Thats a shame, considering the used game market does quite a bit of damage to the industry as a whole. Then again it may just continue to encourage developers to focus more on PC gaming.
secondary markets are more a byproduct of a successful industry than a cancer somehow suppressing them
if A sells B a game for $60, then B sells the game to C for $10, B isn't shortselling himself. he paid $60 for an experience which he then extracted from the product. having gotten what he wanted, he's free to sell it for far less, let's say $10. he's not "taking a loss" at this price even though he originally spent the $60, because he was paying for more than just the hardware or software involved. A, however, has incurred all the costs of creating that hardware and software and could never have sold the game to C for $10 without taking a loss. beyond that, C may never have valued the game at $60 anyway. the secondary market has created more value for more parties than would have been possible if games could only be sold new for $60. this is a beautiful process
for some reason though, game developers in particular seem to feel that every used game sale, and even beyond that into every illegal download and every shared game between friends, is somehow a lost sale. it's a kind of persistent fixed-pie thinking that boggles the brain
you must be living in the US or buying all your games on Steam I can sell my games just fine in the EU, apart from technical restrictions.
Yep the US. I know that EU wants to force Valve to allow reselling of steam purchases...but I think thats a rash sentiment based move that only hurts the developers. Whats to stop the publishers from charging a ton more for the EU peeps like they do with those in New Zealand? Just not smart.
secondary markets are more a byproduct of a successful industry than a cancer somehow suppressing them
if A sells B a game for $60, then B sells the game to C for $10, B isn't shortselling himself. he paid $60 for an experience which he then extracted from the product. having gotten what he wanted, he's free to sell it for far less, let's say $10. he's not "taking a loss" at this price even though he originally spent the $60, because he was paying for more than just the hardware or software involved. A, however, has incurred all the costs of creating that hardware and software and could never have sold the game to C for $10 without taking a loss. beyond that, C may never have valued the game at $60 anyway. the secondary market has created more value for more parties than would have been possible if games could only be sold new for $60. this is a beautiful process
for some reason though, game developers in particular seem to feel that every used game sale, and even beyond that into every illegal download and every shared game between friends, is somehow a lost sale. it's a kind of persistent fixed-pie thinking that boggles the brain
A secondary market is like the movie industry releasing a film in theaters for a few months, and then 4-6 months later releasing it as a dvd, selling rights to stream movie to tv stations, and even to the point of selling action figures and other such products. Thats a secondary market.
The game industry, aside from swag, action figures and such... exists primary for their primary market. Which is that a game is released and thats it.
Also I dont think you will find many developers who think a pirated game is a lost sale, only the used game being resold is. The reason for this is that with pirated games, there is no consumer. No one is paying a retailer for it, generally speaking. Used games on the other hand require a consumer, someone to be willing to part with money for a good or service. So a sale does take place, the problem is it doesnt go to the developer or publisher, but the retailer who wants people to keep using and bringing back used games so they can reap the profits far more than the developer ever would/could.
A secondary market is like the movie industry releasing a film in theaters for a few months, and then 4-6 months later releasing it as a dvd, selling rights to stream movie to tv stations, and even to the point of selling action figures and other such products. Thats a secondary market.
The game industry, aside from swag, action figures and such... exists primary for their primary market. Which is that a game is released and thats it.
Also I dont think you will find many developers who think a pirated game is a lost sale, only the used game being resold is. The reason for this is that with pirated games, there is no consumer. No one is paying a retailer for it, generally speaking. Used games on the other hand require a consumer, someone to be willing to part with money for a good or service. So a sale does take place, the problem is it doesnt go to the developer or publisher, but the retailer who wants people to keep using and bringing back used games so they can reap the profits far more than the developer ever would/could.
a secondary market is not just a secondary way that a company makes money with its product, although that is one definition. a secondary market can also be the market that exists after the primary sale, which is exactly what the used game market is.
when you say "a sale does take place, the problem is it doesnt go to the developer or publisher," you're ignoring the givens of the situation - the entire point is that the developer or publisher could not sell the product at that price without taking a loss. why do you think the developer or publisher should be taking money from a sale that they are not a part of and could not make themselves?
I get the point behind wikileaks, and people leaking classified information to expose war crimes. I don't get the point of people hacking and leaking information about a company's project and possibly ruining hard work from thousands of people just for the sake of it. Anyway, that guy is in trouble.
What do you guys think? I dunno.. i feel this is a bit excessive, but interesting none the less.
As I said before, the XBOne is no more monitoring device than a laptop from which the camera an mic can be hacked probably more easily. You don't want to take the risk ? Close your laptop when you don't use it or shutdown your console when you are not playing. It's that simple, I really think people are overreacting over all this.
The used games issue is a real one. The kinect spying on you is not.
As I said before, the XBOne is no more monitoring device than a laptop from which the camera an mic can be hacked probably more easily. You don't want to take the risk ? Close your laptop when you don't use it or shutdown your console when you are not playing. It's that simple.
this is false.
xbone is a surveillance device with a sophisticated camera and microphone. you sign a contract and install equipment which collects data in your home and grants microsoft the right to store that data on there servers. it can not be any clearer then that.
whey you buy a laptop you are signing a contract to buy hardware device with the manufacturer. you also sign a contract with a completely different company for a licence of the operating system. you do not give the right to the hardware vendor or the os provider to store any piece of your private information or data in there records except the details relating to your purchase, just like every other purchase you make for any other product.
there is a huge fundamental difference. the xbone is designed to stream data from your home to microsoft on a continual basis. you can not even use it without that constant data connection. surveillance and data collection is precisely why these connections and sensors are mandatory. these are facts. your home will be monitored by microsoft with a highly sophisticate surveillance device with video, a microphone and the hardware to process this data. microsoft has complete control of the device and you have waived your legal rights to prevent them from doing anytihg they want with it.
anyone who wants to live in la la land and deny the facts is wearing a tinfoil hat suit, and shoes.
You cannot prove that. That is merely a confirmation bias on your part. What one can objectively prove is that the used game market 1) discourages restocking of new retail games 2) worse than piracy 3) takes per game profit away from publishers and developers.
I never said I could prove that, but I can logically conclude that some people do. That's no different than how some people buy houses just so they can fix them up and resell them. If those people couldn't resell houses, they wouldn't buy them in the first place. Being able to resell goods can provide incentive to buy them new in the first place.
1. Opinion
2. Also opinion.
3. That's no different the used cars sale taking away from new car sales.
PC gamers, over the course of many years, still buy games without being able to resell them. Despite all those "predictions of doom" for the PC gaming market, its stronger than ever.
Gamers will buy games they want to play, regardless if they can sell it or not to a retailer.
But with the lack of a market to resell them, they will see each game purchase as a cost they can't recoup, so they will only invest in games they feel are truly worth the price.
You say that people will sell it off after beating it and thus make their money back. Think about that for a second. What in that encourages developers to make single player titles? Would you as a publisher/developer put money into making a game that will be beaten in a day or two and then resold to fill up shelf space in which any sale will not generate profit? No.
They will make some of their money back. Not all. In order for there to be a used market, a purchase of a brand new good must be made. If nobody bought new goods, the used goods wouldn't exist.
Its already been objectively verified that publishers are forcing development turn to online based games and missing content in which to sell as DLC in order to decrease the chances of used game sales and make back lost profit.
Objectively? There's nothing objective about it. It's totally subjective and reactionary. And lost profit? You make it sound like the publishers lost something they already had and were entitled to. It seems to me that publishers feel entitled to control the market and dictate to the world how much of the profit from the market they should get. That's massively entitled.
That does NOT help the gamer, nor does it free up the developer to make a variety of game types.
Developers are free to make any games they want. They just have to find a way to monetize it. That's their problem to solve, not society's. The world shouldn't have to change how they do things to fit the business model of one solitary industry.
Some people feel entitled to everything, doesnt mean they should get it. Some gamers dont even care about the EULA but they are happy to agree to it. Whos fault is it then? The game maker or the entitled consumer?
Entitled? It's called the first sale doctrine. Every person has the right to resell any goods they have rightfully purchased. The myopic publishers created this eventuality when they fixed games to physical discs. It is their fault. They fix them to discs that only work in authorized devices in order to make them scarce like physical property, but they don't want people to have physical property rights over those goods because it's only a "license". So come on, which is it? You can't have it both ways. Either it is an abundant good that is governed by a license or it's a physical good that belongs to the person that buys it, granting them the right to resell as they see fit.
Remove used games and you can decrease the price. Games cost less on the PC for two reasons, 1) No SDK fee for the console to worry about and 2) no used game market cannibalizing the market.
If you think $60 is bad, It cost more than that when new NES games were coming out. Also consider this, current hardware for consoles initially sells at a loss. Why? Because console gamers have it in their head that hardware shouldnt cost too much, thus the sum of parts isnt usually covered by the asking price. The console publishers expect to make up for those losses via software sales.
If you think that prices will go down if the used market disappears, you must not understand monopolies and how they actually drive prices up. In the absence of competition, actors in the market actually increase their prices because they have few or no other actors in the market vying for market share.
This comes right back to what games are. Software and software is what? License based.
Actually, they're copyright based. Licenses are just written agreements that delineate the terms by which a copyright holder grants permission to access a copy.
