GoW's Jaffe Rips Used Game Sales & Apparently Goes Offline
GoW's Jaffe Rips Used Game Sales & Apparently Goes Offline
August 31, 2009
Outspoken God of War designer David Jaffe posted a video rant against used game sales on Saturday, but apparently removed it from YouTube the following day.
We caught up to Jaffe's video yesterday morning while scanning our daily RSS intake (left). By late afternoon when we checked back to gather some quotes for this article, it was gone. In its place was a YouTube message reading, "This video has been removed by the user."
A short time later, when we looked again, we couldn't even access his blog. A system message from Blogger read: "This blog is open to invited readers only."
It's unclear why Jaffe's video was taken offline or why he locked his blog. While Jaffe's video argument against used game sales was punctuated by occasional f-bombs, that's not unusual for his freewheeling commentaries. Prior to being locked, readers of Jaffe's blog were engaged in a lively response to his video, both pro and con.
The used game issue is a passionate one indeed, and Jaffe has addressed it previously on his blog. For his part, Jaffe takes the standard industry line that games are bad for developers and publishers. In the deleted video, he said (we're paraphrasing from memory here) that he didn't begrudge consumers the right to buy used games, but that game creators deserved a cut of used game sales. He said that some have defended used game sales by comparing buying a used game to buying a used car. However, Jaffe said that was a bad analogy because while playing a used game is the same experience as playing a new game, driving a used car is a different experience from driving a new one.
GP: Hmmm... We tried to reach Jaffe via Twitter to ask him about the missing video, but it appears that his Twitter account is no longer active. We hope that Jaffe has not decided to stop interacting with gamers. While we don't always agree with his rants, they are provocative and entertaining.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 11/20/09 at 05:42pm
ZippyDSMlee: oh may the cute stab out your eyes, http://www.youtube.com/user/simonscat
ZippyDSMlee: oh may the cute stab out your eyes, http://www.youtube.com/user/simonscat
Posted 11/20/09 at 05:17pm
JDKJ: O.K. Suit yourself. But when you're wearing Ray-Bans, sitting on a curb with a white cane and a cup of pencils, and doing Stevie Wonder impersonations, don't say I didn't warn you.
JDKJ: O.K. Suit yourself. But when you're wearing Ray-Bans, sitting on a curb with a white cane and a cup of pencils, and doing Stevie Wonder impersonations, don't say I didn't warn you.
Posted 11/20/09 at 05:10pm
ZippyDSMlee: JD:No thank you I don;t want your cooties...or STDs...
ZippyDSMlee: JD:No thank you I don;t want your cooties...or STDs...
Posted 11/20/09 at 05:01pm
JDKJ: Me. I'm rehearsing the role just in case I do get dubbed Zippy The Soecnda.
JDKJ: Me. I'm rehearsing the role just in case I do get dubbed Zippy The Soecnda.
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:59pm
DarkSaber: Wait, is that meant to be Zippy, me or you?
DarkSaber: Wait, is that meant to be Zippy, me or you?
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:49pm
JDKJ: I cud caer lez. =^^= *wakes up in mid-afternoon after staying up until 3:00AM soldering resistors on to circuit boards, stumbles around in formerly white but now grey underwear, while simultaneously scratching groin with vigor and making coffee*
JDKJ: I cud caer lez. =^^= *wakes up in mid-afternoon after staying up until 3:00AM soldering resistors on to circuit boards, stumbles around in formerly white but now grey underwear, while simultaneously scratching groin with vigor and making coffee*
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:46pm
DarkSaber: knell? Don't you mean Neil? Anymore of tht and I'll dub thee Zippy The Soecnda
DarkSaber: knell? Don't you mean Neil? Anymore of tht and I'll dub thee Zippy The Soecnda
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:44pm
JDKJ: Now, now, Saber. Don't be salty. You weren't the first one to knell and bob and you ain't gonna be the last one, either.
JDKJ: Now, now, Saber. Don't be salty. You weren't the first one to knell and bob and you ain't gonna be the last one, either.
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:42pm
DarkSaber: JD's feeling rather desperate it seems.
DarkSaber: JD's feeling rather desperate it seems.
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:33pm
JDKJ: C'mon, Zip. You already touch yourself way too much. Spread the love. Before you go blind.
JDKJ: C'mon, Zip. You already touch yourself way too much. Spread the love. Before you go blind.
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:27pm
ZippyDSMlee: JD:No and I ain't touching any part of you or your friends!! :P
ZippyDSMlee: JD:No and I ain't touching any part of you or your friends!! :P
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:25pm
JDKJ: @Zip: You know Lik Mitaint?
JDKJ: @Zip: You know Lik Mitaint?
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:18pm
ZippyDSMlee: neill and bob,oldest giveing head joke and most lamest...
ZippyDSMlee: neill and bob,oldest giveing head joke and most lamest...
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:18pm
JDKJ: But thanks for the memory. MIB's a classic. *sings* "Here come the Men in Black. Galaxy defenders. Here come the Men in Black. They won't let you remember."
JDKJ: But thanks for the memory. MIB's a classic. *sings* "Here come the Men in Black. Galaxy defenders. Here come the Men in Black. They won't let you remember."
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:18pm
ZippyDSMlee: JD:for the record I told you you can suck your own dck.
ZippyDSMlee: JD:for the record I told you you can suck your own dck.
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:07pm
JDKJ: Naw, man. That's Mueedeegiaap and Bob. And you can stop bobbing. I got Zippy bobbing now, too.
JDKJ: Naw, man. That's Mueedeegiaap and Bob. And you can stop bobbing. I got Zippy bobbing now, too.
Posted 11/20/09 at 03:56pm
DarkSaber: OH I get it now! It's Men In Black quote! The twins that run the comm centre in HQ.
DarkSaber: OH I get it now! It's Men In Black quote! The twins that run the comm centre in HQ.
Posted 11/20/09 at 03:49pm
JDKJ: I'd like to introduce you to them. First, Neil. Then, Bob.
JDKJ: I'd like to introduce you to them. First, Neil. Then, Bob.
Posted 11/20/09 at 03:47pm
ZippyDSMlee: JD:I know they are intimate friends of yours...
ZippyDSMlee: JD:I know they are intimate friends of yours...
Posted 11/20/09 at 03:44pm
JDKJ: @Zip: You know Neil and Bob?
JDKJ: @Zip: You know Neil and Bob?
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
I'll admit that the used car analogy may not be a perfect analogy. But I still feel that he and the rest of the game developers need to stop whining about it. If I was a game dev I'd be happy it means that more people (who may not be able to afford $60) will play my game.
Yes for me as a dev knowing people play my game is a very comforting feeling while my company goes bankrupt and I cannot pay rent.
If your company is going bankrupt, perhaps it would be a good idea to make better games.
Right, because everyone who has made a critically acclaimed game is wealthy and successful. Saying "Make better games and you'll succeed" is a ridiculous answer.
Parallax Abstraction
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
blog.digital-lifeline.ca
If you can't find some place else that's better then all you have left is to bitch and moan, so start making some noise.
If I ever own a company (unlikely since I don't care to do that I just like making levels) it would be 100% DD and DLC. I wouldn't bother pandering to people who were causing this problem. Would I lose some sales because of it? Sure, but at the end of the day at least I know ever person who was enjoying my creations had actually compensated the people responsible for it.
How would you like it if you didn't get paid at work one day because the company only sold used items. I'm sure you would be pretty pissed you weren't being compensated.
Oh d-d-d-dear. Heated as usual. How would you like it if your comments had no noticible impact on the local population?
That wasn't rhetorical.
They're not in this to get a good feeling they're in this to make money.
----------------------------------------------------
Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.
Everyone being in it for the money means no one is in it for the right reasons.
Cue up call of duty 43 please, I want some more of these spew titles!
Games are art and entertainment media. Sometimes it pays. Sometimes it doesn't. However, none of this philosophical stuff matters because many other industries have learned to work around used sales. There is no reason gaming companies (making record profits right now) shouldn't have to deal with it.
I could see that happening, if say... one person bought the game, and everyon who ever played it was just using that one copy. In order for it to be used it had to have been bought at some point or another, and even then how many times do you really think one game is bought and resold? Maybe twice?
- Stand back! I have an opinion, and I'm not afraid to use it.
Well that's just my opinion. If I buy a game and somewhere down the line (weeks, months, or even years) decide I don't want it anymore, I just don't feel they are entitled to a part of the money if I resell it. Are they losing a small percentage of possible income? Maybe so, but I seriously doubt losing that income is going to bankrupt them. IMO these dev complaints about used games are just as pointless as their complaints about piracy. Spore had DRM and it was/is the most pirated game of 2008. Not that I'm condoning piracy but all it does really is get in the way of the people who buy games legally.
