07-01-2013 04:28 PM
88 1234
tools
  1. EchoRedux's Avatar
    Sorry, but if you think the costs associated with a used car is even remotely like the costs associated with a used disc then we will have to agree to disagree. The math is important because we are talking about math. Money. NUMBERS. If you don't think that's important then no, we will have to agree to disagree.
    I'll agree to disagree. I don't think the quantity of money is relevant to the discussion. I don't find any of that matters at all to the discussion of why dev's deserve a cut despite other industries like the automotive industry not getting a cut on used car sales.

    Especially when you start making up numbers like 400 hours and .01%. 400 hours is barely 17 days. I've put months into Capcom vs SNK 2 on the Dreamcast without having to spend a dime on repairs. I've been playing Sonic CD on and off again since the 90s (because it's that awesome). Same disc. No extra costs.
    Since a few people on here were going on about how cars need constant maintenance and repair, I was trying to put it into perspective. I mean, what's the failure rate on cars after 400 hours of use? What's the failure rate of CD's after 400 hours of use? If you add up all the time you've played Sonic, I doubt it approaches 400 hours. Like I said, my roommate was on his third COD 4 CD before he got MW 2 (he played World at War but after a couple months went back to COD 4)
    HeyCori likes this.
    06-26-2013 03:33 PM
  2. Reflexx's Avatar
    Unlike cars (which offer multiple revenue streams through OEM parts), most games only have one revenue stream for devs.

    Also, cars are a need. The market is HUGE compared to games. So car manufacturers can have more variety in their product line. They can offer 5 different vehicles at different price points. Devs often only work in one game at a time. And the one game may determine if that dev lives long enough to make another game.

    With games, the market is significantly smaller, and almost everything made is a niche product. And this small market has determined that they will not consistently pay more than $60 for the product. So game companies cannot price games according to how much they cost to make. There isn't a huge "luxury game" market like there is a luxury vehicle market.

    Vehicles are made in such mass quantity that when a person sells his car, there's a decent chance that he buys another car from the same manufacturer. With games, a developer might make 1 game every 2 to 4 yrs. When you sell your game, you're not going to buy another product from them for a long time. In the mean time, that game may make it to 3 or 4 other people that will also not buy a product from that developer.

    With a car, you know that you are getting an inferior product when you buy used. With a game, the product (the actual intellectual property), is unchanged. It's just as good as a new copy. And if a disc is scratched it can be resurfaced for $2. And the code contained on that disc is still exactly the same. 100% equal to a new product.

    With a car, the manufacturer doesn't have to pay for maintenance. You pay for it.

    With a game, the support and maintenance is handled by game companies.

    There are so many flaws with the used car analogy that I'm surprised that anyone takes it seriously.
    06-26-2013 05:48 PM
  3. NaNoo123's Avatar
    Guess games no longer only have 1 revenue stream.
    You have dlc, micro transactions. 😆
    EchoRedux likes this.
    06-26-2013 06:09 PM
  4. MobileVortex's Avatar
    People are taking this used car thing wayyy to far. The point is no other used market gets any "real concrete: return from it's sales. Why are games so special. ITS A "FREE" MARKET its up to the publishers / devs to get creative and figure out how to defeat the used market. Which in my opinion would be easier then any other used market.

    K THNX BYE

    <3
    EchoRedux likes this.
    06-26-2013 06:15 PM
  5. EchoRedux's Avatar
    @Winning Guy

    It's a fact that Ford gets no cut for used car sales, J. K. Rowling gets no cut on used book sales, and dev's get no cut on used game sales.

    Pointing out differences between the auto industry and the gaming industry doesn't change it, and from what I've seen, it doesn't call for a change. Until someone does it, I can't see that analogy as being flawed.

    However, you bring up interesting points. I'd like to comment on them if I may.

    With games, the market is significantly smaller, and almost everything made is a niche product. And this small market has determined that they will not consistently pay more than $60 for the product. So game companies cannot price games according to how much they cost to make.
    Actually car companies set a target sales price and try to build in as many features to be able to sell at that given price. Say market price for a sports sedan is 35,000. Companies will do their best to make a competitive vehicle at that price.

