Do developers deserve a cut of used games sales?

[octoberasian]

Read this first before voting:
http://www.neowin.net/news/anonymous-xbox-engineer-explains-drm-and-microsofts-xbox-one-intentions

First: Take it with a grain of salt.
Two: It does go into detail regarding why Microsoft is pushing for restricted used game sales so there "might" be some truth in this engineer's rant.
Third: What's everyone opinion regarding this? Especially after reading this article posted on [H], the logic behind all of this on how I understand it is as follows:

Prices for games are high because players are reselling games.

Since games are being resold, new players are buying the used games and not the new games.

Once the used games are sold to a player, the profits go to the retailer, not the publisher.

More used game sales than new game sales of a game are not helping the developers pay for the development costs.

Because development costs are high, publisher finds ways around this by releasing an incomplete game, releasing DLCs periodically to make up for the costs, and charging high prices of the game.​

My friend and I have been debating this question since Microsoft detailed how used games and games will be handled on the Xbox One. We haven't reached a consensus or agreement yet on whether used game sales are hurting developers and whether they deserve a cut of each used game sale. My friend does believe that used game sales are hurting developers and publishers. In her opinion, no profit from each sale is going to the developer, and thus game prices are high and that lack of profits going to developers prevents them from spending more money to make better games. Therefore, we get poor ports or poor games due to lack of funding.

In my mind, they're not looking at the broader picture here-- that bad, broken, and incomplete games are not going to sell well. It sounds a lot like they're trying to find a scapegoat for lower game sales and thereby lower profits. The best scapegoat, it seems, they want to blame are used game sales and not themselves. More often than not, they will also blame piracy of their games for lower profits.

I'd also like to hear opinions from actual game developers, even if you just develop entirely for the PC. Do used sales, outside of piracy, hurt a developer's profits and in turn prevents them from funding newer, better games?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reposted from Pastebin if you cannot access Neowin or Pastbin from work:

Spoiler: Xbox One Engineer

>The thing is we suck at telling the story. The whole point of the DRM switch from disc based to cloud based is to kill disc swapping, scratched discs, bringing discs to friends house, trade-ins for shit value with nothign going back to developers, and high game costs. If you want games cheaper then 59.99, you have to limit used games somehow. Steam's model requires a limited used game model.


>The thing is, the DRM is really really similar to steam... You can login anywhere and play your games, anyone in your house can play with the family xbox. The only diff is steam you have to sign in before playing, and Xbox does it automatically at night for you (once per 24 hours)

>It's a long tail strategy, just like steam. Steam had it's growing pains at the beginning with all it's drm shit as well. [...] For digital downloads steam had no real competition at the time, they were competing against boxed sales. At the time people were pretty irate about steam, (on 4chan too...) It was only once they had a digital marketplace with DRM that was locked down to prevent sharing that they could do super discounted shit.

>Think about it, on steam you get a game for the true cost of the game, 5$-30$. On a console you have to pay for that PLUS any additional licenses for when you sell / trade / borrow / etc. If the developer / publisher can't get it on additional licenses (like steam), then they charge the first person more. [...] If we say "Hey publishers, you limit game to 39.99, we ensure every license transfer you get 10$, gamestop gets 20$" that is a decent model... Microsoft gets a license fee on first and subsequent game purchases, compared to just first now? That's a revenue increase.

>Competition is the best man, it helps drive both to new heights. See technology from the Cold War. If we had no USSR, we'd be way worse off today. TLDR: Bring it on Steam

2/4

>Yeah we passed that around the office at Xbox. Most of us were like "Well played Sony, Well played". That being said they are just riding the hype train of ZOMG THEY ARE TRYING TO FUCK US FOR NO REASON. Without actually thinking about how convienent it would be for the majority of the time to not find that disc your brother didn't put back... [...] just simpleminded people not seeing the bigger picture. Some PS4 viral team made them all "U TOOK R DISCS" and they hiveminded.

>Everyone and their mother complains about how gamestop fucks them on their trade ins, getting 5$ for their used games. We come in trying to find a way to take money out of gamestop, and put some in developers and get you possibly cheaper games and everyone bitches at MS. Well, if you want the @#$@ing from Gamestop, go play PS4.

>The goal is to move to digital downloads, but Gamestop, Walmart, Target, Amazon are KIND OF FUCKING ENTRENCHED in the industry. They have a lot of power, and the shift has to be gradual. Long term goal is steam for consoles. [...] If you always want to stay with what you have, then keep current consoles, or a PS4. We're TRYING to move the industry forwards towards digital distribution... it'sa bumpy road

>Publishers have enourmous power. Microsoft is trying to balance between consumer delight, and publisher wishes. If we cave to far in either direction you have a non-starting product. WiiU goes too far to consumer, you have no 3rd party support to shake a stick at. PS4 is status-quo. XB1 is trying to push some things, at the expense of others. We have a vision, we'll see if it works in the coming years

>Living room transformation. We want to own the living room. Every living room TV with an XBox on input one. It's the thing that gives the signal to your TV, everything is secondary. The future, where games, TV, internet telephony, all that shit happens magically on some huge ass screen with hand / voice gestures... That's our goal.


3/4

>Google TV + PS4 + Minority report level gestures, that combined with a sick second screen experience (which is really hot for TV, I know I know.. tv tv tv tv tv... but it's fucking sick when you have it). Games will be the same, there are more exclusives to MS then PS atm, and Kinect 2 makes Kinect 1 look like a childs toy.

>By default it's on, listening for "Xbox On". You can turn it off tho, and turn the console like OFF off. OFF off is required for Germany / other countries that require it (no vampire appliances) [...] It has to be plugged in for the console to post. You can turn off everything it does from the settings. Think of it like airplane mode for the iPhone. You can't just unplug the cellular radio, but you can turn it off.

>Instead of 10mins, is 24hrs for your console, and 1 or 2 at a friends house. Really the majority of people have a speck of internet at least once a day. And if you don't. Don't buy an Xbox 1. Just like if you didn't have a broadband connection don't get Live, and if you don't have an HDTV the 360 isn't that great for you either. New tech, new req. This allows us to do cool shit when we can assume things like you have a kinect, you have internet, etc.

