![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Developers Inventing New Ways to Fight Used Game Sales
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Unacceptable
Game publishers these days are really becoming out of tune with their audiences and seem to have no trouble pissing them off and alienating them.
Want more sales? Want less piracy? Want less used game sales?
Ditch DRM all-together . Only require a serial number for online play and tech support calls, tie it to an account and offer new free maps and extra goodies occasionally spend the DRM money on extra content and goodies for people that own the game.
Digital Distribution yes bandwidth caps could be an issue, but similar people are out there pirating games downloading a similar amount to get the games already. Some larger ISPs should start offering Steam mirrors that do not count for downloads. Furthermore for digital distribution to be a really attractive alternative it needs to be MUCH cheaper then a retail product.
Replay value . Replay value in a game is very important and this is one reason why nearly every game should have co-op. I have never sold or given away a game that had co-op, furthermore the games I have that do have co-op have received 100s more hours of gameplay over the years. These days my time is very limited and I just dont have the time to play some of the types of games I use to. Turning it into a social event with friends helps me find the time to do it. I focused mainly on co-op but theres many ways to add replay value to games, 007 Goldeneye there was unlocking cheats and then playing back through your favorite levels with those unlocked cheats. Decent multiplayer, fan created mods and maps, achievements, ect.
In closing, pc gaming has become too painful to bother putting up with all the issues
Im fed up with paying good money for a game and spending half a day trying to get it to run.
And as long as companies like EA impose ridiculous restrictions on installs and make me jump through hoops to play a game I paid for Im afraid I just wont be playing those games.
So who cares about 2nd hand sales when your current business models are losing customers or alienating them and turning them to piracy.
Game publishers these days are really becoming out of tune with their audiences and seem to have no trouble pissing them off and alienating them.
Want more sales? Want less piracy? Want less used game sales?
Ditch DRM all-together . Only require a serial number for online play and tech support calls, tie it to an account and offer new free maps and extra goodies occasionally spend the DRM money on extra content and goodies for people that own the game.
Digital Distribution yes bandwidth caps could be an issue, but similar people are out there pirating games downloading a similar amount to get the games already. Some larger ISPs should start offering Steam mirrors that do not count for downloads. Furthermore for digital distribution to be a really attractive alternative it needs to be MUCH cheaper then a retail product.
Replay value . Replay value in a game is very important and this is one reason why nearly every game should have co-op. I have never sold or given away a game that had co-op, furthermore the games I have that do have co-op have received 100s more hours of gameplay over the years. These days my time is very limited and I just dont have the time to play some of the types of games I use to. Turning it into a social event with friends helps me find the time to do it. I focused mainly on co-op but theres many ways to add replay value to games, 007 Goldeneye there was unlocking cheats and then playing back through your favorite levels with those unlocked cheats. Decent multiplayer, fan created mods and maps, achievements, ect.
In closing, pc gaming has become too painful to bother putting up with all the issues
Im fed up with paying good money for a game and spending half a day trying to get it to run.
And as long as companies like EA impose ridiculous restrictions on installs and make me jump through hoops to play a game I paid for Im afraid I just wont be playing those games.
So who cares about 2nd hand sales when your current business models are losing customers or alienating them and turning them to piracy.
Perhaps they should market an actual physical product which benefits someone instead of a stream of data that serves only entertainment purposes. They have some audacity to charge for it at all when you think about it, there is basically no substance or purpose to the product at all. Then again that defines the entertainment industry. I ask you, would you rather live in a world without entertainment or without vital services such as utilities, food, medical services etc? So who should be earning the bug bucks again?
This whole situation is rather amusing and sad. Second hand sales are completely legitimate, and first-sale doctrine protects that right.
First-sale doctrine was established in Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus in 1908. Bobbs-Merrill, a book publisher, attempted to limit the consumer's ability to sell their books second hand by putting in a license agreement at the beginning of the book. The court ruled that you couldn't limit the right of the consumer to resell a book by contractual obligations like that. It's rather sad that 100 years later game publishers are trying to pull the same nonsense.
