Make all games digital, this stops both the problem of used games and makes games cheaper, done!

@Sanious said:

@Sooty said:

I used to pirate games, I don't anymore as I need to buy stuff as extra motivation to see them through to the end, I do this with books too. However, I still don't see piracy and used games as much different. People can argue otherwise but when it comes down to it that developer isn't seeing money for the used sale, much like a pirated game.

The developer not seeing the money is the only similarity. The person is still buying the game in some form, which is not the fault of them when the option is there. It's a perfectly legal way and like I said, the money is going somewhere that contributes in some way to games in general.

But it's the similarity that matters and it's what the suits care about.

Hey I know it's not illegal, I'm not saying it should be either.

I rented it as I didn't want to spend £40 on a game I knew I would be done with within a week.

@ProfessorEss said:

Once, just once I would like to hear a developer say: "In addition to used purchases, I think the overall quality of our game and some of the decisions we made may have hurt sales. Bloated salaries and lack of efficiency played their part as well".

These guys all use the used-games market as an easy way to make up "shoulda-woulda-coulda" numbers, show nothing to back these numbers up and then use these to backup any and every complaint they have. QD made niche game, exclusive to one platform, that put gameplay in the backseat to storytelling, and, from most people I've talked to, failed to really raise that storytelling bar that they based their entire game on.

I mean, how many more than two million did they really think Heavy Rain was going to sell?

Except he completely does back it up with numbers. He says it sold 2 million, but over 3 million played the game according to trophies. I don't think he had a problem with the amount it sold, it's the 1 million who were interested enough to play it and gave them no money.

And I'm not sure how if they resolved your complaints at the game that they would have changed those used sales numbers. I'd say it's even fuzzier to claim that improved quality or resolving "bloated salaries" or "lack of efficiency" would have prevented used game sales. My guess is that if you improved the quality of Heavy Rain a ton, you'd have more sales, but you'd still have a comparable amount of used sales.

This attitude, where a million people are considered to have refused to have given the developer their dues, is relatively new. I think it probably stems from the music and video industry. After all if you buy a book, car, house, boat, umbrella, goldfish etc etc etc you resell it if you wish. You don't yet see builders complaining they were robbed of royalties from all these people reselling.

I rented Heavy Rain. If that option were not open to me I would not have played it.

Disappointed, Alex. He's saying the game didn't sell as well as it should because the publisher made it too expensive, and he feels like had he sold a (say) $40 game he would have gotten (say) twice as many sales. Nothing hypocritical about that.

Greatest headline ever. I was one of those monsters that bought Heavy Rain used and as it turns out, my experience with the game (if you can really call it a game) was less than stellar. As much as I hate Gamestop, I have to admit: The real detriment to the games industry isn't used games. The real problem is the business philosophy and attitudes of the publishers and developers. They are without a doubt their own worst enemy. If I had purchased Heavy Rain new with no way of selling it back, I guarantee you it would be my first and last business transaction that happens to be a Quantic Dream title. Isn't that far worse for business than the used games market? And like the article states, isn't it possible a lot of people simply borrowed a copy from their friend? It would seem that if the publishers and devs had their way, they'd find a way to make that impossible too. And therein lies the real problem. By imposing more and more restrictions out of fear (studio shutdowns, layoffs) and greed (Bobby Kotick), the games industry is fueling a fire of their own making. When you sell a 5-8 hour experience for 60 dollars, add layers and layers of unnecessary crap like online pass codes, DLC incentives, pre-order bonuses specific to different vendors, and all this other confusing bullshit, what do you expect? "So let me get this straight, Mr. Cage. You want me to spend sixty bucks on an 8-hour experience I may or may not enjoy, and you recommend I play it only once?" See? Own worst enemy.

http://www.destructoid.com/heavy-rain-has-no-replay-value-but-that-s-a-good-thing--146940.phtml

Interesting read.

boo fucking hoo. people are going to buy used, rent, or borrow no matter what. don't like it? don't make games, son. or beat us over the head with intrusive drm. my buddies on msn told me that drm works really well.

The practice of used game sales is no different than selling a previously owned game to a buddy. And because it's a lucrative business (used game sales), developers and publishers, alike, are crapping themselves because they realize the opportunity that they've missed.  
 
Look, if you don't want to see a game being swapped, pawned, or sold to Gamestop, then continue to make DLC for the game you've created, or figure out a way to make profit off of these sales. Strike up a deal with retail chains like Gamestop by offering free exclusive DLC through their store in exchange for a percentage off of used game sales. Complaining about it won't get you anywhere. In fact, it actually makes you look like a pansy crying over something you can't, or refuse, to control.  
 
In other words: It's your own damn fault for allowing this to happen! 

Heavy Rain was a title that catered to a small audience. As much as I like moody games, I had no interest after playing it for an hour when it arrived from Gamefly.

