PS4 Not Playing Used Games, What Is This Hobby Coming To?

[IHatedSega]

I cant support this at all. Games cost way too much nowadays for me. Not to mention after a game is discontinued the only way to really buy it is used, so this patent to stop used games from being played, to me, may create a lost generation of games. We wouldnt be able to play Earthbound without emulation or playing a used copy. I hope that when games are discontinued that they would let used copies of that game be played, at least. Who knows how this will work out, but just the act of them filing this patent makes me not want to support their next console. I dont like Gamestop and their stock fell from this rumor, I hope it drives them out of business and more companies spring up to take its place somehow on a national level. More so I hope this would make games less expensive. If we cant buy a used copy of a game it better be reasonably priced. $60 is way too much for a game that can be beat within a week, I dont care about trophies. The cloud method of all future games being downloaded to the console though would make this an non issue, but them filing this shows that the PS4 will have a disk drive in it.

I may buy a 360 because of this, the new model that doesnt burn out. But Microsoft filed a patent to monitor people watching "pirated content" or that you yourself bought this video to play and if someone else comes into the room you get charged for them seeing it too.

WHAT THE HELL IS HAPPENING TO GAMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What do you guys think?

[CDiablo]

Patent may just be tech that will not see the light of day. Titles wont be lost but collecting will be. There will be digitial distribution, emulation, modding, and whatnot to preserve the games in that sense. I dont support it but if a console does do that sales will be down due to people that sell used/buy new wont have the same income from their used and cannot afford $60/$70 games.

[kupomogli]

Not enough people are online for this patent to become useful during this current time, but it's something Sony used on Playstation All Stars when giving out the free copy. The free copy was on disc, you had to be online and activate it, and it was checked off on the PSN server side to active PSABR PSV version on the specific account.

More than likely Sony is just patenting this technology for use later in the future or if companies ever decide to use this feature, no matter who they are, Sony then can either decline the use of this patent or get paid per game for use of the feature.

I'll quit collecting when this type of patent goes into effect. The physical copy will then be useless on another console. So during that time, what happens if my console dies in the future when PS4/5 whatever uses this patent is no longer in development. I'm stuck with games that are completely useless. So when that time comes, I'll be exclusively on PC.

[Ed Oscuro]

Let's see what actually makes it into the consoles first.

Honestly, it doesn't seem outrageous to have some kind of model based on a backend which ties your use of games (and statistics) to your account (no need for a per-console lock-in as some people suggested would happen with the PS3, some years back). This is basically what we've been doing since 2003 with Steam (on PC) and not terribly later for other games, like EA's Battlefield series (codes needed for pretty much every game in the series, locked to your account, disc worthless as it can't be reused) and pretty much any online / DLC content for the Xbox 360. The good point of this is you don't have to deal with expensive cartridges anymore...the down side of it is pretty much the same thing!

Boxed games at retailers are pretty much just becoming coupons for a download service. I said I didn't like it, too, but Steam has gotten my grudging respect, at least.

For the moment, though, there's still a fair number of good systems out there which have physical media, thank goodness.

Basically: Same story, different generation. The march to intangible goods continues!

[Atarileaf]

Applying for a patent, in and of itself, doesn't mean much. If it actually gets implemented in a new console, then we've got something to worry about. As others have mentioned, many people fund their collections by buying a game, beating it and then selling it to buy other games. Without this ability, people will simply buy less games which will defeat what Sony is trying to do.

[megasdkirby]

If this becomes true, I would hack my system and pirate the games. I'm not kidding...or I would not purchase the console. Simple as that.

It won't happen, though. Too much backlash. Unless Sony want's to commit suicide, which is what they are doing now anyway.

[IHatedSega]

Itll be 15 or 20 years before the ps3 can be properly emulated like the ps1 is now. By making this thing a reality Sony is begging people to hack their consoles.

Im buying up ps2 games right now since theyre not retro and prices are great. I have to buy them used of course.

[wiggyx]

A patent filing is just a patent filing. It can't reliably be used to predict the future.

[kaedesdisciple]

Itll be 15 or 20 years before the ps3 can be properly emulated like the ps1 is now. By making this thing a reality Sony is begging people to hack their consoles.

Im buying up ps2 games right now since theyre not retro and prices are great. I have to buy them used of course.

Devil's advocate ahoy!

15 or 20 years? Would love to see the science behind those numbers...

By making this thing a reality Sony would be putting a measure in place to help protect their intellectual property as well as the IP of the authors and publishers that pay licensing fees from those that would exploit the device and software with the intention of stealing from them. Tell me again how protecting investments from theft is a bad thing or rather, I would love to see you explain to a board of directors why protection of investments from theft is a bad thing.

Everyone needs to get it through their heads: it's all about the revenue. Since second-hand sales provide zero revenue to the manufacturer, publisher or author, those who suffer from second-hand sales will take any reasonable measure they can to stifle the concept. Online passes and other types of first-owner DLC do help to recover some of that lost revenue, but the fact of the matter is they are still losing that first sale revenue and they want it back. Whether it's through a measure like this or something else, they will find a way.

Awesome that you're able to buy up all of those PS2 games now that they're cheap and used. Of course, this doesn't benefit the manufacturers, authors or publishers now, but I'm glad it makes you feel better.

[wingzrow]

SONY's stock is already at "junk" status. With that and the poor vita sales, this may be the last thing they do to kill themselves.

With that said, companies make patents all the time, sometimes just to sell to OTHER companies that are actually stupid enough to go through with hem.

[8-bitNesMan]

Devil's advocate ahoy!

15 or 20 years? Would love to see the science behind those numbers...

By making this thing a reality Sony would be putting a measure in place to help protect their intellectual property as well as the IP of the authors and publishers that pay licensing fees from those that would exploit the device and software with the intention of stealing from them. Tell me again how protecting investments from theft is a bad thing or rather, I would love to see you explain to a board of directors why protection of investments from theft is a bad thing.

Everyone needs to get it through their heads: it's all about the revenue. Since second-hand sales provide zero revenue to the manufacturer, publisher or author, those who suffer from second-hand sales will take any reasonable measure they can to stifle the concept. Online passes and other types of first-owner DLC do help to recover some of that lost revenue, but the fact of the matter is they are still losing that first sale revenue and they want it back. Whether it's through a measure like this or something else, they will find a way.

Awesome that you're able to buy up all of those PS2 games now that they're cheap and used. Of course, this doesn't benefit the manufacturers, authors or publishers now, but I'm glad it makes you feel better.

I see your points but the one argument I've never fully understood is that second hand used sales hurt manufacturers, publishers, and authors. Didn't there have to be a first hand sale when the game was new for there to be a second hand sale?

[Collector_Gaming]

Well I personally think gaming as we call it with actual consoles and PC's is coming to a slow halt. Thanks to smart phones and tablets and simple based gaming that is wide spread and easy to access.

And for the hardcore gamers they are now reaching out to figuring out ways to emulate higher end games onto said devices. I mean they just recently released Grand Theft Auto Vice City in its entirety in the Apple App store! To me it seems consoles in wide spread market that includes hardcore gamers like us and the casual gamer that enjoys firing it up once in awhile and plays simple online or party games slowly dying out (yes i know call of duty is selling like hot cakes and such still but pretty soon thats gonna die out as a gone fad specially when smart devices are starting to catch up on graphics with the console counter parts).

PC Gaming yes Steam sales are still astronomical. But its only catering to customers that been there since day one just about. Its becoming harder and harder for new pc gamer to get into it because everything is online just about now a days. and its becoming increasingly harder to buy a gaming pc in stores. You basically gotta buy it online and even thats kinda hard to do. Your best bet is to learn how to build a pc and make it yourself. The local best buy here has I think 4 Non tablet style all in one PC's that cater the gamers who like to mod their pcs and also have something out of the box they can hop on steam and buy something and play it without much worry.

I think we are starting to move onto shakey grounds with gaming and it will be interesting to see what the next 10 years will bring us

[kaedesdisciple]

I see your points but the one argument I've never fully understood is that second hand used sales hurt manufacturers, publishers, and authors. Didn't there have to be a first hand sale when the game was new for there to be a second hand sale?

Sure there was a first hand sale, and that was great. Let's put it to math for a second (all fictional but easily illustrated numbers):

Let's start our example by saying that 1,000,000 people have played Super Jumping People (SJP) and I am playing the role of the publisher.

If the 1,000,000 people that played the game bought it first-hand at full retail and my cut of that sale as a publisher of $10, that's 1,000,000 * $10 = $10,000,000 in revenue.

Now let's play with the numbers a little bit:

The same 1,000,000 people have played SJP.

However, if only 80% of those that played the game bought it first-hand at full retail, that reduces my cut to 800,000 * $10 = $8,000,000 in revenue. Now I'm missing $2,000,000 since I don't get a cut of second-hand sales. All of that extra money is now going to either private dealers or second-hand game sellers. Either way, this is now money out of the pocket of the people that own the rights to the IP.

