Edge reports durango to block used games!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Collector_Gaming]

Well if there is one thing that is for certain piracy will never disappear. They come out with something new to block them. Someone will come up with a way to work around it and then cash in on it for themselves.

As for the safe bet that was mentioned earlier.

Companies especially corporations go where the money is. They don't care how many bridges they burn along the way to get there its just that they get there.

So if it means pissing off the hardcore gaming community to cash in on the huge boom in casual gaming thats happened in the past decade they will do it until that cash cow runs dry and then go for something else.

They don't care about you... they don't care about me... they only care about the figures that sit in their bank accounts.

The only thing I personally think they are shooting themselves in the foot with is jumping to the whole it has to be online to work thing.

Not everyone has cable internet. Some places still can't even get cable internet believe it or not. Some your small town residents that live on back country roads that comcast and verizon have yet to stake claim to. I mean yes the majority of us have finally moved onto cable over the years but not everyone has it.

[danawhitaker]

I don't know if anyone's bothered to mention it, and I'd completely forgotten, but we shouldn't forget about things like the PSN outage either. That took the PSN out for almost a month. Games like Everquest, DC Online, and Star Wars Galaxies were in the same boat. Would you really want to be unable to use your console for the better part of a month - AT ALL - if something like that happened again? Compensation after the fact isn't good enough when I plunk down hundreds of dollars for the console plus $60 for a game that I'm not even going to be playing online in the first place. And all the redundancy in the world wouldn't help if the network had to be shut down because of a breach like that rather than just stability problems. And Sony's not some small company. They're one of the big ones. There's no guarantee something similar won't happen in the future. I'd hope they'd be able to fix it more quickly than that one took, but I don't have much confidence that would be the case.

[IHatedSega]

They want to kill GameStop, GameFly and Piracy in one fell swoop.

If these companies hate Gamestop they need to STOP SELLING THEIR PRODUCTS AT GAMESTOP! Its that simple. If new games arent sold there most people wouldnt go there, even the used game people would stop going there as much. If they lost the major support of the consoles and major developers, then theyd have to completely restructure their business.

[FayeC86]

If these companies hate Gamestop they need to STOP SELLING THEIR PRODUCTS AT GAMESTOP! Its that simple. If new games arent sold there most people wouldnt go there, even the used game people would stop going there as much. If they lost the major support of the consoles and major developers, then theyd have to completely restructure their business.

Gamestop might have to restructure their business, but so would many of the companies. Sure Nintendo, Activision and EA can probably take to the change, but XSEED, Atlus or NISA isnt going to be able to sell the next Persona, or Phantom Brave at walmart.

I have a Wii U, a Vita and a 3DS to complement my past systems. If the next PS and Xbox wont allow used games I'd gladly pass on them. It will just give me more funds to by used games for consoles I already have.

[IHatedSega]

Im pretty sure if someone knows about Persona theyll be able to order it online from Amazon.

[Collector_Gaming]

If these companies hate Gamestop they need to STOP SELLING THEIR PRODUCTS AT GAMESTOP! Its that simple. If new games arent sold there most people wouldnt go there, even the used game people would stop going there as much. If they lost the major support of the consoles and major developers, then theyd have to completely restructure their business.

They don't hate gamestop entirely. They hate the fact game stop sells used copies of their games which they claim they don't see a dime from. Game stop thrives on used game sales according to their business model which is why employees are forced to annoy you with trying to push you into buying a used copy.
They want gamestop to just buy their new product and sell it. Which if what their business model shows towards new game sales is true they would have to increase sale prices from 60 dollars to probably 70 if not more to make a true profit and we know how well that will work. Hence it will force gamestop to file for Bankruptcy eventually and close up shop regardless if the game companies like it or not.

I have noticed because i very very rarely shop at gamestop any more that they have adopted to changing times as best as they could.
My local game stop has taken up selling smart devices and accessories. They took down their gameboy section and consolidated it into the Wii/Wiiu section and replaced it with this new section.

