If You Resell Your Used Games, the Terrorists Win [Slashdot]

[DP ServBot]

http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/I9mcYDmU5H2yeGFc2IYkkIZzPm0/0/di (http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/I9mcYDmU5H2yeGFc2IYkkIZzPm0/0/da)
http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/I9mcYDmU5H2yeGFc2IYkkIZzPm0/1/di (http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/I9mcYDmU5H2yeGFc2IYkkIZzPm0/1/da)
MojoKid writes "Game designer Richard Browne has come out swinging in favor of the rumored antipiracy features in the next-gen PlayStation Orbis and Xbox Durango. 'The real cost of used games is the damage that is being wrought on the creativity and variety of games available to the consumer,' Browne writes. Browne's comments echo those of influential programmer and Raspberry Pi developer David Braben, who wrote last month that '...pre-owned has really killed core games. It's killing single player games in particular, because they will get pre-owned, and it means your day one sales are it, making them super high risk.' Both Browne and Braben conflate hating GameStop (a thoroughly reasonable life choice) with the supposed evils of the used games market. Braben goes so far as to claim that used games are actually responsible for high game prices and that 'prices would have come down long ago if the industry was getting a share of the resells.' Amazingly, no game publishers have stepped forward to publicly pledge themselves to lower game prices in exchange for a cut of used game sales. Publishers are hammering Gamestop (and recruiting developers to do the same) because it's easier than admitting that the current system is fundamentally broken." http://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png (http://twitter.com/home?status=If+You+Resell+Your+Used+Games%2C+the+T errorists+Win%3A+http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FJct3uH) http://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png (http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgames.slashdot.org%2Fsto ry%2F12%2F04%2F20%2F2153251%2Fif-you-resell-your-used-games-the-terrorists-win%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfaceboo k) http://www.gstatic.com/images/icons/gplus-16.png (http://plus.google.com/share?url=http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/04/20/2153251/if-you-resell-your-used-games-the-terrorists-win?utm_source=slashdot&utm_medium=googleplus)

Read more of this story (http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/04/20/2153251/if-you-resell-your-used-games-the-terrorists-win?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&utm_medium=feed) at Slashdot.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Slashdot/slashdotGames/~4/SN69G_RvnlY

[Griking]

I have no doubt that used game hurt new game sales but I also find it highly unlikely that publishers would lower prices in any meaningful way if used games disappeared or of they got a percentage of used games.

[wingzrow]

Instead of fighting used games they should focus on making better games so people don't get so bored and sick of them after only a week that they sell it to gamestop for less than half of what they originally paid.

[Collector_Gaming]

I honestly don't see what the big deal is here with this whole discussion. The used game industry has been around since the begining of time through Electronics Boutique and mom and pops game stores. Your video rental shops sold games they felt wasn't relevant any more therfore wasn't bringing them in good money.
K mart even sold used games for crying out loud (i remember they would sell NES games put in a cardboard insert with instruction manual if it had it.. and then wrapped up and put a sticker on it.)

So whats the big deal now?
Fat cows pockets not filling up their forever growing need? Booohoooo

like already stated before i highly doubt the market would change even if they got 100% profit of the used game sales. They would just fumble around trying to figure out another way to bitch and gain more profit some how.

[Genesaturn]

Yeah, if not this, they will complain about something else. I don't really see this argument gaining much ground. I think it would hurt them more than help them. I've waited to by a game cheap and used before only to be blown away and continued to buy games from the same company brand new. I'm sure a lot of people get exposed to certain games by buying them pre-owned that they normally wouldn't ever try out. Publishers will loose sales if anything else because they would be cutting out an entire medium for gamers to get games.

[duffmanth]

Instead of fighting used games they should focus on making better games so people don't get so bored and sick of them after only a week that they sell it to gamestop for less than half of what they originally paid.

I totally agree, these fucking publishers and developers need to stop worrying about the used game market and start making games that are actually worth $60. As it stands now maybe 1-2% of the games out there are actually worth $60.

[kupomogli]

I don't think anyone else has taken notice, but most of the developers and publishers complaining about the used game sales are ones that have actually put out quality games.

EA has put out more quality this gen than most of the other publishers. The developer of Kingdoms of Amalur was one who complained about the used game market, and if you've played even the demo, are you really going to say that they need to make a better game rather than complaining? You don't see any low budget developers complaining about used game sales because it took them next to nothing to develop their titles anyways. I'm sure those games that cost almost nothing to make in comparison to Dante's Inferno, Mirror's Edge, Kingdom's of Amalur, etc, are just raking in the cash.

I'd understand the quote "If you want to reduce used games sales, then make better games," if it were developers and publishers that released garbage, but when the best games are the ones that don't sell and make their way to being used games because that's how the mentality of today's gamer is; finish the game and trading it in for something new, then it's clear that those posting that quote haven't played anything from these developers/publisher.

Saints Row the Third developer, Volition, is also another who spoke up about used games sales hurting the industry. They should make better games instead of complaining about used games. Oh wait. Saints Row the Third is another quality game.

The article at slashdot is pretty shitty though. It's a massively cut down article of the original story.

http://www.vg247.com/2012/04/12/industry-vet-richard-browne-the-real-cost-of-used-games-sales-is-loss-of-variety-single-player/

Not everyone is a collector and with today's gamers selling whatever game they finish as used and picking up a new used copy, along with Gamestops seven day used game return policy, titles that are exclusively single player have a much harder chance in staying in the players hands. We're all aware that it's the reason multiplayer has been tacked onto pretty much literally everything in effort to keep the games in the players collection as long as possible. Even having developers going so far as to include difficult to acquire online trophies and achievements for those trophy and achievement hunters out there(although these people usually Gamefly the titles.)


To Browne, the true cost of used game sales is the variety in the market is dwindling as games which were successful in the past as a single-player offering, are now being “redesigned out of their element to introduce multiplayer features.”

So while not all developers have spoken out about used games hurting the industry, it's quite obvious they're tired of it when gamese like Assassin's Creed and Ninja Gaiden start offering multiplayer to keep players owning the game for a bit longer. This is time and money that could have been better spent at making a more solid single player experience.

[Griking]

Instead of fighting used games they should focus on making better games so people don't get so bored and sick of them after only a week that they sell it to gamestop for less than half of what they originally paid.

That's nice to say but it has nothing to do with people who prefer to purchase used games over new ones.


