do with it. Anyone that disagrees is obviously against video games, against consumers, and against freedom to sell/buy whatever the hell they want which is what we in America are able to do because our great forefathers fucking died and killed for this right for all people in our country!

#131 Posted by Akrid (1356 posts) -

6% gain in sales, I'm guessing, does not equate 2 billion dollars. I can't blame them for wanting that, they're a business.

And personally, I'm willing to lay down and give it to them because I like the idea of them getting more money for what they do. Making games is hard. Yes, maybe I don't have the hard data to back that up, but fuck man... It is hard. I agree with Jeff when he says that he's amazed that games come out at all. It's really tough to make a buck in this business because it's incredibly high stakes. You see really good companies like THQ and Pandemic and Bizarre Creations get shuttered for all the wrong reasons. And no, none of those died from the direct effect of used game sales, but I would not begrudge them their share of that 2 billion.

My resolve is not that strong though. I only buy new because places like Gamestop knock only 10 bucks tops off of their used games, in my experience. If it was more, I'd definitely consider buying used.

#132 Posted by Tennmuerti (7957 posts) -

@darkdragonmage99 said:

@Tennmuerti: I wouldn't say it saved it little profit to be made selling games for 2 bucks prolonged is a more apt word. Supply and demand when it's digital it's infinite supply and finite demand great way to drop prices for consumers horrible for the retailers.

It's not the pirated that sent the sales of the games off a cliff it's the lose of legitimate costumer. The pirates weren't going to pay to begin with the consumers you run away with all the DRM that's where you start losing sales.

I also swear this point is ignored so very much not everyone has a internet connection you cannot sell something to someone who doesn't have the requirements to use it.

@Rolyatkcinmai: a platform forced into scraping for cash and the smaller games and cutting it's self off from a large % of consumers the PC market now days is easier to compare to Iphone games then console games.

Wow it's like talking to a brick wall.

A brick wall that has absolutely no clue to begin with.

#133 Posted by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

Another thing to this topic is the myth of "supporting the developer."

Unless you're pre-ordering and buying DLC , you're not supporting anything besides the retailer. No, buying the game as "new" doesn't support the developer.

#134 Posted by Lagaroth (169 posts) -

@Chavtheworld said:

I'd rather see more money to developers, so less good games are considered "failures" because of small sales numbers, and publishers stop avoiding funding new IPs.

^

I would rather pay 60 dollars straight to a developer than 25 to retailers for a used game.

#135 Posted by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

@Tennmuerti said:

@darkdragonmage99 said:

piracy crippled the PC market period (nothing killed it). It still does, visit the torrents some time, there are still many many more people on PC that pirate games then buy. Witcher 2 an excelent game from one of the most beloved PC developers with with no DRM got pirated to shit. Most people who pirate on PC don't do it out of some stand against DRM, the vast majority do it because it's free. Draconian DRM did not start to get introduced by publishers untill piracy started to hit them hard. Another indie dev (can't remember the name now) released their game publicly on PC without DRM as a goodwill gesture a couple years back ... pirated to all hell. If you have delussions that DRM crippled the PC market and not piracy there is nothing further to discuss.

This sounds like conjecture being passed off as fact. I'm not entirely dismissing your claims, but where are the number to support this? If PC gaming is so crippled due to piracy, then why are original PC exclusive games still being released? Why would developers continue to pour money into a failing venture? We have draconian DRM now, including UbiSoft's online only scheme, how that's working out? Piracy isn't dead and neither is PC gaming.

If piracy were such a grave concern to rights holders, why are sites like GoG.com even allowed to exist? PC games with no DRM at all? Wow, sounds like such a flop of a business model for both the retailer and the developer, right? Wrong. The service continues to flourish. I think you're making the same logically fallacious argument as Big Content across all industries are making. Piracy is completely overblown.

tl,dr version: If you create a product that people really want, they will gladly but it.

#136 Posted by Lagaroth (169 posts) -

@QuistisTrepe said:

If piracy were such a grave concern to rights holders, why are sites like GoG.com even allowed to exist? PC games with no DRM at all? Wow, sounds like such a flop of a business model for both the retailer and the developer, right? Wrong. The service continues to flourish. I think you're making the same logically fallacious argument as Big Content across all industries are making. Piracy is completely overblown.

Doesn't GoG sell almost entirely games from late 90s early 2000s? With many of the developers out of business by now, and the games are available no where else. A publisher would rather make 5 bucks for a DRM-free game than nothing because there is no other option to make money off it, retailers sure as hell aren't stocking them.

