| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean it's not like there wasn't already ample evidence that EA and Sony were Pure Evil.
Even though creators do deserve to be paid for what they do, you have to also admit that intellectual property law is out of control at this point, and is heading to wars the point where it does not harm than good. Always on DRM. Software-as-a-service. Day one DLC. Now this sort of thing.
It's not really relevant whether you, personally, purchase or don't purchase used games. Enough people do - and have the right to do so - that your particular habits are meaningless. Keep that in mind.
I know that. That's why I took the time to ask why other people care about it.
Purchasing used products (of any sort) is certainly legitimate - and consumers do have the right to sell their property, and have the right of first sale. The above complaint is nothing more than a complaint against libraries and used car sales, as well. Pretty dumb.
Except for the important differences between the sale of used digital media and the examples you gave. One of them is a public good recognized by the state and provided free of charge for the sake of that good, and the other is a used product that, just like pretty much every non-digital product out there, will eventually break beyond repair. If you buy a used car, you are not getting the same experience as someone who drives a new car is, to varying degrees depending upon the condition of the used vehicle - you are spending more in repairs, and can enjoy the car for less time before it fails. If you play a used copy of Bioshock, you are enjoying the exact same experience (aside from the individual choices you make during the course of gameplay) that everyone who purchased the game new is, but you're getting that experience at a (typically) huge discount.
If you "don't understand the fuss" and wonder "why anyone would care about this", then you simply aren't thinking hard enough. Whoops on your part.
You're the one trying to push the idea that libraries and used cars are functionally equivalent to used video game sales. As explained above, that's a pretty ignorant argument to make.
(Generally, it is a wise idea to purchase a game in such a manner as to give the original creator as much money as possible in order for the creator to continue to make games that you are likely to enjoy, but that breaks down a bit if the creators are inconsistent, or only rarely come out with something enjoyable. At that point, consumers can/should exercise their rights and make whatever purchasing decision they see fit for themselves.)
It doesn't "break down" at all. If the game's creators are inconsistent, don't buy their crappy games. But if you want to play a game that they make, they deserve to be paid for it.
When game developers can put out day of release patches, they get lazy. Just compare the number of games that needed patches for major issues on the PS3 and 360 versus the number of games on the Wii with major bugs and glitches and you will see what I mean.I am so sorry, but I read this, thought about the rampant bugs being released with PC and Console games alike in even HUGE games (Skyrim, anyone) and laughed and laughed and laughed. Nothing could convince me game quality will improve from big publishers until I see it with my own eyes.The loss of the used game market impacts the making of the new games in several ways. One, you lose the long term appeal, which means the games that are made are shorter and shallower.I'm not seeing any evidence of this. If anything, it encourages publishers to produce higher quality, more substantial games
By far the most glitch-ridden games I've played in this last generation have been LEGO games on the Wii. I'd MUCH rather have a game that comes out with a few bugs that are quickly patched than a game that comes out with a few bugs that cannot be patched.
"Yes, and because bad things never happen to me, they never can possibly happen to anyone else, ever (plus who cares if they do as long as I am having fun?)." I love video gamer logic.
You're the one who just got finished saying, "Nothing could convince me game quality will improve from big publishers until I see it with my own eyes." How is that any less an example of self-centered "gamer logic"?
I mean it's not like there wasn't already ample evidence that EA and Sony were Pure Evil.
Even though creators do deserve to be paid for what they do, you have to also admit that intellectual property law is out of control at this point, and is heading to wars the point where it does not harm than good. Always on DRM. Software-as-a-service. Day one DLC. Now this sort of thing.
More harm than good from whose perspective?
More harm than good from whose perspective?I mean it's not like there wasn't already ample evidence that EA and Sony were Pure Evil.
Even though creators do deserve to be paid for what they do, you have to also admit that intellectual property law is out of control at this point, and is heading to wars the point where it does not harm than good. Always on DRM. Software-as-a-service. Day one DLC. Now this sort of thing.
Sony's love of rootkits could be another.
There is also academic evidence that shows that intellectual monopolies reduce the rate of innovation in those areas. Basically you get a race to secure a certain type of innovation, then only that company can advance research along that path. It encourages large companies to snatch up areas of ideas, but not necessarily to develop them.
Intellectual property laws are one factor why diseases common in wealthy western countries have multiple drug treatments, but diseases more common in poor countries have few, if any, drug treatments.
