Slashdot Mirror
Publishers Want a Slice of Used Game Market
grigory writes "GameStop's business model depends on a healthy flow of used games: incredibly '[GameStop] enjoys a 48 percent profit margin on used games.' Game publishers do not see a cut of the secondary sale because it falls under the first sale doctrine. Now, some
publishers and manufacturers want a piece of the pie. 'One marketing executive, who did not want to be identified for fear of angering GameStop and other retailers, said the used game sale market is still depriving publishers of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new game.' Interesting picture of companies fighting for your business, and (surprise!) complaining about being left out of the money stream."
and gets it!
Someone should tell them that, since Steam appeared there is no used games market.
Hell, come to think of it, now Steam's here, very soon there won't be such things as publishers!
Sucks to be them! Maybe someone should tell them?
I wonder if these game publishers (and music, movie and book publishers) ever stop to think about what they are saying. If the logic is that they have some ongoing interest in the product they sell us, then doesn't that imply that as a purchaser we have an ongoing interest in the money we give them? So when GPG takes the money I spent and buys new equipment for their offices, shouldn't I be getting a new monitor out of the transaction as well?
Or do they figure that this only goes one way?
If a bookstore can sell used books without giving any money to the publisher, I fail to see why a game store can't sell used games. For that matter, are we going to insist that everytime a geekstore resells pokemon, magic cards, miniature collectibles or other similar items that they need to pay the publisher a fee? Or the same thing for baseball cards. And if the stores need to, why not the individuals? (Maybe I shouldn't be too loud about this but I'm sure the Post Office would love to get money from stamp collectors buying and selling their stamps. Or the Treasure Department and coins...)
If your idea sounds ridiculous when the product is replaced by a functionally identical product, the idea is probably ridiculous.
If they are actually successful in doing anything about this, what next? Car manufacturers complaining because they don't get a "cut" of used car sales, because used car dealers are providing an "easy alternative" to buying new?
Either that, or game publishers will be the next on the bailout list...
Executives at G.M. are wondering why they never thought of this one.....could've saved them from bankruptcy.
Sell us "second run" games for $20 or less as new/unopened products a few months after release, and we'll cut out the middleman (gamestop).
I don't buy $60 games unless I *really* want them -- badly. Otherwise I wait until I can get them for under $20 -- any way possible.
had done this also? Would they have managed to get their way, one is forced to wonder? Would GM be thriving if they had a cut of every used car sale? Who the F--- do these publishers think they are anyway?! If this happens will I have to pay Dell every time my business sells a refurbished Dell PC? Hell, the pawnbrokers alone will never allow such a thing to go through.
These are somewhat rhetorical questions and the slippery slope fallacy applies a bit. Still, the principle is sound as a reason why the publishers shouldn't get a cut of used game sales, in my opinion.
You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
This is just like with a car, or some other item, where the original manufacturer gets a kickback every time it is resold because -- hey, wait, they don't get anything from it because that's a stupid idea! The original manufacturer has already sold it and given up any future interest in it for a fair price! Why the hell would the maker of a bad video game get more money every time EB manages to fob it off again on an unsuspecting customer?
it's the original sale, that's their slice.
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
I Imagine GM and all the other car makers would be flush with cash if they could have gotten a cut of the sales from the used car market.
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
So they want to sell only a LICENSE for a game, which is not transferrable? Screw them! We're not talking about a $10,000USD business software package here, we're talking about a fuckin' GAME. Greedy fucks.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Just like cutlery manufacturers want to charge people who resell their knives and forks at garage sales. ... Right.
Or couch manufacturers who take a cut when their chairs get resold on ebay.
Someone should tell them that, since Steam appeared there is no used games market.
Steam is for PCs running Windows. Most PC gamers don't think to connect their PC to their TV, despite the VGA input on the majority of HDTVs and the existence of affordable VGA-to-SDTV converters. Therefore, video game genres designed for same-room multiplayer on a large monitor, like Bomberman series or Super Smash Bros. series, tend to be underrepresented on Steam just as they are in the rest of the PC game market. Not everything is a first-person shooter.
Hell, come to think of it, now Steam's here, very soon there won't be such things as publishers!
Publishers exist to separate the wheat from the chaff. Otherwise, you'd have the situation like on Apple's app store, where you don't know which of the 25,000 apps are worthwhile.
...the first time the game was sold.
Clearly the reason there's a huge profit margin in used games is that new games are priced way too high.
Stop whining, you greedy arseholes!
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
One marketing executive, who did not want to be identified for fear of angering GameStop and other retailers, said the used game sale market is still depriving publishers of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new game.
Yeah, I bet the name of this marketing executive was "Mr Strawman".
How we know is more important than what we know.
This would be blatently in violation of the first sale doctrine, not just the gray file sharing "i bought it, and now am selling it for zero dollars to a stranger" argument. Good luck getting that done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
and then see how many people buy a used game when its a measly few bucks cheaper instead of $10-15 off. New games should follow these pricing guidelines in my opinion to reach a critical mass of sales success:
$10 - bargain bin chumps
$20 - standard rate new game
$30 - AAA rated new game (think like the extra 10 bucks you pay for BluRay discs over DVD)
$40 - AAA rated special edition bundle mumbo jumbo (i won't buy em, but some people like the extras I guess)
If a bookstore can sell used books without giving any money to the publisher, I fail to see why a game store can't sell used games.
That's because you're rational, and understand the first sale doctrine.
Remember - these companies that are all in the selling entertainment business hold up the Holy Grail of money streams as their ideal. The RIAA. Make an item once, and every single time it changes hands, media - whatever - make a buck on it.
It's insane, but there's also a metric ton of cash involved, so of course the more unscrupulous types are going to gravitate towards that. Notice how the source who said the gaming companies "want in" on that revenue stream to which they are not entitled, refused to come forward and name himself/herself.
Any shakedown racket in its infancy would behave the same.
Instead people say "Hey, I want to buy a CHEAP game, and don't care if it is not the newest thing out there."
So if you are a game company wanting to get into the 'cheap, not recently released game' market, it is easy. Simply cut your prices for the stuff you brought out last year by 30% and for two years by 50%.
You are not going to be cutting into your 'new releases' money, and you will be giving the people what they want.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I really don't understand the perceived conflict between retailers and game publishers. Retailers like GameStop pimp new releases just as much as they do used games. And anyway, if no one bought the game new, then GameStop wouldn't have any used games to sell! So if anything, GameStop needs more people to buy new games so they have more used copies to buy and sell at their huge profit margins. Unfortunately, game makers just don't seem to comprehend this relationship - so they're edging closer to a download-only model. Just look at this useless new doorstop PSP that Sony is releasing.
Freedom is drinking a beer in the park when you're supposed to be at work.
If they want a piece of the used game market, they can open their own stores and compete against GameStop just like everyone else.
One marketing executive, who did not want to be identified for fear of angering GameStop and other retailers
He must be a good one to get such an undeserved soapbox for a foolish idea.
That, or this story is bogus.
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
In the rest of the world, the only time the original Vendor/Distributor/Manufacturer/Whoever gets a cut of a second sale is when they're adding some value, by doing a factory refurbishment, or inspection, so why should the game publishers be any different?
They can "refurbish" the game: Reset any DRM installation restrictions, clear out the multi-player accounts, check the disk for scratches, and replace any missing bits of paper in the box.
Then they can have a cut.
Until then, welcome to second hand sales.
There's no Steam for the Nintendo DS. (as an example)
The Nintendo DSi has the functionally equivalent DSiWare.
While Sony and Nintendo are slowly moving towards more and more DLC and downloaded games, they don't come with manuals or boxes
You're right that they don't come with boxes, but all WiiWare and Virtual Console games that I've tried have an instruction manual under the Home menu.
The "downloadable" option isn't available for older machines - the heart of the used market
Apart from the Nintendo DS and PlayStation 2, older machines don't have any commercial developers to complain about them. There aren't any new SKUs for the GBA, the original Xbox, the GameCube, or any pre-PS2 system, unless you count the few games sold by homebrewers.
wtf is up with /.?
as I scroll down the page sometimes the text is all white and the slider on the left disapears, I have to select the text to read.
...once they start selling used games.
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
First sale doctrine. They can want it all they want, there's no reason why they should get it.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Some games are good, just not so good I need them ASAP, and not so good that they're worth ~$70. (CAD, as I'm in Canada, don't know exactly how much less they are in the US, and don't feel like looking it up) If all games were $50 or less new, I'd probably buy a lot more new games. Most games I buy for $30 or less used. %50 off is nice, $70 for 10 hours of gameplay isn't.
It's also worth noting that some games don't get cheap even when used until months after they've been released. Fallout 3 is currently only $5-10 less for a used copy, so I may as well buy it in the shrink wrap.
The only thing I can see game publishers doing to try to sell as many first hand copies as possible is have a grace period of a month or two from the publishing date when you can't sell used copies, but they'd probably have to pay off stores to honour such a deal. Expecting a cut of re-sale of your product is just silly.
--Not to be worried, Pitr fix.
In the context of a game "publisher" usually means "Guys with the cash." Basically the publisher is the company that ponies up the money to have the game made. That is why you'll see even companies like Epic have publishers. It isn't as though Epic needs someone else's name to sell their game. It is that they don't want to incur all the financial risk. So you get a publisher to pay for it, often a much bigger company.
Gears of War was published by Microsoft, for example. So suppose they spent $20 million on making it. Not an unreasonable amount for a game that quality, maybe they even spent more. Now let's suppose it had bombed for whatever reason. Had Epic incurred that cost, it would be real hard. They are a private company that employs about 75 people. Private means they can't just sell stock to raise money. A $20 million loss would equal over a quarter million dollar loss per employee.
Now MS is a massive public company. They've got the cash sitting around that $20 million is peanuts. What's more they can sell stock if they need to raise money. Thus the risk is something they can afford to take.
More over, many dev studios aren't sitting on much cash at all. So they need money during the development time of the game. After all you have to pay the programmers and artists and such while the game is being written, not after it sells. So even if they were willing to assume the risk, they just can't since they just don't have the money it would take.
You do see some companies that self publish. Stardock has done this. Galactic Civilizations II was written by them and published by them. Means they self financed the game. All the risk and all the rewards are theirs alone. They've now gotten in to publishing other games as well.
So publishers probably aren't going away. Many development studios will want someone to pay for their game, and that is what a publisher does. The publisher won't actually distribute the game, they'll just fund it, and then sign agreements with services like Steam and Impulse to get the game to consumers.
Also, as big as Steam is, you are kidding yourself if you think it is more than a fraction of the market. There are plenty of publishers that don't release games on Steam, and even those that do are often not exclusive. EA sells many of their games on Steam now which gives Steam a huge boost in titles since EA is massive, however EA also sells their games in stores. The store copies don't use Steamworks or anything, they are totally independent of Steam.
BOO-FUCKING-HOO
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
Quoting every Scooby-Doo episode ever made, the game marketing executives were also heard to say "And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!"
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Ask a manager or employee of a gamestore what their markup is on new games - what they actually make as profit. If they're not complete assholes, they'll tell you - a games store makes only a couple of bucks off of the new stuff, if that - the publisher keeps the remainder. Pay 65$ for a new game, the publisher gets at least $60 of that.
Pay $20 for a used game, the games store gets around 15-19$ of that, depending on the condition of and demand for the game. The markup may seem a bit ridiculous, but independent games stores would be out of business if it wasn't for the used market - the margins on new games are so thin that they'd have to move an enormous volume of product to make up for the difference they see in returns on used games.
I'm all for the used market, even though I buy most of my games new - it keeps the stores in business, even with dozens (hundreds?) of copies of crap and not-as-popular-as-they-thought-they-would-be (Nintendogs, anyone?) games sitting on the shelves.