First-sale doctrine was established in Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus in 1908. Bobbs-Merrill, a book publisher, attempted to limit the consumer's ability to sell their books second hand by putting in a license agreement at the beginning of the book. The court ruled that you couldn't limit the right of the consumer to resell a book by contractual obligations like that. It's rather sad that 100 years later game publishers are trying to pull the same nonsense.
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,111
They have the piracy scapegoat this time around. They are free to have you download the final levels of the game and intrusive DRM if they want it. They can safely point to the pirates of the internet to help justify their actions and assist in shielding themselves from lawsuits that may stem their end run around First Sale Doctrine.
I should not call it an end run, it has taken many baby steps here and there to get where we are with this. Inch by inch strengthening of the copywriter's right, and the slow erosion of fair use. Now we are left with the feeling that "ZOMG!! we are EA's bitches and didn't even know it!!!!".
The DRM is introduced as a means to stop more products from entering into the market. In the past, media was not so easily duplicated. It took time, cost money. You also had the middleman there, whose job it was to make sure each item was paid for and distributed accordingly.
We still have the middleman, but his ability to limit the introduction of new goods into the marketplace is hampered by pirates. Pirates are able to duplicate and distribute the goods at will, thus unleashing a portal of goods to the marketplace.
What the DRM is really trying to do is stop the end user from being able to redistribute the content, not to stop sales.
The problem is in its implementation, where goods aren't sold as a title of sale, but instead appears to be changing more to a license. You're granted limited rights, but since you don't actually own the item, your rights granted by the first sale doctrine don't apply. Thus the whole, can't copy, can't alter this format, can only use on three computer terms are just terms of the license agreement.
We still have the middleman, but his ability to limit the introduction of new goods into the marketplace is hampered by pirates. Pirates are able to duplicate and distribute the goods at will, thus unleashing a portal of goods to the marketplace.
What the DRM is really trying to do is stop the end user from being able to redistribute the content, not to stop sales.
The problem is in its implementation, where goods aren't sold as a title of sale, but instead appears to be changing more to a license. You're granted limited rights, but since you don't actually own the item, your rights granted by the first sale doctrine don't apply. Thus the whole, can't copy, can't alter this format, can only use on three computer terms are just terms of the license agreement.
If a person really wants to play a game and is pretty sure that it won't suck then they will buy it new. I know I've only bought a used game on a spur of the moment thing or If I am looking for a game and get lucky that someone has returned it. When developers start playing "games" like this then their product will not be purchased.
DukenukemX
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 7,970
Piracy got mentioned because people see a bonus to this type of DRM. Yes it affects piracy, but it's aimed at used game sales. When DRM effected piracy it was sorta O.K. because piracy is wrong, but used games are our right. What they're doing is make it so we can't sell the entire physical game anymore, by separating it online and a physical media.
If they thought of it, then they were serious about it. It just goes to show what extreme companies are willing to go through to get the extra buck they want.
The games are rubbish and I've already shown this in my previous post.
Marvel vs Capcom 2 on Xbox = $59 used
http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/Prod...oduct_id=22349
Gears of War on 360 = $29 used / $39 new
http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/Prod...oduct_id=39213
That's not Gears 2 but Gears 1. If Gears2 is the epitome of todays AAA games, then it's easy to see why so many people are selling games they played or just renting them and beating the game within a weekends worth of time.
Our good games today, were comparably bad games back in the day. There simply isn't a reason to continue to own sub par games when there isn't any replay value.
I'm a bit late mentioning this as I already posted in this thread, but I worked in development as a games designer for 6-7 years (not anymore) including in house development for one of the console manufacturers. I understand the issues from both perspectives and that's why I responded to the article & the reaction in post 80: http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1033298858&postcount=80
"You must pay to fight the boss if you bought a used copy"
I think people should look at the article in it's original context, the 2nd half of the Michael Capps interview where the controversy originated:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/michael-capps-part-two
for completeness, here is the 1st part of ther interview:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/michael-capps-part-one
The comment is made in a trade journal, and it's about a very serious issue that that affects all gamers and developers. The wider media have picked up on a particular comment, taken it out of context and make a sensational story out of it - low rent 'journalism' at it's worst.