Intellectual property laws reward past ideas. Not the search for new ones.
Oh, also one of my favorite PC games of the past 5 years, Sins of a Solar Empire is DRM free. You have to register your copy if you want to download patches and use their free online servers for multiplayer. The game was released in 2008, has been financially successful for the company, has released two small expansions and is now getting set to release their third and largest expansion for the game so far.
The publisher of Sins is called Stardock, they had started their own online store, Impulse, which grew to be the second largest online pc game store (far behind steam though). They found that it was taking up a lot of their resources and talent to maintain though and wanted to refocus on publishing and developing software, so they sold the store to Gamestop. The store does not include an inherent DRM, only what the original publisher used, so there are quite a few games on that store that are either DRM-free or have much lighter DRM than games from Steam.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, is there an ethically-defensible argument for being upset with the demise of the pre-owned games market?
How about the paradigm of every other product on the market? I can buy a used car, second-hand clothing, used CDs and DVDs, and just about anything else. Why should games be any different?
How would you feel if you bought a new car, only to be told that there were limitations (set buy the manufacturer) on how and when you could drive it? In order to sell the car to someone else, you'd have to pay a licensing fee to the car company in order to do so.
Ummm...I just looked at the manuals for my Intellivision cartridges.
You have a working Intellivision console? Lucky...
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Scott Betts there is people out there in the world not making much money and used games keeps their families happy with affordable prices.I'm sure it does. But that's a one-sided argument; it ignores the deserved gain that the games' creators stand to make from a new copy bought in lieu of a pre-owned copy.
This is what keeps game stores in business to begin with... used titles and trade ins.Game stores don't really have much reason to be in business. They are a dying breed struggling to find a reason for keeping physical stores open.
It is getting ridiculous they are forcing people to go to the internet to do anything anymore. The internet is like a spreading disease being forced upon peoples everday lives to enjoy things they once grew up with.The internet is making things incredibly convenient. I can purchase excellent, very affordable games from the comfort of my home, download them immediately, play them to my heart's content, uninstall them to make room for more games, and reinstall them whenever I feel like.
Again, is there an ethically-defensible argument for being upset with the demise of the pre-owned games market?
Mmm Hm... So, how do you feel about game rentals? Used DVD sales? CDs/albums? Used books?
Do you realize that there are games 20, 30 years old that people still buy and trade to play today? If the industry goes forward with this model that is guaranteed not to happen with the next generation of games. Once they are sold out, that's it. No one 'new' will ever get to enjoy those games. That's kind of sad, to my nostalgic self.
If you have played through a game and don't tend to play them again, why should you be forced to store it unused. Or maybe throw it away. Perfectly good game that you will never play again, but neither can anyone else. What good is that doing anybody?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am surprised they are not doing away with physical copies all together. With internet and hard drives its unnecessary packaging.
I think in place of the used sales market will be manufacturer discounted prices. The game will launch at 60 bucks or whatever new. Six Months later it 30-40 dollars, a year later its 20 dollars. Its happening right now in fact. I paid 20 bucks for many of my Bioware games. Companies are even re-releasing decade old games with expansions for great prices. Saw Never Winter nights I and II together for 30 dollars. Scratch that, its on sale for 20 bucks right now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh. I'm looking more and more backward for an authentically emotional experience, games wise, and a lot of other people are, too.
The industry can't continue on the way it has the past five or six years, and the fix is not a new format for game distribution. It's a need to fresh ideas and new platforms, and that just ain't comin'.
We'll be better off when everybody is so tired of getting nothing but the same shooters over and over, and so ticked off by this newest bad idea, that they put the controllers down, and get some fresh air and sunshine. Then, when you want to play something worthwhile, you can get the PS1 or PS2 out of the closet, and play something that actually mattered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With these consoles 1-2 years away from launch, I won't believe anything until Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo offically launch their products. You know what is going to suck? If the new business model is completely digital, prices won't drop.
With these consoles 1-2 years away from launch, I won't believe anything until Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo offically launch their products. You know what is going to suck? If the new business model is completely digital, prices won't drop.
Well, the next Sony and Microsoft consoles won't be out for another year or two, but the next one from Nintendo is supposed to go on sale this year around the big holiday season. And they have said nothing about "locking" the games to their console. But even if they did, with the Wii and Virtual Console and all, they made a way that you can gift a game you downloaded to someone else without it costing anything to transfer it. And I am sure it is probably legal for you to "gift" a game to someone who happens to "gift" you with some money, seeing as how once you transfer the game, you no longer have access to it and would have to buy it again if you wanted to play it.