[Griking]

If these companies hate Gamestop they need to STOP SELLING THEIR PRODUCTS AT GAMESTOP! Its that simple. If new games arent sold there most people wouldnt go there, even the used game people would stop going there as much. If they lost the major support of the consoles and major developers, then theyd have to completely restructure their business.

I disagree. I don't believe that many people shop at Gamestop for the new games. You can easily find better prices on new games at several other retailers.

Gamestop might have to restructure their business, but so would many of the companies. Sure Nintendo, Activision and EA can probably take to the change, but XSEED, Atlus or NISA isnt going to be able to sell the next Persona, or Phantom Brave at walmart.

No but they'd be able to sell them on Amazon, eBay, and other popular online retailers.

[Greg2600]

Piracy has not been a legitimate concern with consoles, really ever. Computers were a different story back in the day. I personally do not understand the reason for this. The software publishers simply don't understand their customer base if they expect sales to go up because you stop used games. The reality is people will simply buy LESS games.

[Collector_Gaming]

Could this be considered a case where we are advancing a little too fast for our own good?

[Bojay1997]

Piracy has not been a legitimate concern with consoles, really ever. Computers were a different story back in the day. I personally do not understand the reason for this. The software publishers simply don't understand their customer base if they expect sales to go up because you stop used games. The reality is people will simply buy LESS games.

That's not accurate. In the PSOne days, it was actually impacting Sony and its third party developers pretty heavily to the point where Sony was citing it in their annual and quarterly reports. It also was/is a huge problem on the PSP and the DS with knock off carts flooding Ebay to this day on the Nintendo platforms. I think there was less piracy on the PS2 and the 360/PS3, but it certainly exists.

Software publishers do understand their customer base. It's not about increasing unit sales, it's about increasing profitability per unit. When Gamestop makes a 50% gross profit margin on used sales per their recent annual reports, that is just a ton of money that's being lost by publishers. People will still buy plenty of games, the only difference is that Gamestop and other third parties hoping to profit from customer laziness and willingness to accept pennies on the dollar for used items will disappear.

[Press_Start]

Could this be considered a case where we are advancing a little too fast for our own good?

In terms of unbridled skyrocketing game development costs, yes we have. Jeez, PS3 game costs tripled to $15 mill in 2006. We don't necessarily need the next "BIG" graphical leap. We have enough right now. Heck, we have the graphical sandbox of the Sahara Desert. Look at Xenoblade Chronicles, the whole premise takes place on the two godly titans, addictive MMO-like strategy, and massively uninterrupted locals. They did it all on the Wii. They can do more on PS360. They just have to stop obsessing over "da pahfeeTs".

[marlowe221]

Regarding piracy rates - I see/read stuff about publishers/developers blaming high rates of piracy for their financial failures but it makes me wonder.... How do you measure piracy rates in any reliable way?

Do they call up people and poll them? I mean seriously, just how do they know how many people are pirating a game?

(The cynic in me says they don't actually know and just playing the blame game but I am man enough to admit when I'm wrong).

As far as no used games.... That's not cool. I would echo the comments that others have made when they said that used products are bought and sold all the time of other kinds and you don't see producers of new products complaining about it. Furthermore, the fact that publishers/developers imply some moral side to it is just laughable. You can't guilt people out of buying used products - there's nothing wrong with doing so!

The real problem is that the business side of video games has been headed the wrong way for several years now and the big publishers/developers don't know what to do about it. They won't admit when they put out a bad game, they won't take responsibility for questionable DLC practices, the list could go on. Instead they blame their own customers - always a great way to make people love you right?

Only the airlines and video game companies seem to have mastered the art of bad-mouthing paying customers and staying in business.

