Slashdot Mirror
'Used' A Dirty Word in Gaming
Gamers with Jobs has a piece looking at the increasingly negative reaction the game industry has towards used games. From the article: "The problem is that the used game market has not only redefined the direction of the specialty retailer, but it has attracted the attention of the big box stores, and the success of limited test markets might eventually reshape the landscape of the gaming retail industry as a whole, edging publishers and developers out of a significant cut of the action. This as next-generation systems send development costs skyrocketing put developers in the position spending more than ever just as the biggest retailers are considering keeping more of the profits for themselves."
Buying a used game for $20 is better than buying it new for $50 only to discover that it sucks.
Besides, some of those used games are really worth picking up but they're out of print. So should we just never get the rare gems? Obviously the answer is to buy them new, but sometimes you don't realize how good a game is until its too hard to find - reference Disgaea.
They can have my used Atari 7800, Gameboy Color, and all the games that go with them when they pry them from my cold, dead, fingers!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I picked up Metroid Prime "Used" for $12.50 canadian. When used games are half the price or less than the new one, and offer nothing different, then I'm going to buy the used one. It's simple economics. I usually don't buy games at full prices either. I wait until they've sold a million copies, and only cost $30. I applaud the gaming industry for actually lowering prices once the initial investment has been made back, whereas with music CDs, the prices only seem to go up after the initial release.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
How?
Take Madden 2004, slap on it new textures, make some minor gameplay changes, call it Madden 2005 and release it.
How the hell does that skyroket costs when they are using the same goddamn engine with prettier graphics and a few minor asthetic changes?
...the rising used market is just another signifier of a dying business model: the distribution of content on physical media. The game industry is crying because the majority of them have not yet embraced download installations. Suckers. "In the future", every game will have an online component and an unlocking system ala steam.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The publishers will insist that graphics sell, that you need such high-res textures that you can see the models' individual pores, that you need to get Hollywood actors to do the voices. I don't buy that. If Geometry Wars and the success of the DS have taught us anything, it's that gameplay sells.
I don't think I'm in the minority when I say that I don't play graphics.
I am more willing to buy a new game for 50$ then paying 100$. I can spend 100$ but its not what I am willing to spend. And, why should be an used thing sale should be a matter of concern. Somebody paid for that in the past, and you cannot force me to buy a newer version if I am happy with the old version.
They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me. -Nathaniel Lee
It forces game makers to make games that have large lasting appeal. I've sold loads of games that are "beat once, throw away". There's other games with loads of features and content that I'll never get rid of because some day I know I'm gonna go back and play it some more. This can only be a good thing.
Maybe if they make more games that have a higher replay value they will find less copies of them showing up used. If you take a game that is only fun the first time you play through it, then why would somebody keep it on their shelf?
Personally I always buy used games. EB and gamestop have 90 day warranties on their pre played games and even for 5 buck's less it's good to me.
nothing
How about these greedy slobs try and produce games with lower development costs?
It's always the same story : when an industry starts gaining mainstream approval, it just becomes a penis contest to see who will do it more, harder, better, with more explosions, big boobs, and bigger budget!
Look at hollywood actually BRAG about production costs, the same is happening to videogames, only this time, video games are supposed to be more fulfilling than two hours of non-interactive eye candy!
Two things one can do.
Use an OSS engine to reduce costs.
Use the community to create content by making the games moddible as much as possible.
Oh, and...Profit!
It would seem to me, however, that there's so easy solution to the problem. (Having not RTFA...) If you force (through legislation or otherwise) every retailer to pay a kickback to the publisher for every used game sold, that will immediately piss off the thousands of smaller retailers who simply can't afford that type of extra expense. Although, those smaller retailers are increasingly rare these days, thanks to the 'community store' model that EB has been adopting.
I buy older games used - just last week I got both Ghost Recon and Chronicles of Riddick from EBGames for less then $20. Ghost recond was only $6. I normally wait until a games gets to the $20 price point anyway and never buy latest "Tuesday" release. Bought Doom Collectors Edition from Amazon.com through ToysRUs for $21. It was almost $60 on the day it came out.
Most used games disc are in pretty good shape but I do get some beatup cases.
http://www.ebgames.com/ebx/product/259303.asp
Lets be real here people even if it offers years of game play.
"...the rising used market is just another signifier of a dying business model: the distribution of content on physical media. The game industry is crying because the majority of them have not yet embraced download installations."
Hi! I'm in the middle of nowhere, on 33.6 dialup. How will your "miracle method" help me? How about this; what's the difference between the "old, and busted" were I buy a CD with manuals, and "the new hotness", were I bulk buy CD blanks, and cases, and print out the documentation? Oh right. I get to do the publishers job for them. How alturistic of me.
1. Stupid people spend to their most optimistic projection and then complain that money's tight.
2. Stupid people assume that because they've always made money up to now, they can rest on their laurels.
3. Stupid people think that when their income dries up, whining will make it return.
BTW, have any of these numbskulls considered and compared the effect of the used car market? If a thing retains value for resale, people will be happy paying extra for it first-hand.