    Obviously if Ford tries to put hundreds of luxury items in their Fiesta model and cannot sell the car at an inflated price, Ford will take a hit and post major losses, hence why companies have budgets. Dev's clearly have to budget as well.

    Also, game dev's can price their sales though. Assuming the dev's have some business sense, they will hope to achieve higher sales when they spend more money to develop a game. Sure each unit is $60, but selling 5 million copies is better than selling 500,000 copies.

    Vehicles are made in such mass quantity that when a person sells his car, there's a decent chance that he buys another car from the same manufacturer.
    Huh?

    With games, a developer might make 1 game every 2 to 4 yrs. When you sell your game, you're not going to buy another product from them for a long time. In the mean time, that game may make it to 3 or 4 other people that will also not buy a product from that developer.
    If I sell Madden 11, I'm probably buying Madden 12. Heck, I can buy Madden 12 right now, NEW, for $9.95. I think when people buy used games, it's been out for a while and no longer going for $60. I'd also bet that the people buying used cannot afford the $60 price tag anyways and are looking to spend 5 dollars instead of say 10 dollars. I think the money the devs are missing out on is completely overstated. I don't think the typical game is resold 3 or 4 times.

    With a car, you know that you are getting an inferior product when you buy used. With a game, the product (the actual intellectual property), is unchanged. It's just as good as a new copy. And if a disc is scratched it can be resurfaced for $2. And the code contained on that disc is still exactly the same. 100% equal to a new product.
    I doubt it. With a car it still gets me from point A to point B. It's main purpose is still there. If a game's going to be supported on the servers for 5 years and someone buys the game used a year after it comes out, they only have 4 years of support, no?

    With a car, the manufacturer doesn't have to pay for maintenance. You pay for it.
    With a game, the support and maintenance is handled by game companies.
    There are so many flaws with the used car analogy that I'm surprised that anyone takes it seriously.
    If the CS scratches, you pay for the repair too, no?

    With a car, the manufacturer has a warranty that lasts a certain amount of time, and that warranty is transferred when the car is resold. If a dev supports servers, why should they support only the initial purchase? Why should that support not transfer when resold?

    I find flaws with your refutes but I'll take you seriously.
    06-26-2013 06:25 PM
  6. NaNoo123's Avatar
    This discussion is pretty strange in that it's pretty much taken for granted we will be going DD relatively soon, say 10years to pluck figure out of air.
    So GameStop etc need to change.
    Everyone in the business apart from them will be pushing digital forwards.
    Making digital lot more compelling even with use of dlc etc.
    They will have a lot more control than they do with disks currently.
    I personally think that what MS was trying to do was going to help GameStop, now publishers will try harder to make people go digital.
    06-26-2013 06:42 PM
  7. vertigoOne's Avatar
    This discussion is pretty strange in that it's pretty much taken for granted we will be going DD relatively soon, say 10years to pluck figure out of air.
    So GameStop etc need to change.
    Everyone in the business apart from them will be pushing digital forwards.
    Making digital lot more compelling even with use of dlc etc.
    They will have a lot more control than they do with disks currently.
    I personally think that what MS was trying to do was going to help GameStop, now publishers will try harder to make people go digital.
    The logical conclusion to the reason behind the 24-hour check-in was obviously for used games to co-exist with digital distribution...will be interesting to see how long the used game market will last in this next generation in spite of MS's reversal.
    06-26-2013 08:14 PM
  8. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    People are taking this used car thing wayyy to far. The point is no other used market gets any "real concrete: return from it's sales. Why are games so special. ITS A "FREE" MARKET its up to the publishers / devs to get creative and figure out how to defeat the used market. Which in my opinion would be easier then any other used market.

    K THNX BYE

    <3
    Actually, I think that there is a big difference between games and most other secondhand markets. As it was mentioned, cars are constantly losing their value. Part of that is because, unlike SOME big-name game franchises, you can expect a new release of most car models every year. But the real difference here is quality. The quality of the information on a disc does not deteriorate like a car does. Yes, the time a disc takes to wear down might be shorter than that of SOME car parts, but those are not legitimate comparisons, necessarily. Even if a game fails, the $60 replacement necessary won't approach the cost of replacing any meaningful car part that fails.