#137 Posted by Tennmuerti (7957 posts) -

@Jay444111 said:

Anyone that disagrees is obviously against video games, against consumers, and against freedom to sell/buy whatever the hell they want which is what we in America are able to do because our great forefathers fucking died and killed for this right for all people in our country!

Unwitting hypocrisy is so delicious.

@QuistisTrepe said:

Another thing to this topic is the myth of "supporting the developer."

Unless you're pre-ordering and buying DLC , you're not supporting anything besides the retailer. No, buying the game as "new" doesn't support the developer.

Elaborate.

Because as someone who has access to (but does not participate in) destribution contracts. When new sales exceed excpected demand the retailers will order new shipments, thus you are supporting the developer. Preorders are a primary tool used to ballpark sales and therefore unit shippings, these are a subset of new sales, thus you are supporting them. Past demand for new copies is also used to determine potential future sales from the same studio/IP, thus either supporting the developer or damning them if they did not sell well last time.

Just because the publisher gets money when they ship product to stores not when it is sold, does not imply that effect of sales does not have continuous effect.

#138 Posted by spartanlolz92 (511 posts) -

how much is an online pass though? if its around 15$ dollars and you buy a 30$ dollar game you still save money

its just the problem with used games is that there value never degrades unlike used cars. you could make the argument about used dvds and cds but i for one have never seen used cds or dvd anywhere.

and technically you are using there online service and they're not getting a single cent from you. i understand the outrage around single player dlc but multiplayer games not so much

#139 Edited by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

@Tennmuerti said:

@QuistisTrepe said:

Another thing to this topic is the myth of "supporting the developer."

Unless you're pre-ordering and buying DLC , you're not supporting anything besides the retailer. No, buying the game as "new" doesn't support the developer.

Elaborate.

Because as someone who has access to (but does not participate in) destribution contracts. When new sales exceed excpected demand the retailers will order new shipments, thus you are supporting the developer. Preorders are a primary tool used to ballpark sales and therefore unit shippings, these are a subset of new sales, thus you are supporting them. Past demand for new copies is also used to determine potential future sales from the same studio/IP, thus either supporting the developer or damning them if they did not sell well last time.

Just because the publisher gets money when they ship product to stores not when it is sold, does not imply that effect of sales does not have continuous effect.

Pre-orders help to drive up the demand for a game, without them, you're relying on the corporate buyers to make a judgement call. Game like CoD, MW, Madden, Halo, GTA, etc, don't figure into this, copies of those games are going to be ordered into the millions no matter. To smaller developers however, pre-ordering is critical. No retailer is going to order 500,000 copies of a game such as for example, Catherine. The more copies fans of a certain studio or franchise pre-order, the more demand they can drive which translates into a bigger pay off for the publisher and likely another gig for the developer. When games hit the shelves, the developer already got paid long before then. When you buy games "new" beyond launch, that's money for the publisher, developers aren't getting residuals or revenue sharing from that.

As far as "continuous effect?" No, just no. Let's be honest here, game studios get one shot to make their big splash, just one, at launch. Generally, whatever doesn't sell will collect dust until it hits the bargain bin where someone's "new" purchase no longer matters. Weeks after launch, gamers have already moved on to the next big thing.

#140 Posted by Tennmuerti (7957 posts) -

@QuistisTrepe said:

@Tennmuerti said:

piracy crippled the PC market period (nothing killed it). It still does, visit the torrents some time, there are still many many more people on PC that pirate games then buy. Witcher 2 an excelent game from one of the most beloved PC developers with with no DRM got pirated to shit. Most people who pirate on PC don't do it out of some stand against DRM, the vast majority do it because it's free. Draconian DRM did not start to get introduced by publishers untill piracy started to hit them hard. Another indie dev (can't remember the name now) released their game publicly on PC without DRM as a goodwill gesture a couple years back ... pirated to all hell. If you have delussions that DRM crippled the PC market and not piracy there is nothing further to discuss.

This sounds like conjecture being passed off as fact. I'm not entirely dismissing your claims, but where are the number to support this? If PC gaming is so crippled due to piracy, then why are original PC exclusive games still being released? Why would developers continue to pour money into a failing venture? We have draconian DRM now, including UbiSoft's online only scheme, how that's working out? Piracy isn't dead and neither is PC gaming.