Importantly he said "I've talked to developers" proposing the ideas, well so what? I've been in meetings and discussions (with senior games development managers & publishers) where far more controverisal and inflammatory ideas are floated, it doesn't mean they will ever be implemented. It's a natural part of idea generation and development to seriously explore every idea in the hope of deriving useful, practical solutions to problems.
I've already pointed out that the 'pay to fight the final boss' idea is useless (most players don't get anywhere close finishing games anyway*) but if there is a development manager genuinely pursuing this idea then I would suggest it's an act of pure desperation or idiocy - Dilbert cartoons are funny because there are bad managers & decision makers out there who will take the mad ideas seriously, unfortunately they are sometimes the ones that talk to the press
*The immediate example that I can think of is Project Gotham Racing: Bizzare Creations radically altered the unlock structure to make the sequel far easier after the online data proved that the best cars remained locked to most players. This is a pattern frequently echoed in market research and just talking to the gamers/staff working in development. N.B. People reading forums like this, let alone posting, are the ones who tend to be 'hardcore' and finish every game they buy - we are very much the minority, freaks even!
Developers v retailers
Capps is questioned over who is the problem in the used game market, retailers or individuals? I'm less happy with his response here as he seems to be suggesting the entire used games are unacceptable in any form. I'd be willing to forgive a cagey response, he is president of Epic games. A rant directed at retailers who are still important & necessary business partners would not be clever!
I'm not worried about upsetting anyone so I'll say it: retailers are the 'enemy'
Traditional retail is very old and stuck with it's methods, the business model demands a big markup to cover the costs of doing business (staff salary, rates, tax etc) as well as make a profit. Markup used to be 2-5x wholesale price on many products so it was 'easy' to make a profit. Now that the markup is only 0.3-0.4 it's hard to make a profit at all, let alone make enough profit to justify all the effort. For retailers, they had to change the business model. Used games enabled them to do that and get back to the 2-5x markup.
It's easy to understand why retailers have done this, there is no point getting sentimental or emotional about it - we want to have a free market so retailers absolutely have the right to make the business decisions that they feel will keep them viable. However the retailers new business model has completely screwed over the developers and publishers, and has a negative impact on consumer choice and the quality of games available.
Until recently retailers have been in a position of strength as the only consumer outlet, they've refused to share used game profits with developers (not that I think there is any obligation for them to do so) and there is far less shelf space in stores for new games, placing a big restriction on choice of games available. Retailers don't make enough profit from new anyway so they only want the blockbuster titles: Gears of War, FIFA, Madden, GTA, Need for Speed etc that are very likely to sell.
Gamestop et al. have made it really convenient to trade games, and so grown the 2nd market massively. Hooray for consumers? Possibly not, e.g. there are lots of complaints on this forum about Epic & their "shit games" but if these are the only type new games retailers want to sell then ultimately these are the only games that will be available used.
Developer response and individual rights.
It's a free market, if retailers have fucked developers it's time for the developers to step up and change their own business model - without screwing the consumer rights of individual! For sure there are some money men who can only see $$$$$$$s and they want to stop used sales altogether, but you should always remember that most development staff are gamers and there is internal oppositon to things that are bad for the gamer. When things go too far in favour of the blinkered money men, hopefully the law steps in to redress the balance (fingers crossed the anti DRM lawsuits against EA are successful and they are forced to give consumers a better deal)
I think developers can change the business model, and mostly it comes down to cutting out the middle man i.e. retailers! What we do know for sure is that used games sell multiple times, if there is $30 to be made each time a game sells (say 5 times typically) first question is: do you want that $150 turnover split between developers & consumers? or do you think that retailers should continue to to keep taking $120 out of the equation? Should developers pursue as much as they can of $150 or accept the status quo?
