Volition's Jameson Durall says banning pre-owned games is "fantastic" [Escapist]

[jupitersj]

Sorry if this was posted already as it's a bit old... but I could not search for THQ or find it with a quick search.

Original Article Here (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/115707-Volition-Dev-Vs-Pre-Owned-Games)

Johnathan Grey Carter (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/articles/Grey%20Carter) | 7 February 2012 0:55 am

Volition design director Jameson Durall reckons the idea of next-generation consoles banning pre-owned games is "fantastic."

Durall entered the used-game debate-turned-melee with both fists swinging. He seems particularly enthusiastic about the rumours surrounding the successor to the Xbox 360 and its supposed "anti-used game" technology. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/115490-Rumor-Next-Xbox-Will-Feature-Blu-ray-Anti-Used-Games-System)

"There's another big rumor about the next Xbox console that could really start to shake things up...it won't play used games at all!" he wrote in a piece called 'I Feel Used' (http://altdevblogaday.com/2012/02/02/i-feel-used/). "Personally I think this would be a fantastic change for our business and even though the consumers would be up in arms about it at first...they will grow to understand why and that it won't kill them."

Durall describes current programs designed to mitigate used-game sales, such as project ten dollar and the online pass system, as "just a band-aid on a large wound," before going on to describe his hypothetical, all-new-games utopia in exacting detail.

" The system is already there for Microsoft, all they'd have to do is use the DLC and codes model they have to tie a game to your Xbox live account," he writes. "Each retail disc would likely need that unique key somewhere in the code so the account would be able to link it properly. Ideally it would tie a full version to the console it is registered on so family members can play even if the main account isn't signed in, but this is exactly how their model works now anyway."

Durall admits that such a system would have its faults. Game rental companies, for example, would be rendered moot, but that could be solved by Microsoft implementing its own rental service. Gamers who want to lend games to their friends could conceivably be accommodated by a system similar to Amazon's book lending policy, which transfers the license for a set period of time. These are just minor details, however, Durall maintains that the industry needs to act quickly because dire things are afoot.

"In the end, I fully believe that we have to do something about these issues or our industry is going to fall apart," he continues. "People often don't understand the cost that goes into creating these huge experiences that we put on the shelves for only $60. They also don't seem to realize how much they are hurting us when they buy a used game and how pirating a copy is just plain stealing. Maybe something as simple as educating them could help solve the problem..."

Source: #AltDevBlogADay (http://altdevblogaday.com/2012/02/02/i-feel-used/)


Shitstorm ensues on escapist forums (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.345986-Volition-Dev-Vs-Pre-Owned-Games?page=1)

I wanted to properly attribute the article to the writer so I added his name from the article and the links; hope that is acceptable.

I wasn't planning on going into the next console generation already as I'm quite tired of the path the industry is heading down...but this is rediculous. What are your thoughts?

:popcorn:

[Junkyrdsalesman]

Microsoft would be digging their own grave if they did this. It would show that they have lost almost all their concern for their customers in exchange for profit. Not only that but it would give competitors an extreme advantage when it comes to marketing their next gen consoles. 'Hey kids! Would you rather buy all your games new for one time use with online verification or do you just want a disc with the data that you can share freely?' I think they are too smart to try something like this

[Leo_A]

I bought Red Faction used due to good reviews for $10 years ago. The risks were small so I didn't mind taking it. Ended up playing through it a few years later, liked it, and went out and bought the sequel new for $20 as a Greatest Hits rerelease and bought the newer games as they were released (Both of which I've yet to spend any significant time with).

If I'm unable to do that in the future, the Volition's of the world can rest assured I won't be taking a risk on their software. I'll buy as I play (Maybe 3-4 big games a year on a console) and won't be buying games with intentions of playing them years down the road since I very well won't be able to due to DRM since I won't really be owning them (So there's $120 Volition wouldn't have from me if the 360 had been that way). So I'd be sticking with safe bets I'm sure I'll enjoy, such as Zelda games from Nintendo and would concentrate even more on classic gaming. And I sure as heck wouldn't be willing to pay anything near $50, $60, or more for pieces of software I don't really own.

Smaller developers like Volition was a decade ago can rest assured that they won't ever get my dollars in their idea of a Utopian future for game developers and publishers that represents vastly increased risks for the consumer with each purchase. I was exposed to their Red Faction series since the risk were low thanks to used games and I could enjoy the game on my own terms when and if I decided to ever do so. And wouldn't you know it, the game was good when I played it and encouraged me to buy future installments new.