Now I see that there is a control that I can put in place to take those second-hand sellers out of the equation to get some of that revenue back into my pocket? After realizing that it's a risk vs. reward discussion to determine whether it's worthwhile for me to use it for my product. If I lose the small percentage of hardcore gamers that protest the product but the vast majority don't care and buy the product anyway, I still get a nice chunk of my revenue back. Starting to lean towards sold for me...

[IHatedSega]

Devil's advocate ahoy!

15 or 20 years? Would love to see the science behind those numbers...

Awesome that you're able to buy up all of those PS2 games now that they're cheap and used. Of course, this doesn't benefit the manufacturers, authors or publishers now, but I'm glad it makes you feel better.

The ps3 has been out for 6 years now or so and theres only a rumor of some guy cracking it, which hasnt been said in awhile. With the first xbox, there is far more people making emulators to play older games on it than to emulate it and play the games on their computers like the first playstation.

These ps2 games arent printed anymore or sold new by stores which would give the money to the developers. Buying them used is all I can do to experience their hard work and Ill buy other games in the future, most likely new since used prices arent competitive with newer games. Guilty Gear developers made Blazeblue and Im gonna get that as soon as I get a 360. Itll be awhile though since I dont have the money for it yet.

The movie studios and governments closed down megaupload for having movies on it, but they werent making as much money off that like used stores all around the world. The used market like thrift stores and retro game stores arent seen as a black market but online sites like megaupload are going down since peopl are freely downloading games. Theres these people who make money like Goodwill reselling stuff to people who will pay less for a product and thats seen as normal business while some teenager downloading stuff for free from a site that takes occasional donations just to stay up and running are seen as criminals. I really dont understand this.

[Damaniel]

Not enough people are online for this patent to become useful during this current time, but it's something Sony used on Playstation All Stars when giving out the free copy. The free copy was on disc, you had to be online and activate it, and it was checked off on the PSN server side to active PSABR PSV version on the specific account.

The interesting thing about this patent is that it's entirely offline - the ownership information is written to a RFID at the time the disc is first used, and all consoles would check for the presence of the tag and whether the ownership information in the tag matches the console. No internet connection is necessary.

I don't think that Sony will roll out this 'feature' in the next Playstation. Like any other company, they chose to file a patent for an idea they came up with, regardless of whether they plan to use it or not. If Nintendo or Microsoft choose to use the feature, then they'd have to work out a licensing agreement with Sony to do so.

All of this is moot anyway - the next generation (post-PS4) will probably be digital download only.

[dendawg]

the next generation (post-PS4) will probably be digital download only.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png

[kedawa]

RFIDs are completely programmable, so this could create a huge market for 'refurbishing' game discs.

[Mr Mort]

Sure there was a first hand sale, and that was great. Let's put it to math for a second (all fictional but easily illustrated numbers):

Let's start our example by saying that 1,000,000 people have played Super Jumping People (SJP) and I am playing the role of the publisher.

If the 1,000,000 people that played the game bought it first-hand at full retail and my cut of that sale as a publisher of $10, that's 1,000,000 * $10 = $10,000,000 in revenue.

Now let's play with the numbers a little bit:

The same 1,000,000 people have played SJP.

However, if only 80% of those that played the game bought it first-hand at full retail, that reduces my cut to 800,000 * $10 = $8,000,000 in revenue. Now I'm missing $2,000,000 since I don't get a cut of second-hand sales. All of that extra money is now going to either private dealers or second-hand game sellers. Either way, this is now money out of the pocket of the people that own the rights to the IP.

Now I see that there is a control that I can put in place to take those second-hand sellers out of the equation to get some of that revenue back into my pocket? After realizing that it's a risk vs. reward discussion to determine whether it's worthwhile for me to use it for my product. If I lose the small percentage of hardcore gamers that protest the product but the vast majority don't care and buy the product anyway, I still get a nice chunk of my revenue back. Starting to lean towards sold for me...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this scenario is under the assumption that the developer/publisher in question is still printing/distributing copies of this game.
What about a game that is 10-20 years old that is no longer being published? Should I be denied the right to play said game because the publisher/developer decided they didn't want to sell any more copies?

How does my purchase of a used copy of TMNT III on the NES, or a used copy of Hagane on the SNES hurt Konami or Hudson Soft, respectively? They're not selling those games any more either in physical copy, or any kind of Virtual Console or digital distribution service. Should gamers be denied the ability to play these games?

Other forms of media such as film, music, and literature have various forms of public archives, so that people can continue to enjoy them long after their time has passed. Where is such an archive for gaming? Leaving it up to corporations is dangerous IMO, because games would either be lost altogether, or we would be forced to pay outrageous prices, or they'd be subject to altering, or restrictive use.

This goes far beyond used game sales, it's about preservation of the medium.

[Rickstilwell1]

Sure there was a first hand sale, and that was great. Let's put it to math for a second (all fictional but easily illustrated numbers):

Let's start our example by saying that 1,000,000 people have played Super Jumping People (SJP) and I am playing the role of the publisher.

If the 1,000,000 people that played the game bought it first-hand at full retail and my cut of that sale as a publisher of $10, that's 1,000,000 * $10 = $10,000,000 in revenue.

Now let's play with the numbers a little bit:

The same 1,000,000 people have played SJP.

However, if only 80% of those that played the game bought it first-hand at full retail, that reduces my cut to 800,000 * $10 = $8,000,000 in revenue. Now I'm missing $2,000,000 since I don't get a cut of second-hand sales. All of that extra money is now going to either private dealers or second-hand game sellers. Either way, this is now money out of the pocket of the people that own the rights to the IP.

Now I see that there is a control that I can put in place to take those second-hand sellers out of the equation to get some of that revenue back into my pocket? After realizing that it's a risk vs. reward discussion to determine whether it's worthwhile for me to use it for my product. If I lose the small percentage of hardcore gamers that protest the product but the vast majority don't care and buy the product anyway, I still get a nice chunk of my revenue back. Starting to lean towards sold for me...

Developers making more money isn't what pisses me off. It's developers cutting off their products and not making them available anymore that does. With this business model you will never be able to rent or afford all the games you want to play, so by the time a few years go buy and you finally have time to get to the 50th game in your list, it's "Fuck You, you can never play this game because we discontinued it just before you got to it" If it's "fuck you it's cancelled", then it's fuck them back with piracy cause I wanna play the old game they didn't give me time to make enough money to purchase. Get it?

[kedawa]

where is such an archive for gaming?.

tosec

[scaleworm]

A patent filing is just a patent filing. It can't reliably be used to predict the future.

Energy and Patents are the two main areas of financial gain identified for this current century...

[scaleworm]

"Other forms of media such as film, music, and literature have various forms of public archives, so that people can continue to enjoy them long after their time has passed. Where is such an archive for gaming? Leaving it up to corporations is dangerous IMO, because games would either be lost altogether, or we would be forced to pay outrageous prices, or they'd be subject to altering, or restrictive use."

I thought of this just three evenings ago while in my local public library, looking at the books, magazines, and DVD/CDs there.

Lending libraries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lending_library), with financial obligations (private) beyond tax dollars do exist still, but are fewer today than they were hundreds of years ago. Publishing was a very expensive business before the industrial revolution.

Publishing companies, (newspapers magnates especially {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch}) hate publicly owned and tax dollar supported libraries.

There are groups currently, as the MOMA, that are looking into game preservation, in a public or University level collection. Privately held collections could become real use museum destination sites {https://www.facebook.com/thesimm.org} if in our own future as gamers, via big brother patent standards being designed and set into future practice today.

I would not lose any sleep over it: Businesses need clients to exist.

[BlastProcessing402]

The ps3 has been out for 6 years now or so and theres only a rumor of some guy cracking it, which hasnt been said in awhile.

PS3 was cracked years ago. Sony patched up the hole on later firmware but it still happened.


Anyway, this same sort of "no used/rental games" rumor was around before the PS3, and that didn't pan out, so until it actually happens no point worrying about it.

[kedawa]

The old hack wasn't as extensive as the one currently rumoured to be in the works. We may soon see the entire GPU opened up for homebrew, which would make it far more useful.

[duffmanth]

I read an article about this the other day. Maybe what Sony and the whole video game industry needs to do as a whole is stop trying to come up with ways to combat used game sales, and look at the bigger picture and find out why gamers buy used games. The answer is pretty easy from my perspective, new games are too fucking expensive. I would say 1-2% of games out there are actually worth full retail prices, the rest are $20 games at best. If Sony goes ahead with this patent, the PS4 will be done before it hits the market.

[Gregger]

Personally, I am shocked at the amount of people who seem to be willing to throw their own consumer rights and the first sale doctrine under the bus in order to help giant corporations like EA make even more money than they already are. Every other company in the world that deals in non-perishable goods has to deal with used sales, why do video game companies think they are such special snowflakes?