How about the paradigm of every other product on the market? I can buy a used car, second-hand clothing, used CDs and DVDs, and just about anything else. Why should games be any different?
Since when is "Because that's how it's always been done!" an ethically-defensible argument?
How would you feel if you bought a new car, only to be told that there were limitations (set buy the manufacturer) on how and when you could drive it? In order to sell the car to someone else, you'd have to pay a licensing fee to the car company in order to do so.
I've already addressed exactly this issue, and why the analogy of a used car doesn't work at all in a discussion of used video game sales. Just read back a little.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will not purchase any such game console that requires a constant internet connection for single player games.
If a competitor has a console offering good old fashioned offline play, that is the one I am buying. I hope everybody else joins me.
Microsoft, Sony: This is a crappy strategy and I'm not playing your game. Literally.
Mmm Hm... So, how do you feel about game rentals? Used DVD sales? CDs/albums? Used books?
I don't rent games or purchase those things used. I believe that we're better served, as consumers, by a business model where we can license the viewing of a title (like a movie or TV show) without first-sale doctrine applying, because the cost to us as consumers will be drastically lower than the cost of purchasing that product new. The movie War Horse just hit the home viewing market, and a Blu-Ray copy will cost you $40 retail. Licensed, instant-access services like Netflix streaming, Hulu+, etc. are really the best option, hands down. For $40, you can subscribe to five different movie streaming services for an entire month.
Do you realize that there are games 20, 30 years old that people still buy and trade to play today? If the industry goes forward with this model that is guaranteed not to happen with the next generation of games. Once they are sold out, that's it. No one 'new' will ever get to enjoy those games. That's kind of sad, to my nostalgic self.
Except it's patently untrue. The SEGA game Shining Force is exactly 20 years old. I can fire up Steam, pay $3, have personal access to it forever on any computer I own, and be playing in about two minutes. The appeal of retro games and the relative profit rights-holders stand to make has encouraged a flood of retro titles to become available via digital distribution. I used Steam as an example above, but I've also downloaded titles on the Wii Store. I'm sure there are options available on the 360 and PS3, as well.
If you have played through a game and don't tend to play them again, why should you be forced to store it unused. Or maybe throw it away. Perfectly good game that you will never play again, but neither can anyone else. What good is that doing anybody?
I don't own physical copies of most of my games anyway. Nothing to throw away. I have a handful of console games, but honestly, I'm more than happy to pay the asked-for retail price of the video games I purchase because of the huge return on investment I get out of it. A $60 video games can give me 40+ hours of good times. I don't need to offload it onto someone else to feel like I've gotten my money's worth.
But even if I accept the idea that a used car is just inherently worse than a new car I don't see how your argument holds for used books. Sure, sometimes a used book will be nowhere near 'like new' condition, but other times it will be identical to a new copy. I'm pretty careful with books, so most ones I own are like new. Sometimes I'll also buy a book and never get around to reading it and realise that I never will. In that case my used book will give the exact same experience as a new one would to anyone I sell to. Is that okay?
In some cases, yes. I believe that there is an ethical defense that can be mounted for the used sale of certain books. Books for which there is a greater societal good in spreading than there is in ensuring the publisher profits from every sale, for instance. Also, books which are no longer available in new form (though the advent of digital book sales makes it a lot easier to revive out-of-print books, so this defense becomes less sturdy with every passing day). I'm sure there are a few other situations where one can defend the used sale of books.
If I had books that I could no longer store, however, they would be donated to a library (which may turn around and sell the books used to help cover their operation costs, which I am also cool with).
Fundamentally I don't like the move that game companies are trying to suggest that they're not selling a physical product any more.
Game companies haven't sold a physical product for a long, long time.
They certainly used to sell one and like any other product if I was done with it I was free to give it away or sell it to anybody else. If at some point in the history of games we've transitioned from buying something to licensing something then I can't help but think the prices should have dropped when that happened.
They did drop. See: digital distribution. New games are still full price, but within a year of most games' release they're at a third of their release price and occasionally on sale for half that. Stop buying games from physical stores.