If they put half the concern they have about the used game market into their game development where it belongs, I think they'd see significant increases in revenue as consumers like myself positively respond with their wallets. Discouraging consumers sure isn't the way to an improved balance sheet at the end of a year.

[Niku-Sama]

let M$ do the anti used game thing. they will be out for the count and they will claim ignorance because of it. probably something along the lines of "i dont know why our system failed"

used games have alwasye been a huge part of this i dont see why all of a sudden this huge push to get rid of used games or "banning" it some how.
how are you going to ban used game sales? we all own the games, we can trade them in for really poor results at the shops or sell them personally for a much better deal for both parties for all, its kind of our right to be able to do that.

either way if this does happen, a huge source of revenue and a large chunk of the economy will just dissappear and nintendo will have to come along and save gaming in the states...... again

it'd be like ET time a billion because all the little jock gamers wont know what to do and give up because they cant get rid of the CODs for more newer shorter CODs

[heybtbm]

MS isn't doing this. I can't believe we're still talking about it.

[Oobgarm]

I liked the part where he said "only $60."

[calthaer]

I believe I can live quite contentedly as a gamer without Volition's games, especially if part of the profits go to support this tool.

[heybtbm]

I believe I can live quite contentedly as a gamer without Volition's games, especially if part of the profits go to support this tool.

To be fair, this guy just watched a huge chunk of his parent company disappear (http://kotaku.com/5881175/report-thq-really-in-trouble-sacking-170-people). While used game sales aren't the main reason THQ is doing poorly...it's part of the reason. His comments are a little more understandable when you take them in context.

[substantial_snake]

I don't see the benefit to the consumer by completely killing the used game market, explain what that is and I'll hear out this guys new gamer utiopia. I am totally willing to buy a sealed brand new copy that gives every dime to the developer..at 20 dollars for most games. Most games don't warrant a 60 dollar purchase price and I've been burned far too many times to take a chance on every game that peaks my interest. I'm not really sure why publishers haven't either figured that out yet or still deny this but for me at least, its largely why I go to the used market for relatively recent releases.

I read no benefit to us in his I FEEL USED piece linked in the escapist article, am I just totally missing something here?

[calthaer]

To be fair, this guy just watched a huge chunk of his parent company disappear (http://kotaku.com/5881175/report-thq-really-in-trouble-sacking-170-people). While used game sales aren't the main reason THQ is doing poorly...it's part of the reason. His comments are a little more understandable when you take them in context.

I don't care why he's making the comments, I'm a consumer - not an employee. I care about what might happen if his comments succeed in producing a marketplace like the one he describes, and what it will do to me / us. I don't want to see his business model succeed, nor do I wish to see it advocated, and I'm voting with my dollars.

[Graham Mitchell]

It could worse: they could be talking about a console that only supports digital downloads.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.125731,-118.158522

[substantial_snake]

It could worse: they could be talking about a console that only supports digital downloads.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.125731,-118.158522

Oh don't worry, PC gaming already has you covered. Most titles that even get a boxed release now require you to sign up to a service or something to actually play your game. I like the crazy steam deals and convenience but it still bothers me on the rare occasion that I buy a boxed PC game that it requires me to login to play the game I just installed on my HD.

But really I replied to ask why your post includes your exact coordinates?

[kedawa]

Boil the water slowly and the frog won't jump out of the pot.

[RP2A03]

As a consumer, let me just say that I absolutely love being in an abusive relationship with the companies who's products I buy and Jameson Durall's comments make me hard.

[buzz_n64]

I will NOT be buying $60 games, simple as that. If they want to make new games for $30-$35 then I'll bite. DLC and activation codes are the devil!

[The 1 2 P]

Most games don't warrant a 60 dollar purchase price and I've been burned far too many times to take a chance on every game that peaks my interest. I'm not really sure why publishers haven't either figured that out yet or still deny this but for me at least, its largely why I go to the used market for relatively recent releases. I'm not really sure why publishers haven't either figured that out yet or still deny this but for me at least, its largely why I go to the used market for relatively recent releases.

I always bring up the example of Wanted. It's a 5-7 hour game(at best) with no multiplayer and no real incentive to play thru a second time unless you are achievement hunting. Why the hell did they charge $60 for that? That was rhetorical but regardless of how many years a game took to make or how many people worked on it that need to be paid, all games are not AAA games and do not deserve a $60 price tag. Wanted and atleast 40% of everything else released this gen shouldn't have been priced that high. And to your other point, developers actually do know this but none of them want to be the first to say "we are only charging $30 for our new release game because it's a single-player-only less than 7 hour experience with no real reason to ever replay it".


It could worse: they could be talking about a console that only supports digital downloads.