Used games require a previous owner who played, got bored, and sold the game. That says the game sucked. Make better games. If a game is good, people are going to fall all over themselves to get a copy, new, used or otherwise.
Duh.
Gamers who hang with Steve Jobs?
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
If game developers and publishers start balking at used games, the worse is outright rampant piracy.
The problem here is the quality of the games in general (like with everything in the entertainment industry these days) is horrid. Quick rehashed sequels of popular games are being released more often then original game content. Gamers are becoming increasingly wary of dropping full price for a game they may find out they don't like 2 hours after playing it. Buying used games gives them an opportunity to play that game at a reduced price, and then trade back the game in exchange for another new/used game. Also, most gamers are finding more value in trading games for new games, as their is generally no need to hold on to a game that has been played to death and will never be touched again.
In the PC gaming market, you don't even have to buy used games. If you wait 6 - 8 months after a game is released, it is usually marked down 40 - 60% or comes bundled with value added features like add-ons or other games for a cheaper price.
I don't see how game developers can do anything to stop this. They sell a product and have little ( or should have little ) impact on after-market sales. I am sure Ford and GM would love to control how their used cars get sold, get some profit from the trading and selling of used cars, but the idea that any profit should return to Ford after they initially sell a car is ridiculous. Same goes for the video game industry.
I think the video game industry is realizing that they are not making an easy profit anymore, that gamers are becoming more selective about the games they play. I think there has been a stagnation in the originality and quality of gaming titles, and gamers are no longer quick to buy a game that is an obvious rushed out sequel. But they have to realize that buy flooding the market with poor quality games isn't going to drive up sales. Instead of penalizing used game buyers, how about making better quality games that people want to pay full price for and keep indefinitely!
If the game industry starts to mess up used game sales, forcing higher prices and demanding recuperation of profit from the sale of used games, the alternative is rampant piracy where those that would have spent $20 on a used game now will download it for free in spite of the gaming industry.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
It seems to me that this whining is probably just gaming companies whose products didn't make the sales they wanted. Used games are an obvious scapegoat.
Instead of "our game sucked so no one bought it," they can now say "our game didn't sell well because most people waited and bought used copies."
If they really have a problem with used games, they need to come up with a "better" content distribution method. Something "Steam-ish."
In order to support developers, I like to look at buying games like I would getting a girlfriend...do you want a new girlfriend, or a used one?
No, no they're not. "Capitalism is hard" is not a sound argument.
Somehow the print publishing industry has managed to survive libraries and used book stores. The music industry managed to survive used record and CD stores. The movie industry has managed to survive video rental stores selling their old stock. The automotive industry has managed to survive used car sales.
Stop whining and start figuring out how you're going to compete.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Huh, I haven't bought a new game in months, and its not just because there haven't been any that caught my eye. I've just started college, and paying for the books ate up all my money. And then there's also the fact that I've not been paying attention to games like I used to, I can live without them. If there's something amazing that comes out, either one of my friends will have it or I'll wait until it hits however many titles sold so that the price is reduced. I remember when I was young and all the best Nintendo games got the neat "Player's Choice" sticker and a price reduction down to $20, which was very reasonable for a game I knew was going to be good. :) Maybe they should start doing that again, to sell more 'new' copies?
I much prefer physical media when it comes to games, because downloadable games (such as on Steam) are a huge pain in the ass and offer no redistribution or assurance that they will be playable in the future when Valve tanks for pissing off its customers.
Lets see, what's the avg age of girls who haven't even dated yet....hmmmmm.
It's like the used/new car market: if you buy a game for $50 knowing you'll be able to sell if for $25, the TCO looks low and you'll be inclined to buy more games. If it's $50 and worth nothing after you've finished playing it (ie not allowed to sell on), where is the incentive to buy more? Like cars, there are always the people who will buy new for the 'I got it first' feeling, and the second-hand buyers who want a bargain and who may (just may) also buy new games from that company if they are good enough. Games companies, don't complain when people sell their old games - make sure you produce quality products that the 'got to get it first' buyers will want to buy in large enough numbers. Bottom line, if it's crap it won't sell to anyone, and you really don't want to use THAT method for cutting down on second-hand sales.
Watch my YouTube atheist video blog (user NickGisburne2000) for arguments against religion
What we need is a totally new concept of a game; something that people are willing to spend money on. Almost all new games out there give us more of the same, only with better graphics. Game makers should pay more attention to the story or the playability of a game. This is very hard to do because everything that makes a good game has been done before. But I only play adventure games, and I often find myself wondering why I enjoy lots of indie games with crappy graphics more than many new games with mind-blowing graphics and a 3D envirenment. It must be because the story is better in the indie games.
-- Cheers!
I can honestly say that's easier said then done. I've still got clawed hands from years of playing Xevious with those things!
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This is the usual bourgeois rubbish where they're all for the "frea mahkit" until they go down the drain because they sux0r. That's the moment where they whine to the governor to outlaw their competition instead of adapting themselves.