And while we're at it, how about I get a cut of the resale each time a house I've built changes hands?
Maybe when you buy a used car you should send a percentage to the original manufacturer....
Or maybe all that Lego I get for my nephews at yard sales for 25cents/bucket, the guys throwing the yard sale should mail a penny back to the company.
Does this not all seem just a tad crazy?
It's no different than what they're asking.
I say don't drink and drive, you might spill your drink. Before you get behind the wheel just stop and think.
I've been a gamer for over a decade now. The fact of the matter is the market is diluted with crap, and even a lot of the "hits" are a lot less fun/shorter than the games from last decade. I mean, sure, Gears of War is fun for a time, but how does it even compare to Deus Ex or Jedi Knight? I mean, you can even see how video games have progressed in the sequels of some titles. For example, compare Deus Ex 1 & 2, or Thief 2 & 3. Mario Party 2 and Mario Party 8.
Then there's the sheer amount of crap, even from "trusted" and "quality" companies. Like Soulcalibur Legends. My friend is a big fighter game fan and bought that game. Usually Soulcalibur is a "quality" title, but that game was so shitty! It seemed like a demo it was so short and lacking features.
You raised the prices of games by $10 and eroded their value. People aren't paying for new games because the price of a "new game" isn't worth it to them anymore. And it shows. It used to be that a New game would cost $50 and GS would be selling it used for $35. That means there's a lot of people buying the new game and few buying the used game (high supply of used games, low demand.) Now, the games costs $60 new and $55 used. Which means the exact opposite (low supply of used games, high demand.)
If I was a game publisher and I wanted to kill the market for used video games, I'd lower my prices to $30 and probably sell more than twice as many copies, making it up in volume. I mean, if you want the new Gears of War, you'll try and save $5 off of it because it already costs so much. But the difference between $25 and $30? Not many people care. In addition, when I get sick of GoW and return it, I'm getting $30 bucks back. That's like a tank of gas. What would you get back for a $30 game, $15 bucks? That's not enough motivation.
I completely agree with you but their argument is simple: people are buying games new, installing it on their computer, installing any cracks necessary to make it play without the CD, then selling the game second hand (and then the cycle continues).
They can't stop the NOCD cracks. They've tried. They can't run the game from CD, the performance is lousy. So all they can do is whine and lobby.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I hadn't purchased anything from Gamestop until recently. My employer moved offices recently and now we are across the street from a Gamestop. I went over to purchase LIttle Big Planet and they assumed I wanted the used copy. There was only $5 difference between the used and the new and I figured I'd rather get the new. I knew something was up when the guy behind the counter kept telling me I could save a few dollars if I got the used one. Was I really sure I wanted the new one? Are you really sure? I figured they must be doing very will with their used games. Most of the store is full of used games.
What does Gamestop pay for used games? They must have some soft of dynamic system that keeps track of demand and quantity on hand before they quote a price. Is it worthwhile to sell games to Gamestop? They wanted to sell me on a membership card that would give me 15% when I sold a game to them.
The few games that I have bought used were from Gamefly. The nice thing about Gamefly is they at least give you a *new* case (not a beat up and gross one), cover art, and the booklet. I supposed I'm picky though, I don't buy a game unless I know I really want to keep a copy for a long time.
So, copying software is theft, "just like stealing an apple, or stealing a car. There is no difference; you're stealing a product". And yet, when it comes to reselling those products, different rules apply? Once I've bought my apple, or car, or furbie, I can sell it to whoever I want for whatever price I want. Why would software be different if you want it to be treated as a tangible object?
If a bookstore can sell used books without giving any money to the publisher, I fail to see why a game store can't sell used games.
First sale laws already distinguish among formats of works. In the United States, for instance, you can't rent phonorecords (copies of sound recordings) or copies of PC games without the copyright owner's consent (17 USC 109).
Sony and Panasonic aren't complaining about used TV sales, Toyota isn't complaining about used car sales, and Dell isn't complaining about people reselling their computers. In what world is someone reselling the game considered taking away money from the publishers? Lets set aside the fact that some people will pay full price for a game because they know that they can resell it later and recoup some of the cost...
Its not like people are going out to buy used games. They want cheap games. If they kept publishing their old games, and dropped the prices as the games got older, I'm sure they could take a huge chunk out of used game sales. Its not like I'm falling all over myself to save $5 off of a new game at GameStop. Seriously, every time I buy a recently released game, they offer me a used copy for $5 less. Oh boy, sign me up!
It looks like that, instead of thinking about the problem and adjusting their business strategy, they've chosen to whine like petulant children about something that every other industry in the world (well, at least those based on real physical objects) doesn't have a problem with. Or maybe my brain just isn't sophisticated enough to understand their business genius. Either way, their little rant makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
"It's a real problem right now and it's a loophole that people are using, and we're getting cut out of that model," Denis Dyack, president of developer Silicon Knights, said at a gaming conference in the spring.
Just wow.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Good luck getting that done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
I see your 17 USC 109(a) and raise you a 17 USC 109(b): Record Rental Amendment.
Not to suggest the obvious, but the publishers seriously want to sell used games then they could take the games that aren't sold after a period of time and sell the at half the price of new games.
It's just software. And with software you have relatively high fixed costs for development and then you have practically no marginal costs for selling the product. Suppose for the first year, you sell X number of games of a title at $69, .3X at $69 the second year, and .1X units at $69 in the third year. Used games are selling .4X units at $30 in the third year. 0.4X times $30 brings more revenue than 0.1X times $69.
So just price the unsold new games of that title at slightly less than the used games of that title are selling for. Since you have no marginal costs on your sales product, you will be profitable. But no, you're a fucking marketing major and math is hard, so you want to pass a law to prohibit any 'advanced' business model that your little brain doesn't understand.
I'm surprised that with so many game companies in New England, no one seems to have adopted the sales model of Filene's basement.
the used game sale market is still depriving publishers of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new game
Good. All-too-easy alternatives are usually called "competition" where I come from, and competition is generally considered a good thing in a capitalistic economy. This bozo is essentially claiming that it's unethical for someone to choose a different product over his.
some publishers and manufacturers want a piece of the pie
I have no problem with them getting a piece of the pie, if they add some kind of value to the piece. Set up a used game market, for instance, and take a cut of the transactions that utilize it. But if someone bypasses it and sells direct, they have no right to complain.
I totally agree with you about prices. I'd even agree if the ones past bargain bin were bumped up 5 or 10 dollars.
Right now the prices they expect are at the point where buying a game is a gamble. Shelling out 50 bucks and then finding you got sold a piece of crap posing as a game sucks since there's basically no way in hell you're getting a refund if it's a PC game.
20 or 30 bucks would mean I'd be a bit freer in choosing to try out a game. 50 bucks though? I'm gonna think long and hard before buying it. And if I get burned do you think I'm gonna buy another one from you? Don't count on it.
The game companies get their cut at the time of first sale. The selling cost of the game already includes in the price the value to the customer of the ability to resell the product. The assumption the game companies are making is that if they lock this out, they can sell more product at the current prices, but instead what will happen is that they will be have to drop their prices some amount to account for the fact that it is less valuable to the purchasers.
This is a fairly standard element of elementary economics; for instance, see this chapter of Price Theory, where virtually this exact problem is problem number 12 in chapter two of the book.
Which just goes to show that for all the supposed value of an MBA, people in business still routinely fail to apply even the simplest economics to their own worlds.
How about they actually make games that have replay value and don't suck so that nobody will want to trade them in?
They can get a cut from my sales of used games when I get a cut from their sale of non-used games.
Yeah, I understand this is more focused towards large B&M places. But honestly the logic behind this is as unreasonable as the idea that Wizards of the Coast should be able to tax trades/sales of single Magic the Gathering cards. Or that Ikea should get a share of the profit when you sell their old furniture away at a garage sale. How far back can one go on this, though? Can the publisher ask for extra money? The people who made the physical units? The people who shipped the units? The voice actors?
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
"because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new "
For the used car industry, used firearms, used washers and dryers.
OMG
Can we say screw you publishers.
On the face of this, the game companies realize that the idea is crazy as is. But seriously, the un-voiced issue here is that if this is on their mind, they're going to figure out a way to make it happen. Rather than reply with other wacky examples of why this is a stupid Idea, I think people should be focused on what this story really means. It means that game companies are going to figure out a way to keep their hands on your game. PC publishers have already done this to the point where Gamestop can't resell PC games. Now the publishers are eying the console market. Within a year, I'd wager they'll have some system in place that makes reselling console games nearly impossible.
What's up with this box everyone has to think inside of or outside of? Why does there have to be a box?
"the used sale market is still depriving of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new "
This is the precise concept that motivates the First Sale Doctrine. You only get paid for selling something yourself. Why should you get paid when someone sells something that used to be yours? When you sell your used car, do you have to give a kickback to the person you bought it from? It makes no sense at all given the set of commerce rules that we have come to accept over the centuries.
Really there is no end of the negative consequences that result if you decide that First Sale is not a valid concept. You have to question the entire meaning of the word "sale" if you do this.
Make a good game that people will want to play over and over and ,*gasp*, keep!!!!
"Publishers Want a Slice of Used Game Market". And I want a torrid night of passion with Keira Knightley. I'm expecting to be disappointed. I hope the publishers are, too.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
screw them let us unite against game publishers by selling it at a price whatever we want. i am willing to trade my resident evil 5 with anyone who has Fable2.
... hell, first time playability. concentrate on that rather than eking out 2 more fps or one more coloured lighting effect, and I'll keep your fucking game and replay it, rather than consigning it to the secondhand shop after 12 hours trying to get some of my money back.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Games that you can't resell are worth less. How could anyone think this will lead to more revenue for publishers? People won't be willing to pay as high of prices for new games as they do today if there is no resale value. For example, the market for used cars supports high new car prices. You're less hesitant to spend $30k on a new car if you can sell the car after a few years and recoup some of your investment.
They are certainly welcome to a second slice of the pie... All they need to do is create a buy-back program, and re-market the game.
Problem solved! (Without employing rocket science - I think)
All I can say are publishers (games, dvd, cd, etc) are all losing the plot on reality. I have to say they have the most warped views on ownership, piracy and the internet. Trade of used goods has ALWAYS been around, and frankly they didn't make it twice so they should only get the cut once. It's like they think "f*** the customers, this is an opportunity for revenue, or this is costing us, so lets slap it as unethical and wage war." Get out of the office for a second and realize how the world works. If you want more primary sales, lower the damn prices. Deal with it. Piracy != theft != resale
They want to be like the government:
* Tax it when it's born
* Tax it when it lives
* Tax it when it's traded
* Tax it when it's moved
* Tax it when it crosses borders
* Tax it when it has a building put on top of it
* Tax it when it dies.
* Tax it when it seeps into ground water.
* Tax it when it's posted on slashdot.
Table-ized A.I.
moreover, according to this theory, if i sell my ford, i should pay ford for it?
or, if i sell my used mobile phone, should i pay for it to the manufacturer?
that don't sound right. if anything i should get a refund, since i obviously don't like the game enough to keep it.
Yeah and then we can get those pesky book publishers to get the authors to write books with replay value so that they don't suck and nobody wants to trade them in. And we can get the people who build houses to build houses that have great replay value so they don't suck and people don't want different ones of those things either. And maybe we can get slashdot users to write posts that don't suck...