[kupomogli]

@duffmanth. I think a third of the cost goes to retailers. Does anyone know how much Walmart/Gamestop make per game sold at $60? Is it $20?


Personally, I am shocked at the amount of people who seem to be willing to throw their own consumer rights and the first sale doctrine under the bus in order to help giant corporations like EA make even more money than they already are. Every other company in the world that deals in non-perishable goods has to deal with used sales, why do video game companies think they are such special snowflakes?

Movies, video games, and music are all purchased on some sort of retail format and can be purchased transfered digitally. All of them are pirated. Two things in common between movies and music that aren't common for video games. Movies and music have more market penetration. Almost everyone watches movies or listens to music. These two formats also have other ways of making money. Movies, unless straight to DVD, they first sell millions at theaters and then later on can make more money being broadcast on television. With music, they make money going on tour.

But then you might say. What about car sales, clothes, etc. Can you pirate cars and clothes? Game manufacturers are fighting lost sales on two fronts. Piracy and used sales. After the first few months, sales on video games drop next to nothing.

Clothes outlets don't care about used clothes because they're already way overpriced anyways. That $30 Nike shirt you saw in the store probably cost $.08. That $5 shirt you bought from some generic manufacturer probably cost $.07. It's pretty much legal slave labor. The clothes manufacturers don't care if you buy your clothes used. They already make a ridiculous amount of money from the new clothes they do sell.

Car manufacturers make money on the sales of replacement parts for vehicles.

The $20 plastic toy that you bought for your kid on Christmas. The crappy design of it was probably thought of in the span of a day. Then the toy was more than likely produced mostly by machine.

Video game developers are actually putting a lot of money into their product before they get anything out of it. Why do you think most developers are starting to do digital games and online flash based games?

[buzz_n64]

If Sony does this, I don't think it will be the death of the PS4 but it will greatly effect sales. You will see the PS4 being the 3rd place console. Personally, I have only paid the full $59.99 ($52.99 with a discount) price for a new game once, and that was for Street Fighter IV, and I felt ripped off especially since it went down in price so dramatically shortly afterward. So, the PS4 would be forced to drop their game prices to reach the gamers who aren't early adopters.

[buzz_n64]

@duffmanth. I think a third of the cost goes to retailers. Does anyone know how much Walmart/Gamestop make per game sold at $60? Is it $20?

Depends on the game, but roughly $5-$10.

[Damaniel]

Personally, I am shocked at the amount of people who seem to be willing to throw their own consumer rights and the first sale doctrine under the bus in order to help giant corporations like EA make even more money than they already are. Every other company in the world that deals in non-perishable goods has to deal with used sales, why do video game companies think they are such special snowflakes?

I totally disagree with technology that makes games harder to resell, but I do understand the frustration of the development studios (there *are* other studios besides EA out there). Gamestop is strongly eating into their profits - if a single copy of a game gets sold 10 times at Gamestop, the developer makes money once and Gamestop makes money 10 times. That hardly seems fair - Gamestop is just serving as a bloated middleman, and plenty of people are more than happy to throw game studios under the bus to save $5 on a game (after 'selling' some other game back to Gamestop for a fraction of what they originally paid).

Like I said previously, this patent really isn't going to go anywhere. It's probably as much defensive as anything else, preventing Nintendo or Microsoft from doing something similar without paying license fees. In a perfect world, if there were a way to preserve first sale doctrine and cut Gamestop down to size, then I'd be all for that.

[kedawa]

Gamestop flat out punishes people for buying new. If you buy a new $60 game and don't like it, you can return it for $20 worth of credit. If ypu bought that same game used for $55, you could return it for $55 in credit.
I don't think Sony's patent is so much anti-consumer as it is anti-Gamestop and consumer-indifferent.
It's the same as intrusive DRM; they aren't trying to hurt the consumer, they're trying to hurt someone else, and the consumer is just collateral damage.

[Daria]

Gamestop flat out punishes people for buying new. If you buy a new $60 game and don't like it, you can return it for $20 worth of credit. If ypu bought that same game used for $55, you could return it for $55 in credit.


That's not a punishment. Sure it's an encouragement to buy used, but there's no store that's going to let you return a new opened game for anything more than an exchange of the same title. And that policy is to generally protect the consumer from getting stuck with damaged product.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

If you buy a new $60 game and don't like it, you can return it for $20 worth of credit.

Not that GameStop's credit is some great comfort to those who purchase a game that they don't like, but a majority (if not all) retail stores won't give you anything in return if your reason for returning a new, opened game is that you "don't like it".

[kedawa]

You're missing the point. You should get the same amount of credit for the game regardless of whether you bought it used or new.
You're returning a used game either way, but if you bought it new, they give you far less than if you bought it used.
That's just not right.

[Gregger]

People aren't thinking long term about this, they are looking at the game that just came out being sold used for $55. But what they aren't looking at is the game that came out 15 years ago and is sitting at the Goodwill for $5. That is the market I am worried about with used sales. The preservation of games in the future.

[kedawa]

The preservation of games is the domain of piracy.
There are a lot of computer and arcade games that would already have been lost if hobbyists hadn't been dumping them to modern computers.

[Gregger]

The preservation of games is the domain of piracy.
There are a lot of computer and arcade games that would already have been lost if hobbyists hadn't been dumping them to modern computers.

Perhaps, but emulation is full of faults, look at something like Sega Saturn emulators for example.

[Ed Oscuro]

I think preservation can only happen if you get the companies onboard. If it's always "us versus them" then a lot of the lore and development history will be lost forever. We're lucky to even have map sources for Quake, but there's tons of first-class work that went into games which has been lost because nobody preserved it or actively destroyed it.

scaleworm said something on the previous page which caught my attention. A lending library is a good idea because it lets people use modern media - but I think that what's just as important is to have things preserved. If something isn't preserved at all, not even a few people can access it.

[duffmanth]

Depends on the game, but roughly $5-$10.

You're exactly right I worked at a small video game retailer about 10 years ago when the average console game price was $80 in Canada and $50 in the US, the exchange rate was way out of whack back then, and we made between $5-10 profit on any given game. I still have friends that work at video game retailers, and those are still the current profit margins on games. Consoles are even worse, retailers make less than $5 profit on a console. If the used game market goes away, video games at the store level will be done, stores can't survive on shitty little profit like those that I mentioned.

[AlphaGamer]

.........................

[kedawa]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about; returning a used game you don't like. The same game, bought new, returned in the same time frame, gets you less credit than the one bought used.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

You're missing the point. You should get the same amount of credit for the game regardless of whether you bought it used or new.
You're returning a used game either way, but if you bought it new, they give you far less than if you bought it used.
That's just not right.

So, you're not saying that you should get the full retail price back on the new game, only that you should get $20 credit for the new game traded in and $20 credit for the same title that is purchased used?

That's fair.

Also, I'm fairly certain that outside of the 7-day return policy on used product, that's how it works, no?

Also, the only reason for the 7-day policy on the used game is that there's no physical distinction between that used game if it's resold. They very well can't reseal/resell a new game that's been purchased, taken home, opened, handled and returned. (Yes, I know, insert requisite argument about GameStop gutted games here).

[Daria]

You're missing the point. You should get the same amount of credit for the game regardless of whether you bought it used or new.
You're returning a used game either way, but if you bought it new, they give you far less than if you bought it used.
That's just not right.

That's because one of those things is a return and the other is a trade in. Would you prefer that Gamestop didn't let you return used games in full?

Edit: That reminds me, way back when I worked for Gamestop I was always amused by the customers who would try to return a game with the excuse "But I didn't like it". In those cases I would remind them that we were not a rental service and if they would like to "try before they buy" than they should go to Blockbuster first.

[Ed Oscuro]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about; returning a used game you don't like. The same game, bought new, returned in the same time frame, gets you less credit than the one bought used.
Kind of like cars, huh?

[j_factor]

I totally disagree with technology that makes games harder to resell, but I do understand the frustration of the development studios (there *are* other studios besides EA out there). Gamestop is strongly eating into their profits - if a single copy of a game gets sold 10 times at Gamestop, the developer makes money once and Gamestop makes money 10 times. That hardly seems fair - Gamestop is just serving as a bloated middleman, and plenty of people are more than happy to throw game studios under the bus to save $5 on a game (after 'selling' some other game back to Gamestop for a fraction of what they originally paid).

Like I said previously, this patent really isn't going to go anywhere. It's probably as much defensive as anything else, preventing Nintendo or Microsoft from doing something similar without paying license fees. In a perfect world, if there were a way to preserve first sale doctrine and cut Gamestop down to size, then I'd be all for that.