...and now they're getting what they deserve.
For the longest time, publishers were the dispicable middlemen who took the bulk of the profits. Now, due to advances in technology, the money is going to stay with the retailers, who can efficiently catalog and redistribute used copies, or to the developers who can distribute electronically and cut the publishers out of the loop entirely.
We're going to see the publishers spew this shit about how much more it costs to develop on next-gen systems and how used games make that harder, all while they're reeling from losing their cash; Cash which they keep as profits, and use for kickbacks, mis-management and marketing, which are the real bulk of game costs, dwarfing development costs by so much that it almost doesn't even matter if development costs double on net-gen systems. The same crap is happening to publishing/distributing companies in every industry. They're crying as their business models become obsolete. It's too bad that there's no good will towards them since they've been screwing people form both ends for centuries.
Let the publishers rot. Few will mourn the loss of 'Big Name' games and musicians, and their demise will make more room in the industry for artists and engineers as the money they keep from their big name titles gets spread out amongst an industry full of a larger number of lesser known titles. You won't have to be a rockstar anymore to be able to make a living as a musician, script writer, or game artist. The change is already started, and short of purchased legislation there's no way to stop it.
Game companies upset about selling used games? I've got a better idea: let's donate all our used games to the PUBLIC LIBRARY, then anybody who wants to play the game can check it out and play it for FREE. Game developers might get some sympathy for trying to put used game sellers out of business, but let's see how much support they get when they attack libraries... I can't see any reason why my "fair use" rights to a game should be any different from my fair use rights to a bock... can you?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I got my PS2 and Gamecube used, they came with used games (including Ico with the postcards which according to eBay is worth quite a bit these days). I don't care about used games, or used music. Hell, play a game, finish it or get bored of it, sell it on amazon marketplace and fund your next game/music purchase.
:( I just stopped myself from buying Thief III since I always wanted to get that, because I will have no time to play it!
For new games, I don't buy them straight away, I wait for the price to drop or for a strange pricing decision. Sometimes that nets me a bargain, such as Spellforce for a tenner on the release day.
TBH I very rarely pay more than a tenner for a game. Exceptions include GTA:SA (although I traded in some games from the aforementioned PS2 purchase that I never played to get it, so it only cost me £15 or so on release day) and GT4 (which I still suck at).
The only issue with my 'bargain hunt' gaming system is that I sometimes buy too many bargain games that I don't have time to play. Such as Metroid Prime.
I thought Owned, PWND, 0WN0R3D etc was the dirty word of the day in gaming.
Now I can imagine a kid yelling I T0TALLY UZ3D U N00B!!!!!11 but why?
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
It seems like the current business model is messed up. Development costs of games are skyrocketing, yet is the fun factor of games skyrocketing? No. If anything games are getting less fun to play.
Maybe the development companies should start focusing on making games that are fun with lots of replay value instead of remaking the same sports and FPS games over and over with just improved graphics. If games were that much more fun to play, more people would be willing to buy them new and keep them for longer periods of time, thus reducing the used inventory at stores like EB. People will then have to buy the game new because they can't find it used as easily.
This is something I think Nintendo is trying to achieve with the Revolution and I hope they succeed. Nintendo has proven they are the company that can actually make a profit in the game industry.
So, if Game publishers want to cut out the used games phenomenon, all they have to do start making games that take a lot longer to play to death. Fallout, Fallout 2, Master Of Magic. I've had Master of Orion 3 since it first came out, and haven't even played a quarter of the races. (If the #$%^ing DirectX controlled engine didn't still have a major bug in it, I'd probably be wasting a lot more time on it. I still loose about four hours a month to it anyway.) I still own every game I felt was worth playing, and you have no idea how big a headache running MOM on a high-end XP machine is.
As you say: raise the quality, and the problem reduces. Which hurts profits more, higher development costs, or sales lost to the used market?
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
That seems like a lot of work for a player who wants to play a whole season using realworld teams. He has to create all the teams in the league, make them balanced, while also taking into account their real world stats. Most sports fans would just make their favorite team really really good and all the others suck, but that would just make a really easy game, which gets boring quickly.