>Current plan is basically you're fucked after 24 hours. Yeah... I know. Kind of sucks. I believe they will probably revist the time period and / or find a diff way to "call in" to ensure you haven't sold your license to gamestop or something... but there is no plan YET. I'm hoping the change it, but I don't work on that so I don't have much influence there /sigh

>If the power goes out you ain't playing shit. I'm assuming you mean the internet goes out but you have power for TV and Xbox. Yes, You're fucked for single player games. Again, that's the PoR (Plan of record), but I expect it to change after the e3 clusterfuck

>What fee? There is no fee to play your games at your friends house. Never has, never will. Even x360 digital downloads could do that.


4/4

>The cloud capabilities is the shit they like the most. We basically made a huge cloud compute shit and made it free. What people are doing with it is kind of cool. THe original intention was to get all the Multiplayer servers not requiring 3rd party costs (Like EA shutting down game servers to cut costs), as well as taking all the games that servers hosted by the clients (Halo, etc), and have all that compute done in the cloud allowing more CPU cycles for gameplay. That will really expand what developers can do. Anything that doesn't need per frame calculation and can handle 100ms delays can be shifted to the cloud. That's huge.

>SmartGlass + IE is going to be pretty freaking sweet. 1 finger cursor, 2 finger direct manip. Basically if you think of a laptop trackpad where your phone/ slate is the trackpad and the monitor is your TV... it's that. The tech is there, just needs to be applied. There is some really cool shit going on with Petra + controllers that pairs people with controllers. So if person with controller two trades controlers with controller 1, their profiles magically switch. It's sick. What does this matter? Now if you lean left/right it knows which person is leaning, even if 4 people are all int he same room. It's awesome.

>New service using Azure for cloud compute. Allows developers to not use clients for hosting multiplayer servers, or other tasks that do not require per frame calcuations. It's pretty sweet.

>Honestly, if you care about anything other then pure games AT ALL. Xbox 1 > PS4. If all you do is play games, and nothing else, PS4.

This was all from the Microsoft engineer that was on /b/ last night.

>It's not worth my time to prove it, or risk my Job. I work in Studio A, 40th ave in Redmond, Wa. The thai place in the studio cafeteria has double punch wednesdays. Go ahead and call them and verify if you want.

 

[zamardii]

Here's the thing about this debate... If we as gamers and consumers have a fundamental problem with what Microsoft is doing with the Xbox One and used games and 24 hour verification checks then we have to accept that once the game is sold from it's original location then that means that the sale has been completed and the publisher/developer has made their money. End of story. The fact is that once you trade-in a game at Gamestop, you essentially sold that game to Gamestop which is no different than selling the game to someone on Ebay or to your friends. The name of the person/institution you sold your personal property to has no bearing or difference on the transaction.

Used game sales do not hurt anyone. Period.

Here are a couple similar examples:

If I buy a gun at a pawn shop, do the gun manufacturers deserve any part of that sale? No.
If I buy a used car at a dealership, does the car manufacturer deserve a part of that sale? No.

If we maintain this distinction then the issue is moot. Personal property is personal property and should not carry any arbitrary limitations on it after initial point of sale.

 

[octoberasian]

Here's the thing about this debate... If we as gamers and consumers have a fundamental problem with what Microsoft is doing with the Xbox One and used games and 24 hour verification checks then we have to accept that once the game is sold from it's original location then that means that the sale has been completed and the publisher/developer has made their money. End of story. The fact is that once you trade-in a game at Gamestop, you essentially sold that game to Gamestop which is no different than selling the game to someone on Ebay or to your friends. The name of the person/institution you sold your personal property to has no bearing or difference on the transaction.

Used game sales do not hurt anyone. Period.

Here are a couple similar examples:

If I buy a gun at a pawn shop, do the gun manufacturers deserve any part of that sale? No.
If I buy a used car at a dealership, does the car manufacturer deserve a part of that sale? No.

If we maintain this distinction then the issue is moot. Personal property is personal property and should not carry any arbitrary limitations on it after initial point of sale.

Exactly!

I've said it before on this forum many times and I'll say it again: First sale doctrine.

The company/copyright owner has no say on what and how their product is resold after they make an initial sale to the first owner. The first owner can do whatever he/she pleases with that product because they physically own the product, not the copyright holder. The copyright holder only has ownership on the item's name and brand, nothing more.

Ford doesn't tell me I should tell them that I'm selling my 2001 Ford Escape and that the dealer I resold it too needs to send 10% of the sale of my Escape back to Ford HQ, right?

Why should Microsoft, EA, Ubisoft and other game developers do the same? It makes no fucking sense. They sold the game to a retailer, retailer resells it to me, profits go to the publisher and the developer, the rest to the retailer, and I end up with a game I can do whatever I want with it after I'm done playing it.

That's how it should always work.

 

[RaZoRbLaDeD]

HELL no.

 

[piscian18]

Yeah yeah we want to be just like Steam. THEN STOP BEING DICKHOLES. Every game on steam is my personally property guaranteed by Valve in a public statement by somebody that actually still has a decent reputation.

Sterling commented that No major publisher has ever given anything back. They always push for more and more greed. Sure sure kill used games. Go ahead watch the prices see what happen. Microsoft is not your fucking friend.

 

[zamardii]

For some reason I can't stop watching this.

 

[LeviathanZERO]

No, fuck off with that shit.
First sale doctrine. Microsoft and those dev's defending that shit (like Cliffy B) can go a eat a box of dicks. Fucking theft is what that is.
Make zamardii's post bigger, for full effect.

 

[Conker]

There is a lot of money to be made in used games. I wouldn't say its the same as piracy as no dime was collected and no dime was lost. Not the same as used game sales as money was exchanged in the process. I would like used games to be available like everyone else but we all know it won't last forever. With games and prices going up more and more they will just eliminate or make you buy a cdkey eventually to activate the game like the pc. Its inevitable.

 

[hity645]

Used game sales is no different than anything else being sold used.

I wonder if I can start to charge these companies storage fees for having "their" game sit on my shelf that I bought.

 

[Kaash]

Umm heck no. If i sell my TV do i have to give a % to Samsung?

 

[GoldenTiger]

[*IMG]http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/didnt-read.gif[/IMG]
Microsoft is not your fucking friend.

Neither is Lord Valve. What, you thought they loved you?

