Penny Arcade on Buying Used

[dra600n]

Piracy and used games sales have never been at the level they are today. It used to be that the only place you could buy used console games was swap meets, yard sales and the classifieds. In the late-80s, you started to have some video game chains selling used, but never large retailers and Gamestop was just a small national chain at that point competing with EB and other small national chains.

Both Prince of Persia and Toy Story 3 are films from the Walt Disney Company. Pixar is a wholly owned division of Disney and Prince of Persia was produced and distributed (i.e. paid for entirely) by Disney. Jerry Bruckheimer Films is just a production entity.


I've seen used game sales since the late 80's in several places - mom and pop shops, Funcoland (pre-GS) in the early 90's, EB ever since I could remember, and several other places. It's on a more grand scale now because more games are being produced and more consoles have come and gone since 1985.

I also believe that Pixar, while owned by Disney, doesn't pick movies from the Disney Vault. They operate under their own terms and entity and Disney doesn't say much about what they do. I could very well be off on that.



Production was hinted as the main costs many many many many many times over in this thread. That's another reason why I had to laugh at the $500 Mega Man 9 and 10 comment, I mean, it's expensive to release ANYTHING these days...

That wasn't a literal dollar value on the production of Mega Man 9 and 10. I'm sure it still cost a butt ton to produce, but I wouldn't believe anywhere over $200,000 to be quite honest.

[SegaAges]

I also believe that Pixar, while owned by Disney, doesn't pick movies from the Disney Vault. They operate under their own terms and entity and Disney doesn't say much about what they do. I could very well be off on that.


It is Disney

[dra600n]

It is Disney

Disney bought Pixar in 2006. The only movies released while under the Disney hand are: Cars (which was probably in production way before Disney), Up, Ratatouille, WALL-E, and Toy Story 3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixar#Acquisition_by_Disney

3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence:
"In fact, additional conditions were laid out as part of the deal to ensure that Pixar remained a separate entity, a concern that analysts had expressed about the Disney deal."

They are a separate entity and their production is not influenced by Disney.

[emceelokey]

[QUOTE=Gameguy;1761350]

It seems I was a bit misinformed about the production costs, sorry about that.

QUOTE]


Production was hinted as the main costs many many many many many times over in this thread. That's another reason why I had to laugh at the $500 Mega Man 9 and 10 comment, I mean, it's expensive to release ANYTHING these days...


Yeah. That remark pretty much ended this thread for me. Even if it did take one person to develop that game and it took him only two months to develop it, he would cost him more than $500 just to drive back and forth to the office every day and I'm pretty sure he didn't do it for free. Thread is officially dead to me now.

[Gameguy]

As for the cost of development;

http://www.bruceongames.com/2008/01/30/the-aaa-games-business/

http://www.bruceongames.com/2010/02/24/aaa-games-a-broken-business-model/

[Bojay1997]

As for the cost of development;

http://www.bruceongames.com/2008/01/30/the-aaa-games-business/

http://www.bruceongames.com/2010/02/24/aaa-games-a-broken-business-model/

Wow, some guy that worked at Imagine before it became the much cooler Psygnosis and Code Masters which specializes in low budget crap. So surprising that this guy would complain that there are too many AAA games. Give me a break. Didn't you say you didn't care about this topic and were done?

[Bojay1997]

Disney bought Pixar in 2006. The only movies released while under the Disney hand are: Cars (which was probably in production way before Disney), Up, Ratatouille, WALL-E, and Toy Story 3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixar#Acquisition_by_Disney

3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence:
"In fact, additional conditions were laid out as part of the deal to ensure that Pixar remained a separate entity, a concern that analysts had expressed about the Disney deal."

They are a separate entity and their production is not influenced by Disney.

I can tell you for a fact that is 100% not true. Pixar is run like any other Disney division and they all report to Bob Iger and the Board of Directors. Does Pixar have more latitude than say Touchstone Pictures in what they can produce? Absolutely. Are they an independent entity? Not even close.

[Bojay1997]

They were made by different people from different studios(Pixar is a studio owned by Disney, they have other divisions too) which is why they vary in quality. By your logic, Studio Ghibli films should also be considered Disney films because they're distributed by Disney in North America.

As for piracy, it probably is worse now as everyone has a computer with a 500GB+ hard drive and a CD/DVD burner as well as high speed internet access. If people have access to technology, they'll use it to their advantage as much as possible.

I honestly don't care about this topic anymore. There's plenty of reasons people can choose to blame low sales on, I really don't care. All I know is that I'm not willing to pay big bucks for a game if I can't get any of it back later. I'm already reluctant to buy DS games because I can barely get $5-$10 for a used title.