I think the PSPGo drove that bus to a complete stop.....atleast for the immediate future.

[Graham Mitchell]

Oh don't worry, PC gaming already has you covered. Most titles that even get a boxed release now require you to sign up to a service or something to actually play your game. I like the crazy steam deals and convenience but it still bothers me on the rare occasion that I buy a boxed PC game that it requires me to login to play the game I just installed on my HD.

But really I replied to ask why your post includes your exact coordinates?

I think tapatalk is doing that, I should turn it off.

And I've totally noticed all the drm in my pc games, for sure. But I wonder... When u activate the cd key, can the disc be reinstalled later or is it essentially junk after that?


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.989689,-118.229796

[Gameguy]

Oh don't worry, PC gaming already has you covered. Most titles that even get a boxed release now require you to sign up to a service or something to actually play your game.
I found this out when I tried to trade a box full of somewhat recent PC games into EB Games, I wasn't expecting much trade in value just around a few dollars each(if that) as some are still $20 new. I was told that because a large number of PC games now come with one time use codes they don't accept PC games at all for trade in even if they don't need registration codes to work. Now I won't bother buying current PC games, I'll stick with games from at least 10 years ago or more. It's not like I won't have enough games to play with just sticking to older games.

The real problem is that companies can't budget their games properly anymore, they cost as much as a big budget feature film but they don't have the same long term appeal as films do so they won't make as much money from them. Just make them like good low budget films, focus on the fun and worry less about the realism or special effects. The good low budget films just focus on having a good time, like Evil Dead or the original Halloween. Just focus on fun stuff and they'll sell fine.

[Emperor Megas]

The good low budget films just focus on having a good time, like Evil Dead or the original Halloween. Just focus on fun stuff and they'll sell fine.Man, I wish the original Halloween did focus on fun stuff.

[Press_Start]

Your Industry needs a shakeup, It's getting stagnant, greedy and void of any creativity. Proof is in your products and the mindset that you have in writing this post.

A quote from AltDevBlogADay (http://altdevblogaday.com/2012/02/02/i-feel-used/) that sums up my thoughts nicely. :)

[Aussie2B]

Yes, what a wonderful idea, let's mass produce a product that becomes completely worthless, unusable trash once the original purchaser is tired of it. Let's just fill up our landfills even more and make our society even more wasteful. That's really the path to the future. Thrift stores are just evil, what with how they encourage people to reuse and recycle and save money too.

These developers need to grow the balls to admit the real problem here. It's not "used game sales"; it's GameStop. GameStop has a monopoly, and they have the developers bending over getting reamed. They've completely manipulated the system to make greater profits on used sales than new, which is hurting the developers and consumers alike. If they focused on selling new games as they should, game developers wouldn't care about the used sales at independent stores, thrifts, pawns, between friends, etc. I hate to turn this into another anti-GameStop discussion, but they're seriously at the root of this.

[Leo_A]

I'm all for attacking GameStop, but I don't see the point when they've done nothing wrong to warrant the attack. GameStop isn't the problem here. It's the publishers and developers.

[Aussie2B]

I already explained how they ARE the problem here. They make more money off of used sales than sales of new games, which is NOT how it should be, and because of that, they put more effort into moving used goods, even if a game launched just a few days prior. This takes a huge chunk out of the sales of new copies that should be taking place. This is why developers are complaining. They're not losing money because a Goodwill is selling a copy of their game months or years later. It's all because of GameStop. If they made more money selling new games or if they had some kind of restrictions on how/when they could sell used copies (at the very least, not trying to convince customers to go with a used copy over a new one three days after launch just to save 5 bucks), we wouldn't see developers/publishers so concerned about used games.

[kedawa]

If gamers would just sell their games privately instead of trading them for peanuts at Gamestop, that wouldn't even be an issue.

[Gamereviewgod]

at the very least, not trying to convince customers to go with a used copy over a new one three days after launch just to save 5 bucks

Any how many games are being traded in within days of release? The biggest sales period are the first two weeks, maybe three. If there are so many used copies coming in and going out, that's not GameStop's fault. There doesn't need to be a restriction. For $5, I'd be more willing to splurge on a new copy anyway. I'm sure many do too.

And even if they're buying used, there are other avenues of revenue now (DLC, download spin-offs, gamerpics) so the point it moot. If used games are such a concern, then smaller companies would be fighting them too, but they're not.

GameStop hasn't changed anything. Gamestop has grown alongside the industry.

[Griking]

Microsoft would be digging their own grave if they did this. It would show that they have lost almost all their concern for their customers in exchange for profit. Not only that but it would give competitors an extreme advantage when it comes to marketing their next gen consoles. 'Hey kids! Would you rather buy all your games new for one time use with online verification or do you just want a disc with the data that you can share freely?' I think they are too smart to try something like this

Meh.