So, if I've been reading slashdot correctly, there are two things about game developers and publishers: 1) They're all greedy bastards 2) They all make crap games And, in order to stick it to them, because they don't make anything good (apparently Call of Duty 2, Civ and Battlefront II all sucked) just buy used games (or pirate... shhh). Let's tie it together using EA. Because of the next-gen stuff coming out (or not, depending on what place in line you were) and because of so much, as everyone here likes to say, crap, fewer games were sold on current gen. This, in turn, has led to EA layoffs. Now, put your business hats on. If people are buying fewer games, what do you have to do? Well, you have to make games that appeal to the mass market, and to mom buying things for Little Johnny. You have to make games based only on big franchises, preferably tied into movies, with additional in-game advertising as an additional source of revenue since your consumer is buying used or pirating. Do you think that will improve the quality of games? And what will you be buying in the used bin in a few years from now? Some great games came out this year that no one bought - Psychonauts being a prime example. What did people buy instead? They bought Madden. You know who you are... a number of people here complaining about sequels and non-innovative gameplay have a copy of Madden. Hell, you might even have picked one up used. So, EA has to make a decision. Come out with a franchise game based on an existing engine where they know they'll get "X" in sales, or come out with something innovative like Psychonauts and take the risk of losing their shirts on the title. You can call it greed all you want, for the most part developers and publishers are people who love games, that like to bring good games out, but who also have to live in a market environment where they know they have maybe two months to make money on a game before the used copies start showing up for the next Madden or GTA or NFS that comes out. And, they have to live in an environment where people just don't always buy the great games - but they always buy the next Madden. So tell me again how developers and publishers are greedy bastards who are making money hand over fist? Keep your chatter on tech topics like source codes and new virusses and just save the rest of us from reading your inane dribble on business topics you have no idea about.
Last week, I bought Kameo, a full price XBox 360 game, and Marble Blast Ultra, an XBox Live arcade downloadable game for a fifth the cost.
One of these games has myself and my flatmates addicted, the other I'm working slowly through mostly out of curiousity. I'm sure I don't have to tell you which one is which.
This is not to say that smaller, easier to play games are the way forward, or giant stunning masterpieces are a bad idea, it's just an example. However, I do strongly believe the only thing pushing up development costs is the developers themselves.
Let me go back to Kameo: the game is stunning. Fight scenes involving the main character and a few thousand trolls are incredible. The environments are richly detailed, and all have their own distinct character. However, I mostly find it over complex. There's nothing quite as frustrating as losing the camera behind a beautifully rendered tree while a couple of trolls beat you into the ground!
Developers need to focus on what's important. Make the game pretty, but not so much that it's over complex. Focus on making levels interesting, over attractive. Ensure the difficulty curve is effective, and you're most of the way there - you want to make sure the player is always challeneged, but never frustrated.
Haven't the publishers already figured out and dealt with this?
I know that I always look through the "Greatest Hits" for PS2 games. I mean, typically they are $20, which I don't mind playing for a "new" game, that I don't have to worry about having scratches, etc.
The only thing I would pay $50 for is a game that I have been waiting for that I know would be what I like to play (GTA, GT, etc). They release so many games now for the PS2 that there is almost always something in the Greatest Hits section that I am interested in playing.
"Seems sensible, because I'm in favor of paying artists for the pleasure they give me."
That seems fair.
But if I find the book/game/CD doesn't give you pleaseure, does the "artist" agree to give your money back?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Obviously they need to hook up with the College Bookstore Monopoly and just re-sell the same game media over and over at the same price.
It's not the games that suck as much as the business plans.
kulakovich
An interesting thought there. If publishers can create a market value index for used games, give them a "blue book" equivalent or some such, then they can control/influence the retained value of a used game. If a game is popular, and it's "blue book" value is high, it will be harder for retailers to pay customers dirt prices for the games, squeezing their profit margin on used games. If the
In any case, it could drive up the cost of used recent titles, lowering the incentive to buy used over new, and increase the risk for retailers, in all making it a less attractive business.
"Do they really have to have the NFL and NFLPA license?"
Yes
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
While this would be difficult to do currently, the hurdles will likely fall in the next year or two.
The solution is to tailor distribution packages and prices according to intended usage.
Continue selling physical media that can be resold/traded at current prices or perhaps a little higher.
Sell physical media with restrictions that tie usage to a single individual for less.
Sell digital media with time limited (perhaps even per unit of time, day or week) restrictions for less than the common price points of used media or rentals.
This way everyone gets what they want (albeit by paying what the item they want is worth instead of everyone paying the same price that averages the cost of all user types together). Want a copy that you can play forever or sell later if you get bored with it, you can get it. Want to just play a game cheaply and then be done with it (and not have to hassle with reselling the game later to recoup part of the purchase price thus making it cheap as you desire), you can get it. Want to have the game in perpetuity but know you'll never sell or share the game with other people, you can get it and cheaper than it would cost now because the company doesn't have to factor in lost sales in the price you pay due to something you won't even be doing.
Granted protection schemes and content delivery systems of today aren't yet up to the task, but these are solvable problems and I expect that day to not be long in coming.
Would game companies make more money if everyone paid full price and there was no used market or piracy? Well the decision makers need to be careful they base their decisions on achievable contexts, not candyland fantasies.
The problem is that development costs are just out of control. Until you can have games produced for under 500k again (consoles, not continual development like MMOs need) they are continually fighting for a smaller and smaller share of the market.
Hollywood is also having the problem. It's multi-million dollar movies that *require* a certain box office success to work. Some movies will cost more, but things are getting insane.
They are costing themselves out of business. Someone could make a killing making quality budget movies with talented "no-name" actors and making even a reasonable payback.