I honestly don't see what the big deal is here with this whole discussion. The used game industry has been around since the begining of time through Electronics Boutique and mom and pops game stores. Your video rental shops sold games they felt wasn't relevant any more therfore wasn't bringing them in good money.
K mart even sold used games for crying out loud (i remember they would sell NES games put in a cardboard insert with instruction manual if it had it.. and then wrapped up and put a sticker on it.)

So whats the big deal now?

It's a combination of multiple things. Tighter budgets and the fact that Gamestop earns like 10 billion a year. Having a world wide chain of stores that specialize in used games isn't the same as a bunch of independently owned video stores selling off their old stock every year or so. When you walk into your local Gamestop and pick up a game from the new game shelf the employee will ask you if you'd like a used copy instead for $5 less instead (more if you have one of their cards). They're making a living out of talking people out of buying new games. I think that's where it rubs developers the wrong way.


I totally agree, these fucking publishers and developers need to stop worrying about the used game market and start making games that are actually worth $60. As it stands now maybe 1-2% of the games out there are actually worth $60.

If a developer made a fantastic game and say charged $40 for it instead of the normal $60, they did everything right, you know damned well that people would still chose to purchase the used copy for $5-$8 less over the new one. This statement is just posturing by gamers just like developers and publishers who claim that new games would cost less if there weren't used games to compete with. Both claims are pretty much bullshit but neither will be able to be proved so people keep saying them.

[Daria]

Kupomogli: Hey Kingdoms of Amalur started off good but got way too repetitive fast. If there was ever a game I wish I had waited on it's that one.

My issue with the whole kill used games sales, is many titles don't have more than a single print run. So what if I don't buy a game immediately I'm screwed? If I don't discover a game until it's out of print tough shit? Sometimes used is your only option.

[chrisbid]

if the industry wants to lock out used games, go for it. theyll keep me from buying used games.

of course i will no longer buy their consoles or new games, but a success is a success.


PROFITS HO!

[theclaw]

It's a symptom of publishers not understanding the fuck about user interests.

Make more mass-market friendly games. Promote them longer at retail and with DLC or other promotions. If a game's sales/prices (new or used) drop unusually fast, those are signs people may be losing interest in it.

Games people want to buy new have no need for DRM and hampering of used sales. Something like New Super Mario Bros which can keep selling years on end without need for any restrictions, and less risk due to fairly low development budget compared with "AAA" console action titles.

[Gamereviewgod]

It's a combination of multiple things. Tighter budgets and the fact that Gamestop earns like 10 billion a year. Having a world wide chain of stores that specialize in used games isn't the same as a bunch of independently owned video stores selling off their old stock every year or so. When you walk into your local Gamestop and pick up a game from the new game shelf the employee will ask you if you'd like a used copy instead for $5 less instead (more if you have one of their cards). They're making a living out of talking people out of buying new games. I think that's where it rubs developers the wrong way.

GameStop creates a central gaming economy where the games are like a revolving door, new or used. The industry knows this. The hypocrisy is a company like EA or UbiSoft bitching about used sales, and then giving GameStop exclusives to pre-orders or other such bonuses. If GameStop was so evil as these companies claim them to be, they wouldn't support them. Instead, they do, because there's too much value in the GS brand while trying to convince consumers to go against their own rights.

[Berserker]

The purchase and sale of used goods has always and will always negatively impact the producers of new goods. It only became this great plight in this one specific area because they've suddenly gained the capacity to control it.

[Gameguy]

http://i42.tinypic.com/23jg4eb.png

[theclaw]

The purchase and sale of used goods has always and will always negatively impact the producers of new goods. It only became this great plight in this one specific area because they've suddenly gained the capacity to control it.

The best solution for this "problem" is common sense. Be more selective in the first place about deciding to fund projects unlikely to succeed. Far too much R&D resources are wasted on canceled games, incomplete assets left unused on game discs, whole localizations never released...

Look how many leaked prototype games are out there.
Or stuff like Japanese mode Advance Wars Days of Ruin. That's a LOT of effort into stuff gamers can't even officially see.

[The 1 2 P]

A title like that is bound to turn into the next Direct Tv commercial. I didn't think anything could top the Charlie Sheen one but this might do it.

[Clownzilla]

if the industry wants to lock out used games, go for it. theyll keep me from buying used games.

of course i will no longer buy their consoles or new games, but a success is a success.


PROFITS HO!

I'm already on the edge of not buying next-gen systems because of overuse of DLC content. If I can't buy and\or play used games then it would be a pretty clear choice. I just can't see any reputable game company blocking out used sales. However, the industry has changed so much since my first NES in 1985 I really don't know what to think about it anymore.

[j_factor]

I rarely buy new games, and when I do, it's after the price has dropped. $60 is just too rich for my blood. Lower the initial asking price, and I'll bite. In the late PSX era (including PC games of the time), new games were $40.

[SpaceHarrier]

Problems with killing the used games market (that have probably been posted before about a million times):

1. People trade in used games to get store credit toward new release games. Cut off this source of 'currency' gamers have at their disposal = less new product moved.

2. "I'll just wait until the price drops... alot." I'd imagine many, many gamers will have a sense of diminished return on a game they are now stuck with, and thus will place even less value on each purchase than they currently do.

Honestly, the whole thing reminds me of the music industry from a few years ago, trying to desparately think of any way to cling to business models of the past, even as the walls cave in around them (via piracy, second-hand sales, whatever). Except aren't videogame sales exploding right now, as in it's still an expanding market? I don't get it..

[duffmanth]

That's nice to say but it has nothing to do with people who prefer to purchase used games over new ones.



It's a combination of multiple things. Tighter budgets and the fact that Gamestop earns like 10 billion a year. Having a world wide chain of stores that specialize in used games isn't the same as a bunch of independently owned video stores selling off their old stock every year or so. When you walk into your local Gamestop and pick up a game from the new game shelf the employee will ask you if you'd like a used copy instead for $5 less instead (more if you have one of their cards). They're making a living out of talking people out of buying new games. I think that's where it rubs developers the wrong way.



If a developer made a fantastic game and say charged $40 for it instead of the normal $60, they did everything right, you know damned well that people would still chose to purchase the used copy for $5-$8 less over the new one. This statement is just posturing by gamers just like developers and publishers who claim that new games would cost less if there weren't used games to compete with. Both claims are pretty much bullshit but neither will be able to be proved so people keep saying them.