You made it sound like new games cost $150 million+ to make, not $10-25 million.

I do agree that it wasn't that cheap to make Mega Man 9, it looks old but it's not an NES game played on an emulator. It just looks like an NES game.

I still stand by my opinion that if game studios can't make enough profit, they have to find ways to cut production costs. If they can't do that, the studios will go bankrupt and the industry will crash.

Again, you understand nothing about the entertainment business. Disney distributes certain properties like Studio Ghibli and certain Dreamworks stuff. They produce and distribute others like Prince of Persia, Alice in Wonderland and Toy Story 3. In video game terms, they are the developer and publisher of those three properties and are just the publisher of the Ghibli and Dreamworks stuff.

I agree with you that the games industry must change and unfortunately, what they are going to do is to continue to charge for DLC that used to be part of the total game release and charge for demos and look for ways to prevent people from buying and selling used by only giving access to on-line and certain features to the original purchaser. Personally, I could care less as I just skip the DLC and I always buy new. Other consumers will have to make up their own mind. If other entertainment segments are any indication, people will suck it up and just pay more rather than not have access to the content. As long as people are happy to pay $100 a month for digital cable, $100 a month for their smart phone and who knows how much for other entertainment services like Netflix, Video On Demand, etc..., they sure aren't gonna complain too much about spending a couple hundred a month on games like most of us here already do anyway especially if used becomes a far less viable option.

[Gameguy]

Again, you understand nothing about the entertainment business. Disney distributes certain properties like Studio Ghibli and certain Dreamworks stuff. They produce and distribute others like Prince of Persia, Alice in Wonderland and Toy Story 3. In video game terms, they are the developer and publisher of those three properties and are just the publisher of the Ghibli and Dreamworks stuff.
It's a separate studio owned by Disney, the people who made Toy Story 3 did not make Prince of Persia like you claimed they did. I can't even find any place online that says Jerry Bruckheimer Films is owned by Disney, where did you find this information? Jerry Bruckheimer Films made Prince of Persia.

I can't find it on this list of assets owned by Disney, I see Pixar listed but not Jerry Bruckheimer Films. Seriously, where did you see it? You claimed both films were actually made by Disney, not just distributed by them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disney


Lasseter and Catmull's oversight of both the Disney and Pixar studios did not mean that the two studios were merging, however. In fact, additional conditions were laid out as part of the deal to ensure that Pixar remained a separate entity, a concern that analysts had expressed about the Disney deal.

[Griking]

Late to the thread but the comparison to cars is interesting.

Working at a dealer, we love used cars. The margins are much greater then they are on new meaning.....dun dun dun MORE profit. The manufacturer doesn't tell us we are evil and bad and taking sales away from the new car dept. In the auto market new and used work hand in hand. People trade in used to get new all the time. Then we resell the used car to someone that is thrifty or just can afford a new car. Time and time again though over time the used car buyer can afford a new car someday, meaning profit for the maker of the car.

I haven't read the rest of the threads after this one yet so i'm not sure of it was mentioned but the difference here is that used cars eventually require maintenance and repairs which provide manufacturers with an additional source of income. Used games do not.

[Az]

the average consumer could wants both cheap games (i.e. used) but the full range of support and customer service that can only be paid for with new game sales.

This isn't a targeted towards you, but just that concept in general.

A game is developed and published, say 100k copies printed, and the print run sells out. All 100k copies are in consumer hands, or at retail.

That particular company has to be able to provide the same level of support and customer service for every single buyer. They should have adequate online capabilities, warranty support, customer service reps, etc, to cover the amount of copies they at least expect to sell, regardless of how many are actually sold.

If I sell you my copy of the game, I no longer require any support from that company. We're not both playing online, requesting warranty service, or anything else. There is still only one customer to support, and that customer is you instead of me.

Now that's $50 that you didn't spend at the local retailer and won't eventually somehow drip back to the developer or publisher, but me selling my game to you does not somehow require the game company to perform twice the service for half the price. If 100 copies are sold at retail, then resold in the used market, there are still only 100 people eating up the companies resources.

And to be honest, the only resources I can think of would be a bit of online play support, since I don't really know of any warranty or customer support that is provided unless you are the original purchaser and have your receipt.

[mobiusclimber]

It's all one big lie just like record companies claiming they lose so much revenue from file sharing (or CD-Rs, or cassette recording!) when in fact they aren't making money b/c they keep releasing garbage and expect people to pay full price for it.