It doen't really matter if individuals continue to buy & sell used games to each other, or if developers get that slice of the used market. the important thing is having a viable business and games that can make money inc. the ones that only sell 50,000 copies (I'll give examples lower down in this post of why this is important.)
Digital distribution is a genuine means to an end. We can all see potential for it to be unscrupulously abused, as well as spot the flaws where the internet delivery infrastructure is unavailable. In terms of practicality I think it's clear that we need the next generation of high speed internet service to be rolled out to more people. Even then it's likely that other means would be needed to plug the gap for those people that don't have the bandwidth e.g. you could buy a game on STEAM or an equivalent using dial up internet to pay & get your account activated, but you might get the content files elsewhere e.g. content might be distributed to hard discs in vending machines where you can burn a copy to disc, or maybe copy to a USB3 stick.
Ultimately, if a balanced system can be found that:
Legally? yes without doubt, legislation and precedent says so.
Morally? almost certainly yes, but can we be 100% sure and prove it?
I think it's reasonable to question the law and consumer rights to see if they are still fair and relevant while society and technology evolves. The precedent for selling on a used book is good example: a book is written by one person with relatively limited financial risk. A game however requires a team of 30-60 people 2-4 years or more, it costs $5million-$15million in salaries alone! The 100yr old precedent might not be fit for contemporary and future intellectual property rights.
Personally I want to keep my right to use software as I see fit. If in future, if I buy the full version Windows 7 I want to be able to install my current copy of Vista on a secondary system or another family member's PC, except Microsoft say I can't - it doesn't matter if I've used Vista for 3 weeks, 3 months or 3 years. I spent my $200 on Vista, I want the law to protect my right to use as it I see for as long as I want. I don't see how the law or Microsoft can distinguish my secondary system from my father's, cousin's, girlfriend's or anyone else's. That being the case, if I deem it fit and necessary to take a financial contribution from a family member to facilitate an upgrade then I should be allowed to do so, by extension of that principle I should also be allowed to sell to whoever I damn well please!
I think you're objecting to the wrong thing for the right reason, but just for pure devilment: is it always, absolutely wrong to sell a limited, single user licence for the right to play a game?
You can see a film at the cinema or attend a concert or visit an art gallery, but you can't sell on the content. You can rent a movie from Sky Box Office using your satellite or cable box, it's still a pay per view just like the cinema. I don't feel cheated watching a film this way. I could circumvent the technology barrier to make re viewable copy, but it never occured to me do so. I know what to expect from the digitally delivered rental, so I willingly pay the price if it's a film I want to see.
The funny thing is find the concept of 'pay per play' for games absolutely horrifying and totally unacceptable, I felt that way even before seeing proposals I've seen make the games I've enjoyed many times more expensive using the concept!
iTunes & music downloads are seemingly very acceptable - I can't say I've noticed a mass outcry over the inability to sell 'used' music downloads. Why? It's only artificial DRM reasons blocking used sales?
I already pointed out that all ideas can be explored, indeed it is a deliberate technique of lateral thinking and creativity to use the obtuse and absurd as a starting point. When brainstorming there is no such thing as a bad idea, it's just a concept e.g. "we will make the wheels of our new car square" - nonsense if you take it literally, but the concept genuinely led to a very worthwhile new suspension system being developed.
The full context of the interview suggests Michael Capps was using the example as an extreme, specifically because for some developers the financial situation is so dire, and it still reads as just a brainstorm idea someone came up with, not a serious plan.
A game that sells tens of thousands instead hundreds of thousands is not necessarily rubbish, neither is it true that million sellers are good! Go to a website like Eurogamer or IGN and call up the reviews archives. Sort the lists by game score and you'll see dozens of 10/10 & 9/10 games that were commercial failures, probably hundreds of 8/10 games that were also commercial failures. A few examples off the top of my head: Ico, Crackdown, LocoRoco, Rez.
