I came to the conclusions based on buying patterns. 67% buy new, yes, but only 59% of those pay full price. The rest do not pay full price. The gifting portion would be split between new and used game purchases but that's for a different individual which would be accounted for in new/used game purchases anyway.
Possibly, but you'll end up with a happier customer base who will likely take that money and buy a different game that they do like so quality will be rewarded.
Steam itself, no. They will likely be able to charge a nominal fee for facilitating the transaction since maintaining such a system is not without cost.
The question is developer's sales - we've already seen F2P or subscription as models which negate the issue entirely but when it comes down to it, as was brought up in another conversation: ~60-70% of people buy new anyway. More established entertainment markets generally focus on the 45 day window immediately after release for their profits and don't worry so much about the long tail and indie developers are already priced so competitively that the difference between clicking "buy" via Steam vs tracking down a used seller to buy from the lazy factor may just win out. In the end it's still about supply and demand... if everyone wants a game and no one is buying new then there won't be any used copies on the market either. It just depends on how patient the person is and what they're willing to pay.
59% buy new before the game drops in price, 41% find a cheaper alternative (gift, used, bundle, after price drop). Gamestop's numbers are fairly close to this with a 68.5% to 31.5% split, but then again budget conscious gamers like myself don't buy used games at Gamestop because they're usually double the price of the local competition/online/etc
The major thing which is not accounted for in either set of data is the pass around value. Games which leave my collection generally end up in 3-5 hands before being sold/lost track of/damaged/etc.
These are all based on a lot of estimates which vary slightly between sources, however, I would take serious issue with your source for game data - the source and the citations are interesting to say the least. NPD group on the other hand is a long standing market research group with experience estimating these types of things.
Not sure where you're getting your numbers from but they're WAY off:
If you were to take your "new car market" number of $14.5 billion and http://www.gbm.scotiabank.com/English/bns_econ/bns_auto.pdf Scotiabank's 2012 # of units produced: 62.45 million you'd have an average price of $232 per vehicle globally.
The US market alone the used car estimate is over 350 billion and while estimates are that twice as many used cars are sold as new - the prices are obviously radically different though. US new car sales are roughly 15 million at an average price of ~$30,000. That would make it a 450 billion dollar industry in the US alone.
Here's the thing though - in both those cases you're only looking at dollar values - not units sold. Used game and used car prices vary and are significantly lower than new prices. If you estimate 7bil/$60 = 117 million units, 2 bil/$15 = 133 million units - not including private sales, gifting, loans, rentals, etc. In reality the numbers are too complex to calculate reasonably, new games aren't always sold for $60, used not for $15, etc etc. Conservative estimating though would suggest that the used market is at least as large, unit wise, as the new market and that's why Microsoft and publishers want control of it.
I'm about the same - I've got a more ideological take on it but PS3, Wii, Kinect are all dust collectors for me. 360 gets played constantly but almost never used for anything but games. Bluray was never important for me since the video rental industry collapsed at the time DVD was still popular and prices hadn't come down on purchasing Bluray (did they ever? no idea).
I'm not a huge fan of Steam's DRM but with the recent EU decision I'm hoping reselling will be possible across the board. Either way I don't feel as bad supporting them since they price things so well.... eventually.... and they're encouraging Linux & indies.
With the Xbox Lame One out of the question, my hopes are very much all pinned on Steambox or updating my aging desktop to devour PC games (maybe both!)
Nintendo is also the most profitable company per employee. With only ~5000 employees they can afford a poor selling console easily.
I predict PS4 "wins" this round but no one wins overall (esp the consumer) and Steambox and/or PC will make a resurgence... just not enough to really put it on the map.
They aren't doing this because they allow the retailer to set the price, they just structure it so that in order for the retailer to make a profit they must set their prices artificially high... it's a fine line but might be enough to let them steer clear.
Where they may run into trouble, in Canada at least, is the following:
The cartel provision in Section 45 of the Act stipulates that it is per se a criminal offence to conspire, agree or arrange with a competitor to fix prices, allocate customers or markets or control the production or supply of a product. A “competitor” includes a person who would be likely to compete with respect to the product in the absence of agreement. A “product” includes any article or service.
And if they don't qualify under that section as a cartel, there's also a less restrictive version which would allow a review of their competitor agreement.