Its not fair to make an objective statement? It is harmful. Many developers and even studio founders are stating as much. You calling them liars? Are they not fair? Last time I checked, they are the ones working 10-12 hours a day, relying on a publisher to pay them and often lose their jobs at the end of every project.
It is a FACT the used game market, no industry, is harmful. This is not debatable, its not sentiment based. Just because its inconvenient to the gamer who got into the bad habit of hurting the industry they are a fan of by buying and selling used games, doesnt mean its not true.
It's fair to make an objective statement, but you're not making one. Saying something is harmful is not objective evidence that it is harmful, no matter who is saying unless they can back it up with more than just a casual correlation. How hard they work and suffer doesn't give merit to an unfounded claim.
It is not a fact, but a mere assumption that it is harmful. You see people buying used games and not new games. Well, people buy used goods all the time in direct negation of buy new goods. Just because people chose the used good instead of the new doesn't mean that it's harmful. That's just fact of reality.
That argument is the most used and always proven false. Its a big fallacy. Software is not hardware. You cannot compare a car, a physical good, which is sold mostly for the sum of its physical parts, to software. Cars have a life span, they lose value the more mileage is on them and eventually fall apart. Manufacturers still make profit based on the parts sold to keep the said vehicles running.
They put these games on discs, a physical good, it makes it applicable. Discs are prone to wear, decay, and damage, just as any other physical good. Since the industry has made it impossible to use anything other than approved media on approved devices, they've tied the software's fate with the discs they are recorded on.
Dont forget that the courts ended up siding with Autodesk and not Vernor who wanted to sell re-used copies of CAD software he picked up at a yard sale. The license doesnt magically transfer and since software is license based its not about the disk, but the intellectual property held within it.
A license has a nasty little habit of trying to apply physical property traits for the copyright owner's benefit, yet deny the same to the consumer when they pay for them. This is an example of that issue. Basically they own the software, but when you pay for it they still own it, which is contrary to every other sale of goods which results in the customer becoming the new owner and having the right to resell that specific item (the copy on those discs) when they desire to. It has one purpose, to create scarcity where something is abundant.
A game exists in a non physical form, you can get it via software download, it can be duplicated an infinite amount of times without lose to the original. Can you make that same claim with car? You wont be able to.
But I can't make a copy of a console game, it wouldn't function. The built in DRM prevents it. So the only copies that can be used are the ones the developers print and since they are tied to a physical object that cannot be duplicated any more easily than a car, the analogy applies.
Publishers already have reacted to the used game market, and its not good for the consumer. DLC was invented to recoup losses. So now you have games like Mass Effect 2 shipping with content missing unless you either A) buy new, in which you get "free" DLC, or pay $15 to get it if you bought it used.
You see publishers pushing more types of DRM, even to the point where it hurts the consumer. You see them restricting consoles even more. This whole thread is proof of this. Just using basic services on the xbox forces you to pay.
Now imagine if publishers and developers got paid per game sold. Imagine if 10 people played skyrim and the publisher got paid for everyone one of those 10 copies purchased new or used. Imagine a world where movie theaters actually charged per person to see a movie... Imagine thats how it is now, because it is. What if you could go to a theater, buy a ticket, watch the movie, then walk out and resell that movie ticket to someone else in line, who then re-uses it to watch the same movie..over and over.
That's a completely false analogy. The theater doesn't charge by the person they charge by the seat and seats are finite. There are only so many people you can pack in a theater at one time. Seats are scarce and that's what they sell, the movie is the thing that makes people want to pay for those seats.
Look at the bigger picture. Games only have a primary market, there is no secondary.
If you put them on a physical medium that nobody can easily duplicate, then they do. I can't make a disc that my Xbox sees as an authentic and genuine copy. I'd have to change how my console functions in order to get around that. So that makes the games scarce in supply and susceptible to a secondary market.
Wrong! Publishers currently only assume they will make profit within the first month maybe 2 of a game's launch. There is nothing to encourage them to pump out quality, only quantity. The difference is quality vs quantity. After a month or two, the game is already taking up shelf space as a used title and the retailers refuse to order more new copies. The retailer makes more money off used, where they can get paid 10+ times for one game as opposed to the publisher who only gets paid once. IN short quality suffers when the first month or two is the only time a publisher can expect to make some ounce of profit from new titles.
I don't even see how this applies to anything I previously said.
Secondly, yes DRM hurts everyone. Used games and piracy dont help encourage a lack of DRM, only more forms of it. Back when games were sold on floppy disks, you often had to have some 100+ page user manual to go along with it, as each session of the game would require you to enter a code from some randomly picked page number.
No, DRM is a tool intended to segment a market as much as possible in order to increase the number of points of sale.
Here's the thing. Piracy is highest in nations that either the game cost too much or isnt even available. Some think that the north america is high on the piracy charts, when in fact its at the bottom. Where piracy runs rampant is in places game accessibility is low. In addition to that, pirates are not necessarily consumers. Used game buyers are. Pirates wont spend money on X product, but the used game buy will spend money. Used games are worse because they give it to someone who has nothing to do with the development of the software.
Citation needed. And used games may be putting money in the hands of people that didn't work on them, but publishers are guilty of the same thing and they created their own problem. They tried to have it both ways and it backfired on them. They made the business model of companies like Gamestop possible.
So no its not a simple PC DRM issue or console price issue. It all goes back to consumers and dont forget, consumers vote with their wallets. If console gamers want to fund the used game industry, then thats the same as voting for the behavior console publishers will follow with.
I'm a gamer, I love games but at the same time I am smart enough to know that if you want to keep games you enjoy alive, you dont do what hurts the industry. As an artist, I want people to respect the work I put into my art, and as such I give the same in return.
It does come down to respect, but I think your concept of respect is backwards.
No it's not just an issue of DRM or console pricing, it's actually both of those as well as faulty business model that was designed to work in a pre-internet world. Voting with your wallet is a hollow platitude. We all know money is power and those with the most money have the power. A mass of individuals with divergent goals and desires does not make a progressive force in shaping the behavior of an industry. The industry follows the decree of those with the most money. The consumers are a resource to exploit, not a stakeholder to be heeded.
As an artist, if you want people to respect you, you have to earn it. You're not entitled to respect because you created something. What's more, as an artist, you're nothing without your audience, so respect that fact because they are the reason you succeed or fail in the art business. Remember, they don't need you, you need them. I think a lot of artists forget that and assume they are entitled to respect and get disdainful when it's not handed to them on a silver platter.
I never said I could prove that, but I can logically conclude that some people do. That's no different than how some people buy houses just so they can fix them up and resell them. If those people couldn't resell houses, they wouldn't buy them in the first place. Being able to resell goods can provide incentive to buy them new in the first place.
1. Opinion
2. Also opinion.
3. That's no different the used cars sale taking away from new car sales.
But with the lack of a market to resell them, they will see each game purchase as a cost they can't recoup, so they will only invest in games they feel are truly worth the price.
No. 1. Is not an opinion. Its a statement based on current practices. This happens, its not a question or an opinion, its an objective FACT.
But hey, dont take my word for it. I'll let a game industry pioneer, David Braben explain it to you in his own words.
"Pre-owned has really killed core games. In some cases, it's killed them dead. I know publishers who have stopped games in development because most shops won't reorder stock after initial release, because they rely on the churn from the resales," ..."It's killing single player games in particular, because they will get preowned, and it means your day one sales are it, making them super high risk.
The idea of a game selling out used to be a good thing, but nowadays, those people who buy it on day one may well finish it and return it," "People will say 'Oh well, I paid all this money and it's mine to do with as I will' "Prices would have come down long ago if the industry was getting a share of the resells"
Now ask yourself, is he trustworthy? Are you in a position where you would know better? It seems YOU are the one who is expressing an opinion, yet need convincing. It should be painfully obvious to anyone paying attention and or working in the industry.
I dont want to sound like a jerk, but this topic is an important one and people like you who pretend like used game sales are not having a severe negative impact are just part of the problem. To me its almost like hearing someone claim the holocaust didnt happen, but on a less morally painful level, as very little can truly compare to the horrors of that event.
2. No its also not an opinion. Piracy is not doing the damage here. Pirates are a) not consumers. b) used game buyers are. When you consider the fact that over 40%, the largest area of revenue, for GameStop comes from their used games... it paints a pretty obvious picture. You cannot make the claim that piracy is worse than used game buyers, because you have no foundation to pull from. Used game sales are the source of losses, not piracy.
In addition to that:
"Italy, Spain, China, Brazil and France are key problem zones when it comes to online game piracy, says the U.S.-based trade group Entertainment Software Association." 54 percent of infringing game sharing worldwide in 2010 can be sourced to P2P activity in those five nations, says the trade body.
Ask yourself, are those primary game markets where games are readily available? Piracy is limited to a select few regions around the world in which accessibility and culture is an issue.
On the flip side, use games are an indicator of where games are readily available. That means there is very little excuse to look for alternate means to obtain games that are not localized for your region.
3) Wrong again. See my previous post and other posters reacting to your failed used car analogy.
They will make some of their money back. Not all. In order for there to be a used market, a purchase of a brand new good must be made. If nobody bought new goods, the used goods wouldn't exist.
How do they make their money back?
"I have this bitter feeling when I see quite a few games released with missing content or features, which are then sold separately as paid DLC," Guillaume Rambourg (Managing Director at GoG)
Your argument is flawed. Yes new must exist first, but when used ends up preventing more new sales, you have effectively cannibalized on the source. Thus no new revenue for the people who made the risk to make the game to begin with.