    But that's not my point. If you buy a used car, there isn't much of a functionality guarantee. That's where the "lemon" term comes in, when you buy a seemingly-good car that ends up crappy. With games, you get something of a respectable grace period on the secondhand market (in the case of GameStop, 14 days). The proof of failure of a game is often immediate, as a disc imperfection can quickly lead to an unreadable disc. However, that used car you bought could seem fine for a month, then have the fuel pump or the transmission or whatever go out, leading to an expensive headache. This fact leads to two things that distinguish used games and used cars:

    1. When you buy a used game, the game itself is basically guaranteed to be in like-new condition for less than the price of a new-game purchase. Essentially, buying a used game is like getting a brand new car at a discount for no legitimate reason. In almost all cases, if you have the opportunity to get a new car for the price of a used car, you'd take it.
    2. Used games are not subject to the replacement parts that used cars are.

    Imagine if you went to GameStop to get Halo 4. At launch, it would have been $60 new and $55 used. You'd prefer to get it used because it's 100% the same product for $5 less ($10 less if you're a part of their 10% discount club). Now, imagine if used games were ACTUALLY comparable to used cars. Instead of $55, you maybe get it for $45, because of the risk of failure. You buy it anyway, assuming the risks. After a month, you're on the second-to-last level, but wait, that level is broken. you have to pay $10 to have it fixed, or the game won't run anymore. After another couple of months, the online multiplayer map Complex has broken. It's another $5 to fix THAT. To make a used-car analogy, you need to consider what makes used cars both desirable (the lower cost), but also risky (unknown parts quality, often no long-term warranty).

    Used games do not suffer from the constant fear of an expensive repair like cars (especially used ones) do. There is a greater certainty of quality in the used games market, and most failures NOT due to user error (scratching your own disc) are almost guaranteed to occur within a warranty window, meaning you don't have to fear about getting a 100% working replacement.

    Used games are a very sturdy market because consumers can essentially guarantee that they will get the EXACT same product of the EXACT same quality as a $60 purchase for a new game. Yeah, you might miss an instruction manual or a game case on occasion, but you'd likely take a 5-10% discount on a new car if they took away such trivial things.
    06-27-2013 12:10 AM
  9. Polychrome's Avatar
    \ In fact, via DLC, there are additional revenue streams. Gaming industry even gives special content on certain games that have codes to owners who buy the game new.
    But what if the entire game was DLC? Wouldn't that be the easiest answer?

    Oh, right. That was the Xbox 1 *with* the DRM. ;)

    If cars are really that much of a good example, have you considered that GM can't seem to stay upright without being subsidized by the government? Like with used games, something eventually has to give.

    (And before anybody mentions it, yes, I'm aware GM is a bloated, bureaucratic, union-ruled monstrosity that probably should have been allowed to go bankrupt a few years ago.)

    There's more than enough examples presented in this thread that show how the car example really doesn't fly. Cars are a necessity that are high maintenance. There are people who literally rent the newest car yearly, and the dealers allow them to so they can get a steady stream of money for a year, then sell the car to boot with a service package and payment plan when the renter is done. I bought one such car, but as good a condition it was in (and it's still holding up pretty darn well), there was no denying that it was "used", and felt so. And now? Thanks to a few unlucky situations, I've picked up a few ugly dents. As much as I love the car, and as wonderful as it runs, and even though I've given it only synthetic oil, it's showing its age and is needing more and more care.

    Games are just simply not subject to this. The used is exactly the same as the new. Your game system is likely to go before the disk does, and it seems console-makers typically sell at a loss.

    The way things are going, I'm almost expecting all game devs to just say "screw it" and make exclusively cash-shop funded MMOs in a few years.
    Last edited by Polychrome; 06-27-2013 at 03:33 AM.
    06-27-2013 03:17 AM
  10. NaNoo123's Avatar
    The logical conclusion to the reason behind the 24-hour check-in was obviously for used games to co-exist with digital distribution...will be interesting to see how long the used game market will last in this next generation in spite of MS's reversal.
    I think(my view) MS was probably trying to a accommodate everyone with their drm, even consumers although most may disagree with me.lol.
    I doubt any publishers would've locked game down to no resale, just get a bit from it. People would boycott a total no second hand on a game.