I said crippled as oposed to killed for a specific reason. While overall the market was reduced (ie crippled) compared to when it was at it's pinnacle. Does not mean it is not viable right now. Most PC exclusives are of much smaller budget then this console exclusive counterparts. Just because something damaged the market does not mean the market is now dead. FFS nowhere in my entire statement did I imply that PC is dead. (as for Ubisoft this PC titles sell poorly enought for Ubi to have considered pulling out) As for why i blame piracy, because I've seen what widespread uncontrolled piracy does to developers in my own country and secondly because there isn't a better reason provided by others.

If piracy were such a grave concern to rights holders, why are sites like GoG.com even allowed to exist? PC games with no DRM at all? Wow, sounds like such a flop of a business model for both the retailer and the developer, right? Wrong. The service continues to flourish. I think you're making the same logically fallacious argument as Big Content across all industries are making. Piracy is completely overblown.

I provided examples that show most (not all) PC gamers will continue to pirate regardless of DRM method, and even if there is no DRM at all. Games on GoG are specifically old games their effect on the market is effectively 0. They have a completely different business model that has nothing to do with development/distribution costs of new games.

And I will repeat agian because you seem to have missed the point of my post entirely: I am not saying PC is dead, piracy killed it, bla bla. I am saying that piracy was one of the biggest factors in the decline of PC gaming in the past years, certainly of more effect then rise of DRM (draconian DRM only started to appear after the rise of widespread internetpiracy). As for the current situation Steam/GoG I in fact stated that we have a resurgence in spite of DRM and piracy due to the superb business models they have adopted (which is what by the way the person I was replying to was denying) . But just because PC games these days are doing much better does not mean piracy is not still affecting it in a major way. One only has to look at PC sales vs. console sales numbers vs. numbers of how many times a game was pirated on the PC.

PS: For interesting reference read the announcement by CDProject red owners of GOG and makers of critically and fan acclaimed Witcher 2 : http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-29-the-witcher-2-pirated-4-5-million-times-reckons-cd-projekt they gave PC gamers a no DRM beloved game, effect on piracy vs. sales? negligible.

#141 Posted by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

@Lagaroth:

Someone still owns the rights to those games, regardless of what happened to the original rights holders. And it isn't just legacy games at GoG anymore, There are titles from as recently as four years ago appearing in their catalog. Even a DRM-free Witcher 2 was made available for purchase. More to the point, sites like GoG are giving gamers less and less reasons to pirate.

#142 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -

@Tennmuerti said:

PS: Also I find your Isaac Asimov quote usage disgusting.

I just came in here to say this, so fuck your OP.

#143 Edited by Tennmuerti (7957 posts) -

@QuistisTrepe said:

@Tennmuerti said:

@QuistisTrepe said:

Another thing to this topic is the myth of "supporting the developer."

Unless you're pre-ordering and buying DLC , you're not supporting anything besides the retailer. No, buying the game as "new" doesn't support the developer.

Elaborate.

Because as someone who has access to (but does not participate in) destribution contracts. When new sales exceed excpected demand the retailers will order new shipments, thus you are supporting the developer. Preorders are a primary tool used to ballpark sales and therefore unit shippings, these are a subset of new sales, thus you are supporting them. Past demand for new copies is also used to determine potential future sales from the same studio/IP, thus either supporting the developer or damning them if they did not sell well last time.

Just because the publisher gets money when they ship product to stores not when it is sold, does not imply that effect of sales does not have continuous effect.

Pre-orders help to drive up the demand for a game, without them, you're relying on the corporate buyers to make a judgement call. Game like CoD, MW, Madden, Halo, GTA, etc, don't figure into this, copies of those games are going to be ordered into the millions no matter. To smaller developers however, pre-ordering is critical. No retailer is going to order 500,000 copies of a game such as for example, Catherine. The more copies fans of a certain studio or franchise pre-order, the more demand they can drive which translates into a bigger pay off for the publisher and likely another gig for the developer. When games hit the shelves, the developer already got paid long before then. When you buy games "new" beyond launch, that's money for the publisher, developers aren't getting residuals or revenue sharing from that.

As far as "continuous effect?" No, just no. Let's be honest here, game studios get one shot to make their big splash, just one, at launch. Generally, whatever doesn't sell will collect dust until it hits the bargain bin where someone's "new" purchase no longer matters. Weeks after launch, gamers have already moved on to the next big thing.