Back on games, I believe they need to figure out how much they can reasonably expect to pay and then use the best tools and methidology at that price-point. Your graphics won't be the best, but the best graphics works is just too expensive for too little improvement.
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
All media companies hate it. Movies, music, etc.
I don't need to download music anymore. I buy it used for $2, rip it, and then sell it to the next guy and get my money back.
Same with DVD's, if I wasn't too lazy to go through the ripping process with them.
Either way, I'm buying used copies. My money doesn't go to the labels or the *AA's, but some kid on half.com.
Sure, somebody had to have bought it at some point in the past, but the labels don't make a cent of my purchase, so lose one of their sacred "potential" sales. You know, the same potential sales losses that they claim from piracy. So buying used CD's makes you as bad as a pirate to them.
"If anything games are getting less fun to play."
If the game companies routinely sold you a game for $50 that occupied your every moment for 2 months (not only because it was good, but because you felt nicely challenged), at best they could sell you 6 games a year. Probably less.
But if they produce a game that amuses you for just 1 month, they can double their income. And if solve the game in 3 weeks... well, you get the idea.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I do not steal from Steven King when I buy a used copy of one of his books.
I do not steal from James Brown when I buy a used CD.
No publisher or author has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with a product I have paid them for.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
"If people are buying fewer games, what do you have to do? Well, you have to make games that appeal to the mass market, and to mom buying things for Little Johnny. You have to make games based only on big franchises, preferably tied into movies, with additional in-game advertising as an additional source of revenue since your consumer is buying used or pirating. Do you think that will improve the quality of games?"
Yes, but not necessariliy for EA. EA's other choice is to lower development costs and stop equating game quality with how good the textures are in the game, or how many cut scenese are there.
Now, I think the real answer is that by EA raising their development costs on fewer games, they effectively open a door for smaller companies to compete.
More companies producing games is better. Competition is good.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
The skyrocketing costs are not due to making changes in game play but in the successful game developers' increasing appetite for booze, coke, and whores.
Some people are willing to pay $50+ for a new game, only because they know when they finish they can turn around and sell it for $30+.
If they could not "get back" that money, they would buy fewer new games. More casual gamers like myself wait, find out what is good and what sucks, and buy the good used games six months or a year or so after release.
Think of what the car market would be like if you could not sell your used (excuse me, "pre-owned") car.
Movie studios used to charge $100 dollars for a movie (on video tape!). Only rental stores bought them, for the most part. Then they learned that the magic point was $15-20. Sure, they make less profit per sale, but they make so many more sales, it is well worth it. Perhaps video game producers should learn the same lesson?
The distributors need to set up a buyback program. In the game pack they should include a postage-paid envelope that you can ship the contents back in for a partial refund of the price when you no longer want the game. Then they won't have to worry about getting cut out of the loop. They can then distribute their own line of used games to whatever stores are interested.
Of course, I really think Steam will be the route they end up going.
I think developers should definitely get a cut of the profits these retailers are making by buying used games dirt cheap from people and reselling them. It makes perfect sense.
Why should the retailer, of all people, be able to buy used games for $5 and turn around and sell it for $20 without handing ANY profit over to the people who actually created or published the game?
...with paying $50 for a game that may very well suck ass and only grace my HD for one or two evenings. It's a sad state of affiars that MOST games suck and only a few are real "keepers". Partially this is a personal thing, but I hear similar complaints here and from gamer friends.
I play mostly PC games, but it's even worse on the consoles. How many ways can you repackage the same game?
I'll keep buying used and older (and therefore cheaper) games regardless of what the "game industry" thinks of this. Take away my abillity to do this and I'll stop buying anything from you and actively boycott you and encourage others to do the same.
There are several reasons I never bought HL2. 1. No physical media. 2. Overpriced. (I don't think I've ever payed $50 for ANY game). 3. Pain in the ass Steam. My gamer friends still bitch about Steam, and I agree that it sucks. So, while I admire much of what they did with HL2 and all it's add ons, the profit mongering makes me ill.
If your profit making system is broken, don't take it out on your innocent customers.
Gamers don't buy smart games that rely on gameplay, they buy shallow games based on screenshots and video previews, then complain that they are boring. One of the best games of the last year was Oddworld: Strangers Wrath. The art direction and voice acting was stellar, the story was engaging, and the action was white knuckle most of the way through. What happened to it? Well, how do you market a western filled with aliens? EA couldn't figure out how, so it just dumped it on the market with no advertising. You can find it new for under $20 now, and I encourage you to do so. I couuld play Stranger's Wrath sequels for the next 10 years. I want to see where the story goes from here, I want to see other stories in this world. Will I? No. The frustration over the broken publishing system has forced Oddworld to abandon the gaming market completely. Thanks EA. Why even bother to produce smart games anymore? Publishers don't want them, and when they do, gamers don't buy them. And it's not improving, it's getting far worse. I'm holding on to the games that I love, because I can forsee a market that no longerr produces any games I'm interested in. Thank god for the used games market, so I can always go back and find good games that I've missed while the new rack is full of Madden 2010 (hint: still football)
Vidgames are not prestige goods (perfume) where people equate higher price with greater quality. They ought to drop prices quarterly rather than annually.