Anyway I guess my point is I understand their argument, just find someone elses shoulder to cry on.
A used car is more likely to break down sooner. A used disc is more likely to break sooner. I don't see a difference.
The game industry needs to understand that a game is a commodity. It's going to be resold. If they don't like it, they can increase prices or prevent resale - either one will drive them out of business.
At some point the industry needs to stop throwing tantrums about this and grow up to face the real world.
At some point, gamers need to also be willing to grow up and have an open dialogue about this. Because right now you really have a vast majority of both sides close mindedly bitching about the other. And until this gets resolved, creating a compelling single player experience is becoming a very high risk venture.
Wall of Text Simulation- Insert coin to continue.
Considering that the courts have decided years ago, with cases brought to them by the movie industry and Nintendo when rentals first started, that the resale and renting of games isnt' illegal, there really isn't any need for a dialogue. Precedent states that Jaffe's position can't be upheld in today's capitalist system: You sell what you own only when you actually own it.
www.20sidedwoman.blogspot.com
Sorry, but gamers ARE grown up about the issue. It's a situation of supply and demand. If developers want us to buy, we have to see what they're selling as worth the price they charge. If it's not, then they need to change what they're selling or how they're selling it. We don't need a dialogue about it. We are the customers, and if some in the industry aren't willing to give us what we want, they can go and do something else and be replaced by developers that will give us something worth spending our money on.
Videogames are not essential, and if the industry doesn't want to give us what we want, we'll stop buying. We don't need to negotiate with these assholes. We don't owe them anything - they serve us. It's a shitty deal for them, but that's the business they got themselves into.
I'm sorry, are you retarded? There should be no 'open dialogue' about my right to resell property that I legally own. Do I have an 'open dialogue' with Colt Manufacturing when I sell a handgun? Do I have an 'open dialogue' with Mitsubishi if I sell my 3000GT? Do I have an 'open dialogue' with the contractor who built my house if I decide to sell it? Do I have an 'open dialogue' with the author of any of the millions of books I've bought, read, and given away or sold to half price books?
There's absolutely no need for an open dialogue. Jaffe and all the people who agree with him on the issue lose. The courts agree (for now), and the buyers agree, and that's all that matters.
" . . . the millions of comic books I've bought, read, and given away or sold . . . ."
Come now, you can do better than that.
" . . . the millions of comic books and porno mags I've bought, read, and given away or sold . . . ."
That wasn't better, that was far off the mark. Come on, try again.
Who would want to buy used porn mags?
With enough patience, the stuck-together pages can be pulled apart, thereby providing countless hours of new entertainment. And some of the classic issues (e.g., Hustler's 20th Anniversary Big Booty edition) are now out of print.
You have some experience in this? ^_^
If it's well used it must be of higher quality.
A glimmering example of irony and immaturity at it's finest. You sir, are an idiot.
No, I'm not retarded. Do you have a short memory? Even in this very article Jaffe states, as he has many times, that this isn't a concern for the end user. Period, that's all. Consumers aren't at the core of the issue. He says flip that stuff if you want, he doesn't care. He's even stated many times that the steps game companies are going through to cut out Gamestop do end up hurting consumers.
This is why I say we should have an open dialogue. Because you've already made up your mind and call people with contrary views retarded. No budging on your side or even willingness to hear what the other side is saying. A point driven home by the fact that you've in turn, made parallels to drastically unrelated examples. After all, nowadays you're not BUYING the games anymore. You're LICENSING them. You have been for a while, actually. You've BOUGHT the medium it's come on, but not the information itself.
Which is why it's better we have these dialogues NOW rather than later considering EA and Activisions regards for consumer rights, no?
Wall of Text Simulation- Insert coin to continue.
Well, if Jaffe says it isn't a concern for the end user, I should completely trust that. Just like I trust when Obama says I wouldn't lose my right to choose my own insurance. Both are bullshit. He sure seems to care if I flip the shit, because apparently he's not getting more money. He's also complaining about the way another business, one I often buy from, is run, which is just childish and retarded.
There should be no 'open dialogue' because they have no right to additional money. There is no other product, in the world, which makes money in such a way. They make money on the first sale and NOTHING on subsequent sales. So why should Jaffe get special consideration? It's not that I don't 'hear what the other side is saying'. It's that I hear what they're saying, and it's bullshit. As for purchase of the product, I'm fairly certain you buy the product and the license for its use. If you just brought the product but no license, it would be illegal to use it. If I was just licensing the game, I would be DDing it. I'm paying 60 dollars for both the MEDIUM IT CAME ON and the INFORMATION ON THE DISC.
It's funny that you support Jaffe's assinine take on consumer rights, but you malign EA and Activision. But whatever floats your boat.
You pay for the medium and packaging, a disc (which might as well be blank for the parts of it you actually own) and a license to use the data in a specific way. If you don't use it within that way, you are outside your rights to it and can have it taken away and be fined.
Until developers and publishers decide to say screw you to the consumers and go full DD and DLC. Which a few already have with outstanding results.
It's coming, and this childish "You're all assholes for wanting to get paid" mentality coming out of the consumer base is speeding it along nicely.
It's a childish response on both sides, really.
I agree with GP in the fact that gamers have the right to take as much advantage of the preowned market as they can while it lasts, because once DD becomes the norm for games (as it already is on some platforms) and retailers are out of the equation, it'll do away with two huge advantages consumers have because of the retail channel:
1) the preowned market, which is simply a matter of course due to the tiny profit margin on new games coupled with the fact that most gamers want to be able to trade older stuff in to get the new games. You can't do any trade-ins of your downloaded copy of Geometry Wars or Braid - you can't even sell it to another gamer privately. It's stuck on your account.
2) price drops. Y'know, those delicious things that happen every so often to older games you haven't gotten around to playing yet? Yeah, those happen almost solely at the demand of retailers, who are at risk of having a product with shrinking demand filling up their warehouses and wasting that most precious resource - shelf space. If there is no physical media--if MS can just sell as many virtual copies of Halo: Reach as they want--there's absolutely no reason for them to ever drop the price. You'll be paying $60 for it three years from launch if they want you to, and you'll like it.
This can already be seen in the fact that the idea of having 'sales' on games on XBL Arcade is an incredibly recent development - and they'll only drop the price of one game or piece of DLC a week. After all, who's to demand they drop any more? The cost of running the servers to host the stuff already comes out of the thousands and thousands of folks paying for Live Gold.
There is some hope: Valve has shown a number of times that they're attuned the idea of temporary price drops causing huge jumps in not just sales numbers, but revenue, so they have many and varied sales on their Steam download service. Hopefully that mindset will carry over to other companies - otherwise, we gamers will just have to decide to cough up whatever they ask for.
Or find another hobby altogether. Hey, I've heard used books can be pretty cheap...
Too much effort to hold them open, then there's fact that nothing moves.
And yes, I am joking. Leave idiotic or sarcastic replies at two lines or less. Thank you
Frankly, I think you are confusing DD and DLC with DRM. There's nothing wrong with DLC, it's when the companies try to regulate that DLC using DRM that it becomes an Ogre. DD does nothing whatsoever to control the second hand market, and it shouldn't, if it did, I wouldn't buy that companies products and it would collapse that much faster, rather than slower.
I don't mind downloading entire games, as long as the right to pass on ownership of that game is also supported by the company that is providing the download, once again, if it doesn't, they won't get my money in the first place.
Capitalism, it's a wonderful thing.
Ok, let's ditch the used car analogy and go with either a used book or DVD. In either case I pay for the item and don't have to send anyone else a royalty. I'm able to enjoy them just as I would a new item.
Now, to address the quality of the physical goods: The major difference between a new item and a used one is that the used one has a higher chance of some defect. Actual results may vary.
Majority of the book industry is designed to "take a loss" for that occassional hit. It's a scattershot approach. When the hit does happen, the book can enter second, third, twentieth printings. Not the same rule applies to games. You essentially have one shot to get things right. If it's not a huge success, retail partners will refuses restocks, console manufacturers will refuse to make more runs, and this is all if the game doesn't reach Greatest Hits status.
DVDs are a different beast as well. That movie has likely made it's money back before plastic was even pressed. The DVD market is usually pure profit and it's not like Walmart and Best Buy are selling used DVDs right next to new ones. To top that off, that movie receives money when HBO/Starz takes it on and gets even more money once it enters sindication. Movies can remain financial viable for all the way up to 75 years. NOTHING like the games industry.