 

[Marcdaddy]

Is it possible for someone to sue Microsoft when there ability to resell a game is hindered and try to use the First sale Doctrine? Even if the part is going to lose it could create a huge national backlash and negative publicity. Let's get TMZ on board.

 

[RadXge]

These are Hard Facts
1) Used games cannibalize the sales of new games
2) Development of video games cost a lot of money (especially AAAs)

 

[pxc]

option z: just plain no, without the remarks about piracy, a totally separate and somewhat valid issue, thrown in.

 

[Serpent]

Do developers get anything from sales? Don't thye just get a set rate, and the publishers get the sales profit? Maybe some royalties, but that probably isn't that much... maybe.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

These are Hard Facts
1) Used games cannibalize the sales of new games
2) Development of video games cost a lot of money (especially AAAs)

Did you read any response in this thread?

I could just as easily say:
1) Used cars cannibalize the sale of new cars.
2) Development (and massive construction investment as well as material investment) cost a lot of money (especially all of them since they all must comply to regulatory bodies and meet crash standards).

The game industry doesn't come close to having it hard compared to others.

 

[Papa Geo]

Exactly!

I've said it before on this forum many times and I'll say it again: First sale doctrine.

The company/copyright owner has no say on what and how their product is resold after they make an initial sale to the first owner. The first owner can do whatever he/she pleases with that product because they physically own the product, not the copyright holder. The copyright holder only has ownership on the item's name and brand, nothing more.

Ford doesn't tell me I should tell them that I'm selling my 2001 Ford Escape and that the dealer I resold it too needs to send 10% of the sale of my Escape back to Ford HQ, right?

Why should Microsoft, EA, Ubisoft and other game developers do the same? It makes no fucking sense. They sold the game to a retailer, retailer resells it to me, profits go to the publisher and the developer, the rest to the retailer, and I end up with a game I can do whatever I want with it after I'm done playing it.

That's how it should always work.

To play a little bit of devils advocate, since physical property deteriorates over time (eg, used cars), should publishers implement a degradation process to physical discs?

 

[atrance5]

More used game sales than new game sales of a game are not helping the developers pay for the development costs.

Outsource development to developing countries.

Witcher 1/2/3 is Made in Poland after all

 

[Nostrovia]

I'm primarily a PC gamer, but when I had dreamcast and playstation I never really traded games in. I always had kept what I had bought. So I guess I'm really indifferent. Whatever I buy for PC, digital or physical I couldn't trade in anyway, nor would I really.

 

[bigdogchris]

#1 - I don't ask nor want games with huge, bloated budgets. If they choose to do this then fail to sell enough copies, they cannot learn a lesson and consumers should not be punished for a publishers bad planning.
#2 - I don't see a problem with letting friends borrow the games you bought. It's no different than letting someone one borrow your car. Should GM get a cut of every used Chevy?
#3 - I will not support a move to digital distribution until I'm either no longer into gaming (thus not care) or they create systems where you can 'check out' or sell your digital copies to other people. It can happen they just choose not to do it.

I'm not denying there are some pluses of moving to a Steam like system. Unfortunately there are just as many or more negatives attached to it. For one, customers no longer feel like they have full control over their purchase.

 

[RandemTox]

I’m writing this as both a developer and a studio owner.

No, developers do not deserve a cut of used game sales – or any other used software sales.

Certainly I can understand that it sucks to see a third-party making money by reselling your game, but those third-parties are providing a service (and taking a risk) in buying and holding those titles based on speculation of being able to resell them for more than they paid.

If developers/studios/publishers want a piece of that pie, then they need to offer a similar service. It’s that simple. Make it so that any user can sell their game back to the developer/studio/publisher, and have those used copies be available for others to buy at appropriately discounted rates.

GameStop (scumbags though they are) make this easy – it’s harder without a storefront, though Amazon seems to manage okay. Of course it’s easier still with digital downloads.

…

Microsoft and its engineers can claim whatever they want. They already have total license control over XBLA content … and a brief review this morning doesn’t show any of the 100+ games I’ve bought there over the last 7+ years having dropped in price AT ALL. Yes … stuff I bought 7 years ago is the same price today as it was when I bought it. So, you’ll have to forgive my skepticism regarding the notion that this is all being done for “our” benefit.

 

[guitarguy6]

I think that they do deserve something but it should be paid to them by gamestop type places and not consumers. If gamestop is selling a used game for $55 when new it's $60 they can give the developers $5-10.

 

[Sp33dFr33k]

You could argue that anything sold second-hand is hurting someone. Why not ban selling used cars, or appliances, electronics, CD's, movies, etc.

Not allowing the sale of used games is a ridiculous idea, I hate the fact that I can't sell my Steam games but considering how much I pay for them (only buy on sale) it's not a big deal. A $60 game is a big deal.

 

[LeviathanZERO]

You could argue that anything sold second-hand is hurting someone. Why not ban selling used cars, or appliances, electronics, CD's, movies, etc.

EXACTLY.

The fact that this is a discussion, the fact that a corporation thought that they could force this and get away with it, is just plain insulting, disgusting, and criminal. At this point, for pushing this, I hope Xbone tanks and MS leaves the market. That is how insulting this is, I want them to disappear from my hobby/market. Disgusting.

 

[Jerome36]

Used game sales is no different than anything else being sold used.

Exactly! I couldn't agree more.

 

[demingo]

I know I'm going to get flamed for this but I really want you guys to logically think through this a bit.

Comparing used games to used cars, guns, etc shows a supreme lack of understanding on the topic. A physical item such as a car, gun, etc experiences loss of performance from wear and tear. It loses it's ability to function just like the new product. For example, if I buy a car with 30K miles on it, while it's still fairly new, I am already incurring some costs as routine maintenance such as tires and brakes are going to sneak up on me soon. The quality of the used car is not the same. It is different with a game, if I buy a used game, the game plays just as well as a new copy. I do not lose performance, I do not lose function. This is especially true in the case of the new consoles where games are run of the HDD so the actual disk experiences almost NO wear since it is only read once to copy the data to the HDD.

The other part of this argument is first sale doctrine. You may sell your copy of a protected work. This is also an important legal fundamental as it deals with the uniqueness of intellectual property vs physical property (another reason the car comparison shows lack of understanding). I completely agree with the notion of first sale and support it as part of our copyright law.