If publishers and developers are so pissed at Gamestop for pushing used games more than new games, the publishers/developers need to negotiate a better profit margin with retailers like Gamestop and indy stores as well. I use to work at an indy game store in Canada and the average profit margin on a new $60-80 game was somewhere between $5-10. If gaming retailers didn't sell used games, systems, and accessories, they probably wouldn't be in business. If developers charged $40 instead $60 for a new game sure there's going to be people that will still buy the used copy for $30-35, not me and many others I know though, I would gladly pick up the new copy for $5 more. My point is that if more new games were actually worth $60 maybe more people would be inclined to pick it up new and not wait for a year for it to be discounted. I don't believe for 1 second that new games would be cheaper if they didn't have used games to compete with, these companies are just too greedy to let that happen. Lastly there's always going to be gamers that can't afford $60 games new and will always buy used or wait until new games are discounted, so developers need to stop worrying about the used market and focus more on what they can do to make people buy new, either charge $60 and make sure the game is actually worth it or drop your prices.

[Collector_Gaming]

EA has put out more quality this gen than most of the other publishers. The developer of Kingdoms of Amalur was one who complained about the used game market, and if you've played even the demo, are you really going to say that they need to make a better game rather than complaining? You don't see any low budget developers complaining about used game sales because it took them next to nothing to develop their titles anyways. I'm sure those games that cost almost nothing to make in comparison to Dante's Inferno, Mirror's Edge, Kingdom's of Amalur, etc, are just raking in the cash.



Its kinda hard to go a whole year without publishing a winner when you own half the industry of game companies (or buy em out and take em out back and give em the old yellar treatment).
http://chzvideogames.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/video-game-memes-papea-kills-off-developers.jpg
and also have the contract to being exclusive to release certain games (like that deal they have with NFL.. basically forcing all companies to back off from making football games unless they are fantasy based)

Remember kids............... If you can't beat em.............. Buy em out or shut em out........ Its the way of Electronic Arts industry

[Griking]

The best solution for this "problem" is common sense. Be more selective in the first place about deciding to fund projects unlikely to succeed. Far too much R&D resources are wasted on canceled games, incomplete assets left unused on game discs, whole localizations never released...

Look how many leaked prototype games are out there.
Or stuff like Japanese mode Advance Wars Days of Ruin. That's a LOT of effort into stuff gamers can't even officially see.


So if a company is more selective about the games that they make people will buy more new games and less used one?

Edit: And that's actually a pretty funny and sad cartoon. Probably because its true.

[theclaw]

So if a company is more selective about the games that they make people will buy more new games and less used one?

In effect yes. You aren't getting either from a game not released. Millions of dollars and combined man-hours to produce zero sales isn't a good practice in any industry.

Of course there are situations difficult to control. Development hell doesn't help either.

[kupomogli]

Its kinda hard to go a whole year without publishing a winner when you own half the industry of game companies (or buy em out and take em out back and give em the old yellar treatment).

and also have the contract to being exclusive to release certain games (like that deal they have with NFL.. basically forcing all companies to back off from making football games unless they are fantasy based)

Remember kids............... If you can't beat em.............. Buy em out or shut em out........ Its the way of Electronic Arts industry

People act like EA is the only one who's ever closed down a development studio. There are many different developers owned by others which have shut down. Maybe you think EA should still be paying the salaries of these people despite the studios last efforts remaining in the red? The Saboteur is a great game, but if you look at the sales, it's quite obvious why Pandemic was closed down. More than likely a lot of employees went to other EA development studios and others that got laid off probably are probably working with other companies.

Capcom closed down Clover Studios. Why? Because God Hand, amazing as it was, sold like shit. They lost money with the development of that game.

[Collector_Gaming]

People act like EA is the only one who's ever closed down a development studio. There are many different developers owned by others which have shut down. Maybe you think EA should still be paying the salaries of these people despite the studios last efforts remaining in the red? The Saboteur is a great game, but if you look at the sales, it's quite obvious why Pandemic was closed down. More than likely a lot of employees went to other EA development studios and others that got laid off probably are probably working with other companies.

Capcom closed down Clover Studios. Why? Because God Hand, amazing as it was, sold like shit. They lost money with the development of that game.

and just because mentioned them in this

Watch tomorrows gaming headlines

"Electronic Arts purchases gaming giant Capcom for undisclosed amount"

What EA's business model is basically is creating a monopoly buying everything out untill in the end its all by its lonesome no competition.
Other companies have been trying similar style business models for years. Walmart being the brick and mortar store version of this basically running every mom and pops store and most other store companies out of town by providing everything with lower prices. (i remember reading a article about how they were thinking about creating a general store style format to put in small towns. basically doing everything you mom and pops general stores do but with walmart prices).
But its not always their fault i will admit.
Banks for instance when they shot themselves in the foot and thought it would be cool to charge outrageous fees for banking. Everyone decided it would be better to head to walmart to cash their pay checks. Which i also read walmart at one point in time threw around the idea of making their own full on banking system. But decided to scrap it as it felt like too much of a hassle.

the biggest monopoly business model we all know is AMAZON.com where it sells litterally everything dirt cheap so cheap that it even has walmart shaking at the knees.

I know i sound like a tin foil hat individual when i say it and i've said a few times before on this forum. But a monopoly system is a very very bad economic choice (i mean the higher ups with the bottomless pockets this is the perfect choice cause they will fix their ever growing demand on cash). To have economy people have to have something of value in trade (which we use money in this day in age). How is one suppose to be able to get that when all the jobs that pay us this money are being run out by a monopoly system? Specially one that buys its competition and then shuts it down to eliminate it.
Not everyone can work at mcdonalds and be a construction worker and a government official (until they find a way to monopolize that.... and i am sure congress is already trying to find a way to do that as we speak)

Thats why me myself.. When i goto purchase goods i prefer brick and mortar.. for one and if i am really feeling generous mom and pop stores over online/giant corporations. Only time i would choose otherwise is either because i can't get the goods there... or i am in finacial pinch and i need that item now for something (like take for instance i wanna do a photo shoot a few weeks ago and needed a light reflector which goes for about 85 bucks at a photography shop.... online 15)

[KaBonk]

Chris Kohler wrote an excellent article on this at Wired

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/04/opinion-kohler-video-expensive/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialmedia&utm_campaign=twitterclickthru

I think he is pretty right on in the article.