Wall of Text Simulation- Insert coin to continue.
"That movie has likely made it's money back before plastic was even pressed. The DVD market is usually pure profit"
Not really. Most movies leave the theater not only short their production budget but advertising as well. The home video market is eyed as the place where they first break even before even thinking of turning a profit.
One of the reasons that the home video market is potentially more profitable than theatrical release is that the film companies have historically cut out the actor and writer guilds from sharing in the revenues generated by home video sales. It's also much easier to cook the accounting of home video sales than it is for theatrical releases, something the film distribution companies have been repeatedly accused of doing by those who are entitled to a share of home video revenues.
"When the hit does happen, the book can enter second, third, twentieth printings. Not the same rule applies to games."
Erm... that's EXACTLY how it works with videogames. They publish a certain amount and if it's a big hit the game gets re-issued, often with a different packaging - just like a book.
Games hardly get republished. Normally a game will go on release, sell a large amount of copies and be done. Some games may go onto platinum/classic status, so PC games may go onto budget releases, but the proportion that do is low.
I have a lot of trouble finding games that were release two years ago, most 360 launch titles are unavailable now, where as this is not the case for books, cds, dvds, they appear to be in constant production. Yes this may be where the used games market comes in, but I hardly think developers are bothered about this side of things as they don't expect to make money from discontinued games. The problem comes when someone can buy a new copy but buys a used copy instead, the games companies make no money from this and quite frankly there is no difference between buying a used game or downloading a pirated copy, the games company don't get any income either way.
The reason that games rarely see rereleases is because publishers don't want to put forth the expense and effort required to do the market research into what games people want rereleased.
There is a reason that services like Good Old Games http://gog.com are so popular right now. It is because they are bringing back older games that will actually run on current PCs.
The Virtual Console for the Wii is also a huge success for exactly the reason that it allows publishers to rerelease older games with almost no effort on their part. Why the service isn't flooded with every game made for the supported systems is beyond my consumer minded brain.
The options for releases are available and easily done, but publishers do not care.
If publishers and evelopers want to seriously fight the used game market, they need to find ways of extending the "shelf life" of video games without relying on brick and mortar stores.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
Ya, places like gametap, and gog, i'm pretty thankful for
Got a good chance to pick up games that i missed out on...
"Why the service isn't flooded with every game made for the supported systems is beyond my consumer minded brain."
I imagine that there are some costs involve, like maintaining servers and what not... in which case they will still want to limit what they put up and focus more on the titles that did very well in the past, or were highly rated
Except the publish doesn't have to worry about server maintainence for services like GoG and virtual console. All that is taken care of through the distributer fees.
If what Nintendo gives to the developers for WiiWare games is the same cut for publishers on the VC, Publishers are getting 65% of the cost of the game on VC. The 35% that Nintendo keeps is what is used for server and connection maintainence while also making some profit.
Also quality of the product is not an issue either as there is some utter crap on the VC while some of the cream of the crop form those eras have yet to see the light of day on VC (Square, I am looking at you)
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
Squeenix doesn't release their good old stuff on the VC because why should they? They can make more money by releasing their old stuff as a remake and their fans will still buy it. I mean, really. Why should they stick Chrono Trigger or FFVI on the VC for under $10 when they can do a remake on the DS and get $30?
Publishers DON'T or publishers CAN'T? You seem to forget, reprints rely on retail partners and licensing fees. Not to mention Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo all have final say on what does and does not get made. Also, you assume the price of a reprint is still at a bargain proposition. Would you buy a copy of The Darkness if the publisher makes reprints but have to sell them at $40?
Wall of Text Simulation- Insert coin to continue.
Are you saying that publishers are unable to reprint games and sell them in the $10-20 price range and still make a profit? Well, excuse me for looking at all the $20 GOTY editions.
The trick isn't making the game and publishing it. The trick is making the margins for retail wide enough that they will be willing to place your reprint on the shelf.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
The Virtual Console for the Wii is also a huge success for exactly the reason that it allows publishers to rerelease older games with almost no effort on their part. Why the service isn't flooded with every game made for the supported systems is beyond my consumer minded brain.
There is some expense in time and money in making sure that a ported game works right. Probably helps slow things down a bit.
-Gray17
Given that GP's stance on the used game issue is to immaturely refer to those on the industry side as "whiners", it seems likely he was getting even more vitriol and flak from the rank-and-file gamers. If so, I really don't blame for him just throwing up his hands and focusing his time elsewhere.
But they are whiners... they are not offering any constructive possibilities for solutions, merely getting angry at the used game industry. That solves nothing.
What I am asking of people here is "Why should game companies be treated any differently than any other form of media and get some sort of compensation from used game sales?" No one has offered a response other than "GAMES ARE DIFFERENT!!!!11!!1!!" Ok, that's great. Tell me how they're different from other media then.
No convincing arguments? Well then, I guess that means you're wrong.
To be fair I agree, games aren't different from other industries, the difference though is that games are much more broadly traded in a much shorter time span compared to other media (movies, music, books, take much longer to recirculate into the used market for some reason, maybe because there are less outlets for used sales and trade-ins) and they are the only media I'm aware of where a major retailor is based on selling the used NEXT TO the new and where that retailor activly tries to promote used sales instead of new sales.
Honestly I don't think the industry would have nearly the problem with this whole issue it does if it wasn't for Gamestops policies.
I gotta be honest, at this point I'm way past really giving a damn what David Jaffe thinks about used game sales. As for him apparently dropping off the internet, I can almost guarantee you he'll be back on by tomorrow.
This right here. ^
Which is a great sentiment to have when you're not having a publisher expecting sales results. But when you have Ubisoft/EA/Mastiff knocking on your door saying "where's my money, bitch?" and a threat to end your studios life unless you hit 500K sold, the line of "more people get to play my game" is a fairy tale sentiment.
Where I stand on the debate is simple. I don't call it whining because it IS a legitimate concern for game developers. They have six months to recover their investment. That's it. Now what is the reward for a game developer who creates a compelling single player experience? Feeding the Gamecrazy and Gamestop library two days later. Which wouldn't be a problem if Gamestop/Gamecrazy didn't actively discourage new game sales. Jaffe is right though. The consumer has a right to sell their games. But fucks sake, do it on Ebay, Craigslist, Goozex. Do it where you don't need at least 3 used games to buy 1 new one. Do it in a situation where YOU as well as the developers are NOT getting raped.
Wall of Text Simulation- Insert coin to continue.
Damn this replied in the wrong place. It was supposed to counter this point from gamegod...
"ll admit that the used car analogy may not be a perfect analogy. But I still feel that he and the rest of the game developers need to stop whining about it. If I was a game dev I'd be happy it means that more people (who may not be able to afford $60) will play my game."
Wall of Text Simulation- Insert coin to continue.
If you truly enjoy your craft and you're good at it you'll survive. If you don't you'll crash and burn and have nothing left to do but curse your ill fate. How is complaining about something one doesn't like constructive or in any way contributory to it's down fall. Unless you have someone more powerful to bitch and moan too, then perhaps you'll get results. Complain to your customers they're doing something wrong isn't going to change their minds, it's only going to change their attitudes towards you. But hey, atleast you're telling them to look both ways before they cross the street, that has to count for something.
So now developers can't even express their concerns and opinions without it being named bitching and getting a huge backlash? This is a bit hypocritical from the gaming community, you know the people that bitch about anything and everything in any game with an online forum, isn't it?
OMG game developers are people with feelings and opinions, I'm shocked and amazed.
What an honour! Being the physical manifestation of the gaming community is making me all giddy! I keep forgetting you and people like you have skin that's thinner than paper when it comes to people of differing opinions. I suddenly can't post my opinion to your opinion because it hurts your feelings?
What backlash are you talking about? The fact that some individuals hold beliefs radically different than yours? Or the fact that the higher ups stating their distaste for used game sales arn't preaching to the choir like they'd hoped?
OMG people have different feelings and opinions, You're shocked and amazed.
It seems like you're going off on him for stating his opinion (jaffe). I don't see what he's doing as anythign different then what anyone on this board is doing.
No, I'm not going off on him. Of course you should probably define what you mean. To me that would be me using more profanity than common sense, something that happens alot on here and any place with no filter. And everyone here should be prepared to be called out on for what they've said. I'm not seeing the issue. His opinion, my reaction to his opinion, if he(you) can't handle it then ignore it.