I did not deny preorders as the main factor. I just descibed to you above that judgement calls are in fact made partially on new sales. I handled distribution contracts and sales reports in my own hands that rearranged terms of contracts because sales were either much lower or higher then excpected. Signed stamped official contracts between major players, this isn't my opinion, this is a fact of business. Those new sales are part of the big splash. Wheather or not the developer gets residuals from the publisher is contract by contract (i don't calim first hand knowledge of those), regardless of that a publisher who sees money still coming from new sales on games on a continuous basis will adjust their excpectation/funding to the dev studio.

And post first week sales also matter one only has to look at DA2, their sales were better then DA:O in the first weeks, due to preorders. According to your theory where that is the only thing that matters the developer would have been happy and moved on. Yet Bioware took note not only of lowered sales in subsequent weeks but of fan outcry and have made their own conclusions based on that.

#144 Posted by Jay444111 (2441 posts) -

People who are for the small loud crowd of download only in it's current state are basically wanting a Orwellian state to occur within games so we cannot choose what we want to do with what we buy anymore.

I would be fine with digital if there was no such thing as DRM. Also the capability to sell digital games to others but with you sacrificing the right to own the game or something. However, in it's current state, it would fail and fast.

However, if a console is to survive, it NEEDS to have some kind of Physical media to use with it. Otherwise you may as well just make a computer with massive limits to the people who use them, ala Xbox Live. If people had to put their credit cards in game systems, the security would have to be massive, I mean holy fuckballs level of massive. However currently, it is lucky whenever live finds ONE hacker at this point.

People who are against this don't support used games, oh no, we support devs all the way, however, we do not support the ways the publishers are taking our rights away as customers. I may buy used, yes, but I also buy new. I support the game makers I like and don't support the ones I hate. Simple as that, with this only online crap would basically eliminate all options to having a disc based media and would FORCE you to use a service that is garenteed to be completely fucking broken. No other company is as smart as Steam, no one will follow their extremely smart example. NO ONE. all until they are near failure and are FORCED to become much like steam.

However, even steam has problems. You can't sell your games you have nor can you trade most of them. It is still just as bad as Xbox Live in this point. We should have the choice to sell or trade in what we want without having to deal with the fact that we can't because some rich asshole hates free choice.

I hate Shadow Complex and Monday Night Combat, I would sell them in an instant if I could, but I can't. All because the system xbox live uses is caveman like at best.

Basically, this argument is the poor vs the rich. Completely, only the rich could support such a stupid system right now. While the poor can see all the fucking problems this would create instantly.

Digital only is coming, but it needs massive reforms currently so it is pro-consumer instead of anti-consumer like it has been.

#145 Posted by ninnanuam (258 posts) -

Ive read the thread and I just had a few things to add, its not brief because iIve been thinking about used games since I heard the rumor that the next xbox will have some kind of lock/feature to stop used games being played. Any of the ways they do this will have a dramatic impact on the console I have spitballed the problems i see with each of them below.

1, If games require always on authentication all it takes is the publisher/developer flipping a switch for a game to be lost to history, this has already happened to some multiplayer modes in games. EA has shut down a bunch, for example. Imagine if this was ubiquitous to all games, once it was no longer profitable to have that authentication server running, games would no longer be playable.

2, If Games are locked to a profile or game system. I buy new games when I can, but games more than 3 years old are almost impossible to find new and I don’t even try to find new games for older systems anymore. If people can’t play used games any longer how will people play older games in the future? Sure they might be available via download or something but even now a lot of games still don’t make it into the downloadable space and bandwidth and internet costs are still a huge factor in many places around the world. At least now you can go hunting used bins or and buy from ebay. What will the game collector do in 10 or 12 years? I guess just not play those games.

At least with older systems so long as they work I can play them and if there is a game I missed I can hunt for it.

In addition, as someone who had serious problems migrating from the original Xbox to 360 (I moved continents as well as systems) I have a hard time believing that companies are considering long term problems that will occur, and I know they aren’t going to keep the infrastructure running for obsolete consoles. What happens in a generation or three when you need to log in to get a game to run but the servers are gone or you need to get a new (used) console because your 20 year old 720 no longer works and you cant play older your games on it because you can no-longer transfer your info onto it or if everything goes streaming and the business goes under or there is a merger, you will lose everything you paid for.