"In the future, we will create premium editions for brick and mortar sales and standard editions will go digital. I think this model will rule the industry."
Adam Badowski of CD projeckt RED
The reason I mention what Adam is saying is because by buying used, you effectively encourage two reactions. A) the eventual removal of physical copies and Overpriced versions for those who wish to collect for collection purposes.
Good job at that point you have just killed the used game market..
Objectively? There's nothing objective about it. It's totally subjective and reactionary. And lost profit? You make it sound like the publishers lost something they already had and were entitled to. It seems to me that publishers feel entitled to control the market and dictate to the world how much of the profit from the market they should get. That's massively entitled.
WRONG again. It is objective because publishers ACTIVELY begin turning away from games whose core game design will result in quick used game shelf life. This is not subjective, its been happening for awhile now. You can see it in the games coming out even now, and how genre's have shifted. If you havent seen it yet, then you are not paying attention. See above quote by David Braben.
Its good to know you think you know more than the rest of us. You really dont have a concrete argument, rather just a confirmation bias. Your bias is FOR used games probably because you rely on them as a source of YOUR entertainment. If true then it is not preferable for you and your bias to accept these changes in the industry or the "inconvenient" information thats readily available for anyone who uses google.
Developers are free to make any games they want. They just have to find a way to monetize it. That's their problem to solve, not society's. The world shouldn't have to change how they do things to fit the business model of one solitary industry.
Developers who want to make a living have to sustain their business. If they rely on funding from a major publisher, they are not given as much choice as you like to think. Dont ruin it for the rest of us by pissing in punch bowl. For me development isnt a charity, and I know I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Entitled? It's called the first sale doctrine. Every person has the right to resell any goods they have rightfully purchased.
But they dont have the right to transfer license agreements. Someone can sell a physical material, but if the information contained within is licensed, and its intellectual property protected, the use of that data is limited. In your mind, is selling used goods subject to taxation as well? That kind of spits in the face of you idea of a first sale doctrine. Dont confuse rights and privileges.
The myopic publishers created this eventuality when they fixed games to physical discs. It is their fault.
So dont throw a fit when physical discs are removed from the picture. You should have no room to complain if they chose to go digital and account based.
They fix them to discs that only work in authorized devices in order to make them scarce like physical property, but they don't want people to have physical property rights over those goods because it's only a "license". So come on, which is it? You can't have it both ways. Either it is an abundant good that is governed by a license or it's a physical good that belongs to the person that buys it, granting them the right to resell as they see fit.
No you can do whatever you want with a physical disc. Sleep with it for all they care, but executing the software on the said disc is limited by a license agreement. You do not have the right to take source code, re-sell textures used within the disc, re-sell audio data in the disc. In essence you are limited in what can be done with the data. The EULA usually contains a clause that says resale or transfer of license is prohibited unless they specifically give you the right to do so. Are you above a license agreement? Its entitlement when you feel you can piss all over it and that its yours to run in any way you want. By using their software you are stuck by their licensing terms. Dont like it, dont buy it. It is not rocket science. I might not like it either, but I wont make excuses to ignore the license agreement.
If you think that prices will go down if the used market disappears, you must not understand monopolies and how they actually drive prices up. In the absence of competition, actors in the market actually increase their prices because they have few or no other actors in the market vying for market share.
Do tell, which monopoly is formed when used games are not sold by retailers? There is none. In fact used game sales isnt even competition...unless you are trying to say their own products are competition for themselves? You really want to make that argument lol? See quote by David B. There are plenty like it.
When publishers will compete via new titles and against services like steam, prices can and will go down, but to a point where it still covers the cost of development.
Tell me, do you think the cost of development has gone up or down over the years?
Actually, they're copyright based. Licenses are just written agreements that delineate the terms by which a copyright holder grants permission to access a copy.
Yes yes, and logos are trademarked and all that. You havent said anything otherwise. Its usage is based around a license. There will be copyrights and trademarks involved, but thats like saying there will be water involved in water park. Talk about obvious.
Its clear you have no love or care for those who own intellectual property or honoring a license agreement.
It's fair to make an objective statement, but you're not making one. Saying something is harmful is not objective evidence that it is harmful, no matter who is saying unless they can back it up with more than just a casual correlation. How hard they work and suffer doesn't give merit to an unfounded claim.
It is not a fact, but a mere assumption that it is harmful. You see people buying used games and not new games. Well, people buy used goods all the time in direct negation of buy new goods. Just because people chose the used good instead of the new doesn't mean that it's harmful. That's just fact of reality.
But I am making objective statements, you just have a confirmation bias against such information. It is a fact that used game's are harmful to the industry. You would know this if you have been paying attention to whats been happening over the last 5-6 years at very least.
There is a reason both Sony and Microsoft started off with anti-used game approaches to their consoles. It was a reaction to a very well known and verifiable problem within the industry. They are not doing it for no damn reason.
"I would argue, and Ive said this before, that used games are cannibalizing the industry. If developers and publishers dont see revenue from that, its not a matter of hey were trying to increase the price of games to consumers, and we want more, were just trying to survive as an industry. If used games continue the way that they are, its going to cannibalize, theres not going to be an industry," he said. "People wont make those kinds of games. So I think thats inflated the price of games, and I think that prices would have come down if there was a longer tail, but there isnt." Silicon Knights head Denis Dyack
""I can take just one example of Heavy Rain. We basically sold to date approximately two million units, we know from the trophy system that probably more than three million people bought this game and played it. On my small level it's a million people playing my game without giving me one cent."...."Because when developers and publishers alike are going to to see that they can't make a living out of producing games that are sold through retail channels, because of second hand gaming, they will simply stop making these games. And we'll all, one say to the other, simply go online and to direct distribution." - Quantic Dream's co-founder, Guillaume de Fondaumiere
Now when GameStop alone makes nearly 2 billion dollars by getting people to buy used over new in just one year...you seriously want to make the claim that that some how doesnt hurt the people making and funding the development of these games?
But I can't make a copy of a console game, it wouldn't function. The built in DRM prevents it. So the only copies that can be used are the ones the developers print and since they are tied to a physical object that cannot be duplicated any more easily than a car, the analogy applies.
WHAT ROCK HAVE YOU BEEN LIVING UNDER???
Of course you can make a copy of a console game, both a virtual one and physical one. In fact its not uncommon for people to buy a game, rip a copy of it, sell it and have a back up at home. Sadly I know of one guy who has played nearly every single PS3 game that has come out so far and he's obtained them all from the INTERNET.
You are naive if you think its hard to get around DRM.
Wake up man and start paying attention.
Its not worth responding to every sentimental based sentence you write, and quite frankly it can be summed up with you making excuses about how publishers are bad, and you have your rights...and how you think every analogy doesnt work unless it supports your bias.
Its good to know you think you know more than many of those who end up leading this industry. At the end of the day its people like you that encourage the restrictions publishers are coming up with to slow down and or stop the damage faced by the used market.
Its clear you are just a consumer, not a maker of content. It is utterly frustrating.
Seriously, can the used game novellas be moved to another thread? It's really old ground that's been covered a 1,000 times.
Absolutely. Not only is it the same crap we've argued about a million times before but those who are in it will never become convinced of the other's reasoning. I'm amazed to see those guys above literally refute each other each and every time, it's stifling: I'd like to throw my hat in the ring but knowing that my opinions will be bandied about until meaningless.
I'm starting to think used-game discussion should be treated the same as piracy discussion and shut down as soon as people start debating it. Yeah yeah censorship and all, but nobody is benefiting from these discussions.
As I said before, the XBOne is no more monitoring device than a laptop from which the camera an mic can be hacked probably more easily.
Nonsense. You're comparing a compromised device with the standard modus operandi of another device. It's like saying "well this crashed car is smoking and leaking gasoline, so it's fine if all our production cars do that too".
The XBone is monitoring the room, waiting on your voice commands to activate the console.
So how is that not a monitoring device?
a monitoring device monitors you, the kinect just inteprets input until it finds something that triggers a command, much like a keyboard awaiting a key-press for it to do something.
If the xb-one actually was a monitoring device it would be akin to having a keylogger installed on your computer, and people will find out what kind of information the xb-one sends to microsoft, which hopefully isn't the camera-feed.
a monitoring device monitors you, the kinect just inteprets input until it finds something that triggers a command, much like a keyboard awaiting a key-press for it to do something.
If the xb-one actually was a monitoring device it would be akin to having a keylogger installed on your computer, and people will find out what kind of information the xb-one sends to microsoft, which hopefully isn't the camera-feed.
Once activated, it's going to be monitoring you and everything in the room. Number of people, your facial expression, heart beats, etc. I think we're dancing around definitions at this point, bending them to support whatever we already believe.
I'm starting to think used-game discussion should be treated the same as piracy discussion and shut down as soon as people start debating it. Yeah yeah censorship and all, but nobody is benefiting from these discussions.
A debate always seems like it is going nowhere, but it would be unwise to say that it doesn't actually change opinions.
People usually only change an opinion in personal reflection after the debate.
Once activated, it's going to be monitoring you and everything in the room. Number of people, your facial expression, heart beats, etc. I think we're dancing around definitions at this point, bending them to support whatever we already believe.