The final portion of this debate has to deal with the cost of making a AAA game. Especially with the next gen when there is even more production expected the cost of making a top end title will easily break $20 million and start to approach $100 million more often. This is simply an insane amount of money to invest. People also need to realize that video games now are CHEAPER than they ever have been. Genesis games were $49.99 with some larger carts (such as PS4) reaching $79.99. The development cost back then for a top end game was about $5 million. Compare that to a top end cost now of $100 million. So games now cost 2000% more to develop but publishers at $59.99 are only charging 20% more. That doesn't even keep up with inflation. $49.99 is about the equivalent of $76.25 now. This means, yes, our hobby has actually gotten cheaper.

In the end we need to satisfy two opposing forces. The increased development cost/lower price of games against the first sale doctrine. Part of the increased cost is negated by the fact that there is a larger audience. But this is not a solution. We see so many sequels and rehashes because publishers are only willing to invest into safe bets. No one wants to invest $100 million and in the end be in the negative. The videogame industry is a business like any other. It must turn a profit to keep pumping out the games we want.

I think the best solution to satisfy both worlds is a straight up price increase. As customers we MUST retain our right to first sale. Publishers MUST see a return on investment. By increasing the cost of games by $10-20 it would satisfy both needs. I know some here will say gaming is too expensive and will just rage at the idea of an increase. But remember, the only way to get AAA titles which are not just another CoD clone is to ensure that publishers can turn a profit when they take a chance. If you create something unique, you wont have the 10 Million in sales of CoD, you so need to make that game profitable with slower sales, so price must increase.

P.S. Just remember before you comment, even at $79.99 gaming is a far cheaper form of entertainment when you look at cost per hour than almost anything else.

 

[Spidey329]

I know I'm going to get flamed for this but I really want you guys to logically think through this a bit.

Comparing used games to used cars, guns, etc shows a supreme lack of understanding on the topic. A physical item such as a car, gun, etc experiences loss of performance from wear and tear. It loses it's ability to function just like the new product. For example, if I buy a car with 30K miles on it, while it's still fairly new, I am already incurring some costs as routine maintenance such as tires and brakes are going to sneak up on me soon. The quality of the used car is not the same. It is different with a game, if I buy a used game, the game plays just as well as a new copy. I do not lose performance, I do not lose function. This is especially true in the case of the new consoles where games are run of the HDD so the actual disk experiences almost NO wear since it is only read once to copy the data to the HDD.

The other part of this argument is first sale doctrine. You may sell your copy of a protected work. This is also an important legal fundamental as it deals with the uniqueness of intellectual property vs physical property (another reason the car comparison shows lack of understanding). I completely agree with the notion of first sale and support it as part of our copyright law.

The final portion of this debate has to deal with the cost of making a AAA game. Especially with the next gen when there is even more production expected the cost of making a top end title will easily break $20 million and start to approach $100 million more often. This is simply an insane amount of money to invest. People also need to realize that video games now are CHEAPER than they ever have been. Genesis games were $49.99 with some larger carts (such as PS4) reaching $79.99. The development cost back then for a top end game was about $5 million. Compare that to a top end cost now of $100 million. So games now cost 2000% more to develop but publishers at $59.99 are only charging 20% more. That doesn't even keep up with inflation. $49.99 is about the equivalent of $76.25 now. This means, yes, our hobby has actually gotten cheaper.

In the end we need to satisfy two opposing forces. The increased development cost/lower price of games against the first sale doctrine. Part of the increased cost is negated by the fact that there is a larger audience. But this is not a solution. We see so many sequels and rehashes because publishers are only willing to invest into safe bets. No one wants to invest $100 million and in the end be in the negative. The videogame industry is a business like any other. It must turn a profit to keep pumping out the games we want.

I think the best solution to satisfy both worlds is a straight up price increase. As customers we MUST retain our right to first sale. Publishers MUST see a return on investment. By increasing the cost of games by $10-20 it would satisfy both needs. I know some here will say gaming is too expensive and will just rage at the idea of an increase. But remember, the only way to get AAA titles which are not just another CoD clone is to ensure that publishers can turn a profit when they take a chance. If you create something unique, you wont have the 10 Million in sales of CoD, you so need to make that game profitable with slower sales, so price must increase.

P.S. Just remember before you comment, even at $79.99 gaming is a far cheaper form of entertainment when you look at cost per hour than almost anything else.

It's the same thing with movies/music/software. You're purchasing the license to access the copyrighted works. You are not buying a copy of the game/etc. - because of this, the license has restrictions applied. When you buy a car, you are buying a physical object.

I'd say it's more like leasing a car. You don't own it, but you and you only can do what you want within reason.

If you obtain the game by dvd, you can resale that disc. But you normally can't transfer that license, a new one is required. Hence the evolution of activation keys.

Don't have to like it, but it's the way things work now.

 

[LeviathanZERO]

I know I'm going to get flamed for this but I really want you guys to logically think through this a bit.

Originally Posted by hity645
Used game sales is no different than anything else being sold used.

End of discussion. Any excuse past that point is greed and stealing.
There is nothing else to think about. Sorry. Failed business models isn't an excuse to justify taking back from customer's that have already paid you for the product.

 

[rudy]

I think all gamers should want publishers to do away with used games or to get a cut of used games. Really though it should just be do away with used games.

Now lets talk about why.

Publishers make games certain ways to make money. But because of used, pirated, or borrowed games, they do not have an accurate sense of how their game is performing or is liked. People here spend half their time bitching about how games suck now days. Well if publishers start getting money from most or all the games then what will happen is that publishers will DIRECTLY see their own success or failure and be able to react to it to make games better or worse as they please in the future.

As it is now, say you develop a single player game, you are tempted to make a multiplayer and waste time coding that because MP is the only way to get some sort of decent DRM out of a game, or temp people to keep the copy once the game is finished. This is a form of preventing used games. Second the best chance you have at knowing if a game is popular or not is actually to wait till you produce the second game. Because if a game is growing in popularity lots of people are passing the game around after they finish it. ANd you will not see much fruits of your labor until you produce the second game and see increased sales.

The used game market is a market you can never beat, if you lower the price of a new game, the used games just drop $5 below that. So publishers don't try.

Bascially for the good of games you should be willing to put up with lack of used game sales. I know this is unpopular but I am sure in the end it will work out for the better.