[Collector_Gaming]

Chris Kohler wrote an excellent article on this at Wired

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/04/opinion-kohler-video-expensive/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialmedia&utm_campaign=twitterclickthru

I think he is pretty right on in the article.

i actually agree with everything stated in that article.

and i like his charts he provided... numbers don't lie. Game companies can whine and moan all they want but the numbers are there

See and now everyones gonna draw the conclusion of "Well then why don't we change it to a download only format. That eliminates the middle man on this discussion"

Well thats fine.. And it will probably play out fine for a few years.. Then what if the companies all the sudden feel like the digital download system is too cheap. Then start to spike the prices up and up.

Big companies are greedy its a known fact and its been that way for decades. I give you a dollar... Your gonna enjoy that dollar... your gonna want more where that came from.

Not to take the topic way off hand but I do wanna point out something else I have read about how a greedy corporation can hurt smaller companies therefore making those employees lose their jobs. Creating a higher number in unemployment which then sinks the country and perhaps the world further into a economic decline. Is this....
The gas station... The next time you goto fill up your car or bike... When your done look at the pump and see how many gallons you pumped. Take for example lets say 10 gallons of Unleaded gasoline. It is a known statistic that a gas station makes on average a half a cent for every gallon you pump.

So do the math. 10 gallons at a .5 cent profit gain a gallon is the gas station just made a nickle out of that 40 dollars of gas you just pumped. How does a gas station make money? Through the small convient stores they have. The snacks and soda and beer and news papers and such. Well where the gas money go? Back to the greedy gas companies that provide the gas. Gas stations don't choose the gas prices either. The companies do with their forever changing pricing on the product.

this ones the most shocking to me when i read about it.
Movie Theaters. They virtually don't make anything off you for the admission they charge to watch the movie. As a movie theater owner stated in the article i read. They are simply not in buisness as a movie theater persay more so then a concession stand. (now you know why they always remind you to go buy snacks and drinks before the movie started.).... Thanks movie production companies.

[Sabz5150]

I don't think anyone else has taken notice, but most of the developers and publishers complaining about the used game sales are ones that have actually put out quality games.

EA has put out more quality this gen than most of the other publishers. The developer of Kingdoms of Amalur was one who complained about the used game market, and if you've played even the demo, are you really going to say that they need to make a better game rather than complaining? You don't see any low budget developers complaining about used game sales because it took them next to nothing to develop their titles anyways. I'm sure those games that cost almost nothing to make in comparison to Dante's Inferno, Mirror's Edge, Kingdom's of Amalur, etc, are just raking in the cash.

EA hasn't put out anything of interest to me since their logo had a "C" in it. That's roughly about the time they last released something truly groundbreaking.

"Quality" is subjective. See statement above. What, to you, is an example of "quality". Specific titles, please.



I'd understand the quote "If you want to reduce used games sales, then make better games," if it were developers and publishers that released garbage, but when the best games are the ones that don't sell and make their way to being used games because that's how the mentality of today's gamer is; finish the game and trading it in for something new, then it's clear that those posting that quote haven't played anything from these developers/publisher.

Stop. Stop right there. The line "but when the best games are the ones that don't sell and make their way to being used games" makes absolutely no sense. The best games sell. If they didn't, they wouldn't be the best, now would they? They also wouldn't make it to the used pile in droves. Only craptacular games like Duke Nukeum Forever (one of the BIGGEST examples of developer asshattery) find themselves permanently relegated to the bargain bin at Gamestop.


Saints Row the Third developer, Volition, is also another who spoke up about used games sales hurting the industry. They should make better games instead of complaining about used games. Oh wait. Saints Row the Third is another quality game.

Quality? In what way is it different from... say... Grand Theft Auto outside the fact that you can be a cat and suck up prostitutes and shoot them from a cannon rather than paying and killing them?

Been there. Done that. You want me to buy? Give me something interesting.


Not everyone is a collector and with today's gamers selling whatever game they finish as used and picking up a new used copy, along with Gamestops seven day used game return policy, titles that are exclusively single player have a much harder chance in staying in the players hands. We're all aware that it's the reason multiplayer has been tacked onto pretty much literally everything in effort to keep the games in the players collection as long as possible. Even having developers going so far as to include difficult to acquire online trophies and achievements for those trophy and achievement hunters out there(although these people usually Gamefly the titles.)

Sounds like the single player modes of those games are shitty. Fallout 3 has no multiplayer, yet it will have a place in my collection until it is my son's collection. Why? Because that game delivers. It delivers in the form of a quality storyline and a near complete open world for me to do whatever I want. Fallout 3 is a game that has delivered upon me approximately 190 hours of gameplay. That is worth $60.



So while not all developers have spoken out about used games hurting the industry y, it's quite obvious they're tired of it when gamese like Assassin's Creed and Ninja Gaiden start offering multiplayer to keep players owning the game for a bit longer. This is time and money that could have been better spent at making a more solid single player experience.

So why wasn't it? Oh, that's right... multiplayer builds itself, no effort needed.

[kupomogli]

"Quality" is subjective. See statement above. What, to you, is an example of "quality". Specific titles, please.

I've listed titles. I may not have listed I think those are quality titles, but my examples in that post are, in my opinion, all quality. Dante's Inferno, Mirror's Edge, Kingdoms of Amalur, and The Saboteur are all quality games in my opinion.


Sounds like the single player modes of those games are shitty. Fallout 3 has no multiplayer, yet it will have a place in my collection until it is my son's collection. Why? Because that game delivers. It delivers in the form of a quality storyline and a near complete open world for me to do whatever I want. Fallout 3 is a game that has delivered upon me approximately 190 hours of gameplay. That is worth $60.

Quite subjective indeed. Fallout 3 is garbage.

[Press_Start]

Chris Kohler wrote an excellent article on this at Wired

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/04/opinion-kohler-video-expensive/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialmedia&utm_campaign=twitterclickthru

I think he is pretty right on in the article.

Hell yeah. Keeping in mind the 2008 study came out while the global recession was just starting and I betcha dollars to doughnuts those '08 reseller numbers ballooned up to double over these last few years with people scrapping by on cup o' noodles and ketchup soup. Not to mention, most gamers are simply stretching a dollar n' trying every honest, affordable, conceivable venue to keep themselves and their gaming hobby afloat. Yet, we keep seeing video game sales reaching nosebleed heights never before reached (i.e Modern Warfare 3 ~30 Million Sold) and these monopolistic gasbags think they can squeeze a "little bit more" out of this bleeding rock. If Sony or MS insists on axing used game sales for the foreseeable future, it'll be their own "Heaven's Gate" and for far more idiotic reasons than meteor spaceships. It'll be suicide pact by bad math.