Again, tin-foil worthy, they cannot relay all this information in any stealthy way, so they won't monitor.
you sign a contract and install equipment which collects data in your home and grants microsoft the right to store that data on there servers. it can not be any clearer then that.
It's clear you think that the only side that matters is the developer's side, everything they say is 100% objectively true, and they should have things exactly the way they say it should be. That's just not realistic or right. Asking the game devs about an issue that impacts their bottom line isn't going to yield an objective opinion. That's like letting wolves vote on what we should do with the sheep. If you ask anyone that has a personal stake in something their opinion, they are going to give you an opinion that is biased. They don't like the used market because it's competition and the entire copyright and licensing structure is designed specifically to discourage competition, even if it's otherwise legal.
We live in the 21st century and they're still running their business like it's the 20th century before the internet. It's a poor attitude to have that the world must change so you can run your business the way you want it. Are used games illegal? No. Is it wrong? No. Make any excuse you like, but the industry created this issue themselves and they aren't going to solve it by trying to exert more control over consumers and the market. The answer to the problem is plain as the nose on your face. They have to change their model. Retail isn't impervious anymore. Whether you think it's right or wrong that it's happening doesn't matter. What matters is that people can and will. No laws, no technology is going to take us back to the idyllic world of 20th century retail bliss. People can copy, will copy, and do. Just as they can sell and resell their games. Trying to take back control is going to blow up in your face because you can't control it. The result of no used market in PC games is file sharing. That's what will happen with consoles if you try to eliminate used games. Sharing of games will increase. It may not show up on the p2p networks but it will happen over private channels.
It doesn't mean squat that the license says you can't do this or that. The fact that it's on a disc negates that. I can sell my disc to anyone I like and you can't do anything about that. There's no technology or law that will change that fact. The more you try to fight used games and control the market, the deeper you dig yourself into a hole. This complaining about how people are violating the license is impotent. I've said it before, they are trying to have it both ways. First through making it into a transferable good by putting on a disc, then trying to exert ownership over it after the sale with licensing. You can't have it both ways. Either it's a product that can be resold or it's a license and people can make as many copies they like for themselves, but can't be transferred. But that's not what we have. The disc is the only way to access the copy and the fixed nature of that copy means that when you transfer the disc to someone else, someone else has a copy and you don't. If it were a license, what matters is who it's assigned to and the number of copies they have is immaterial. Putting games on a disc and selling like that directly conflicts with the preferred licensing model. So pick one and live with it. You can't create a non-transferable license and then put it on a highly transferable medium. Don't complain about a problem of your own making and blame the people that took advantage of the situation you created.
Okay, end of rant. I'm done. If you remain in your entrenched position. I can't do anything about it.
This you see in the top right corner is nothing else than a camera lens on the PS4 teaser video.
I would wait a few more days before choosing sides based on privacy violation
But didn't you hear? The people from the future have returned to tell us here, on this very forum, that Kinect will be sending video and audio to MS's servers all in an effort to enslave us all while PS4's Eye will not.
This you see in the top right corner is nothing else than a camera lens on the PS4 teaser video.
I would wait a few more days before choosing sides based on privacy violation
Er... you realise they showed off the camera in the original unveiling right?
I'm looking forward to all these cameras in my living room. I want more people to see me naked. Most people try to leave the room when I undress, but Xbox One will have to sit and suffer.
""I can take just one example of Heavy Rain. We basically sold to date approximately two million units, we know from the trophy system that probably more than three million people bought this game and played it. On my small level it's a million people playing my game without giving me one cent."...."Because when developers and publishers alike are going to to see that they can't make a living out of producing games that are sold through retail channels, because of second hand gaming, they will simply stop making these games. And we'll all, one say to the other, simply go online and to direct distribution." - Quantic Dream's co-founder, Guillaume de Fondaumiere
This bit I find interesting. I don't remember developers complaining (at least to the press) about used-game sales back in the day (like PS2 games and before) and I wouldn't be surprised if a part of the new 'realisation' is due to the more modern ways to track games in the field. Before then the only figures to care about was global retail, with used-games being a just something that happens, as piracy happened also. By bring the used-game figures to light, some developers are now given the opportunity to consider whether somebody out there who's playing their game, paid them their fee.
Of course there was less digital distribution so even with license agreements, games were sold as products, bought as products and sometime resold as products. Also I will admit that used-games then were not marketed the way Gamestop does today, but simply facilitated the same way books/movies/music cds were.
I also think that Guillaume de Fondaumiere should not be so bent out of shape for seeing more Trophies than games sold since it is not at all indicative of used-game sales. The people in those figures could also include people renting, borrowing from friends, and even people in the same household. Of course that's all evil too though...
there is a link in post 486 and it has been reported by other press that it is 'required' to have a internet connection so the box can automatically connect to microsoft when ever it wants and send them information.
you can debate what kind of information might be collected. but you can not argue that the device is not a surveillance device. or that it does not have the capacity to store any generated data bot locally and on there servers. even if it connected once a day its still surveillance.
pc''s are not required to connect to any network or send any data to anyone. you can run a pc perfectly well and never connect it to the internet.
I guess you are connected at least once a day when posting on Polycount, and I'm pretty sure your internet browser sends information about your habits and monitor your activity. Google does it for sure. You may even have a Steam account, Valve probably knows more about you than you would like to admit! How is a DRM system sending info to know if the game you play is legit more a surveillance system than the rest ?
the developer or publisher could not sell the product at that price without taking a loss. why do you think the developer or publisher should be taking money from a sale that they are not a part of and could not make themselves?
@jerc
you did not refute in any way that the xbone is a surveillance device. so i take it you agree then. that was the point.
your comparison is false. there is no one who connects to my computer once a day and has access to my full system and any devices connected to it. and i can assure you that any sort of tracking that is possible through a browser has been thoroughly defeated.
I guess you are connected at least once a day when posting on Polycount, and I'm pretty sure your internet browser sends information about your habits and monitor your activity. Google does it for sure. You may even have a Steam account, Valve probably knows more about you than you would like to admit! How is a DRM system sending info to know if the game you play is legit more a surveillance system than the rest ?
@jerc
you did not refute in any way that the xbone is a surveillance device. so i take it you agree then. that was the point.
your comparison is false. there is no one who connects to my computer once a day and has access to my full system and any devices connected to it. and i can assure you that any sort of tracking that is possible through a browser has been thoroughly defeated.
So you've got no clue what data is being sent to Microsoft?
So you've got no clue what data is being sent to Microsoft?
^^ my point exactly
I know it's a surveillance device by definition alone, but that's besides the point.
My point is that if ANY information is being sent to Microsoft (i.e. what you're doing at your house when not playing the game or while playing a game), it will be reported within a month of it's release. There will be tons of people that are going to tear the XBone down and see exactly what it's doing then post it online for others to read.
I seriously doubt MS would be dumb enough to do this as it would lead to a massive lawsuit similar to what Google faced when collecting WiFi data with it's street view cars.
So you've got no clue what data is being sent to Microsoft?
i know exactly what information has been sent to microsoft, none. my windows box does not have an internet connection. and i can tell you exactly what information will be sent in the future, none.
edit: @skankerzero
this is about money. data mining is probably worth more over time then the sales from the equipment. we are not dealing with the best and the brightest here. were dealing with a company driven by management and a long standing monopoly that is literally falling apart. there market share has gone from over 90% to under 20% and its still shrinking. they are a wounded beast backed into the corner by more innovative competition. i would not put anything past them at this point. its best to stay as far away as possible.
Everyone does data mining, heck even the government (speaking about the French government but I guess it's worse in the US). Fighting it is a nonsense in an era where everyone has a facebook account and uses google.
Considering MS would actually transmit the video feed over to their servers and store it for some guy in a bunker who would watch thousands of hours of video from all over the world trying to spy everyone, which they won't. I coulnd't care less about MS keeping track of if I'm smiling in front of my TV or jerking off, what would they do of that information ? Send me ads ? Big deal.
And then again, Sony is doing the same thing, so you'd just better stay away from any console.
I coulnd't care less about MS keeping track of if I'm smiling in front of my TV or jerking off, what would they do of that information?
if you want to jerk off in front of a camera at least have the common sense to sign a contract with a company that will pay you for it... as for me i will have to pass on that innovative feature.
if the xbone was not required to connect to microsofts servers. and kinetic was not required to be connected then there would be far less of a problem. there would still be problems but not on the scale there is with the current hardware.
this is a huge problem and liability for many people, potential customers. obviously the backlash is large and the violations of privacy are far beyond what many people would ever put up with. most people do not want microsoft watching them when they smile or jack off or collect any other data.
its perfectly fine to be excited about the games but i have no idea why anyone would argue against there own right to privacy to defend an abusive, shady corporation trying to skirt around the law to make a quick buck.
honestly, yea i want a camera in my house monitoring me. i want my devices to constantly connect to manufacturers servers and offload information about me. is that really worth defending?
if the xbone was not required to connect to microsofts servers. and kinetic was not required to be connected then there would be far less of a problem. there would still be problems but not on the scale there is with the current hardware.
Exactly. The issue is that this is mandatory and MS seems to be
And then all the customers responding
I don't remember developers complaining (at least to the press) about used-game sales back in the day (like PS2 games and before) and I wouldn't be surprised if a part of the new 'realization' is due to the more modern ways to track games in the field.