Of course I am the same person who thinks that a lot of games like COD and other primarily MP games should move to a subscription system. People don't like it when I say that but because of that instead what we get is tons minor updates labeled as new games, it would be better for everyone who plays if we all had the same game with all the expansions and everything to play together. It would mean better match making, more better servers, and more support.

Everything that sucks in the world of gaming is the directly result of customers being too cheap to pay for what they get. And that includes higher prices.

Finally any proposal has to have a chance of working. If you cant enforce it, it wont work. And that is what MS tried to do, make something that was enforceable.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I know I'm going to get flamed for this but I really want you guys to logically think through this a bit.

Comparing used games to used cars, guns, etc shows a supreme lack of understanding on the topic. A physical item such as a car, gun, etc experiences loss of performance from wear and tear. It loses it's ability to function just like the new product. For example, if I buy a car with 30K miles on it, while it's still fairly new, I am already incurring some costs as routine maintenance such as tires and brakes are going to sneak up on me soon. The quality of the used car is not the same. It is different with a game, if I buy a used game, the game plays just as well as a new copy. I do not lose performance, I do not lose function. This is especially true in the case of the new consoles where games are run of the HDD so the actual disk experiences almost NO wear since it is only read once to copy the data to the HDD.

The other part of this argument is first sale doctrine. You may sell your copy of a protected work. This is also an important legal fundamental as it deals with the uniqueness of intellectual property vs physical property (another reason the car comparison shows lack of understanding). I completely agree with the notion of first sale and support it as part of our copyright law.

The final portion of this debate has to deal with the cost of making a AAA game. Especially with the next gen when there is even more production expected the cost of making a top end title will easily break $20 million and start to approach $100 million more often. This is simply an insane amount of money to invest. People also need to realize that video games now are CHEAPER than they ever have been. Genesis games were $49.99 with some larger carts (such as PS4) reaching $79.99. The development cost back then for a top end game was about $5 million. Compare that to a top end cost now of $100 million. So games now cost 2000% more to develop but publishers at $59.99 are only charging 20% more. That doesn't even keep up with inflation. $49.99 is about the equivalent of $76.25 now. This means, yes, our hobby has actually gotten cheaper.

In the end we need to satisfy two opposing forces. The increased development cost/lower price of games against the first sale doctrine. Part of the increased cost is negated by the fact that there is a larger audience. But this is not a solution. We see so many sequels and rehashes because publishers are only willing to invest into safe bets. No one wants to invest $100 million and in the end be in the negative. The videogame industry is a business like any other. It must turn a profit to keep pumping out the games we want.

I think the best solution to satisfy both worlds is a straight up price increase. As customers we MUST retain our right to first sale. Publishers MUST see a return on investment. By increasing the cost of games by $10-20 it would satisfy both needs. I know some here will say gaming is too expensive and will just rage at the idea of an increase. But remember, the only way to get AAA titles which are not just another CoD clone is to ensure that publishers can turn a profit when they take a chance. If you create something unique, you wont have the 10 Million in sales of CoD, you so need to make that game profitable with slower sales, so price must increase.

P.S. Just remember before you comment, even at $79.99 gaming is a far cheaper form of entertainment when you look at cost per hour than almost anything else.

I think you also lack understanding about software in general.

Software goes down in value and depreciates just like anything else. Nobody is interested in a copy of NHL '99. No one is interested in buying a copy of Windows 3.1. Arguing that a car depreciates or slowly declines in function is ridiculous.

Also the argument that developers are spending $100M and worried about getting their money back isn't an argument either. That to me states that they are bad at making games, bad at marketing games, don't know how to invest, or a myriad of other issues. If any other company has $100M to invest into a product for their company or organization and they fail to monetize it well, do we blame the consumer or blame the company? When the American car industry decided to have planned obsolescence and all the consumers decided to jump ship, whose fault was that? Also, how is gaming software different from any other piece of software? Apple (Logic, Aperture, OSX, whatever), Microsoft (Office), Adobe (Creative Suite), VMware, etc all are fine. (Granted Adobe is trying to do something annoying, that I hope bites them in the ass...)

Throwing stacks of cash at a game doesn't even make sense. You know what game I'm looking forward to and will day 1 buy? Wasteland 2. What's the budget on that? $1M. Don't let any corporate fool tell you what it takes to make a game. They are making a decision on what they want to spend and put into it. Lots of money doesn't make a good game. Just like lots of money doesn't make a good movie. If a $250M movie flops at the box office, whose fault is that? Is it the price of the tickets? Is it the consumer? Is it pirating? Or is it just a bad movie?

Increasing prices doesn't solve the problem either. If you learn about business and marketing you'll find out that there is a concept called price elasticity. You may think that raising the price on games is the solution until you lose over half of your buyers. Games are still a luxury item to people, most games are still purchased by parents and not adult hardcore gamers. These numbers that they arrive at to sell are not arbitrary. They can only price things up to the point that the market will bare.

I think all gamers should want publishers to do away with used games or to get a cut of used games. Really though it should just be do away with used games.

Now lets talk about why.

Publishers make games certain ways to make money. But because of used, pirated, or borrowed games, they do not have an accurate sense of how their game is performing or is liked. People here spend half their time bitching about how games suck now days. Well if publishers start getting money from most or all the games then what will happen is that publishers will DIRECTLY see their own success or failure and be able to react to it to make games better or worse as they please in the future.

That's like saying, Toyota doesn't know how well it's doing because people are buying used 4 year old cars instead of new ones, so it can't determine if it's current model is successful or not.

As it is now, say you develop a single player game, you are tempted to make a multiplayer and waste time coding that because MP is the only way to get some sort of decent DRM out of a game, or temp people to keep the copy once the game is finished. This is a form of preventing used games. Second the best chance you have at knowing if a game is popular or not is actually to wait till you produce the second game. Because if a game is growing in popularity lots of people are passing the game around after they finish it. ANd you will not see much fruits of your labor until you produce the second game and see increased sales.

You're making a lot of assumptions and leaps. Anytime you use a word like "need" you'd better have good information to back it up. Deus-Ex: Human Revolution was a AAA title with no multiplayer and it sold quite well. Well enough far the development team to be talking about making a sequel as well as other stuff. MP is not a requirement, spending money where it is not needed is not a requirement. (Need more examples? The Assassins Creed series, Batman Arkham City/Asylum, Fallout 3/NV, or any other series of RPGs, Adventure Games, Platformers, and things of the like).