Used games have been around for eons, and it didn't used to be such a big issue. Sure, used games weren't exactly big in the 80s, but they've been big for quite a while. We weren't having these discussions 10-12 years ago. Why is that? Is it just because Gamestop has emerged as the only major chain dealing in used games, after mergers and closures, allowing them to be seen as the sole face of used game sales, and therefore some kind of bogeyman?

Frankly, I don't give a shit if Gamestop is eating into their profits. I'm a consumer, not a shareholder. Put out something that makes me want to buy it, and I will do so. Dicking around with blocking used sales makes me want to buy your product less, not more. I don't really care what's "fair", either. That's not really any of my concern, or anyone else's who's not in the industry. We're not going to gather 'round all the game companies, sing Kumbaya, and evenly distribute our money.

[G-Boobie]

Perhaps, but emulation is full of faults, look at something like Sega Saturn emulators for example.

All emulators get better over time. They'll get there. It's the only real way to preserve this stuff long term: your NES, 2600, Odyssey II, and Vectrex will all die eventually.

I have a Steam library of 150 games or so: if I do not redeem a code, then I can gift a purchase or trade it, but otherwise? Once I've bought the game, I'm completely unable to do anything with it other than play it. I cannot trade it in. I cannot sell it. This is probably the way of the future, like it or not.

Some of that is mitigated by being able to download it as many times as I want as I upgrade my computer or re-install an OS, but digital downloads destroy the weird used games market which has caused so much fuss. You can often get them on sale at used game prices and there's no incentive to take something off the market because the overhead is non-existent for publishers.

I'm not saying it's an optimal solution, but it's probably where we're headed.

There's also the possibility that they decide not to use the technology. I think the same rumor was going around shortly before the PS3 launched.

[Bojay1997]

Used games have been around for eons, and it didn't used to be such a big issue. Sure, used games weren't exactly big in the 80s, but they've been big for quite a while. We weren't having these discussions 10-12 years ago. Why is that? Is it just because Gamestop has emerged as the only major chain dealing in used games, after mergers and closures, allowing them to be seen as the sole face of used game sales, and therefore some kind of bogeyman?

Frankly, I don't give a shit if Gamestop is eating into their profits. I'm a consumer, not a shareholder. Put out something that makes me want to buy it, and I will do so. Dicking around with blocking used sales makes me want to buy your product less, not more. I don't really care what's "fair", either. That's not really any of my concern, or anyone else's who's not in the industry. We're not going to gather 'round all the game companies, sing Kumbaya, and evenly distribute our money.

Except that even when they do put out something people want to buy, people buy it used or pirate it or rent it and deprive them of any profit from that subsequent purchase. While I agree with you that we have no obligation to provide subsidies or support for the game industry, it's extremely naive to assume that simply creating a great product will solve all their problems. Similarly, used game sales are driving more and more DLC which is hurting those of us who buy new and hate having to pay more to own the "full" game. I don't know what the solution is, but I have no doubt that the days of physical media are numbered.

[Daria]

Eh. I've said it before, when physical media is made obsolete is when I'll stop collecting new games. I'll still play games, and occasionally buy them (on sale) but there won't be a driving need to own everything. I also won't be squeamish about pirating a game to "try it out" first. I rarely pay for pc titles as it is, unless I really like them. My collection however will focus on purely "retro" games, maybe even branch out into vintage computer and import titles. I don't see this as the end of the world.

[CRTGAMER]

You're missing the point. You should get the same amount of credit for the game regardless of whether you bought it used or new.
You're returning a used game either way, but if you bought it new, they give you far less than if you bought it used.
That's just not right.

That's because one of those things is a return and the other is a trade in. Would you prefer that Gamestop didn't let you return used games in full?

Edit: That reminds me, way back when I worked for Gamestop I was always amused by the customers who would try to return a game with the excuse "But I didn't like it". In those cases I would remind them that we were not a rental service and if they would like to "try before they buy" than they should go to Blockbuster first.

The used game policy is in place to encourage used game sales over new. This includes the try and if you do not like it then return it. I think its a great sales tool, employees who chastise customers on this do not belong there. So what if a customer might abuse it, the point is the return visits to the store and possibly add on sales.

Most used games I keep anyways and prefer buying as complete with manual and case. I do at times return a game, this is useful to get a game complete thru multiple location purchases some which might take longer then a week to locate.

As for new games, I don't think any store would honor the "free rental" program.

[kedawa]

That's because one of those things is a return and the other is a trade in. Would you prefer that Gamestop didn't let you return used games in full?
I would prefer they give $55 credit for returning the $60 game within that same 7 day period, since it is now used, and worth(by their own pricing scheme) $5 less.
They're keeping all the money and selling what you returned for $55 in either case.

[duffmanth]

[QUOTE=Bojay1997;1946627]Except that even when they do put out something people want to buy, people buy it used or pirate it or rent it and deprive them of any profit from that subsequent purchase. While I agree with you that we have no obligation to provide subsidies or support for the game industry, it's extremely naive to assume that simply creating a great product will solve all their problems. Similarly, used game sales are driving more and more DLC which is hurting those of us who buy new and hate having to pay more to own the "full" game. I don't know what the solution is, but I have no doubt that the days of physical media are numbered.[/QU

One solution is game studios have to find ways to get game development costs under control. Prices of console games can't keep going up $10 with every new generation of consoles, it's not sustainable. People buy used because new games cost too much and game studios can't seem to figure this out. Their response is to make gaming even more expensive with DLC, collector packs, and this online pass bullshit. Game studios aren't doing themselves any favors by doing these things. Some common ground has to be found where the studios are making money, but the consumer isn't being ripped off.

[j_factor]

Except that even when they do put out something people want to buy, people buy it used or pirate it or rent it and deprive them of any profit from that subsequent purchase. While I agree with you that we have no obligation to provide subsidies or support for the game industry, it's extremely naive to assume that simply creating a great product will solve all their problems. Similarly, used game sales are driving more and more DLC which is hurting those of us who buy new and hate having to pay more to own the "full" game. I don't know what the solution is, but I have no doubt that the days of physical media are numbered.

It's not simply creating a great product. If other things are really eating into their profits, the onus is on them to do something about it. Adapt or die. I remain skeptical of this supposed crisis, however.

Like I said, used sales have been around a long time, so how come it's only suddenly a huge problem for the industry as of a couple years ago? Piracy has always been a problem, though I'm not sure how much of a "problem" it really is. It's pretty hard to pirate PS3 games, isn't it? Yet that doesn't seem to result in proportionally better game sales compared to other platforms. By contrast, PSX games were super easy to pirate. And renting? That's gone down, if anything.

Everyone's an amateur industry analyst these days. I refuse to join the chorus of crocodile tears over those poor, defenseless game corporations losing profits to big mean Gamestop. I'm not Gamestop's biggest fan, but Gamestop didn't put THQ out of business.

If they get rid of used games, they've lost my business. Period. If you (general you, not you, personally) genuinely don't mind, that's cool. But apologism over it, and scapegoating Gamestop in the process, is ludicrous. When the game industry considers going in that direction, they will have to consider the balance between any recovered profits and the loss in profits from losing the business of people like me. If the former outweighs the latter, I will certainly not like it, but so be it.

[Bojay1997]

It's not simply creating a great product. If other things are really eating into their profits, the onus is on them to do something about it. Adapt or die. I remain skeptical of this supposed crisis, however.

Like I said, used sales have been around a long time, so how come it's only suddenly a huge problem for the industry as of a couple years ago? Piracy has always been a problem, though I'm not sure how much of a "problem" it really is. It's pretty hard to pirate PS3 games, isn't it? Yet that doesn't seem to result in proportionally better game sales compared to other platforms. By contrast, PSX games were super easy to pirate. And renting? That's gone down, if anything.

Everyone's an amateur industry analyst these days. I refuse to join the chorus of crocodile tears over those poor, defenseless game corporations losing profits to big mean Gamestop. I'm not Gamestop's biggest fan, but Gamestop didn't put THQ out of business.

If they get rid of used games, they've lost my business. Period. If you (general you, not you, personally) genuinely don't mind, that's cool. But apologism over it, and scapegoating Gamestop in the process, is ludicrous. When the game industry considers going in that direction, they will have to consider the balance between any recovered profits and the loss in profits from losing the business of people like me. If the former outweighs the latter, I will certainly not like it, but so be it.

Actually, considering inflation, games are cheaper than they were a decade ago even at full MSRP. A $50 game in 2003 is the equivalent of a little over $62 in 2013 dollars. Games are much cheaper than they were in the 1980s and 90s where I can recall spending $50-$60 for NES and SNES games. That's over $100 in today's dollars. People just are looking to always get things cheaper. There's nothing wrong with that, but it largely killed the music business and turned touring into the only real viable source of revenue for recording artists and so now you have outrageously priced tickets for concerts in many cities.