[Nature Boy]

I'm tired of the whining from the industry at this point. It's time to spit or get off the pot.

If they stop selling to Gamestop they send their message just fine. But they won't do that, because that would affect their sales figures more than getting a cut of used sales would.

I have zero sympathy here, because the best games still sell ridiculously well and they're still making oodles of money. If they want to make more (who doesn't) I'd rather they focus their efforts elsewhere, rather than on locking down systems as I've heard rumuored. That would just pies me off more.

[skaar]

Believe me buddy, nobody wants to pies you off.

It's the little pubs that take the highest risk. I'm actually happier about all the smaller marketplaces doing well outside of retail.

Too bad it'll be years before that hits the numbers of brick and mortar.

[ventrra]

People act like EA is the only one who's ever closed down a development studio. There are many different developers owned by others which have shut down. Maybe you think EA should still be paying the salaries of these people despite the studios last efforts remaining in the red? The Saboteur is a great game, but if you look at the sales, it's quite obvious why Pandemic was closed down. More than likely a lot of employees went to other EA development studios and others that got laid off probably are probably working with other companies.


You are seriously overlooking the way EA REALLY does business. They don't shut down studios because they are doing badly, they MAKE them do badly so they can shut them down. Take Ultima for example. Ultima was a respectable RPG series until the suits at EA told they devs "We don't like the way these games play. You need to make them play more like Mario or else!" Other studios have had the same complaint about them. EA takes these big names and methodically flushes them down the drain.

[Gameguy]

That would just pies me off more.

Believe me buddy, nobody wants to pies you off.
Pie is awesome!!

http://i39.tinypic.com/1z4lmbl.gif

[skaar]

You are seriously overlooking the way EA REALLY does business. They don't shut down studios because they are doing badly, they MAKE them do badly so they can shut them down. Take Ultima for example. Ultima was a respectable RPG series until the suits at EA told they devs "We don't like the way these games play. You need to make them play more like Mario or else!" Other studios have had the same complaint about them. EA takes these big names and methodically flushes them down the drain.

My god, the drivel.

You obviously have a strong mind for business.

[j_factor]

You are seriously overlooking the way EA REALLY does business. They don't shut down studios because they are doing badly, they MAKE them do badly so they can shut them down. Take Ultima for example. Ultima was a respectable RPG series until the suits at EA told they devs "We don't like the way these games play. You need to make them play more like Mario or else!" Other studios have had the same complaint about them. EA takes these big names and methodically flushes them down the drain.

I don't think EA said anything like that. Ultima IX was like playing a very early beta of a game. VIII was pretty bad too, but IX was ridiculous.

[ventrra]

My god, the drivel.

You obviously have a strong mind for business.

Yes. I ran a successful business with 6 full-time employees from 1988 to 1996 when I decided that management was a pain and joined the army. I'm sure my dislike for management means that I have a "strong mind for business".

What exactly were you doing back then?


I don't think EA said anything like that. Ultima IX was like playing a very early beta of a game. VIII was pretty bad too, but IX was ridiculous.
A lot of this was plying out in the pages of magazines like CGW back in the day.

This makes an interesting read about a bit of what was going on there. (Not about them wanting it to be more like Mario, though.)
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_14/87-The-Conquest-of-Origin

I'm still looking for the exact bit about that, though. I think it might have been in the letters section when one of the developers was commenting on a complaint about one of the games.

[Griking]

Chris Kohler wrote an excellent article on this at Wired

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/04/opinion-kohler-video-expensive/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialmedia&utm_campaign=twitterclickthru

I think he is pretty right on in the article.


It's a decent article and it has some good points but it also seems pretty biased and one sided to me.


No evidence at all, except for things like this 2008 study that shows that of the 26 million or so regular sellers of used games, 16 million of them used that credit to buy exclusively brand-new games.

Or like GameStop’s own statements. “We provide our customers with an opportunity to trade in their used video game products in our stores in exchange for store credits which can be applied towards the purchase of other products, primarily new merchandise,” GameStop said in a 2011 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. If it’s lying, it’s lying to the SEC.

First of all, used games can't just be traded in for new games. They're traded in for store credit which can be used for anything including used games that haven't been played yet. and lets be honest here, Gamestop isn't going to be a completely unbiased source for this kind of information



Oh no, it’s not like GameStop is doing that at all....

Oh wait, except that’s exactly what GameStop does. It routinely offers extra trade credit when a trade is applied to the pre-order and subsequent purchase of a brand-new, day-one, full-price game.

Of course it does. Because Gamestop wants all of us to trade in our used games for pennies on the dollar so they can turn around and resell them as used again and again and again at a huge markup. They know that they have to lure you in to purchase new games because without new game sales there are no used games to sell.

[Griking]

Big companies are greedy its a known fact and its been that way for decades. I give you a dollar... Your gonna enjoy that dollar... your gonna want more where that came from.

And to be completely fair and unbiased you need to admit that on the other side of the coin gamers are cheap. Many gaming enthusiast sites (like this one) has a sub forum where they document the latest and greatest video game sales. Why? In fact, there's websites that are completely dedicated to documenting all the game sales and clearances. Many will wait until a new game that they want appears on the shelf used just so they can pay $5 less for it. Now, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing but at the same time, neither are companies wanting to maximize their profits.

The above article points out that the primary reason for increased game prices has been increased game budgets. So, what do gamers want developers to do about it? Stop making huge premium games like Skyrim or CoD? Should they pay their developers less money? To be fair over the past 5 or so years the economy has been in the shitter and pretty much every product out there has either raised their prices or decreased the amount of the product that they give you for the same price. Why should game developers be singled out as the one industry expected to suck it up and absorb the losses?

[Sabz5150]

I've listed titles. I may not have listed I think those are quality titles, but my examples in that post are, in my opinion, all quality. Dante's Inferno, Mirror's Edge, Kingdoms of Amalur, and The Saboteur are all quality games in my opinion.

Quite subjective indeed. Fallout 3 is garbage.