This, a hundred times. I'm glad games have resale value, a strong secondhand market helps drive the firsthand market. People who sell their games tend to go buy new games and expose people who might not have otherwise been exposed to those games. That is not the problem - consumers are completely in their right to sell their games to whoever they want.
I just dont get why their so eager to let Gamestop act as a middle man. Gamestop has done nothing for the consumer or the industry except to position itself in a way as to siphon money out of the relationship between game developer and player.
If you're going to sell your game, by all means do it, just don't sell it to Gamestop for 1/4th what it's worth so they can turn around and rape other consumers with it.
I am an extremely strong supporter of used game sales, but I hate Gamestop/EB Games with a passion. New games for $60, used for $55? ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?
I will sell/trade games to others, but I avoid EB/GS (and other middleman retailers) like the plague.
I fully support you. Honestly and I'm probably the most supportive poster on here about Jaffe's statements.
I should tailor my responses to be more Gamestop specific, but like I said in another post they've become interwoven with the product flow in general so it's difficult to seperate them out.
Meh, gamestop is easy to get to and easy to browse, but like hell I'll trade my games in for what they offer.
---
I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"
all used games must at some point have been bought new that is their cut
they dont want used games on the market? fine but do that by making me not want to sell the games
Dennis,
Jaffe went dark, like he does from time to time, simply because of the backlash to that video. Basically started getting attacked from all sides and he attacked back. It exploded, he said "fine, whatever" and went dark.
Wall of Text Simulation- Insert coin to continue.
He was getting an argument via twitter even before that video went up from what i understand, which is probably why everything is shut down.
www.20sidedwoman.blogspot.com
A friend linked me to this blogger's account of essentially a Twitter argument between the blogger, Jaffe and later on Robin Clarke: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=372658
Essentially it looks like here that despite one's personal viewpoint, Jaffe and Clark could've conducted themselves a little better considering the figures they are in the industry, and that they failed to argue effectively why publishers should get a cut of used game sales.
www.20sidedwoman.blogspot.com
Well the not-Jaffe kinda asked for it by using "Then I'll just stop buying games if that's the way it goes" as a conversation starter. Then Jaffe finalized the tone by judging him and suggesting he stop gaming.
The not-Jaffe had a valid point, but he started off with a stupid comment that deserved another.
As a member of the long suffering Australian gamer community I believe I am well justified in saying to any game developer or publisher asking for more money: STFU and GTFO!
Having been forced into paying 30 to 60% more than the rest of the world (depending on exchange rates) for basically the entire existance of the Australian game market, not to mention ridiculous delays (iirc almost 2 years for FFX) and the absence of games for no logical reason (Xenosaga 2 yet no Xenosaga 1! WHY?!), I am more than happy to buy second hand, as it means that you greedy, lazy, arrogant bastards don't see a single cent of it.
Will this put developers out of a job? Who knows. But maybe if it does they'll get the damn message and grow up like every other industry in the world and offer complete products at an appropriate price.
Devs aren't asking for more money from the consumer. They're asking for a cut of the massive used game sales from retailers that specify in such. Gamestop is making hand-over-fist profit on used game sales.
I wonder who is making all the profit off AU games. Is it one entity or is it many smaller ones adding to the price for their own cut?
What do the exchange rates have to do with the developers/publishers?
"De minimus non curat lex"
A game that is US$60 often retails at AU$120. The exchange rate usually hovers around 0.75 US cents to the AUD. This means that essentially Australian consumers are paying US$90 for a game, which is a price increase of 50% comparatively. Taxes and shipping cannot explain away such a price hike. Someone is getting bloated with cash, and it most likely isn't the retailers given most major stores sell solely at the RRP which is set by the publishers.
That is what exchange rates have to do with developers and publishers. They use them to cover their filthy greedy tracks.
Once again, how dare developers and publishers actually want to be paid for people to enjoy their products. How DARE they sir!
If they could actually get their money back on a decent game then they would probably make better games. Very few games ever return enough of a profit to make spending millions of dollars a winning venture on it. The games that make developers and publishers the most money are things like Nintendogs, My little Pony, Barbie, and children's cartoon and movie games like Hannah Montana. "Hardcore" gamers don't really support the games we like well. Even really great games end up selling almost as many if not more used copies then new because of re-re-re-re-sales.
And you all wonder why developers are more and more frequently churning out junk that only 7 year olds can appreciate? Here's a hint, it's because YOU don't support the games that YOU actually like to play.
Yes, completely different rules should apply to them than to any other business, because YOU think it might get YOU better games. Who cares about the impact on either the market or the customer, good games are more important than protecting the rights of the consumers...
Oh, and I can promise you, the quality of the games wouldn't change, nor would the developers income. The distributor, on the other hand, is a whole other ball-game.
The NPD posted profits of $18 Billion last year, not including PC Games. How much profit, exactly, does the industry have to make in order to improve their games as you believe they would?
Frankly, the issue here is between developer and distributor, not developer and customer, if developers want to complain about their percentage, then the daftest possible route to take is to attack the paying customer, but the customer base has become so docile that they sit there and take it. Personally, a few months of 'screw you' non-purchasing of games would soon make them aware that implying their customers should have less rights than anyone else's customers isn't conducive to running a business.
"... implying their customers should have less rights than anyone else's customers isn't conducive to running a business."
Very well put.
Have they ever criticised the consumer though? They criticise the used game market and the shops profiting from it, whilst noting that they don't blame the consumer for wanting cheaper games. I'm failing to see the criticism aimed at the consumer.
I love the people that say "I always buy used games, but the developers keep moaning about their profits, so I've decided to stop buying their games to teach them a lesson", because how is the stopping of purchasing used games going to harm the developer?
Because the attack is directed at the customer, developers tiptoe around distributors because the two are linked intrinsically, piss off the distributor and it will hit the developer, so, instead, they state that customers should pay multiple times, every time a game changes hands. Whether it's directly stated as such or not, that is an attack on the Rights of the customers themselves. The customer may or may not notice that difference at the checkout, but that isn't the point.
No-one in this particular post said they always buy used games, so I'm not quite sure where that came from, but, certainly, I wouldn't stop buying used games to teach them a lesson, quite the opposite if anything.
The main problem here is, once again, it's a way of singling out computer games for special treatment when compared to every other product out there, they already have that whole 'cannot refund once opened' rule that doesn't apply to any other product, and whether it's the developer, distributor or retailer that is to blame, it's still the rights of the customer that are impacted, and it's a slippery slope argument, because when one industry finds a way of getting around it, others will try to follow.
I no more agree with the singling out of computer games for financial advantage than I agree with the singling out of computer games for blame in school shootings, they are both inherently wrong in my books.
To sum up what you've said:
Games companies that want to propose measures that will not be noticed by the consumer is a direct attack on consumers. They want gamers to pay every time a game changes hands (I thought this happened anyway on the used game market).
I didn't say anything of the sort. What I said was that the developers expect money for every used sale, the retailer may, or may not, pass on that money to the consumer, but that doesn't mean it isn't an attack on their rights, because it's about the mentality behind the charge, not the charge itself that is wrong. This isn't about consumers paying more at the till, it's about the whole concept behind it, that second-hand sales of computer games are somehow allowed to be treated differently to every other product on the market.
Of course gamers pay when a game changes hand, that's why it's a second hand market, not a second-hand giveaway, but that trade should be between the two people involved, be they retailer or private.
There's lots of things that go on in the world that people don't notice, that doesn't make them ok.
So it's a gamer's right to have part of the money he pays go to the developer? I can't see where the consumer's right is in this when you're talking about what makes up the price on the game. What difference does it make to the consumer when part of the price they pay goes to a developer and not wholly to a shop?
"So it's a gamer's right to have part of the money he pays go to the developer?"
No, at least as far as resale is concerned.
What I'm saying is that it's not a developers right to ask for more money for what they've already sold, the financial impact, which may or may not be visible is entirely immaterial, it's the thinking behind it that is the problem.
You'll note that at no point have I stated that the cost definately wouldn't be visible, the chances are that it will be visible, but even if it wasn't, it still wouldn't be acceptable to apply different rules to computer games than to any other merchandise.
I still can't see what any of this has to do with consumer's rights.
Capitalism. The impression seems to be that if this doesn't happen Video Game manufacturers will collapse, and therefore it's perfectly acceptable to demand it.