Why bother
In the age of the internet, games are uniquely poised to capitalize on aftermarket sales (and sales due to piracy) in a way that no medium in history has been able to, and it can all be done just by modifying the design of the product. Here's some examples that work extremely well:
-DLC. Look at Burnout Paradise. Two years later, it's still getting meaty, significant upgrades on a regular basis. The game has had ELEVEN content updates, 5 of which were paid / premium add-ons. The publisher gets paid for each of those! Bethesda knows how to nail this too, despite some early mishaps with horse armor. Rockstar's figuring it out too. The right DLC will make you a ton of cash, even from the pirates.
-Recurring subscriptions: Some MMO's give away their clients, and make their money on premium DLC and monthly subscription fees. Apogee understood this years ago, with the original Wolfenstein shareware. Download it and get 1/6 of the game, which was a meaty, satisfying experience on its own. But pay up and you can get the other 5/6ths!
-High replay value: Rock Band & Left 4 Dead's co-operative multiplayer emphasis give them huge replay. I almost never see a reasonably priced copy of Rock Band sitting on the used shelf (trust me, I've looked, I want to import the songs into Rock Band 2). Rock Band follows the DLC model, too! The longer you convince someone to hold onto your game, the lower the aftermarket churn, and the higher you can keep your MSRP before you're undercut by the used market. Just ask the creators of Mass Effect, or Super Mario Galaxy (I dare you, get all 242 stars).
-In-game advertsiing. The people who buy games used are necessarily doing so after the big retail splash of the original launch. These new eyeballs can view ads impressions just as well as the original pair, though, and the value of that digital billboard is only as high as the number of people who can look at it at any given time.
Efforts to thwart the aftermarket's existence entirely, through one-time activation keys and emphasizing downloadable games, are just going to piss the customer off. The days of making a 4-hour singleplayer game with no replay value beyond deathmatch/ctf and expecting to have high sell-through are over; The high-budget $60 Terminator: Salvation game is only 4 hours long, it's going to be littering the shelves of used stores. The only way to stop the used market from undercutting the new market is to make the new experience so compelling, people don't want to part with their new game for a long, long time.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
I don't think PCs are ruled out. "and may be designed for other purposes." In a very real sense, a PC is a game console that is "designed for other purposes."
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Incredibly the publisher gets a cut of the new sale because at that point they have part interest in the ownership of the item.
Once the item is sold to a punter the person owns the item, the publisher then has no interest, no share, no comeback.
Which is why I guess the games market is trying to move away from media being the product to a download and licence model with no transference of licences.
I think this guy needs to re-read what ownership actualy means..
What the game companies fail to realize, is that they make money of the used game market as well. Here are two possible scenarios:
1. Gamer sells back some games to gamestop, takes that money, and buys/reserves a new game. I don't go to gamestop often, but when i do, they always seem to have a special where you get extra store credit when you turn in something like 3 games and put it towards reserving an upcoming title.
2. A sequel to a popular game is about to come out, and a potential customer has never played the original. He buys a used copy of the original, likes it, and decides to buy the sequel when it is released.
Maybe, if game companies don't want people selling their games, they should make ones with more replay value, or at least aknowledge that used game sales already benefit them.
they could announce they were cutting the price of games by 1/2 unless gamestop revenue shares. If they did that then the price of used games would drop by half too and game stop would lose half its revenue!
The price drop would actually not mean fully half revenue loss for the publishers because they would sell more games.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I don't think PCs are ruled out.
They are (or at least my IP law books says so). IIRC, neither software nor music CDs can be rented. But books and video recordings can. BTW, the relevant distinction in that language is probably between "limited purpose computer" and "general purpose computer."
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Every time I buy a used game I'm contributing to the problem, but as a consumer I think it's foolish to buy a new game if a used one is equally as entertaining but $5-$25 cheaper.
If everyone stopped buying used games, the prices would go down, and lifetimes of game studios would dramatically increase. But I know very few consumers (including myself) who would turn down a bargin on a matter of principal unless it crossed the line of legality (and many consumers cross that line.)
I'm hoping for a future with services like Valve's "Steam" for non-PCs. The ease of use (e.g., lack of cumbersome DRM) and convenience make it a win-win for publishers and consumers.
And then we can get book writers to write books with more re-read value, and get house builders...
Why bother
Bingo! You've figured out the blatant contradiction that supporters of strong IP are facing. On the one hand, they want it to be just like traditional property, and to act like it's a natural right, and can be stolen, etc. On the other hand, they want to turn around and license up the wazoo.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
There is an easy solution: Sell only used games.
Busy helping non technical users of OpenOffice.org - http://plan-b-for-openoffice.org/
For that matter, are we going to insist that everytime a geekstore resells pokemon, magic cards, miniature collectibles or other similar items that they need to pay the publisher a fee? Or the same thing for baseball cards.
This doesn't seem fair to me - I'm not claiming that this publisher fee is justified, just that you're being quite disingenuous. Games are relatively unique in that they often have fairly low re-use value (as opposed to music that you'll listen to again, films that you'll watch with friends etc) and don't really lose any value over time - whereas physical property gets damaged through wear and tear and so on.
Furthermore, as a high-volume product there is a significant initial expense to recoup - unlike a house/apartment where something is sold once to make a given profit. If more are built, the ratio between investment and return remains reasonably constant.
Games, on the other hand, depend on high sales to be profitable and offset frequently high development costs and associated risk, lose little perceived value in the eyes of the consumer (and rightly so - you're paying for the game, not its media), and in many cases there's a short turn-around between buying a game and completing it (it's not unreasonable to complete a single player game in a week - you're paying for an immersive, reasonably long but compact experience).
However, I do think the answers for publishers is to move towards digital distribution rather than attempting to strong arm retailers but my position could change if developers I appreciate struggle to obtain finance.
These people are just whiners who want to infect your system with rootkits and hidden device drivers.
Everyone who avoids paying them is doing the right thing.
The Music industry did not learn that Apple was successful with its ITunes in large part for the simple pricing scheme of 99c each song what ever it was. That made the buying decision simpler and people started to buy music online and make their IPods worth a fortune fully loaded.
Now the Game industry does not seem to understand that the risk of buying a new game gets lower if there is a flourishing attractive secondary market. If I put down $49 for a new game and happen to not like it or my friends don't like it, and I can sell it easily for $35 at a place like GameStop, then I'm only $14 in the risk. If that risk gets larger I won't buy that often a new game just for try or kicks.
And if the original publisher wants a piece of the resale in the secondary market every time, then it means that the resale price for every non commercial owner is lower, because he has to pay the publisher on the original purchase and on the sale to the second market. Which means again it will dampen the new sales.
Busy helping non technical users of OpenOffice.org - http://plan-b-for-openoffice.org/
People buy used games because of price. It seems to be that as a game ages, publishers could more aggressively lower the price of a game to continue to attract sales. Just as there are some people who wait for a computer component to be on the market for 6-12 months before purchasing so as to not pay an arm and a leg for performance, there will also be people who do the same thing with games. If the publisher lowers their prices to be competitive with what used shops charge, they would automatically attract sales away the used market. There is no need to use draconian DRM or strong-handed licenses or government legislation.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
All i'm hearing is "whaaa! I want more money" bullshit. I am tired of these companies who want everyone else to play by the rules (copyright) trying to circumvent the first sale doctrine. Guess what assholes, someone already paid the market price you set for the game and you got your compensation. If you think it's unfair, raise the prices and see if you get as many people purchasing your game. It is bad enough game companies sit on games that they have effectively abandoned, abuse people's PCs with malware designed to "stop piracy" and overall treat the customer with general contempt.
Gaming companies have already done a bang up job preventing PC gamers from selling/giving away their game to other interested parties and now they want to double tax paying customers because of their silly said business model. So go ahead and cripple the resale market. You may be able to kill it but there will always be the black market and those first sales you may have gotten will dry up as well.
cry me a damn river publishers!
you should never legally be able to pierce the first sale doctrine.
Used games already gave you the price you were asking. Get over it.
gamestop may end up charging $5 less than new for some of the newest used games they stock, and that's their profit, but it doesn't belong to you.
If anything, they should stop allowing gamestop to give us so little for used games in the first place. $15 for a $60 game I bought a month ago is an insult to me.
$45 profit for selling the used game is just too damn bad for the publishers.
Get over it you whiny multi-national multi-billion dollar media conglomerates! You make me sick.
They're using their grammar skills there.
There's a really simple solution for the publishers: become the preferred buyer and seller of their own used games. It would offer them another opportunity to interact with their customers, sell them another game, see how long they are playing, and ask them about what they liked and didn't like. Oh, and they'll earn the revenue instead of Gamestop or Amazon.
The key reason the console game companies are frustrated is that GameStop purposefully under pre-orders games because they know they will be getting used copies back. So, the game company isn't really making the money it should on release. They are effectively being dicked by GameStop. GameStop is actually quite stupid. All this does is drive companies to make their game solely DLC. They are effectively shitting where they eat.
Now, I work in the game industry, and on the rare occasion I actually patronize GameStop, I always by the new copy, because I know the direct impacts their sales practices have on my industry and any potential jobs I may try to get out there.
Whenever I venture into a Gamestop, I have to be careful not to step on small semi-sentient creatures scurrying around at my knee level. The places are crawling with them.
There is constant buzzing going on, mostly "have you played this one?" and various slang expressions showing approval or no for a game.
If the sales of used games are really eliminated, the next generation of games buyers will be greatly reduced. Not all kids have the unlimited allowances that permit them to purchase every new game that gets released.
I suspect too, that the informal exchanges between these young gamers influence their choices more than any online game review.
Publishers need to be very careful, they might get what they wish for.
If the car I sell gets sold again, I want a piece of it. I sold some books the other day and when half-price books sells them, I want a piece of their sales. If I had a daughter and she got married to a rich man, I'd want a pei... oh wait, that's wrong... But you get the idea. It's absurd! They sold their legally published media and made their profit. That was the deal they signed up for when they bought the rights to publish the software. Now they are saying they want more? This has nothing to do with copyright. The right to copy is theirs. They sold that copy which was their right. But after it's sold, how can they even show the audacity of wanting more than they are legally and clearly entitled to? When someone rents or buys a used copy of something that is not a "lost sale." Is there anything else like this in the world? Keep in mind that was is being sold is the media and the license to use and access the content on the media which is most certainly implied. They are publishers. They sell media. They do not sell licenses for use. That would make them licensors. Do they have the right to license? I should hope not. That should be a right retained by the copyright holder. And in any case, if holding the originally purchased media does not imply license to use the content, then the whole matter of copyright needs to be revisited from the ground up. (That probably needs to be done anyway.)
They are just too fucking greedy to realize it.
I don't sell games, though I have a couple of friends who do. Personally I just use gamefly and occasionnally buy a game that I've played and know is a keeper.
But let me tell you about my friends. When they sell a game, the money either immediately is applied to the purchase of a new game, or is basically put aside until the new game they want comes out. Rarely does that money not get put back into again, hell, it must, their game library is growing, not shrinking, and I hear about the new games they've purchased (from places that doesn't sell used).
So you go ahead and cut off used games and watch how your new game sales drop by an almost identical amount since those people no effectively went from paying $20 every month for the new bad ass game to paying $60, so they just don't buy games anymore. See how well it works out for you, ya greedy ignorant bastards.
Yours Truely,
Customer
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
of selling used stuff.
Before the used game stores there were used record and CD stores and used Video tape and DVD stores. Pawn Shops buy and sell all of them and did this sort of thing before the "Used X" Stores.
Even Comic Book stores do that, buy used comics for pennies on the dollar and sell them for "retail" or "collector's price" based on how rare the comic is and in what condition it is in.
What next, Game Publishers want a piece of eBay and other auction sites that sell used games? Give me a break!