3, somehow banning used sales,. When you have the right of first sale a purchase you make has an inherent value, even if you can only get 1 dollar for a 60 dollar game that purchase still has some worth. If they get rid of that value they diminish the overall value of their product. It’s like if I buy a first edition novel, for a premium or through lucky chance and it keeps its value (or increases in value) I can sell it on the market, or I can just be sure in the knowledge that even after I’m done with it, it has value. You make it illegal or impossible to on sell that book and all that matters is my experience with the story in that book, I may as well buy the cheapest paperback I can find.

One of the reasons people like “collectors editions” is that they are supposed to be, limited/scarce, and therefore possibly increase in value. A good used first edition copy of The Great Gatsby sells for $1000+ even though you can pick up a new copy at any book store for under $10.00. If they get rid of the used market they get rid of the collectors market.

If there is no on sell value to the product when I purchase something I am taking a bigger risk on that investment as I am stuck with the product and cannot recoup any of my losses, this in and of itself reduces the worth of games.

In summation all of these reasons come down to one thing, Publishers/Developers only care about profits right now, they do not care about their customers or games history, nor do they care about future access to their games or game collectors. It feels as if they are subconsciously saying that games are transitory, there is no worth to them, you should only be talking about the latest releases and be eagerly anticipating the next big thing.

#146 Edited by Lagaroth (169 posts) -

@QuistisTrepe said:

@Lagaroth:

Someone still owns the rights to those games, regardless of what happened to the original rights holders. And it isn't just legacy games at GoG anymore, There are titles from as recently as four years ago appearing in their catalog. Even a DRM-free Witcher 2 was made available for purchase. More to the point, sites like GoG are giving gamers less and less reasons to pirate.

I'm pretty sure CD Project Red owns GoG, so having that isn't really surprising.

Looking at their bestsellers:

1 - Syndicate 1993

2 - Thief Gold 1998

3 - Little Big Adventure 2 Twinsen's Odyssey 1997

4 - Little Big Adventure Relentless: Twinsen's Adventure 1994

5 - Deus Ex GOTY Edition 2000

6 - King's Quest 4+5+6 1992

7 - Space Quest 4+5+6 1995

8 - King's Quest 7+8 1998

9 - Police Quest 1+2+3+4 1987

10 - Space Quest 1+2+3 1989

GoG is mainly for old stuff, that isn't for sale anywhere else. Yes, someone still owns the rights to those, but they can't sell them in stores, Steam probably doesn't want them, Amazon might stock them, but it is the final resting place of PC games. Once a game reaches that point the license holder is looking for ANY cash, no matter how much money they get or what DRM there is or isn't.

Heck, the slogan is "Download PC classics, fully DRM-free and working on Windows."

#147 Posted by Jay444111 (2441 posts) -

@ninnanuam said:

Ive read the thread and I just had a few things to add, its not brief because iIve been thinking about used games since I heard the rumor that the next xbox will have some kind of lock/feature to stop used games being played. Any of the ways they do this will have a dramatic impact on the console I have spitballed the problems i see with each of them below.

1, If games require always on authentication all it takes is the publisher/developer flipping a switch for a game to be lost to history, this has already happened to some multiplayer modes in games. EA has shut down a bunch, for example. Imagine if this was ubiquitous to all games, once it was no longer profitable to have that authentication server running, games would no longer be playable.

2, If Games are locked to a profile or game system. I buy new games when I can, but games more than 3 years old are almost impossible to find new and I don’t even try to find new games for older systems anymore. If people can’t play used games any longer how will people play older games in the future? Sure they might be available via download or something but even now a lot of games still don’t make it into the downloadable space and bandwidth and internet costs are still a huge factor in many places around the world. At least now you can go hunting used bins or and buy from ebay. What will the game collector do in 10 or 12 years? I guess just not play those games.

At least with older systems so long as they work I can play them and if there is a game I missed I can hunt for it.

In addition, as someone who had serious problems migrating from the original Xbox to 360 (I moved continents as well as systems) I have a hard time believing that companies are considering long term problems that will occur, and I know they aren’t going to keep the infrastructure running for obsolete consoles. What happens in a generation or three when you need to log in to get a game to run but the servers are gone or you need to get a new (used) console because your 20 year old 720 no longer works and you cant play older your games on it because you can no-longer transfer your info onto it or if everything goes streaming and the business goes under or there is a merger, you will lose everything you paid for.