Even if I ignore my doubts as to the factuality of that statement, that doesn't sound like a Free Market model to me, it sounds like wire-fencing. I thought the idea behind capitalism is that the responsibility is on the Producer to provide goods in a fashion that is both beneficial to the customer and profitable to themselves, if that model isn't working, then you don't start saying the market should re-charge the customer in order to protect the industry, there's been enough complaints about that kind of thinking in financial circles, and in many cases, there's been little choice, but I don't much like the idea of it creeping into the Media sector.
As far as Rights go, it's the question of ownership, the more that is nibbled away from actually fully 'owning' the products we purchase, the less Rights consumers have as a group, I cannot accept that the Industry is unaware of that, every little step along this road takes us further from being disconnected from the manufacturer and instead somehow being responsible for their further existence outside the free-market model, it's the companies job to produce a market model that makes them profit, not my job as a consumer to pay them extra money, whether hidden or not, in order to help them stay afloat, and that's, as I said, assuming the original assumption was factual in the first place.
Times are hard for most corporations at the moment, I simply cannot accept that for some reason the Video Game market deserves a walled garden approach whilst everyone else has to live with the market as it is.
I agree, which is why 100% DD and DLC are fast becoming the idea for all games.
Exactly, and I don't really even have a problem with DLC that is available only to the first purchaser, that doesn't worry me, it's a good way to convince people to hang onto their games. But it feels sometimes that the Industry works in the order of stick first, carrot if that doesn't work, it just strikes me as a bad way to do busniess, especially in the current financial climate.
Perhaps you should lokk at my point directly below. The cost of paying the developer for used sales of games will be transfered to the consumer in the form of
1. Higher sale prices for used games
2. Lower trade in values for used games.
Both negatively affect the consumer.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
I still fail to see the part of the point where it is against consumer rights because part of what they pay for a second-hand game goes back to the developer. What there are rights about this? Currently the money that is spent on a game goes towards the staff, the shop rental, the shareholders and anyone else involved, I can't see how adding developers into the equation goes against the rights of the consumer.
The point even stated that consumer rights would be affected even if prices didn't go up (and it's not as though it is a consumer right to have low prices). And now capitalism helps protects consumer rights?!? Anyway it's a bit coy to bring up the idea of capitalism and how this apparently goes against, because no country in the world follows pure capitalism, every country imposes limits on it.
Even heard the argument that if games developers do get a cut out of the used game market that will usher in an era of communism into America, but there's hope.
Actually game consumers will notice. When the publisher asks Game Stop to pay them 10% of the used game sale, do you think that game Stop will pay all that out of their own profits? If you do you are an idiot.
So when the consumer brings in a game to trade, instead of a $15 trade value, they will be presented with a $10 trade value.
The consumer will be screwed in the end.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
Mainly because the used game dealers are massive dicks.
"I love the people that say "I always buy used games, but the developers keep moaning about their profits, so I've decided to stop buying their games to teach them a lesson", because how is the stopping of purchasing used games going to harm the developer?"
It means the used game this person would have purchased will now be available for somebody else to purchase. This may in turn result in the second person purchasing the used game rather than a new one, which means one less sale of a new game.
So people who buy used games are helping the games industry by preventing someone else from buying a used game? Please, you're clutching at straws here with your logic.
Grasping at straws? No. It's simple economics.
If N used games are available for purchase and I purchase one of those games, there are now N-1 used games available for purchase. The Nth purchaser after myself would either have to purchase new or do without. If I don't buy the game, purchaser #N will simply be able to buy the used game I didn't buy.
Used copies are not unlimited, and all used copies were once sold as new. That's enough to guarantee demand for new games. You're the one playing games with logic if you think that's not the case.
Yes because the store never gets more used copies, there's a finite amount. And it's not like they're getting used copies one or two days after the game first comes out... oh wait.
Did I say there was a fixed amount of used copies?
Every single game added to the pool of used games was once sold as new, so the basic claim in my post still holds even when you allow the number of used copies to grow. There's always some number N of used copies available, and until such time as the market becomes saturated the demand for new games will still exist. Basically, as long as the number of people who simultaneously wish to own a copy of a particular game is greater than the number of used copies currently available for purchase there will continue to exist a demand for new copies of those games.
You can try all sorts of mental gymnastics in order to deny this basic truth, but any conclusions you arrive at through such gymnastics are likely to be mistaken.
That doesn't eliminate the fact that a used copy purchased is also more likely to be traded in again for the person's next game. I'd be interested if there was a way to find out the average number of times a single copy of a game gets traded in, and I'd be willing to bet it's higher then 1.
A used game can be traded as often as you like, but it will never add more than a single unit to the pool of used games. When I sell a used game to GameStop, one used game is added to the pool of used games such that somebody else can now buy the game used. Once somebody buys the game I sold to GameStop, one used game is subtracted from the pool of available used games and nobody else can buy that particular copy used until its owner sells it back. The limiting factor that necessarily results in sales of new games is not eliminated by recognizing the fact that a used game can be resold a number of times.
At any one given time yes, but now you're trying to compare the overall effect of used game sales to single instances in time and that doesn't work. If that one game was the only used game on the shelf (and was purchased by people who would otherwise have bought the game new) multiple times then one copy has cut out multiple new sales. This is why the actual effect is so hard to judge, because the amount of times a single game is resold and to whom varies so much.
A single used copy can indeed result in more than one "lost sale" for new copies. I fail to see how that changes anything in what I said.
Well to be frank I think it lessens your point by a large degree but it's probably a matter of perspective getting down to it.
"Once again, how dare developers and publishers actually want to be paid for people to enjoy their products."
Developers and publishers do get paid. Specifically, they get paid on the first sale of a particular copy. That's all they're entitled to by law, so legally it's perfectly fair.
PS - If you have any other questions, comments or suggestions, do not hesitate to contact someone who gives a damn.
The same could be said for your side of the arguement. Gamers already get the biggest bang for our buck on entertainment, even at the $60 price point. And there is no guarentee that you WILL enjoy a product you buy, that involves being a smart shopper and researching a purchase before you make it.
You DO get what you pay for. If you aren't willing to pay the market price, I don't see why you should have access to a cheaper used copy just because you want to play the game, to the detriment of the people producing them. You don't have a right to play every game made, you have a right to buy and play whatever you like. THEY DO have a right to be compensated for what they create.
So, if you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or suggestions on how game makers and publishers price and sell their goods (including after DD becomes the norm) don't hesitate to contact someone who gives a damn.
"I don't see why you should have access to a cheaper used copy ..."
Except that I do have access to cheaper used copies, and I fail to see why I shouldn't. It's up to you to convince me that it's necessary to be denied such access. That publishers make less money is not a good enough reason.
"You don't have a right to play every game made ..."
I never said I did, and I really have no idea why you think that constitutes an argument against the things I did say. What I do have is the right to play the games I buy, whether I buy them new or used. If you think I don't have that right, you are only deceiving yourself.
I think you do have a right to play any game you buy, in fact I think I even stated that in the post you're responding to.
Personally I have no problem with consumer A selling a used game to consumer B. I have a problem with stores like Gamestop which hurt new game sales by actively interferring with them in hopes of making more profit for themselves. I have a problem with stores like Gamestop making more profits off of games then the developers (make sure to read developer as seperate from publisher in most instances).
However because consumers have become paranoid about buying things online, to concerned with having it RIGHT NOW (which is funny for how many people preorder months in advance), and generally jaded by a pricing structure that is set more because of piracy and the lower new sales due to used sales, stores like Gamestop have become intrinsicly linked into the product flow. That is causing developers and publishers to say "wait a minute" and is spurring the move towards DD and DLC on. A lot of people won't be happy about it, but frankly as consumers we're doing it to ourselves by supporting the one retailor that has caused this major paradigm shift in the way we buy games.
The industry will find a way to survive, whether that means catering to a smaller user base or not is yet to be seen.
"Very few games ever return enough of a profit to make spending millions of dollars a winning venture on it."
By what credentials can you make this statement? I want proof/paperwork, or you can stop making these assumptions right now.
How many AAA titles get made versus how many crappy titles. How many companies that aren't like Blizzard or EA do you see activly making AAA games. All you have to do is walk into gamestop and see the long list of stuff that really you have to wonder if their budget even hit 1 mil to understand, developers and publishers are shying away from AAA because it's been proven in the industry that while they pay great if they're hits, it's more financially solvent over time to put out a ton of meh-decent games that don't cost a lot to make and make small profits on them then to put out several AAA titles because the money you lose on the AAA can easily throw you out of business.
If you're not aware of how many game companies are closing and downsizing right now you aren't paying attention. Midway has been bought out. They USED to be one of the big dogs in the industry, not even that long ago.