Meh. I'm looking more and more backward for an authentically emotional experience, games wise, and a lot of other people are, too.
The industry can't continue on the way it has the past five or six years, and the fix is not a new format for game distribution. It's a need to fresh ideas and new platforms, and that just ain't comin'.
Video game industry revenues have been higher in the last five or six years than they have in history. This is the golden age of video games, right now. We're in it. It wasn't the 80's or early 90's. Video game sales put the music industry sales to shame. They put the movie industry sales to shame. Pretty soon, if the trend continues, video game sales will surpass non-video game DVD sales and become second only to the book market.
We'll be better off when everybody is so tired of getting nothing but the same shooters over and over, and so ticked off by this newest bad idea, that they put the controllers down, and get some fresh air and sunshine. Then, when you want to play something worthwhile, you can get the PS1 or PS2 out of the closet, and play something that actually mattered.
Rubbish. This is rose-colored-glasses nostalgia coupled with a tremendous pair of blinders. There are fantastic video games coming out this year, and last year's batch was also great. The idea that modern games don't actually matter compared to PS1 games is so ridiculous I find it hard to believe someone actually said it seriously.
I will not purchase any such game console that requires a constant internet connection for single player games.
If a competitor has a console offering good old fashioned offline play, that is the one I am buying. I hope everybody else joins me.
Microsoft, Sony: This is a crappy strategy and I'm not playing your game. Literally.
Let's assume, for a moment, that you have an internet connection that is 100% reliable, and that the game's publishers had servers that were equally reliable. Would you still be opposed to the idea? If so, why?
|
|
Mmm Hm... So, how do you feel about game rentals? Used DVD sales? CDs/albums? Used books?I don't rent games or purchase those things used. I believe that we're better served, as consumers, by a business model where we can license the viewing of a title (like a movie or TV show) without first-sale doctrine applying, because the cost to us as consumers will be drastically lower than the cost of purchasing that product new. The movie War Horse just hit the home viewing market, and a Blu-Ray copy will cost you $40 retail. Licensed, instant-access services like Netflix streaming, Hulu+, etc. are really the best option, hands down. For $40, you can subscribe to five different movie streaming services for an entire month.
Do you realize that there are games 20, 30 years old that people still buy and trade to play today? If the industry goes forward with this model that is guaranteed not to happen with the next generation of games. Once they are sold out, that's it. No one 'new' will ever get to enjoy those games. That's kind of sad, to my nostalgic self.Except it's patently untrue. The SEGA game Shining Force is exactly 20 years old. I can fire up Steam, pay $3, have personal access to it forever on any computer I own, and be playing in about two minutes. The appeal of retro games and the relative profit rights-holders stand to make has encouraged a flood of retro titles to become available via digital distribution. I used Steam as an example above, but I've also downloaded titles on the Wii Store. I'm sure there are options available on the 360 and PS3, as well.
No, it is not 'patently untrue'. Is it untrue for that particular game? Sure. And for others. But, what I said is a perfectly valid statement until such time when every single game ever sold is available in such fashion, which they currently are not.
Hell, there are games for the current systems that are not available new, or in downloadable form. They are only available as used games. Guess if you missed out on the first batch, you just don't get to play.
No, it is not 'patently untrue'. Is it untrue for that particular game? Sure. And for others. But, what I said is a perfectly valid statement until such time when every single game ever sold is available in such fashion, which they currently are not.
Your statement isn't valid at all until someone bans the used sale of 20 or 30 year-old games. What you're talking about is what will happen 30 years from now when you want to play a 30 year-old game. Do you really think that the next generation of games won't be made available in digital sale form?
I'm telling you that even today there are tons of 20 year-old games available for digital download. To imagine that you'll have a tough time getting a copy of a next-generation game 20 or 30 years from now stretches belief.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm trying to wrap my mind around it being an ethical issue in the slightest, to take property that one rightfully owns and to then sell it to another individual.
Assuming no fraud is taking place on either end, where do ethics come into it at all?
I have a book. I go to a used book store, I sell the book.
Assuming proper care, this book can go a /very long time/ this way.
I recently found a book that older than computers, computer games, or the whole sh'bang in my father's library. You (of course) have to be careful with it since its irreplaceable but you can read it if you care to.
I have a video game. I own it. I take it to a used game store, and I sell it. Assuming proper care, the game can go a /very long time/ this way.