I don't agree that this is all some industry spin to justify higher prices, DLC and online passes. I've actually looked at the annual reports for a number of video game publishers and developers and the numbers aren't pretty. Programmers and other talented people make a lot more proportionally than they did 20 years ago because there is so much more demand for their skills in other industries. Similarly, game companies and studios tend to be located in technology hubs like California where real estate, utilities, taxes and overhead are much higher than other places. Cost of living is higher too resulting in higher wages. I suppose they could start outsourcing more to other countries (I realize some publishers already do this) just like the hardware manufacturers do, but software has always been a very strong American business and I'd personally like to keep it that way.

Used game sales aren't new, but the scale at which they have been expanded is something fairly recent. Gamestop didn't engage in major expansion until the past decade including a merger with EB and in the past three years, they have been particularly aggressive about adding new locations. It's similar to the rapid expansion of Starbucks that not only killed many small coffee chains and shops, but also drove coffee sales to record levels as the convenience of having a gourmet coffee shop on every corner got more people into the habit of buying $4 coffee every day. I'm frankly amazed at how often I hear co-workers and friends talk about buying and trading in used games to Gamestop, many of whom would never have bought used a few years ago simply because before Gamestop they didn't have an easy way of doing so outside of maybe Ebay and to a lesser extent, video rental chains like Blockbuster or Hollywood Video.

I agree that Gamestop shouldn't be faulted for pursuing a lucrative business model just like Apple shouldn't be faulted for the fact that single song downloads have replaced whole album sales. That doesn't change the fact that the very existence and success of Gamestop's business model is significantly impacting the bottom line of publishers and developers.

[Daria]

The used game policy is in place to encourage used game sales over new. This includes the try and if you do not like it then return it. I think its a great sales tool, employees who chastise customers on this do not belong there. So what if a customer might abuse it, the point is the return visits to the store and possibly add on sales.

Most used games I keep anyways and prefer buying as complete with manual and case. I do at times return a game, this is useful to get a game complete thru multiple location purchases some which might take longer then a week to locate.

As for new games, I don't think any store would honor the "free rental" program.

Yeah I was referring to returns on new games.

[Gameguy]

Actually, considering inflation, games are cheaper than they were a decade ago even at full MSRP. A $50 game in 2003 is the equivalent of a little over $62 in 2013 dollars. Games are much cheaper than they were in the 1980s and 90s where I can recall spending $50-$60 for NES and SNES games. That's over $100 in today's dollars. People just are looking to always get things cheaper. There's nothing wrong with that, but it largely killed the music business and turned touring into the only real viable source of revenue for recording artists and so now you have outrageously priced tickets for concerts in many cities.
With technology if you have to take inflation into account to justify that something is a good deal today then it's really not. Every other type of technology gets cheaper as time goes on, except for games which tend to stay around the same price.

Compare how much it costs to buy a new laptop today and one 12 years ago. You can get one today for around $1000 give or take, 12 years ago $2000-$3000 was normal. A new flat screen TV today costs less than similar ones 5 years ago. Computer storage gets larger and cheaper all the time. These are the things consumers think of with anything electronic or technology based. They don't care about taking into account inflation, just actual listed prices. Paying $60 for a game today when they paid $60 for games 20-30 years ago doesn't sit that well with most people, that's why people tend to trade in or sell their games when they're done with them rather than just keeping them in a basement like old toys.

[WCP]

It's so weird that PC gaming doesn't allow used games at all, and nobody seems to give two shits about that. I'm normally against this movement away from physical media, but with the PC, I don't seem to care. With my physical console games, I'll usually buy them used, and then I'll resell them when I know they are about to start collecting dust.

With the PC, I can't buy used games, and I can't resell my games, but I don't even care about it. The reason, is that the prices of PC games fall so fast that I feel like I can be patient and wait for the Steam sales. Wait for the Amazon download sales, wait for the GamersGate and Green Man Gaming sales. I'm somewhat of a hypocrite, because I was always crying about how they are taking away our rights with all this digital crap, but then the truth is, if they make things cheap enough, I don't give a fuck. I'm perfectly content as long as it's super cheap. I'm in the minority of gamers that are drifting about 2 years behind current times anyways (with my current backlog), that patience is something I have in spades. I can sit around and wait and wait and wait for those price drops, and then when the price is so freaking low that it's a crime not to buy it, then I'll buy it.

I don't really own it. It's more like a rental, or a lease, but I don't mind because I'm buying my games for about 5 bucks each, which is how much Blockbuster charges you to rent a game for a week or so, and I'll definitely get my 5 bucks worth.

The thing is, we know that PS4 and Xbox Next and Wii U aren't going to be anything like that. We will never see games like Rage being sold for 4 bucks, or Limbo being sold for $2.50. A sale to those companies is $14.99 or $19.99. You won't see anything sub $9.99 unless it's some super indy stuff.

[Bojay1997]

With technology if you have to take inflation into account to justify that something is a good deal today then it's really not. Every other type of technology gets cheaper as time goes on, except for games which tend to stay around the same price.

Compare how much it costs to buy a new laptop today and one 12 years ago. You can get one today for around $1000 give or take, 12 years ago $2000-$3000 was normal. A new flat screen TV today costs less than similar ones 5 years ago. Computer storage gets larger and cheaper all the time. These are the things consumers think of with anything electronic or technology based. They don't care about taking into account inflation, just actual listed prices. Paying $60 for a game today when they paid $60 for games 20-30 years ago doesn't sit that well with most people, that's why people tend to trade in or sell their games when they're done with them rather than just keeping them in a basement like old toys.

I disagree with your argument as it applies to software. Unlike hardware that can be produced with automation, low wage labor in foreign countries and advances in technology at the manufacturing level, there is not yet a truly automated way to create complex gaming or other software code. In fact, programming and development teams have gotten bigger and bigger as software has become more complex. You're right that the general public, especially younger people, perceive software and media as far less valuable than in the past and therefore have no issue pirating it, copying it or otherwise getting it for next to nothing. That mentality has the potential to completely kill the video games business just like it has music and DVD/Blu Ray manufacturing. The reality is that people don't want to pay anything for games and that's just not a sustainable model. Those people aren't going to buy more games if you drop MSRP to $40 or even $20. They will simply think of games as even less valuable and not worthy of paying anything to own. The music and DVD industry already tried slashing MSRP over the past few years and sales continued to fall. The same thing will happen with games if the industry takes the lower MSRP approach.

[Gameguy]

I disagree with your argument as it applies to software. Unlike hardware that can be produced with automation, low wage labor in foreign countries and advances in technology at the manufacturing level, there is not yet a truly automated way to create complex gaming or other software code. In fact, programming and development teams have gotten bigger and bigger as software has become more complex. You're right that the general public, especially younger people, perceive software and media as far less valuable than in the past and therefore have no issue pirating it, copying it or otherwise getting it for next to nothing. That mentality has the potential to completely kill the video games business just like it has music and DVD/Blu Ray manufacturing. The reality is that people don't want to pay anything for games and that's just not a sustainable model. Those people aren't going to buy more games if you drop MSRP to $40 or even $20. They will simply think of games as even less valuable and not worthy of paying anything to own. The music and DVD industry already tried slashing MSRP over the past few years and sales continued to fall. The same thing will happen with games if the industry takes the lower MSRP approach.
Companies need to think more like consumers rather than ask consumers to think more like them. If it's something tangible like physical media, I'll think of it like hardware. If it's something online as download only with nothing physical at all, I think it's completely worthless. As for computers, I assumed operating systems and drivers for hardware were still written by human beings and supported with regular free updates. Still the costs for computers and hardware are cheaper than ever before even with this software support.

I used to buy DVD box sets brand new all the time. I stopped when companies didn't bother to finish releasing the rest of the series. I bought every DVD release of several Disney Afternoon shows as well as numerous box sets for other older shows, there's several shows that are only missing one volume from being the complete series. I saw on the Shout Factory forums one of the main staff justifying why they couldn't finish releasing the final volumes to some series as the sales weren't as high as they hoped for the previous volumes, he basically blamed consumers for not buying enough copies of previous volumes. All I know is that I feel like an idiot spending hundreds of dollars on these box sets when the series are incomplete, now I refuse to buy any box set of a show until the entire series gets released. If it doesn't happen I don't need to buy it, it would be available online in some form anyway. I mean if I have to download the rest of it, why not just download the entire thing? I'd rather have a proper release but if it's incomplete it's not what I want. I didn't mind buying these box sets at release for full price, but seeing them drop in price quickly while I'm waiting for the rest to be released makes me want to wait for the price drop everytime.

Games won't ever fully die off, it may just go back to being freeware or small releases created by hobbyists but it won't be gone. I actually won't mind if this happens, most modern console releases don't interest me at all anyway.