For anyone interested, a transcript of the Twitter argument which begot this video rant, can be found here
Also, the folks at Voodoo Extreme claims that Jaffe has said that he will go offline for the next 6 months. Unfortunately they don't provide any info on where they obtained that info, so the validity of the statement can't be verified, but it would explain why his twitter account is gone and his blog is logged down.
After reading that exchange, all I can say is that Jaffe looks like a complete cunt.
Agreed, a businessmen should conduct himself a lot better, even if it's on twitter.
www.20sidedwoman.blogspot.com
The guy's a game developer. I don't know if "businessman" is the most appropriate descriptor.
Regardless of what you want to call him, it's rather irresponsible to represent himself and the teams he works with the way he did.
www.20sidedwoman.blogspot.com
I've got into arguments with people like that, you start trying to have a reasonable discussion with them, stating your own case politely, and because they don't have a response, they simply resort to insulting you. It's a surefire way to lose an argument in my books.
The video game market is difficult to succeed in, that is true. This is not a reason, legal or moral, for developers to get a cut of used game sales.
Creating a single-player game is a risky venture, that is true. This is not a reason, legal or moral, for developers to get a cut of used game sales.
Other similar businesses (books, videos, etc) have a better set up, or better market situation, to absorb the financial hit of a product that doesn't sell so well. This is not a reason, legal or moral, for developers to get a cut of used game sales.
Studios and developers are treated harshly when their sales don't go through the roof on every game. Again true, and not fair, but again not a reason, legal or moral, for developers to get a cut of used game sales.
Once you sell a product to me it is no longer yours, it is mine. If I want to use it, burn it to ashes, or immediately turn around and sell it in mint condition to someone else, that is my business.
It has been pointed out that the car analogy is not accurate because a car degrades in quality as it is used. Which seems to be saying that if cars did not degrade in quality or didn't, as Jaffe put it, become "a different experience from driving a new one", that it should fall under the same argument that says makers of a product should get a cut of every sale of that product, used or new. Say the person who bought the car took impeccable car of the vehicle, or better yet did not even sit in the car before turning around and selling it. Should the dealer get a cut of that sale? No. That's ridiculous.
Books and dvds are often resold in perfect condition. What does it matter that they have a different market setup, or make money for longer off of their product than video games do? They don't get a cut of the sale of their used product. This situation is not different than video games. But can you imagine having to cut a check to a publisher every time you resold a book? Again, ridiculous.
Game studios/developers don't deserve handouts of extra money just because they are in a harsh market. They don't get to take more of my money than they deserve just because they struggle to make money on their product. That is not, nor will it ever be, a valid reason for taking more of my money. Stealing is wrong, legally and morally, so I will not walk into Gamestop and walk out with a new game without paying for it. The studio deserves my money in return for that product.
But when I turn around and sell my property it does not matter whether or not the product is in brand new, good or poor condition. Does not matter what sort of market the product came from, does not matter whether the original seller is financially struggling or making billions. They no longer own the property I am selling, so they don't get the money from it. Period.
This really is growing old. Do you know how many people buy new games? By trading in old games. By removing used game sales as an option does not mean that everyone who bought those used games will now shell out $60 for a new game. They will likely just do without. But what companies will lose are those aforementioned sales of new games purchased with credit from old games.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
not to mention used games are basically free advertising for the sequels of those games
Guess what people, car manufacturers actually make money out of the used car market. Many manufacturers actually sell used cars themselves (Ford themselves sell used Ford cars), they actually get a cut out of the used car market. Plus add onto this the fact that cars need spare parts and the car manufacturers make money out of that too by selling those parts.
So anyone want to claim that car manufacturers don't make a profit out of the used car market?
Of course they make a profit when they re-sell their car. But do they make a profit when some used-car dealer (not a dealership run by, say, Mitsubishi or Ford or somesuch) sells a car? No, they do not, and taht used car dealer doesn't send them a cut of the profit.
Oh, by the way, many dealerships that sell used cars seem to have a lot of cars from other brands on their lots. When they sell one of those, I guarantee that the other car company doesn't see a dime.
Car manufactures make money out of the used car market only when they buy the used car from the owner first, and then they sell it.
If a game company wants to buy my used game from me and then sell it themselves, that's perfectly fine.
However neither the car manufacturers nor game companies do, or should, get money from the resale of any used product just because they made it in the first place. If they buy it from the legal owner, the customer, first then they can sell it and make money because at that point they own the product again.
I think the analogy was more about people who sell their used vehicle on their own, say through an ad in the paper or online.
As has already been stated, car companies only get money from used car sales when they sell them themselves.
Also, there are aftermarket part manufacturers out there that can create and sell parts for most any car on the market, thus further eating into the Manufacturers' profits.
The video game industry has come up with similar methods of gaining money from even used sales. DLC is primary among them. These added value add ons can generate revenue for game developers even if the physical copy was sold used.
So why is the car analogy not a good fit?
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
So we've gone from "car manufacturers don't make any money out of the used car market at all", to "car manufacturers don't make any money out of the used car market when this happens and then this happens and then this happens".
Also another reason why car manufacturers enjoy the used car market is due to market penetration, they've worked out other ways to generate income from the used car market.
Then if gaming companies want to make a profit from second hand sales they should, like car manufacturers, start their own second-hand division and undercut the high-street. That's perfectly acceptable in my books, some companies have even taken that route, but if they aren't going to do that, then they shouldn't complain when other people do.
We haven't gone from one thing to another. We've stayed at "car manufacturers don't make any money from a car sale that they did not make, and were not involved in, regardless as to whether or not they sold the car originally."
There have just been clarifications, not revisions.
So your argument is that the used car analogy doesn't fit is because car manufacturers have figured out how to make money from the used car market and to use that market to their advantage in other non-monetary ways while the games industry hasn't.
Gotcha.
Also another reason why car manufacturers enjoy the used car market is due to market penetration
So why can't the games industry appreciate the used market for the same reason?
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
No you haven't "got me" the argument proposed was that the car manufacturers didn't make any money from the used car market and because of such it was compared to the used games market and for them "to quit whining because car manufacturers have it the same way too".
But then people kept on adding cases in which the car manufacturers wouldn't make any money from the used market so that the comparison would stick. But the fact is that car manufacturers found a way to make money from that market and the games companies are looking for ways to make money from their used market, but as soon as anyone from the industry comments on it gamers start moaning.
The games industry can put an end to used games completely by going fully into downloadable content so that games can only be downloaded (something the PSP GO is putting on trial). But like car manufacturers downloadable content (like spare parts) will be something to use to make money out of the used market.
The market penetration of the car market is different to the games market, and whereas car companies are looking at about selling one or two cars to a household over a number of years, games sell on the basis that one person buys multiple games per year. Buying a car from one brand will prevent the person buying a car from a rival (apart from the consoles themselves) this wouldn't work for the software sales. I can't see how this stragety can be used by the games industry, but no doubt as soon as they comment on it gamers will moan.
I guess I haven't got you as you seem to be arguing that the used car analogy doesn't work for the exact same reasons I am saying it does work.
EVERY OTHER PHYSICAL GOODS MANUFACTURER HAS TO DEAL WITH THE USED MARKET OF THEIR PRODUCTS EVERY DAY AND JUST DEAL WITH IT.
My question is why can't the games industry?
Personally, I don't care how the games industry works out making money from the used market or around it as long as my right to resell my property however I choose is not infringed.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
JUST DEAL WITH IT
What does this mean:
A. Accept that no money will be made from it.
B. Find a way to make money from it.
Currently the games industry does not make any money from the used games market and they are looking at ways to do so (such as downloadable content), but as soon as anyone from the games industry says "used games" gamers say "you fucking cunt". The used games market is damaging the industry, FACT, don't pretend that it doesn't. The industry understands this and is looking at ways to fix this, but for some reason gamers seem to hate any attempt that the industry makes to make money from the used market.
Games are in a market where the quality doesn't degrade after use (even books have some sort of degradation). Yes the same could be said for DVDs and CDs but the generally low price of the products means that the saving on the used markets don't result in much when compared to games. Obviously the best solution would be to reduce the price of games, but I can't see that happening.
For me personally the used market is damaging as it helps maintain the high price on new titles, meaning that reductions are slower to come. Used games also don't represent a saving (many times new games can be cheaper than used games), and if you want to buy a game, trade it in after a week you would be better off renting as it's cheaper.
You are incorrect, there is only one specific instance that gamers complain about, and that is the fact that it has been said over and over again by various game companies that they want a cut of the sale when one of their games is sold, even though they don't own that particular copy anymore.