No I think that it's more because of market factor. The PS1 PS2 era was very profitable because there was enough technology out to make game (assets) efficiently, yet the console hardware was very limited so you built relatively simple games. The market was expanding, perhaps even peaking with the PS2 being most-sold-console by a mile, so you had cheap production and a large audience -> good money opportunity.
Today, while the market has matured (read: people care about money than they used to and less about games than they used to) it is somewhat shrinking or at least leveling out, more attention is being paid to 'things where we can get more money'. Sure, more advanced tracking is a part of that, but I think it's more of a symptom/effect than a cause.
And of course there's the factor of used games first being a thing you just had at a few stores as a somewhat informal setup, while now it seems to be the #1 cashcow of large franchise stores like gamestop.
And of course there's the factor of used games first being a thing you just had at a few stores as a somewhat informal setup, while now it seems to be the #1 cashcow of large franchise stores like gamestop.
There was a pretty big shift in the used game market between then and now. Where it once was a small blip found at only a select few stores, its become the primary product for many retailers who created a market and industry around buying and selling used games for maximum profit. It wasnt uncommon to see them undercut new titles by selling for just a few $$ less, and retailers like GameStop even got in some trouble for passing off used games as new.
Back when the PS2 "era", if you wanted into any of the major retailers here in the US...you would see a large section dedicated PC game and new console titles. I'm talking about entire walls dedicated to PC games and new titles for console games. There were no used games being sold at places like BestBuy or ToysRus. At smaller boutiques like EB games and Gamestop, if they did have a used game section it was one small rack tucked away in a corner or near the door.
Now if you walk into those very same stores, most of the shelf and wall space is used games, not new. There are practically NO PC games being sold anymore. In fact, the BestBuy where I used to buy my PC games went from having two large rows dedicated to PC games. You could spend hours going through all the titles for sale. When I go there now there is one small shelf with PC games being sold and most were Blizzard games along with the SIMS collection. I counted perhaps 40 total games being sold. The local gamestop, which had a line stretching around the block when Blizzard's first WoW xpack was released now only has a small stand in the corner with PC games and a small section of the wall dedicated to new console games. Everywhere you look is used consoles and their games. This isnt a small store either, its so big that Guild Wars 2 developers held a QA session there not long after launch.
I dont know how it is over in Europe, but theres has been a pretty big change between console generations. They made so much profit from facilitating a used game ring that even PC games suffered. Best way to get a PC game these days is over the internet, and thats kind of sad.
In addition to what you have already pointed out, the cost of development has gone up. With more gamers existing and a wider market, reaching those gamers and getting an increase of revenue to offset the cost of current gen production is fairly important.
honestly, yea i want a camera in my house monitoring me. i want my devices to constantly connect to manufacturers servers and offload information about me. is that really worth defending?
The big reason behind the always connected kinect is one of customer misunderstandings, they have the requirement so that people who simply do not understand will leave it in the box, It's the same reason your 360 will complain when the controller is disconnected.
The kinect has EVERYTHING do to with creating features that everyone will write about and make people buy this one instead of other things, they aren't as interested in data-mining as you seem to think, if it was then they would happily offload the xb-one for a $100.
Microsoft wouldn't risk losing their customer-base over such a thing when their revenue is in games and services.
You are arguing about your privacy rights when we don't even know if the xb-one will be doing all those things.
Also: your posts in this forum are being monitored by bots, they are analyzing your posting habits, better go offline!
The big reason behind the always connected kinect is one of customer misunderstandings, they have the requirement so that people who simply do not understand will leave it in the box, It's the same reason your 360 will complain when the controller is disconnected.
The kinect has EVERYTHING do to with creating features that everyone will write about and make people buy this one instead of other things, they aren't as interested in data-mining as you seem to think, if it was then they would happily offload the xb-one for a $100.
Microsoft wouldn't risk losing their customer-base over such a thing when their revenue is in games and services.
You are arguing about your privacy rights when we don't even know if the xb-one will be doing all those things.
Also: your posts in this forum are being monitored by bots, they are analyzing your posting habits, better go offline!
Yeah I don't get this argument either, seems like a certain small group of conspiracy oriented people are making a big deal out of this. And even if this is what MS is doing, the masses have already proved that they don't really care about their privacy too much -- are these same people concerned about their google searches, or having a facebook? Those two companies already have a ton of information on you, not to mention a history of shady privacy oriented choices.
I thought I was done, but I find myself wanting to clarify my point.
It's the game industry's attempt at exerting control that has caused the used market to blow up to such a lucrative business for Gamestop. And you can compare used games to other used goods like cars. The disc does receive wear and tear; it degrades. Have you ever bought a used game? Some of those copies are unreadable. Also, the game depreciates in value over time. I certainly won't get as much for selling Madden '06 right now as I would Madden '13. That adds another aspect that creates similarities between games and other used goods. To say that games fail to merit the same traits in the used market compared to physical goods is simply false. Just like a car, a game disc degrades and depreciates in value over time, even if the software stays the same.
Consoles have DRM systems built into their firmware. This means that games become physically tied to the disc; they are effectively one and the same. Unless you hack your console, you can't copy a game and use it. This makes the software on the disc as discreet and finite as any other physical product. It makes the supply of games scarce and scarce goods are valuable goods that can be traded in a second hand market. Let me put it this way. A console is a physical good that contains software, yet it is sold and traded like any other commodity. To deny this would render the used market for all electronic devices impossible and rightly piss-off the public. By forcing games to be tied to a physical medium, they become very much like the consoles they run on, physical products that contain software.
So, making a game inseparable from its disc makes it no different than an electronic device. This makes games valuable in resale. They're two parts of the same product.
The reason PC games don't have a used market is because they are not tied to physical media. Even on a DVD, a PC game is purely software. There is no value in reselling such software because the bonding of software and storage medium is nonexistent. People trade and sell console games because the disc and software are inseparable, while a PC game and it's media are easily separated. A person can buy a copy of "Death Master X", rip a copy, and give that copy to his buddy. There's no reason for a used market for PC games, it's easier to just share your copy with your social network and them with you. Retailers refuse to buy your games because you can copy them. All you need is a handy DRM crack from the p2p networks and you're golden.
Warning! Mass Effect reference: The difference between PC and console games is the difference between Geth and Organics. In the console world (Organics) the game is inseparable from the hardware it's printed on and in the PC world (Geth) the games exist purely as software which is independent from the platform. It's the very act of forcing the software to a fixed platform and preventing the possibility of separating the software from its disc that has made used games possible and so profitable.
So, that demonstrates that the game industry created the used games market themselves. They made it possible, to berate the shops and consumers for taking advantage of it is just silly. The industry has given away their goods to the competition in their efforts to prevent it. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
TL;DR
Used games exist because the games are inseparable from their physical medium, making them more like an electronic device (like their consoles) than simply a software package. This makes them scarce and subject to degradation and value depreciation. The industry created this situation by trying to prevent copying and they are themselves responsible for the consequences.
Replies
you must be living in the US or buying all your games on Steam
if A sells B a game for $60, then B sells the game to C for $10, B isn't shortselling himself. he paid $60 for an experience which he then extracted from the product. having gotten what he wanted, he's free to sell it for far less, let's say $10. he's not "taking a loss" at this price even though he originally spent the $60, because he was paying for more than just the hardware or software involved. A, however, has incurred all the costs of creating that hardware and software and could never have sold the game to C for $10 without taking a loss. beyond that, C may never have valued the game at $60 anyway. the secondary market has created more value for more parties than would have been possible if games could only be sold new for $60. this is a beautiful process
for some reason though, game developers in particular seem to feel that every used game sale, and even beyond that into every illegal download and every shared game between friends, is somehow a lost sale. it's a kind of persistent fixed-pie thinking that boggles the brain
Yep the US. I know that EU wants to force Valve to allow reselling of steam purchases...but I think thats a rash sentiment based move that only hurts the developers. Whats to stop the publishers from charging a ton more for the EU peeps like they do with those in New Zealand? Just not smart.
A secondary market is like the movie industry releasing a film in theaters for a few months, and then 4-6 months later releasing it as a dvd, selling rights to stream movie to tv stations, and even to the point of selling action figures and other such products. Thats a secondary market.
The game industry, aside from swag, action figures and such... exists primary for their primary market. Which is that a game is released and thats it.
Also I dont think you will find many developers who think a pirated game is a lost sale, only the used game being resold is. The reason for this is that with pirated games, there is no consumer. No one is paying a retailer for it, generally speaking. Used games on the other hand require a consumer, someone to be willing to part with money for a good or service. So a sale does take place, the problem is it doesnt go to the developer or publisher, but the retailer who wants people to keep using and bringing back used games so they can reap the profits far more than the developer ever would/could.
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/30610/german-government-says-the-xbox-one-is-a-monitoring-device/index.html
What do you guys think? I dunno.. i feel this is a bit excessive, but interesting none the less.
a secondary market is not just a secondary way that a company makes money with its product, although that is one definition. a secondary market can also be the market that exists after the primary sale, which is exactly what the used game market is.
when you say "a sale does take place, the problem is it doesnt go to the developer or publisher," you're ignoring the givens of the situation - the entire point is that the developer or publisher could not sell the product at that price without taking a loss. why do you think the developer or publisher should be taking money from a sale that they are not a part of and could not make themselves?