Neither is bad, wrong, evil, vile, unethical, or all that. Its just reselling something that I own.
Couching this as an ethics debate is just trying to tack on a little "I win" to it before you even get started. Ethics has *Nothing* to do with it unless you are lying, cheating, stealing, or otherwise hiding something either from a selling or buying perspective.
Is it good or bad for them to end used games? I say its bad. Used games are largely a local market, digital stuff isn't. I'd rather the local guy be able to stay in business just like I want the brick and mortar book stores to stay in business. You don't have to agree- but that doesn't make you right. It just makes you entitled to your opinion.
You might disagree that the little guy around the corner should stay in business, but he's part of your local economy. He's taking the money into his store and paying it out as salary to himself and (presumably) to others. That money is going back at least partially- and most likely primarily into your local economy again. (unless he's buying his gas, food and other groceries from a long way away).
Whether you like the local guy or not- its still beneficial to your local area for him (and all the other little guys) to stay in business.
-S
Could someone selling a used book get a list of which are okay to sell and which aren't? You seem to suggest that it's okay sometimes and that it isn't okay others. I don't think that's a tenable situation. There's also less waste involved if people can sell things they no longer want to somebody else as opposed to simply dumping it somewhere or holding on to it. That might not be such a good thing for a specific company, but less waste to deal with is good for everyone.
Until a law is written up banning used book sales, I don't think you have an issue. You should judge your actions with an appropriate ethical calculus. As for waste, donate your used books to a library.
That said companies still try and sell a game from a physical store as well. The point from before stands, if we're no longer getting the same product rights that we once were through that channel then there should be movement in the price. Maybe there has been elsewhere, but there hasn't where I live.
If I felt that video games cost too much, I'd be with you. But they don't. They're a steal. It's really hard to complain about a situation where you pay $50 for 50 hours of solid entertainment.
And game companies still do sell a physical product for all practical purposes. You can buy it in a game store if you so wish and even though DRM is becoming more common there are plenty of games you can play and then sell used later if you so wish perfectly legitimately. Up until now it's been perfectly legitimate to buy and sell used games (the ethics of that being another issue altogether) and if this rumour on the next generation is true then it will no longer be possible.
Yep. At least, not for the next generation of games. It may not happen at all, but I don't see the sky falling if it does.
I'm trying to wrap my mind around it being an ethical issue in the slightest, to take property that one rightfully owns and to then sell it to another individual.
Assuming no fraud is taking place on either end, where do ethics come into it at all?
Really?
Imagine a hypothetical situation, for a moment.
You are a video game developer. You create a video for which the market is 100 people. 100 people want to play your game. But all 100 know that the game can be bought used. You figure, "Hey, I'll sell 100 copies of this game that 100 people want!" and so you charge a certain amount to cover your costs.
The problem is that 100 people don't buy your game. 20 people buy your game. And those 20 people play it, and then sell it to another 20. Who then play it and sell it to another 20. Until all 100 of your potential customers have enjoyed a game that you only sold 20 copies of. From a consumer standpoint, buying used is a no-brainer! Used games are significantly cheaper, and the game is exactly the same as a new copy. All you have to do is be willing to wait a week or two after its release date.
So I'll ask, then: is this a fair scenario, from the developer's/publisher's standpoint? It's a hypothetical with vastly oversimplified figures, but it illustrates the ethical dilemma all the same.
And, of course, you've missed the fact that you don't actually own most video games. You have a license for its use. That is not the same as ownership.
Say it ain't so :(
I frequently buy pre-owned games for my younger siblings (by 15 years :P) and mainly that's because it's affordable. I'm not interested in the games I buy them at all - kids games like Lego Star Wars and Spyro/Mario type adventure games, but although I want them to have fun I have a budget. Pre-owned gives them more fun and costs me less.
I, for one, will be spending less on games if M$ and $ony go ahead with what's being put forward in this thread.
Say it ain't so :(
I frequently buy pre-owned games for my younger siblings (by 15 years :P) and mainly that's because it's affordable. I'm not interested in the games I buy them at all - kids games like Lego Star Wars and Spyro/Mario type adventure games, but although I want them to have fun I have a budget. Pre-owned gives them more fun and costs me less.
I, for one, will be spending less on games if M$ and $ony go ahead with what's being put forward in this thread.