$60 for a ten hour game were half of that time is obvious padding? Oh and if I want to play online I'd better pony up the dough for a bunch of map packs, fancy weapons, etc etc. Fuck that. I should cry for THQ?! HAHAHAHAHA fuck yeah, I'll cry for them but they'll be tears of laughter. If that piece of shit developer ever does go out of business, that is. Make a game people want to play and maybe you'll see some revenue.

What it boils down to is this: do I feel like I'M being robbed for paying full price for your game? Then I'm going "rob" you, literally or metaphorically, by downloading your game, buying it used, or just waiting until you're so desperate to sell that shit that it's $20 new. Where do I buy my new games from? Rosenqueen, bitches. Not only is the game actually going to be quality, but it's going to come with an art book and a soundtrack.

Seriously, I don't know what thinking person would say that penalizing a consumer is the way to get them to buy your product. The idiocy is just staggering.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Seriously, I don't know what thinking person would say that penalizing a consumer is the way to get them to buy your product. The idiocy is just staggering.

It makes sense in a few ways, psychology for instance. While the rules of trade adverse actions supported by positively selected words remain inverted (for instance: consumer gets less and pays the same or more while getting less value or product is marketed as a benefit, or otherwise given in a good or positive angle), this type of asinine crazy talk will actually work. If someone is foolish enough to buy into it. Abuse cycles are addictive, not because people actually favor abuse over care or indifference, but it's how humans internally process and handle abuse, actively pursuing the cycle and dooming themselves to repetition. It takes examination and identification to break out, and who has the time for that?

How to train-in and ensure repeat customers for mindless zombie-like consumption, simply give them eternal bullshit and always less for more, but calling it "progress" and they'll love you for it. It doesn't work on everyone, just most. It's the MO of the truly oldest profession in the world. Who do you think hired the first hookers? LOL

Many people are not adverse to being cheated or even raped; for their money, their time, their energy/vitality or good will, as long as someone tells them, convincingly enough, that it's all for truth and love.

[jb143]

That wasn't a literal dollar value on the production of Mega Man 9 and 10. I'm sure it still cost a butt ton to produce, but I wouldn't believe anywhere over $200,000 to be quite honest.

Even indie and casual games can cost a ton to develop. $200,000 is probally on the extremely high end for those though. I think Plants vs. Zombies cost $1Million to develop.

[Bojay1997]

It's a separate studio owned by Disney, the people who made Toy Story 3 did not make Prince of Persia like you claimed they did. I can't even find any place online that says Jerry Bruckheimer Films is owned by Disney, where did you find this information? Jerry Bruckheimer Films made Prince of Persia.

I can't find it on this list of assets owned by Disney, I see Pixar listed but not Jerry Bruckheimer Films. Seriously, where did you see it? You claimed both films were actually made by Disney, not just distributed by them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disney

For the last time, you have no idea how studios are organized. I work for one of the two film/TV/video game studios down the street from Disney in Burbank and I have many friends that work on the Disney lot. Moreover, I have worked in entertainment for most of the past decade on the studio, production company and law firm side. Every single film, and television show for that matter, which gets made at Disney whether it's branded Disney, Touchstone, Pixar, etc...is owned and controlled by Disney. Pixar is run like any other division and the same legal, finance, marketing, home video, risk management, studio services, etc...departments support Pixar releases that support every other Disney release. When a film is green lit, a separate LLC entity is set up to actually run day to day production for however long it takes to develop, produce and release that project. Bruckheimer has a deal with Disney for film production. His company is only made up of a small team of producers and support people working out of Santa Monica. When Disney greenlights a project, several hundred people get hired over time to actually create the film from script through final release. They aren't employees of Bruckheimer, they are employees of the production entity which is owned by Disney. He just produces and directs and his team gets paid through the LLC. His company also gets various profit points and additional compensation beyond the salary his various employees may get. Saying Prince of Persia is a Bruckheimer Company film and not a Disney film is like saying that Metal Gear is not a Konami game because Hideo Kojima and his team actually created the most recent versions and Kojima has his own company.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

I think Digital Press should charge people $59.99 to read this thread. ($54.99 for a used copy.)

It has as much content as a Kojima game and makes about as much sense.

[Bojay1997]

This isn't a targeted towards you, but just that concept in general.

A game is developed and published, say 100k copies printed, and the print run sells out. All 100k copies are in consumer hands, or at retail.

That particular company has to be able to provide the same level of support and customer service for every single buyer. They should have adequate online capabilities, warranty support, customer service reps, etc, to cover the amount of copies they at least expect to sell, regardless of how many are actually sold.

If I sell you my copy of the game, I no longer require any support from that company. We're not both playing online, requesting warranty service, or anything else. There is still only one customer to support, and that customer is you instead of me.