    Publishers wouldn't be in such a rush to go DD, where as now i think they will. They just have to make it compelling i.e. Cheap compared to disk.

    Trouble is size of downloads. But with the fact you can borrow disk then purchase it digitally, i wonder if that's what people will do.
    Just seems like GameStop think they've come out really well, when i think its worse for them.
    Tainted Clone likes this.
    06-27-2013 03:41 AM
  11. NaNoo123's Avatar
    Can someone explain why EA's pass thingy was so bad in most peoples eyes?
    Was it concept, implementation, etc.

    Was it their way to stop used games, or was they trying to get paid to keep servers and all that entails running, which would be an on going cost compared to offline games.

    Serious question, as I've never used it, but it 'seemed' to be hated.

    Your all very creative on both sides to keep car analogy going this long. Lol.
    Especially when there's ones that are at least in the same entertainment sector to choose from.
    06-27-2013 04:10 AM
  12. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    Can someone explain why EA's pass thingy was so bad in most peoples eyes?
    Was it concept, implementation, etc.

    Was it their way to stop used games, or was they trying to get paid to keep servers and all that entails running, which would be an on going cost compared to offline games.

    Serious question, as I've never used it, but it 'seemed' to be hated.

    Your all very creative on both sides to keep car analogy going this long. Lol.
    Especially when there's ones that are at least in the same entertainment sector to choose from.
    It was a few things. For starters, they determined that the preferable way to earn revenue was to go after gamers, not places like GameStop. I just flat-out didn't like the fact that to get a used EA title, I also had to buy something online (the Online Pass, of course), and that was too much of an annoying inconvenience (I try to limit the amount of times I put my personal information on the Internet). Oh, and since GameStop was/is every bit as greedy, they countered the $10 Online Pass with only an $8 price drop, meaning EA's used games were just $2 cheaper than the new version.

    Maybe it wasn't their fault for wanting to make up lost money from used games, but they could have gone about it in a better way, like offering frequent sales to make new games more appealing than used ones at times.
    06-27-2013 09:07 AM
  13. Reflexx's Avatar
    Why do people say that its the fault of companies that they haven't found better ways to monetize their products, but complain when they find better ways to monetize their product?

    DD is the future. It's the only way the industry survives because short sighted gamers wont accept a middle ground.
    06-27-2013 02:52 PM
  14. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    Why do people say that its the fault of companies that they haven't found better ways to monetize their products, but complain when they find better ways to monetize their product?

    DD is the future. It's the only way the industry survives because short sighted gamers wont accept a middle ground.
    What's the middle ground? They make used games incredibly inconvenient by requiring a physical and a digital purchase, the second of which might not be possible with younger gamers, who do not have credit cards. The problem is that they're not offering a middle ground, they're offering a still-in-their-favor middle ground that creates too much of an inconvenience for the consumer to make calling it a reasonable compromise a real possibility.

    Digital downloads without a means of trading in the game, but at the same price, is not a middle ground. Lowering the cost of digital downloads because the consumer cannot recoup the cost of the product after he is finished (meaning he doesn't want the game anymore) would be a fair middle ground. Starting a competing business in which gamers can still trade in their products, but publishers and developers get a cut, would be a middle ground (granted, one that takes a lot of capital and effort on the parts of the publishers).

    The idea of a middle ground is that it is a compromise. The efforts thus far have not been compromises. Again, how is making used games go up in cost for the consumer, along with inconveniencing the consumer, while getting money for yourself, a compromise? What is the benefit to the consumer in the Online Pass scenario? It's added cost and effort for the same result.
    06-27-2013 05:00 PM
  15. Reflexx's Avatar
    What's the middle ground? They make used games incredibly inconvenient by requiring a physical and a digital purchase, the second of which might not be possible with younger gamers, who do not have credit cards. The problem is that they're not offering a middle ground, they're offering a still-in-their-favor middle ground that creates too much of an inconvenience for the consumer to make calling it a reasonable compromise a real possibility.

    Digital downloads without a means of trading in the game, but at the same price, is not a middle ground. Lowering the cost of digital downloads because the consumer cannot recoup the cost of the product after he is finished (meaning he doesn't want the game anymore) would be a fair middle ground. Starting a competing business in which gamers can still trade in their products, but publishers and developers get a cut, would be a middle ground (granted, one that takes a lot of capital and effort on the parts of the publishers).

