Epic's Rein On Next-Gen And Secondhand

Computer and Video Games has an interview with Mark Rein, VP of Epic Games. He expounds on Epic's role in the next generation of consoles, along with his opinions on the industry in general, and the sales of secondhand games. From the article: "Unreal Tournament, the original, is still our biggest-selling game ever. Because we sell our games now in instalments, no single instalment is going to sell in the same way as a single game across multiple formats. We're really recapturing a lot of the original, with less jumping around - it went a little crazy with the double and triple jumps. It'll be toned down and a little more skill-based."

Comments

Second hand games royalty?

[nb caffeine]

Sorry, nope. I don't agree with the prices ebgames charges for used games (save $5! wooo), but theres no way they are going to get kickbacks off of that system. Record companies dont get any money from secondhand album sales. If i sell a videogame to a friend of mine, would I be obliged to send the publisher 10%?

It seems as he has lost touch with the people BUYING the games. I buy almost all of my games second hand (because they arent worth fullprice, usually). You got your money, let me have my fun

And get rid of the teleporters too

[etymxris]

One thing I really like about onslaught is that long range movement is delegated to vehicles. CTF turned into 20 teleporters streaking every which way and that just took the fun out of it. They now have vehicle CTF, but I think it still allows teleporters.

I know it's Unreal Tournament, and so it doesn't have to be realistic, but teleporters are solving a problem that doesn't exist anymore with vehicles available.

Re:Sorry Mark.

[Babbster]

Perhaps they could make the margin proposition more attractive for retailers, encouraging them to slow down or eliminate their used game sales.

You can say that a few times. The way things work right now (at least in the console area), EB, Gamestop and others couldn't even exist as "game-only" or "game-primary" retailers if they didn't deal in used games. Their profits couldn't possibly cover their overhead, especially when a game just doesn't sell.

The other thing that tends to be glossed over in the "anti-used" argument is that Steam (the current big online developer->customer online distribution system) wasn't created necessarily to cut out retailers. It was far more important to Valve to cut out the publisher which takes virtually no risk on a guaranteed hit like Half-Life 2 but sucks up a huge chunk of the profit.

Speaking of big money for no risk, Epic and other companies are taking no risk on the used games that EB/Gamestop/etc. sell yet Mr. Rein wants some money for it, anyway. If Epic, EA, etc. want to make money on used game sales, all they have to do is invest in the companies doing that business. Every time a retailer buys a used game from somebody, they're taking a chance that they'll be able to sell it for a profit down the line. If they don't, they have to eat the loss later, usually in the form of "bargain bins."

I suspect Mr. Rein is just jumping on the gamer bandwagon of hating stores like EB and Gamestop and figures there's no PR downside to doing so. He's probably right given the semi-retarded, anti-business viewpoint of some people that these stores somehow "cheat" customers by not paying them more for the used games and not giving a big enough discount when they sell them.

Re:It's the Sale Model, Stupid

[asretfroodle]

The support and infrastructure is still going to a copy of the game which the developer profited from. Should the support stop simply because it changes hands?

Besides, there's probably a few people who would avoid buying games if they knew they weren't going to be able to sell them on again. A shrinking market would probably hurt the developers more.

Steam probably won't be the way of the future for mainstream releases, not enough people have the bandwidth available. It'd be much more useful for companies looking to profit off their previous releases though.

The games already paid for..

[the_raptor]

He has a problem with secondhand games, and I see his point - support and infrastructure costs going to customers who haven't paid the developer.

That is a completely bullshit argument. The original buyer paid the developer and then *sold* the game to someone else. So after the sale you again have one customer, not two. Support and infrastructure costs don't change at all due to second hand games, but they probably do increase due to bootlegged games, which are a completely different issue.

His argument is the same that the MPAA/RIAA push. They want to be paid every time you watch a movie or hear a song. Yeah sure, and hammer manufacturers would like some money every time I get my hammer out. I bet door makers would love if you had to pay every time you used a door. Copyright owners* have never made a sensible argument about why they should be special.

* Note I didn't say artists, because they are rarely the ones that end up owning the copyright.