The flipside - take a mediocre (or rubbish) sports game that sells 20,000 in a given territory, repackage it with a famous sportsman on it & it will sell 200,000. Or buy big shelf displays in stores & you can get create a presence that sells product. It happens all the time, marketing is usually rubbish but done right it can be used to successfully sell buckets of shit. See the top 20 games, book, music and film in the run up to Christmas!
If the status quo continues, there will be ever more GOW and no Marvel v Capcom!
Old game downloads on console are websites like GOG.com are proving that it's possible to sell older games at low cost via digital distribution, so why would you want to protect the used market for physical media? Supply and demand pushes up the price of quality old games, but there is infinite supply using digital distribution and the price stays low - surely a win for the consumer?
It's pointless measuring percieved entertainment value in terms of how long it takes to complete a game, or how many time you can replay it. Do you judge films by how many minutes? or books by how many pages? Of course not.
There will always be a market for long, epic, challenging, 'hardcore' gamers' games. However, it's an absolute fact that the wider mass market wants shorter, easier games. Particularly the market that has disposable income, developers are competing for your time as well dollars! People with jobs and families really do want games that they can actually play and finish. I found this myself and with people I've worked with, including the sort of games who do still enjoy the old school 'hardcore' games. Even with things like Bioshock or Zelda there is a feeling that they just go on for too long.
Mostly it's school kids, students and low income consumers that complain about the trend, but naturally those aren't the groups that developers want to target.
"You must pay to fight the boss if you bought a used copy"
I think people should look at the article in it's original context, the 2nd half of the Michael Capps interview where the controversy originated:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/michael-capps-part-two
for completeness, here is the 1st part of ther interview:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/michael-capps-part-one
The comment is made in a trade journal, and it's about a very serious issue that that affects all gamers and developers. The wider media have picked up on a particular comment, taken it out of context and make a sensational story out of it - low rent 'journalism' at it's worst.
Importantly he said "I've talked to developers" proposing the ideas, well so what? I've been in meetings and discussions (with senior games development managers & publishers) where far more controverisal and inflammatory ideas are floated, it doesn't mean they will ever be implemented. It's a natural part of idea generation and development to seriously explore every idea in the hope of deriving useful, practical solutions to problems.
I've already pointed out that the 'pay to fight the final boss' idea is useless (most players don't get anywhere close finishing games anyway*) but if there is a development manager genuinely pursuing this idea then I would suggest it's an act of pure desperation or idiocy - Dilbert cartoons are funny because there are bad managers & decision makers out there who will take the mad ideas seriously, unfortunately they are sometimes the ones that talk to the press
*The immediate example that I can think of is Project Gotham Racing: Bizzare Creations radically altered the unlock structure to make the sequel far easier after the online data proved that the best cars remained locked to most players. This is a pattern frequently echoed in market research and just talking to the gamers/staff working in development. N.B. People reading forums like this, let alone posting, are the ones who tend to be 'hardcore' and finish every game they buy - we are very much the minority, freaks even!
Developers v retailers
Capps is questioned over who is the problem in the used game market, retailers or individuals? I'm less happy with his response here as he seems to be suggesting the entire used games are unacceptable in any form. I'd be willing to forgive a cagey response, he is president of Epic games. A rant directed at retailers who are still important & necessary business partners would not be clever!
I'm not worried about upsetting anyone so I'll say it: retailers are the 'enemy'
Traditional retail is very old and stuck with it's methods, the business model demands a big markup to cover the costs of doing business (staff salary, rates, tax etc) as well as make a profit. Markup used to be 2-5x wholesale price on many products so it was 'easy' to make a profit. Now that the markup is only 0.3-0.4 it's hard to make a profit at all, let alone make enough profit to justify all the effort. For retailers, they had to change the business model. Used games enabled them to do that and get back to the 2-5x markup.