Game Publishers already got a sale from whomever bought the game new, but the person got tired or bored of the game or it didn't meet the expectations and they sold it to the Used Game store to get some of their money back. Game Publishers should love the Used Game Stores because it stops people from pirating the game because it costs so much to buy new and the used price is more reasonable.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
The translation:
"Wah wah wah!"
Perhaps if you greedy bastards didn't sell games at the price you do more people would buy them. Instead, for a lot of people, they can't just casually pick up a game and take a chance like you would on, say, a $20 DVD. $70 is a LOT of money to gamble on something that stands a 50/50 chance of being garbage. And no retailer I've ever come across will give you your money back under any circumstances, so you take a big chance buying most new games.
Perhaps if the industry didn't put out so much absolute garbage we'd be more willing to take the chance. Unfortunately they aren't willing to not release unfinished games, crap games, and so much other effluence.
They're reaping what they have sown. And all they seem to do is cry about used games and how they're losing revenue.
Cry me a river.
Simply create content that either: A) Is worth keeping beyond the initial period it takes to complete your game, B) Is an evolving product which gets updates to retain your customers. C) Is geared toward online/interactive use with multiple users, so that the gameplay itself is ever-changing (think RTS) I *still* have my original copies of Starcraft, Diablo, and Warcraft, with all their sequels as well. Even without the CD-key requirements to play Ladder games on Battle.net, I'd still keep the original discs around.
Most of the comments here don't seem to get the situation. Publishers don't like the fact that GameStop is getting 48% profit margins from selling these used games. Now, here's where most of the Slashdot comments get it wrong: they assume the Publishers are pushing a particular (and unfair) solution to this problem.
In the past, I've defended the idea of stores getting involved in second-hand sales. I still stand by the first-sale principle. So, let's look at some possibilities here.
Option #1: Publishers don't like second-hand sales, so they enact legislation to stop second-hand sales OR they require a cut of every second-hand sale. This would be wrong. The first-sale doctrine prohibits this. And, consumers should be angry if this is what publishers were doing. Most of the Slashdot comments seem to assume that this is what publishers are doing, and they make comparisons to used books and car sales. This is not what publishers are doing.
Option #2: Publishers get involved in the used-game sales. If GameStop is enjoying 48% profit margins, then there's a strong impetus for competition from the publishers themselves. There's nothing wrong with Publishers doing this. They're just jumping in and competing the used-game market, just like everyone else. (In fact, Stardock is attempting to setup a "used game" sales system along with their "impulse" DRM system. You can sell-back your serial-code and someone else can "buy" it. Admittedly, this gets odd. "Used bits" are no different than "new bits". And, what's to stop Stardock from always saying "sorry, we're all out of used copies of our game; you'll have to buy a new one"?)
Option #3: Publishers create additional content so that people hold-on to their games. The article states that this is what publishers are doing - trying to incentivize customers to hold-on to their games, thus lowering the number of people selling them. Again, nothing wrong with this.
I'm sure there are plenty of other options people could come up with.
There is nothing wrong with publishers getting perturbed over used-game sales, and there is nothing wrong with their attempts to get money in the used-game market. The only issue is whether or not they go about it the right way. Option #1 is the wrong way, but there are good ways to go about it. Most of the Slashdot comments seem to assume that publishers are trying Option #1 - and then complaining that publishers are greedy and underhanded. I see nothing wrong - in principle - with publishers trying to make money off used-game sales or being disturbed by GameStop's 48% profit margins.
I don't own a book that I haven't read at least 3 times, and my house is 30 years old. Are you trying to imply that the situation is the same in these other Markets because I'm gonna have to call bullshit on that one.
Hell, I don't even buy a book until I've ready it at least once all the way through or pretty damn near on the occasion where maybe I'm visiting someone for the holidays and don't have a chance to finish it before I leave.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
$20-25 is my price limit for games. If the game is released new at around $20 (Introversion's excellent library, for example), I'm happy to buy new. Publishers who want $60 for a new game don't get my money unless it's actually worth it (see X-Plane, with 6 DL DVDs full of satellite imagery). Publishers who collude to drive used places out of business or force them to raise prices will only send me back to my warez pup days, because frankly, fuck them and their inflated value.
The real reason for SecuROM malware is finally admitted.
We have the legally established RIGHT of first sale, jackasses.
A judge would laugh this rubbish out of court, moreover you'll be lucky if you don't ultimately face a class action suit over stripping customers of their right of first sale.
Good thing that the VAT Tax (a.k.a. "FAT" Tax) only applies to value added, not value depreciated!
Anyways, they have a very, VERY small chance of getting anything from re-sales, as everything will go underground (e.g. flea markets, ebay, craigslist, classified adverts, and person-to-person) out of to view of their beady little eyes.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
is to simply lower the prices of new games, second hand game market won't be as valuable, and people will be more likely to buy a new one.
I sure as hell prefer buying new games then old ones (god only knows what that cd key has been caught doing...) but I'm not going to spend $90 on a new game that gives me 6-8 hours play time when I can go bowling for 3 hours and it only costs me $12.
Why do publishers think they have a right to used games revenues? Car manufacturers don't and cannot expect revenue from used car sales, nor book publishers, nor clothing-makers, nor any other sector you want to talk about. Actually, all of these makers already get revenue from the used game market, even though they don't realize it, and I'll explain how:
The new price of any good includes the value of the good on the used market. Its value as a used item is included in the purchase price. So, the truth is, game publishers have -already- been paid for the game's used-value on the used-market, they even get paid up-front. If you were to make limit or eliminate the used game market, you remove that portion of the new-price from its value. The result is that new game prices would have to come down to account for this. The net result: publishers wouldn't gain anything, and would probably lose quite a bit. Because if they refused to lower the price of new games, they would experience lower game sales to reflect the lower value for the same price because their games would now appear to be overprice, since they've now lost value.
As for the idea that Publishers have a right to money from used sales, how is that even possible? Imagine if car makers tried something like this. The only way to achieve it is by fascist legal bully-tactics, by forcing legislators to pass laws favoring particular companies. That must not happen, that would be a perversion of democracy.
Some have argued that publishers are hurt by having to give 'free' server rights to the 2nd buyer. But, what's the difference? The first guy isn't using the company servers anymore-- he doesn't own the game! So the total load change is zero. And the price of running those servers is freely accepted by the publishers. No one's forcing them to provide free servers for their game. Let them charge money like WoW for server access if they think they can get away with it. Dirty truth: they know they can't. They don't dare charge for server access.
I say we send these Publishers back to Econ 101. Any first year college student could explain these things. It's ridiculous.
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
The height of American corporate practice - we won't do anything to keep our customers but will spend millions creating artificial mechanisms to distort the market and end any competition for them.
The good news is they're succeeding wildly - for instance I've neither pirated nor bought big corporate music in years because I can't stand either option. Instead I just buy direct from bands for half the price in a market *not* distorted by Sony and BMG, and by odd coincidence the artist gets to keep all of it.
It turns out market arbitrage is not a constitutionally protected right.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Use a game trading site. I've tried a couple, and the best by far IMO, is Goozex.com
You send out games you don't want and accumulate points depending on their MARKET value (not rape-me-in-the-ass trade in value @ gamestop), and use those earned points to request games that you want, (which are also worth market value). The currency isn't $$, it's goozex points.
You pay shipping (usually $2/game) when you SEND games to other people, and it costs $1 when you REQUEST a game you want. Great way to get rid of stuff you haven't played in years, and you save a ton of cash to boot. Plus no middle man bending you over.
Whenever a new game comes out, Gamestop is immediately competing with the retail price, offering it for about $5 less. In many cases, they will even deliberately not stock new copies. To save $5, people are giving $55 dollars to a company that does nothing, rather than $60 to the studio that actually made the game (minus cuts to all sorts of people, but you get the point). If you're against ticket scalping, (which should be protected under "normal" docrtine, but doing so makes life suck) I don't think it's very hard to see that game companies have a case here. Right now, studios are turning towards more cheaply priced digital distribution as a solution to this. Are you really satisfied with no resale rights? The article also talks about ongoing content, which can be a plus but for many companies (I'm looking at you, Namco Bandai!) it creates a dangerous temptation to simply reduce the originally intended amount of content.
That said, they still can and really need to take matters into their own hands. Publishers still sell new games to Gamestop, and even provide them with special content/items. That's insane. If their losses are really that great, publishers need to stop providing these things to Gamestop. If Billy the Casual Gamer needs to find a pure retail store because Gamestop can't get Mario Party 8 at launch, that's probably where he's going to be shopping from now on. And if Gamestop no longer has the coolest freaking preorder items, guess where the ubergamers are shopping? I assume the only reason they have access to all these preorder items to begin with is because they won't stock anything but preorders, and companies feel garnering those is better than nothing. It's not. Cut them off if you're so unified about this, and I guarantee they'll offer a cut the next day. Slowly killing them through digital distribution is like boiling a toad, and it hurts the consumer a lot more.
Sendou Wave Kick!!
We're apparently at 8. I meant Mario Party 9. Sorry Billy!
Sendou Wave Kick!!
Isn't a used item that has shown some wear due to use ?
A used computer game is as good as the day you baught it.
It's only devaluation is that it is not the newest thing.
The problem with games publishes is that there is very little
new under the sun. In fact they are publishing "used" games
in the concept that the games have already 'used" ideas
and people are not prepared to pay top dollar
They do not see enough difference between "used" games and "new" games
G
things like Steam and XBox Live are the future. No more middle man. No more losing out on sales because of the used game market.
Brick and mortar will be a thing of the past in 5 to 10 years.
some publishers and manufacturers want a piece of the pie.
Ooo Ooo! Me too! Can I have some of that money too, please? I have just as much of a property right over that copy as the publisher does, so I'd like to have some of GameStop's money too, please!
Thanks!
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
"Game publishers do not see a cut of the secondary sale because it falls under the first sale doctrine."
#1 sell - I buy the game
#2 sell - GameStop buy the game
#3 sell - You buy the game....
Are we going to give publishers more money to sell a game to a third party? If they just drop the prices quicker then GameStop would lose their sell to the publishers.
They would have a better shot at getting 50 cent each time their game/s are rented.
It's much worse than a 50/50 chance.
--Obyron
Trade in books? You'd think that authors and publishers would be pissed as hell about public libraries!
Xaotik Designs
I see a lot of comments here comparing the "First Sale" profits of video games to cars or TVs or other physical utilitarian devices.
The main difference, in my opinion, is that in the first year of owning a car or TV, only the first owner can get value from it. In the first year of life of a game disc, 12 people can get value from that one disc.
I don't think you'll see Bungie, Epic, or Infinity Ward complaining about this. They've figured it out... you sell people the game and give them a great multiplayer mode (or some other reason) to hang onto it, and they will. Used copies will be few and far between.
The people who are really suffering are those that make truly fantastic single player games. Prince of Persia comes to mind... it was great, I thoroughly enjoyed it. All 20 hours of it... and on my schedule, that's 5 days of having the game to do 100% of everything there is to do. So I rent it. I actually rent all games that have no multiplayer aspect. The only games I purchase are the ones I can see myself playing online still, 6 months down the line. You might say make the games longer, which is an option, but I personally don't WANT to invest more than 20 hours into any single player experience, and to be honest, when it is longer, like 100+ hours for a Final Fantasy game, you spend most of that time not having fun, just trying to level up to do everything.
This applies to DVDs and to a lesser extend music as well. One DVD can easily fully serve a group of 20 people in one week if they pass it around and watch it in groups.