And what you have listed better serves me as coasters. Different strokes for different folks. What you need to look at is the game's overall value to the player. Is a game that can be completed in 40 or so hours as valuable as one that can be played for almost 200? Is an open-ended game more likely to stick around in a person's 360 longer than a one-shot linear story? Multiplayer is good, but if developers are using that to prop up their single player games... there's a problem, and its not the player's attention span.

[j_factor]

This makes an interesting read about a bit of what was going on there. (Not about them wanting it to be more like Mario, though.)
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_14/87-The-Conquest-of-Origin

Thanks, that was an interesting article. I like how he describes the EA development philosophy as "spend a ton to make a ton". That's exactly what's wrong with the industry today, much much moreso than back then.


And to be completely fair and unbiased you need to admit that on the other side of the coin gamers are cheap. Many gaming enthusiast sites (like this one) has a sub forum where they document the latest and greatest video game sales. Why?

Because games are too expensive. If gamers are cheap, then games should be cheap.


The above article points out that the primary reason for increased game prices has been increased game budgets. So, what do gamers want developers to do about it? Stop making huge premium games like Skyrim or CoD?

Those games should be the exception, not the rule, and their pricing should be the exception, not the rule. Alternatively, some of these games could be split into multiple releases.


To be fair over the past 5 or so years the economy has been in the shitter and pretty much every product out there has either raised their prices or decreased the amount of the product that they give you for the same price. Why should game developers be singled out as the one industry expected to suck it up and absorb the losses?

Garbage has a new album coming out. If I go down to my local record store and buy it on CD, it will likely bear the same price (or damn near it) that I paid for Version 2.0 in 1998. Figure that one out.

[kupomogli]

Here's another thing. Games have a much higher development cost than they've had in the past and they're also cheaper than they were in the past. PSX titles cost $49.99, so they're $10 more now, but N64 games in the same era cost upwards of $69.99-$79.99 and prior to that generation cost the same amount or more. It's quite obvious why developers weren't bitching about costs, because the prices were so ridiculous and development costs were cheap. Well. Not really cheap, but cheaper.

Piracy is also rampant during this day and age, game rentals are easier than ever, and companies are more aggressive when pushing used games sales. Everyone pushes used games sales now. Most Gamestop stores don't even stock PC games any longer, where before atleast half of their store was covered in PC software. Why stock PC when you're not going to gain a possible used sale in return?

[Gamereviewgod]

So if a company is more selective about the games that they make people will buy more new games and less used one?



The way games are hyped, this makes total sense. Last year during Oct/Nov, on the 360 alone, there were 15 retail release PER WEEK for three straight weeks. That doesn't even consider digital releases. That's why games don't sell. No one can afford everything that was hyped, so consumers sit on a major release or two, and wait for the rest to come up used.

Instead of spreading out the release schedule to the summer, they still cling to the holiday model which clearly isn't working. And wouldn't you know it? It's the consumers fault.

[j_factor]

Here's another thing. Games have a much higher development cost than they've had in the past and they're also cheaper than they were in the past. PSX titles cost $49.99, so they're $10 more now, but N64 games in the same era cost upwards of $69.99-$79.99 and prior to that generation cost the same amount or more.

Most PSX games, starting in 1998, were $39.99. Most PC games around that time were $39.99 as well, though there was little more variance. N64 was more expensive because it used cartridges. We're not using cartridges anymore. DVDs today are just as cheap to produce as CD-ROMs were back then. Blu-Ray discs might be a little more, but not much.


It's quite obvious why developers weren't bitching about costs, because the prices were so ridiculous and development costs were cheap. Well. Not really cheap, but cheaper.

They can still make games on roughly the same budget. They just choose not to. Too many developers want the flashiest, largest game out there.

[Tupin]

Not every game needs to cost millions upon millions of dollars to produce. I picked up the 2009 remake of Bionic Commando, one of Capcom's biggest failures, for $7 recently. It was supposed to reboot an old franchise, but it failed, and all that money was wasted.

You'd think that with the indie gaming "revolution" that companies would capitalize on consumers habits of buying cheaper, smaller games. But nope. They want to be like Hollywood, ignoring the fact that Hollywood has few success stories and is much easier to sell, it's $8 versus $60.

[Hawksmoor]

It truly amazes me that some of you are serving as apologists for the exploitative tactics that the industry is employing these days. It's as dysfunctional as the music industry was during, and just after, Napster. Change your paradigm or suffer the consequences. Don't prostrate yourselves trying to nail some scapegoats to a cross in order to cover your own naked greed.

DLC, more often than not, is purely a money grab. To argue, as Cliffy B. recently did, that it's an "unfortunate necessity" is a pathetically transparent cop-out. The fact of the matter is that publishers are expecting us to pay $60 for games, even substandard ones, and then spend even more after that on parsed out content that should have been available from the get go. You want me to pay for 12 characters after I've paid $60 for your game, ala Tekken vs SF? No. Fuck you. Give me value for my money or I'll wait until your game is discounted or buy it used. Cry all the rivers you want publishers, and blame everyone else but yourselves; the fact is you've failed to adapt to an ever changing market and are pissed off at the consequences. Too bad, so sad.

[Griking]

Garbage has a new album coming out. If I go down to my local record store and buy it on CD, it will likely bear the same price (or damn near it) that I paid for Version 2.0 in 1998. Figure that one out.

and hows the music industry doing recently?

Besides, Garbage is pretty comparable to an Indy developer selling their games for $2.99 on Steam at this point; it's really not being marketed as a blockbuster release.

[Griking]

The way games are hyped, this makes total sense. Last year during Oct/Nov, on the 360 alone, there were 15 retail release PER WEEK for three straight weeks. That doesn't even consider digital releases. That's why games don't sell. No one can afford everything that was hyped, so consumers sit on a major release or two, and wait for the rest to come up used.

Instead of spreading out the release schedule to the summer, they still cling to the holiday model which clearly isn't working. And wouldn't you know it? It's the consumers fault.

Well to be fair, you're talking about the Christmas selling season. However I agree that developers should space their games more evenly over the course of the year rather than everyone releasing their 'blockbuster' right before Christmas.

[Jaruff]

I've never understood why certain people in the game industry feel they're entitled to used game commissions.

Does Ford receive a commission when you trade-in one of their used vehicles for a different brand? No. Does Ford receive a commission when that car dealership sells your old vehicle for cash? No. Does Ford complain about this? Not to my knowledge.

That goes for any automobile manufacturer. Actually, that goes for most industries.

[j_factor]

and hows the music industry doing recently?