I get the point behind wikileaks, and people leaking classified information to expose war crimes. I don't get the point of people hacking and leaking information about a company's project and possibly ruining hard work from thousands of people just for the sake of it. Anyway, that guy is in trouble.
As I said before, the XBOne is no more monitoring device than a laptop from which the camera an mic can be hacked probably more easily. You don't want to take the risk ? Close your laptop when you don't use it or shutdown your console when you are not playing. It's that simple, I really think people are overreacting over all this.
The used games issue is a real one. The kinect spying on you is not.
this is false.
xbone is a surveillance device with a sophisticated camera and microphone. you sign a contract and install equipment which collects data in your home and grants microsoft the right to store that data on there servers. it can not be any clearer then that.
whey you buy a laptop you are signing a contract to buy hardware device with the manufacturer. you also sign a contract with a completely different company for a licence of the operating system. you do not give the right to the hardware vendor or the os provider to store any piece of your private information or data in there records except the details relating to your purchase, just like every other purchase you make for any other product.
there is a huge fundamental difference. the xbone is designed to stream data from your home to microsoft on a continual basis. you can not even use it without that constant data connection. surveillance and data collection is precisely why these connections and sensors are mandatory. these are facts. your home will be monitored by microsoft with a highly sophisticate surveillance device with video, a microphone and the hardware to process this data. microsoft has complete control of the device and you have waived your legal rights to prevent them from doing anytihg they want with it.
anyone who wants to live in la la land and deny the facts is wearing a tinfoil hat suit, and shoes.
I never said I could prove that, but I can logically conclude that some people do. That's no different than how some people buy houses just so they can fix them up and resell them. If those people couldn't resell houses, they wouldn't buy them in the first place. Being able to resell goods can provide incentive to buy them new in the first place.
1. Opinion
2. Also opinion.
3. That's no different the used cars sale taking away from new car sales.
But with the lack of a market to resell them, they will see each game purchase as a cost they can't recoup, so they will only invest in games they feel are truly worth the price.
They will make some of their money back. Not all. In order for there to be a used market, a purchase of a brand new good must be made. If nobody bought new goods, the used goods wouldn't exist.
Objectively? There's nothing objective about it. It's totally subjective and reactionary. And lost profit? You make it sound like the publishers lost something they already had and were entitled to. It seems to me that publishers feel entitled to control the market and dictate to the world how much of the profit from the market they should get. That's massively entitled.
Developers are free to make any games they want. They just have to find a way to monetize it. That's their problem to solve, not society's. The world shouldn't have to change how they do things to fit the business model of one solitary industry.
Entitled? It's called the first sale doctrine. Every person has the right to resell any goods they have rightfully purchased. The myopic publishers created this eventuality when they fixed games to physical discs. It is their fault. They fix them to discs that only work in authorized devices in order to make them scarce like physical property, but they don't want people to have physical property rights over those goods because it's only a "license". So come on, which is it? You can't have it both ways. Either it is an abundant good that is governed by a license or it's a physical good that belongs to the person that buys it, granting them the right to resell as they see fit.
If you think that prices will go down if the used market disappears, you must not understand monopolies and how they actually drive prices up. In the absence of competition, actors in the market actually increase their prices because they have few or no other actors in the market vying for market share.
Actually, they're copyright based. Licenses are just written agreements that delineate the terms by which a copyright holder grants permission to access a copy.
It's fair to make an objective statement, but you're not making one. Saying something is harmful is not objective evidence that it is harmful, no matter who is saying unless they can back it up with more than just a casual correlation. How hard they work and suffer doesn't give merit to an unfounded claim.
It is not a fact, but a mere assumption that it is harmful. You see people buying used games and not new games. Well, people buy used goods all the time in direct negation of buy new goods. Just because people chose the used good instead of the new doesn't mean that it's harmful. That's just fact of reality.
They put these games on discs, a physical good, it makes it applicable. Discs are prone to wear, decay, and damage, just as any other physical good. Since the industry has made it impossible to use anything other than approved media on approved devices, they've tied the software's fate with the discs they are recorded on.
A license has a nasty little habit of trying to apply physical property traits for the copyright owner's benefit, yet deny the same to the consumer when they pay for them. This is an example of that issue. Basically they own the software, but when you pay for it they still own it, which is contrary to every other sale of goods which results in the customer becoming the new owner and having the right to resell that specific item (the copy on those discs) when they desire to. It has one purpose, to create scarcity where something is abundant.
But I can't make a copy of a console game, it wouldn't function. The built in DRM prevents it. So the only copies that can be used are the ones the developers print and since they are tied to a physical object that cannot be duplicated any more easily than a car, the analogy applies.
That's a completely false analogy. The theater doesn't charge by the person they charge by the seat and seats are finite. There are only so many people you can pack in a theater at one time. Seats are scarce and that's what they sell, the movie is the thing that makes people want to pay for those seats.
If you put them on a physical medium that nobody can easily duplicate, then they do. I can't make a disc that my Xbox sees as an authentic and genuine copy. I'd have to change how my console functions in order to get around that. So that makes the games scarce in supply and susceptible to a secondary market.
I don't even see how this applies to anything I previously said.
No, DRM is a tool intended to segment a market as much as possible in order to increase the number of points of sale.
Citation needed. And used games may be putting money in the hands of people that didn't work on them, but publishers are guilty of the same thing and they created their own problem. They tried to have it both ways and it backfired on them. They made the business model of companies like Gamestop possible.
No it's not just an issue of DRM or console pricing, it's actually both of those as well as faulty business model that was designed to work in a pre-internet world. Voting with your wallet is a hollow platitude. We all know money is power and those with the most money have the power. A mass of individuals with divergent goals and desires does not make a progressive force in shaping the behavior of an industry. The industry follows the decree of those with the most money. The consumers are a resource to exploit, not a stakeholder to be heeded.
As an artist, if you want people to respect you, you have to earn it. You're not entitled to respect because you created something. What's more, as an artist, you're nothing without your audience, so respect that fact because they are the reason you succeed or fail in the art business. Remember, they don't need you, you need them. I think a lot of artists forget that and assume they are entitled to respect and get disdainful when it's not handed to them on a silver platter.
But hey, dont take my word for it. I'll let a game industry pioneer, David Braben explain it to you in his own words.
"Pre-owned has really killed core games. In some cases, it's killed them dead. I know publishers who have stopped games in development because most shops won't reorder stock after initial release, because they rely on the churn from the resales," ..."It's killing single player games in particular, because they will get preowned, and it means your day one sales are it, making them super high risk.
The idea of a game selling out used to be a good thing, but nowadays, those people who buy it on day one may well finish it and return it," "People will say 'Oh well, I paid all this money and it's mine to do with as I will' "Prices would have come down long ago if the industry was getting a share of the resells"
Now ask yourself, is he trustworthy? Are you in a position where you would know better? It seems YOU are the one who is expressing an opinion, yet need convincing. It should be painfully obvious to anyone paying attention and or working in the industry.
I dont want to sound like a jerk, but this topic is an important one and people like you who pretend like used game sales are not having a severe negative impact are just part of the problem. To me its almost like hearing someone claim the holocaust didnt happen, but on a less morally painful level, as very little can truly compare to the horrors of that event.
2. No its also not an opinion. Piracy is not doing the damage here. Pirates are a) not consumers. b) used game buyers are. When you consider the fact that over 40%, the largest area of revenue, for GameStop comes from their used games... it paints a pretty obvious picture. You cannot make the claim that piracy is worse than used game buyers, because you have no foundation to pull from. Used game sales are the source of losses, not piracy.
In addition to that:
"Italy, Spain, China, Brazil and France are key problem zones when it comes to online game piracy, says the U.S.-based trade group Entertainment Software Association." 54 percent of infringing game sharing worldwide in 2010 can be sourced to P2P activity in those five nations, says the trade body.
Ask yourself, are those primary game markets where games are readily available? Piracy is limited to a select few regions around the world in which accessibility and culture is an issue.
On the flip side, use games are an indicator of where games are readily available. That means there is very little excuse to look for alternate means to obtain games that are not localized for your region.
3) Wrong again. See my previous post and other posters reacting to your failed used car analogy.
How do they make their money back?
"I have this bitter feeling when I see quite a few games released with missing content or features, which are then sold separately as paid DLC," Guillaume Rambourg (Managing Director at GoG)
Your argument is flawed. Yes new must exist first, but when used ends up preventing more new sales, you have effectively cannibalized on the source. Thus no new revenue for the people who made the risk to make the game to begin with.
"In the future, we will create premium editions for brick and mortar sales and standard editions will go digital. I think this model will rule the industry."
Adam Badowski of CD projeckt RED
The reason I mention what Adam is saying is because by buying used, you effectively encourage two reactions. A) the eventual removal of physical copies and
Good job at that point you have just killed the used game market..
WRONG again. It is objective because publishers ACTIVELY begin turning away from games whose core game design will result in quick used game shelf life. This is not subjective, its been happening for awhile now. You can see it in the games coming out even now, and how genre's have shifted. If you havent seen it yet, then you are not paying attention. See above quote by David Braben.