Greatest headline ever. I was one of those monsters that bought Heavy Rain used and as it turns out, my experience with the game (if you can really call it a game) was less than stellar. As much as I hate Gamestop, I have to admit: The real detriment to the games industry isn't used games. The real problem is the business philosophy and attitudes of the publishers and developers. They are without a doubt their own worst enemy. If I had purchased Heavy Rain new with no way of selling it back, I guarantee you it would be my first and last business transaction with Quantic Dream. Isn't that far worse for business than the used games market? And like the article states, isn't it possible a lot of people simply borrowed a copy from their friend? It would seem that if the publishers and devs had their way, they'd find a way to make that impossible too. And therein lies the real problem. By imposing more and more restrictions out of fear (studio shutdowns, layoffs) and greed (Bobby Kotick), the games industry is fueling a fire of their own making. When you sell a 5-8 hour experience for 60 dollars, add layers and layers of unnecessary crap like online pass codes, DLC incentives, pre-order bonuses specific to different vendors, and all this other confusing bullshit, what do expect? "So let me get this straight, Mr. Cage. You want me to spend sixty bucks on an 8-hour experience I may or may not enjoy, and you recommend I play it only once?" See? Own worst enemy.

It's still gonna be a while till all games are digital downloads. But it pretty much is the ultimate solution.

Im not sayin pirating is right, but listioning to this guy you can almost see how some one would

Well, let's see.  The game wasn't that great and you lost the potential of more sales by promising tons of DLC for the game, then ditching it just to add move support to push more copies of your title. They could have made a decent amount more if they didn't decide to jump at the chance of an awful console trend. 

@Veektarius said:

There's really no contradiction here if you combine the two statements into a coherent thought instead of arbitrarily dividing them up into competition with one another.

I agree. If he said "I want people to buy my expensive game and also I want games to be expensive", this would be having your cake and eating it too. Alex I'm disappointed.

It always baffles me how everyone including some gamers go blame on used games. $10 to $12 console maker's royalitie fee seems to me like an abussive and excesive fee, perhaps there is $10 dollars to cut from retail that aren't going to publisher/developer either.

This is one of the reasons I have always prefer PC over console gaming, Console gaming seems to be a pretty fuked up bussines model: $100 dlls for a 100 gig hard drive? $50 dlls toy controls? expensier games? screw that.

He says it sold 2 million, but over 3 million played the game according to trophies.

If he wanted to sell more copies, why did he make it PS3 exclusive?

I'm playing Heavy Rain now, and it is amazing.  But I did buy it used.  Sorry David Cage

Good thing he isn't a musician, or he'd be pissed.

Oh and that's not the guy being talked about in the article in that picture hahaha. He was a guy running for election not too long ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4o-TeMHys0

@Sil3n7 said:

@Veektarius said:

There's really no contradiction here if you combine the two statements into a coherent thought instead of arbitrarily dividing them up into competition with one another.

I agree.

Internet boards + sophism are like a dog in heat to lady dog in heat.

Bought it, played it once, loaned it to buddies. Now it sits on my shelf.

This is a problem that won't be around for too long. Sooner or later games will only be distributed digitally. I do agree that games are way overpriced and make it hard for single player focused games to make some real money.

I blocked out at self-replenishing cake. Can't think of anything else except for self-replenishing cake.

@DonPixel said:

@Sil3n7 said:

@Veektarius said:

There's really no contradiction here if you combine the two statements into a coherent thought instead of arbitrarily dividing them up into competition with one another.

I agree.

Internet boards + sophism are like a dog in heat to lady dog in heat.

Please read my edited post before you say such a stupid thing.

Alex title

Ok... so... why don't game developers open their own used game dealers... you know, like car companies do?  Oh, right.  Because it would cost them too much money.  God forbid they spend anything when the gamer (ie, the loyal customers already keeping their studio afloat) should be the ones to front the bill. 
 
They also never seem to take into consideration that, chances are, the people that bought it used never would have bought it in the first place.  My reasoning when I buy something used is "Hey, it's ten bucks!  What have I got to lose?  I'll give it a shot!"  Had I not had that option, I would be just as happy not owning the game.  Same thing can be said for pirates.  They most likely wouldn't have even tried the game had it not been readily available.  You can't say your losing sales when the sale never would have been there to begin with.

@ProfessorEss said:

@Deathpooky said:

He says it sold 2 million, but over 3 million played the game according to trophies.

Rentals, multiple accounts, and borrowing all add to the trophy count, but we'll just pretend they're all used game sales because accusing people of the hideous acts of borrowing or multiple family members/roommates playing the same copy isn't nearly as sympathetic.

Ok, so we don't attribute it all to used game sales. How would resolving the issues you noted with Heavy Rain make that one third of players buy it new instead of playing it through some other means? You'd probably increase the total number of players, but I imagine you'll have one third of players not paying for the game.