Now that's $50 that you didn't spend at the local retailer and won't eventually somehow drip back to the developer or publisher, but me selling my game to you does not somehow require the game company to perform twice the service for half the price. If 100 copies are sold at retail, then resold in the used market, there are still only 100 people eating up the companies resources.

And to be honest, the only resources I can think of would be a bit of online play support, since I don't really know of any warranty or customer support that is provided unless you are the original purchaser and have your receipt.


But the business model of games just like most consumer products is that once the consumer has played through the game or enjoyed as much multi-player as they can stand, they will simply put the game on the shelf and forget about it, kind of like when you buy a car under warranty and sell it as used to another consumer. The auto manufacturers or the game publishers shouldn't have a continuing obligation to provide the same services to the subsequent buyer as the original buyer. That's why I don't have a problem with the play pass or other schemes various companies are deploying. As long as they aren't charging the original new game buyer for these services, as far as I'm concerned they are perfectly fine as they represent some kind of proportional representation of the resources that subsequent consumer is using up in server usage, etc...That's why play pass is not $60, but $10 or some amount closer to that range which seems fair given the resources involved.

[DuckTalesNES]

Just finished reading this marathon thread start to finish and I wanted to reiterate what I thought some of the main points were and say a few things myself.

I'm a PhD student in Economics, and while I don't claim to have any knowledge about the innerworkings of the video game market, I do know quite a bit about consumers and incentives, so the best things I read in this thread were the following ideas (props to the original commentators, but I'm not re-reading the 7 pages to get the exact quotes).

1. Give buyers an incentive to buy new. I really liked the idea that if you buy new you get "Gold Status" or something which entitles you to downloadable content at a later date for free or at a discount. This doesn't prevent anyone from buying a game used and then buying the downloadable content at another date, but does provide incentives for people to consider paying the extra $5 for the new copy of the game instead of the used copy.

2. Video game companies could set up their own buyback programs. From the eyes of a video game company this should be a win win. I sell you a brand new copy and take a used copy out of the market, which I could possibly even sell again! Or potentially I could re-use some of the materials. From another perspective, why can't I trade in two of my virtual-console games for another one? I bet people would do this and this would be a steady revenue stream for the video game companies.

3. Many people trade in games to BUY NEW. Just like how people trade in their used car to buy a new one at the dealership. The car dealership likes this because now they can turn a profit on used cars as well, and the car company is happy to be able to sell a new game. The video game industry really doesn't seem all that different.

Finally, an opinion of my own. The best way for the video game industry to increase profitability is to not only increase the quality of the best games, but eliminate the bad projects all together. I looked over THQ's website and (as the commentors had suggested) their games are unbelievably terrible. No amount of market restructuring is going to help an industry that is making a horrible product.

This was an interesting thread to read even though there were a lot of diversions along the way. (Seriously I don't care whether its Disney, Pixar, Jerry Bruckheimer or the Tooth Fairy.)

[skaar]

I'd also like to say that it's partly the game companies' own faults for not offering "catalog" sales. Book publishers, record labels, and movie companies don't limit their offerings to their most recent releases, so why should game companies? Less than a year after its release, I couldn't find Valkyria Chronicles anywhere. I bought it used, because I had no other option. I guess I'm killing Sega.

Software just doesn't support this distribution model, at least not in physical form. This is what they are trying to do by going download only. Distributors will only take so much product from the publishers and warehouse it so long before they will want to blow it out and refresh stock. If a product isn't pushing through X numbers at retail then the publisher won't risk a reprint and getting stuck with 30,000 copies of Barbie's Horse Adventures III: The Quickening.

This has NOTHING to do with the game companies trying to fuck people over - they'd be happy to keep something available constantly at retail. They'd bounce off the ceiling if they could. This has to do with retailers with limited shelf/display space, distributors with overwhelming amounts of product on a high refresh cycle, and overall too many freaking games in the channel. It's only natural they'd want to go download only - hell, there's even higher margin there.

Besides, most publishers will do catalog/direct sales of their titles. People just won't pay full price for it past a few months and expect a discount. Gamers and publishers have done this to themselves - you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[s1lence]

I haven't read the rest of the threads after this one yet so i'm not sure of it was mentioned but the difference here is that used cars eventually require maintenance and repairs which provide manufacturers with an additional source of income. Used games do not.


You aren't required to use factory parts or dealership labor.