I'll leave you with this... I think more than the disc, game companies, movie companies, etc are selling you the experience. The experience of playing through the game or the experience of watching the movie. And I believe they should be compensated for each experience they provide. I do think that $60 is a bit much for a video game, but I think it's to compensate for rentals and used game sales. Once everything goes digital, we will see a shift. Let's say that for every 1 copy of a new game that is bought, 2 people probably play that disc, on average, could be more or less, not sure. So $60 provides 2 play experiences. The publisher sees approx $30 per experience in this model, but assuming the first copy was $60 and the used copy was $55. That's $115 spent, and Gamestop probably paid the original owner about $25 for it, so they paid $35 for the experience. If the second owner sells it back very quickly for $25, then he would have paid only $30, bringing this in line with the above of $30 per experience. So $65 spent total for two plays, or $32.5 per experience. If the publishers had complete control over this, the players could have each spent less money for the same amount of, or more (because they get to keep the game), game.
However, it may be be a utopian thought to think the publishers would pass these savings onto us completely, I like to dream.
Before Gamestop bought EBgames and dropped buying used PC games, I used to sell my unwanted PC games to the stores. I noticed prices ranged from $2 (No One Lives Forever 2) to $10 (Diablo 2 for three years old). I don't do auction like eBay. I bet they sell my used games way more than what I got back. :P
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Singer - manufacturer of sewing machines - had a really good trick around the turn of the century or so, I hear. Sell your snazzy new sewing machines for a ridiculous amount of money... then offer an equally ridiculous trade-in credit for old sewing machines. Then, as soon as you get the old sewing machines, destroy them utterly.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Why dont they just do some sort of reward system for not buying a game used or not selling it to retailers.You could send in a game and get like a coupon or something.
Of course, digital copies could truly put a dent in that reasoning. However, even then there should not be a cut of revenue to the publisher if the original user discontinues use of the product (so that it's not piracy). It's like someone re-selling artwork. Presumably it's in like-new condition if it was taken care of (on in some cases, would appreciate in value even if its condition deteriorates) -- but you wouldn't hear anyone talk of paying the original artist a cut of its resale value, now would you? From what I hear, book publishers are also gearing up for a fight in this arena. They have already been breathing down the neck of used-book stores, and now e-books are adding a new twist to the debate.
Making the new games better than the old ones? Man! Where did the good creative minds that came up with great classic games go? I'll we have today is: "look! there is a new FPS and now with better graphics!". Stop with spending 90% of the game budget on Visual and a little bit more on fun and you might just convince people that your new title is actually more worth buying then an used one.
I'm not worried. Until they figure out how to get around my ability to not purchase their product, they can try anything they want. My money will not leave my wallet until I find the terms of the purchase acceptable. Otherwise I can buy another game from a better publisher, buy a book and read it, take a walk, go kayaking etc. There are plenty of alternatives to buying a game. Even the "must play" games. Bioshock? Never bought it, never played it, never downloaded. Don't miss it.
I do the same thing, I generally buy games based on price, it's incredibly rare I buy a game right after it comes out. Most of my games are bought new in the original shrink wrap, as you say for about $30. I also user half.com, ebay, and Amazon to buy classic games for classic systems.
The only valid reason I can find to buy a game new, unless it's one I just couldn't do without, was to get in early on the online game play when there's still lots of people playing it as newbs and not the level 1,000 PKers.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
An identical situation - where the original producer gets a cut of every subsequent sale - has been happening across Europe in one particular very high value market for nearly a decade now. It's called droit de suite, and it's granted on art sold at auctions to make sure that impecunious artists get a cut of the multimillion resale values of their art. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resale_right It's a pretty contentious issue, especially for us mercantile Brits.
At least we know Duke Nukem Forever will have sufficient development time behind it. That's a certain buy on release game.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
When you sell a used car, does the car manufacturer see any money?
When you sell old playboy magazines, does playboy see any new money?
When you sell an old video game, exactly why should the publisher get any new money? If they are losing money due to network-based play, they need a different revenue model.
If they aren't happy with the current store selling model, then they should change to a subscription system with a download instead. Then they can charge people - assuming the customers don't say screw you and walk.
I'd walk. I don't do DRM either. Period.
The government did. At least, they printed it. They should get a cut of the money every time it changes hands. Oh, and by the way, they do.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
PC - nzbmatrix + cracks
Mac - nzbmatrix + cracks
DS - nzbmatrix + Cyclo Evo + microSD card
PS2 - gamefly + HDLoader + hard drive
Wii - nzbmatrix + softmod
Need I go on?
Where have you been?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10571798
Wait! Whats a sig?
They knew the rules when they manufactured the goddamned games. People have been selling games for hundreds of years, and they didn't bitch too much about it until now. If they don't like it now, too f*ing bad. I have exactly zero sympathy.
See oddly I consider the ability to buy any song (just one song), DRM-free, an absolutely amazing shift in how things work.
Arbitrage isn't a right, it's a phenomenon. A force of nature. If something is being sold for less than it's perceived value, people will snap up the difference. It might not be a "protected right" but you've got as much chance of stopping it as you do of banning people from picking their noses when they think no one is looking.
Worse, banning arbitrage hurts the market by keeping prices from sliding to market clearing levels, resulting in shortage.
But that has more meaning for, say, concert tickets, or new console releases than it does for reselling of used games. Perhaps you're thinking of market segregation, a problem created by companies in certain industries, and which arbitrage solves.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Valve Software recently announced that during the recent "75 percent off" sale on Steam, Valve made more revenue than when the games were at full price. Lots more people bought the games.
If the publishers want to compete with the used market, it seems to me their best option is to either:
1. Produce such a high quality product with so much content and replay value that everyone will WANT to own it first hand, and that it's so good that it will be months or never that a first sale customer is willing to let it go.
2. Sell at a price that makes it make no sense to wait for used copies to become widely available.
Neither of which the game publishing industry is willing to even seriously consider. Instead they want to use RIAA tactics to force the used market out of existence.
Corporatism != Free Market
They're reaping what they have sown. And all they seem to do is cry about used games and how they're losing revenue.
One simple way would be to come out with more 'classic' releases - selling reprints of older game titles for a fraction of their original cost, but still pure profit for the manufacturers at this point. Pressing discs isn't that much.
That would depress the used-game market quite a bit.
I don't read AC A human right
A "sale" is really a very specific contract, and one that's quite friendly to the consumers. They've been trying since forever to do an end-run around this with sales-like licenses, which they failed for books yet managed to push through for software. There's absolutely no reason why there should need to be any form of license, what you're not allowed to do is covered by copyright law. The whole idea that I don't OWN a DVD in the same way that I OWN a car, even though there's many other copies of both the DVD and the car is bullshit. I wish countries would have the balls to stand up and declare EULAs basicly null and void, it's sold and covered by copyright law and if you don't like it go away.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Take for example a successful title, Gyakuten-Saiban: Yomigaeru Gyakuten. This is one of the titles known as "Ace Attorney" series in the USA.
There are three versions of this exact same title in Japan, i.e. the original (Sep.2005, sold at 5040 JPY or about 50 bucks), "Best Price" version (June 2006, sold at 3129 JPY or 31 bucks), and "New Best Price" (Apr. 2008, 2100 JPY or about 21 bucks).
130000 copies of the original version were sold, but they sold 200000 copies of the "Best" and "New Best" combined, so apparently they made more money from the budget-priced versions.
This is not an isolated case, it seems many publishers are lowering the price of popular but older games in Japan.
Nope - libraries pay either a larger amount for a book, or pay fees based on circulation. Authors and publishers get their cut.
New car manufacturers are complaining about being "cut out" of the used car market. Some are considering pushing for legislation that would make it illegal for anyone but a properly licensed new car dealer to sell a car.
A top auto industry exec was quoted as stating, "After all, if we put all the effort into making the car, why should we not expect to be able to continue to get a cut anytime its sold? Perhaps its time we started licensing cars, instead of selling them outright."
Movies have other avenues to recoup the investment - the theatrical run, cable rights, pay per view, and so on.
Making games for the PS3 and 360 requires a significant investment - we're talking millions of dollars. Trying to get the game to break even is hard enough, and dropping the price that much is something I can't see the publishers and developers ever going for.
Most games do hit that pricing eventually, either via the greatest hits lines or retail markdowns or clearance sales. You've just got to be willing to wait for that to happen.
Goo goo g'joob.
Yeah, but a new movie price is $8-$10 for a single person to view it once. A movie is new in the theater, not in the DVD case. If a game came out for $59 the same day as Star Trek did in the theater, its probably going to be $29 to $39 by the time the Star Trek DVD comes out.
And how much more would McD's make if dumpster divers didn't get access to free food at shelters?
What the matter with these people? On one hand they want to be able to patent "Computer Implemented Inventions" (ie SW) - where the traditional, or at least the popular view is that patents are for significant, real-world inventions like machines or tools; something tangible. So they seem to argue that software, such as cmoputer games, are tangible enough to be patented. But on the other hand they want money for each time it is being sold, copied or even looked at - because now it is suddenly "intellectual property" on par with works of art, like music, paintings and novels.
Either way, I don't see the merit in their arguments - if you sell tangible goods, you pass on the ownership, and if it turns out that the thing you sold for $100 can be sold on for $100000, shame on you for not seeing that opportunity. The same goes for works of art, as far as I can see; isn't that almost the way it goes - a painter sells his work for pennies, and later it goes on Sotheby's in London and sells for £10000000?
It is this kind of behaviour that time and again show us all that those in the self-proclaimed "upper class" are in fact not rich because they have worked hard and been extremely clever and intelligent, but because they are greedy low-life who lack a few basic building blocks in their moral and social instincts. Is it any wonder that socialism seems like a good idea sometimes?
In other news, car manufacturers complain that they're still being deprived of important revenue streams because the used car market offers consumers a convenient alternative for buying a new car.
No, wait. Car companies *don't* complain, they got into the secondhand market themselves, and offered an added value by doing a full checkup and offering limited brand warranty on the used cars, too.
I realise engine checkups aren't really possible on used games, but if they want a piece of the pie they should work for it, not sit on their arses complaining.
As a related item, btw, the renting of video games is being put to a stop in Belgium - no more additions to existing rental collections as of a few days ago, and no more renting at all from the end of the year. Is this a trend that's happening in other countries, too ?
What a depressingly stupid machine.
Almost everything now has some sort of CPU with SW (or FW if you prefer). My microwave, frig, and car all absolutely depend on SW to work. No car made in the last 10 years could run if you removed the code.
If you list your microwave on CraigList, why shouldn't the orginal copyright holder get a cut. Make the buyer pay the original manufacturer to get a license.
I buy a GPS for directions, a microwave to cook and a game CD to entertain. SW is critical to all three to provide their value. Why should a game be "special"? Making a copy of a GPS, microwave or Game is one thing, selling it to another is Completely different.
(As a side note, what if I give my used game to some one.... what if I give a "new" game to some one.. where does it end. It just shouldn't start after the Copyright owner got his/her/it's first bite.)
Lazy people with broken business models appealing to ignorant (or special interest placed) authorities in Government (judges and Congress) have more than a better chance to win. Any rational business guy would say go for it. Enough stupid people have voted to put stupid and unprincipled people in office if they can get free medical.
I just wish we had enough intelligent people in the various branches of Governement to tell the winers to STFU. Stupid crap like this is sucking billions out of economy feeding lawyers that should be embarrased and who should be an embarrassment to their friends, families and legacy. If their children have been given the same moral and ethical value systems (anything for a buck) they too should be blackballed.
I have little hope that any rational set of principles will be reached in my life time.
So the game publishers don't think they make enough money? TOO BAD!!!!! Their games have been way overpriced for many years now! It is the high prices of new games that drives the used game market! Why should Game Stop (or anyone else selling a used game) have to pay the game publisher anything? The publisher has already made their profit. Not that I approve of Game Stop's pricing on used games. They pay $5 to %10 for a used game, and then sell it for a few dollars less than the full price when the game was new!