I'll also note that his original comment was not just directed at used games, but generally at "second-hand gaming" that would include everything you mentioned. Used game sales might be more evil given that Gamestop and all are sucking extra money out of games they didn't make at crazy mark-ups. But rentals/borrowing give no money to the developer all the same.

The sad thing about this is, despite Alex's terrible framing of the quote, he's on your side in investigating whether price has anything to do with players refusing to buy a game first-hand.

I think the real issue here is that Heavy Rain needed multiplayer...
 
All kidding aside, my brother and I separately played through and earned trophies on the same new copy using our own PSN accounts. No used game purchase or rental necessary.

I bought a PS3 for Heavy Rain.

Guys, Sony gave them the money to make the damn game. Saying they should have gone multi platform means a completely different publishing deal. Would Ubisoft (for example) have paid the same to get the game made?

@Sil3n7 said:

@DonPixel said:

@Sil3n7 said:

@Veektarius said:

There's really no contradiction here if you combine the two statements into a coherent thought instead of arbitrarily dividing them up into competition with one another.

I agree.

Internet boards + sophism are like a dog in heat to lady dog in heat.

Please read my edited post before you say such a stupid thing.

Easy tiger I was actually agreeing with you no need to be so defensive jeeez.. whatever.

I hope game-makers stop using libraries.

Bil Gates is the killer

I think he makes sense. 3 million for $40 is equal to 2 million for $60, and presumably the interest in the game would even rise at a lower price (take a look at, say, Deadly Premonition.) He's interested in taking less money per sale to increase the number of sales. This, in turn, also engenders a larger fanbase, increasing sales for Quantum Dream's next product as well.

However, Heavy Rain is currently selling for $30 retail as part of the Greatest Hits collection, and used copies go for roughly $27 at GameStop. Currently, the disparity is almost meaningless and those still buying the game are likely buying it new. However, I still won't be buying a game that, ultimately, many people were disappointed in for more than $20.

I just put Heavy Rain back in to go in and get the rest of those Trophies. The game has a fair share of issues but I really enjoy it. Dynamic plot lines are hard to find in video games.

The sad thing about this is, despite Alex's terrible framing of the quote, he's on your side in investigating whether price has anything to do with players refusing to buy a game first-hand.

I will buy a new copy of this game but I'm not going to pay anywhere near full price for it. I have so many other games to play and finish that by the time I finally get around to playing something I get "Greatest Hits Collection" edition of it. Maybe developers would make more money if they had a better balance of content and price. Often games are stuffed with filler content such as feather and flag collecting (you know who I'm looking at) in a bid to justify the $60 price tag for a game that only has single player. Maybe developers would be better off by selling single-player games for less and then reducing the cost to produce them by making them shorter. That way I'd finish games more quickly, buy more of them, and not have to suffer through boring fetch quests.

I'm really getting tired of these obnoxious headlines, Alex.

Only in the video game industry are people who buy used so admonished by creators. Used cars, or used movies, or used clothing, or used... almost anything else? Not a peep. But you're a sonuvabitch if you don't but games new, to the point where developers and publishers are actively working against you (in the case of Project Ten-Dollar, where they artificially create added "value" for new purchases), or publicly admonishing you for essentially being a leech.

It's time for these industry people to grow the fuck up, and recognize that some segment of the population simply doesn't buy games new. If you want to attract more first-time sales, then work on making a product that more people can't wait for.

- Scott

A lot of this is silly in a way I appreciate.

@lead_farmer said:

Bought it, played it once, loaned it to buddies. Now it sits on my shelf.

Same here. Really enjoyed it, though. Still kinda hard to get back into.

@Hizang: I'd like to think this is how things would go down - but I kind of doubt it. Once access to games is monopolized into one channel - read download - what's to stop publishers from charging what they like?

I remember a time when XBLA games had all sorts of pricing variety - but slowly yet surely, it seems everything is creeping up to $15 a download. And while some of that can be contributed to better game quality, not all of it can - some games are far overpriced - what happens eventually when we can only get games through this method?

I don't really want to live in a future where I'm at the mercy of publishers to self-regulate the cost of their games. One of the few avenues we have is that we can choose both where to buy games - competing retailers and how to buy them - different purchasing channels - a download-only future centralizes all of this.

I was going to make a point when I saw this article over on Joystiq, but then I remembered that I got the game off Goozex, and then I lent it to a friend, doubly screwing these mushmouthed Frenchmen over. Or Canadians. I forget.

Let's just blame Quantic Dream and their abandonment of post release DLC to shoehorn in Move controls and try to sell a few more units of the game.

I would have bought it if I had a PS3 or if it was released on the 360.

Would it hurt to release on the 360 or PC?  You deserve to be second-handed