    The idea of a middle ground is that it is a compromise. The efforts thus far have not been compromises. Again, how is making used games go up in cost for the consumer, along with inconveniencing the consumer, while getting money for yourself, a compromise? What is the benefit to the consumer in the Online Pass scenario? It's added cost and effort for the same result.
    It is a middle ground. It's not a PURE digital marketplace that eliminates all sharing and selling of games.

    A middle ground means that both sides get some stuff they want and some stuff they don't want.
    06-28-2013 11:55 AM
  16. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    It is a middle ground. It's not a PURE digital marketplace that eliminates all sharing and selling of games.

    A middle ground means that both sides get some stuff they want and some stuff they don't want.
    Except we're not GAINING anything there. The companies GAIN the ability to provide games that won't be fed into the used game market. We're just getting a second method of purchasing games that restricts our ability to resell them. Now, if they're at a lower price point because of that, then there's a legitimate middle ground to be spoken for. If it's JUST adding $60 digital downloads to the game, that's just adding another pro for the big guys and nothing for us.
    06-29-2013 11:38 AM
  17. The Hustleman's Avatar
    I don't think developers have a right to used game sales.

    They made the game to be sold, it got sold.

    It's the same as used clothing. If I buy a brooks brothers suit, wear it, then decide to sell it to some place like Plato's Closet, then they sell it to someone else, NO ONE owes brooks brothers anything.


    Why should have developers be different?


    All used games were new at some point

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
    EchoRedux likes this.
    06-29-2013 05:47 PM
  18. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    I don't think developers have a right to used game sales.

    They made the game to be sold, it got sold.

    It's the same as used clothing. If I buy a brooks brothers suit, wear it, then decide to sell it to some place like Plato's Closet, then they sell it to someone else, NO ONE owes brooks brothers anything.


    Why should have developers be different?


    All used games were new at some point

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
    It's not a matter of if they deserve used game profits. It's a matter of if they can survive without them. There IS a decent number of publishers who have been sold/broken up over the past few years (Midway Games, Atari, and THQ come to mind). with the unreasonable expectation developers have put on them (to where 4 million sales can be called a failure), it's kind of a matter where if they DON'T get some money from the used games market, the new games market might dry up. It's tough to put a bunch of money into a game, when you know probably 60% of the sales of the game are going to be secondhand purchases that you make no money on.

    As I've said before when used games were compared to used cars, your comparison is off. Used clothes, even ones that appear to be in solid condition, tend to have natural wear and tear occur over time. Clothes cost pennies to create in many cases, and they can last only a couple of years, in many cases. However, a used game is the result of a high-cost product (games aren't cheap to make). The used disc can survive for YEARS after it's sold, if the owner isn't careless. You also don't have the issue of "outfits" with clothes, where what you wore yesterday needs maintenance (cleaning) before it can be used (worn) again.

    There really isn't a thriving used market that compares to the video game market, plain and simple. It cannibalizes the new games market pretty badly at times, and it could lead to a lot of problems for developers and publishers in the industry. Used clothes don't stay in high-quality condition as long as game discs, limiting the potential supply for that market. Then there are a lot of people who are just "weirded out" by owning a stranger's used clothes, putting another limiting factor on the used clothes market. They just don't compare because the products don't compare.
    Shad0x64 likes this.
    06-29-2013 06:37 PM
  19. ncxcstud's Avatar
    I don't think developers have a right to used game sales.

    They made the game to be sold, it got sold.

    It's the same as used clothing. If I buy a brooks brothers suit, wear it, then decide to sell it to some place like Plato's Closet, then they sell it to someone else, NO ONE owes brooks brothers anything.


    Why should have developers be different?