It means exactly what I think it means. Using your words: A walkthrough is a vehicle for teaching in order to master the technique required to complete a game.
You make the same mistake as another commenter. If the harry potter book was being read in the background while someone explained the narrative devices being used, commented on quality, explained the subtext, etc then the work is not attempting to copy/imitate the original, it's providing something else entirely. If he was narrating the story that is a different matter, it may get into satire or it may simply be infringement.
Indeed. It would also be interesting to see the implications for other videos like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf408Rkc5IA - is any software's visual interface now subject to copyright? Then what about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFyb1VrlelQ - does merely an image of a copyrighted design (the design on the laminate) require permission to use? It's really endless.
earning revenue != profiting. I guarantee you the revenue to cost of production is always a money looser. A single playthrough of some games can take 100+ hours to play (even if that's not what ends up on the video) and they likely won't make minimum wage for 1 hour of video let alone 100.
That argument isn't exactly right though. Following your analogy, while the book is being read they are providing commentary over top (pushing the reading itself to the background) as their interpretation of the work. It's more of a case study than a direct reading.
While the sound/textures/story/video are unique to a game, the game on it's own merely sets boundaries by which a user can interact with it. The act of playing in their unique way constitutes an original performance. It's almost like saying Nintendo created a stage so every play held on that stage is somehow theirs? Obviously more nuanced than that but in the case of walkthroughs or say Red vs Blue style videos: The main thing that can be copyrighted, the story, is not what is being showcased. ie: Section 32.2
32.2 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright
(a) for an author of an artistic work who is not the owner of the copyright in the work to use any mould, cast, sketch, plan, model or study made by the author for the purpose of the work, if the author does not thereby repeat or imitate the main design of the work;
ie: the main design of the work in a walkthrough is not to copy & distribute their game, it's to inform other owners of said game of how they might use the original work.
Indeed. Our laws are far more specific and deal with different mediums in different ways. While far from perfect or comprehensive there are 20 different types of exceptions. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-42/
The one that protects individuals in a huge way is http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-42/page-21.html#h-31 - especially since it can allow for costs. You can still gain revenue from the work so long as you do not gain overall or in a substantial way (ie: advertising revenue is likely not going to recover the costs of producing said videos)
"I created a video of how I played X game and narrated it" is very very different than "I made a movie based on your book"
While copyright owners do have the rights to control derivative works that does not give them blanket rights to other original works which may utilize parts of their work. The question is how "original" is the work in question. If a person is simply copying the cut scenes from games and uploading them then that's not really anything original. The act of playing a game is unique to each player, the act of narration based on that play is original, so the question becomes whether the use of the textures/audio associated constitute fair use or infringement.
To me it's fairly clear that 29.21 applies - especially
the use of, or the authorization to disseminate, the new work or other subject-matter does not have a substantial adverse effect, financial or otherwise, on the exploitation or potential exploitation of the existing work or other subject-matter — or copy of it — or on an existing or potential market for it, including that the new work or other subject-matter is not a substitute for the existing one.
. 29, 29.1, 32.2, and in the case of individuals, 29.3 most definitely applies.
What is also at issue is that the resolution Google applies is done so without a) audit of each clip b) following the rules set out under section 34. Google itself may be liable for violating those provisions in Canada.
In Canada the answer would be without a doubt: yes. Nintendo would have no right to that revenue because a) the medium is different b) how a game is played by a particular user is an original work c) any additional content (audio explaining stuff about the game) is more than likely original. The only thing is that they would have to make sure to credit Nintendo but no more than that.
In the US it's likely going to be a different story - Canada has specific language in the copyright laws about original works based of copyrighted material.
I wouldn't expect them to patch anything - just insert a generic unlimited use code which will authenticate any game on their end. I hope that's what they'll do but I somehow doubt it;)
Slashdot Mirror
hehe - you make a valid point! I'm definitely sticking with my 360.
I came to the conclusions based on buying patterns. 67% buy new, yes, but only 59% of those pay full price. The rest do not pay full price. The gifting portion would be split between new and used game purchases but that's for a different individual which would be accounted for in new/used game purchases anyway.
Possibly, but you'll end up with a happier customer base who will likely take that money and buy a different game that they do like so quality will be rewarded.
Steam itself, no. They will likely be able to charge a nominal fee for facilitating the transaction since maintaining such a system is not without cost.