Its good to know you think you know more than the rest of us. You really dont have a concrete argument, rather just a confirmation bias. Your bias is FOR used games probably because you rely on them as a source of YOUR entertainment. If true then it is not preferable for you and your bias to accept these changes in the industry or the "inconvenient" information thats readily available for anyone who uses google.
Developers who want to make a living have to sustain their business. If they rely on funding from a major publisher, they are not given as much choice as you like to think. Dont ruin it for the rest of us by pissing in punch bowl. For me development isnt a charity, and I know I'm not the only one who feels this way.
But they dont have the right to transfer license agreements. Someone can sell a physical material, but if the information contained within is licensed, and its intellectual property protected, the use of that data is limited. In your mind, is selling used goods subject to taxation as well? That kind of spits in the face of you idea of a first sale doctrine. Dont confuse rights and privileges.
So dont throw a fit when physical discs are removed from the picture. You should have no room to complain if they chose to go digital and account based.
No you can do whatever you want with a physical disc. Sleep with it for all they care, but executing the software on the said disc is limited by a license agreement. You do not have the right to take source code, re-sell textures used within the disc, re-sell audio data in the disc. In essence you are limited in what can be done with the data. The EULA usually contains a clause that says resale or transfer of license is prohibited unless they specifically give you the right to do so. Are you above a license agreement? Its entitlement when you feel you can piss all over it and that its yours to run in any way you want. By using their software you are stuck by their licensing terms. Dont like it, dont buy it. It is not rocket science. I might not like it either, but I wont make excuses to ignore the license agreement.
Do tell, which monopoly is formed when used games are not sold by retailers? There is none. In fact used game sales isnt even competition...unless you are trying to say their own products are competition for themselves? You really want to make that argument lol? See quote by David B. There are plenty like it.
When publishers will compete via new titles and against services like steam, prices can and will go down, but to a point where it still covers the cost of development.
Tell me, do you think the cost of development has gone up or down over the years?
Yes yes, and logos are trademarked and all that. You havent said anything otherwise. Its usage is based around a license. There will be copyrights and trademarks involved, but thats like saying there will be water involved in water park. Talk about obvious.
Its clear you have no love or care for those who own intellectual property or honoring a license agreement.
But I am making objective statements, you just have a confirmation bias against such information. It is a fact that used game's are harmful to the industry. You would know this if you have been paying attention to whats been happening over the last 5-6 years at very least.
There is a reason both Sony and Microsoft started off with anti-used game approaches to their consoles. It was a reaction to a very well known and verifiable problem within the industry. They are not doing it for no damn reason.
"I would argue, and Ive said this before, that used games are cannibalizing the industry. If developers and publishers dont see revenue from that, its not a matter of hey were trying to increase the price of games to consumers, and we want more, were just trying to survive as an industry. If used games continue the way that they are, its going to cannibalize, theres not going to be an industry," he said. "People wont make those kinds of games. So I think thats inflated the price of games, and I think that prices would have come down if there was a longer tail, but there isnt." Silicon Knights head Denis Dyack
""I can take just one example of Heavy Rain. We basically sold to date approximately two million units, we know from the trophy system that probably more than three million people bought this game and played it. On my small level it's a million people playing my game without giving me one cent."...."Because when developers and publishers alike are going to to see that they can't make a living out of producing games that are sold through retail channels, because of second hand gaming, they will simply stop making these games. And we'll all, one say to the other, simply go online and to direct distribution." - Quantic Dream's co-founder, Guillaume de Fondaumiere
Now when GameStop alone makes nearly 2 billion dollars by getting people to buy used over new in just one year...you seriously want to make the claim that that some how doesnt hurt the people making and funding the development of these games?
WHAT ROCK HAVE YOU BEEN LIVING UNDER???
Of course you can make a copy of a console game, both a virtual one and physical one. In fact its not uncommon for people to buy a game, rip a copy of it, sell it and have a back up at home. Sadly I know of one guy who has played nearly every single PS3 game that has come out so far and he's obtained them all from the INTERNET.
You are naive if you think its hard to get around DRM.
Wake up man and start paying attention.
Its not worth responding to every sentimental based sentence you write, and quite frankly it can be summed up with you making excuses about how publishers are bad, and you have your rights...and how you think every analogy doesnt work unless it supports your bias.
Its good to know you think you know more than many of those who end up leading this industry. At the end of the day its people like you that encourage the restrictions publishers are coming up with to slow down and or stop the damage faced by the used market.
Its clear you are just a consumer, not a maker of content. It is utterly frustrating.
Seriously, can the used game novellas be moved to another thread? It's really old ground that's been covered a 1,000 times.
Absolutely. Not only is it the same crap we've argued about a million times before but those who are in it will never become convinced of the other's reasoning. I'm amazed to see those guys above literally refute each other each and every time, it's stifling: I'd like to throw my hat in the ring but knowing that my opinions will be bandied about until meaningless.
I'm starting to think used-game discussion should be treated the same as piracy discussion and shut down as soon as people start debating it. Yeah yeah censorship and all, but nobody is benefiting from these discussions.
Nonsense. You're comparing a compromised device with the standard modus operandi of another device. It's like saying "well this crashed car is smoking and leaking gasoline, so it's fine if all our production cars do that too".
So how is that not a monitoring device?
a monitoring device monitors you, the kinect just inteprets input until it finds something that triggers a command, much like a keyboard awaiting a key-press for it to do something.
If the xb-one actually was a monitoring device it would be akin to having a keylogger installed on your computer, and people will find out what kind of information the xb-one sends to microsoft, which hopefully isn't the camera-feed.
To interpret an input on your keyboard at all times the computer has to monitor the keyboard at all times.
A debate always seems like it is going nowhere, but it would be unwise to say that it doesn't actually change opinions.
People usually only change an opinion in personal reflection after the debate.
Anyways that's my 2 cents...
But has prohibition EVER worked in the history of mankind?
Again, tin-foil worthy, they cannot relay all this information in any stealthy way, so they won't monitor.
Where did I miss this information?
or are you from the future?
It's turning into a conspiracy theorists dream.
It's clear you think that the only side that matters is the developer's side, everything they say is 100% objectively true, and they should have things exactly the way they say it should be. That's just not realistic or right. Asking the game devs about an issue that impacts their bottom line isn't going to yield an objective opinion. That's like letting wolves vote on what we should do with the sheep. If you ask anyone that has a personal stake in something their opinion, they are going to give you an opinion that is biased. They don't like the used market because it's competition and the entire copyright and licensing structure is designed specifically to discourage competition, even if it's otherwise legal.
We live in the 21st century and they're still running their business like it's the 20th century before the internet. It's a poor attitude to have that the world must change so you can run your business the way you want it. Are used games illegal? No. Is it wrong? No. Make any excuse you like, but the industry created this issue themselves and they aren't going to solve it by trying to exert more control over consumers and the market. The answer to the problem is plain as the nose on your face. They have to change their model. Retail isn't impervious anymore. Whether you think it's right or wrong that it's happening doesn't matter. What matters is that people can and will. No laws, no technology is going to take us back to the idyllic world of 20th century retail bliss. People can copy, will copy, and do. Just as they can sell and resell their games. Trying to take back control is going to blow up in your face because you can't control it. The result of no used market in PC games is file sharing. That's what will happen with consoles if you try to eliminate used games. Sharing of games will increase. It may not show up on the p2p networks but it will happen over private channels.
It doesn't mean squat that the license says you can't do this or that. The fact that it's on a disc negates that. I can sell my disc to anyone I like and you can't do anything about that. There's no technology or law that will change that fact. The more you try to fight used games and control the market, the deeper you dig yourself into a hole. This complaining about how people are violating the license is impotent. I've said it before, they are trying to have it both ways. First through making it into a transferable good by putting on a disc, then trying to exert ownership over it after the sale with licensing. You can't have it both ways. Either it's a product that can be resold or it's a license and people can make as many copies they like for themselves, but can't be transferred. But that's not what we have. The disc is the only way to access the copy and the fixed nature of that copy means that when you transfer the disc to someone else, someone else has a copy and you don't. If it were a license, what matters is who it's assigned to and the number of copies they have is immaterial. Putting games on a disc and selling like that directly conflicts with the preferred licensing model. So pick one and live with it. You can't create a non-transferable license and then put it on a highly transferable medium. Don't complain about a problem of your own making and blame the people that took advantage of the situation you created.
Okay, end of rant. I'm done. If you remain in your entrenched position. I can't do anything about it.
I would wait a few more days before choosing sides based on privacy violation
But didn't you hear? The people from the future have returned to tell us here, on this very forum, that Kinect will be sending video and audio to MS's servers all in an effort to enslave us all while PS4's Eye will not.
Er... you realise they showed off the camera in the original unveiling right?
I'm looking forward to all these cameras in my living room. I want more people to see me naked. Most people try to leave the room when I undress, but Xbox One will have to sit and suffer.
This bit I find interesting. I don't remember developers complaining (at least to the press) about used-game sales back in the day (like PS2 games and before) and I wouldn't be surprised if a part of the new 'realisation' is due to the more modern ways to track games in the field. Before then the only figures to care about was global retail, with used-games being a just something that happens, as piracy happened also. By bring the used-game figures to light, some developers are now given the opportunity to consider whether somebody out there who's playing their game, paid them their fee.
Of course there was less digital distribution so even with license agreements, games were sold as products, bought as products and sometime resold as products. Also I will admit that used-games then were not marketed the way Gamestop does today, but simply facilitated the same way books/movies/music cds were.