Bingo. And that they're not doing that is what convinces me they're not really interested in giving customers a good value proposition; they're just bitching that someone is preventing them from screwing customers as hard as they'd like to.
If they sold "classic" (anything that's not the new hotness) games in different packaging for the price of used, who would buy used? They could take the wind out of Gamestop's sales right there.
Lots of companies spend giant piles of money trying to figure out what customers want so that they can try to deliver it. In this case, it's blatantly obvious what customers want -- a slightly cheaper game -- and it's even obvious exactly what price they're willing to pay. Gamestop has done all the market research for them. If they want to make money, it's on the table for them to take. If they don't, they can let Gamestop take it.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Why is everyone talking about trading games into gamestop or other big retailers.
Classifieds (ebay, craigslist, local company board, whatever) are THE WAY TO GO
I have never ever sold a second hand game for any less than 30% its original cost if its under 3 years old. Average is 50% for say a 1 year old decent current gen console game. Of course YMMV esp if it then becomes a PS3 platinum title for half price or whatever.
For a game under a year old you can EASILY get half to 2/3rds.
For a AAA title less than a month old (e.g. you beat it then list it on ebay right away) try 70-80% return. Heck if say currency exchange rates are in your favour and you buy from somewhere cheap like playasia.com, you can even make a dollar or two, esp if you sell the game BEFORE its released in your area.
And same goes for BUYING used games: why is everyone going to gamespot and complaining about 5 bucks off. You can easily get a used AAA title for say 20-30% discount on ebay used. Or trade via gumtree, craiglist, your company's notice board (esp large corporatiosn with thousands of employees and internal mail lol).
"the used game sale market is still depriving publishers of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new game."
Logically, these geniuses will be going after sex, food, and sleep next --activities you could be engaged in (instead of gaming) that are stealing money from the pockets of $60+ video game makers.
Ask me about my sig!
DVDs plummet in price after a few months.
Reduce the price of games. Compete directly with the second hand market. Anyone who wants the newest game right now can buy it at the high price. Anyone willing to wait a couple of months can get it for less. They're going to anyway - someone will complete it in a week and sell it on.
They could equally argue that they should have a share of their competitors revenue because people see it as an alternative to buying their games. I hope any moves to stifle competition are heavily resisted
First, retailers aren't interested in stocking hundreds of games that will only sell for $10 if $8 of that goes back to the manufacturer. GameStop can do it because by the time the used games hit that price, they are going to be almost as profitable as selling a single new $60 game.
The big issue that publishers still seem to ignore is the fact that those used games don't just appear magically in GameStop's inventory. They are purchased from the consumer, who turns around and spends that money on--you guessed it!--more games. Now, sometimes that money goes towards other used games, but much of the time it actually goes to other new games. Games that wouldn't be affordable to these consumers if they didn't have trade-ins.
They do.
I'm not sure, but maybe the modern age is changing something here. Old Style marketing was about building desire presssure until it exploded into sales.
But now people are at least sating that desire through their own previews, betas, etc. Maybe it's the advent of bad software! We are now comfortable with letting things gestate for a year or two (or more!) without feeling "Out".
Certainly Microsoft has had at least three "Skip" OS releases, forcing us to develop a multi-year holistic perspective.
The "Hangover" movie (looks terrible) tried to use that old stuff just now, and dated it is: "Better watch this now because your friends will talk about it for weeks". A copier salesman tried the equally old school line "Sign now and get X discount, but it's gone when I leave!!!" I replied, "Okay. If you can't be bothered with my order after you walk out the door, I can't be bothered to pay you."
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I find that if you just look at new games on the walls, the store looks bare and I don't spend a lot of time looking. Stores near here that are new games only almost never get my business. But, the kicker is, I almost never buy used games. Ok, occassionally I buy a DS game for my kid or I bought the early PS2 Guitar Hero games just to get the songs. But I almost always buy new games, but it's the used game selection that gets me to the store since I know there a 99% chance that I'll find at least something to play when I go in. Yesterday, I went to the store and ended up buying Rock Band Song Pack 2 even though I wasn't looking for it. But, I was looking for a Wii game, and the new game selection for Wii in Norway sucks, and a new release costs $90 US at most stores.
Probably the last 5-10 games I bought were new, but I bought them from GameStop because I knew walking in the door, if there wasn't anything new at an "affordable" price point, I could always buy something used.
Oh and I never sell my games back, I'll give them to friends if they want them instead. Taking a 50% loss or a 100% loss makes little difference to me so long as I got my money's worth from the game.
Making games for the PS3 and 360 requires a significant investment - we're talking millions of dollars. Trying to get the game to break even is hard enough,
[emphasis mine]
Sure, but that is exactly how they will improve with that [GP] pricing scheme. As an example, right now I have 4 Wii games in my list of "want to buy", however they are 43, 35, 25 and 16 EURO (and that is from a "cheap" internet based seller, street prices are between 30 and 60).
I have not bought them becase I cannot afford to put 40 EURO, however if they where between 7 and 30 EURO, I am sure I would have bought them by now.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Hmm well I agree they are greedy babies, and just because they "want" something doesn't make it their right. I would also like a cut of all used games sold - in fact I'd like a tax on everything sold worldwide.
On the other hand, all of the slashdot-ites sitting here saying "$60 is too much!" - well I doubt that's true. If it was actually too much, they would lower it until the point where supply and demand intersected and it wasn't too much. If they can make more money at $60 than at $50 then it's the correct price for them to be charging.
translation:
"Wah wah wah"
games are luxury items used for recreation. If you don't like them, don't buy them. I don't like avocados, but I don't scream at avocado growers and call them bastards.
Lots of people buy games, happily, and enjoy them. The games are probably not aimed at you.
Screaming at the makers and describing their product as effluence just illustrates that not only are you not the target market, you don't seem capable of rationally dealing with that.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Hell, you've said so before, IIRC: "Steam may have DRM but it's light and doesn't get in the way".
Exactly my thought. Just make your games so compelling that nobody wants to sell it, then there is no second hand market. Simple! Next problem please.
Get a job.
Read a review.
Not rocket science here, folks.
So you just turned up a blank card, doofus.
You lose.
Total games rented via lovefilm (netflix in US): 220
Average launch price: £40
Cost of 2 lovefilm subscription over same period: £312
Total cost of buying all games at launch: £8800
Publishers who *still* don't "get it": Priceless.
FUCK YOU!
> the US auto industry is dead because they made cars so awful twenty years ago
No surprise if they really do think like this:
Quote Fight Club: "A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."
They left out the "long term goodwill" factors, and that's what you're talking about: 20 years later, people will still associate your name with shit.
It should be A * B * C * D = X where D = "good/bad factor" - how good we want to be at the cost to ourselves.
While the quote is from a movie, it's clear a lot of CxOs of large companies do think like that and have D = 1.
I've just been on the phone to a farmer... Turns out he planted a tree a while ago, it got pulped, made into cardboard and then used in a box for one of these games and those swines at GameStop haven't paid *him* a penny either!
They're moving to a rental model - they want to continue owning everything while you keep handing them money, be unable to copy anything or even reverse engineer stuff.
In some ways they're worse than the "evil communist" stereotype.
Maybe soon you'll only rent houses with a huge upfront deposit, and the Owners will also take a cut every time there's a new tenant - who pays a lot of $$$$$$ to the previous tenant (who needed a loan to pay for the deposit).
Then only the rich have property while the proletariat don't. Well at least it's not complete abolition of private property...
Ah progress.
Replay value is a very, very small portion of what makes a good game. After 60 hours of mass effect or 100 hours of final fantasy or 20 hours of mario/hl2/whatever i don't really feel the need to replay them (I keep them, nonetheless, like a good book).
This is the golden age of gaming, i can barely keep up with the titles i know i absolutely MUST play.
If they want a share of the used game market, they only have to get out there and compete in it. No-one is stopping them.
Unfortunately, it'll cost you $300 so Take-Two cover the lawyers' fees racked up suing 3DRealms.
Lose-lose.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Can you imagine what would happen if:
There would be blood on the streets. How is this any different? FFS - can someone please stop the madness?
Somehow I really do doubt that these publishers are also concerned that developers are being deprived of money too.
In fact I'm guessing that if they could get a cut of used sales that they wouldn't pay developers a cent more. I don't know who added "and developers" to TFA but that certainly would not be what the source said because any developer knows that there's no way in hell the publisher would compensate them if the publisher somehow managed to tap used game sales.
Their greed really does disgust me. It really is quite wrong to use the word 'deprived' in relation to publishers because they didn't create the game to begin with! They remind me of the RIAA who also want the maximise their profits for something they may have published but didn't create and don't give a **** about the party who created it. The party to which the work REALLY belongs.
It's amazing how immoral these companies can be. To think they can reshape the world around their desire for more money. Licenses don't mean a thing, the game is still a physical property that is owned by whoever bought it. After someone buys it the publisher has ZERO right to that copy. Do they think they're the only company who would love to be able to be paid for every single further sale of a product they once made between other persons. I don't think a single company in existence would object to free money for nothing like that. Imagine if you had a garage sale and afterwards an inspector came buy to reallocate percentages of your take for each item you sold to the individual companies that made those items.
Interesting line in the article:
Bartel said the average selling price for used games is $14 compared with about $40 for new games
Wow, either the way that Gamestop operates in the US is so radically different from my country or this guy is lying through his teeth. The way that Gamestop operates in here and I'd be quite certain everywhere is that generally all new games are 60$/Euro (Or more like $80 if you convert from Euros) and the used games are almost never more than a fiver less than the price of the new game. Usually it's only a couple of Euro/dollar difference. $14? Absolutely NEVER! Try $57. What they give you for your used games is also typically negligible. Usually only â5-â10. That's for a game they're going to sell for â55. That's more like an 89% profit margin. This is why I don't understand why anyone would buy or sell used games to Gamestop. What's the point of saving only a few quid on a game that's probably been quite abused, has scratches on the disc and weird residues like adhesive all over the box.
This is exactly why we need to be resisting these digital download services starting now. While it is nice to get the retro downloads etc (and there is some great stuff out there, granted), this is the way digital distribution will reach critical mass, bricks and mortar stores will fail, and we will have no physical copy in the first place to do with what we want. Just say no now, before it's too late (though it probably is).
When publishers get their cut of second hand sales, but they keep in the DRM, you can finally put to the test all those conspiracy theories about DRM being purely to stop second hand sales, and how this is the only reason you pirate.
How about they actually make games that have replay value and don't suck so that nobody will want to trade them in?
Because it would be an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new game of course.
(duh)
I hope you weren't planning on becoming a marketing executive in a game company.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
First, retailers aren't interested in stocking hundreds of games that will only sell for $10 if $8 of that goes back to the manufacturer. GameStop can do it because by the time the used games hit that price, they are going to be almost as profitable as selling a single new $60 game.
Then don't use gamestop. Use Walmart and online stores.
My model would be Walmart and the bargain bins.
0% of $10 is still 0.
40% of $10 is $4, and can add up.
Games that wouldn't be affordable to these consumers if they didn't have trade-ins.
Maybe, maybe not. From my understanding you normally have to trade in like 3-4 games to get one used one back. Thus the profit margin level. They had to get those 3-4 games in the first place, so unless they stole them you're still looking at a significant loss rate when trading in.
Heck; a crash in trade prices might lead to them trading stuff off in swap meets and such, give a game get a game(unless your games suck and you're trying to get a good or rare one).
I don't read AC A human right
if I have access to old Super Nintendo titles, I might be less likely to buy remakes of those same titles for Virtual Console.
Tell me when Nintendo resolves the alleged copyright issues with Beatles music to the point where Earthbound is on VC.