That's the only thing anyone here is complaining about. If they can find some other way to make money after first sale, I welcome them to it. But I don't appreciate you trying to put words in our mouths, so kindly take your straw man elsewhere.
What he said.
Seriously. I have never complained about DLC or any other such measure to ensure an income from used sales of their games.
But i have expressed my opinion very loudly that I will not tolerate them trying to muscle used game retailers into paying "protection"
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
State
The problem is more that gaming hardware and software is over priced so its not a very good medium to match DVD sales/dissemination wise, because of the prices it limits its market share even despite being popular the main problem with gaming is not used game sales not even how many are sold but how poorly developers and publishers spend money on a project in the first place. You are not going to gain a alrge profit if you spend the majority of it merely keeping up with the Joneses.....
If publishers want a piece of the used game market theres only one way to do it and thats to lower new game prices as so they can get a cut of all retreaded titles under their banner, it would not take a great deal of effort to make a electronic software (that any retialer can use) of titles and have a percentage of the itemized sale go to whom ever they have a reduced price contract with. If the game industry can not innovate and cut a deal with retail's there is no reason for them to be magically granted an exemption from "first sale" because if they can do it so can the film and music industries.
TL : DR
Basically its the games industry fault for making the used game industry lucrative because they refuse to change or be innovative.
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Make money selling parts?
You mean like how game companies have been giving DLC to new owners and not second hand purchasers? (Dragon Age, Gears, Batman, etc)
See, there's ways for them to make profit without muscling in.
And this will only get worse, pretty soon you won't be able to finish the game without buying something new and getting the end-game download code or registering and having the last disc sent to you in the mail. Just wait, we're getting there.
Pretty soon?
See: Katamari (360)
Well you either buy in or not, like anythign else really.
Then again what I am saying I went and bought 2 copies of wolfenstien for me and a bud becuse it was half decent 0-o
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
You buy Katamari but then find out that you have to pay more money to play the stuff on the disc. Very, very poor on Namco's part.
Looks like trying to tell people buying used games is wrong was starting to get to Jaffe.
http://www.magicinkgaming.com/
They are also rereleasing God of War 1 and 2 for the PS3, meaning they get to rake in truckloads of money without having to produce a new product. This, to me at least, seems like the industry equivalent to selling used games.
Its rather simple they can't touch used sales,whining about them and downloading is rather silly since the damage is minuscule at best, however they could make a deal with retailers to lower new games prices to get a equal cut (20-30% off new 20-30% of used sale price they get in return)of any title they own thats resold.
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Apart from a lower price, buying games used is the only way I can stomach purchasing Activision titles these days. Definitely can't wait to pick up my used copy of Modern Warfare 2.
If you don't like the company don't buy their games. Saying they're bad and then using their products without supporting them financially just shows how self centered and egotistical you are.
Or that he can't afford the release price...
In which case he has the right to wait for the title to decrease in price. As I've said before there is no right to play every game released or even every game you want. I personally feel anyone who plays a full version of a game someone created should in same way or small amount be giving some compensation to those who created the game. Buying a new game or some DLC are both common ways to do that. If Person A buys the game new and trades it in, and person B buys the game used, only person A actually contributed to the creators. In that hypothetical it's my opinion person B shouldn't get the privlidge of playing it.
Phantom Brave, Disgaea 2, Makai Kingdom, Saiyuki, Megaman Legends, Tales of Symphonia 2, so on so forth disappeared rather quickly before going down in price. Wouldn't have them if not for used sales. I have the right to purchase a game that's no longer available new if someone will sell it to me, the developer doesn't get any money, but then again it's their fault for not having the game out their, and not having it at an affordable price in the first place.
---
I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"
Once again I agree, but I bet you could have gone online and purchased a new copy for a similar price when you went to Gamestop for them.
irrelevant. He's supporting the entity that sold the game.
Were you responding to me or the first response to me? I'm confused by your comment please explain.
Haha, wow! Such vitriol!
@questionmark1987
I am not the egotistical and self centered fellow you would so readily claim me to be, my friend :)
@GoodRobotUs
Because I have a full time job, being able to afford a full release price is a non-issue (did it with Batman: Collector's Edition recently, plan to do it with Uncharted, Brutal Legend, Left 4 Dead 2, Alpha Protocol, etc.). So...yeah.
My apologies, but I do consider buying their games used and not supporting them even though you want their games enough to play them to be hypocritical at best. I think it's a bit contradictory to say you refuse to support someone but you like their games and most likely want them to keep making them.
Another dev. pisses off his potential customers. Way to go dude! This is extarcy what will make people shell out $60 for your game when disposable income is at a minimum. Places that push used games on people and sell them for near new prices are the problem, not the used games industry. Gamers and publishers sould unite againts them.
If developer say things like please hold off for six months after release before buying the game used or selling it, then that woud be understadable. If they offered added value like a cupon for extra DLC that would be nice. It coud even be something simple like a cool looking gun or a vehicle. They're devs : Be creative! I don't want it to be anything that would tip the game balance, just something that looks or sounds cool.
See, those are real solutions. As long as devs make gamers angry in those idiotic rants then places like gamestop are safe. Only when gamers and the industry unite can they put a stop to them.
I genreally wait to see if they bother finishing the game 6 months after they release it....
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
This is why I generally don't buy on release day except for very, very rare cases.
I got through half of wolfenstien and was trolling on ebay and bought 2 new copeis, walmart was selling it for 49$ and a 10$ card so there are alot of deals to be had in the resale circts I ploed 35 a pop for 2 copies becuse I thought it was half decent, sure they are laying off people left and right and elt go of the MP staff but thigns don't look soooooooo bad for it its sold more than 100K copies so far and thats not to bad.
Plus you can kinda mod it out of the box so I am compfertable with it at least. Speaking of which I have bought 2 used copeis each of UT3,BIoshock and FO3 in the past year or so. I might break down and buy 2 copies of SC2/Daiblo 3 no matter how much I bitch abut it if I can tag 2 for 50$. I still need tog et the organe box so I cna play with my frined but blarghhh...I hate steam with a passion....
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
The funny thing is they whine all day long about piracy, but at the same time want to drive people into piracy. B/C the first thing half the people who buy used games b/c that is all they can afford will do once you take away their used games, is buy bootlegs and download pirate copies. I swear to god, these companies are either very very dumb, or very very smart, I'm not sure which.
Jaffer on the other hand I've always thought was a douche.
The slight problem with the used game discussion is, to a certain extent, finding the right analogy, because that in turn gets everyone in the right mindset and appropriately sets the level of discourse.
Is it like buying a used car? Just as much money and time is put into designing a car as a video game, but video games don't de-value with age the same way cars do (in some extent they do, but not so heavily).
Is it like buying a used book? Used book sellers have been around since before electricity (if not steam), and the book industry has survived. However, less people are involved with the actual process of writing a book than writing a video game (not that used book stores and libraries don't have their critics - S. M. Sterling has previously criticised libraries because he doesn't get paid for their circulation).
The best example I can think of is buying a used Movie (on VHS, DVD, Laserdisk, Blu-Ray or whatever), but the idea of buying a used movie isn't so heavily established as the other two options.
That said, I'll probably stick with the used book analogy myself, it's easier to explain, and I can think of defenses somewhat more easily
I think looking at it as a used item analogy is more appropriate, a item and what ever IP/trade mark it has is sold that many gets distributed to the CP owners and makers/publishers/factory for that item. Then when that item is passed onto a new owner the only thing that is traded is what the owner /seller and new owner/buyer agree upon.Then in a natural market business's will come along to fill a need for that used good be it antiques, used cars or used media. Thee is nothing inherently wrong ,bad or evil with used item sales where the owners have no power or profit over it. What is much more vile and insipid are the tactics the industry uses to milk content and do nothing to control costs on their end. Have we all forgot about the financial melt down where greed and lack of oversight IE mismanagement and cost control caused multi billion dollar companies to go belly up because they could not balance the cost of doing business with profit to stay in business?
/Wall of text mode
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
As has been said before car manufacturers make money out of the used car business, so it's not as though as many have claimed (in the many threads on this site about the issue) that car manufacturers have to live with a used business that they don't make any money out of because they do.
The used DVD market is different because money is made from the cinema first.
I suppose the used book market does match up best, but I'd still rather not use it.