I also think that Guillaume de Fondaumiere should not be so bent out of shape for seeing more Trophies than games sold since it is not at all indicative of used-game sales. The people in those figures could also include people renting, borrowing from friends, and even people in the same household. Of course that's all evil too though...
there is a link in post 486 and it has been reported by other press that it is 'required' to have a internet connection so the box can automatically connect to microsoft when ever it wants and send them information.
you can debate what kind of information might be collected. but you can not argue that the device is not a surveillance device. or that it does not have the capacity to store any generated data bot locally and on there servers. even if it connected once a day its still surveillance.
pc''s are not required to connect to any network or send any data to anyone. you can run a pc perfectly well and never connect it to the internet.
chirp chirp
you did not refute in any way that the xbone is a surveillance device. so i take it you agree then. that was the point.
your comparison is false. there is no one who connects to my computer once a day and has access to my full system and any devices connected to it. and i can assure you that any sort of tracking that is possible through a browser has been thoroughly defeated.
So you've got no clue what data is being sent to Microsoft?
^^ my point exactly
I know it's a surveillance device by definition alone, but that's besides the point.
My point is that if ANY information is being sent to Microsoft (i.e. what you're doing at your house when not playing the game or while playing a game), it will be reported within a month of it's release. There will be tons of people that are going to tear the XBone down and see exactly what it's doing then post it online for others to read.
I seriously doubt MS would be dumb enough to do this as it would lead to a massive lawsuit similar to what Google faced when collecting WiFi data with it's street view cars.
i know exactly what information has been sent to microsoft, none. my windows box does not have an internet connection. and i can tell you exactly what information will be sent in the future, none.
edit:
@skankerzero
this is about money. data mining is probably worth more over time then the sales from the equipment. we are not dealing with the best and the brightest here. were dealing with a company driven by management and a long standing monopoly that is literally falling apart. there market share has gone from over 90% to under 20% and its still shrinking. they are a wounded beast backed into the corner by more innovative competition. i would not put anything past them at this point. its best to stay as far away as possible.
Considering MS would actually transmit the video feed over to their servers and store it for some guy in a bunker who would watch thousands of hours of video from all over the world trying to spy everyone, which they won't. I coulnd't care less about MS keeping track of if I'm smiling in front of my TV or jerking off, what would they do of that information ? Send me ads ? Big deal.
And then again, Sony is doing the same thing, so you'd just better stay away from any console.
if you want to jerk off in front of a camera at least have the common sense to sign a contract with a company that will pay you for it... as for me i will have to pass on that innovative feature.
I guess that's my last post in this thread until E3
this is a huge problem and liability for many people, potential customers. obviously the backlash is large and the violations of privacy are far beyond what many people would ever put up with. most people do not want microsoft watching them when they smile or jack off or collect any other data.
its perfectly fine to be excited about the games but i have no idea why anyone would argue against there own right to privacy to defend an abusive, shady corporation trying to skirt around the law to make a quick buck.
honestly, yea i want a camera in my house monitoring me. i want my devices to constantly connect to manufacturers servers and offload information about me. is that really worth defending?
[ame="
clearly most of the world was confused.
Exactly. The issue is that this is mandatory and MS seems to be
And then all the customers responding
No I think that it's more because of market factor. The PS1 PS2 era was very profitable because there was enough technology out to make game (assets) efficiently, yet the console hardware was very limited so you built relatively simple games. The market was expanding, perhaps even peaking with the PS2 being most-sold-console by a mile, so you had cheap production and a large audience -> good money opportunity.
Today, while the market has matured (read: people care about money than they used to and less about games than they used to) it is somewhat shrinking or at least leveling out, more attention is being paid to 'things where we can get more money'. Sure, more advanced tracking is a part of that, but I think it's more of a symptom/effect than a cause.
And of course there's the factor of used games first being a thing you just had at a few stores as a somewhat informal setup, while now it seems to be the #1 cashcow of large franchise stores like gamestop.
There was a pretty big shift in the used game market between then and now. Where it once was a small blip found at only a select few stores, its become the primary product for many retailers who created a market and industry around buying and selling used games for maximum profit. It wasnt uncommon to see them undercut new titles by selling for just a few $$ less, and retailers like GameStop even got in some trouble for passing off used games as new.
Back when the PS2 "era", if you wanted into any of the major retailers here in the US...you would see a large section dedicated PC game and new console titles. I'm talking about entire walls dedicated to PC games and new titles for console games. There were no used games being sold at places like BestBuy or ToysRus. At smaller boutiques like EB games and Gamestop, if they did have a used game section it was one small rack tucked away in a corner or near the door.
Now if you walk into those very same stores, most of the shelf and wall space is used games, not new. There are practically NO PC games being sold anymore. In fact, the BestBuy where I used to buy my PC games went from having two large rows dedicated to PC games. You could spend hours going through all the titles for sale. When I go there now there is one small shelf with PC games being sold and most were Blizzard games along with the SIMS collection. I counted perhaps 40 total games being sold. The local gamestop, which had a line stretching around the block when Blizzard's first WoW xpack was released now only has a small stand in the corner with PC games and a small section of the wall dedicated to new console games. Everywhere you look is used consoles and their games. This isnt a small store either, its so big that Guild Wars 2 developers held a QA session there not long after launch.
I dont know how it is over in Europe, but theres has been a pretty big change between console generations. They made so much profit from facilitating a used game ring that even PC games suffered. Best way to get a PC game these days is over the internet, and thats kind of sad.
In addition to what you have already pointed out, the cost of development has gone up. With more gamers existing and a wider market, reaching those gamers and getting an increase of revenue to offset the cost of current gen production is fairly important.
The big reason behind the always connected kinect is one of customer misunderstandings, they have the requirement so that people who simply do not understand will leave it in the box, It's the same reason your 360 will complain when the controller is disconnected.
The kinect has EVERYTHING do to with creating features that everyone will write about and make people buy this one instead of other things, they aren't as interested in data-mining as you seem to think, if it was then they would happily offload the xb-one for a $100.
Microsoft wouldn't risk losing their customer-base over such a thing when their revenue is in games and services.
You are arguing about your privacy rights when we don't even know if the xb-one will be doing all those things.
Also: your posts in this forum are being monitored by bots, they are analyzing your posting habits, better go offline!
I've seen this image a couple times now, and every time I've always wanted to make this:
For clarity, I love football/soccer.
Yeah I don't get this argument either, seems like a certain small group of conspiracy oriented people are making a big deal out of this. And even if this is what MS is doing, the masses have already proved that they don't really care about their privacy too much -- are these same people concerned about their google searches, or having a facebook? Those two companies already have a ton of information on you, not to mention a history of shady privacy oriented choices.
I thought I was done, but I find myself wanting to clarify my point.
It's the game industry's attempt at exerting control that has caused the used market to blow up to such a lucrative business for Gamestop. And you can compare used games to other used goods like cars. The disc does receive wear and tear; it degrades. Have you ever bought a used game? Some of those copies are unreadable. Also, the game depreciates in value over time. I certainly won't get as much for selling Madden '06 right now as I would Madden '13. That adds another aspect that creates similarities between games and other used goods. To say that games fail to merit the same traits in the used market compared to physical goods is simply false. Just like a car, a game disc degrades and depreciates in value over time, even if the software stays the same.
Consoles have DRM systems built into their firmware. This means that games become physically tied to the disc; they are effectively one and the same. Unless you hack your console, you can't copy a game and use it. This makes the software on the disc as discreet and finite as any other physical product. It makes the supply of games scarce and scarce goods are valuable goods that can be traded in a second hand market. Let me put it this way. A console is a physical good that contains software, yet it is sold and traded like any other commodity. To deny this would render the used market for all electronic devices impossible and rightly piss-off the public. By forcing games to be tied to a physical medium, they become very much like the consoles they run on, physical products that contain software.
So, making a game inseparable from its disc makes it no different than an electronic device. This makes games valuable in resale. They're two parts of the same product.
The reason PC games don't have a used market is because they are not tied to physical media. Even on a DVD, a PC game is purely software. There is no value in reselling such software because the bonding of software and storage medium is nonexistent. People trade and sell console games because the disc and software are inseparable, while a PC game and it's media are easily separated. A person can buy a copy of "Death Master X", rip a copy, and give that copy to his buddy. There's no reason for a used market for PC games, it's easier to just share your copy with your social network and them with you. Retailers refuse to buy your games because you can copy them. All you need is a handy DRM crack from the p2p networks and you're golden.
Warning! Mass Effect reference: The difference between PC and console games is the difference between Geth and Organics. In the console world (Organics) the game is inseparable from the hardware it's printed on and in the PC world (Geth) the games exist purely as software which is independent from the platform. It's the very act of forcing the software to a fixed platform and preventing the possibility of separating the software from its disc that has made used games possible and so profitable.
So, that demonstrates that the game industry created the used games market themselves. They made it possible, to berate the shops and consumers for taking advantage of it is just silly. The industry has given away their goods to the competition in their efforts to prevent it. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
TL;DR
Used games exist because the games are inseparable from their physical medium, making them more like an electronic device (like their consoles) than simply a software package. This makes them scarce and subject to degradation and value depreciation. The industry created this situation by trying to prevent copying and they are themselves responsible for the consequences.