I don't think you can throw around words like "M$" or "$ony" in the same post where you make it clear that wanting to get the most bang for your buck is your top priority. Pot, meet kettle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm trying to wrap my mind around it being an ethical issue in the slightest, to take property that one rightfully owns and to then sell it to another individual.
Assuming no fraud is taking place on either end, where do ethics come into it at all?Really?
Imagine a hypothetical situation, for a moment.
You are a video game developer. You create a video for which the market is 100 people. 100 people want to play your game. But all 100 know that the game can be bought used. You figure, "Hey, I'll sell 100 copies of this game that 100 people want!" and so you charge a certain amount to cover your costs.
The problem is that 100 people don't buy your game. 20 people buy your game. And those 20 people play it, and then sell it to another 20. Who then play it and sell it to another 20. Until all 100 of your potential customers have enjoyed a game that you only sold 20 copies of. From a consumer standpoint, buying used is a no-brainer! Used games are significantly cheaper, and the game is exactly the same as a new copy. All you have to do is be willing to wait a week or two after its release date.
So I'll ask, then: is this a fair scenario, from the developer's/publisher's standpoint? It's a hypothetical with vastly oversimplified figures, but it illustrates the ethical dilemma all the same.
It's a lovely argument, but it's incorrect.
If only 20 out of 100 buy the game at the price, availability, and feature set you offer, then that is all you were going to sell. You didn't lose 80 customers you never had.
Now in your example, those 80 weren't all thieves or ethically-challenged; they wanted the game at a lower price point. Odds are at least a few wanted the game far below what you could charge as a business to make it; those people were never real customers to lose in the first place. The others decided that for whatever reason they would pay a lower price for your game. Maybe you could have brought them on board for a lower debut price, more features, or a smaller initial game with more content available addons (DLC or retail-boxed expansions)? But lumping those 80 into "ethically-challenged" is short-sighted and ill-informed as a business. If the customers are there, but not buying, then you need to find out why.
The Wii and the iPhone/iPad appeal to many casual gamers, hence the popularity of party packs and under $5 games, respectively. Both Nintendo and iOS are making money by serving content at an acceptable price to their demographic.
And, of course, you've missed the fact that you don't actually own most video games. You have a license for its use. That is not the same as ownership.
But Scott, just because things were always done that way, doesn't mean it's right. Where is your ethics detector when the software publishers are around? If I can buy a used book, a used pair of jeans, a used bike, a used movie, a used album, a used car, a used house and not be ethically-challenged, why is a video game an exception? If I can buy any of the aforementioned used items and keep them working with reasonable maintenance and upkeep costs, why should a used video game stop working because I refuse to fork over full retail or minutely-discounted price to the publisher for it?
|
I don't think you can throw around words like "M$" or "$ony" in the same post where you make it clear that wanting to get the most bang for your buck is your top priority. Pot, meet kettle.
The difference is that it's already his money. If Microsoft or Sony want him to give that money to them, they should actively try to cater to what he wants. He is entitled to the money that he has earned. Microsoft and Sony are only entitled to whatever he is willing to pay to them for a product/service that they provide for him.
It's a lovely argument, but it's incorrect.
If only 20 out of 100 buy the game at the price, availability, and feature set you offer, then that is all you were going to sell.
Really!
If you have two options for purchasing a game:
a) Pay $60 to get the game the day of release.
b) Pay $30 to get the exact same game two weeks later.
You're telling me that no one who would choose option b over option a would switch to option a if option b were no longer an option?
Really!
The Wii and the iPhone/iPad appeal to many casual gamers, hence the popularity of party packs and under $5 games, respectively. Both Nintendo and iOS are making money by serving content at an acceptable price to their demographic.
Given the wild differences in the two demographics, as well as the orders-of-magnitude-greater development costs of AAA console games, I don't think this really holds up in this particular conversation.
But Scott, just because things were always done that way, doesn't mean it's right.
Gosh, if only I could use that line in response to people who complain, "But we've always been able to sell our used games!"
Where is your ethics detector when the software publishers are around? If I can buy a used book, a used pair of jeans, a used bike, a used movie, a used album, a used car, a used house and not be ethically-challenged, why is a video game an exception?
Except you should be making ethical calls in some of those circumstances. You just don't.
If I can buy any of the aforementioned used items and keep them working with reasonable maintenance and upkeep costs, why should a used video game stop working because I refuse to fork over full retail or minutely-discounted price to the publisher for it?
Because you're enjoying the fruits of someone's labor without compensating them for it.
The difference is that it's already his money. If Microsoft or Sony want him to give that money to them, they should actively try to cater to what he wants. He is entitled to the money that he has earned. Microsoft and Sony are only entitled to whatever he is willing to pay to them for a product/service that they provide for him.
That doesn't justify his juvenile name-calling.
He wants to get the best deal possible for the investment he puts into purchasing a video game.
Microsoft/Sony wants to get the best deal possible for the investment it puts into developing/publishing/distributing that video game.
And yet DanQnA gets to call them names for their behavior while exhibiting that exact same behavior himself.
Good lord.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll finally get to apply that silly economics degree. Let's do away with a few assumptions here:
1. "If I buy a new game, the money goes to the developers." No, the majority of your money goes to the publishers first, then everyone else who had a part in packaging the game, and generally developers get what's left over. This is a valid argument for why games should go all digital (so that developers make more money), but a physical product serves more than just one purpose. Impulse buying and competitive pricing are just two reasons why a boxed game taken from a shelf is important to you, game stores and publishers.
2. "Current business models predict future business models." The current amalgam of boxed copies and digital copies lead to lower prices for digital buyers (due to the lack of packaging), but it would probably not be the same if the market went all digital. Firstly, you'd have a lot less competitors. It would put price control directly in the hands of distributors. No physical inventory means that there is no reason to drop prices to clear it out.
3. "Used game stores are obsolete." Used game stores serve a variety of purposes, the main being an "insurance company" for gamers. If the rumors prove to be true about Orbis, then the two most important words become: "Buyer beware." If the PS3 was $600 at launch and Orbis is shaping up to be much more powerful, you're looking in the $800 to $1000 range (not including the new TV you're purportedly going to need to buy to get the most out of the system and accessories). Games will likely be in the $70-$100 range. That is a significant investment. Sure, there will people who will drop that kind of money without batting an eyelash. However, without a safety net, there will be fewer people running out and making impulse buys (coincidentally, this pressures publishers to depend on "tried-and-true" IPs: Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed et al...fine for some, but not for all). Beyond not liking a game, a used game store also allows gamers to regain games lost in fires, accidents and thefts. Game and console warranties only last for about a year and only cover damage. If the situation is out a person's control, why should they have to buy a new game? Because "it's the right thing to do"? Finally, all situations for buying and trading are different. Some people buy new, trade and use the trade-ins to buy new games. Some don't. Some need money to buy gas and want to repurchase later. You can't argue ethics when you don't know all the reasons (economic sidenote: Why would consumers care if they're being ethical? There are many examples of video game publishers being unethical).
4. "Hoo boy, we're livin' in 2012. Internet for everybody!" Umm...no. Who is going to pay for it? Taxpayers? Warren Buffet? Sony won't. Providers are too busy tinkering with existing areas of service. So, if you live in podunk nowhere or an area where internet demand isn't strong (outside of major metropolitan zones and suburbs), you're still going to be relying on that offline console.
All that and no guarantee you'll get better games. Yeah, "better-looking"...but not necessarily better. Apologies for the long-winded post.
If you have two options for purchasing a game:
a) Pay $60 to get the game the day of release.
b) Pay $30 to get the exact same game two weeks later.
You're telling me that no one who would choose option b over option a would switch to option a if option b were no longer an option?
Really!
No consumer knows when a price will drop, or if it will drop, or if a publisher will re-release it as a Classic/Greatest Hits game for less. And if a customer in your non-real world scenario is willing to shell out $60 for a game when he knows it'll only be $30 in two weeks, then I contend he is either a diehard gamer (a small minority) or a fool.
Given the wild differences in the two demographics, as well as the orders-of-magnitude-greater development costs of AAA console games, I don't think this really holds up in this particular conversation.
I don't think you are grasping the argument. The majority of gamers are not diehard, but casual ones. Casual gamers are a profitable and valid customer demographic.
Gosh, if only I could use that line in response to people who complain, "But we've always been able to sell our used games!"
...Except you should be making ethical calls in some of those circumstances. You just don't.
...Because you're enjoying the fruits of someone's labor without compensating them for it.
Why do video game publishers believe they are entitled to do an end-run around the established and court upheld first-sale doctrine?
And really, you contend that people are not being ethical purchasing a used item because the original manufacturer/publisher doesn't get a piece of the pie?! I know today is April Fools, but really?!
The difference is that it's already his money. If Microsoft or Sony want him to give that money to them, they should actively try to cater to what he wants. He is entitled to the money that he has earned. Microsoft and Sony are only entitled to whatever he is willing to pay to them for a product/service that they provide for him.
The response I originally wrote and deleted included those words - the context existed in my head lol, glad someone was on the same wavelength.
As for the unfair, inaccurate and aggressive accusation about my spending habits - I spend $1000's each year on games, most of which I don't play. In the past 3 years I have purchased 2 Xbox 360's (I gave my first one away), roughly 80 Xbox games (probably more) and my Steam games list is sitting at around 130 games. I've never pirated a game or music I want, and I try find ways to support the developer as much as possible. Best part? I never play most of the games as I have a full-time job and play MMO's mostly, so actually "Getting the most bang for my buck" is not correct.
:/
There's not enough "ur mom's" in my response, I must be getting old :(
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From the Kotaku link;
"If you buy the disc, it must be locked to a single PSN account, after which you can play the game, save the whole thing to your HDD, or peg it as "downloaded" in your account history and be free to download it at a later date."
Okay. Wait.
Sorry, Sony. I'm not interested in this.
Of the big three game vendors, I'll buy whichever one lets me just go buy a damn game, take it home, put it in my machine, and play it.
For me, this isn't a "used vs. new price tag" issue. I buy used games, it's not a crime. They have companies that sell them all the time, and nobody seems to send the FBI to destroy their stock and sue them.
For me, the issue is internet security: My son's gotten his online games hacked, I've heard that Sony's had a lot of trouble with credit card info being hacked, and I don't really trust them to be secure. I think it's just too big for them to protect.
If I go buy an expensive new system, the last thing I want is to download a damn code off of the internet to protect THEIR cashflow, and risk downloading a virus that's going to make 1,000 Goatse's appear on my t.v. when I try to play Assassin's Creed IX or whatever.
Whoever can vend me a gaming console that does NOT require me to take it on the internet and risk my financial data and possibly my expensive gaming system will get my money. All the internet seems to have to offer are tens of thousands of 12 year olds screaming "F#*@YOUNOOB!!!F%$&YOUCAMPER!!!" AND tens of thousands of 15 year olds who want to hack my s$$& for teh lulz and profit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, the issue is internet security: My son's gotten his online games hacked, I've heard that Sony's had a lot of trouble with credit card info being hacked, and I don't really trust them to be secure. I think it's just too big for them to protect.
If these Orbis rumors prove to be true, Sony just makes themselves a soft target for hackers. Anonymous or whomever will have a field day with them. I'm pretty sure the console will be a brick 3 months after launch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, the issue is internet security: My son's gotten his online games hacked, I've heard that Sony's had a lot of trouble with credit card info being hacked, and I don't really trust them to be secure. I think it's just too big for them to protect.If these Orbis rumors prove to be true, Sony just makes themselves a soft target for hackers. Anonymous or whomever will have a field day with them. I'm pretty sure the console will be a brick 3 months after launch.
Oh, yeah. The first guy that can haxx throught to that game download code and make 1,000,073 people's 54 inch televisions display a giant Goatse will be a made man.
That's MAD geek streetcred.He'll be bigger than Leeeroy Jenkins, Son I Am Disappoint, and I used to be an adventurer til I took an arrow to the knee combined.
Seems to me Sony and by extension their few defenders need a clue by 4. Oh well when they loose money on this stupidity they will change their tune. Or since it is April 1st maybe its a big joke.
No, I did not get sucked in......*facepalm*
Thanks CJ for reminding me it's April Fool's. In my defense, I work 40 during the week and did 7 yesterday and 5 today on call, so.....
GOOD JOB GOWKING ME, YOU RIPE TARTS!!!
Thanks CJ for reminding me it's April Fool's. In my defense, I work 40 during the week and did 7 yesterday and 5 today on call, so.....
GOOD JOB GOWKING ME, YOU RIPE TARTS!!!
Bahaha, it'd be amusing if it was. However, the article was posted on March 28, so I doubt it's April Fools.
Ah! So it is an actual real live rumor instead of some juvenile April Fool's joke. whew
I hear they're gonna start charging for facebook. A pint of blood a month, since many of the users can't afford $19.