[j_factor]

But the business model of games just like most consumer products is that once the consumer has played through the game or enjoyed as much multi-player as they can stand, they will simply put the game on the shelf and forget about it, kind of like when you buy a car under warranty and sell it as used to another consumer. The auto manufacturers or the game publishers shouldn't have a continuing obligation to provide the same services to the subsequent buyer as the original buyer. That's why I don't have a problem with the play pass or other schemes various companies are deploying. As long as they aren't charging the original new game buyer for these services, as far as I'm concerned they are perfectly fine as they represent some kind of proportional representation of the resources that subsequent consumer is using up in server usage, etc...That's why play pass is not $60, but $10 or some amount closer to that range which seems fair given the resources involved.

But I'm not seeing game companies merely bitching about providing online play to people who bought their games used. I'm seeing comments that the used game market is killing them. With no regard to online. That majority of games don't have online play.

Personally I have no problem with charging extra for online play with used copies of games. As long as it stops there, and they don't make half the game paid DLC.


Software just doesn't support this distribution model, at least not in physical form. This is what they are trying to do by going download only. Distributors will only take so much product from the publishers and warehouse it so long before they will want to blow it out and refresh stock. If a product isn't pushing through X numbers at retail then the publisher won't risk a reprint and getting stuck with 30,000 copies of Barbie's Horse Adventures III: The Quickening.

How do they manage to do it with CD's, movies, and books then? Why not games? It's not even like it's only best-sellers with the other media. If I can waltz into any DVD store and buy Joe Dirt brand new, I sure as hell don't see why I can't do the same for some game. How many copies do you think Joe Dirt is selling? More than any game from 2001 would?

Of course, games are a little different in that they come on different platforms which are more quickly rendered obsolete than video formats (and porting a game is more work than converting a film to DVD). But their shelf time could certainly be extended, and at least some games could get DVD style rereleases. Nintendo gave away how many copies of OoT Master Quest for free? You don't think they could've sold it instead?


This has NOTHING to do with the game companies trying to fuck people over - they'd be happy to keep something available constantly at retail. They'd bounce off the ceiling if they could. This has to do with retailers with limited shelf/display space, distributors with overwhelming amounts of product on a high refresh cycle, and overall too many freaking games in the channel. It's only natural they'd want to go download only - hell, there's even higher margin there.

Besides, most publishers will do catalog/direct sales of their titles. People just won't pay full price for it past a few months and expect a discount. Gamers and publishers have done this to themselves - you can't have your cake and eat it too.

But you can see that it's viable (at least for some games), what with Game Quest Direct and budget PC game labels. Why aren't the companies doing that shit themselves (outside of digital distribution)? There shouldn't be any reason for GQD to exist. I've never seen any game company even try it with one game. I don't know how you can be so sure it's impossible when it's never been attempted. Also I'm pretty sure you can do a print of like 5,000. And of course people won't pay full price most of the time, but there's no reason they would be full price. Game companies have pretty much settled on a pricing structure that involves initial sales at one price, and subsequent sales at a reduced price. If that's a problem, that ties into my other point about using more stable (but more varied) pricing.

More importantly, my point still stands that with the game companies not allowing this option, you can't blame gamers for buying used. If I could have bought Valkyria Chronicles new, I gladly would have. But they gave me no alternative other than to "hurt" them by buying it used.

[skaar]

How do they manage to do it with CD's, movies, and books then? Why not games? It's not even like it's only best-sellers with the other media. If I can waltz into any DVD store and buy Joe Dirt brand new, I sure as hell don't see why I can't do the same for some game. How many copies do you think Joe Dirt is selling? More than any game from 2001 would?

That's the thing - games aren't distributed through the same channels. Software would probably benefit through alternate channels but those channels couldn't sell the volume that retail does. The distributor is really the customer here - past that the game companies stop seeing any money. They bank on their product selling through and the distributor re-ordering.


Of course, games are a little different in that they come on different platforms which are more quickly rendered obsolete than video formats (and porting a game is more work than converting a film to DVD). But their shelf time could certainly be extended, and at least some games could get DVD style rereleases. Nintendo gave away how many copies of OoT Master Quest for free? You don't think they could've sold it instead?

Probably, if given the option. But that's up to the distributor and retailer to allow the room for that to happen. Not the pubs.



But you can see that it's viable (at least for some games), what with Game Quest Direct and budget PC game labels. Why aren't the companies doing that shit themselves (outside of digital distribution)? There shouldn't be any reason for GQD to exist. I've never seen any game company even try it with one game. I don't know how you can be so sure it's impossible when it's never been attempted.

It's not impossible. It's just expensive. Game companies want to move products in the tens of thousands, not one at a time. GQD and all that will buy through the same channels and use the distros for fullfillment most of the time anyway.


Also I'm pretty sure you can do a print of like 5,000.

Depends on the console/price point.