[j_factor]

Actually, considering inflation, games are cheaper than they were a decade ago even at full MSRP. A $50 game in 2003 is the equivalent of a little over $62 in 2013 dollars. Games are much cheaper than they were in the 1980s and 90s where I can recall spending $50-$60 for NES and SNES games. That's over $100 in today's dollars. People just are looking to always get things cheaper. There's nothing wrong with that, but it largely killed the music business and turned touring into the only real viable source of revenue for recording artists and so now you have outrageously priced tickets for concerts in many cities.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the post you quoted, I didn't say anything about retail prices.

But since you brought it up. I think games were more likely to vary in price a decade ago. $50 was the most common MSRP, but it was far from universal. There were lots of $20, $30, and $40 games back then. There were even a few $10 games like The Italian Job and Ball Breakers. $10 in 2002 is equal to $12.80 in 2012 and I'm not seeing any new releases for $12.99. Nowadays, there are very few exceptions to the $60 rule, aside from new editions of previously existing games.

NES and SNES games were more expensive because they were on cartridge. Computer games during that time were certainly not nearly that much.


Used game sales aren't new, but the scale at which they have been expanded is something fairly recent. Gamestop didn't engage in major expansion until the past decade including a merger with EB and in the past three years, they have been particularly aggressive about adding new locations.

The merger with EB expanded the name "Gamestop" only. It didn't expand the business, if anything it slightly shrunk it as some locations were closed, being deemed too close to each other.


It's similar to the rapid expansion of Starbucks that not only killed many small coffee chains and shops, but also drove coffee sales to record levels as the convenience of having a gourmet coffee shop on every corner got more people into the habit of buying $4 coffee every day. I'm frankly amazed at how often I hear co-workers and friends talk about buying and trading in used games to Gamestop, many of whom would never have bought used a few years ago simply because before Gamestop they didn't have an easy way of doing so outside of maybe Ebay and to a lesser extent, video rental chains like Blockbuster or Hollywood Video.

I guess this is a regional thing, because out here, the number of Gamestops today is definitely not greater than the former number of Babbages + EB Games + Funcoland + whatever else.


I agree that Gamestop shouldn't be faulted for pursuing a lucrative business model just like Apple shouldn't be faulted for the fact that single song downloads have replaced whole album sales. That doesn't change the fact that the very existence and success of Gamestop's business model is significantly impacting the bottom line of publishers and developers.

Yeah, well, so are lots of things. *shrug*


The music and DVD industry already tried slashing MSRP over the past few years and sales continued to fall.

I don't remember that happening, they cost about the same as they always have.

[IHatedSega]

I hope this would prevent games from being $60 and being "upgraded" every year. Get Capcom and Madden to wake up and stop that madness. Of course the PS4 is going to be an expensive system to work on. I dont see this being a good situation for anyone.

Its like, if they did this then games should be cheaper, but this systme is going to be expensive for AAA titles to be able to impress people. Small developers may out sell the bigger ones. Or at least smaller games compared to bigger games.

I fear the industry this coming generation will become too expensive for a lot of developers and consumers to afford. This would have to lead to lower priced games, but somehow I dont see that happening, and its turning a TON of people off to buying it. (if the PS4 in fact doesnt allow used second hand bought games to be played)


Oh yeah, and I just though of another thing, if you want to play a game at a friends house you have to lug your system there with you instead of just the game.

[Bojay1997]

I'm not sure what this has to do with the post you quoted, I didn't say anything about retail prices.

But since you brought it up. I think games were more likely to vary in price a decade ago. $50 was the most common MSRP, but it was far from universal. There were lots of $20, $30, and $40 games back then. There were even a few $10 games like The Italian Job and Ball Breakers. $10 in 2002 is equal to $12.80 in 2012 and I'm not seeing any new releases for $12.99. Nowadays, there are very few exceptions to the $60 rule, aside from new editions of previously existing games.

NES and SNES games were more expensive because they were on cartridge. Computer games during that time were certainly not nearly that much.



The merger with EB expanded the name "Gamestop" only. It didn't expand the business, if anything it slightly shrunk it as some locations were closed, being deemed too close to each other.



I guess this is a regional thing, because out here, the number of Gamestops today is definitely not greater than the former number of Babbages + EB Games + Funcoland + whatever else.



Yeah, well, so are lots of things. *shrug*



I don't remember that happening, they cost about the same as they always have.

There is actually quite a bit of price variation in MSRP on modern console games. For example, Anarchy Reigns just came out at $30 yesterday. There are also a number of other games released in the past year on 360 and PS3 that had MSRPs of $30, $40 and $50. When you add in all of the full games being released exclusively on XBL and PSN at $5-$20, you have plenty of price choices, it's simply that the lower end MSRP games aren't being released on retail discs anymore. That doesn't change the fact that they are readily available and at those price points.

I've been a computer gamer since the early 80s and I have quite a large collection of computer games in their original packaging including price stickers. There were $50-$60 games as early as the 1980s (although there were also plenty of games with an MSRP of $20, $30 or $40) and many, many $50-$60 PC releases in the 90s. In fact, I'm looking at my Sierra collection and most of those have $50 price stickers on them from Software Etc.

Your facts on the various Gamestop mergers are just plain inaccurate. Gamestop is actually the product of the 1994 merger of Babbage's and Software Etc. in 1994 which at the time had a combined 700 stores. They reached 800 stores in the US before they declined down to 600 by 1996. At the time of the merger in 2005, after various sales and acquisitions, including Funcoland, Gamestop and EB had about 4000 stores combined. Today they have over 6700 stores with an average of 400 new stores opening per year since 2009. So, they are clearly in an expansion mode. I now have four GS locations within six miles of my home where five years ago there was only one. Other than the closure of local Hollywood Video, we never had any other used game stores in the area previous to this. While it's anecdotal, I'm sure my area isn't isolated in the transformation GS has made in providing a ready venue to trade-in and buy used games.

Three years ago, as sales were collapsing on both DVDs and CDs, the music industry and studios tried various pricing experiments with $10 new release CDs and DVDs. It turned out that sales were just as flat as they were at $15-$20. The same thing is going on with Blu Rays right now and the average movie sells for $20 when a few years ago it was closer to $30.

You're right that lots of things are causing the video game industry to have financial issues. That doesn't change the fact that used sales are a big and growing part of that problem and it is very likely that the business model will change, perhaps into something more akin to Steam with its efforts at allowing consumers to resell digital content licenses.

[RCM]

As other posters have mentioned, there are other platforms (Steam, iOS, Android, etc.) where a secondhand market simply does not exist. Consumers are OK with that 'cause prices are more than reasonable. If Sony's ceiling for physical games is $10 I really don't give a shit if they do this. The problem is they won't, at least for physical PS4 releases. Once games are as mainstream as movies in terms of audience price will hopefully be less of an issue.

[j_factor]

There is actually quite a bit of price variation in MSRP on modern console games. For example, Anarchy Reigns just came out at $30 yesterday. There are also a number of other games released in the past year on 360 and PS3 that had MSRPs of $30, $40 and $50. When you add in all of the full games being released exclusively on XBL and PSN at $5-$20, you have plenty of price choices, it's simply that the lower end MSRP games aren't being released on retail discs anymore. That doesn't change the fact that they are readily available and at those price points.

I do know about Anarchy Reigns, but it seems like there are much fewer of those than there used to be. Ten years ago, I was buying new games left and right without ever spending $50.


I've been a computer gamer since the early 80s and I have quite a large collection of computer games in their original packaging including price stickers. There were $50-$60 games as early as the 1980s (although there were also plenty of games with an MSRP of $20, $30 or $40) and many, many $50-$60 PC releases in the 90s. In fact, I'm looking at my Sierra collection and most of those have $50 price stickers on them from Software Etc.

I was just talking with my uncle about this the other day. He used to have a huge C64 collection. (Oh how I wish he'd given it to me, instead of getting rid of it, but I digress.) He got one in '83 and kept buying games for it until around '91. And he is adamant that most games were $30 or less, a few were $35, and the only rare exception that was more than that would be something packaged with a bunch of extras, like Ultima IV. I clearly remember looking through his games some years ago, some of them did still have the prices on them. I remember looking at Tangled Tales and noticing its faded $29.99 price tag, I gave that one an extra long look because I had never heard of that game.

A disk was always significantly cheaper than a cartridge. I don't know what Sierra games you're talking about, but if they're from the tail end of the floppy disk era when some games went up to 9 disks, that would account for the increased cost. At the same time, there were still cheaper games around, i.e. smaller games.


Your facts on the various Gamestop mergers are just plain inaccurate. Gamestop is actually the product of the 1994 merger of Babbage's and Software Etc. in 1994 which at the time had a combined 700 stores. They reached 800 stores in the US before they declined down to 600 by 1996. At the time of the merger in 2005, after various sales and acquisitions, including Funcoland, Gamestop and EB had about 4000 stores combined. Today they have over 6700 stores with an average of 400 new stores opening per year since 2009. So, they are clearly in an expansion mode. I now have four GS locations within six miles of my home where five years ago there was only one. Other than the closure of local Hollywood Video, we never had any other used game stores in the area previous to this. While it's anecdotal, I'm sure my area isn't isolated in the transformation GS has made in providing a ready venue to trade-in and buy used games.