Can't wait for the "No Resale" logos from Japan to make it over here...But of course if they do, and Gamestop folds (of course they wouldn't, I'm thinking "Licensed Reseller" is where this is all going.) and nobody sells used, will prices on new go down? No.Reason 360 Games start at $60? Dev costs? No, it's the same reason Oil keeps going up. Because they can. Because we'll bitch about it all the way to Gamestop where we preorder the latest-greatest-newest-coolest thing, but we won't actually do someting about it. Of course if we all buy $20 games, EA will just buy exclusive rights to whatever it is and charge $50 for a lame rehash...
Shift happens. Fire it up.
"Well, now that I've read your comment I see why you posted Anonymously. You're a dingleberry."
Says the guy who doesn't own a map.
"Try this: Sooner or later there will be no place on the planet where you cannot get high speed internet access, at least by today's standards."
Uh, huh. Well maybe the "dying business model" can get a moratorium till the ubiquitous "high speed internet access" comes along to save them.
This brings up an interesting question:
Why does everybody mod Half-Life (etc.) instead of using an open-source engine??!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The 360 is the first system I can think of since my Atari 2600 that I didn't lust after from the day it went on sale. The last new games I bought on release date were Katamari and Alien Hominid. Since then nothing has interested me enough to spend the time or cash. I'll wait until they drop in price or do without. This has given me time to fill out my older collections and I've started collecting the old arcade cabinets. They're old, expensive and hard to relocate from the seller to my home. Usually a trip across several states. To me the old console and arcade games are worth the time and money invested. Not because of the graphics but because they are fun to play. Over and over and over again. So, they can give me a game worth dropping the cash on or I'll go spend it elsewhere. If it's good, I'll keep it and it won't go to the resale store. -JM
"I don't think I'm in the minority when I say that I don't play graphics."
So how's that braille Tetris working out for you?
Tough shit. Deal with it. They're here to stay. Control your costs if you want to remain a viable business.
but when those EB fuckers charge only %5 below the new price, they can kiss my arse...
"Why does everybody mod Half-Life (etc.) instead of using an open-source engine??!"
Because you need good front-end tools to do that.
Bad game designers/creators have a lower ratio of good/bad ideas. Creativity is not so much as coming up with good ideas, but learning to generate enough ideas and recognise the good ideas sooner. If you can spend more money/time on it, the chances that you come up with something worthwhile.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Well, if you were in touch with what we're talking about you'd know that this already exists. It's called Steam
That wasn't the point. Do you think the Steam activation service will survive Valve's eventual bankruptcy? If so, how will that be accomplished?
OK, family and kids (is that redundant? Maybe) are important to you. Why should I be so concerned about doing something that society almost expects, yet I don't want to do? Maybe you view it as a measure of someone's success. I view it as a choice with no wrong answer.
That wife and kids will cost much more than any video game or porn, and I'm not just talking in terms of cash. I just don't want to commit time and money to this.
And oh... I've been living on my own and supporting myself since I left after HS, which may very well be another minority around here.
--
Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
Close all development shops and sell new copies of currently existing content until there is no longer a market for it. Besides, I am currently considering the notion that companies that don't sell replacement copies of games when you get them robbed from you are practically accessories to theft.
Every copy of a game sold has already been paid for. Nobody is stealing anything from anybody. They all just want to earn money several times from the same single item.
Well, thats too bad!
That's clearly the 'invisible hand' of the market at work right there. As the price drops, the sales rise - basic economics. But at the same time, Shadow The Hedgehog was right next to RE4 at the same price - but I wouldn't even have bought that if it had been a fiver.
So what I conclude from this is that A: games are overpriced, and B: crap games are really overpriced. Seriously, though, I wouldn't pay the 50 quid asking price for an Xbox 360 game even if the console came free with a packet of cornflakes. It would need to be as life-consuming as crack to be worth that much money.
You must think in Russian.
Great point -- mod up.
A lot of game manufacturers (the more intelligent ones) give a slight discount on downloaded versus "hardcopy" software, but mainly they're just factoring in the savings on their end: not having to press the CD, print the manuals, ship it, etc.
Rarely -- if ever -- have I seen a downloaded piece of software for what I'd consider to be a fair price, relative to it's purchased value (except for Free Software, of course). If you're going to sell something in a store for $50 in a format that can be resold, with a potential resale value of $20, then you'd best not try to charge me more than $30 for the non-resellable, downloaded version.
People may pay a certain price for convenience, but they're not that stupid. Even if they don't think about it, people understand that having a resellable product means it has a certain inherent value, and that downloaded products lack this. I think this is one of the many reasons why downloaded software hasn't taken off as quickly as many people once predicted.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
or to the developers who can distribute electronically and cut the publishers out of the loop entirely.
Because of the lockout-chip business model, you'll still need a publisher in order to act as a middleman between the developer and a game console maker, handheld video game system maker, or mobile phone carrier. Or do you want to have all games require the bulk and price of a laptop?