Pretty much the used games market is unique because of the aggressive use of it. Even used book shops don't stock stack loads of the latest release, they usually have one or two. It's the fact that certain shops want to promote the used titles over new titles, whilst promoting the disposable nature of a game (play it, throw it), there's no sense of keeping a game (I wonder how many here actually have games from a few generations ago) and building a collection, so that they can keep the circulation of trade in, buy another, trade in, which generates the shop lots of money but benefits no one else.
The used game market keeps new games at a high price. I only want to buy new titles and I am sick of the aggressive promotion of used titles (and yes I now tend to avoid those shops because they have made it hard to buy new titles). I'm not sure there are many other markets where a product is released and then the next week it is available as a used copy.
And what's all this BS that a consumer has a "right" to sell something on. No you don't. If you buy a service, you can't sell that on. ebay prevents you from selling underwear and such. You can't sell on downloaded music. I suppose you have a "right" to sell on downloadable content then if you have a right to sell on a game?
But you are not buying a service, this is not a MMO with a locked account this is not DLC or Digital download that can easily be looked at as a service, this is a product the same as any prerecorded product on a physical medium and the same as any hot consumer item with a limited profit window before its forgotten and eneds to be replaced you can not blame the consumer or any business that hums along fine without selling new products, who's to blame why the game industry is its far to greedy and far to shortsighted....
You are putting the cart before the horse and the egg before whatever animal that laid it, This is the situation you have out of control production costs and or poor management issues and no true price competition to drive sales, what you have here is a form of stagnation because they can not derive enough profit from the random profits they seek. The only choice they have is to start competing by lowering prices this combined with making deals with the used retailer will bring them the most profit but they will get no where until they stop languishing in the "woe is me life is unfair" mindset. Its that or double prices so they can have their profit(works for anime in japan) or move to digital distribution only and see their profits shrink even more.
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
You are a fucking retard. The courts of the United States of America says we have the RIGHT to second sale, dumbass. Look it up. I don't understand you idiots who seem eager to curtail your own rights. Go die in a fire.
Now now no need to get douchey yerself, there is no need to be so serious here.
Those who side against the first sale doc are simply looking to increase their own profit at the cost of of lowering our rights even further than they are, unfortunately the government dose not always bend over when the industry cries over spilled milk and wants its diapers changed. but of course give them time and gov might abolish first sale completely as so the CP owners can freely double dip and restrict sale to only channels that are willing to pay for mafioso protection from the media mafia.
*nawing on tinfoil*....ahem......Tinfoil hat conspiracies aside none of these would be entrapunares have the ability or the foresight to pave a way as they can share in the sued game market, because after all they are not about change or innovation. They are about maintaining the system as it is so they can reap the most of of it, change makes it so profit is easier to attain for all involved not just a limited few with connections.
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
"Just as much money and time is put into designing a car as a video game, but video games don't de-value with age the same way cars do (in some extent they do, but not so heavily)."
Waaaay more money goes into designing cars than video games. The car manufacturers spend more on TV marketing on one model of car alone than the development of most AAA video game titles. Ford dropped $25 million to advertise JUST on American Idol. That's ONE show
As far as games not depreciating like cars do, well... Most do, except worse. My car is three years old. It went from $16,500 to around $11,000 in value, about 1/3rd of its value lost to depreciation. You think you're going to be able to sell a three year old game that cost $60 at launch for $40? How much do you think you're gonna get for a three year old sports game? You probably couldn't give it away.
When I sell my copy of a game, I am giving up the ability to play it again. I'm trading future experiences for cash. Why should Jaffe get some of that money?
And then there are consumers like me, who do not want to spend the $60+ on a new game but will go out and buy a used copy, borrow or rent it. Then a year or so buy a copy new (provided the game is good) when it is under $40. But I am an oddity.
~Weatherlight~
Not really an oddity, but that won't stop some people from looking at you funny if you publicly state it. :P
Hmm, something about 'heat' and 'kitchen' would be appropriate right now.
The used car analogy is a perfect analogy. A car goes down in value. A game goes down in value. Where a car takes damage, requires maintenance and other details, the standards to which a game is held are raised over time, and the online part of a game often also starts to suffer after a while. We want better graphics, more original content, improved gameplay, etc, etc. Claiming the experience doesn't change is as much ridiculous as claiming the roads of 50 years ago were just as good as the current ones and would suffice for the cars, traffic amount and expectancies of these days.
Why does this guy think he matters?
Heh, lets get a bit general here: "Why is it everyone on the internet think they matter?"
Becuse "we" can only be right on the internet ^^
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Fuck Jaffe, God of War wasn't that great, and he and his fat cat cronies can pry my RIGHT to second sale from my cold, dead hands.
Fuck these people. I'll bring up the standard analogy. Do you give Ford, or Saturn, or Toyota a cut of your fucking car when you resell it? No? Oh shit, maybe b/c they don't deserve to get paid twice for the same product.
If these guys have their multi-BILLION dollar panties in a twist they need to go to a 100% digital distribution model like Steam and make sure people know that people aren'y buying the games, they're licensing them.
I really hate these douches.
You can hate Jaffe all you want but you have to admit God of War is one of the better franchises to come out recently.
About the only solution to this that would really work is for retailers to enter an agreement with developers not to provide new games as second hand until a set period after the release date, say, 6 months? That gives a chance for the developer to maximise its market share whilst still allowing the retailer to provide a service on second hand games, and allows the customer the freedom to treat their property as they see fit.
I agree that the developers shouldn't get money for every second hand sale, but, using the car analogy, it's rare for someone to buy a new car, use it for 3-4 days and then sell it on, in fact, people would be suspicious of what's happened to the car in those few days, so I can understand the companies concerns from that point of view.
It just seems the phrase 'compromise' is practically vanishing from business these days, no-one wants to meet halfway, either things go their way, or there's something wrong with the world and it's all designed to hurt them personally.
I was actually thinking about this and started wondering if we might ever come to a point where games are released as DD or buy in the mail from the publisher only for ~6 months or so at the beginning of their release, and then get released to retailors. I wonder if that would have a chilling effect on the market or if people would just react as if the release date was 6 months later.
questionmark1987
For all intensive purposes it be like the release was 6 months later, the most I can see is double or tipple the amount of over priced collector/limited,ect editions that are purchased in a 6 month period after launch so you might be lucky to sale 10-30% of what you sale directly to retailers, it may pad sales by 50K at the most but is a publisher willing to put off maximizing profit in the short run for more profit in the long run and all I can say is I think not.
You'd be better off trying to start a price war and drive sales from that direction for instance offer a title with free shipping(lower 48,5$ every where else in the US) for 10-15$ less than any national retail chain I think that would drive direct sales hard and you could always set a limit to these specials of 50K worth of titles so you drive interest and minimize possible long term(6-12 month)damage.
edit
Ok so you lock in new sales for the first 6 months ok so then now what, well make it easier for retailers to return unopened stock even gee I dunno be able to to return a poorly made game without looking like a thief or dullard...that could work......
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Actually quite often a publisher is willing to take back and replace faulty disks, if you just don't like the game that's what being a conscientious consumer is about, how many movie tickets have you been able to return after seeing the first 10 minutes in the theatre?
Now who's asking for something that isn't allowed in any other industry?
3 out of ten tickets(only go 2 or 3 times a year so it ebtter damn well be worth my while), generally in the middle of the film? I refuse to deal graciously with poor quality.
Sorry but begin stuck with a poor product is one of the reasons why people are not in a hurry to buy a new game even a 5 day to return for credit would be a good middle ground.
Not allowed in other forms of retail? Fucking A man I got 14 to 30 days to return MOST consumer goods from food to electronics to clothing and a vast variarty of other goods to the store I bought it from and able to get most if not all of my money back, hell I ahve even managed to get it on CD,tapes and DVDs and the only reason I mange to get it is because I raise an articulate fuss and most just cave in, the vast majority of consumers are not like that they need more fairer structure to the rules of media return . Sure media muscled its way out of taking returns in the late 90s but it dose not make the practice sacrosanct it just pushes the bottom line further on the consumer who's slowly more willing to find different ways to consume the good they seek to consume, the music industry learned not to screw with the consumer too much and the game industry will learn that same lesson when tis unable to keep up appearances.
What ever happened to the golden rule the paying customer is always right? I guess it went out the window with service quality in retail when they found they could save money by not heiring smart people and save even more by telling people mis truths about their policy's..
Both retial and publishers are making MILLOINS its not going to hurt either to pick up some slack and start taking care of thier cosnuemrs again....
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Most if not all, like what you get for trade in? I fail to see why you can't be buying new and still trading in when you can always get most if not all of your money back on games too.