All it woulds take would be a few good games released and people will forget about their boycott. It happens all the time. How many times have we heard people say that they'd never purchase another product from Microsoft, Sony, Gamestop, Best Buy, Walmart, Apple, HP, etc... yet they're all as big as ever. I know that this will upset some people but the fact is that people are weak and will break easily. When it comes to choosing between their personal standards and a hot new game or a flashy new cell phone or some other device, history has shown that standards go out the window.

Edit: Not to mention that as soon as one console developer goes direct download only the others will soon follow. I have a feeling that both Microsoft and Sony are just kind of waiting and hoping that the other will do it first. They both want it but neither wants to be the initial bad guy

[AceAerosmith]

This is driven by sheer fucking greed. The developers see that Gamestop is making $55 selling a game used a few days after launch and I'm sure they get a few buyers (not me). The developers don't like the fact that they got the first $60 but not that second $55.

Blaming Gamestop is like blaming a used car dealership. People trade something in and they resell it again and make a nice profit. But you don't see the auto industry up in arms.

Game developers are just FUCKING GREEDY PIECES OF SHIT!

While I do zero piracy of anything, I understand why people do it. It's just a nice "Fuck You!!" to the greed of the industry and in all honesty, I think piracy is a small percentage of their actual problem. The anti-consumer attitude and ideas such as this merely add fuel to the rebellion and should be a bigger concern to developers. Just let them keep biting the hand that feeds them and eventually consumers will have had enough.

[Emperor Megas]

Edit: Not to mention that as soon as one console developer goes direct download only the others will soon follow.Like the way Nintendo and SONY did after the PSPGo? :)

[Robocop2]

I already explained how they ARE the problem here. They make more money off of used sales than sales of new games, which is NOT how it should be, and because of that, they put more effort into moving used goods, even if a game launched just a few days prior. This takes a huge chunk out of the sales of new copies that should be taking place. This is why developers are complaining. They're not losing money because a Goodwill is selling a copy of their game months or years later. It's all because of GameStop. If they made more money selling new games or if they had some kind of restrictions on how/when they could sell used copies (at the very least, not trying to convince customers to go with a used copy over a new one three days after launch just to save 5 bucks), we wouldn't see developers/publishers so concerned about used games.

Why is that not how it should be? Many many things are far more profitable used for the second had seller than a new one. The margins on new product is usually significantly smaller than used, at least as far as the retailer is concerned. Any company is in business to make money in the most efficient, profitable manner which in this case, is used games at least for GS and the like (There is more than one major retailer out there that deals in used games yes?). Yes they pay peanuts to the consumer but that' s the consumer's fault for taking them up on that. GameStop hasn't manipulated the system. If anything the companies should be glad they exist to take in used games as trade and offer additional bonus credit for new pre-orders sometimes. I would wager that helps more than it hurts publishers.


The real problem is not the seller, its the product. Used games have become a scapegoat for the huge losses that companies suffer and I think an all to convenient one. They have to sell them for a certain price to recoup their expenses but if the consumre is not willing to pay that amount then perhaps a different business model is needed. Perhaps GS could extend an olive branch and offer to put a hold on selling pre-owned copies of a newish release for x days but they shouldn't be forced to do that. And even if they did, I expect that used games would still be the evil cause of new game problems.

[TonyTheTiger]

Edit: Not to mention that as soon as one console developer goes direct download only the others will soon follow. I have a feeling that both Microsoft and Sony are just kind of waiting and hoping that the other will do it first. They both want it but neither wants to be the initial bad guy

It's more than that. ISPs will have them by the balls if they go that route. We've already seen some enforcing data limits on their customers. Now imagine something as prolific as mainstream game consoles essentially demanding tens of gigs worth of transfers per customer per month. What's Comcast going to think about that? And since people can't freely choose an ISP like any other product due to the way the infrastructure works you have a perfect storm for a crippling blow. It's not like the free market where some other ISP can swoop in and undercut the competition. We're pretty much locked down to the few ISPs that control the region in which we live. I doubt either MS or Sony wants to wake the dragon and suffer the consequences.

[Gameguy]

Thrift stores are just evil, what with how they encourage people to reuse and recycle and save money too.
You forgot helping charities, that's apparently another evil that needs to be stopped.