It's easy to understand why retailers have done this, there is no point getting sentimental or emotional about it - we want to have a free market so retailers absolutely have the right to make the business decisions that they feel will keep them viable. However the retailers new business model has completely screwed over the developers and publishers, and has a negative impact on consumer choice and the quality of games available.
Until recently retailers have been in a position of strength as the only consumer outlet, they've refused to share used game profits with developers (not that I think there is any obligation for them to do so) and there is far less shelf space in stores for new games, placing a big restriction on choice of games available. Retailers don't make enough profit from new anyway so they only want the blockbuster titles: Gears of War, FIFA, Madden, GTA, Need for Speed etc that are very likely to sell.
Gamestop et al. have made it really convenient to trade games, and so grown the 2nd market massively. Hooray for consumers? Possibly not, e.g. there are lots of complaints on this forum about Epic & their "shit games" but if these are the only type new games retailers want to sell then ultimately these are the only games that will be available used.
Developer response and individual rights.
It's a free market, if retailers have fucked developers it's time for the developers to step up and change their own business model - without screwing the consumer rights of individual! For sure there are some money men who can only see $$$$$$$s and they want to stop used sales altogether, but you should always remember that most development staff are gamers and there is internal oppositon to things that are bad for the gamer. When things go too far in favour of the blinkered money men, hopefully the law steps in to redress the balance (fingers crossed the anti DRM lawsuits against EA are successful and they are forced to give consumers a better deal)
I think developers can change the business model, and mostly it comes down to cutting out the middle man i.e. retailers! What we do know for sure is that used games sell multiple times, if there is $30 to be made each time a game sells (say 5 times typically) first question is: do you want that $150 turnover split between developers & consumers? or do you think that retailers should continue to to keep taking $120 out of the equation? Should developers pursue as much as they can of $150 or accept the status quo?
It doen't really matter if individuals continue to buy & sell used games to each other, or if developers get that slice of the used market. the important thing is having a viable business and games that can make money inc. the ones that only sell 50,000 copies (I'll give examples lower down in this post of why this is important.)
Digital distribution is a genuine means to an end. We can all see potential for it to be unscrupulously abused, as well as spot the flaws where the internet delivery infrastructure is unavailable. In terms of practicality I think it's clear that we need the next generation of high speed internet service to be rolled out to more people. Even then it's likely that other means would be needed to plug the gap for those people that don't have the bandwidth e.g. you could buy a game on STEAM or an equivalent using dial up internet to pay & get your account activated, but you might get the content files elsewhere e.g. content might be distributed to hard discs in vending machines where you can burn a copy to disc, or maybe copy to a USB3 stick.
Ultimately, if a balanced system can be found that:
- enables developers to sell for a higher return i.e. direct to the consumer.
- the law continues to protect the individuals right to sell on licence keys.
- maybe permits developers the right to a service charge fee for the transfer of a licence key.
Legally? yes without doubt, legislation and precedent says so.
Morally? almost certainly yes, but can we be 100% sure and prove it?
I think it's reasonable to question the law and consumer rights to see if they are still fair and relevant while society and technology evolves. The precedent for selling on a used book is good example: a book is written by one person with relatively limited financial risk. A game however requires a team of 30-60 people 2-4 years or more, it costs $5million-$15million in salaries alone! The 100yr old precedent might not be fit for contemporary and future intellectual property rights.
Personally I want to keep my right to use software as I see fit. If in future, if I buy the full version Windows 7 I want to be able to install my current copy of Vista on a secondary system or another family member's PC, except Microsoft say I can't - it doesn't matter if I've used Vista for 3 weeks, 3 months or 3 years. I spent my $200 on Vista, I want the law to protect my right to use as it I see for as long as I want. I don't see how the law or Microsoft can distinguish my secondary system from my father's, cousin's, girlfriend's or anyone else's. That being the case, if I deem it fit and necessary to take a financial contribution from a family member to facilitate an upgrade then I should be allowed to do so, by extension of that principle I should also be allowed to sell to whoever I damn well please!