I thought Owned, PWND, 0WN0R3D etc was the dirty word of the day in gaming.
Just as used cars are now "pre-owned vehicles", used video games are now pre-0wned.
Someone could make a killing making quality budget movies with talented "no-name" actors and making even a reasonable payback.
There are already Sundance and several other film festivals. But who would nationally distribute the majority of films shown there? Likewise, who would negotiate with a console maker to distribute a given independent video game developer's title?
Well, how do you market a western filled with aliens?
Sell it to trekkers. Star Trek is often referred to as a space western.
Of course if we all buy $20 games, EA will just buy exclusive rights to whatever it is and charge $50 for a lame rehash...
Electronic Arts can't just buy up exclusive rights to, say, a Grimm or Anderson or Collodi or Dickens franchise.
It's just one more way to make more money on the game.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
were gifts. I'm an 'older' gamer, meaning I'm out of college, have full time job, full time girl, so I don't have the opportunity to play video games at my own leisure. I've got a free evening a few nights a week, and I can't pass up Eternal Darkness (gamecube) for $4.99. Some titles though you just gotta buy new, I've had Twilight Princess on preorder for almost a year now, me being a huge Zelda fan, I'll drop a 50 spot on it.
On the other hand, you're probably paying $20 for a game someone else bought new and then decided it sucks.
To some degree, I see your point. A lot of games wind up on the used shelf simply because they were so bad that the other person didn't want to play them. And some games, like Katamari Damacy, were so good that they were practically impossible to get as used games. Then again, one could argue that the average game has Y hours of gameplay (with Y being higher, usually about double, than the X hours of gameplay that you'd expend just beating the game) and after that, there's so many games that you simply won't ever get back to playing that older game. Me, I horde, because I think the prices paid for used games are criminal. I'll only sell my used games to people, and even then, I'd prefer to trade.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Not that I'm avid gamer myself, but don't some games need a serial in order to play online or connect to server (RCTW for example)? That's what stopped me a couple of times: how do I know that the guy who sold the used game to the store isn't still playing it and using the key?
But then again, the last game I bought was Medieval Total War. Black/White and NFS: Hot Pursuit were let-downs.
Wearing pants should always be optional.
The problem is that stores are increasingly unwilling to sell new games. A great deal of shelf space for PC games is devoted to empty boxes for pre-orders and if you don't pre-order most console games then you might be lucky and the store will have ordered one or two copies to put on the shelf. Often many games as recent as 6 months are more or less impossible to find new requiring you to purchase them used. All of this contributes to publishes using smaller print runs and making games that much harder to find in the future.
Take Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow. A great game that was still selling strong. While Konami has thankfully recently re-released it a few months ago there were only two options: buy it from a retail store that wants to charge ~$30 for a used title that will not include a manual, box, case, or anything but what is likely a scuffed-up cartridge or try to buy it on eBay and have to compete with the massive problems that are buying on eBay. Experiences vary (I personally have bought a bunch of GBA games on eBay without problems), but in the process of trying to purchase this one title from seemingly reputable sellers (e.g. not some guy from Hong Kong selling it at a rock-bottom price) ended up getting counterfeit copies twice.
The retail stores may not have great margins, but they've moved into a business model where they only want to deal in pre-orders and used games that are frequently overpriced. While I've gotten some very good deals on used games I still feel that the current climate that usually forces the consumer to purchase most titles used is terrible.
Did you know that most retailers don't make hardly a dollar on the new video games, because of the cost of them shipped? (My wife and I are opening a store to sell games, and toys and such) This is a good compelling argument for stores to take back some profit by selling used games. Most of that money for new games goes directly back to the publisher. There is really not much incentive for a store to sell new games.
I seem to recall that movies are like that too. The theaters don't make money on movie-tickets. The fees they have to pay to show the film eat away at almost the entire ticket price. They make money on concessions. That's why they're so dragonian about people bringing food into the theater. I wish I had a cite on that, though... it was in a discussion where someone in the movie industry was commenting on it. That and apparently the soda syrup is so cheap that it's actually less expensive to the theater to fill your soda cup to the brim without ice than it is to do the same thing with ice in the cup.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
When a new game is released, all the fanboys rush out and spend the $50-$60 , whatever. The rest of the planet waits until the prices start going down. I hate to use the "W" word in mixed company, but if you wait a bit, you can often buy a brand new game at Wall*Mart for only a few bucks more than the same title used at a place like EB.
Have you noticed that half-life 2 remains at the same ridiculously high price in stores?
The reason you'll see more stuff like Valve's Steam is that the publishers want to prevent customers for buying a new title for anything less than the suggested retail price. How does this affect Wall*Mart and other retailers? The direct downloading that Steam makes possible puts more money in Valve's pocket than a Wall*Mart sale does. So, Valve really doesn't care if Wall*Mart doesn't sell many copies. It keeps the price artificially high. Now, with the activation that Valve requires through Steam, it gets the bonus of preventing the sale of used games.