I suppose I stand corrected on the number of stores. But it's not like that in my area at all. Here, there are malls that used to have an EB and a Babbage's, and now just have one Gamestop. Additionally, there are now much fewer independent game stores than there used to be. Game Crazy and Game Rush are gone as well.

Perhaps you live in an area with a lot of recent population growth / new development.


Three years ago, as sales were collapsing on both DVDs and CDs, the music industry and studios tried various pricing experiments with $10 new release CDs and DVDs. It turned out that sales were just as flat as they were at $15-$20. The same thing is going on with Blu Rays right now and the average movie sells for $20 when a few years ago it was closer to $30.

I thought Blu-Ray prices dropped because it's no longer a novel format, and it's been more widely adopted? New CDs look to me the same price they've always been, $10-15. The only change I've noticed is that now old releases are cheaper.


As other posters have mentioned, there are other platforms (Steam, iOS, Android, etc.) where a secondhand market simply does not exist. Consumers are OK with that 'cause prices are more than reasonable. If Sony's ceiling for physical games is $10 I really don't give a shit if they do this. The problem is they won't, at least for physical PS4 releases. Once games are as mainstream as movies in terms of audience price will hopefully be less of an issue.

While there's no arguing that Steam itself is doing well, PC gaming sure ain't what she used to be. I can't help but feel that Steam has contributed to its decline.

I remember going to Fry's and being in awe at the racks and racks of PC games. Now, not so much. And I can't even be bothered with PC games most of the time anymore. :(

[ScourDX]

If either Sony or Microsoft is coming out with DRM scheme much like PC always online activation on their next console, say good bye to both. Always online activation never work.

[CDiablo]

It's so weird that PC gaming doesn't allow used games at all, and nobody seems to give two shits about that. I'm normally against this movement away from physical media, but with the PC, I don't seem to care. With my physical console games, I'll usually buy them used, and then I'll resell them when I know they are about to start collecting dust.

With the PC, I can't buy used games, and I can't resell my games, but I don't even care about it. The reason, is that the prices of PC games fall so fast that I feel like I can be patient and wait for the Steam sales. Wait for the Amazon download sales, wait for the GamersGate and Green Man Gaming sales. I'm somewhat of a hypocrite, because I was always crying about how they are taking away our rights with all this digital crap, but then the truth is, if they make things cheap enough, I don't give a fuck. I'm perfectly content as long as it's super cheap. I'm in the minority of gamers that are drifting about 2 years behind current times anyways (with my current backlog), that patience is something I have in spades. I can sit around and wait and wait and wait for those price drops, and then when the price is so freaking low that it's a crime not to buy it, then I'll buy it.

I don't really own it. It's more like a rental, or a lease, but I don't mind because I'm buying my games for about 5 bucks each, which is how much Blockbuster charges you to rent a game for a week or so, and I'll definitely get my 5 bucks worth.

The thing is, we know that PS4 and Xbox Next and Wii U aren't going to be anything like that. We will never see games like Rage being sold for 4 bucks, or Limbo being sold for $2.50. A sale to those companies is $14.99 or $19.99. You won't see anything sub $9.99 unless it's some super indy stuff.

Heres why consoles cant cut off the used market. I am a hypocrite like you as I am very anti digital..........but when the games are between $1-$7(really the most I pay for digital stuff not named Dawn of War) I can live with the fact that I dont physically own it. I dont like steam very much(I am a frequent gog.com user though) but they know if you price it low you will get a ton of sales and that works for them. Consoles dont have competition(Steam has gamersgate, greenman, gog, GFWL, desura, ect) other than other platforms so they see no need do firesale price drops like the PC DD companies. Theres games that have been out on XBLA for 5-6 years that have NEVER seen a sale or price drop and I refuse to buy them until those pricedrops/sales happen(if ever). Consoles DD of retail games feel almost no need to drop lower than MSRP of an on shelf game(which you can probably get cheaper than DD online). They just dont get it. So if you kill used games on consoles you end up with less money for games that are stuck at $60-$70(god forbid) price point because 90% of the time thats where the money goes. Used games are part of the console gaming ecosystem and when you remove anything from an ecosystem it either is ruined or evolves into something sustainable. Once the console manufacturers start looking at the steam business model they can kill used games without a hiccup. Otherwise it will be commercial suicide.

[G-Boobie]

While there's no arguing that Steam itself is doing well, PC gaming sure ain't what she used to be. I can't help but feel that Steam has contributed to its decline.

Can you explain this concept? Because from where I'm sitting, PC gaming is not only alive and well, but the exclusive games are far more interesting that what's coming out on consoles.



(...) And I can't even be bothered with PC games most of the time anymore. :(

That's unfortunate.

EDIT: OK, I'm sorry, your statements are crazy.

Not only are most console games coming over to the PC, usually graphically superior and with optimized performance, but there's an entire world of games that never, ever see a console that are available on the PC. The Anno series, Total War, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., the Kings Bounty games, Killing Field, Dawn of War, the Legend of Grimrock, Inquisitor, Hawken, DOTA and League of Legends, all the MMOs out there, Sanctum, Civilization IV and V, Dwarf Fortress, Magicka, Sins of a Solar Empire, Amnesia: the Dark Descent, Trackmania and Shootmania, Tribes: Ascend, Planetside 2, Blacklight: Tango Down, Mechwarrior Online, Cryostasis, Galactic Civilizations II, Company of Heroes.... I could go on.

The "indie" space is even crazier. Home, Lone Survivor, McPixel, Cart Life, Pathologic, Capsized, Slender, Frog Fractions, Miasmata, Tiny & Big, To The Moon, Botanicula, The Spiderweb Games catalog, Solium Infernum, Uplink, FTL, Hotline Miami, the Binding of Isaac....

PC games are not, in fact, what they used to be. They're usually better. You might not personally like where they've gone, and that's fine, but any platform where I can get on, day or night, and see five million people playing all over the world and get a match in whatever game I want within minutes? That's a wonderful, healthy ecosystem.

[Nature Boy]

When I really think about the patent idea, it makes sense.

Publishers would prefer that all sales be online only, as they (obviously) get a higher % of the sale value by cutting out the middlemen, plus they don't have to worry about all this used games business that is causing them to go hungry.

But not everybody will connect their console to the internet, so you need an alternative method to get them content, and a disc that can only be used on the machine for which it's loaded sounds an awful lot like an offline version of an online games sale.

I think the transition for all consoles to something like this is inevitable. It just makes too much sense from a business perspective to not make it happen.

I'm not saying I like it, as I will miss collecting games, but I'd learn to live with it I imagine.

[Bojay1997]

When I really think about the patent idea, it makes sense.

Publishers would prefer that all sales be online only, as they (obviously) get a higher % of the sale value by cutting out the middlemen, plus they don't have to worry about all this used games business that is causing them to go hungry.

But not everybody will connect their console to the internet, so you need an alternative method to get them content, and a disc that can only be used on the machine for which it's loaded sounds an awful lot like an offline version of an online games sale.

I think the transition for all consoles to something like this is inevitable. It just makes too much sense from a business perspective to not make it happen.

I'm not saying I like it, as I will miss collecting games, but I'd learn to live with it I imagine.

I was very opposed to digital only, but over the past six months or so, I have really gotten into GOG, Steam, XBL and PSN and frankly, after collecting for over 20 years, I am looking forward to the day when physical releases are few and far between. There is just something about the convenience of being able to quickly play a game already on a hard drive that is lost when I have to find a disc, pull it out of the case, boot it up, etc...

[Bojay1997]

I do know about Anarchy Reigns, but it seems like there are much fewer of those than there used to be. Ten years ago, I was buying new games left and right without ever spending $50.



I was just talking with my uncle about this the other day. He used to have a huge C64 collection. (Oh how I wish he'd given it to me, instead of getting rid of it, but I digress.) He got one in '83 and kept buying games for it until around '91. And he is adamant that most games were $30 or less, a few were $35, and the only rare exception that was more than that would be something packaged with a bunch of extras, like Ultima IV. I clearly remember looking through his games some years ago, some of them did still have the prices on them. I remember looking at Tangled Tales and noticing its faded $29.99 price tag, I gave that one an extra long look because I had never heard of that game.

A disk was always significantly cheaper than a cartridge. I don't know what Sierra games you're talking about, but if they're from the tail end of the floppy disk era when some games went up to 9 disks, that would account for the increased cost. At the same time, there were still cheaper games around, i.e. smaller games.



I suppose I stand corrected on the number of stores. But it's not like that in my area at all. Here, there are malls that used to have an EB and a Babbage's, and now just have one Gamestop. Additionally, there are now much fewer independent game stores than there used to be. Game Crazy and Game Rush are gone as well.