Personally, I will not purchase a console that will not play a used game. I will not purchase a console with an always online requirement. I think it's bad enough that I have to pay money for having the "privilege" of being advertised to as much as I am already. I also think that IP laws are already screwy enough in the USA on the consumer side (read: virtually non-existant) without all of that.

So far, Nintendo seems to be the company least likely to engage in such shennanigans but time will tell....

[danawhitaker]

That's not accurate. In the PSOne days, it was actually impacting Sony and its third party developers pretty heavily to the point where Sony was citing it in their annual and quarterly reports. It also was/is a huge problem on the PSP and the DS with knock off carts flooding Ebay to this day on the Nintendo platforms. I think there was less piracy on the PS2 and the 360/PS3, but it certainly exists.

Software publishers do understand their customer base. It's not about increasing unit sales, it's about increasing profitability per unit. When Gamestop makes a 50% gross profit margin on used sales per their recent annual reports, that is just a ton of money that's being lost by publishers. People will still buy plenty of games, the only difference is that Gamestop and other third parties hoping to profit from customer laziness and willingness to accept pennies on the dollar for used items will disappear.

Pff. That's like a furniture store arguing they lose sales because Goodwill sells used sofas and tables. They have no proof that those people would ever have bought the item new in the first place. They might lose some, but they can't claim they'd lose all of it, and they have no real way to prove a specific amount. It's just speculation on their part. Someone not willing to buy it full price might not buy it at all. It's the same fallacy anti-piracy arguments use. You can't prove the people who pirated your product would have paid for it if they couldn't pirate it.

[Bojay1997]

Pff. That's like a furniture store arguing they lose sales because Goodwill sells used sofas and tables. They have no proof that those people would ever have bought the item new in the first place. They might lose some, but they can't claim they'd lose all of it, and they have no real way to prove a specific amount. It's just speculation on their part. Someone not willing to buy it full price might not buy it at all. It's the same fallacy anti-piracy arguments use. You can't prove the people who pirated your product would have paid for it if they couldn't pirate it.

Except that there is excellent data about used sales from Gamestop itself and Gamestop's used, new release games are usually only $5 cheaper than new. It's not speculation at all. Every used game sold is revenue that could have been made by the original publisher but wasn't.

While I can't dispute that piracy numbers are more speculative, if a pirate is a console gamer and there is no longer a way to pirate console games, they will either be forced to give up console gaming or will buy the games. Sure, some pirates will give up gaming or move to PCs and other less protected formats, but many will also simply suck it up and actually start paying for games. It's not a complex issue, it's just a matter of how willing Microsoft and Sony are going to be this time around to shake up the status quo at the risk of short-term loss of sales in exchange for significantly better long-term profitability.

[marlowe221]

Except that there is excellent data about used sales from Gamestop itself and Gamestop's used, new release games are usually only $5 cheaper than new. It's not speculation at all. Every used game sold is revenue that could have been made by the original publisher but wasn't.

While I can't dispute that piracy numbers are more speculative, if a pirate is a console gamer and there is no longer a way to pirate console games, they will either be forced to give up console gaming or will buy the games. Sure, some pirates will give up gaming or move to PCs and other less protected formats, but many will also simply suck it up and actually start paying for games. It's not a complex issue, it's just a matter of how willing Microsoft and Sony are going to be this time around to shake up the status quo at the risk of short-term loss of sales in exchange for significantly better long-term profitability.

Two things.

1. GS sells LOTS of used games that are way less than $5 off the price of new. Most of the used games I have purchased at GS have been in the $15-25 range. Now you have to wait 6 months to a year for the game to get to that kind of price but it often does. I don't think the argument that a used sale is a lost new sale really holds water.

2. Locking out used games =/= stopping piracy. I honestly don't know how to pirate a game on a modern console (or even a retro one, for that matter). My guess is that 95% of GS's customers don't know how to do it either. I am all for stopping piracy. But I don't see how locking out used games gets us to that goal.

[Bojay1997]

Two things.