Uh, what? Do you think they'd be doing better if they charged more?


Besides, Garbage is pretty comparable to an Indy developer selling their games for $2.99 on Steam at this point; it's really not being marketed as a blockbuster release.

Seriously? I gave a random example, you ignore the actual point I'm making and overanalyze the example itself? WTF?

[kupomogli]

I've never understood why certain people in the game industry feel they're entitled to used game commissions.

Does Ford receive a commission when you trade-in one of their used vehicles for a different brand? No. Does Ford receive a commission when that car dealership sells your old vehicle for cash? No. Does Ford complain about this? Not to my knowledge.

That goes for any automobile manufacturer. Actually, that goes for most industries.

Yeah. Car manufacturers don't bitch about it. They just file for bankruptcy and put us billions more dollars into debt. How many car manufacturers filed for bankruptcy the last few years?

The CEOs of these companies are still making millions on millions. File for bankruptcy and then they're back in the game.

[Gameguy]

Does Ford receive a commission when you trade-in one of their used vehicles for a different brand? No. Does Ford receive a commission when that car dealership sells your old vehicle for cash? No. Does Ford complain about this? Not to my knowledge.
They sell parts for those cars, the longer they're on the road the more replacement parts they'll need. Doesn't matter who buys it or who sells it, they'll have to buy their OEM parts to keep it running. There's more markup on the spare parts than on a new car as a whole.

[NayusDante]

Instead of raging against GameStop, the industry needs to cooperate to ensure the benefit of both. It's clear that GameStop's used practices have hurt the industry's ability to profit at the current budget and price-point levels.

Everyone keeps worrying about used game lockout, but what if new games are cheap enough? Cut budgets in half and double production schedules. Then you have two Gears of Modern Conflict games each year, and they cost the consumer $30 at release. When the next game is released, the last one goes to $10. No more used games, and both parties enjoy more sales.

[Gamereviewgod]

They sell parts for those cars, the longer they're on the road the more replacement parts they'll need. Doesn't matter who buys it or who sells it, they'll have to buy their OEM parts to keep it running. There's more markup on the spare parts than on a new car as a whole.

And gaming now has a mountain of DLC.

[kupomogli]

And gaming now has a mountain of DLC.

But in Gameguy's statement, the car parts are required to keep the car going when it inevitably breaks down. DLC is entirely optional. I can honestly say unless it's been free, I've never downloaded any DLC yet. A lot of games purchased are a complete experience without the DLC and that DLC is nothing more than an add on to extend gameplay. It's the prerelease DLC or the obvious incomplete game that has the rest of the title being released as DLC to make extra money after the fact. Street Fighter x Tekken, Final Fantasy 13-2, and Mass Effect 3 as a few examples.

Complete games that developers want to release additional content later on? That's something that's not bad, hey, more content that is good and it's something I don't feel ripped off on getting(although I got a disc based version.) Rockstar with Grand Theft Auto and Red Dead Redemption has developed completely new games with their DLC. Oblivion's Shivering Isles. These games have the best DLC as they're pretty much brand new games in the same locations. People used to call these expansions. Unfortunately, not all games with good DLC sold well. From what I've heard, the Valkyria Chronicles DLC, especially Behind Her Blue Flame and Lords of Shadow Reverie are good, but the games just didn't sell well enough. Lords of Shadow is easily one of my favorite games this gen, but another great game that didn't sell. I think Konami should have called it Metal Gear Solid Lords of Shadow. It probably would have sold then. Doesn't make a difference if they named it Metal Gear Solid as it's neither that nor what they did call it.


And what you have listed better serves me as coasters. Different strokes for different folks. What you need to look at is the game's overall value to the player. Is a game that can be completed in 40 or so hours as valuable as one that can be played for almost 200? Is an open-ended game more likely to stick around in a person's 360 longer than a one-shot linear story? Multiplayer is good, but if developers are using that to prop up their single player games... there's a problem, and its not the player's attention span.

A game that you can put 200 hours into doesn't make it any more quality than a game you can put 40 hours into. To answer your question. I can beat the original Castlevania in 20 minutes. Does it make it any less of a quality title? No. It's one of my favorite games and sometimes I'd rather pick it up than any of the other games in my library. Same with any game that's of any length. The length of the game doesn't matter over the enjoyment that I've had with the game.

Fallout 3 has a very small selection of weapons, large cut and paste areas. Pretty much every building that you walk into is going to have the same look and feel as another building. The graphics are nice, but exploration gets a bit boring when it's just endless waves of nothing. When you do get to enemies the combat is boring, and it's not a good first person shooter style and even if you play it RPG style with the AP it's still not very enjoyable. You're using the AP to do nothing more than shoot, use a grenade, etc. That's it. Fallout 3 doesn't have any substance to it. It's a FPS RPG that lacks anything other than shooting the same few guns. It's an exploration title that you're constantly exploring the same look alike areas. On top of that. Bethesda hasn't made an interesting storyline yet. With Elder Scrolls it's the gameplay that keeps me there, not the story, although one good thing I can say is that the Fallout 3 storyline started out good when you were still in the vault. I've made it a little past where your father dies and you escape the guys trying to kill you to the group of soldiers in the power armor. The story only continues to get more boring. The exploration is the only possible redeeming quality after the beginning of the game and most of my time has been exploring literally everywhere in that original first half. So 40 hours or 1000 hours. The quality doesn't change, and with Fallout 3, the overall quality outside of the sheer size of the world, the exploration, and the graphics as it's indeed a beautiful looking game, is extremely lacking.

It's only my opinion on the game, but it added to the answer of your question.

[Collector_Gaming]

Yeah. Car manufacturers don't bitch about it. They just file for bankruptcy and put us billions more dollars into debt. How many car manufacturers filed for bankruptcy the last few years?

The CEOs of these companies are still making millions on millions. File for bankruptcy and then they're back in the game.

its plain called greed... something you'll never escape from sadly. People suggest doing away with money... Which won't work.. just means we go back to the i trade you this goat for 5 loaves of bread kinda system in which someones gonna be holding on the cards in that system too.

[Griking]

And gaming now has a mountain of DLC.


That people are whining about having to pay for.