Furthermore, I'm sure there will be arguments that the time I spend playing old games means less time that I have for playing new games, which means I'm less likely to purchase a new game.
I buy a game with replay value (e.g. Super Smash Bros. Brawl or one of the Animal Crossing games), and I don't resell it. That also means I'm less likely to purchase a new game. But does that keep Nintendo from putting replay value into its titles, just so it can make a buck? If publishers really want a continuous revenue stream, they should say they what what provides a revenue stream: rental directly from the publisher. MMORPGs provide this, single-player and local multiplayer games not so much.
Console games CAN be rented out.
As of June 2009.
So you just turned up a blank card, doofus.
I mentioned 109(b) to show that the law already discriminates among formats and that major video game publishers could lobby the U.S. Congress to have the law amended to discriminate further.
But you can lend it out for free at the library?
Yes. From the statute in question, with my emphasis:
Nothing in the preceding sentence shall apply to the rental, lease, or lending of a phonorecord for nonprofit purposes by a nonprofit library or nonprofit educational institution. [...] Nothing in this subsection shall apply to the lending of a computer program for nonprofit purposes by a nonprofit library, if each copy of a computer program which is lent by such library has affixed to the packaging containing the program a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.
That's where Steam comes in. That can keep unlimited stock on old releases.
Let's see, the companies that make rehashes of the same games and give us bug filled games at a higher price than the previous generation feel they deserve money from used games?
I don't think so.
If they want to increase their revenue they have to make games that are actually worth $60 or lower the price.
If you put out a game of little value that is broken then how in the world can you expect consumers to value your game? They'll want to pay as little as possible because there is no perceived benefit in paying a premium for the content.
The gaming industry is less professional and in a worse state than they'd like to admit and no matter how often they boast about their numbers in relation to movies that isn't going to change.
Publishers do no get money from used comics, books, movies or music. Why in earth do they feel they deserve money for used games?
What games are you buying that they cost $70.00 - and why aren't you downloading the demo for them, or renting them first if they cost that much? Honestly - am I the only one who tries out games I'm unsure of beforehand? You don't have to fork over over two thirds of a franklin to see if you like the game or not when the first level or two are free with the demo, or for $5.00 you can try it for a week.
You also have to know if the game is going to be crap or not. I mean come on. LOOK at the game play videos, read user reviews from reputed sites, and don't impulse buy. I swear people complain about everything these days.
people are not born to make middlemen rich. neither this civilization for middlemen. if you try to force any fucking laws by lobbying with money, we will trade games from underhand, illegally. as above, as below.
Read radical news here
Can you imagine what would happen if:
GRRM, is that you?
Spoken like someone with a gambling problem...
Who really sells their used games to a highstreet store anyway? The amounts they offer are just laughable.
Selling used games online using either Amazon market place or Ebay is a much better idea.
Why don't the publishers just buy shares in Gamestop and other second-hand retailers? Is there anything stopping them? Then they'd get a share of the profits on each and every resale with their dividends and they'd be benefitting at every price point. After first sale, every other sale is gravy. It might not be a lot but it's a lot more than nothing. How many other products can you just sell and sell and sell?
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
they wrote the rules!
It's a model that has existed for a long time - books, cars, houses, computers, records - maybe teh developers would like to pay a little extra for every usd item they buy to reward the original creator of that item as well.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Precisely. And I think this quote is frakked up:
"The used game sale market is still depriving publishers of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new game." Ahhhh. Poor baby. What's next? Chrysler's going to demand a piece of my profit when I sell my Avenger? Honda's going to demand a percentage of my Insight, because my poor neighbor bought used instead of new??? Judas Priest.
Fuck em.
(pulls out gun). Come on Chrysler and Honda and RIAA and Squaresoft and Sony and Toshiba. I DARE you to try to take the money I earned when I sold my used games, computers, cars, VCRs, or any other object your greedy mafia-like hands try to grab. You might get the money, but it will cost you your life Mr. Mid-level manager, because I'm not letting go out it voluntarily. Frakking bastard.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The used market helps the poor. Many people wouldn't be able to get a house or car or TV or videogame system if the used market did not exist. Any corporation or government who interferes with that market is elitist - for the rich and powerful, not the common man, and said government should be abolished to form a more-perfect one that serves People not corporations.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Well, you have something that MIGHT happen and something that MIGHT NOT happen. 50/50.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225921&title=large-hadron-collider
(sorry, that's been the joke around the office here all week)
Solution - Stop calling yourself a "library" and then you can exempt yourself from the fees. "This is my own private collection. I'm not a library but anyone who wants to walk-in and read my collection is welcome to do so. Have a nice day RIAA." Another method is to claim all the public library books are owned by the state government, and the state government is exempt from corporate fees.
Actually I think Libraries are about as obsolete as Walk-in rental stores.
I don't see why we need them anymore, except in colleges.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Exactly, game publishers need to realize that the game software is actually perishable. Demand for the product decreases because of newer game releases and console generations become obsolete, so the price decreases. Used game resellers are simply matching the market. Publishers should slowly cut new game prices to match the used market prices and buyers will purchase the new game for slightly more than a (perfectly good) used game.
Replay value is bad. Is makes you play the old game instead of buying new ones. Games need to be fun enough for you to buy but not fun enougn for you to keep. Because gaming is not about fun, it's about fulfilling the industry's entitlement to your money.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
One of the biggest reasons I buy used games at Gamestop is the return policy. You can play a used game for 7 days before deciding whether to keep it. Publishers, I think, underrate the importance of this policy. Essentially, it allows me to buy a game I am not sure I will like without any real consequences.
The fact of the matter is, there is sea of crap games out there. Even so called AAA games often suck. If I buy a game new and don't like it, I am stuck with it. If, on the other hand, I buy it used then I have a week to try it out. This makes me much more likely to try a game that just looks like it might be good.
When you start a fire, be to windward of it. Do not attack from the leeward. -- Sun Tzu
The automakers are thinking about joining in this campaign. GM would not be bankrupt if they were getting 20% from the sale of used cars. They are also loosing money because people are going to independent shops to have cars repaired and buying their own repair parts from discount auto parts stores and not directly from GM. OMG, think of money people are stealing from the pockets of GM execs and designers.
I don't really have a problem with this, subject to one caveat. One of the reasons given for high game prices is that they have only small period of time to recoup their costs - the second hand market effectively prevents stuff selling more than a few months. So the people who want it in the first 6 weeks or so of release pay a hefty premium.
Drop the release price (and absorb that yourself rather than passing it on to the retailer) and I've no problem with them getting a cut of the 2nd hand costs to make up for it.
I'm really sick of these greedy bastards trying to rip off customers and the middle man. If you want to have complete control over your product, install a self destruct mechanism in the discs and make them explode after X number of hours. I bet that would kill the used game market.
Customer: "Do you have game X used?"
Store: "Why, yes we do, but I will tell you that it only has 4 hours left on it till it explodes."
Customer: "Well from what I hear the explosion may be more entertaining than the game is, I'll take it."
Well, this is like the used book market. A game you may love, I may think sucks big time. You may think my favorite game sucks.
I'm offended by these goddamned greedheads reaching for money they have no right to. If I buy a game, it's mine. If I want to sell it, it's mine to sell.
Next thing you know, Nike is going to want a cut of the profits on that t-shirt I buy at a garage sale. Maytag will want a cut of the clothes dryer you buy at Goodwill. Ford will want a cut of the used model-T you buy at the Chevy dealer (considering how insanely long copyrights are).
This is madness and we should revolt. I wish the submitter would have named and shamed the greedy bastards who are calling for an end to the first sale doctrine, rather than making me RTFA, especially since SFGate is partially slashdotted and is taking forever to load.
Boycott these companies and write them angry letters:
Bethesda Softworks
Silicon Knights
Are these the only two companies? They're the only two named in TFA.
Free Martian Whores!
Reality check: Game are not made to last. They have a life span of a few months only. Obviously, when they are done, people resell them.
This situation is the result of bad management policies. I have no pity for them.
Time to assume the consequences.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Like, why even bother with this IP stuff... Just grab a gun and show up at peoples houses.
When the cops show up, tell them that the nice folks you just retrieved your hard earned money from might have stolen something from the Internet.
Everyone will understand, and it's win win.
I see it as a forced, painful, crowbar'ed lurch. But it is a good thing, regardless.
No need for bankruptcy, just require that every used car lot with a rusted Chevy pay a little stipend to GM when they finally sell the turkey. You could expand the idea to include a charge for replacing components with non-standard parts (violation of reverse engineering clauses). Maybe you could even get tow companies to pay.
I'd rather they do this than doing away with the used market altogether with the market heading towards DRMed digital distribution that ties a copy to one system.
Twinstiq, game news
Since when can you BUY a rental?
Since 1973, when Rent-A-Center was established, or much earlier in the case of closed-end leasing in general. But my point was that the U.S. first sale statute already distinguishes among formats, and a quick amendment to this statute backed by the major video game publishers could easily regulate resale.
"We would prefer to participate in the sale of our products, especially when we spend years putting one of these things together and we have to continue to provide support for all these new customers without creating any new revenue from it at all," said Pete Hines, vice president of Bethesda Softworks. "We're not big fans of that."
True they spent years putting one of these things together, but they were already compensated by the first play through. True they have to continue to support these "new customers", but they get to stop supporting the "old customers" - that is, the people who sold the games to the new customers.
Why not make a game more self sufficient so they don't have to spend as much resources supporting it, or prolong the lifetime of the game so buyers in the primary market won't want to sell it?
To be clear, my words aren't completely fair to the single player, storyline play-through type of games, like single player RPGs or TPSs. But for those I think they'd have have to suck it up - book publishers have been putting up with the same for years.
Most games do hit that pricing eventually, either via the greatest hits lines or retail markdowns or clearance sales. You've just got to be willing to wait for that to happen.
OR . . . I buy the game used. Game publishers want their ideas treated as "property" then so be it. The reality is that when I buy a second hand car Toyota doesn't see any revenue from that sale. When I buy a used Mac Apple sees no revenue. If I buy a used hunting rifle then Remington sees no revenue. OF COURSE they'd rather you buy a new one. But you know what? We don't have to. And no amount of temper tantrums are going to change that.
So game companies have their choice: lower your prices so as to make the used market irrelevant, or live with the used market. Either way, crying about you not making many from used sales. Every other producer of non-perishable goods throughout history has had to deal with this reality. Games developers should be no different.
And honestly, I question the motive of ANYTHING that seeks to challenge the reuse of anything. For all the shit we're throwing away and dumping into landfills I think it FAR better to go back to building and developing products that stand the test of time and people will continue to use and sell amongst each other for a long time before they get tossed. Buying everything new and shiny is only good for the retail market. For the consumer and the environment, it's just not wise.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
GM or Ford said that they want a cut of all used car sales?
Actually the auto-industry got it right. They added value to the used car sales by doing a certified inspection. If I go and buy a used car from say the local Ford dealership, I know that they have run it through their shop to make sure all the pieces are there. If I go and buy through my local classifieds I have to pony up that cost, find a mechanic that I can trust, arrange for the seller to get the car to that mechanic (if the seller even agrees). The problem is that the publisher can't really add value to a used game without screwing their original purchasers...
It's also depriving ME of money because these resellers aren't sharing the cash they make with Yours Truly.
Too bad that I have no more rights to a cut of resales than the publishers do.
In other news, video game publishers are hacked that you can still ride a REAL bicycle down a REAL trail, thereby depriving them of sales of their biking games.
a lot of people, including those of us who are software engineers, prefer hard physical books. im not going to shell out for a kindle, books are portable easy on the eyes and shelves full of books in your house makes you look SMRT :D
oh and some things i will NEVER, EVER switch to electronic media for no matter how much money I have. My field survival guides, edible plant guides, maps, etc that I take with me into the back country.