1. GS sells LOTS of used games that are way less than $5 off the price of new. Most of the used games I have purchased at GS have been in the $15-25 range. Now you have to wait 6 months to a year for the game to get to that kind of price but it often does. I don't think the argument that a used sale is a lost new sale really holds water.

2. Locking out used games =/= stopping piracy. I honestly don't know how to pirate a game on a modern console (or even a retro one, for that matter). My guess is that 95% of GS's customers don't know how to do it either. I am all for stopping piracy. But I don't see how locking out used games gets us to that goal.

You probably need to start shopping around more if you're paying $15-$25 used for games six months to a year after release. Most new games hit $20 or less six months to a year after release with very, very few exceptions. Also, I believe something like 80% of Gamestop's used sales are for games that have been released within the last 60 days. The typical Gamestop used customer actually uses Gamestop as something like an expensive rental service and gets into the Gamestop ecosystem by buying a used, new release game and then keeps coming back to trade the game for the next one on a weekly basis. Even with trade-in bonuses and other promotions, I think Gamestop averages something like $25 in revenue for each used sale/trade-in each time it comes through the system. Imagine if publishers just dropped new game prices to the $25-$30 level and kept all that revenue for themselves?

Essentially, used buyers are paying $25-$30 each time they "rent" a used game for a week from Gamestop and after two games, they have essentially paid full MSRP for something they don't even own anymore because they've traded it in on some other used game. It's an incredibly lucrative business model for Gamestop.

Locking out games stops piracy by tying the game purchase to a specific user and/or console. It combats piracy the same way it has for a number of years on PC games. Yes, it's not foolproof, but it keeps the more casual/lazy pirates from stealing software and/or playing on-line.

[danawhitaker]

Except that there is excellent data about used sales from Gamestop itself and Gamestop's used, new release games are usually only $5 cheaper than new. It's not speculation at all. Every used game sold is revenue that could have been made by the original publisher but wasn't.

While I can't dispute that piracy numbers are more speculative, if a pirate is a console gamer and there is no longer a way to pirate console games, they will either be forced to give up console gaming or will buy the games. Sure, some pirates will give up gaming or move to PCs and other less protected formats, but many will also simply suck it up and actually start paying for games. It's not a complex issue, it's just a matter of how willing Microsoft and Sony are going to be this time around to shake up the status quo at the risk of short-term loss of sales in exchange for significantly better long-term profitability.

How are Gamestop's numbers proof? Unless they ask the customer whether they would have bought the new copy instead of the used one (which I know for a fact they do not at the Gamestops around here), it's still speculation. I'm stingy with what I'm willing to spend. I almost never buy a new game for $60. For me, being willing to buy the game at $55 does not mean I would always have paid $5 more for a new copy. You cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it's a lost sale. Instead, people who do the whole buy used-trade in-buy used cycle that you discuss might simply have gone with a rental service like Gamefly or Blockbuster and wouldn't buy at all. Or they would have maybe borrowed the game from a friend or relative. Or they would have checked the game out of the library for free (our library rents games for free).

$5 doesn't seem like a lot, but for some of us, it's a deal-breaker. The last three games that I've bought I paid $55 (Super Mario Wii U on Amazon, new), $15 (Forza Horizon, new, Amazon), and $20 (Angry Birds Trilogy, new, Amazon), respectively. The only one of those I would have paid $60 for is Super Mario Wii U, and that's because it was a present for my daughter - but I shopped around and got a deal before Christmas. I would normally have waited until Forza or Angry Birds were heavily discounted. I just got lucky with Black Friday weekend sales and found them ridiculously discounted shortly after launch.