The question is developer's sales - we've already seen F2P or subscription as models which negate the issue entirely but when it comes down to it, as was brought up in another conversation: ~60-70% of people buy new anyway. More established entertainment markets generally focus on the 45 day window immediately after release for their profits and don't worry so much about the long tail and indie developers are already priced so competitively that the difference between clicking "buy" via Steam vs tracking down a used seller to buy from the lazy factor may just win out. In the end it's still about supply and demand... if everyone wants a game and no one is buying new then there won't be any used copies on the market either. It just depends on how patient the person is and what they're willing to pay.
If you dig a little deeper - you'll find a sizable chunk of people do care/don't purchase that way. From a 2006 report from OTX:
http://gamasutra.com/images/OTXresale/OTXResaleStudy_howotheybuy.png
59% buy new before the game drops in price, 41% find a cheaper alternative (gift, used, bundle, after price drop). Gamestop's numbers are fairly close to this with a 68.5% to 31.5% split, but then again budget conscious gamers like myself don't buy used games at Gamestop because they're usually double the price of the local competition/online/etc
The major thing which is not accounted for in either set of data is the pass around value. Games which leave my collection generally end up in 3-5 hands before being sold/lost track of/damaged/etc.
These are all based on a lot of estimates which vary slightly between sources, however, I would take serious issue with your source for game data - the source and the citations are interesting to say the least. NPD group on the other hand is a long standing market research group with experience estimating these types of things.
Not sure where you're getting your numbers from but they're WAY off:
If you were to take your "new car market" number of $14.5 billion and http://www.gbm.scotiabank.com/English/bns_econ/bns_auto.pdf Scotiabank's 2012 # of units produced: 62.45 million you'd have an average price of $232 per vehicle globally.
The US market alone the used car estimate is over 350 billion and while estimates are that twice as many used cars are sold as new - the prices are obviously radically different though. US new car sales are roughly 15 million at an average price of ~$30,000. That would make it a 450 billion dollar industry in the US alone.
The global game market is estimated at $47 billion (2010, excluding hardware), the US market has about 7 billion in new physical game sales and just under 2 billion in used game sales http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-02-06-USD14-8-billion-spent-on-gaming-in-us-last-year-says-npd
Here's the thing though - in both those cases you're only looking at dollar values - not units sold. Used game and used car prices vary and are significantly lower than new prices. If you estimate 7bil/$60 = 117 million units, 2 bil/$15 = 133 million units - not including private sales, gifting, loans, rentals, etc. In reality the numbers are too complex to calculate reasonably, new games aren't always sold for $60, used not for $15, etc etc. Conservative estimating though would suggest that the used market is at least as large, unit wise, as the new market and that's why Microsoft and publishers want control of it.
I'm about the same - I've got a more ideological take on it but PS3, Wii, Kinect are all dust collectors for me. 360 gets played constantly but almost never used for anything but games. Bluray was never important for me since the video rental industry collapsed at the time DVD was still popular and prices hadn't come down on purchasing Bluray (did they ever? no idea).
I'm not a huge fan of Steam's DRM but with the recent EU decision I'm hoping reselling will be possible across the board. Either way I don't feel as bad supporting them since they price things so well.... eventually.... and they're encouraging Linux & indies.
With the Xbox Lame One out of the question, my hopes are very much all pinned on Steambox or updating my aging desktop to devour PC games (maybe both!)
He's saying the Wii U couldn't compete against the 360/PS3 - not the Wii.
Sales for those 2 7th generation systems have outsold Nintendo's 8th generation offering, despite it being first to market.
Nintendo is also the most profitable company per employee. With only ~5000 employees they can afford a poor selling console easily.
I predict PS4 "wins" this round but no one wins overall (esp the consumer) and Steambox and/or PC will make a resurgence... just not enough to really put it on the map.
They aren't doing this because they allow the retailer to set the price, they just structure it so that in order for the retailer to make a profit they must set their prices artificially high... it's a fine line but might be enough to let them steer clear.
Where they may run into trouble, in Canada at least, is the following:
The cartel provision in Section 45 of the Act stipulates that it is per se a criminal offence to conspire, agree or arrange with a competitor to fix prices, allocate customers or markets or control the production or supply of a product. A “competitor” includes a person who would be likely to compete with respect to the product in the absence of agreement. A “product” includes any article or service.