    All used games were new at some point

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
    I would think that the profit made on a shirt is quite high compared to that made on a game. Brooks Brothers isn't spending 10 million to design your new suit. More than likely you're buying the name - and a higher price - for a product that at cost is 'more than likely' very,very cheap. The higher prices at stores on clothes - I would think - are to combat the future used sales of their own product.
    06-29-2013 10:35 PM
  20. MerlotC's Avatar
    I'd be quite happy if games were digital download only with no resell value if the new sale price was $50 instead of $60. I wonder how the the lost sales from people not wanting to buy digital would compare to the gained sales of no used games.
    06-29-2013 10:57 PM
  21. The Hustleman's Avatar
    It's not a matter of if they deserve used game profits. It's a matter of if they can survive without them. There IS a decent number of publishers who have been sold/broken up over the past few years (Midway Games, Atari, and THQ come to mind). with the unreasonable expectation developers have put on them (to where 4 million sales can be called a failure), it's kind of a matter where if they DON'T get some money from the used games market, the new games market might dry up. It's tough to put a bunch of money into a game, when you know probably 60% of the sales of the game are going to be secondhand purchases that you make no money on.

    As I've said before when used games were compared to used cars, your comparison is off. Used clothes, even ones that appear to be in solid condition, tend to have natural wear and tear occur over time. Clothes cost pennies to create in many cases, and they can last only a couple of years, in many cases. However, a used game is the result of a high-cost product (games aren't cheap to make). The used disc can survive for YEARS after it's sold, if the owner isn't careless. You also don't have the issue of "outfits" with clothes, where what you wore yesterday needs maintenance (cleaning) before it can be used (worn) again.

    There really isn't a thriving used market that compares to the video game market, plain and simple. It cannibalizes the new games market pretty badly at times, and it could lead to a lot of problems for developers and publishers in the industry. Used clothes don't stay in high-quality condition as long as game discs, limiting the potential supply for that market. Then there are a lot of people who are just "weirded out" by owning a stranger's used clothes, putting another limiting factor on the used clothes market. They just don't compare because the products don't compare.

    People buy used games because they cost less and they can sell it back if /when they finish it.

    If publishers set up something like that and undercut gamestop it would be great.

    In fact, all game publishers should get behind a business, a business that buys used games, let's say for 28 bucks (less if the booklet and manual aren't included) and sells them for 50 (instead of gamestop and their 55) and splits the 22 bucks gained between the developer, publisher, and the store selling it.

    Game publishers would LOVE That, consumers would love it, developers would love it, problem solved.

    Multiple streams of income for the makers and customers get to save some money.


    I don't see why that wouldn't work, so why hasn't anyone implemented it?

    I'd be quite happy if games were digital download only with no resell value if the new sale price was $50 instead of $60. I wonder how the the lost sales from people not wanting to buy digital would compare to the gained sales of no used games.

    They'd just figure out other ways to get it. Some will steal it and some won't steal it but will find a way to pirate it. Game makers spend way too much time and money trying to stop piracy but it's a waste of funds. It will always happen.



    Ms took the wrong approach in banning systems that are modded from live, what they should have done was charged to play pirated games online.

    Hit then with a 20$ fee to play online with it for each pirated title and get paid.



    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
    06-29-2013 11:51 PM
  22. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    People buy used games because they cost less and they can sell it back if /when they finish it.

    If publishers set up something like that and undercut gamestop it would be great.

    In fact, all game publishers should get behind a business, a business that buys used games, let's say for 28 bucks (less if the booklet and manual aren't included) and sells them for 50 (instead of gamestop and their 55) and splits the 22 bucks gained between the developer, publisher, and the store selling it.

    Game publishers would LOVE That, consumers would love it, developers would love it, problem solved.

    Multiple streams of income for the makers and customers get to save some money.


    I don't see why that wouldn't work, so why hasn't anyone implemented it?
    The American government hates anything that can even HALFWAY be considered to be a monopoly (in most cases). I've suggested setting up such a service on multiple occasions, but the government would call it collusion and price-fixing if publishers got together and started their own competing service (because having a store for each publisher in every city's unreasonable). It'd end in a breakup of the company and MASSIVE fines for the publishers, as it would be seen as anti-competitive.

    Also, neither you nor I knows the costs of running such a business. $22 per sale might not cut it when we're talking about running the infrastructure. There might not be a high-enough profit margin to make up for the costs of rental space, storage, employees, and all of that. Especially at the start, the volume of sales would be unlikely to be great enough to make the attempt feasible. That, and it would more-likely just result in price drops at GameStop, which would cut the business off at its legs.