For their next trick, they'll sell you games in little bits and pieces for what seems a reasonable price, until you add it all up, and find out you paid...drumroll please...$80 - $100 for the game.
And, due to their marvelous distribution plan, those prices will never, ever fall.
Of course, what's the alternitive? Buying a game cheap only to find it has that crummy Starcrap DRM that messes with your CD/DVD burner? Hell with it, I'm going back to playing Frozen Bubble and Armagetron.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
There are, of course, a pair of 2600 in my garage, one of which is slowly being cannibalized for parts, along with spare joysticks for parts, I forget how many dozens (hundreds?) of cartridges, and a handful of older games of similar vintage ( I wonder if any of the Atari pinball games still work. Oddly, they tend to lose their video paddles (blink clean off the screen) as they age.
hawk
Mmmmm, Shiner Bock. Great beer. Every time I buy a new Bock, I always put it back into free environmental circulation after I'm done with it! ;-)
"Have you noticed that half-life 2 remains at the same ridiculously high price in stores?"
Wow! You mean that the demand for HL2 has dropped, therefore the price should drop? Amazing.
This loophole will be closed with the transition to online distribution.
My other first post is car post.
Interesting point though - at least in the UK, most of the big names (Ford, Vauxhall, VW) do set up large used car networks, and essentially do exactly that, managing to take a cut on the resale of their own products. So why not an 'EA nearly new' brand, with guarantees on the used media etc in much the same way?
Try publishing a work based on Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty and see how long it is until the lawyers from Disney come a calling.
I see works based on such classic stories whenever I walk into the book aisle at my local Walgreens store. (For those reading outside the United States who do not recognize the chain, read the Wikipedia article about Walgreens.) As long as a work doesn't use character designs obviously ripped from works copyright Disney, Disney has no case. If you include major story elements that Disney left out (for example Disney's Pinocchio is notorious for the life having been abridged out of it), you're even safer.
Under copyright law, there's no infringement if there's no copying, and there's no copying if there's no substantial similarity apart from shared public-domain elements. Are you thinking of some other exclusive right that Disney might assert? Or are you claiming that Disney will have its retained legal counsel risk being disbarred by intentionally bringing such a frivolous lawsuit?
Forgive me if this has been posted already, but I find the problem mainly being availability. I recently purchased a PS2 and started looking for some of the recommended games from friends, co-workers, and gamerankings.com.
I can tell you that it is nearly impossible to find a copy of Disgaea, new or used, anywhere in a retail store. Most of the games I'm looking for can only be purchased on Ebay. Why? Retail stores will only stock recent or high-selling titles. Now, with that in mind, go walk over to the Movie DVD section and you can still find movies that were released twenty or more years ago. Personally, I find that old console games are even worse to locate than old PC games, even though consoles reportedly sell way more units of games, hence the "decline of PC gaming" we've been recently reading about. I'm even having trouble locating PS2 games barely six months old.
I'm one of those weird people who usually like to have a new item because I generally take really good care of my possessions. If stores would offer the games I wanted to the same extent I can find most movies, I probably wouldn't have to buy them used. It'd be nice to be able to walk into Best Buy/Fry's/Circuit City and be able to pick up Final Fantasy VII or X-Com, but given their age, it's Ebay or no way.
Ask any of the book / magazine publishers out there. I can buy a cookbook retail for $25. Or I can wait, and buy that same book used at Half-price books. There are even repositories of books where anybody could check out the book without paying for it. In the end it is the writer that is getting screwed. Why should software be any different?
Just because you don't know how doesn't mean it can't be done.
I was asking you how to do it.
Are you under the impression that you can't buy the official kit for some reason?
Yes. One has to already have a Nintendo license in order to buy the official kit. This page on a web site maintained by Nintendo about becoming a licensee indicates that one has to already have a business plan, a team of developers who are somehow already experienced, a marketing plan, and other documentation in order to get a Nintendo license. Should one not start working on a garage-type game before having hired someone who speaks businessese to devise a business plan and then waiting for Nintendo to approve one's license?
you start by not assuming you can play in the major league because you held a bat once.
Trouble is that on handhelds, I know of no minor league to speak of. With the sharp decline in sales of stand-alone PDAs in favor of smart phones, either you're developing for Nintendo or Sony products, which are locked to their manufacturer's software, or you're developing for phones, which 1. have highly suboptimal controls and 2. are too often locked to the wireless carrier's software.
Is it not already well established how you become an experienced software developer?
In this period of alleged jobless growth and outsourcing to less developed countries, how to gain experience is not well established if one's disability limits how well he or she can learn to become a salesman. I have unsuccessfully looked for three years for a programming job, and every single employer that I have contacted seems to prefer people laid off during the dot-com crash to people with a shiny new four-year degree. Besides, in the context that we're talking about, if the console makers claim that you can't develop games for their systems unless you already have experience developing games, preferably for similarly closed systems, then how does one land a first job?