And of course people won't pay full price most of the time, but there's no reason they would be full price. Game companies have pretty much settled on a pricing structure that involves initial sales at one price, and subsequent sales at a reduced price. If that's a problem, that ties into my other point about using more stable (but more varied) pricing.

Agreed.


More importantly, my point still stands that with the game companies not allowing this option, you can't blame gamers for buying used. If I could have bought Valkyria Chronicles new, I gladly would have. But they gave me no alternative other than to "hurt" them by buying it used.

First off, it's THQ. Fuck them.

Secondly, the problem with your point is you're pointing the finger at the game companies. The only thing they're guilty of here is flooding the channel with product, and you can't really blame them since if they don't do it someone else WOULD have. If THQ isn't churning out shit, 2K is. Or Rockstar. Or Activision. Or whoever the hell is making more shit.

Retailers want to move as much product as they can as quickly as they can with limited space at retail. And as shitty as it is, Madden will sell a lot more than Grim Fandango. If Lucasarts could still have Grim on the shelf, they would. But they can't. So go buy Madden or go buy Grim used. It's the best we can do as gamers right now.

[Gameguy]

Saying Prince of Persia is a Bruckheimer Company film and not a Disney film is like saying that Metal Gear is not a Konami game because Hideo Kojima and his team actually created the most recent versions and Kojima has his own company.
Actually it's like saying Snake's Revenge for the NES isn't a true sequel to Metal Gear while Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake is, as Hideo Kojima(creator of Metal Gear) had nothing to do with Snake's Revenge but he made Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake. They're still both Konami games, only one sucks and the other is good.

Did Toy Story 3 and Prince of Persia have the same director or writers? If you'd bothered to check, most Pixar films have John Lasseter, Lee Unkrich, or Andrew Stanton involved in someway(as Director, Executive Producer, Writer, a combination of the previous three, etc). They are why most Pixar movies are good. They were involved with Toy Story 3 and were involved with Pixar well before Disney bought the studio. None of them were involved with Prince of Persia, as Prince of Persia was directed by Mike Newell(most of his previous work isn't that good) and had entirely different writers(most of their previous work also isn't that good). I don't care if the same company paid for both films, if you can't understand that different people were involved in the production then something is wrong with you.

As long as something is done well it's worth supporting, if something is not done well there's no reason to support it. There's no reason to pay for anything poorly done, I don't care if a company loses money because of it. The same goes for movies and games, you can pretty much tell the quality of something based on the creators' previous work. I'm almost positive that's how this sidetrack got started as that point was related to games. If something is big budget, it better be good or don't be surprised when nobody buys it.

[crazyjackcsa]

One thing that hasn't been brought up is value as it relates to cost. For example: I'm far more likely to purchase a Nintendo game brand new, close to it's release date than any other publisher. Why? Becasue I know that a Sega (or EA Sports or whatever) game is going to drop in price by half within 3-6 months. That Nintendo game is going to be 60 dollars week one, and probably 50-60 dollars at week 52. and the used one is still only 5-10 dollars less a year later. May as well by it new right away. For whatever reason, they are the only company that does this. Why? I honestly don't know. Look at the sales, Nintendo isn't the most prolific publisher, but they sell the most games. Maybe they've come to realize that selling 5 million copies of 5 games is cheaper than selling 5 copies of a million different games.

[Bojay1997]

Actually it's like saying Snake's Revenge for the NES isn't a true sequel to Metal Gear while Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake is, as Hideo Kojima(creator of Metal Gear) had nothing to do with Snake's Revenge but he made Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake. They're still both Konami games, only one sucks and the other is good.

Did Toy Story 3 and Prince of Persia have the same director or writers? If you'd bothered to check, most Pixar films have John Lasseter, Lee Unkrich, or Andrew Stanton involved in someway(as Director, Executive Producer, Writer, a combination of the previous three, etc). They are why most Pixar movies are good. They were involved with Toy Story 3 and were involved with Pixar well before Disney bought the studio. None of them were involved with Prince of Persia, as Prince of Persia was directed by Mike Newell(most of his previous work isn't that good) and had entirely different writers(most of their previous work also isn't that good). I don't care if the same company paid for both films, if you can't understand that different people were involved in the production then something is wrong with you.

As long as something is done well it's worth supporting, if something is not done well there's no reason to support it. There's no reason to pay for anything poorly done, I don't care if a company loses money because of it. The same goes for movies and games, you can pretty much tell the quality of something based on the creators' previous work. I'm almost positive that's how this sidetrack got started as that point was related to games. If something is big budget, it better be good or don't be surprised when nobody buys it.