Edit: And when it comes to used games at Gamestop, they can be returned for your money back (not store credit, your money back) within 7 days if you aren't satisfied. That means that in theory, that person's never actually spending any money at all. Now, Gamestop might cotton on after a while if someone's doing this repeatedly and regularly. But if they do it fairly infrequently, it would probably slide under the radar. I can count on one hand the number of times I've done that over the years, but I have. I think the last time I did was in 2004 with Phantasy Star Online 1 & 2 for the Gamecube. I realized I didn't enjoy the game as much as I had when I owned it on Dreamcast and I returned it within the 7 day period for my cash back. Once a new game has been opened, however, that option is out the door. That's another reason I argue you can't guarantee that used sale would translate to a new one. Someone might choose to buy the used copy for $5 less knowing they can return it if they discover that they hate the game. They wouldn't gamble $60 on a new copy that they couldn't return. Again you have a scenario where someone who can't buy the used copy will turn to renting it or borrowing it from a friend.

[Bojay1997]

How are Gamestop's numbers proof? Unless they ask the customer whether they would have bought the new copy instead of the used one (which I know for a fact they do not at the Gamestops around here), it's still speculation. I'm stingy with what I'm willing to spend. I almost never buy a new game for $60. For me, being willing to buy the game at $55 does not mean I would always have paid $5 more for a new copy. You cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it's a lost sale. Instead, people who do the whole buy used-trade in-buy used cycle that you discuss might simply have gone with a rental service like Gamefly or Blockbuster and wouldn't buy at all. Or they would have maybe borrowed the game from a friend or relative. Or they would have checked the game out of the library for free (our library rents games for free).

$5 doesn't seem like a lot, but for some of us, it's a deal-breaker. The last three games that I've bought I paid $55 (Super Mario Wii U on Amazon, new), $15 (Forza Horizon, new, Amazon), and $20 (Angry Birds Trilogy, new, Amazon), respectively. The only one of those I would have paid $60 for is Super Mario Wii U, and that's because it was a present for my daughter - but I shopped around and got a deal before Christmas. I would normally have waited until Forza or Angry Birds were heavily discounted. I just got lucky with Black Friday weekend sales and found them ridiculously discounted shortly after launch.

Edit: And when it comes to used games at Gamestop, they can be returned for your money back (not store credit, your money back) within 7 days if you aren't satisfied. That means that in theory, that person's never actually spending any money at all. Now, Gamestop might cotton on after a while if someone's doing this repeatedly and regularly. But if they do it fairly infrequently, it would probably slide under the radar. I can count on one hand the number of times I've done that over the years, but I have. I think the last time I did was in 2004 with Phantasy Star Online 1 & 2 for the Gamecube. I realized I didn't enjoy the game as much as I had when I owned it on Dreamcast and I returned it within the 7 day period for my cash back. Once a new game has been opened, however, that option is out the door. That's another reason I argue you can't guarantee that used sale would translate to a new one. Someone might choose to buy the used copy for $5 less knowing they can return it if they discover that they hate the game. They wouldn't gamble $60 on a new copy that they couldn't return. Again you have a scenario where someone who can't buy the used copy will turn to renting it or borrowing it from a friend.

But here's the thing, today publishers make zero from that used sale, so even if you and every other person on the planet who generally buys used gives up gaming for good, the audience that has always bought new games and led to publisher profitability will still be intact. The rental/used/borrowing market will be eliminated if Sony and Microsoft do what the PC publishers have been doing for years now and simply do a CPU/User based license for their games. Yes, manufacturers may sell fewer consoles, but it takes years now for manufacturers (with the notable exception of Nintendo) to make a profit on their hardware. So, used buyers not only don't support the profitability on the software side, but also cause greater losses on the hardware side. Ultimately, publishers will come to the market and if $55 is really the price point that used buyers need to be comfortable buying a new copy, there's no reason why new software MSRP won't decline to $55. Publishers could care less about retail price, their only concern is to make the maximum of profit and eliminating used sales assures them a bigger piece of what could become a smaller, but more profitable pie.