[T2KFreeker]

After reading that article, I can honestly say that I am glad I am mainly a Retro Gamer. I mean, with the new consoles coming out, if they do what they say they are doing with lockouts and that crap, I'll miss some new stuff. In the end though, there is already so much out there from yesteryear, there is no way you could play it all in your lifetime, even if you just put the cream of the crop titles and delete the crap. Sucks, I know, but some of us on fixed incomes are gonna' be giving Sony and Microsoft the finger and show them they are "Number One" and enjoy the older stuff instead of shelling out money for the same crap, different console stuff. AND, we'll laugh when prices don't come down, as predicted.

[Jaruff]

Yeah. Car manufacturers don't bitch about it. They just file for bankruptcy and put us billions more dollars into debt. How many car manufacturers filed for bankruptcy the last few years?

The CEOs of these companies are still making millions on millions. File for bankruptcy and then they're back in the game.

You can blame governments for such economic tolerance.


They sell parts for those cars, the longer they're on the road the more replacement parts they'll need. Doesn't matter who buys it or who sells it, they'll have to buy their OEM parts to keep it running. There's more markup on the spare parts than on a new car as a whole.

While this is true, you aren't forced to purchase their replacement parts. I've replaced several parts in my vehicle over the past two years and they have either been pre-owned parts or third-party manufactured. GM doesn't even make my brand anymore.

But to get back to games, companies can maintain revenues by offering additional expansion packs and "DLC". Companies can also adjust their prices depending on the market and not relative to a fixed figure. Have a game like COD? Charge $60, 80, or even 100. Have a low-budget game? Charge $30 or $40.

Want to truly lock out the used games market? Offer digital downloads at a discount. If you sell the retail copy at $60 (which GS may later resell for $55) but you offer a digital copy for $40, you're going to eliminate a lot of used physical copies. If you let people pre-order digitally (this is done on Steam with success), you're going to eliminate physical copies of the game as well. If you allow those that purchase digital copies to delete the game for a small refund ($10), you'll eliminate some motivation for trade-ins. Better yet, why not have more game trials and allow people to unlock the whole game if they enjoy the trial?

Lower digital copy prices, throw in digital copy exclusives, and there you go. Activision could make a killing by charging $50 for the next COD and offering a pre-order bonus exclusive to the digital download version of the game. A killing.

[Sabz5150]

A game that you can put 200 hours into doesn't make it any more quality than a game you can put 40 hours into.

Not always, however is does ensure a game stays off the used shelves five times longer, does it not?



To answer your question. I can beat the original Castlevania in 20 minutes. Does it make it any less of a quality title? No. It's one of my favorite games and sometimes I'd rather pick it up than any of the other games in my library. Same with any game that's of any length. The length of the game doesn't matter over the enjoyment that I've had with the game.

I can complete Meagman 2 in under 40, but answer me this: Was that 20 minute run on your first try, or did it take a massive amount of time to obtain that skill?


Fallout 3 has a very small selection of weapons

It isn't Borderlands.


large cut and paste areas. Pretty much every building that you walk into is going to have the same look and feel as another building.

So a 200 year old building a quarter mile from a nuclear blast will look all that different from a 200 year old building three eighths from a nuclear blast?


The graphics are nice, but exploration gets a bit boring when it's just endless waves of nothing.

Capital *WASTELAND*



When you do get to enemies the combat is boring, and it's not a good first person shooter style and even if you play it RPG style with the AP it's still not very enjoyable. You're using the AP to do nothing more than shoot, use a grenade, etc. That's it.

As opposed to an FPS where a knife to the big toe kills you? Do go on, please.



Fallout 3 doesn't have any substance to it. It's a FPS RPG that lacks anything other than shooting the same few guns. It's an exploration title that you're constantly exploring the same look alike areas. On top of that. Bethesda hasn't made an interesting storyline yet.

So what do you do in any multiplayer FPS? Anything besides shoot the same guns? Oh, wait... that's right, you can jump out of a fighter jet at 10,000 feet, shoot a rocket at another plane and jump back in!

Quality shit there, let me tell you!



With Elder Scrolls it's the gameplay that keeps me there, not the story, although one good thing I can say is that the Fallout 3 storyline started out good when you were still in the vault.

I've played the ES games. Fallout with swords. Thought I'd like it because of that. Got boring quick.


I've made it a little past where your father dies and you escape the guys trying to kill you to the group of soldiers in the power armor. The story only continues to get more boring. The exploration is the only possible redeeming quality after the beginning of the game and most of my time has been exploring literally everywhere in that original first half. So 40 hours or 1000 hours. The quality doesn't change, and with Fallout 3, the overall quality outside of the sheer size of the world, the exploration, and the graphics as it's indeed a beautiful looking game, is extremely lacking.

It's only my opinion on the game, but it added to the answer of your question.

And you're entitled to it.

[DreamTR]

This whole argument is stupid. Used furniture, used tvs; ANYTHING that you purchase you should have the right to resell. If the industry goes all digital that is because they are trying to limit the used games but the fact of the matter is GameStop has a monopoly. Publishers see it and they blame them. There is no argument here, used merchandise pertain to every tangible good we own. I can't sell my stuffed animal in the resale market? There is no law that will change this, the only thing that can change it is digital only which will happen in 15 years and GameStop will turn into a DL kiosk place in malls probably but there will still be some type of physical media in some aspect....I just can't believe this is still going on...what happens 10 years from now you want a game that doesn't exist from the publisher and can't find it in a "used" market, tough luck? Licensing downloads from other dealers for old software? This whole argument is idiotic. There is no way a publisher should think they have the right to control a used game sale; EAT COMMUNISM 2K MONIES.

[Gamereviewgod]

That people are whining about having to pay for.

Because from the start of this generation it's been exploitation of the concept to see how much the customer will pay. But, it doesn't change the fact that it's now become a large enough profit area that there are TV ads promoting map packs and such. It's a huge stream of revenue which can continue as the used game works through the market.

[camarotuner]

I can virtually guarantee that if this were to come to pass (systems lock-out used games making used discs worthless or what have you) this will end in court. Because it'd open a whole shit storm in several other industries. Expect the movie and music industries to jump on board immediately and lord only knows what'd be next. It'll be fun.

Said it before, I'll say it again, the more technology "improves" the more it SUCKS.

[The 1 2 P]

A recently filed patent (http://www.gamepolitics.com/2013/01/03/report-sony-patent-uses-id-lock-software-one-console) by Sony has once again opened up the discussion of used games being blocked during the next gen. Sony has had a rough seventh gen but even I don't believe they are stupid enough to do this. The negatives would far outweight any "benefits" this might produce.