3, somehow banning used sales,. When you have the right of first sale a purchase you make has an inherent value, even if you can only get 1 dollar for a 60 dollar game that purchase still has some worth. If they get rid of that value they diminish the overall value of their product. It’s like if I buy a first edition novel, for a premium or through lucky chance and it keeps its value (or increases in value) I can sell it on the market, or I can just be sure in the knowledge that even after I’m done with it, it has value. You make it illegal or impossible to on sell that book and all that matters is my experience with the story in that book, I may as well buy the cheapest paperback I can find.

One of the reasons people like “collectors editions” is that they are supposed to be, limited/scarce, and therefore possibly increase in value. A good used first edition copy of The Great Gatsby sells for $1000+ even though you can pick up a new copy at any book store for under $10.00. If they get rid of the used market they get rid of the collectors market.

If there is no on sell value to the product when I purchase something I am taking a bigger risk on that investment as I am stuck with the product and cannot recoup any of my losses, this in and of itself reduces the worth of games.

In summation all of these reasons come down to one thing, Publishers/Developers only care about profits right now, they do not care about their customers or games history, nor do they care about future access to their games or game collectors. It feels as if they are subconsciously saying that games are transitory, there is no worth to them, you should only be talking about the latest releases and be eagerly anticipating the next big thing.

This completely, anyone who supports such a system as is should look at not only the short term, but the long term effects of this crap. It is so anti-consumer that it isn't even funny anymore.

Here is a post from the escapist that also is against Steam as it is.

"Digital distrubution is bad because when you buy a game from steam or a similar service, YOU DO NOT ACTUALLY OWN THE GAME. You are buying the rights to "play the game". You do not own it, and they can take it away anytime they want."

What it really fucking should be is that you buy a digital copy of the game that you can do whatever with. Because you OWN it. What pubs are wanting to do now is so greedy and underhanded that if they even try it, I hope they crash and burn and never come back. This includes book publishers, movie publishers, any kind of publisher out there that doesn't have what the consumer cares about in mind, do not deserve to exist anymore.

#148 Edited by Tennmuerti (7957 posts) -

@ninnanuam:

  1. Yeah this sucks. Which is why i don't buy EA console titles that depend on their servers, but Steam made us all a promise that if it goes down, they will push DRM free patches. Their userbase will crucify them if they won't, with every person having invested thousands. (i know i'll buy a plane tiket and bring a torch, not an empty jest)
  2. Answer is services like GoG, check it out read up on it. All old technology is ultimately not unfalable. Do most people complain now that they can't easilly just play a SNES game on a whim, some people can but fact is most of us who owned old systems can't just play whatever game we want on them if at all. Digital Distribution has nothing if not eased our access to playing older games on newer systems, both PC wise and console.
  3. No one is banning used sales.

@Jay444111: You seem to be super fond of Escapist, to the point of repeating everything they say like a parrot (as well as having their most prominent imagery as your avatar), maybe their forums would be better suited to you no?

#149 Posted by Grimluck343 (1146 posts) -

@Jay444111 said:

"Digital distrubution is bad because when you buy a game from steam or a similar service, YOU DO NOT ACTUALLY OWN THE GAME. You are buying the rights to "play the game". You do not own it, and they can take it away anytime they want."

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I do want to point out that this system has been in place with PC software for a long time. For instance, you don't own your copy of Windows or OSX, you just own a license for it.

The idea that publishers can "flip the switch" and you lose access to that game seems... sketchy at best. I would imagine that any sort of "always on" authentication would occur at the platform level, i.e. Microsoft or Sony would take care of it rather than the publishers themselves. So as long as xbox live and PSN (or SEN, or whatever the hell we're calling it now) exists you would be able to play those games. Hell, maybe it would work like Live Arcade games and the purchases attach themselves to your account and you just need to be logged in to play those games and it doesn't require an internet connection. Or it could work exactly like you said and then we're stuck in a real shitty situation. Of course, if a publisher comes out and says "Remember all of our games that you bought from us two years ago? Yeah, you can't play them anymore." would be a real quick way to ruin future sales, so we probably wouldn't see anything that extreme.

I guess my point is that there would be a "right" way to do it and a "wrong" way to do it. I don't buy games used, I play PC games primarily, so I don't really care one way or another, I just wanted to throw those points out there for discussion.

#150 Posted by Jay444111 (2441 posts) -

@Tennmuerti: I find it funny that I basically destroy all points for a pure digital age and that is the best you can come up with.

Pure digital is a horrid future to live in for a gamer. It needs a balance of both physical and digital to actually keep thriving, otherwise you may as well live in a Orwellian state of being at all times while playing video games.