Blaming Gamestop is like blaming a used car dealership. People trade something in and they resell it again and make a nice profit. But you don't see the auto industry up in arms.
I never really got this analogy, car manufacturers still get money as they sell replacement parts for those older cars. And it's not like that 3 year old car you're trading in is still being sold new. It's like complaining that someone is trading in a copy of Halo 1 to buy a copy of Halo 3, but they're actually complaining about people selling or trading in Halo 3 when Halo 3 is still a new release. I don't think developers deserve a cut on used games but this example just doesn't work as a comparison. Used books are a better example, but I don't hear many people complaining about used book stores or libraries either.


I read through the original blog post, I found it funny that he claimed to always buy new games off Amazon so he doesn't have to pay tax on them. Is paying developers somehow better than paying taxes? I thought taxes helped pay for infrastructure and public services, it seems like it would be better to buy a used copy locally and pay taxes than buy a new copy online without paying taxes.

[TonyTheTiger]

These developers need to grow the balls to admit the real problem here. It's not "used game sales"; it's GameStop. GameStop has a monopoly, and they have the developers bending over getting reamed. They've completely manipulated the system to make greater profits on used sales than new, which is hurting the developers and consumers alike. If they focused on selling new games as they should, game developers wouldn't care about the used sales at independent stores, thrifts, pawns, between friends, etc. I hate to turn this into another anti-GameStop discussion, but they're seriously at the root of this.

If GameStop's practices are actually a problem (which still hasn't really been established) then that's merely a symptom of the greater cause. GameStop is playing the game by the rules that were set and it just so happens that the most effective way to play the game involves stepping on the toes of publishers. Fact is, new games don't offer a substantial cut for the retailer. Notice how games work differently than DVDs. You never really hear this about movies. Disney isn't going around complaining about used Blu-ray sales.

I'm not exactly saying that the game market should be a 1:1 match of the DVD market in terms of how pricing works. But if GameStop is so ungodly awful then why aren't more people looking at the things that allow GameStop to work that way rather than just pointing the finger at the company itself?

For a gaming analogy, it's like how if somepony is playing a fighting game and his opponent busts out a game breaking infinite combo and instead of either moving to a better game that doesn't have that kind of bullshit or demanding better from the developers he instead complains that his opponent is being "cheap" when all he's doing is playing the game in the best way it allows. He's playing to win, which is the whole point of a fighting game. It's why banning is so frowned upon in the competitive community and only done in the most isolated cases.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. If there happens to be some fatal flaw in the system that allows GameStop to exploit a loophole then fix the goddamn loophole, whatever it is. And if everypony is content with how the system works (pricing, distribution, etc.) then they shouldn't complain when people, or entities in this case, play the game in the most efficient way possible. You know, playing to win. GameStop is the guy dominating the Street Fighter machine while publishers are the scrubs yelling how throws are cheap and how he blocks too much. Either learn to play the game, move to a different game, or keep losing. Another option, provided you're in the position to do so, is to fix the exploit if there is one or to demand it from whoever is in such a position.

[Polygon]

I don't care why he's making the comments, I'm a consumer - not an employee. I care about what might happen if his comments succeed in producing a marketplace like the one he describes, and what it will do to me / us. I don't want to see his business model succeed, nor do I wish to see it advocated, and I'm voting with my dollars.

It couldn't be said any better.

[kedawa]

I never really got this analogy, car manufacturers still get money as they sell replacement parts for those older cars. And it's not like that 3 year old car you're trading in is still being sold new. It's like complaining that someone is trading in a copy of Halo 1 to buy a copy of Halo 3, but they're actually complaining about people selling or trading in Halo 3 when Halo 3 is still a new release. I don't think developers deserve a cut on used games but this example just doesn't work as a comparison. Used books are a better example, but I don't hear many people complaining about used book stores or libraries either.s.
But the publisher sells parts for that used game. It's called DLC and online pass.

[goatdan]

So Microsoft implements this, and then all of a sudden your console gets a red ring, and you're out of luck?

So, when Microsoft stops making the console and yours dies, all of your purchased console just becomes worthless?

If *any* company *ever* does this, I won't buy that console. Sorry. Stuff like Steam and the App store, at least there is some sort of guarantee that those games will transfer in the future.

Yeah, THQ has been hurting. But, eliminate used titles, and you aren't going to magically fix the company. I can buy a used car, why didn't the government outlaw used car sales when Detroit was going bankrupt? Wouldn't that have solved the issue?

[kedawa]

So Microsoft implements this, and then all of a sudden your console gets a red ring, and you're out of luck?

So, when Microsoft stops making the console and yours dies, all of your purchased console just becomes worthless?

If *any* company *ever* does this, I won't buy that console. Sorry. Stuff like Steam and the App store, at least there is some sort of guarantee that those games will transfer in the future.