The used game market is a market you can never beat, if you lower the price of a new game, the used games just drop $5 below that. So publishers don't try.

What you're missing here is that some people will never buy a new game just like some people will never buy a new car. The same is also true vice-versa. Some really hate buying something that another person's sticky fingers have been on and want a fresh copy. Customers are DIFFERENT. They don't all want the same things and if you fail to recognize that there is a differentiation they you can't accurately sell to them. I think that a lot of game companies have made this mistake where-as other well established industries do not.

Bascially for the good of games you should be willing to put up with lack of used game sales. I know this is unpopular but I am sure in the end it will work out for the better.

What will happen in this case is nothing. Even if they could prevent 100% of used game sales it offers no guarantee that they would get new sales. The only reason why Steam has success in this as opposed to other models is that instead of used, people are able to buy AAA titles for $5-$15 by simply waiting. Which is exactly what happens in the used market.

Of course I am the same person who thinks that a lot of games like COD and other primarily MP games should move to a subscription system. People don't like it when I say that but because of that instead what we get is tons minor updates labeled as new games, it would be better for everyone who plays if we all had the same game with all the expansions and everything to play together. It would mean better match making, more better servers, and more support.

That has the potential of working, but how much would the subscription be? That would put a lot of pressure on the maker to ensure that the subscriber is entertained for a pretty long period of time. Because if the subscription is $5 a month, then it would take 14 months for them to get their $70 out of it. If it was $15 dollars a minute the amount of people willing to pay would drop sharply although in theory they'd get their $70 sooner. Why would it drop sharply? People already pay tons subscribing to cable tv, internet, X-Box Gold, Netflix (which is also less than $15), and a myriad of other expenses.

I also don't buy into this either. Counter-Strike and its derivatives have sold more copies and have more players than any CoD. It's also one of the cheapest MP games ($15) and it has no cost to play it online... forever.

Everything that sucks in the world of gaming is the directly result of customers being too cheap to pay for what they get. And that includes higher prices.

No, everything that sucks in the game world is because of publishers that don't understand the market, don't understand who their customers are, don't understand what is fun, and don't understand things like creativity, freedom (for players), and constraints (in the form of money, cost, overhead). The gaming more than any other industry blames their customers. What other industry is that even REMOTELY acceptable? It's insulting to customers. If they can't make a game with $100M that's good and want to complain about it, they should find another industry. Seriously. I know that sounds harsh but taking business 101 would tell you that. And even if you haven't taken business 101, most consumers whether they recognize the technical aspect of that, know they are being marginalized and disrespected.

Finally any proposal has to have a chance of working. If you cant enforce it, it wont work. And that is what MS tried to do, make something that was enforceable.

They sure did, and now their preorders are less than Sony by 3:1 ratio. You know whats interesting? Nintendo has been doing this since the 1980's. They have more money than any of the other console makers. And they have NEVER needed to go against these previous models. I think it's ridiculous that after 30 years, companies are trying to take from gamers in a way that has never been done before, and has never been needed before, and is now trying to stuff it down our throats like it is.

 

[rudy]

You keep bringing up this issue of monetizing and price elasticity for a game. And I am as a person who runs a business and buys stuff all the time both as an end consumer and business to business is very aware of these issues. But what you fail to explain is why it is that the price of games has not lowered? Are you going to tell me that no company has figured out they can lower the price of a game and rock the boat? The answer is simple, the $60 price point is the sweet spot for price elasticity in the current game environment which includes used games. They have figured out that is where they have to be in order to monetize games.

Also there is one big difference between gaming software and other software. Gaming software is consumable. IE plenty of it is just played through once. You don't buy a copy of most of the software you mentioned, use it for 1 month then sell it used. You bought it to use it for a long time. Because of this most of those companies are not forced to modify their business model. MS produces an OS, you want to keep for several years and they can successfully monetize the product. Whereas 1 time consumables like movies and games do not have this luxury many of you attribute their work to greed but what it really is, is a difficulty in monetizing the industry due to the consumable nature of it, combined with software never losing quality. That’s why we hear so much about it in movies and games and less in other industries.

Anyhow the main point is you are right companies might fail to make a game that can generate money but it’s not like it’s always because they just strait up produced a shitty game. Lots of times its because they produced a game that was very good but expensive to make and the consumers have too many ways around their price IE a well-made AAA single player title just can’t make enough money because way too many people can just wait 1 month then buy used copies which give them the exact same experience as someone who bought the new copy. And clearly the company can NEVER EVER compete with used sales, used sales have not resulted in lower prices, why? Because people selling used games have no cost basis or over head, they will always undercut the new game no matter how cheap the new game is. But the question is, do we as gamers want that company to fail? I don't but they might. And it is not because their game is not popular, it’s not because it’s bad, it’s because they as you say failed to monetize the game.

So that is my point, see above I mentioned lots of reasons why it’s difficult to monetize a game and because of the reality of life and digital media there becomes limits to this ability. Now throw in the most important factor, the human psychology, it’s the blind human nature to fear change, want to hold onto and control something, and want to get something for nothing. So what companies have figured out is how they play off this emotion to get us to think we still have control, and are getting a good deal etc… But actually make money or force us to pay more. And that is what we deal with now. Those of us who buy a new game or want to keep it are boned, a game can be very popular but not be profitable. Each company figures out how to work this. I personally have seen more than a few of my favorite games completely ruined, and while you sit around blaming the company I know it’s actually the consumer who forced the company to go free 2 play and introduce grind, or forced the company to start moving toward DLCs which fracture the community in order to combat used games etc….

As for subscriptions it’s never going to happen stupid human psychology has ruined that too. You can go and look back 10 years and see every time the concept of subscriptions comes up it is immediately met with the vilest of reactions from gamers just like elimination of used games. That said I think the price point is important. If I was a company like say making COD I would try to setup a 1 year subscription for $50 for this you get all COD and everyone plays together, no more fractured community. Then it would be up to me as a publisher to convince people it is worth continuing to pay. I would probably also offer montly or quarterly subscriptions for those who just want to buzz through a single player etc…

 

[UnknownSouljer]

You keep bringing up this issue of monetizing and price elasticity for a game. And I am as a person who runs a business and buys stuff all the time both as an end consumer and business to business is very aware of these issues. But what you fail to explain is why it is that the price of games has not lowered? Are you going to tell me that no company has figured out they can lower the price of a game and rock the boat? The answer is simple, the $60 price point is the sweet spot for price elasticity in the current game environment which includes used games. They have figured out that is where they have to be in order to monetize games.