    A competing business would be the best answer to help everyone, but it likely would fail badly because it's WAY too late to build such a business from the ground up, especially when it means finding common ground (and splitting profits) among money-grubbing publishers (oh, and determining who pays what percentage of the costs would be equally difficult).
    06-30-2013 12:30 AM
  23. TonyDedrick's Avatar
    It's not a matter of if they deserve used game profits. It's a matter of if they can survive without them. There IS a decent number of publishers who have been sold/broken up over the past few years (Midway Games, Atari, and THQ come to mind). with the unreasonable expectation developers have put on them (to where 4 million sales can be called a failure), it's kind of a matter where if they DON'T get some money from the used games market, the new games market might dry up. It's tough to put a bunch of money into a game, when you know probably 60% of the sales of the game are going to be secondhand purchases that you make no money on.

    As I've said before when used games were compared to used cars, your comparison is off. Used clothes, even ones that appear to be in solid condition, tend to have natural wear and tear occur over time. Clothes cost pennies to create in many cases, and they can last only a couple of years, in many cases. However, a used game is the result of a high-cost product (games aren't cheap to make). The used disc can survive for YEARS after it's sold, if the owner isn't careless. You also don't have the issue of "outfits" with clothes, where what you wore yesterday needs maintenance (cleaning) before it can be used (worn) again.

    There really isn't a thriving used market that compares to the video game market, plain and simple. It cannibalizes the new games market pretty badly at times, and it could lead to a lot of problems for developers and publishers in the industry. Used clothes don't stay in high-quality condition as long as game discs, limiting the potential supply for that market. Then there are a lot of people who are just "weirded out" by owning a stranger's used clothes, putting another limiting factor on the used clothes market. They just don't compare because the products don't compare.
    Many of those companies failed due to over saturation of its products with zero innovation (Midway), completely out of touch with modern gaming (Atari) and just really poor decision making (THQ and that bomb known as Udraw come to mind).

    Not to completely absolve used games from having an effect. I just don't think its numero uno on the list of issues that plague gaming.
    Last edited by TonyDedrick; 06-30-2013 at 09:03 AM.
    EchoRedux likes this.
    06-30-2013 01:03 AM
  24. Reflexx's Avatar
    Except we're not GAINING anything there. The companies GAIN the ability to provide games that won't be fed into the used game market. We're just getting a second method of purchasing games that restricts our ability to resell them. Now, if they're at a lower price point because of that, then there's a legitimate middle ground to be spoken for. If it's JUST adding $60 digital downloads to the game, that's just adding another pro for the big guys and nothing for us.
    There would have been the GAIN of having all of your games at your fingertips through your account, whether you bought them online or on disc. There would have been family sharing.
    06-30-2013 04:03 PM
  25. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    There would have been the GAIN of having all of your games at your fingertips through your account, whether you bought them online or on disc. There would have been family sharing.
    1. The anywhere access didn't require the DRM check, really.
    2. We were never given official information of the sharing feature, so I cannot say that it was a fair tradeoff for never being able to access games if your Internet is out for an extended period of time (let alone for those overseas in the military or many in a number of countries where the console wasn't launching simply would have been without the ability to play games whatsoever).
    3. I was speaking as to my displeasure with the EA Online Pass, not the Xbox One's initial DRM policy. The Online Pass wasn't a middle ground, that's what I was saying. That was purely charging customers more for the same product.
    06-30-2013 04:45 PM
88 1234

Similar Threads

  1. List the new XBOX ONE released or coming games here!!!
    By BIGPADDY in forum The Xbox Lounge
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 05-30-2014, 06:22 PM
  2. Play windows mobile game purchases on Xbox one?
    By BrownxGoblin in forum The Xbox Lounge
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-29-2013, 01:09 AM
  3. Play windows mobile game purchases on Xbox One?
    By BrownxGoblin in forum The Xbox Lounge
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-22-2013, 07:09 AM
  4. We're getting plenty of new games, but no Xbox ones?
    By WindowsPhone8User in forum Windows Phone 8
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-16-2013, 03:58 PM
  5. 20p Price Increase for UK XBox Live Games ?
    By TheWeeBear in forum Games
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-27-2012, 02:04 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD