Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate
Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate
December 3, 2008
And the used game trade debate rages on...
As reported by gamesindustry.biz, Phil Harrison (left), speaking at a London event yesterday, took a moderate approach to the argument over used game trading. Of the issue, the Atari president remarked:
There's no doubt that second hand games sales has a macro-economic impact on the industry and a lot of people get miserable about it.
But it's no coincidence that the most valuable games, the ones that have the most lifetime as a game experience, are the ones that don't get resold, that don't get traded.
The games that have the embedded community, the embedded commerce, the extended, expandable experiences, are the one's that you would never want to trade, the one's you want to keep hold of. And that's perfectly in line with our future strategy so we're not that concerned about it.
Atari CEO David Gardner made similar remarks at the gathering:
Second hand game sales represent consumer choice and desire. Obviously, it has economically been extremely painful for the industry... the publishers don't benefit.
But as games change and they become more and more network centric, the disc in the box becomes only one part of the experience. As that experience grows then it becomes not such a problem.
GP: Although the used game issue brings out the militant consumer advocate in me, I must give these guys a little credit for moderating their comments (unlike Epic's whiny Michael Capps). Both Gardner and Harrison seem to be saying that digital distribution is the wave of the future, so let's not get too frothed up about used game sales now. And they're probably right.
Still, I've ginned up enough working-class frustration while writing this to be annoyed by Gardner's complaint that "the publishers don't benefit" [from used game trades].
Why is that a problem?
Gardner's comment is typical of the greedy mindset of some game publishers, who already got paid when they sold the game to the retailer. The retailer then made its money when the consumer purchased the game. And when the consumer disposes of the game, the publisher wants another bite of the apple? What is this, the Mafia? Everyone in the food chain has to kick back up to the Don?
Fughetaboudit...
Comments
"Okay, I've worked up enough working-class frustration while writing this to be annoyed by Gardner's complaint that "the publishers don't benefit." This comment is typical of the greedy mindset of game publishers, who already got paid when they sold the game to the retailer. The retailer then got paid when the consumer bought the game. And when the consumer disposes of the game, the publisher wants another bite of the apple? What is this, the Mafia? Everyone in the food chain has to kick back up to the Don?
Fughetaboudit..."
Absolutly brilliant. Well Said.
While I didn't get any visions of the Mafia in my head when making such comparisons, I did think of a rigged sales pyramid scheme. Buy a game, company gets paid, someone buys the game from you, company gets "commssion bonus" because you "converted" another gamer etc.
Agreed... This stuff just flat out isn't right, and any company that can think they can justify it are just wrong.
If that was the issue, I'd agree.
The problem is NOT, repeat NOT that the industry does not see a cut of second-hand games, but that the second-hand market, at its current size, is cannibalising first-hand sales, making it more difficult for titles- not discs- to break even, making it harder for devs to buy houses to live in and food to eat. You know, the luxuries.
The second-hand cut thing is only a stopgap solution. A retarded one, one I don't agree with that makes the same mistakes a lot of the comments here do, but a stopgap nonetheless.
We need to get away from this histrionic OMGOMGTeh Ebil Greedy Games Industry nonsense so we can actually get to solving the second-hand issue. Until then, we're as bad as Leland Yee and Keith Vaz, using meaningless nonsense words and hyperbole to take a faux-moral high ground and obfuscate the issue for short-term gain.
/b
Break down the numbers then, and prove it. Every time I break down the numbers, raping these guys of money going toward the government and other places, it just doesnt work out to them not making enough to buy their houese and food. Developers may get ripped, but not the people who are getting the majority of the money.
There is no second hand issue, if these companys would make good enough of games, people would keep them instead of selling them off, or buy original versions instead of used to they know it will last longer. It is a greed issue, and one that has caused our economy to go the way it has.
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
Forget the publishers, all the money should go to the developers.
--- Official Protector of Videoland!
i still havent had a decent answer to this..
If i sell my car to a private individual .. ford dont get a cut.
If i sell my TV to a private individual Sony dont get a cut.
If i sell my XBOX to a private individual Mocrosoftdont get a cut.
so.. why is it that for some reason the games industry is acting like an unreasonable whining child, making out like its unfair that it gets treated.... exactly the same way as practically everyone else!.
Credit to them for moderating their comments in this instance, like GP said.
But totally agree. i still havent heard any logic behind the whining, to show why they should be treated differently, and im sorry, but to prevent second hand sales entirely, taking away a huge customer right, you need DAMNED good reasons.
What protection do i have if i buy a buggy POS that has been rushed to release and wont work on my system if i cant return it, or cant sell it on (literally no pc games can be returned in the uk after you have opened them. WHich is crazy because you dont know if it works till after you open it)
"What protection do i have if i buy a buggy POS that has been rushed to release and wont work on my system "
Man that right there reminded me of "Turning Point: Fall of Liberty" jeez, you can't tell me that game wasn't rushed out of the door kicking and screaming to try and make fast cash. Bodies levitating in mid air for no good reason, still shaking stuck in some kind of limbo, i got stuck on all kinds of objects god knows how, and died a few times from it somehow, bleh!!!!!
I usually never wish this upon anything but: I wish the government would step in on that and require games to be treated as purchased goods, not a non-transferrable long term rental agreement. We should have the right to own our games, downloaded or not. Not the we can do much about it however. I doubt the industry will change course without government stepping in. :/
------------------------------------
I am a signature virus, please copy and paste me into your signature to help me propagate.
lol me and 2 friends were unfortunate enough to buy Kane and Lynch on pc for the coop 'bank heist mode'.
Three of us sat their pcs set up together on the network, a whole fun day planned...
They Advertised COOP. GREAT we thought.. until it turned out that wasnt lan atall, it was SPLIT SCREEN COOP.. ON A PC.... FFS. And if that wasnt bad enough, we couldnt even play that.. because the split screen coop only worked.. WITH A 360 CONTROLLER. lol.. nowhere was any of that mentioned. If you say 2-4 player MP on an advertisment on pc.. im sorry but THAT is BS!.
Cou[ple that with loads of references to XBox 360 buttons... and no server browser, and no 'play with friends' unless you paid for windows live gold (back before it was free).
Oh and the single player game.. around 4 hours.. and it was truly AWFUL. the ending utterly sucked, and the game itself.. you could literally see where they had planned to have some big story transition but hadnt had time to implement it.
e.g. one moment your in a new york style city.. then suddenly.. for aboslutely no explanation, the next level is in a guerilla warzone in a jungle... and the characters all talking as if i should have a clue whey they are there.... I restarted my last save because i thought it had bugged.. but... no.. And the ending.. my god... it was literally like some1 said 'come on guys stop whatever your up to n wrap it up'. Truly out of nowhere and god awful.
Not one of us got to play in coop... broken as ***. and NEVER patched. The eidos mods (and devs when they appeared) on forums kept saying ' a patch is in the final stages of the testing/approval process it should be here any day now'. Then after 3 months of us continually bugging them n refusing to drop it, they stopped replying.. nice. Thanks Eidos. Thanks a lot. Ive never bought one of their games since.
You shouldn't have bought Kayne and Lynch in the first place...
In his defense Kane and Lynch LOOKED polished and made more promises than it delivered. I only rented it for my 360, or was it ps3? i forget, it was a forgettable experience since I had so much else on my plate trying to play as many games as I could. The PC port sounds horrendous and I'm getting tired of games coming to PC made like that. Especially sick of the controls not being done properly and wanting to be used with a 360 controller on the PC.
Man, your experience just reminded me of why I hate consoles, not because I think they inherently suck or anything like that, but because some developers try and take the damn short road and ruin a perfectly good idea of a game that would have played well on the PC. Then again failed executions on great ideas has no limits and occurs across all platforms and many different ways.
------------------------------------
I am a signature virus, please copy and paste me into your signature to help me propagate.
lol thanks zel glad you undstand what i was saying!
I think you hit the nail on the head!
I am sorry many... I am sorry... ~hands nova a cookie~ I know this wont make it better, but... ~sigh~ ...this industry...
*sob* thanks.... *sob*
It.. *sob*
Just.. *sob*
Hurts.. *sob*
So.. *sob*
BaaaaaaaAAAAD.. *Munches tear stained cookie*
Well for one a Car is pretty much a necessity, so I don't think thats a fair comparson.
TV's make sense
And I think Microsoft wants as many people as possible to experience an Xbox 360, because it costs them money to make another and sell another, so used 360 flying all over the place could improve 3rd party sales of games.
But the thing is, games are still a niche product. A TV, movies, or music only lose a small amount compared to the millions of other people who have bought it new. For games each person represents $60 in net gross. with 1000 people you lose 60 000 in net gross. 10 000 thats 600 000, and 100 000 used copies represents 6 million. yea...
except that 1 sold used copy doesn't = 1 missed new sale, and without the ability to trade in thats even LESS new sales since people that have little cash but want a brand new game can't trade in a few to help them get it.
IMO games haven't been a 'niche' in a looooooooong time. Last i read, the gaming industry did about $17.9 billion in sales in 2007. After a little searching I found hollywood movies did about 9.62B in 2007 at the box offices.
Source: http://www.filmwad.com/film-industry-revenue-at-record-high-for-2007-5573-p.html
Source: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/npd-2007-us-game-sales-up-43
of course that is the box office results, not including disc sales but still, I would say that the gaming industry rivals the movie industry quite well these days.
------------------------------------
I am a signature virus, please copy and paste me into your signature to help me propagate.
Yup, and all the greedy bastards moved to the game industry to try to make money.
They've gotten paid for the physical copies they made and distributed. They've made a profit on those copies once, there's no reason they should make a profit a second time. Game companies shouldn't even be considering used games a potential profit because a) they've already been paid for the copy and have no right to get paid a second time without rendering another service and b) some people will not buy new games or cannot afford them.
If a company makes good enough games, people will probably keep them and not resell them anyway. People will also be much more likely to buy new copies a great game right away instead of waiting until they can get it used. Really good games also have the potential to be re-released as part of an aniversary collection, netting the company more money. On top of that, game companies have survived for how many years while people have resold game; I have a hard time believing that they have any need for profit from used games if they can make good games that people want to play.
The idea that publishers should get a cut of used game sales is so brain dead that it's hard to believe these people are smart enough to be involved in the industry at all. Either that, or their greed has completely eaten away at the common sense lobes of their brains.
Of course, I do hate to buy a game used because I really do like to support good developers. But I'd be playing maybe two games a year if I had to buy every one of them new. (The only games I've bought new this year are SSBB and GTA4)
Well if they were smart they would have opened their own retail stores, then did the whole preowned certified thing that the auto companies did.
Thats how car manufactures got inot the used market.
Then imagine how much more the new and used games would go up to. They whine about it now, but tack on overhead for stores, marketing, etc...and they come to realize what the current retailers do for them.
Zen aka Jeremy Powers
Panama City, Fl.
I would like to think it would even out they lower prices across the board 25% because they are getting a cut from both ends...but looking at current industry they would rather double the price and lower sales......
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
(in need of a bad overhaul)
They were supposed to lower prices when they moved from Carts to CDs, but right back up they went. They were supposed to lower prices with digital downloads...but Burnout still costs the same. Just like the music industry, I don't trust that they will have a drop in price in their future for the consumers benefit, but will push the fact that they have complete control over where, when, and (just like with Spore) how many times you can even play a game.
Zen aka Jeremy Powers
Panama City, Fl.
This is ture the publishers cannot be trusted with anything.
=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Wait what? Burnout is $30 on PSN and 50 on retailers.
Is it a new game?
=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Burnout Paradise, $29.99 at Gamestop.
Yeah, console games cost too much the way it is.
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
I don't get the "But the devs do not benefit from it" whinage (and trustme I am a conisuor of whineage ^_~)They do benefit as used games are sold off for....SURPRISE new games....... the game market grows because of the used market supports it heavily by proxy.
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
(in need of a bad overhaul)
The argument really comes down to selling the "experience". That is why they all want to switch gaming to a purely service based industry from its current product base. The media itself will merely be a means of delivering that experience via one of several revenue streams. Mark my words this IS the way the industry is going if the big three have their say.
Steam is already there and frankly it looks pretty hot from the publishers point of view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" - Herodotus
Not for another 10-20 years there is just not enough world wide infrastructure for it, the physical format.will dominate the media industry for at least that much longer.
I will say this much if they go for a stream based system and make it online only and make it a quarter of current cost then it will take off big.
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
(in need of a bad overhaul)
In regards to taking everything to digital formats, I am against it. I can buy a game now, new or used, for my old Xbox...most of the time it will work in the 360, but I can just take the disk, walk across the house, plop it into my old original Xbox in the office, and play it there. Same with my PS3 with PS2, and my Wii with Gamecube. I can't take the digital copy of Super Mario 64 back to my N64 in that same office, so I would (and have) bought it twice. I don't mind it being an OPTION because I can let my kids use the digital without worry of messing it up, but I just prefer the physical version, even if I have to pay a few more bucks for it, for the future and my collection.
Zen aka Jeremy Powers
Panama City, Fl.
Zen@Zenspath.com
This is ture however if they halve the price or even go to a 10th of current price it will be worth every penny however the market the industry the populace just are notready for such a setup thus why digital goods can be as much as 10-20% higher than retail, its going to take 5-10 more years for digi distro to pick up enough to be a real alertive to main stream physical media, afer another 5-10 years it will become something normal.
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
(in need of a bad overhaul)
I'm leaning more towards the three to five time span before all global brand publishers have an in-house distro arm offering far more for direct purchases then from B&M vendors. What I see happing is that the vast majority of CE editions will go to B&M vendors and the "standard" release will get sidelined via that channel. Post sale people will be able to "upgrade" special DLC for a nominal fee from the publishers to regain the "loss" to the B&M vendors. Then I expect monetization of nearly every social function as well as in game option available to include matching lobbies and buddy lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" - Herodotus
3 I dunno.... playboy went digi only but its to save overhead and its a niche in a saturated market so I can not see one of the big film studios skipping disc production in 3, whens the 360 due for repalcement in 3? when the 360..er Xbox..er MS console has a HDD that the user can change themselfs thats when you'll see whole mainstream new games start coming out , but frankly I think tis goign tot ake Nintendo getting in on whole large game digi distro to really flick the switch so I can see it in 10, 5 not so much below 5...I just can not see it
=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
I'm talking PC only. Not movies or consoles. Those I can see the 10+ time line and for movies it would be likely in the 20+ range unless some earth shattering tech was developed out of nowhere that changed the whole playing field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" - Herodotus
Full Streaming or a online system akin to steam?
Well...I guess both are pluaeable...
=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Both since they already exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" - Herodotus
"Okay, I've worked up enough working-class frustration while writing this to be annoyed by Gardner's complaint that "the publishers don't benefit." This comment is typical of the greedy mindset of game publishers, who already got paid when they sold the game to the retailer. The retailer then got paid when the consumer bought the game. And when the consumer disposes of the game, the publisher wants another bite of the apple? What is this, the Mafia? Everyone in the food chain has to kick back up to the Don?
Fughetaboudit..."
Priceless gag right there Dennis
You really think so?
Used games sell for so little (at least when you do trade in which is the way MOST people sell their used games). I have lots of friends who sell back to gamestop and they NEVER buy new copies, if the store doesn't have a used copy they take the little reciept and go back and check a few days later.
I'm really surprised by how blind people on this site are. Yes the publishers (and more importantly the developers) benefit from the first sale, but they get nothing from the second, third etc. sales. So let's assume half of the games sold are then resold once, just to be easy.
Let's keep the numebrs small, let's say each game costs $50. We'll assume (althought it's WAY off the mark) that 50% of the sale price goes back to the devs. So 25$ on each sale.
100 copies of the game get sold, that's $2500. Then 50 games get sold back to the store and get resold. Let's say they resell at $20. The devs get, nothing.
Had the resell not been available the devs would have made 150% of the money they did.
And you all wonder why game prices keep getting higher? The price of making a AAA title is in the tens of millions now. Then add on the puiblisher's cut and costs. That means for a AAA to even pay back the money it took to make they have to sell several hundred thousand copies (the exact amount depends on exact numbers going back to the devs which I do not have anymore.) With resells I doubt most games that aren't absolute hits do much more then pay the company back. This is why you see more companies doing casual games then AAA titles. The AAA market is just too volitile to be a good risk.
I'm honestly surprised that GP has been posting his opinion without doing any research into the actual effects this has on game developers. Why not do some journalist stuff and come up with the real numbers. I bet you'd have a better chance of finding them then me. I'd be interested to see what the actual numbers of used sales versus first sales, and money going back to devs is.
1 pirated copy =/= 1 missed sale
1 used buy =/= 1 missed sale
I'll use the same comment I use for pirating then.
There is no RIGHT to play games. It's a luxury and if you aren't paying the people who make them I don't feel you should be playing.
what?
so if you buy a car of somebody privately, you think that you should have to pay ford too?
even though ford already sold the car to the guy in the first place and made their money?
Honestly???
Games don't deteriorate with use like cars do.
Not to mention, when you go to buy a new car, you don't get someone trying to undercut your sale by saying "Hey we've got this exact same car used for $100 cheaper!"
"I'll use the same comment I use for pirating then.
There is no RIGHT to play games. It's a luxury and if you aren't paying the people who make them I don't feel you should be playing."
There's no right to drive a car either.
So if I buy a used car and don't send a kickback to GM (the people who made the car)then do you think I shouldn't drive as well?!? Fuck you!
Nice language, very mature.
Driving a car is certainly more important to survival in most areas of society then playing a game. Bad comparison is bad.
Way to dodge the point.
I didn't dodge the point, I said your analogy was bad. Something you need versus something you don't. A car is arguably a need in most of america today. As is food etc. I won't argue someone has a right to buy a car or a burger. I wouldn't say stealing a car is ok, but if someone was starving I'd look the other way on a burger.
On games, stealing isn't right, and they aren't needed for anything. I think they can do a lot of good, but someone has to pay for them being made. If someone makes it as a charitable thing, great, more power to them. But if someone sells it to profi they deserve to profit from their work.
Ok then "something you need vs. something you don't"
Books
DVDs
CDs
All have used stores, none kick back to the manufacturer.
Honestly Question, I find your comments a bit more offensive than I did his. But if you think that cars are to important a comparison, let's look at everything from used movies, music, books, clothes, computers, printers, phones, tires, etc. The list could just about go on forever. What, honestly, makes games any different or better than all of the rest? Heck, I've mananged to sell used FOOD (sold a friend my leftovers that my wife had made since there was so much more than I could eat for some change to get a soda...and no...my wife did not get once of the quarters which would have fit your "logic" before. If you can buy it...you can sell it. If you buy water from a counties spring, you don't have to turn around and pay them AGAIN just to bottle and sell it. They made the money off of the initial purchase, and make more by selling you more water later. I buy new games, but I buy used as well. We bought a used car (00 VW Turbo Beetle) but also bought a car "brand new" (07 Honda CRV) one as well. Should I feel "guilty" that I'm starving VW for not buying it new? Or get map because we sold our old van to the dealer for $1,000 towards it and they turned around and sold it for about $2,000? Where's my cut? I bet you think it sounds stupid when I put it that way, but it matches exactly what you are wanting to happen. Grow up and realize it's a big bad world that doesn't go exactly how everybody wants it to go.
Zen aka Jeremy Powers
Panama City, Fl.
I'm quite aware of how the world works. People don't care about other people. People are more concerned with ahving more games then supporting the people that make them so they can make more games. You're more concerned with your own pocketbook then the starving guy down the street.
I get that. Doesn't mean I have to like it. Call me an idealist, but I think the world would be better if people were less worried about having the new shiney. Then again, my job probably wouldn't exist if people weren't all self centered children.
I don't care if you like my opinions. I don't like yours. Big whoop, doesn't change anything.
Woozers! Selling food to friends & leftovers at that - you're hardcore brother.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" - Herodotus
That also puts the shoe on the other foot
There is no RIGHT to profit from additional sales.
Yes, but that does not always mean
1 Pirated copy=One copy that would not have bought anyways
or
1 Used copy=One copy the person would not have bought anyways.
Especially for used games when you have a difference of 5 bucks, there is obviously some potential cross over of people who coulden't pirate so he bought the game, or no used copy so he bought it new.
Incorrect:
"1 pirated copy =/= 1 missed sale
1 used buy =/= 1 missed sale"
Correct:
1 pirated copy =/= 1 missed sale
1 used buy =/= copy was already sold, thus making it's intended money for that particular copy for the retailer, which had already paid the publisher, which had already made an arrangement for payment and other licenses with the developers. Person that made purchase will now be exposed to said product/publisher/developer that he/she/it may not have been exposed to before for reasons of either cost, financial state, or ease of locating said product.
So you would take the "incorrect" logic, and put it on par with a federal offense, but listing garage sales, flea markets, and Ebay all as havens for these such offenses. Yep. your version "really" (that's being sarcastic as hell folks) makes sense.
Zen aka Jeremy Powers
Panama City, Fl.
You still have not justified why publishers or developers deserve money on resales when no other industry does. Do you take in hungry orphan children or something? C'mon anything.
Instead why don't you tell me why they don't deserve money on every sale of what they created? Do you regularly give out free copies of your work?
Are games art? If it was a piece of art and some store sold a copy wihtout giving a kickback to the artist, well I don't need to explain this right?
ok ill tell you why they dont deserve it.
because it woudl be unfair to EVERY OTHER TYPE OF INDUSTRY, if they recieved unique benefits others did not, for absolutely no good reason.
and im sorry.. what? 'giving out free copies'? uhh.. did you miss the part where the person gave them money for that 'free copy'. not so 'free' any more.
and your art example.. again missing the point.
Yes the artist receives money when the painting (for example) is initially sold. Does the artist receive money again when that private individual (who now owns the painting) sells it to another collecter... NO.
So in fact artists are yet ANOTHER example of how it would be unfair to give the games industry unique privilages , since an artist does NOT get them.
No one gave them money for the second sale, that's a free copy as far as the dev is concerned. Yes they amde money back for punching the disc out of plastic, big friggin whoop. That doesn't account for the time they spent working on models, art, programming and basic gameplay so you could enjoy it.
As far as the dev is concerned? Why isn't it applicable to any other industry? That's like saying "well, in my eyes" bullshit. Why do developers deserve to be treated different from any other business? Other industries have people who bust thier ass just as hard as any developer to produce a product to be enjoyed by the masses. So Why do developers deserve to be treated different from any of them? can you answer that?
Big Friggin Whoop right back at yah, does that somehow count differently for the engineers at ford who spent time making mockups, and design concepts, testing so you could enjoy their vehicle?
does that somehow count differnently for the engineers at Sony who spent time making mockups, and design concepts, and testing and develiping electronics so you could enjoy their TV?
does that somehow count differnently for the engineers at Microsoft who spent time making mockups, and design concepts, and testing and development so you could enjoy their Console?
want me to stop here? as i stated.. show me why games deserve special treatment.
here is the sale model
developer contracted by publisher to make a product. Publisher pays developer for wages and funding.
Publisher SELLS a number of copies to a retailer. Retailer pays for them.
Customer pays retailer for copy of said game.
Second hand customer pays first customer for original game.
the developer only agreed to fulfill a contract with the publisher. So what that customer A sells to Customer B, that has NOTHING to do with the developers contract. You cant start making up contractual obligations that dont exist. Devs dont HAVE to agree to a publishers terms. They can demand better pay / royalties etc.
When did I say I didn't want this for other industries as well? I think it's BS anything gets sold or resold without something going to the people who made it. Lower the price for a resale fine, that doesn't bother me, it's been used it's not new. But give some credit to the people who made the friggin thing in the first place.
they get credit when it is purchased.
At any one point in time, only ONE person owns (and has access) to that product. So does the original buyer get their money back when they sell it on? No.. so why should one item, say a car, generate the company the same cash as selling 3 cars if sold on twice, despite the fact that during its lifetime, only one owner has access to its benefits at any one time.
If I sold a game on, and still had access to its benefits, AND another person also now did, fair enough thats two people enjoying it so two people should pay.. but its not.
games with cd keys / registering to play online, make extra sure only one person can enjoy it at one time.
You're assuming I'm saying the company should get the same amount each time it's sold. If the price of the sale is 100% the price of a new sale that might be fair, but then why would someone buy used over new. Give them a small cut fo the sale is all I'm saying.
Someone already pointed out car companies are doing this with certified vehicles.
Answer me this then. You said so yourself earlier that you wanted this for ALL industries. Let's use my house as an example.
Bought the house about 5 years ago whent he market was at a very low point, so I got a wonderful deal on it for $89,000. We didn't buy it brand new since there was one family before us that had it.
Now, since that time I've added a privacy fence, replaced the stove, working on fixing up the kitchen, built a room onto the house, replaced the roof, and working on a deck in the back. Now let's say I want to sell it for $120,000 which is actually a low for my area at the moment. Your saying I have to pay the original builders of the house (which is actually a couple of companies since it calls for electrical, roofers, etc.).
Now about 5 years later, they decide to sell it but did no extra work on the house. They make $200,000 on the house somehow, that part doesn't matter. But should the original people get paid for a THRID time by this point for the same house? And shouldn't I get money for it since I have done to much work on it myself? Or am I just a lowly consumer/seller that doesn't deserve it? How long before the price goes SO high, from SO MANY different passing of hands that my house is too expensive for anyone to own?
And that can go games as well. How many sells will the price have to go up a bit on a single copy so that the previous owner isn't completely screwed that it won't end up over a $100 for a damn copy of a kids game? Won't happen for them all...but can happen.
Oh yeah...what about developers that outsource work? Or are they just forgotten too? You can't say who all made a game, and expect them all to get a check on every single copy.
Actually you can say who all amde a game, it's called the credits.
The house example is a bit extreme, but as I said, it's not about saying everytime the item is sold we send the company $5. It's about including them in the sale. I don't think consumer to consumer sales could ever be tracked that way. BUt selling by EB and GS, one company making money off another companies work, that should be regulated.
Got you on that one too. I will need to do the research through my podcasts, but there is a development house in Japan that is FAMOUS for doing work for companies, but not even getting their names in the credits because they hire them to make themselves look better and to get more work done than their existing staff can handle. People have almost made a game out of looking to find what games they worked on since they place themselves under such tight contracts so as not let this informatino leak out easily. How do I know if they are involved (or someone like them) and pay them?
Zen aka Jeremy Powers
Panama City, Fl.
Zen@Zenspath.com
That's something I would think would need to be stopped. Regardless of paying people or not, credit is credit.
Ok, so now you want to stop a development studios right to make this offer to other dvelopers? THEY are the ones that said "Hey...we can help make these games, we don't want "public" acknowledgement of the work (they are well known in Japanese studios, but don't need to be known to all consumers) and you can save face and look like you've finished all of your work without the extra help. That is a developer making a deal with another developer. If they want to make that arrangement, that is up to them, not you. The same could be said of posters on this website. Most people don't know squat about each of us for the most part, but each of us namelessly helps Dennis get page hits and spread the popularity of this blog. We have the right to do that on our terms, just like they have the rights to work in a manner that has been VERY lucrative to them over the years. It happens in a few indsutries as well. Sub contractors, ghost writers, etc.
Zen aka Jeremy Powers
Panama City, Fl.
Zen@Zenspath.com
" I think it's BS anything gets sold or resold without something going to the people who made it. "
Fair enough, so I expect that you will then take it upon yourself to send the extra money for that toaster you bought at the garage sale to GE with instructions to divide it among the engineers and designers. And you'll do the same for anything else you buy second hand right?
I stopped buying things second hand a long time ago. Same time I stopped using burned CDs. I purchase new, because I HOPE that people who have the same respect for me I have for others will do the same. I want to make money from my work, and that has to involve someone paying for it at some point.
Ah, but you have bought second hand (as you just said). Have you compensated the makers of those products yet?
No, I threw the products away, busted burnt cds, didn't have any VHS and as far as other second hand stuff let's just say I threw my toys away a long time ago.
I no longer own anything second hand, except for things passed on through my family which I feel is a little different. I wouldn't know who to send money to for those things regardless. As for everything I use on a day to day basis, bought new, or some money went ot original source (cars again) and if anything breaks I'll buy new again.
"I wouldn't know who to send money to for those things regardless."
Exactly, and do you know why? It's beacuase that's not how fucking business is done.
People who make products expect them to be owned by the individual who buys them. And seeing as the product is, at that point, owned by the buyer they would be free to do with the product anything they wish, include selling it.
What pisses me off about your idea is that it says to me that I do not have the freedom to choose what to do with my own posessions. I hope you keep your high ideals in mind when you sell your house (or are you just going to demolish it?).
If I ever own a house I plan to live there. If I ever decide to leave I'll probably rent it, rather then sell it. Just seems smarter to me.
Also, since you mentioned possession. A game is not possessed. You don't actually own it. Copyright law, you have been licensed to play a copy of it. You don't own the copy. By opening the shrink wrap or clicking accept on the TOS you agree to that. You can't transfer the license to someone else. Technically every resale isn't legal, just no one bothers to police it.
I nearly guarantee you won't own a second house if you don't sell your first one. Unless you're rich enough to snap some up right now, that is.
If I buy one, pay off the mortgage and then rent it to someone while I buy another it would be easy to own a second. some people just choose to settle with one.
You're making money off it, better send some of that to the original owner of the house.
Touche. Touche.
I don't think you understand quite how hard it is to rent a home.
But that's fine, what do I know, I'm only up to 4 homes now.
besides..
giving devs money for resales ENCOURAGES poor quality!!
e.g First sale $30..
each resale.. $15
so a dev who produces a crap product, that will be resold faster (e.g. if its awful and the owner wants to simply be rid of it) can actually make lots of cash (every 2 ppl who unload the game onto some1 else because they hate it) makes them the same cash back as somebody buying it new.
Maybe im pushing the example.. but imagine this.. why make an average sandbox game with non-linear long lasting content taht takes a long time to develop? Why not make an average (but very linear and short) with very limited replayability thats quick to churn out. Youd actually make MORE from the rapid second hand sales, than from investing in making a decent game.
Maybe im unique in thinking this.. but uh... as the market CURRENTLY stands, shouldnt devs just prevent second hand sales by giving gamers a desire to hold onto them? stop making short crappy games with limited replay value that get resold quickly, if you dont want second hand sales.
And only allowing first sale (through digital distribution) discourages both. The dev makes money and has to have a good product.
Also how ignorant are consumers? Don't you read reviews and whatnot?
yeah ..
are you ignorant to the fact that most devs/publishers actually PAY for reviews? And this is from factual experiences of somebody who has worked in the industy 15 years.
There are barely any review sites out there giving accurate reviews. Publishers will mislead consumers to buying a crappy product if it gets them some cash. They dont care about consumers.
Look at eidos and kane and lynch, or VERY recently, how they tried to get all Tomb radier reviews that were less than 8 out of 10 pulled until after release.
Ok yes reviews bad, but there is Youtube, where you can probably experience most games before buying them. Have any gamer friends who bought it first? It's not that hard to find a john doe who has played it. I've bought crap games, a lot of them. They are still sitting on my shelf.
HELP!!! HELP!!! I'm being compressed!!!!
lol monty python ftw
How's this one:
lol C3PO ftw!
No! Shut them all down, hurry!
Andrew Eisen
Watching a video and playing it are NOT the same. Ever seen a great trailer...but the movie sucked? And if it all went digital, how much money would they make on the consumers that want a physical copy instead of digital? I would be very limited on what I buy that way because I enjoy collecting. I like looking at the cover art, checking out the book, and just flipping through the many shelves of games on a quiet night when I actually get a night by myself to slap in a random game from years gone by and play away. I do enjoy my ipod, but I also have Cds. If I buy a MP3 album from Amazon, I burn a few cds from it for the cars (we both have cd changers and don't always want to deal with the ipod) and for the cd player in my office.
Zen aka Jeremy Powers
Panama City, Fl.
Zen@Zenspath.com
No they aren't, but it's a lot better to do some research before you buy something. DId you just go and pick a random car at the dealer that looked shiny or did you research it?
Honest to God truth...I drove by the dealer on the way home, saw the car, and had it by that night. I've had the car for years now and freaking love it. You have to be spontanious a few times in your life. :)
But I agree, you do want to research a game (or other) purchases first and I could have been burned. But what would have happened if I couldn't have sold it to someone else because I didn't like something about it? Or even though I could have hated it, I had to pay VW money for getting rid of it which eats into the money I have to buy another car? Change car for game and VW for developer.
You're an idiot.
When I bought a condo in Deer Valley, Utah, I didn't pay the company that made it again. I bought it from a previous owner who needed the money.
When I bought a used M1 Garand, I didn't pay Springfield again. When I bought an old, old Enfield mk4, I didn't pay enfield again.
When someone buys a used car, they don't pay the car company again (unless, of course, you're buying it from the same dealer/company that sold it in the first place, but that's beside the point).
When I buy artwork that's already been sold once, I don't go to the artist and pay him again.
Games are no different. Once YOU buy it, its YOURS to do what you wish with it (within the confines of the law, of course), even if you find that the game was garbage and sell it back to gamestop for 5 dollars store credit.
Once again, you're an idiot. Just pointing that out for you.
lol youve missed out a few there Austin
''When I bought a condo in Deer Valley, Utah, I didn't pay the company that made it again. I bought it from a previous owner who needed the money.''
dont forget, you didnt pay the builders who built the house for the original owner
And you didnt pay the people who manufactured the wood for the builders to use.
And you didnt pay the company who delivered the wood to the manufacturer.
And you didnt pay the loggers who chopped the trees to get teh wood to give to the delivery guys.
And you didnt pay the foresters who grew the trees to produce high quality wood for building.
And you didnt pay the land owner who rented the land to the foresters.
And you didnt pay the original guy the land owner bought the land off.
And you didnt pay the guys who knocked down the old house on the land that used to be there before it was cleared
And you didnt pay the builders who built the house that was knocked down.
And you didnt pay the people who manufactured the wood for the builders to use.....
And you didnt pay the company who delivered the wood to the manufacturer............
lol loop that around about 30 times.
and then rinse and repeat for the other examples too lol.
Dont want to miss anyone out and upset people lol.
lol the funny thing is if you aply this to everything, then every time devs make a FIRST HAND sale, they will owe so much to all the people whose software / compilers / debuggers / equipment that they used to make the game, and to the companies whose physical materials they used, itl make business completely pointless.
My God, so I didn't.
Excuse me. I have apologies to tender. Those poor, poor people that cut the fine fine wood in my fine fine condo.
lol wait till the hippys get in on this.
you'll have to pay reparations to a 'mother earth fund' since technically she grew the trees. lol
questionmark1987
You are pro dev, I am pro content creator not content owner a content owner just has the profit rights to sell the content,a content creator should get 10% of all profits for life and have more influence as to where their "creation" may goIE have sanctions/fines aginst the content owner for pablumtizing the work to gain profit.
I'll leave it at that but yuo get the point, what you want to do is fed the content owner and hope the dev gets scrapes IMO you are missing the big picture of the flawed CP/IP system.
=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Wha?
When I say Dev I mean the guy who MADE the content. IE the modelers, texture artists, game designer. I don't mean the publisher. I think we're arguing... the same thing?
Not quite because you want to rise games above all rules,laws and reason, the publisher spends alot of money to advertise,press and push the game tey amke the most profit because they have the most to lose this is true will forms of media, you can not simply makes games un resaleable as it only gives more profit to the publishers and owners that rape both consumers and content creators, you have to look to CP/IP laws and see thats what must be changed.
You create a game a comic or a book you and thos who worked on it are entield to 10% of all profit for your/thier life,when one member dies nothing changes when all die the clock starts ticking on public domain rights after say another 25 years it becomes public domain and anyone can try and make a profit off it, this would grease indutry and force it to make better things but alas the way things are we get regurgitation,repacking and eternal brands boxed by souless conglomerates IE stagnation of thought and the art of media in its entirety.
Its good to be pro dev but me thinks you are slightly misplaced in your vigor.
=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Games are already covered and influenced by copyright. But honestly not many sales of a game happen after it hits the 25 year mark. In fact we're just starting to SEE games hit this. The effect fo it will be interesting but it hasn't played out yet.
I'm arguing I believe exactly what you're saying. The people that make games deserve to make a profit off all money made on those games for a set amount of time.
Not quite as I do not want directly change cost or influence on the market I want the CP/IP system to force CP/IP owners to share the wealth with CP/IP creators by not creating a insane tax system by not creating president that would not only destroy 2nd hand but give media publishers/CP/IP owners the ability to price gouse,cut off support and in genreal screw with the costumers 10X more than they do now.
Now will prices go up because they have to give up 10% of profits yes but it would be a minuscule change in price, we are arguing from the same coin but from different sides. You can protect the consumer and the content creator at the same time.
==============================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
I wouldn't have a problem with devs getting a cut of resales either. Either way would satisfy me and people like me, but the current situation I feel is wrong.
The problem is you cannot give them that without giving them all that without creating obscured and draconian regulations, you can however wean it out of popular culture over a decade or 2 and by wean I mean go all digital.
=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
I'm amazed to see new sales of a game after 6~9 months down the line, why even mention 25 years? The only new titles I see like that are the best hits which come at reduced prices nearly a year later.
questionmark1987
And compeltely miss the point....they pay a price for the discount scratches,broken manuals cases,ect. You gloss over the benefit as when the people that sale the games in part buy new thus stimulateing the industry ,those that buy mainly used titles will buy new once every now and then thus stimulateing the industry you are throwing the baby out with the bath water, used game sales push new games sales as well as hardware and peripherals its all connected.
=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
I'll give you the hardware and peripherals, but you are seriously insane if you think buying new 1 out of 10 times evens out.
You're glossing over the profit made for the precived loss.... you can not get blood from a stone, IE you can not sell a game to a person that dose not want to spend that much money on it thus why used games are favored and from it comes some new game sales were there would be none.
Besides have you looked at the price of a new used title its 1-7$ off and thats generally not enough to really effect a new purchase unless you eat,sleep breath games and even then you support the retailer thats buying in volume from the industry there is no profit loss from used sales here they grease the gears of the industry as a whole take away half of all sales no remove EB/GS altogether, then remove all other outlets that deal in used games you have heavily damaged the industry as huge retailers no longer by games in volume thus profits are down, sure on a 1 to 1 basis you are making more money but you've damaged your market.
=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
I don't want blood from the stone. I also don't want the stone playing. Once again as I said before, playing games is a luxury, if you don't or can't pay the people that make them, you shouldn't get to play.
If you remove EB and GS, people would buy from major retailors like Walmart and Best Buy. Would overall game sales (IE including both second and first hand sales) go down, yes. Would first hand sales and profits to the developer and publisher increase, arguably yes.
Let's assume 50% of sales are used. Let's say that of that 50%, 10% could afford buying new but just choose not to.
Eliminate second hand sales and yes 45% of the people playing games won't get to, but 5% will be buying new and paying the devs for it.
Honestly I don't buy in to the whole games for everyone thing. I see it as a luxury. I spend my money on it because I like it more then other luxuries. I would be happier seeing less people games and seeing the industry thrive then seeing everyone playing but the industry barely making it.
Used game sales don't support the industry at all. They generate news stories maybe because you get a lot broader range of people playing, but overall the only part of the industry that benefits from them is EB and GS.
But..thats not how it works what you will do is slow sales and create a monopolistic system that actively sends gamers to other hobbies because they can get anyway with anything, you refuse to see the immense collateral damage you will do to multiple markets by making games a special media that can not be resold...you also are breaking the constitution and setting a president that all media should be taxed as so the content owner may gain a higher profit..for merely making something....its lunacy.
=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
So people who can't afford to pay for new copies will have to find another hobby. I can live with that. People who can afford new copies will continue to game. I can live with that. As far as all media being taxed so the content owner can profit... you have heard of copyright and patent law right?
Ah yes, let's bring copyright law into this.
Doctrine of First Sale is one of the compromises given for copyright. Get rid of that, get rid of copyright. Fair enough?
Once again go study. Games never cross first sale because there is never a sale, there is a license.
This has been upheld several times on software because of softwares unique attributes. It's also upheld on movies and music, which is why the music industry is able to go after things like Napster.
That is true for everything copyrighted. Doctrine of First Sale still applies.
No it's not. When you buy a copy of a book you actually own a copy.
When you buy a piece of software you don't own the copy. You own a disc and a license. The code on the disc is still owned by the company that made it. Really, go look it up, or I will for you.
You are still licensing the content of the book, *EXACTLY* like you're licensing the content of the disk. The contents of the book are still owned by the publisher.
Yes but the law looks at the two a bit differently. The book is considered a physical item, software is not. They've said you own the disk not the content.
Also as I said, i support the same thing for all media types, books included.
Wrong. Doctrine of First Sale has been upheld for software. (Vernor v. Autodesk)
You are awesome.
Current copyright law is one of my pet peeves. I try to keep up on it.
Been singing "Happy Birthday" at any parties recently? Hope you paid the royalties.
lol a sudden lack of 'i know everything and you dont' comebacks.
Nice find sql! (even i wasnt sure what the facts were!)
Sigh here we go.
Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004) <-Not a good link, just search for it.
The Court agrees that the contractual restriction does create a right not existing under copyright law.
The right created is the right to restrict the use of the software through the EULAs and TOU. “Absent
the parties' agreement, this restriction would not exist. The contractual restriction on use of the
programs constitutes an extra element that makes this cause of action qualitatively different from one
for copyright.”
Vernor is 2008, it supercedes Davidson
Whatever it is you are quoting, I guarentee you it doesn't apply outside of your country. There is no way in hell a company could sell software and retain ownership of it in the UK. It would be like a Beatles record being sold for thousands and then Paul McCartney trying to get the money for it. It just doesn't happen.
I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land personally.
For the sake of the argument one can not change Programs without changing media you just can not do it because the way the foundation is laid they are inextricably linked. I ask you put your fuver to changing the CP/IP system for the betterment of all content creators thats the key to allowing the belittled and battered content creator to gain ground on not merely making one aspect of all media screacant and allowing the donimos to fall...
=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
As I said earlier, I support all media being non resellable. movies, music, books, games, everything.
But for now you have to deal with the law as its interped now and frist sale is a right consumers cherish, as it is there right they still have unlike the right to return crap media the publishers stole from us.
-----------------------
So people who can't afford to pay for new copies will have to find another hobby. I can live with that. People who can afford new copies will continue to game. I can live with that. As far as all media being taxed so the content owner can profit... you have heard of copyright and patent law right?
--------------------
I have been known for outrageous comments but that takes the cake, I will say ti again all you will do is take consumers from the market,thin the market it, create larger conglomerates that treat devs worse and destroy gaming completely.
=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Consumers who don't buy new, don't support the market. They are ghost sales. You mgiht as well remove them from the numbers now for all the effect they have on the devleopers and publishers. The only people they are supporting is GS and EB.
Again you miss the point they support the industry as a whole by supporting a retailer that buys in large volume from the publishers remove that shrink the industry inflate prices kill off devs create larger publishers who pay less...its a spiraling effect.
I can say downlaoidng merely mirrors the popularity of media and furthers the sale of media in a dailutied rate (because those who can buy do buy) no matter how logical and sound it may look its also a fact that downloading dose take away more potential sales than it can stimulate the same goes for used games and the market that flushishes because of it.
=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Sigh, yes there would be a sales hiccup while the other major retailers adjusted thier buying, but that's it. People wouldn't stop playing games because GS closed, they would simply find another place to buy, since most other places don't sell NEARLY the same amount of used copies, new sales would become the new major buy.
Well ain't that just hard shit? Things you buy from ANYTHING are ghost sales when sold on be it beds, cars, cds, games, laptops, tvs, houses, bikes, cuddly toys, hairspray, boots... EVERYTHING. That's because in consumer culture you OWN the things you buy. If you didn't then the whole system of ownership falls down and noone buys ANYTHING and you (and I) are out of a job. I mean come on, THINK ffs.
I can agree that used sales are probably more detrimental, but without them, the industry would die out.
As you claim, it costs millions to make a title. While that is true, I say a majority of those expenses are squandered instead of truly being necessary. There are tons of publisher fees and such, especially from the big 3 that raises the prices so they can get their cut, not the devs. Devs don't necessarily get bonuses until their title hits a high amount of sales, typically 1m+. These days, it isn't common to hit such sales, even if your game is awesome, it may end up as a sleeper.
When used titles aren't available, then they must have a new copy for your "theory" to work, yes? This isn't always the case, and Gamestop knows this, which is why they have customers show their demand by making pre-orders. If this demand isn't shown, then the demand would have to out-strip the supply, and gamestop would have to refer to another store nearby that may have a copy. The consumer, likely wouldn't like this and go to another locale, but what if they don't find their new title still? A lack of used & new copies, what would a customer do? Probably forget about the title, go seeking for a copy to borrow or worse, pirate. Not every customer will buy a new title, even if there are no used copies.
Customers are picky and do like deals, but they weigh their option on buying new vs used. The problem is that gaming is barely hitting mainstream on a scale of like movies. If they take away the used sales, some of those budget consumers will likely make even less purchases,since they can't trade in to make some more back on the previous purchase.
If you go seeking old titles, you'll have a hard time finding some specific titles, and I'm sure many won't bother with damaged used copies, so they may just pirate it. Squeezing money out of customers won't always yield more money, it may turn them off of buying new entirely.
If GS couldn't sell used copies, I would assume they would do like most stores selling most products, they would stock enough to handle their standard demand. Order more when stock gets low before it goes out.
Stores are prefectly capable of this, GS and EB just don't because they make more money from sued sales then they do off new sales, because they don't have to pay anyone for the used game.
Actually they place orders and divide the games thru the stores by demand, not by greed. If a particular area shows more interest either in a type of game, or has large pre-orders for a game, they tend to send more. Gamestop is one of the LARGEST buyers of games directly from developers and publishers...you know...where they get paid for there games. How would Gamestop, or any other store that is a specialty store like a music shop, toy store, etc, be able to afford buying a large amount of every game, just to lose money on unsold copies, or eventual price cuts to make room for more games/items?
Eliminate them as buyers of new games and people who actually buy new copies will shop somewhere else. You act like the sales would never happen if GS didn't exist. there ARE other stores.
I've worked in Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, and currently as a part time manager for a Gamestop (aside from my "real" job working for a Naval contractor) and all 3 of them placed orders for items in the same manner. One of my friends works security for Best Buy, and my old roommate worked at Circuit City...both of them did it too. It's called the law of "Supply and Demand". Wanna know why freezers don't sell well in the arctic? They aren't needed. Wanna know why ketchup flavored chips don't sell well outside of China? They aren't demanded here. We range from getting HUGE amounts of stuff like Gears and WoW because they are in high demand with a large amount of people, down to some of the small Atlus (or other small developer) games that we only get a few copies of, and those are usually bought by employees (they pre-ordered them so that's why we even got that little bit in) that collect the games and may not even open them. Just like how different parts of a single state can differ with food, clothes, cars, etc...different areas will differ with games. It's not my fault if you live in an area that is mostly FSU fans so you have a hard time getting an Auburn shirt. If they won't sell there...they won't ship there. They will just test the waters with a small release first at most.
Zen aka Jeremy Powers
Panama City, Fl.
Zen@Zenspath.com
But with less stores competing for sales, individual stores would need to carry more stock to meet the demand of the area. Or does demand just disappear because GS isn't in the area?
Demand will stay the same, but supply will go down. Best Buy, Wal-Mart, and other stores won't just up and purchase more games just like that. Our Circuit City near here is being closed, but neither Gamestop, Best Buy, or Wal-Mart are inclreasing their supplies for games, or anything electronic. They are waiting to see if demand goes up, THEN they see about increasing it. But with less options in any given area (think EA here with the NFL, Nascar, and other sports) they get to set what mark ups or other factors weigh in on a purchase now. Less competition means that they can do less but people are forced to purchase from them. Not everyone has internet access or the ability to have a credit card. Some people have to go to a store.
2nd hand media is a pillaer of indutry so much encricls it you take it away it leaves a vacume effect in play the resulting damage would close more devs than would give profit to.
One can not focus soley on one aspect of precived losses and think its the reason for all losses no publisher mismanigamnt and how the market works are the 2 core reasons for perceived loss, used games make and downlaoding make up such a small scale between them you cannot factor in any tangible damage, the sell of bootlegs however dose have a tangible ripple effect as it takes money off the streets. Downlaoding/sharing dilutes profits, the used game market has so many good effects that come with it any diluting effects are rendered null.
=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
If they couldn't sell used copies, GS may not exist and we'd only have Wal-Mart and probably Game-Crazy. There aren't many other retailers that buy tons of new stock, and if GS died out, there'd be a difficult way to asses how much stock should go to which store in Wal-mart, I can't be certain of how they allocate or how much they order but it probably would only order more if there's empty cases, which is rarely the case for most games in Wal-Mart. When you order, you place it, and it can take several business days to arrive, by then that customer may have sought another retailer. It isn't that beneficial to leave a customer hanging like that, they'll likely seek another retailer out.
It isn't necessarily greed, it is supply and demand. Yes, they do make more sales from used titles, but very few stores rarely force the purchase on the consumer. Some just can't simply wait or want to save the $5 for a physical copy that won't be in perfect condition.
Exactly, but if the used games weren't there to buy, and the consumer went to another store to buy the new copy, the money goes back to the developer. Regardless of where the new game is purchased form the money goes to the same end. I don't care if GS and EB close permanently and I only have Best Buy and Walmart to by from. GA and EB don't offer anythign unique except the used game sales, which I feel are wrong, so I'm not concerned with them surviving over any other store.
You do realize that some Best-Buys sell used CD's right? Should they be shut down because of this heinous action? Or what about the items that someone bought new (like a controller) and returned because they didn't like it? Best Buy already paid the maker of the controller for it, so when it gets marked down to sell since it was already opened, they are taking that hit. Sold twice though.
This doesn't mean they'll have the copy. If they don't know the demand, they probably don't have enough supply. This doesn't mean they'll get a new sale at all, there is no copy left! This leads to used sales or they'll try ebay or perhaps an illicit thing.
I'm not saying you should care entirely about GS/EB but that means you won't be getting as many sales as you likely would. Not everyone goes to each store and cutting off a large chunk of new sales isn't necessarily healthy for the industry at large. If GS/EB goes under, it wouldn't surprise me if sales hit an all-time low and used game sales spike up in other places.
BTW: I think a huge part of the "tens of millions" of dev costs for a triple A title is the marketing cost and in some cases A&V talent. When companies release real accounting numbers, then, my opinion will change but not before. All the developers I have ever heard from claim to work long hours for so-so pay and they don’t own the rights to anything they produce to boot as far as I understand things. So I don’t know where all the money is going except for executive pay and the afore mentioned "development" costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" - Herodotus
It costs several million dollars to license the Unreal engine for use in a game, plus royalties on your next 3 games regardless if you use the engine in them all or not.
That's part of it. Now for companies who don't license an engine, yes marketing is a big chunk, but so is salary and rent for 3-5 years. Games don't get made quickly.
Royalties on the next 3 whether or not you use the engine? There's more ethical problems with that than the used sales.
I don't disagree, but thats why some companies don't license it.
Again it is the industry hurting itself. So why should the consumers pay for this bullshit over, and over again. Just let it melt down like a similar industry did recently because it got everything it wants the past 30 odd years (Reaganonics) and finally imploded due to naked greed and entitlement issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" - Herodotus
I really only have one question… so what? What gives these companies the right to think they get a kick-back for the resale of games? Literally no other industry has ever had the nachos to ask for that before, because the idea is preposterous and is fundamentally incongruent with capitalism. Once a widget leaves the hands of the company that made it, its not theirs any longer. In the case of media it is protected from being edited and reused in other works, but not resold. You don’t see book/music/movie industries trying to pull this garbage, and they feel the pitch from the resale market as well; it’s the price they pay for competing in these markets. I know the US is heading headlong to a fully socialist economy with the $4.6T bailout, lets not hurry it along by entertaining these notions.
That's your opinion, and that's fine. I disagree. I think all media should only have a first sale and that's it. Or at the very least that whoever created it should get a cut of future sales. If you don't agree fine, fight against it.
I think the answer comes more from educating the public about what the developers do, and what involvement they have in a game. The answer to piracy and second hand games is because people don't value their games. I think the problem with using publisher is that it seems like big faceless corperation wants more money, but if your saying developer, it just seems more like 5 people in a room building this game. The thing I hate about the games industry is that no one knows who makes these games. The recognition is either based off of name (Ex, Call of Duty) or at most publisher, (Activision, I like the games from Activision!). I think more attention needs to be put that "this game was made by Infinity Ward, or this game was made by Bioware." and more attention needs to be put in what really goes on when people make these games, a documentry or 60 minutes thing of here's day in life of the offices of Bioware and when it's christmas or 4 weeks before the game goes gold and actually show what these people do.
With that, also encurage the use of buying new games with a slogen of such like "support our developers! Buy new games!" I think that, will solve a lot of piracy concens as well as people start to understand these games are made by real people who love to play video games.
Here's some info, since you asked.
Unless you work for a major company with big bucks like Blizzard, someone working in game design is usually searching for work after or even during every project. Companies don't retain most of their employees because they can't afford it. Before games are even released they begin firing or laying off employees to cut back on costs. They start with large teams of developers and then cut down to much smaller teams for testing and balancing. Then hire people again when the next project starts.
This leaves a lot of people without consistent work.
Well those developers (Important ones anyways) are usually tied to one thing like Gearbox, who after their project pick up requests for games or shop for publishers on other game projects. So it's always work on game, find publisher, make game, release and move on. They still get royalties for every game sold from that point even if they are cut from the publisher, keep in mind Gearbox is still making money from the original Halo for the PC. So Gearbox just moves around similar to how Starbreeze works in that one day they are working for 2K, then the next for Ubisoft, then the next for EA or microsoft. The gaming industry for developers is a very inconsistant one I agree if you are one of these third pary developers of third party publishers who are not owned by any one publisher but, if you are part of the publisher like EA Redwood or what was EA Chicago, you only really get laid off after working on at least a couple of games.
I'm not talking about companies, I'm talking about individuals. Level Designer or modeler A finishes project X and gets canned because the developement company can't afford to keep paying him while they';re inbetween projects.
Companies like Blizz are an exception because their stuff sells so well they have grown large enough to just have multiple projects going on at once. They shuffle people around and don't hire any new people unless someone leaves or they can support the new person.
I haven't hit the industry yet, but I'm about 5 months from being in the thick of it. I've already applied and interviewed. I have friends who are working for companies NOW (Cheyenne Mountain - Makers of Stargate Worlds for example) that are either in a hiring freeze or are actually letting people go because the projects they are working on are either in beta or launching. These are people I talk to on a weekly basis who don't know if they'll have a job tomorrow or not.
Edit: Companies last as long as somoene is running them, they can be broke and be alive still. A person doing a job losing that job and having no income can't survive. I would think customers would care but then again we live in the great U.S. of Me country where no one seems to care about anyone but themself.
Yes, a lot of people: consumers, politicians, conglomerates, employees, they all care about theirselves first and someone else second. Those people aren't going to put food on the table for you. Welcome to the real world.
I don't expect anyone to put food on my table for me. But it's going to suck when I put in hundreds of hours on a game and my company can't afford to pay me because people bought used instead of new. How fair is that?
Nothing is fair, and the time frame for the game market is short. If someone comes along who will do your work but demand less pay, is that fair? Not at all. If you put hundreds of hours of work and you can't keep the job, tough luck. It isn't a stable busines, especially with the climate as of late. Just because you demand to have your title only sold new, won't mean you'll likely stay with the same job, companies love to cut costs to equal more profit. Also, be aware that whatever you develop won't be yours anymore with that publisher, they can have you make a big idea and keep the IP and cut you from the costs.
I rather hear from someone like EZK than some person who feels they deserve every sale, because it seems you're not in the business.
Once again, I'm aware of how the industry actually works. I think it sucks and I hope it changes. Doesn't mean I won't work under the current system. How ignorant is it for you to say "Tough shit deal or get out."
We all hope it changes, but simply asking for all used titles to go away won't get anything done. If there's no money to squeeze it won't pop out magically. I'm saying it is "tough luck" because no one really makes progress with changing it, they just immediately assume all used titles are the problem and it'll make everything for the better for the developer and publisher. In this scenario, this means the consumer will be hurt, since publishers won't budge on their cuts. However, developers will still be hurt since every company loves to cut costs.
Since you'll work for the current system, aren't you feeding into the problem instead of trying to change it? I really wonder what your plan is besides just cutting off used sales.
Personally if I ever get into a position that would allow me to make these decisions I would:
1. Only sell through DD. Whether that be my publisher or my dev company.
2. Attach each CD (because I would be willing to print and ship CDs to customers who wanted them) to a code that is attached to an account, similar to how an MMO functions. I wouldn't limit installs, but you would have to log-on to play, even a single player game. This way people would be less likely to resell since the log in to play and the account with the company/publisher DD would be linked.
The only downside is you would need an internet connection to log on, I'm still trying to figure a way to work around that, maybe linking the CD directly to an account, rather then to a code. But then you could never allow the user to change passwords.
As for what I will do, I will continue to only buy new games. I will also continue to keep all the games I buy. Unless I ever get a position of power in a company, there's not much more I can do.
This goes back to things I've said before, in the DRM threads.
For computer games, I *REFUSE* to have that computer on the net. Valve lost a sale for years because of that (finally bought Orange Box for the 360, would've had boxed HL2 the day it came out if it weren't for the online requirements for single player). I also don't have an XP computer because of those activation requirements. I've bought less than a handful of computer games in the past decade, but bought hundreds of console games. Yes, some of those were bought used. I wouldn't have been driven to the console without nonsensical restrictions like what you propose, and all of those would've been new comptuer games. They lost a good chunk of money because of ideas like those you espouse.
Good for you. As a developer I refuse to lose profits so people like you can play. That's my right. Like I said, games are not a right they are a privlidge. I will work under whatever decisions my bosses make, but those are the decisions I would make if I was in charge, and I wouldn't be concerned with the small loss of players like you.
Small loss?
I buy 70-100 games a year. Am I the type of consumer you want to alienate?
No doubt. Hell just today I spent over $200 on titles from Valve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" - Herodotus
In the scheme of things considering most of those are probably used sales and wouldn't benefit me a lick, yeah small loss.
Only about half, so no, it's not small.
The last several hundred dollars has all been new. Keep trying to rationalize away alienizing paying customers.
ETA:
The attach rate is what, 7-10 for most consoles? I have bought *NEW* 23 in one trip. Why do you insist I don't do anything for the industry?
Where do you think 2nd hand sales come from exactly? They are when someone trades in games for new ones, which correct me if I am wrong means a SALE for you that you wouldn't have gotten otherwise. The only difference is that the games shop recooperates the money by selling on the used games rather than taking cash. If the 2nd hand games were not being sold then you wouldn't be getting trade ins which means those that trade in for new titles wouldn't be generating a sale for you. So in short, you are fundementally WRONG. The 2nd hand market directly feeds the New games market.
Thank god you don't make those decisions, then. Your company would be out of business in the blink of an eye.
My response.
1. you've already limited who can or will play your game. Not everyone has the internet, but just about everybody can get access to a store to buy a copy of a game.
2. Wonderful. So if your company goes under (and don't say it isn't possible..because it sure as hell is a posibility for ANY company), what happens if the registration or log-on servers are turned off. Or I travel somewhere without internet. Or hell...play the game in my CAR on a trip. (yes..I have an LCD we hang in my mother in laws van for long family trips and some of us stay in the back playing games together). Plus I would be less interested in buying the games if I knew I was locked into a log-in for all of the games together and couldn't remove or even give away a copy to a family member or friend without letting all of them go. Same reason that, while I love steam, I am VERY limited on what I buy on there.
3. What happens if you get into a situation that you need to sell your games? I've had to do it once before. It hurt doing it, but I did what I had to do to take care of my family when we were having to travel between multiple hospitals for over several months while my pre-mature daughter was trying to survive. We would have been in real trouble if the option to sell my games and movies had not been there.
Zen aka Jeremy Powers
Panama City, Fl.
Zen@Zenspath.com
Spore still made record sales even with their insane DRM which is much worse then what I proposed. Would I appeal to all gamers? Of course not, but I wouldn't be concerned with the players who didn't want to follow those rules.
Your right, it did sell well. They made their money, and I got screwed. I bought the game...new..., I bought the book with it for my kids to use to help make creatures, and I even bought the damn DS game (which was ok). The day after I bought it and installed it I started having issues with the PC, and still do to this day because I can't get the damn DRM off of here without reloading the entire PC..but then I lose one of my precious few chances I get to play Spore (which I had bought NEW). So here's how this worked out for me.
1. Bought game new, along with portable version of the game, and guide to help support the developer because I have always enjoyed Maxis games (specifically the Sim City series).
2. Load the game on my PC and find that, after paying full price for it and not being able to return or sell this game to someone else if they wanted it, messed up my PC and has caused me nothing but trouble. Also found that I could not load it on my wifes laptop and play it on there without using another download code, even though I had a log in showing I had purchased the game and was just going to move my game save around on an SD card for portability. (They said I needed to buy ANOTHER copy of the game to play it on her laptop.)
3. Developer made their money and I didn't get my product. Period.
4. FIVE people I work with had the game days before it was officially released, didn't have any issues, played it on their home PC's as well as on their laptops and such. And never paid a dime.
So with these steps in place to make it where this game couldn't be copied or played by more than one person, the only one that got screwed and is now quite bitter about PC gaming in general is the one that paid the company the money they thought they deserved.
If this is where you want gaming to go, please get off your high horse and realize that the gaming world doesn't revolve around your pompass rear end. Yes there are "genres" of games, but that is only a small part of gaming as a whole. Games are made for all people, of all tastes, of all ages...not for the "chosen few" that want to play the game your way. You can't say that books are only for "certain" people because some people may not be able to enjoy new books.
What about people that have trouble paying for college and pass using used books? Should they be locked out of an education because they worked hard, but had to use used books to do it? You said earlier that ALL media should be this way, and books count as well. Books, movies, and even games, can be educational...but are all still a form of media.
I'm saying people enjoy different types of games. There will NEVER be a game that appeals to EVERY gamer's tastes because people want different things when they go shopping for games. Someone who predominantly likes Halo is probably not going to be as interested in Final Fantasy unless they also like roleplaying games. Trying to create a one size fits all game is asinine, it's common practice to create games for a "target audience" just like every other product. I'm saying if I ever owned a company I would be geared towards people who wanted to support the industry, and screw all the people that don't. I KNOW there's enough of a market of people buying new that it wouldn't make much of a difference. I cited Spore as an example, a LARGE portion of the hardcore gaming community knew what that program would do to their computer and they bought the game anyway.
I preordered Spore. I sent it back unopened and got a refund. Your point fails.
Purely through DD with optional hard copy, how would you plan to advertise and how much would you spend to do so? How fast would these hard copies arrive? Would you tack on insurance to the package or would they be parcels and would they require signing or anything?
Is there really a point to having a hard copy when an online-log-on key is required to play? Personally, I'm not interested in having a constant connection, I like to turn off my adapater from time to time or when it isn't in use. I try to limit my power usages, but not everyone is like me.
You have fun only buying new copies, it is really nice having that fresh seal with lovely manuals (not many are great these days) and the typical warranty with a warning that a 1:1 copy isn't "necessary". I'd have to point out that not every potential customer is like you though, it is a minority view.
Games are made for minorities, they're called genres. Like I said, my games probably wouldn't appeal to everyone, but I don't think it would concern a majority of the market either. Your problems with it (not wantign constant connection, etc.) are a minority view as well.
As for the hard copy, some people are just more comfortabel installing from a disc then a download. I figure why not give them that option.
Limiting and limiting to pure minorities is a problem if you want to stay afloat unless you're a very small team and self-publish. Yes, I'm a minority since I don't like constant connections, but what if that beomes a majority view in the future for people that don't like online-connections for X reason? Would you listen to your paying customers at removing the lock or would you damage the customer relations for future titles? I don't think you'd try to keep up relations since you already got your money from them. I can only hope that money lasts for a while over time.
90+% of development is used internally.
Why do game devs get a break?
ETA:
And let me elaborate this even further, using only software and my personal experience.
* I wrote software that enabled people to switch long distance carriers. Do I get a cut of each phone call? Why not?
* I wrote testing software. Do I get a cut of the software it was used to test? Why not?
* I wrote financial planning software, do I get a cut of each transaction it suggests? Why not?
* I wrote security software that protects bank transactions. Do I get a cut of each transaction? Why not?
* I wrote security software that protects online auction transactions. Do I get a cut of each transaction? Why not?
* I wrote software that accelerates network connections. Do I get a cut of the cost of the bandwidth savings? Why not?
All of this is copyrighted software, just as games. Why are game devs special?
Hardware contains software. Does that mean hardware can't be resold?
what projects have you worked on?