Perhaps you live in an area with a lot of recent population growth / new development.



I thought Blu-Ray prices dropped because it's no longer a novel format, and it's been more widely adopted? New CDs look to me the same price they've always been, $10-15. The only change I've noticed is that now old releases are cheaper.



While there's no arguing that Steam itself is doing well, PC gaming sure ain't what she used to be. I can't help but feel that Steam has contributed to its decline.

I remember going to Fry's and being in awe at the racks and racks of PC games. Now, not so much. And I can't even be bothered with PC games most of the time anymore. :(

It's not just Anarchy Reigns though. There are a bunch of more niche Xbox 360 titles that have come out in the past few years that have MSRPs of anywhere from $20 to $50. Just off the top of my head, those would include Test Drive Ferrari, Port Royale 3, Let's Dance, Tropico 4, etc...

I'm sure your uncle did pay $20-$35 for lots of 64 games. I did too by shopping at Egghead and other stores that gave a discount. That wasn't MSRP on the vast majority of them, however. Here is a link to the Computer Gaming World magazine archive from 1983 that shows most disc SSI games at $50-$60 MSRP, Infocom disc games at $50 and many other publishers listing MSRP at $40-$60 depending on the game. There were some at $20 and $30, but it was primarily arcade conversions or smaller scope action games. Games on cartridge for home computers were listed at $60 and up.

http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1983&pub=2&id=13

As for the Sierra stuff, I'm talking about both the disc and CD-Rom stuff. Many PC games regardless of format in the 90s had an MSRP of $50-$60. Obviously, retailers gave discounts so people may have paid less, but the same could be said of modern console games that collapse in price weeks after release.

I live in a built-out area of Los Angeles and there are far more Gamestop locations than there ever were independent used game stores or other chains just 5-7 years ago. Clearly Gamestop is expanding, at least in large urban areas.

New release CDs and DVDs are back to $15-$20 MSRP. I agree that retailers sell them for a lot less, but the experiment I was speaking of involved the MSRP actually being dropped which meant with sales and discounts, new release DVDs and CDs were $8 or so for a short time. Blu Ray prices have dropped primarily because demand has dropped sharply. People just don't buy movies anymore because VOD, NetFlix and other services are just so ubiquitous. I suspect in a few more years physical media versions of most new movies will be few and far between.

PC releases are extremely vibrant, as others have pointed out, not only are many console games seeing superior PC releases, but there are tons and tons of indie and niche titles like point and click adventures and strategy games that only see PC release. Steam is huge and if anything it has spurred PC gaming after a brief lull in the early 2000s because of piracy and general lack of public demand.

[duffmanth]

When I really think about the patent idea, it makes sense.

Publishers would prefer that all sales be online only, as they (obviously) get a higher % of the sale value by cutting out the middlemen, plus they don't have to worry about all this used games business that is causing them to go hungry.

But not everybody will connect their console to the internet, so you need an alternative method to get them content, and a disc that can only be used on the machine for which it's loaded sounds an awful lot like an offline version of an online games sale.

I think the transition for all consoles to something like this is inevitable. It just makes too much sense from a business perspective to not make it happen.

I'm not saying I like it, as I will miss collecting games, but I'd learn to live with it I imagine.

I agree that gaming going digital only is inevitable, but I think that's still quite a ways off. The video game market is big enough so that both digital and physical games can co-exist.

[The 1 2 P]

The video game market is big enough so that both digital and physical games can co-exist.

And they will both continue to exist for quite sometime. Like others have already said not everyone has an internet connection, let alone a high-speed one. So unless publishers want to pass on free money they will continue to have some sort of disc option.

Kupo already touched on one of the potential uses for this patent but theres also the option to do what they already did during this gen with DC Universe Online. Once that game disc connects to it's first console it becomes completely worthless, although I think thats probably par for the course with console MMORPG's. So I don't think that Sony is particularly going to use this patent for something as sinister as many are anticipating.

Having said that, if they did go and use this to ban the playing of all used games I don't see how anyone could defend that move. It would not only cut off a huge part of the market but they would be willingly giving up their own console market share to their competitors that still allowed used games on their systems. Sony has made a bunch of blunders this gen but making this kind of move would be beyond stupid and I really don't think they would be that cocky....unless they were still the current market leader. Had Sony continued with the PS3 right where they left off with the dominace of the PS1 and PS2 we wouldn't even be having this discussion. They would absolutely use this to kill off used game sales and not give it a second thought. But they were humbled this gen and have learned alot of lessons. And for that reason alone I really don't see them implementing this other than for some sort of pratical applications. The Sony of today is not the same as the Sony of 2006.

[kedawa]

People with no internet connection are a rounding error. Companies aren't going to continue spending money on optical drives and physical media for the sake of a tiny minority of consumers, especially ones that can't be milked with DLC and service fees. iOS is doing just fine without physical media.

[Bojay1997]

People with no internet connection are a rounding error. Companies aren't going to continue spending money on optical drives and physical media for the sake of a tiny minority of consumers, especially ones that can't be milked with DLC and service fees. iOS is doing just fine without physical media.

I hate to say it, but you're right. I just checked the latest stats and 90% of households with a computer in the home have broadband and something like 70%+ of all US households currently have broadband. Dial-up is down to about 3% of US households currently. While there are still some dial-up holdouts and rural areas with no broadband, it's really a tiny proportion of the overall US population and probably even a smaller proportion of likely video game and computer game players. Broadband penetration is only going to increase in the next year or so as we near the PS4 and Xbox 720 release date.

[Leo_A]

Despite the growth of broadband, the infrastructure still isn't there for 100% digital distribution. A lot of people are knocking on bandwidth limits as it is just by being an avid user of things like Netflix.

Until internet infrastructure improves enough and ISP's evolve their policies to adapt (Which is the biggest technical hurdle but not the only problem or thing that needs to change for us to move to 100% digital distribution), retail distribution will still dominate the console landscape. And with the server infrastructure that will be needed just to support a big game launch or two during the course of a year and a few other days like around Christmas, I'm not sure they will ever go all digital. Imagine all the expense and equipment needed for just a handful of day's that probably wouldn't even be working at 10% capacity for 350 days of every year.

My concern at least for the next generation or two is with the removal of our control and freedom over our own disc. A future where I can't insert any disc into any console and fully enjoy the offline experience since there are things like unlock codes to open up access to a single player game and so on stinks just as much as an all download future.

If anything, it's even worse. You'd have physical media with none of the traditional benefits of physical media (Beyond the joy geek's get with lining their bookcases with DVD cases ;)) and also none of the advantages that the digital route offers (Not having to change discs, faster loading times, less wear and tear on your console, no clutter, etc.).

That's much more my concern for the next 10 years or so than any worry about publisher's ceasing to ship console game's on optical disc to retailers. Digital got its start in the last generation, has become a popular secondary form of distribution this generation, and will likely be on a even footing the next with competitive pricing and same day digital releases for virtually all software.

Then I'd expect at least another generation where retail distribution is an important secondary form of distribution before it disappears completely.

[Bojay1997]

Despite the growth of broadband, the infrastructure still isn't there for 100% digital distribution. A lot of people are knocking on bandwidth limits as it is just by being an avid user of things like Netflix.

Until internet infrastructure improves enough and ISP's evolve their policies to adapt (Which is the biggest technical hurdle but not the only problem or thing that needs to change for us to move to 100% digital distribution), retail distribution will still dominate the console landscape. And with the server infrastructure that will be needed just to support a big game launch or two during the course of a year and a few other days like around Christmas, I'm not sure they will ever go all digital. Imagine all the expense and equipment needed for just a handful of day's that probably wouldn't even be working at 10% capacity for 350 days of every year.

My concern at least for the next generation or two is with the removal of our control and freedom over our own disc. A future where I can't insert any disc into any console and fully enjoy the offline experience since there are things like unlock codes to open up access to a single player game and so on stinks just as much as an all download future.

If anything, it's even worse. You'd have physical media with none of the traditional benefits of physical media (Beyond the joy geek's get with lining their bookcases with DVD cases ;)) and also none of the advantages that the digital route offers (Not having to change discs, faster loading times, less wear and tear on your console, no clutter, etc.).

That's much more my concern for the next 10 years or so than any worry about publisher's ceasing to ship console game's on optical disc to retailers.

You're working from old data and outdated perceptions. PC full-game sales surpassed retail discs in 2010 by a 30% margin. I suspect with Steam in the mix it's even higher currently. Consoles won't be that far behind. Certainly not 10+ years behind, especially if technologies like Ultra HD come into widescale use where there is no practical optical disc format that can store all that data. Also, Google, Verizon and other companies are already rolling out next generation broadband in larger markets which could give 10X bandwidth to average consumers for a reasonable price within 2-3 years. I agree that we have one more generation of optical disc based consoles ahead, but I am just as confident that it will be the last.