It absolutely is. The other poster I quoted talked about increasing prices, which I don't think is viable. However, I would also note, that there are companies that rock the boat, and I actually listed some examples. But I'll relist, and add a few more.

The companies that are rocking the boat and charging less is primarily Valve and indie developers. When CS: Global Offensive Launched it was $20, and now they usually sell it for $15. Indie developers are another huge segment that are charging below $60. You could argue that they do this because they aren't well established or a myriad of other reasons, but the bottom line they have proven that they can monetize themselves even with a lowered cost. Minecraft is a brilliant example of this.

This goes in line with another point that I was making. Just like every film doesn't need a 100M budget, not every game needs a 100M budget. Therefore there are different levels of what each game needs to cost and how many of each games need to sell in order to have profitability.

Also there is one big difference between gaming software and other software. Gaming software is consumable. IE plenty of it is just played through once. You don't buy a copy of most of the software you mentioned, use it for 1 month then sell it used. You bought it to use it for a long time. Because of this most of those companies are not forced to modify their business model. MS produces an OS, you want to keep for several years and they can successfully monetize the product. Whereas 1 time consumables like movies and games do not have this luxury many of you attribute their work to greed but what it really is, is a difficulty in monetizing the industry due to the consumable nature of it, combined with software never losing quality. That’s why we hear so much about it in movies and games and less in other industries.

You have a point that its different than other types of software, but it's not different than any other long or short-term consumable item. It's also not any different than what was happening 30 years ago.

Anyhow the main point is you are right companies might fail to make a game that can generate money but it’s not like it’s always because they just strait up produced a shitty game. Lots of times its because they produced a game that was very good but expensive to make and the consumers have too many ways around their price IE a well-made AAA single player title just can’t make enough money because way too many people can just wait 1 month then buy used copies which give them the exact same experience as someone who bought the new copy. And clearly the company can NEVER EVER compete with used sales, used sales have not resulted in lower prices, why? Because people selling used games have no cost basis or over head, they will always undercut the new game no matter how cheap the new game is. But the question is, do we as gamers want that company to fail? I don't but they might. And it is not because their game is not popular, it’s not because it’s bad, it’s because they as you say failed to monetize the game.

I think you just ignored my entire point about consumers being different. Not everyone wants to buy new and similarly not everyone likes to buy used. An obvious example of this is the car market or an industry I know about, the camera market. Or heck, since we're in a hardware forum, the computer hardware market. There are people that will always buy their stuff used and there will always be people that want to buy new. And the reasons for that is always different.

This has been studies. There is a part of the brain that gets stimulated and excited by opening that cellophane and enjoying packaging. This is why companies like Apple or other boutiques invest in packaging to make you feel special. Alternatively there are customers that could care less and cost is all that matters. Some people see value in buying new, some see value in trying to save money. The customers are different! A practical way to monetize this difference is selling special editions or having specialized packages in addition to the game itself. These things work because of this difference in customer base. Additionally a lot of people buy the game new because they see the value in being the first person to have it amongst their friends, or like that entry level of exclusivity. Some people alternatively don't care about that.

You're missing the issue that the reason why people wait and buy a game used for less is due to their interest in price and their lack of interest in newness OR being at the beginning of the buying curve. Used games fill in a segment of the market that is by nature different than those that would buy new.

You can't MAKE a customer that prefers to buy used all of a sudden PREFER to buy new. You can't force them to do that by what is getting discussed in this thread, but to force them to do it and then also want them to like it are two separate things. Getting angry at the customer for this when they are upset at your model isn't the customers fault. In the gaming industry especially THE CUSTOMER DOESN'T NEED YOU (the game company). Feeling entitled and forcing the consumer to do what you want them to do is a good way to get consumers to find any alternative method to obtaining another similar product (known in business as an alternative) rather than your product.

So that is my point, see above I mentioned lots of reasons why it’s difficult to monetize a game and because of the reality of life and digital media there becomes limits to this ability. Now throw in the most important factor, the human psychology, it’s the blind human nature to fear change, want to hold onto and control something, and want to get something for nothing. So what companies have figured out is how they play off this emotion to get us to think we still have control, and are getting a good deal etc… But actually make money or force us to pay more. And that is what we deal with now. Those of us who buy a new game or want to keep it are boned, a game can be very popular but not be profitable. Each company figures out how to work this. I personally have seen more than a few of my favorite games completely ruined, and while you sit around blaming the company I know it’s actually the consumer who forced the company to go free 2 play and introduce grind, or forced the company to start moving toward DLCs which fracture the community in order to combat used games etc….

Ah, once again blame the customer. If you're in a business ANY business your goal is to cater to the customers wants and needs. If you're missing that basic thing and your customer is complaining, YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING WRONG. There isn't any ifs, ands, or buts about this. These constraints that the gaming industry lives under are the issue of the companies making games. It's literally their job to figure this stuff out. Their unwillingness to do so despite customer push back is foolish. I don't think there will be a gaming collapse like in the 80's but with the whole XB1 fiasco, I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop.

If you can't make something that your customers want the way they want it and serve the market that is fickle or whatever, then you shouldn't be in that industry. I said that once, I reiterate myself. There are tons of devs that have figured out how to make great games under these constraints and with limited budgets and have done great things. They will continue to do so without the likes of all these massive game conglomerates like EA complaining and their intransigent attitudes.

Blaming the customer solves nothing. No one has to buy any games period. Game companies are a non-essential service. People buy games because they enjoy them. If game companies make that process of getting games unenjoyable and their a backlash they are the ones that need to change. Not the consumer. If every game manufacturer went away and no one played games anymore sure we might be sad as it was a hobby or pastime or whatever, but not a single person would lose something integral. It's not food, water, shelter, electricity, transportation, or anything. Don't defend these businesses and their bad decision making. They deserve to be punished by their lack of profitability because of the way they do business.