Yeah, THQ has been hurting. But, eliminate used titles, and you aren't going to magically fix the company. I can buy a used car, why didn't the government outlaw used car sales when Detroit was going bankrupt? Wouldn't that have solved the issue?

I don't think there's much danger of that happening. MS already has a system in place to migrate digital content from one console to another. Locked physical media should be no different. You just have the option of getting the data from a disc instead of the internet.

[goatdan]

I don't think there's much danger of that happening. MS already has a system in place to migrate digital content from one console to another. Locked physical media should be no different. You just have the option of getting the data from a disc instead of the internet.

So you really think that the next Xbox will be 100% backwards compatible?

We all know how well that worked with the 360's backward compatibility. I don't think it's a priority.

[Leo_A]

I already explained how they ARE the problem here. They make more money off of used sales than sales of new games, which is NOT how it should be...

You didn't explain anything about why they're the problem. So they make more money off used games than new and concentrate on it and have grown their business? The last I knew, that was free enterprise at work and there was nothing wrong with it.

All that your explanation provided is a possible partial explanation of why the industry is now paying more attention to used game sales as GameStop's business has grown and they've seen the money they're raking in (And incorrectly assume that every dollar spent on a used game is a dollar they're owed and didn't get). But you've failed to explain why their focus on used games is inherently wrong and why they're to be blamed for the situation.

Saying it should be a specific way doesn't make it so. That's not an explanation in the slightest.




I never really got this analogy, car manufacturers still get money as they sell replacement parts for those older cars. And it's not like that 3 year old car you're trading in is still being sold new. It's like complaining that someone is trading in a copy of Halo 1 to buy a copy of Halo 3, but they're actually complaining about people selling or trading in Halo 3 when Halo 3 is still a new release. I don't think developers deserve a cut on used games but this example just doesn't work as a comparison. Used books are a better example, but I don't hear many people complaining about used book stores or libraries either.

The situation isn't any different in the world of videogames. Microtransactions, single use unlock codes such as online passes, subscription fees, ingame advertising revenue, and I'm sure other ways have made it increasingly possible for console manufacturers, developers, and publishers to make money after the initial sale of a game. That applies to original buyers and those that bought the game second hand, just like the parts replacement business for automobile manufacturers.

[The 1 2 P]

I think publishers need to start trying different pricing models. They have dlc for multiplayer maps and single player add on missions but now they need to experiment more with retail prices. Once they come down from that $60 price tag I think theres a chance they can attract more early adopters.

[Aussie2B]

There's nothing wrong with free enterprise until a company becomes a monopoly, and GameStop is darn near close to one. They're basically the only chain brick and mortar video game store in town. If they wanted to exclusively sell used games, then wonderful. Bring back the old stuff too and I'd shop there a heck of a lot more. But the problem is that, in terms of a single company, I'm sure publishers see more sales via GameStop than through any other, yet GameStop actively DISCOURAGES the sales of new games. Now that's an abusive relationship if I've ever seen one.

I don't really care if someone thinks that's fine or not. My point is simply that it's clear as day that when developers/publishers complain about "used game sales", as they're apt to do in recent years, what they're really complaining about is GameStop. And personally, I have a little more sympathy for the people who create the games I love than the corporate bigwigs at GameStop, so I'd rather see a more fair relationship between them than to simply tell the developers to suck it up.

[Press_Start]

These developers need to grow the balls to admit the real problem here. It's not "used game sales"; it's GameStop. GameStop has a monopoly, and they have the developers bending over getting reamed. They've completely manipulated the system to make greater profits on used sales than new, which is hurting the developers and consumers alike. If they focused on selling new games as they should, game developers wouldn't care about the used sales at independent stores, thrifts, pawns, between friends, etc. I hate to turn this into another anti-GameStop discussion, but they're seriously at the root of this.

If they believe Gamestop's used sales are hurting them, what's going to stop them from blaming brick n' mortal stores like Digital Press?
If they believe Digital Press's used sales are hurting them, what's going to stop them from blaming ad sites like Craigslist?
If they believe Craiglist ads are hurting them, what's going to stop them from blaming Game forums and trade sites like here?
If they believe Gaming forums are hurting them, what's going to stop them from blaming every gamer that trades, borrows, sells, and every method that doesn't involve buying new games?

When you put Gamestop on trial for used game sales, you put all of us on trial.


My point is simply that it's clear as day that when developers/publishers complain about "used game sales", as they're apt to do in recent years, what they're really complaining about is GameStop. And personally, I have a little more sympathy for the people who create the games I love than the corporate bigwigs at GameStop, so I'd rather see a more fair relationship between them than to simply tell the developers to suck it up.