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
OT, I know, but did he actually say something like that? I tend to ignore most of his blog posts these days as it seems to be nothing but whining about football, praising Obama, or yelling at his fans because they're annoyed he doesn't seem to do any actual author-type work anymore. If he's against the used book market too...yeesh.
Semi back on topic: Also, I was under the impression that book publishers have been against the used market for years now; my wife is a librarian and I'm pretty sure she has mentioned the issue to me before. Same issue with movies and music, and cars tend to have some resale built into their price? This kind of thing is far from new or original and theres still not a huge amount of outcry from the general public, much less blood on the streets...
http://thechubbyferret.net - Ferret pictures and informative links.
Whooosh!
Cynical Idealist
Precisely! The entire reason I buy console games over PC games is the ability to actually own them. Take that away, and what's the point?
What about used DVDs, used Cars, used Houses. What about when I resell my 'crap that I'm tired of storing in my closet' at a yard sale? Let's just make sure everyone gets their 10%, whether its a legitimate sale or just superfulously related to them. This rant has probably been posted before, who do I owe the 10% to?
What do you suppose would happen if the Book publishing industry went to Congress and demanded that all used bookstores pay a percentage of all book sales back to the book publishers?
How far would the Electronics and Jewelry industry get if they demanded that pawn shops do the same to them?
Used video games are not infinite goods. A book, a video game, a stereo system, and a diamond ring are, as far as the law is concerned, indistinguishable from one another. When you buy one, it is yours. It no longer belongs to the person who sold it to you. You can do what you wish with it (aside from violating copyright). You can break it, burn it, or give it away.
I am astounded at the gall of these prima donas.
Mir tut es leid, Menschen daß Einfältigfehlersuchenbaumfolgendenaffen sind.
It's ideas like this that give me no moral qualms about stealing a game.
I call with US Law != World law
U.S. law matters because GameStop is based in a suburb of Dallas, Texas.
This is the real sticking point for the publishers. They are not so concerned about older games that sell used for a small fraction of their original price. What has really got them bitching moaning and whining is when they release a craptacular game at 60 bucks.
The first buyers (ones not working 9-5) get it on the release morning, suffer through it for a few hours and sell it to Gamestop. That evening when the folks with day jobs stop off at GameStop on their way home they have a choice of the brand new title for 60 bucks in it's original shrinkwrap or 55 bucks in the GameStop shrinkwrap. The really smart gamer will see this and think - hmm used copies on day of release...not a good sign - and pass on the title entirely. This is a lost sale to the publisher. The next gamer who has been anticipating this title for 18 months or so is going to grab the cheaper copy and think "sweet! I saved five bucks" and once again, no money for the publisher.
So the publisher only sees the money from one sale on realease day while some people saw the used copy and realized this was one to avoid, while the "sure thing" sale to the rabid fan was also lost to the used copy. so 125 dollars changed hands, and the publisher only saw about 15 bucks instead 30. Gamestop - on the other hand - just made 80 odd bucks of gross profit. And probably also sent in a cancellation on any orders they had for more copies of that particluar title.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
GM, Ford & Chrysler get a taste on the resale of every one of their used cars... Margin problem solved, bailouts repaid. Yehaw.
You apparently didn't bother to read the post to which I was replying...
Why bother
The thing is, you're not paying $60 for the game. You're paying $60 for the latest game. Just like last season's shirts, lots of people don't want to buy last season's games, and if you're one of those people, that's fine, but I think it's clear that it's not the quality you're paying for. There are games that are certainly worth $60 for the entertainment they provide, but those games are rare, and in any case, you're always overpaying for the right to play the latest thing.
Last time I paid $60 for a game was when "God of War" first came out. Well worth the extra money. Although now you can buy it for around $20.
I check for games that have been on the shelf for a while. If it's been selling for the last year, then it's probably a good game. Plus, after a year, it's probably now around $20-$30. If it's still selling for $30 after a year, then it must be a good game.
"That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
I don't know where you get your information but it's not true.
Why bother
My 10.2 Mac won't run any modern browsers - just older ones. And the older ones don't display the net properly therefore I need to upgrade, but I cannot do that unless I lay-down $150 on buying 10.4. QED: My 2003 Mac is obsolete, while my 2001 PC is still fully functional
IMHO that's a bass-backwards situation. Just as Mickeysoft provides free upgrades for my XP-PC to keep it operational, so too should Apple.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>even those of us who are software engineers, prefer hard physical books.
That's fine but when was the last time you walked into a public library? For me it was sometime around 1994. Ever since the web was born, I've done most of my reading online via download, or bought the book from amazon.com for cheap. As long as people have those two options, I see no reason for a public library - it's as obsolete as the A-to-Z rental chain.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
my wife and i quite regularly use our local library
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Some do.
OT, I know, but did he actually say something like that? I tend to ignore most of his blog posts these days as it seems to be nothing but whining about football, praising Obama, or yelling at his fans because they're annoyed he doesn't seem to do any actual author-type work anymore. If he's against the used book market too...yeesh.
Not directly, but when I listened to him talk on the Feast tour, the War of the Worlds remake had just come out, and yes, he was ranting about how Wells' family "didn't see a dime from it," and just barely skirted the subject of used books/libraries(with all the same subtlety as his foreshadowing...).
Blockbuster and Hollywood Video (and, presumably, other movie rental venues) pay the movie studios a per-rental fee which is based on the age and the popularity of the title. When they then sell the movie used, a portion of that, again, goes to the movie studios.
There was a lawsuit filed by the studios against Hollywood Video about seven or eight years back claiming that they hadn't paid their cut adequately. The funny thing was that, in the resulting audit, it turns out that they had actually overpaid and the studios needed to compensate them.
When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
I am a contractor and after i build a house and sell it, i want a piece of any revenue that the new home owner gets from selling the house in the future. The houseing resale market deprives builders of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to building a new house.
I mean after all, fair is fair. If publishers are entitled to tax after market sales than so am I.
Little johnny sells his game at a garage sale? Are they gonna complain about that next?
What some people can't seem to realize is that in order to make better games that are more compelling with replay value and anything else a gamer wants, they need more money. If 1/2 to 3/4 of the gamers are buying used or stealing copies of the game that leaves developers with very little money to "upgrade" their next games with. I agree that developers shouldn't charge quite as much, but it's getting to the point they have to in order to sustain themselves and create more games in the future. If you disagree with this simply look at all the gaming companies going out of business right now.
If publishers really want to get in on the action, why don't they just take the initiative to start buy-back programs of their own, and outbid GameStop? Have you ever actually traded in a game there? The money you get is laughable - it's akin to selling your textbooks back to the school bookstore at the end of the year. The publishers would have no problem outbidding GameStop for this reason. Yeah, they'd be paying out more, but they'd have very little net overhead (assuming most of the games they'd buy would be sold in the immediate future) and could start a reasonable profit stream in no time. If the publishers started their own program, it could be like Netflix: they send you an envelope that is completely inexpensive to just mail back the disk itself, and sell it online. They could offer direct cash payouts or credits towards games in their own online stores. This is just indicative of the trend which was began by anti-trust legislation - why innovate when you can get a piece of your competitor's pie for the (usually) lower cost of some legal fees?
I heart anarcho-capitalism.
Publishers don't get anywhere near that percentage of the sale price. This article about the economics of game development is a couple years old, but using it as reference, I would be surprised if publishers were getting more than $20 for every game sold. (And the developers are getting even less)
Why don't game publishers just get into the business of used games and compete like anyone else. Lots of other retail stores have tried to do the used game thing and have had very mixed results. I don't like GameStop personally, but I must admit they perfected their business beyond others. Game publishers would have a tremendous advantage because they could advertise on their own boxes. Games cost virtually nothing to print, so why not have some kind of system where if they return the game to the publisher they get points towards whatever they want that would be enough of incentive to keep the media off the used market.
They control the source of the distribution and they are complaining about inability to give customers a reason to extend value? How is this necessarily different than a car company complaining that customers don't come back to the manufacturer for maintenance, or better, that people aren't buying enough new cars because people keep getting their old car fixed?
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
I'm not a particularly savvy customer when it comes to technology. Yes, I work in software, but my work gets sold to large organizations, not to consumers. When it comes to consumer electronics I really don't know that much. It's not that I can't keep up, it's that I don't have time.
What I haven't been noticing, for quite a long time now, is that companies keep putting limits on what I'm supposed to be able to do with software, songs, and other media after I've paid for it. I'm frankly scared to buy some things because I don't know whether or for how long I'll be able to use them.
Example: I now have an ipod. I've had it more than 4 months. It has the ability to download songs at a great price. There are tons of old songs I would gladly pay for...if I knew that I would be able to play them. Will I be able to copy them to my hard drive? If I can, then can I copy it to a memory stick or email it so that I can then put it on my office hard drive and listen to the songs at work? Having done that, will I be able to copy them to CD (my office computer's CD burner works, my home CD burner is flaky) so that I can listen to the music in my car? The ipod playback is pretty bad, so having it on the Ipod is useless. How do I know for sure whether I'll be able to put it somewhere I can use it?
So the recording industry is losing real money because of their attitude about things like resales and copying. I just don't buy their stuff.
I still buy video games. Those are only useful on one platform and when I buy them I have no problem knowing what they're for. I know that if I buy a new computer I can just install on that new computer. If I don't want it anymore I can give it to a friend or maybe event sell it, that's just normal stuff. I'll almost certainly give it to a friend who wouldn't buy it for himself (or he would have already done so). But if they start down a path of "licensing" rather than "selling", I'll never buy it at all.
A lot of us comsumers are stupid. We just want to buy things and own them. We don't want a lot of complicated rules about what we can do with the stuff we buy. Keep it simple and stupid or you can kiss away our business.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
That's interesting. My boyfriend and I quite regularly use correct English spelling, punctuation, and grammar.
a slight tangent, but this is being discussed for artists who make fine art.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/27/1989699.htm
http://www.copyright.org.au/policy-research/resale_royalty
Actually, if you are a rich college student and have to/are forced to use only the college library for some reason then I suppose your attitude is reasonable. Even large companies have libraries of text and reference books for which more than one copy is not required and it is probably not available online.
If indeed you knew it all I could accept you as an authority but since I don't know everything the fact that you might is irrelevant.
Why bother
I suppose those publishers will also provide continual and active support for these products.
blow it out your ass you moron
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regularly
I'm perfectly willing to shell out for a new game over a used game, only under certain circumstances:
1. If there is a physical incentive. Give me a pretty artbook or batarang or soundtrack or something. I hate digital incentives though, because it makes me feel like part of the game itself is locked down for people who couldn't preorder it. I think physical incentives are rewards for those who buy it new, while digital incentives are punishments for those who buy used (or hell, sometimes just later). That's more likely to convince me not to buy it.
2. Limited run games. I always buy things I know I'm going to like, but might be harder to get later. Examples are Atlus games or Fatal Frames. Really not a good business strategy though, I would think.
3. Desire to vote with my wallet. Not that common, but I'm pre-ordering and buying Monster Hunter Freedom Unite as soon as it is released since I want Capcom to get money for it. I want them to release Monster Hunter 3, so I'm attempting to vote with my wallet.
While publishers/developers don't have much control about number 3, and 2 isn't really good for business, 1 is pretty cheap and easy for them to do. It's not that hard to compile some art and throw together an artbook, or print a special poster or something, but it goes a long way for me feeling that it is worth the extra money to buy it new.
I can't believe that ranked a modded 5 for being insightful. That's just stupid. People get tired of good games and want to get rid of them.