As for subscriptions it’s never going to happen stupid human psychology has ruined that too. You can go and look back 10 years and see every time the concept of subscriptions comes up it is immediately met with the vilest of reactions from gamers just like elimination of used games. That said I think the price point is important. If I was a company like say making COD I would try to setup a 1 year subscription for $50 for this you get all COD and everyone plays together, no more fractured community. Then it would be up to me as a publisher to convince people it is worth continuing to pay. I would probably also offer montly or quarterly subscriptions for those who just want to buzz through a single player etc…

Okay, once again, blame the customer rather than cater to the customer. If you want to buy into subscriptions, go ahead, vote with your wallet. But as someone who is budget conscious and wants to think about every dollar that goes in and out of his account, another subscription is something I'd like to avoid.

Why? Well lets look at realistic expenses.
If you have a mortgage, electricity, water, gas (during certain months of the year), a car payment, pay for internet, cabletv, cell phone, and netflix, you are probably already kissing close to half of what you make in a month to monthly expenses (not even including food which could be variable depending on if you eat out a lot or not or fuel for your car). I don't want another monthly expense to pay for something that I don't 'own'. I the customer doesn't want that. It's not my job to just bow down to the whims of whatever some seller wants to do. It's up to the business to create a model that they can monetize that also is good for the customer. Once again, if you can't do that, get out of the business.

You're right about one thing, psychology is part of the business, buying, and marketing process. If you can't lead, at least be reactionary. It seems like a big portion of the gaming industry can't even do that.

 

[Pieter3dnow]

Developers as in programmers/artists they deserve a little bit more money but the distributor and producers and god knows how many people in management certainly not.

 

[caddys83]

Im still confused on the 24 hour thing. What exactly happens after 24 hours? Do you just re-login to live?

 

[Youn]

I voted yes but not for the reasons shown in the poll. Of course I like buying a used game for 5 bucks on amazon as much as the next person, so I wouldn't want that to go away, but if they somehow DO pass a law to try and "correct" this issue then I really hope the VAST majority of profit goes to the developers (the people who put in the hard work to actually make the game) and not the publisher/distributors. If they set it up so that you can buy a use game at half price, that is verified to work and the majority of the profit goes to devs (yeah obviously some might go to distributors as they might be doing some QA/re-packaging) then I might pick that option over a cheaper one from a stranger on amazon. Not sure really... but I DO want to support developers, simply because I want more/better games. I think this is why kickstarter and indy devs are so successful, because people feel they really are giving money to the right people in a more direct way.

the Humble Bundle thing is also VERY cool, getting to choose where the money goes...

 

[ballistic90]

People need to be able to sell their games freely. This is because, with most console games costing $60 out the gate, you end up spending a disproportionate amount of your money on games that aren't worth the sticker price. You can end up with "lemons", games that promise you everything and fail on every level, or games that just fizzle out too early, or don't quite make it or something. And without being able to get anything back for your game, you're stuck. Demos are getting to be a little on the rare side, you don't always get a chance to try a game before you buy it, so selling a game for used is a change to mitigate the chance of getting a dud of a game.

Now, despite what everyone seems to think, used games don't just poof into existence, they were games bought new and returned for some reason. So a used game was at one point, a new game. There was a reason someone returned it. So what's the best way to put a dent in the used game market? Take away people's reason for trading in the game.

Of course, the PC market has done it's best to not allow selling games, and the market has changed dramatically because of it. Most PC games don't get purchased when being sold at full price, and the discounts are much more dramatic. So the amount of profit from each PC game is reduced to compensate, usually not even being sold for the standard $60.00 out of the gate (unless you are EA).

I guess the bottom line is, do game developers want to keep charging $60.00 and dealing with the used game market, or do they want to try and close that market and reducing the price of their games to compensate?

 

[NKDietrich]

The problem isn't used games. It is GameStop. In no other industry that I can think of, can you go in to buy something, and the guy in the store ACTIVELY tries to get you to buy used rather than new. It doesn't help that unlike a used car or a used washing machine, you can be pretty sure that used game is going to work just like a new one, and has the same useful lifespan.

The combination of no added value to buying new, and used and new sharing the same "shelf space", adds up to disaster.

The solution isn't to try and stop used games though. That's why you see increased DLC-ification of games. Publishers are making up for the losses they take from used box copy sales by making it so the box copy is a smaller portion of the total money they get from you.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Developers don't get a cut of anything anyway. Publishers are the ones that earn the money.

Anyway, you've (publisher) already sold a copy of the game once, why would you be entitled to $ from used sales? You already gotten the money you thought it was worth.

 

[piscian18]

At this point with how many shitty triple A titles I've been burned on I'm pretty sure I deserve an additional cut of all used game sales.

 

[demingo]

Games are still a luxury item to people, most games are still purchased by parents and not adult hardcore gamers.

Oh really? The average console/pc gamer is 37 years old. Kid stuff!

Throwing stacks of cash at a game doesn't even make sense. You know what game I'm looking forward to and will day 1 buy? Wasteland 2. What's the budget on that? $1M.

Actually they asked for $1 million on kickstarter, but the budget itself is higher. Kickstarter budgets aren't everything, they are just a part of the dev cost.

Also, don't compare a 2d sprite game with a full scale AAA title. The amount of development work isn't even close.

They can only price things up to the point that the market will bare.

If you read my post before you would realize the market would bear more as the price of games has actually FALLEN when you take account inflation.

The only reason why Steam has success in this as opposed to other models is that instead of used, people are able to buy AAA titles for $5-$15 by simply waiting. Which is exactly what happens in the used market.

And yet you ignore that steam and consoles have NOTHING to do with each other. To sell a game on the console you need to pay a licensing fee to Sony/MS/Nintendo figured to be around 20%. Then on top of it the retail store selling you the disc has a margin of 15-20%. These two combined are about $25 of the $60 price tag. Current rumor (Valve has never publicly confirmed) is Valve takes about 20% of the price tag for Steam services. It's actually more profitable per game to sell on Steam.

Counter-Strike and its derivatives have sold more copies and have more players than any CoD. It's also one of the cheapest MP games ($15) and it has no cost to play it online... forever.

Another TERRIBLE example. CS started as a free mod and had a ton of development done before it was even purchased by Valve. Also, unlike CoD servers, Valve has nothing to do with CS servers and they are run privately. You want a server, you pay a hosting company. Activision and EA both provide servers for the CoD games.