So, you tell one snake to stuff it down his throat while charmed by the other snake.

[Gamereviewgod]

I don't really care if someone thinks that's fine or not. My point is simply that it's clear as day that when developers/publishers complain about "used game sales", as they're apt to do in recent years, what they're really complaining about is GameStop.

The only publishers actively complaining are the mega-pubs: EA, Ubi, Sony, etc. If this was anything other than a pretend problem, everyone would be on board, but others see the value in GameStop. And if EA and crew have a problem, then stop giving GS exclusives, but they don't.


And personally, I have a little more sympathy for the people who create the games I love than the corporate bigwigs at GameStop, so I'd rather see a more fair relationship between them than to simply tell the developers to suck it up.

You'd rather support the corporate bigwigs at the major publishers then, because that's where the profits of these supposed anti-used policies are going, not to the devs.

[TonyTheTiger]

There's nothing wrong with free enterprise until a company becomes a monopoly, and GameStop is darn near close to one. They're basically the only chain brick and mortar video game store in town.

There are anti-trust and collusion laws in place for a reason. GameStop doesn't come close to triggering them as far as I'm aware. Now we can argue whether or not the laws in place appropriately deal with what they're designed to deal with (certainly a valid issue far beyond the scope of a mere game store) but that goes back to hating the game rather than the player. If you think GameStop is a monopoly or close to one and, as a result, is bad for the public, then focus the energy on fighting the institutions that allow that negative entity to exist (or at least perpetuate it's "evils") in the first place rather than the entity itself, which is merely playing by the rules it is presented with. If you're convinced GameStop is bad then at least identify it as a mere symptom of a greater issue, whatever you think that may be. While I may not necessarily agree, the argument will at least be aiming at a more appropriate target.

[Leo_A]

There's nothing wrong with free enterprise until a company becomes a monopoly, and GameStop is darn near close to one. They're basically the only chain brick and mortar video game store in town.

What difference is it if one retailer dominates brick and mortal videogame stores or if it's a dozen different chains of comparable size? I don't see the significance or the relevance to the topic at hand.

[Kitsune Sniper]

If *any* company *ever* does this, I won't buy that console. Sorry. Stuff like Steam and the App store, at least there is some sort of guarantee that those games will transfer in the future.Unless it's a fucking evil company that uses activation software like TAGES and SecuROM, in which case Steam will do shit about it and tell you to complain to the publisher, not them.

[NayusDante]

I'm getting tired of seeing the industry taking these steps in the wrong direction.

He thinks $60 is low? What is the average budget of a AAA game? Hollywood films are often in the hundreds of millions, and they charge $10-30 per consumer. A music album averages to $15. A new paperback is around $12. Clearly, video games are too much of a value to consumers and they need to make the jump to $80.

All of the stupid anti-consumer moves we've seen have been to continue profiting at the $60 price point, but they don't solve the root issue. They have it stuck in their heads that they have to make these cinematic behemoths with huge budgets, then play the market to defend the process. For a single consumer-entertainment work, the sweet spot seems to be between $10 and $30. If they lowered budgets a little and met the $30 price point, the sales increase might be enough to reduce the "pain" of used sales. Profit per unit might go down, but gross profits would increase.

The "race to the bottom" we're seeing on mobile isn't the answer, but there is definitely something to be learned from those themes of lower prices and lower budgets.

[Az]

Why will consumers buy a potentially ragged used copy of my product for only $5 less than a full copy?

Why would consumers want to sell my brand new product that they just bought within the past two weeks? And sell it for merely pennies on the dollar?

I never see publishers or developers wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth over these things. It's always the same dog and pony show about how mean ol' consumers are keeping them from turning the big profits their game really deserves. Not that it was a shitty game with an overblown budget and you pressed about twice the disks as you actually had ordered. Oh no, not that.

What I always find funny is the compassion shown by gamers towards some of these very same people. Come on... game companies are a capitalist venture, not some collective of altruistic artists! With very few exceptions, games are designed from the ground up for the highest profit margin possible! Why be apologists for their fuck ups? Could you imagine if we applied some of this same logic to other products or entertainment?

"Yeah, I know this Italian restaurant is rather crap, but lets eat there several days a week. Maybe someone will see there's a market for Italian restaurants and put in a new one."

"My transmission went out again in the car. Even though it was covered by the warranty, this is the 2nd time in a year it went out. I'd buy different one but I just really love Fords."

"That movie was so mediocre, but I wanted it to be awesome. Let's go back and purchase more tickets, that way they'll make a sequel that I know will be better."