I only buy new games, but I can count on one hand the number of times I have paid full MSRP for anything other than truly limited collector's editions in the past few years. Between Amazon, Best Buy, Kmart, Target, Toys R Us and other retailers offering coupons, bundle (B2G1) deals, discounts, price matches, gift cards and other incentives for new release games, the real MSRP for new is never $60 if you are a smart shopper and don't have to have a game on the day of release.

[danawhitaker]

Ultimately, publishers will come to the market and if $55 is really the price point that used buyers need to be comfortable buying a new copy, there's no reason why new software MSRP won't decline to $55. Publishers could care less about retail price, their only concern is to make the maximum of profit and eliminating used sales assures them a bigger piece of what could become a smaller, but more profitable pie.

I don't think $55 would be the sweet spot though. I don't even think $50 would be the sweet spot. For me, it wouldn't even be at $40. For games from smaller developers and publishers, people consider those games "risky" investments. It's basically a mentality of not being willing to risk spending what is a significant amount of money on a game that's not going to live up to your expectations. I guess what I'm getting at is, people want to really be able to try something before they buy it. Those people would not purchase the game at all if they had no means for returning it if they found it not to their satisfaction. I can sympathize with them. And for a lot of them, I bet they only way they'd purchase that game new is if they had a guaranteed return within a short period of time for an opened copy, which few if any retailers are willing to do. Gamestop might as well do it, because half their "new" games have been checked out by employees and re-shrinkwrapped anyway.

I'm still frustrated with a purchase I made a few years ago. I loved the Project Gotham Racing series on Xbox. And I bought Project Gotham 3 for the 360 and enjoyed that greatly. So I didn't hesitate at all to plunk down cash for a new copy of Project Gotham 4. The reviews addressed almost every concern I had, and it was a franchise I trusted. I get it home, and I start playing it, and what do I discover? Between 3 and 4, they modified the control scheme. In every racing game I've played since Gran Turismo, the standard (for people who don't like using the triggers as accelerate and brake, which I don't, because I find that inhibits my ability to steer with the control stick) is that A is the gas, and X (or whatever position X is on the other console controllers, I'm talking from the 360 right now) is the brake. In this game, B is the brake. I've tried desperately to play the game, and enjoy it, because I like the courses themselves, and the challenges, but I cannot get a handle on the controls. Years of playing racing games one way has pretty much hardwired my synapses and fingers to do it one way. And it wasn't an issue that I saw addressed in reviews I went over before I bought it, and I couldn't find any complaints about it after either. So now I'm stuck with a game that I paid good money for that I find unplayable. When I bought it, it never occurred to me that the game would change the design of the control scheme in such a subtle but frustrating way for someone who's used to the opposite. Heck, I even tried holding the controller at a strange angle to see if I could get used to it that way. There was even a variety of button configuration options, but nothing I could customize to my liking, and nothing using that standard button setup. It blew my mind. It still blows my mind. And every time I scan over the title on my shelf I get annoyed just looking at it.

There are a lot of cool games out there that I'd like to play, but the reality is, when you have a system like the PS2 that churned out almost 2,000 games, there's going to be a lot of junk in there. A lot of bad games, a lot of plain-old mediocre games. I'd like to see developers and publishers start releasing fewer games that are of better quality rather than flooding the game market with tons of mediocre stuff.

It's not like this is the only industry out there with a used market. I just fail to understand why this one should be so different. I'm sure if you approached any manufacturer of new products in almost any industry they'd whine around about the same problems the game industry does.

[Spartacus]

The first time I read about this was in a brief article at IGN.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/02/...ine-connection

It mentions that the next-gen Xbox will use Blu-ray discs, something I had wondered about.
It also suggested that development sources found Microsoft's next-gen OS "oppressive" and preferred working with Sony's platform. I found that curious.

Whether next-gen consoles prevent playing used games or not is out of my control. I collect video games for a hobby and have little interest in renting digital content. If the next-gen marks the end of owning video games, then I'll just be grateful that I lived through a different gaming era and appreciate my collection of retro games all the more.