And if they don't qualify under that section as a cartel, there's also a less restrictive version which would allow a review of their competitor agreement.
So do it, don't piss people off with this crap.
Music recordings have their own set of rules which are more restrictive
It means exactly what I think it means. Using your words: A walkthrough is a vehicle for teaching in order to master the technique required to complete a game.
The relevant one would be "a study".
revenue != profit.
You make the same mistake as another commenter. If the harry potter book was being read in the background while someone explained the narrative devices being used, commented on quality, explained the subtext, etc then the work is not attempting to copy/imitate the original, it's providing something else entirely. If he was narrating the story that is a different matter, it may get into satire or it may simply be infringement.
Indeed. It would also be interesting to see the implications for other videos like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf408Rkc5IA - is any software's visual interface now subject to copyright? Then what about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFyb1VrlelQ - does merely an image of a copyrighted design (the design on the laminate) require permission to use? It's really endless.
earning revenue != profiting. I guarantee you the revenue to cost of production is always a money looser. A single playthrough of some games can take 100+ hours to play (even if that's not what ends up on the video) and they likely won't make minimum wage for 1 hour of video let alone 100.
That argument isn't exactly right though. Following your analogy, while the book is being read they are providing commentary over top (pushing the reading itself to the background) as their interpretation of the work. It's more of a case study than a direct reading.
While the sound/textures/story/video are unique to a game, the game on it's own merely sets boundaries by which a user can interact with it. The act of playing in their unique way constitutes an original performance. It's almost like saying Nintendo created a stage so every play held on that stage is somehow theirs? Obviously more nuanced than that but in the case of walkthroughs or say Red vs Blue style videos: The main thing that can be copyrighted, the story, is not what is being showcased. ie: Section 32.2
32.2 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright
(a) for an author of an artistic work who is not the owner of the copyright in the work to use any mould, cast, sketch, plan, model or study made by the author for the purpose of the work, if the author does not thereby repeat or imitate the main design of the work;
ie: the main design of the work in a walkthrough is not to copy & distribute their game, it's to inform other owners of said game of how they might use the original work.
Indeed. Our laws are far more specific and deal with different mediums in different ways. While far from perfect or comprehensive there are 20 different types of exceptions. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-42/
The one that protects individuals in a huge way is http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-42/page-21.html#h-31 - especially since it can allow for costs. You can still gain revenue from the work so long as you do not gain overall or in a substantial way (ie: advertising revenue is likely not going to recover the costs of producing said videos)
"I created a video of how I played X game and narrated it" is very very different than "I made a movie based on your book"
While copyright owners do have the rights to control derivative works that does not give them blanket rights to other original works which may utilize parts of their work. The question is how "original" is the work in question. If a person is simply copying the cut scenes from games and uploading them then that's not really anything original. The act of playing a game is unique to each player, the act of narration based on that play is original, so the question becomes whether the use of the textures/audio associated constitute fair use or infringement.
To me it's fairly clear that 29.21 applies - especially
the use of, or the authorization to disseminate, the new work or other subject-matter does not have a substantial adverse effect, financial or otherwise, on the exploitation or potential exploitation of the existing work or other subject-matter — or copy of it — or on an existing or potential market for it, including that the new work or other subject-matter is not a substitute for the existing one.
. 29, 29.1, 32.2, and in the case of individuals, 29.3 most definitely applies.
What is also at issue is that the resolution Google applies is done so without a) audit of each clip b) following the rules set out under section 34. Google itself may be liable for violating those provisions in Canada.
The question really is: Is it an original work?
In Canada the answer would be without a doubt: yes. Nintendo would have no right to that revenue because a) the medium is different b) how a game is played by a particular user is an original work c) any additional content (audio explaining stuff about the game) is more than likely original. The only thing is that they would have to make sure to credit Nintendo but no more than that.
In the US it's likely going to be a different story - Canada has specific language in the copyright laws about original works based of copyrighted material.
I wouldn't expect them to patch anything - just insert a generic unlimited use code which will authenticate any game on their end. I hope that's what they'll do but I somehow doubt it ;)
" Unfortunately this appears to only be for future released games, those previously released will still be subject to this feature"
Will they or will free codes be made available? There seems to be no concrete information on this anywhere.