Offline only titles will soon be dead (or a least niche). I believe the next generation of consoles will serve as a bridge to a predominantly digital distribution model. Publishers are looking as games as more of a service than a product. I can't say that I blame them - between piracy, the second hand market, and their own misguided attempts at protecting themselves through various copy protection schemes resulting in alienated and frustrated gamers, offline games are looking less and less lucrative. Digital distribution is the easiest and least costly means of providing a service and backend authentication which is tied to a credit card instead of on-disc schemes. The generation after next will feature lower intial purchase prices but higher ongoing service costs. Retail music stores are dead. Movies and TV are increasing their online offerings (Even Netflix is accessible through the Xbox now). To me to seems like game publishers are the last to really get on the bandwagon.
At the end of the day that is really the only thing a publisher cares about - making money. Any time they see potential revenue being siphoned away of course they are going to be worried. As I said in response to a previous article though, publishers have options which can take used games stores, piracy, and the need for copy protection out of the equation. It looks like Atari recognizes this.
The hardest thing that publishers need to manage is making sure that their retail partners remain happy while moving away from traditional means of distribution. I'm not sure how that is going to work. Maybe the retailers will find a way to add value to software sales which will allow them to retain customers, but aside from the tangibility of owning the physical box and disc the only thing that has had any impact are collector's editions.
Publishers are really only concerned about retailers as far as they need them. If the industry goes to full on digital distribution (somehting I think is a GREAT idea, less cost because no cost for boxes and discs, plus much better customer support and you don't have to stand in line for new releases) then they won't need retailers. Stores will only need to sell the systems and peripherals, or companies can just sell them online or over the phone and cut retailers out entirely. That also means more money for them because no middle-man to pay.
questionmark1987
The trouble is we've(consumers) have not seen a real price break on digi media and that will slow any noteworthy momentum, digital distributions day will come but its a long way off.
=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Why should there be a price break? I mean yeah st's nice having a hard copy, but if you can download the game anytime too then what's the difference?
ummm.............. smaller market(digi only) same/higher price = proft loss.......
=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
I could see a small price break as I said for not having to print cds and whatnot. But the content is the same content regardless of if you bought it online or in a store.
No, it's not.
You can resell a hardcopy, can't digital. There is less value there, lower the price.
If reselling is what the company is trying to avoid they aren't going to cut your cost for that sake.
Why should I pay the same when I have less value? They are removing something that I can do (although personally, I don't. I've sold a miniscule proportion of the games I've bought), yet charging the same? That's a price increase. I already think that they are charging too much, why should I support a price increase?
What the consumer sees as value will have to change I belive with a price drop, easy of use and transfer and share will be the beginning of a new golden age of media but this utopia is not for 10+ years when their will be more people world wide able to buy it, more volume means more profit and a stable profit means a lower price for the consumer.
But without that lower price you will get no where.
=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
You don't have to, I am not saying everyone should be all happy sunshine about the idea. But fi you want the game and the option is pay this price or don't, those are really your only options. Sure the price would probably still drop eventually, and if no one bought anythign until prices dropped the companies would probably lower starting prices, but that shiny thing comes in and a lot of people can't help but buy it. People will pay more to get something sooner.
THe time is not right for it right now it will be in the next 20 years, in the next 5 we have to get rid of DRM as we know it and have a solid foundation of consoles that can fully support whole new game downloads, so the next 5 years this will be dealt with, in the next 5 years we need more people on the net and a overall faster net the more people on a faster and wider spread net the more consumers you can sale to in this time you start weening the public off normal physical media, past 10 years is when more than likely DD will be as common place as 10MBPS connections. People are not going to wait on a film to load, where goes hollywood is where the rest of media goes, phiscail distribution is here to stay for at least 8more years and with discs cable able of holding 500GB-1TB it might well be another 5, but I think flash media might do it if it can hit 100GB in the next 5-10.
=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Retailers won't stock systems without physical media to sell, and peripherals would have to go up in price to compensate, or console costs would have to go up. Retailers don't profit from systems sold, they only stock them from stock of software available to make some profit, and peripherals. I don't like how peripherals are basically as much as old game sales, while new games haven't changed for the Wii, the other two systems are higher than last gen by as much as $20 or $10.
It is also pretty laughable that you expect lower costs from pure digital distribution, the market is fairly small so they'd likely jack up the costs. The reason we have retailers is because they do all that work for the publishers and developers, if the publishers and developers do that work, they'll be tacking on more costs to that $20m they spend on making a next-gen title, and we'll likely see a higher cost in titles than something smaller.
Wow, you honestly think most of the money on the cost of a game goes back to the developer? Publisher maybe, not the developer. Developers make maybe 25% of the cost going back to the publisher, which is probably around $45 on a $60 game.
So with DD a developer could make double the profit selling the game for half the price.
Yeah, they would totally lose money.
/facepalm
Again, they have to sell remarkably well. DD doesn't mean developers will get double profit, they are hitting a smaller market, and thus they won't reduce the price, especially since they'll have to market it theirselves, more expenses. More expenses won't equate to a price drop, especially with a smaller market. They are very likely to lose more money than gain something.
Their best bet would be something established already intead of personal stores because most companies can't afford what you're suggesting.
Still would be better for the industry, hell everyone could sell through steam opr publishers could stay in the loop by handling DD and marketing. It still would cut out retailers and that would ease some of the fincancial strain and stop used sales.
Please tell me how smaller market,slower sales larger publishers lower paid and or less devs are better for the industry?
=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
The market isn't base don GS and EB, it's based on consumers. If you can play a PS3 game, most likely you can download one. If you can play a computer game, most likely you can download one. You don't even have to have an internet connection at your home to get internet access anymore.
The market size would eb the same, the distribution of product would change. The only part of the market that would be lost would be the people who aren't contributing any money to the developers now, so no big deal.
Game sizes are pushing 15~20 GB now, unless they are online installs like Steam (roughly 8 GBs). Some ISPs limit you to 20GB a month, this is the current state of connection in a large game-buying country: the US. Of course, not every ISP is like this, but not everyone has unlimited caps, and those unlimited plans look to be going extinct soon. So you limit your customer base to a consumer that only have higher caps or they may buy your new title, provided they didn't buy anything recently for the month. The market size isn't the same when you go DD, it is significantly smaller. The market that buys used sales may spend money on other titles that aren't necessarily yours. The used market does contribute towards new sales and that means they likely won't buy more in recent time.
Outside of the US, limited caps are very common and you limit the world at large in many places removing more sales from being possible. Those people who don't contribute also become the ones that allow those who don't contribute to get a chance at a game. They find they can't sell the title elsewhere, they may not purchase the title at all in the end until the price drops a bit. If games don't sell well for a while, don't companies downsize relatively fast? Only the lucky developers not drawn from a hat will get more profits or will they be the same?
I don't call 5 to 20 years soon..... in order to price it right you have to have a large market in order to sale the product at a lower price to more people than what you have in comparasion to physical media, world wide net users are goign to ahve to grow some and the price for the service drop more before digi distro can hope to fully replace physical mediums.
=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
lol 5 - 20? The infrastructure is there, now. Blizzard could release WoW ONLY through online download from now on, wouldn't hurt them a bit.
The new consoles ALL have capability to download games. The issue is hard drive space which anyone with any sense of technology price will tell you is cheap enough that if somehting is important you should be buying a hard drive to save it on rather then a CD anyway.
Yes...becuse...they are blizzard.... for "middle class" mainstream devs digi distro only is not a a real option.
For the whole industry to go digi only and Iam talkign film and music as well thats at least 5-10.
=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Whole industry yes, but honestly I think games will do it long before movies. Movies are too set in the theater to dvd model. Game companies are ocnstantly looking for ways to lower costs, and digital distribution is MUCH lower cost then hard copy. The logistics are a lot simpler too. The difficulty is getting the system set up, but as we've seen the trend is growing and I think it will happen sooner rather then later.
My guess is next gen system will be fully DD.
No.. since consoles work on 5 year time lines and physical media is good to go for at least 20... in 5 no that is not happening you’ll have a mix, in 10 I can see it, so thats at least 2 more console genrations.
=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Consoles are more on an 8 year timeline. And this is devleoping more and more quickly each year.
Yeah, pretty close to my expectation.
The next console generation (I'm guessing about 3 years from today, but it is hard to tell since everyone is being secretive about their next console) will feature equal online vs offline offerings. You'll be able to buy the game in the store or download it for the same price. Over the lifetime of that generation, lets just say another 7 years (I think console generations are beginning to operate on a longer cycle where 5 years feels to short) retail sales will diminsh greatly to the point were primary means of distribution will be digital at the end of that generation. The next generation after that (wild guess - 10 years from now), will thrive primarily on digital distribution but may have legacy options for retailers and for playing previous generation titles. Hopefully in 10 years broadband penetration will be at or near 100% (right now it is around 50% in the US).
We got DSL(and digi cable) in last year as in the regoin, its 200KBPS for 60 a month plus it has down tiem issues, befor that dailup was the only option, 200KBPS is not enough for much,HQ streaming is nearly out of the question.
I say consoels run a 5 year time frame, avrage it out then add in when the new consel is relased as its the focus of the market, just becuse a system is supported in some form for a long peroid of time dose not mean the market supports it.
I think the next 2 genreations of consoles will be a mix of Offline and online, past 10 years its anyone guess but I think prehaps you'll have a TVcard like setup you buy a game with and have it palced on youer or a prodived memroy device you swipe youer system card the game is loaded with youer account info,you take it home you paly it, you can byit online for the same, I think w