Of course, different people are involved in the production of every entertainment product, including every single Pixar film. People move up and out and on. Does having certain key people involved in a series of entertainment products increase the likelihood that something will be good? Sometimes. But sometimes a brilliant writer or director or studio can still put out a dud. That's why your theory fails. If it was possible to judge future performance solely on past performance, Hollywood would never release a new idea or movie. Everything would be a sequel to something successful.

To bring things back on topic, that's the problem with your theory that video game companies should cut back on big budget games and focus only on the good ones. How do you predict which ones are great and which ones aren't? Remember all the hype about Red Dead being a dud around four months before release? It turned out the game would go on to be one of the most critically acclaimed and financially successful of the past year. Should Take Two/Rockstar have pulled the plug when it looked like things weren't coming together? Conversely, Mafia II looks like it won't make it's money back or will only turn a small profit. I think it's a really good game. Not everyone agrees. How should that be handled?

Nobody can predict what will be great and what won't. If they could, they would always only invest in products that would be great. Obviously, nobody wants to make crap, it's not financially viable and frankly, it's a great way to get fired in the entertainment industry as an executive. While there are things that can be done to increase the chances of success, there is never a guarantee. As such, your argument that the answer to the financial damage caused by used games is to cut back financially or only make great stuff is ridiculous.

[eskobar]

Damn you all !!

:(

Yesterday I went to a mall to purchase Heavy Rain .... with all this discussion in my head i preferred to buy a brand new copy at 999 pesos on SEARS and skip the used copies that sell for 799 pesos on BLOCKBUSTER.

My thought was that the difference between the two was minimal ... only 200 pesos :)

[Griking]

\ding the 7 pages to get the exact quotes).

1. Give buyers an incentive to buy new. I really liked the idea that if you buy new you get "Gold Status" or something which entitles you to downloadable content at a later date for free or at a discount. This doesn't prevent anyone from buying a game used and then buying the downloadable content at another date, but does provide incentives for people to consider paying the extra $5 for the new copy of the game instead of the used copy. I'm having a hard time understanding the difference between giving extra content (downloadable content) to a new buyer and disabling content for used buyers.

[Gameguy]

Of course, different people are involved in the production of every entertainment product, including every single Pixar film. People move up and out and on. Does having certain key people involved in a series of entertainment products increase the likelihood that something will be good? Sometimes. But sometimes a brilliant writer or director or studio can still put out a dud. That's why your theory fails. If it was possible to judge future performance solely on past performance, Hollywood would never release a new idea or movie. Everything would be a sequel to something successful.

To bring things back on topic, that's the problem with your theory that video game companies should cut back on big budget games and focus only on the good ones. How do you predict which ones are great and which ones aren't? Remember all the hype about Red Dead being a dud around four months before release? It turned out the game would go on to be one of the most critically acclaimed and financially successful of the past year. Should Take Two/Rockstar have pulled the plug when it looked like things weren't coming together? Conversely, Mafia II looks like it won't make it's money back or will only turn a small profit. I think it's a really good game. Not everyone agrees. How should that be handled?

Nobody can predict what will be great and what won't. If they could, they would always only invest in products that would be great. Obviously, nobody wants to make crap, it's not financially viable and frankly, it's a great way to get fired in the entertainment industry as an executive. While there are things that can be done to increase the chances of success, there is never a guarantee. As such, your argument that the answer to the financial damage caused by used games is to cut back financially or only make great stuff is ridiculous.
Obviously not every employee will stay the same, but I do feel that the overall quality of a company is based on their key individuals. That's not to say that a company can't be as good if the majority of people change, but when the people change so can the overall quality. Out of the 11 Pixar feature films, Lee Unkrich was involved in 8 of them. I believe John Lasseter was involved in all of them, and Andrew Stanton was also involved with all of them. Even their work outside of Pixar is excellent. That's why I can say Pixar seems to always produce excellent films, I can't say that about Disney as a whole as I remember a whole bunch of poor titles coming from them though there are other good films from them too.

I do agree with you that the quality can vary with the same person or group of people, for someone who mostly does great work not everything will be great, and someone who mostly does terrible work can still make something excellent. I just feel that past performance is a strong indicator to future performance. If I had $100 million dollars to invest in a project either with Hayao Miyazaki or Mike Newell, I'm going to go with Hayao Miyazaki. I'm looking through Mike Newell's filmography and his films are of mixed quality, some are really good but others are just average. To be fair the previous work of the writers for Prince of Persia isn't that good, Mike Newell probably didn't have that much to work with. Hayao Miyazaki's previous work is pretty much all excellent quality, I would go with him for sure.