[Aussie2B]

If they believe Gamestop's used sales are hurting them, what's going to stop them from blaming brick n' mortal stores like Digital Press?
If they believe Digital Press's used sales are hurting them, what's going to stop them from blaming ad sites like Craigslist?
If they believe Craiglist ads are hurting them, what's going to stop them from blaming Game forums and trade sites like here?
If they believe Gaming forums are hurting them, what's going to stop them from blaming every gamer that trades, borrows, sells, and every method that doesn't involve buying new games?

When you put Gamestop on trial for used game sales, you put all of us on trial.

If you read my posts more carefully, you'd see that my argument is clearly more sophisticated than "used games = bad". In fact, I think people buying and selling/donating used goods is a wonderful thing because it's far less wasteful than the materialistic urge to constantly blow through money buying brand new stuff and trashing anything you're tired of, and this was evident from my first post in this topic. It's not about putting anybody on trial for selling a used product; it's about the fact that the biggest retailer of brand new games is the same retailer that actively tries to convince consumers to pass on a new game, even if they walked into the store with the intent to buy new, and go for the used copy. Of course GameStop can continue to sell used games, but I don't see why anyone would be opposed to them slightly tweaking their policies to be more fair to the consumer and publisher alike. With Digital Press, I don't know if they make more on used or new, but I do know they pay more for trade-ins so they're not making quite as huge of a profit margin and aren't taking advantage of the consumer to the same extent.

And publishers aren't going to go after any of those because those don't put a dent into sales like GameStop does. It's apples and oranges. You're talking about small independent shops and individuals. And with those, the used sales generally aren't anywhere near as close to launch as with GameStop.

[Press_Start]

it's about the fact that the biggest retailer of brand new games is the same retailer that actively tries to convince consumers to pass on a new game, even if they walked into the store with the intent to buy new, and go for the used copy.

Wrong! Your whole premise is way off mark. It's not even "Used games = bad". It's "Used games = scapegoat" and you're laying the blame right at the feet of Gamestop without any facts or substantial proof to back it up.


And publishers aren't going to go after any of those because those don't put a dent into sales like GameStop does. It's apples and oranges. You're talking about small independent shops and individuals. And with those, the used sales generally aren't anywhere near as close to launch as with GameStop.

LOL! Are you serious? So DRM and Online Pass were tailor made solely to fight Gamestop and if they somehow "get fixed", it'll all go away huh? Get real! These were hits specifically on the second-hand market and consumers alike (Gamestop or not) and anyone who thinks otherwise are buying the propaganda garbage spewing right out their gold fat butts. They've already did it to Arkham City (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/120/1200073p1.html#disqus_thread) and they won't stop there. They'll never stop there.

[Gamereviewgod]

It's not about putting anybody on trial for selling a used product; it's about the fact that the biggest retailer of brand new games is the same retailer that actively tries to convince consumers to pass on a new game, even if they walked into the store with the intent to buy new, and go for the used copy.

The biggest retailer of video games wouldn't exist were it not for those used games and the industry would lose all of the benefits that come with a centralized location such as that.

[theclaw]

This boils down to one sadly forgotten thing called "end user rights".

As consumers it is our right to sell/trade/rent the tangible physical content of products we purchased. At any price we like, to anyone we like. Regardless whether DRM prevents second-hand owners from using them for their perceived intended purpose.

If I want to sell used boxed World of Warcraft copies or Xbox Live subscription cards and am able to find buyers who don't care they're 'useless'... I'm allowed to do so.

Besides Gamestop is only current leader due to market forces. They weren't the first popular game chain. They won't be the last. Nobody's stopping a different company from opening another comparable brick and mortar chain who could take away their business. As steep as the entry barrier is. You'd need an ad campaign large/convincing enough to sway people over. Along with comparable enough service/prices/selection to maintain interest, and store locations in similarly enough convenient places across the country to win nationally. Etc. Not easy!

[BlastProcessing402]

To be fair, this guy just watched a huge chunk of his parent company disappear (http://kotaku.com/5881175/report-thq-really-in-trouble-sacking-170-people). While used game sales aren't the main reason THQ is doing poorly...it's part of the reason. His comments are a little more understandable when you take them in context.

Well, tough shit for them. GM had a few really bad years and almost went under, does that make it okay to ban used car sales?

[BlastProcessing402]

Yeah, THQ has been hurting. But, eliminate used titles, and you aren't going to magically fix the company. I can buy a used car, why didn't the government outlaw used car sales when Detroit was going bankrupt? Wouldn't that have solved the issue?

Damnit, this is what happens when I accidentally skip page 2, sorry for "stealing" your point, goatdan