I think you're objecting to the wrong thing for the right reason, but just for pure devilment: is it always, absolutely wrong to sell a limited, single user licence for the right to play a game?
You can see a film at the cinema or attend a concert or visit an art gallery, but you can't sell on the content. You can rent a movie from Sky Box Office using your satellite or cable box, it's still a pay per view just like the cinema. I don't feel cheated watching a film this way. I could circumvent the technology barrier to make re viewable copy, but it never occured to me do so. I know what to expect from the digitally delivered rental, so I willingly pay the price if it's a film I want to see.
The funny thing is find the concept of 'pay per play' for games absolutely horrifying and totally unacceptable, I felt that way even before seeing proposals I've seen make the games I've enjoyed many times more expensive using the concept!
iTunes & music downloads are seemingly very acceptable - I can't say I've noticed a mass outcry over the inability to sell 'used' music downloads. Why? It's only artificial DRM reasons blocking used sales?
I already pointed out that all ideas can be explored, indeed it is a deliberate technique of lateral thinking and creativity to use the obtuse and absurd as a starting point. When brainstorming there is no such thing as a bad idea, it's just a concept e.g. "we will make the wheels of our new car square" - nonsense if you take it literally, but the concept genuinely led to a very worthwhile new suspension system being developed.
The full context of the interview suggests Michael Capps was using the example as an extreme, specifically because for some developers the financial situation is so dire, and it still reads as just a brainstorm idea someone came up with, not a serious plan.
A game that sells tens of thousands instead hundreds of thousands is not necessarily rubbish, neither is it true that million sellers are good! Go to a website like Eurogamer or IGN and call up the reviews archives. Sort the lists by game score and you'll see dozens of 10/10 & 9/10 games that were commercial failures, probably hundreds of 8/10 games that were also commercial failures. A few examples off the top of my head: Ico, Crackdown, LocoRoco, Rez.
The flipside - take a mediocre (or rubbish) sports game that sells 20,000 in a given territory, repackage it with a famous sportsman on it & it will sell 200,000. Or buy big shelf displays in stores & you can get create a presence that sells product. It happens all the time, marketing is usually rubbish but done right it can be used to successfully sell buckets of shit. See the top 20 games, book, music and film in the run up to Christmas!
If the status quo continues, there will be ever more GOW and no Marvel v Capcom!
Old game downloads on console are websites like GOG.com are proving that it's possible to sell older games at low cost via digital distribution, so why would you want to protect the used market for physical media? Supply and demand pushes up the price of quality old games, but there is infinite supply using digital distribution and the price stays low - surely a win for the consumer?
It's pointless measuring percieved entertainment value in terms of how long it takes to complete a game, or how many time you can replay it. Do you judge films by how many minutes? or books by how many pages? Of course not.
There will always be a market for long, epic, challenging, 'hardcore' gamers' games. However, it's an absolute fact that the wider mass market wants shorter, easier games. Particularly the market that has disposable income, developers are competing for your time as well dollars! People with jobs and families really do want games that they can actually play and finish. I found this myself and with people I've worked with, including the sort of games who do still enjoy the old school 'hardcore' games. Even with things like Bioshock or Zelda there is a feeling that they just go on for too long.
Mostly it's school kids, students and low income consumers that complain about the trend, but naturally those aren't the groups that developers want to target.
You don't think bandwidth is a middle man?
It would be wrong to say otherwise, but it's way cheaper than bricks & mortar retail! and while the trend for retail costs continues to go up, technology will bring the costs of bandwidth down, widening the gap even further. Who knows how things will look when we're playing PS5/6 and Xbox1080 (or whatever console brands survive that long)
I just thought, Nintendo are the most profitable right now - if the console tech arms race slows because of their example, then there might be less demand for bandwidth than we think.
Bandwidth is NOT a middleman. Bandwidth is not even human.
The ISP providing the bandwidth however, may or may not be.For digital distribution, the middlemen would be things like Steam or Impulse.
Bandwidth is more like the road you take to get to the store; not a middleman.