Plenty of companies do try to invest only in good products that will sell well, plenty of ideas for new types of games get rejected. That was a big problem with Ron Gilbert's DeathSpank, he spent 4 years trying to get someone to publish the game. It was finally published, and has high reviews. Companies like to go with what they know already works whenever possible, rather than take risks where they could really lose a lot of money.

As for companies not wanting to release bad products, I think back to the Atari 2600 version of Pac Man. I'm disappointed that I can't find the other quote I wanted where an Atari executive claims they could put crap on a cartridge and still sell millions of copies, I've looked for it for hours but can't find it.

http://screwattack.com/blogs/Video-Games-Before-After/Before-and-After-Pac-Man.


There are many ports of Pac-Man, but only one I want to talk about. Pac-Man for the Atari 2600, the biggest mistake in video game history. Atari got the rights to produce a port for Pac-Man in the late 1970's. They thought it would be easy to produce the game thinking the game was popular because of it's gameplay and not graphics. They had a prototype ready by late 1981, but to capitalize on the game for the 1981 holiday season, they decided to release the prototype. At the time, there were only 10 million active Atari 2600's being used, but Atari made 12 million copies of the game thinking every Atari 2600 owner would buy the game and 2 million people would buy the system just to play the game with predicted sales to be 500 million dollars. The game only sold 5 million copies leaving 7 million leftover. The game was awful and is often blamed along with E.T. The Extra Terrestrial for the video game crash of 1983.
It was rushed out the door, and almost killed the industry. At the time the market was flooded with excessive poor quality titles. Admittedly with Pac-Man it was more of a problem that they produced too many cartridges rather than the game just being bad, but basically they sold fewer copies than they expected and the fact that it was a poor game was a major factor. Things have changed since then, but I still feel plenty of developers rush games to meet deadlines(holiday sales) or just make them "good enough" before pushing them out the door. I know people(including customers) would complain if they spend too long making a game, so I don't blame them entirely for it. Still if the quality of current games isn't that high, people will stop buying them and the industry will crash again. You don't have to predict if a game will be good or not, just play test it before releasing it. If it's bad, fix it before releasing it.

I have another example. I remember Rise of the Robots was hyped excessively when it was being made, and it really sucked. It had really impressive graphics for the time, but played like garbage. They really marketed this game well, but that's it. And this game somehow had a sequel made, the sequel was a better game but it sold very poorly because the original game sucked and people didn't want to risk buying it. Seriously, did they really think Rise of the Robots was good before they released it? Would you personally be willing to buy a current game like this brand new just to support the industry? I have a feeling you'll only be willing to buy a game new if it's good, unless you happen to be exceptionally wealthy and it doesn't matter to you.

I'll even give one more example. With the DS, so far every game I've really liked I've kept and that includes games I've already played through. For the games I've played through and felt were mediocre or average at best, I've sold them off. With poor games I've made more used copies available in the market. If a game is good enough to replay again in the future, fewer used copies will turn up for sale.

[Zing]

One thing that hasn't been brought up is value as it relates to cost. For example: I'm far more likely to purchase a Nintendo game brand new, close to it's release date than any other publisher. Why? Becasue I know that a Sega (or EA Sports or whatever) game is going to drop in price by half within 3-6 months. That Nintendo game is going to be 60 dollars week one, and probably 50-60 dollars at week 52. and the used one is still only 5-10 dollars less a year later. May as well by it new right away. For whatever reason, they are the only company that does this. Why? I honestly don't know. Look at the sales, Nintendo isn't the most prolific publisher, but they sell the most games. Maybe they've come to realize that selling 5 million copies of 5 games is cheaper than selling 5 copies of a million different games.

This is definitely true for me. I have little hesitation for buying my Nintendo first-party Wii games on day one. I know that in a year, or two, or four (games like Twilight Princess Wii are still full MSRP here), the price isn't going to vary by more than $10, and that is usually only a temporary sale price.

Third party games are the ones where I wait for Toys R Us or EB to have a "buy two get one free" or similar sale. For me, there is no reason to buy anything non-Nintendo day one.

[kedawa]

Microsoft did that to some extent with the Halo games, at least for the original XBOX.
Those games took years to drop in price.

[The 1 2 P]

I still don't see why game publishers and developers feel entitled to multiple sales on a single copy of their games(like Blockbuster or Gamestop does with rented and used games respectively). I'm sure someone has already brought up the used car analogy so I'll save us from the repeat syndrome.

What I will add is this: if developers and publishers really, truly and sincerely want multiple sales on a single copy of their games then maybe they should also get into the used game and game rental market on top of selling new games. The optional codes for playing online multiplayer for used copies will only get them so far. It's time that they start expanding their horizons alittle more, but in a way thats still beneficial to both them and their customers.