To be honest, I wish Nintendo and Microsoft would do something similar. The games industry loses so much money from used game sales and rentals. If the retailers would still give a cut from re-sales and rentals, the publishers wouldn't need to do this.
Well, I think it's good and bad. Yeah, selling preowned games takes money from the industry. But at the same time, it's going to take a huge amount of money from other stores and retailers.
What happens if I don't want my game anymore? What if I borrow a buddy's game? Will the game be software-locked to my PS3 only? Will my PS3 not play the same game if it's a differant BRD?
I think games should be like any other property. If you buy it, you own it. If game companies don't want their game to be resold, maybe give it some replay value.
Saying game companies are "losing money" because people can buy and sell used games is like saying the industry is "losing money" because they can't come into your home, shoot you and rob you. They have no right to that revenue, they never have, and if things don't become super retarded in the future, they never will.
We have an awesome system for IP that has been working for hundreds of years. I see no reason how games are different from movies or books in this respect.
this will only work if all companies adopt the same policy at the same time. if sony wants to take some of their consumers freedom away but its still offered by microsoft and nintendo then its just one more reason not to buy a ps3. i understand from someone in the industrys standpoint why this is good but if 90 percent of the games released are for both ps3 and 360 but i am given more personal freedom with my purchase, i would rather have the 360 from a consumer standpoint. i can upgrade to the better version of the console later when i have more money, unlike the PS3 where your stuck with what you get and i can sell my games when i am done and trade them in for new ones. it might be dirty dark corner of the industry but one that has become acceptable and for people like my brother who dont have a income, he can trade in all his christmas and birthday games for new games on his own. i did the same thing when i was 15 before i had a job and from a consumer standpoint it is a good thing. i consider it a nessasary evil. after all we are making these games for the people so ultimatly their interests are what need to be catered to not ours. and come on, friggin sony made out just fine with the current system of games bartering so it seems to me they are really blinded by dollar signs at this point. its not losing money if you never made it to begin with. i would of never bought some games if couldnt of traded other games in to get them, and i would never trade used games for used games always several used games for a new one, because i like to be the first that owns the game.
I thought they said they aren't going to do that because of the large public reaction when it became known? Well, they knew what would happen, they knew they couldn't afford any more mistakes after the price announcement and their cocky "people will buy it because it's called Playstation!" comments. Once again the theory of "no more than two generations, then you're a has-been" in the console market holds true.
[ QUOTE ]
To be honest, I wish Nintendo and Microsoft would do something similar. The games industry loses so much money from used game sales and rentals. If the retailers would still give a cut from re-sales and rentals, the publishers wouldn't need to do this.
[/ QUOTE ]
To be honest, I wish the government would outlaw dissenting speech. The games industry loses a lot of money from bad reviews and word of mouth.
First Sale Doctrine. If you sell it, you have made your money and you lost ownership of the goods. Don't like it, don't sell it. Why do you feel you can't compete in a market when playing by the same rules as everyone else? Why do you think your industry is soooooo much different from every single other industry out there that it needs privileges, private laws?
If you don't like the laws in the western world you're free to sell your games only in Japan. I hear they have just what you're asking for.
The games stores exist only because of used sales. The games industry is so fucking greedy that it sells games for such a large percentage of their MSRP that stores can't hope to profit from it. Why do you think that gamestore employee is trying to sell you all those useless accessories, magazine subscriptions and warantees? Because they can't make money on games! You don't see electronics stores sell used vacuum cleaners because they can afford selling only the new stuff but that's not possible with games if you want to stay in business! That's the whole reason you see used game trade taking off outside of eBay and flea markets. You sow greed, you reap greed.
[ QUOTE ]
Because renting isn't broadcasting. You already sold the rental place a copy at a severely increased price.
[/ QUOTE ]
100% untrue in the US. They buy a standard copy for 49.99 and rent it out all they want.
Music, and movies, both of them get royalties from resales and rentals. Games don't. If the retailers won't fix it, I'm all for the console manufacturers doing it themselves. Nintendo has made similar policies before (more on the developer side than the retailer). Basically if you don't like it, don't but the PS3. Sony has to counter with making enough great exclusive games that you'll buy it anyway. I'm not saying they will, I'm just saying I agree with their business standpoint as a developer AND a gamer. If I don't want to pay full price, I'll wait a few months and buy it when the price drops. You don't get to expect to play the newest game out, a week after it drops, for half the price, and the developer/publisher get bupkiss. Not fair in my book at all.
I spend alot of money at used game stores. Most games just aren't worth the 'new' price to me. Even more so with this coming generation and it's 60+ price tags.
I'm also not fond of 'not owning the physical media'. To me, this tells me that Sony should buy back the physical media when I'm done with it. I also cancelled my HL2:E1 Steam order when I found out it was going to be put out on store shelves. I just prefer to own the physical copy.
I also don't like the idea of having to lug my console whereever I plan on playing that game. Can't play it on my friend's console, can't bring it to work.
This is like making Flea MArkets and Pawn Shops pay royalties to the products they re-sell. It's just plain dumb.
A used ford has depreciated because it's a physical object that degrades. A videogame or DVD is a digital medium that is still exactly like the new version. You're analogy is severely flawed.
Like new? Not in my experience. Rental places often complain that after 4-5 rent outs the discs can be thrown away because they are scratched to hell. They have to resurface them regularly.
[ QUOTE ]
A used ford has depreciated because it's a physical object that degrades. A videogame or DVD is a digital medium that is still exactly like the new version. You're analogy is severely flawed.
[/ QUOTE ]
digital media that comes in a physical housing to be fair. That housing can be damaged easily.
well, lets say that one day we could do rentals by bringing in a flash drive to the rental store and putting the game on there (i know this has flaws and what not, but just for the sake of the argument), so basically the act of renting is entirely digital. Are you still going to stick with your idea that the rental company only needs to buy one copy of the game and can then pass out as many as it wants?
If anything, taking a step back to the days of how VHS rentals were handled would be the best move IMO.
In those days, companies like Blockbuster would pay for the right to distribute a VHS movie rental a couple weeks before it was available to buy at the retail stores. I remember I had all this explained to me when I asked why I couldn't buy Ghost in the Shell, but could rent it.
They would also pay around 600 dollars for each VHS if my memory serves me correct.
The biggest gripe I have with what Sony was saying was that even though you buy the game, you don't own the physical unit, only the license to play it on your unique machine.
This leads me to wonder how much of a hassle it will be when, say, I lose my game and end up buying it again later. How is Sony going to handle the distribution of serial numbers? Is that game tied to my account, so any physical copy of the game will work in my machine as long as I bought the number for it?
What about if I need to replace my machine? Will it be a hassle to switch out serials from my old machine to my new one?
Aesir: At that point, I think having rental companies pay for licenses that determine how many copies of the game you can rent at once will be introduced. Similar to how paying for Max works for companies. They pay a license that gives them a certain amount of seats.
Though, that's the rental side of things.
I think what I personally have the biggest issue with is not being able to sell my old game to anyone, and for that matter, not being able to buy a used game on a whim.
Video game rentals should have the revenue split between the rental company and the publishers, with the exact same program the movie studios have. It's only fair to developers, who are spending millions of dollars making the games, only to see the retail chains they have partnerships with resell (used games) and rent the games to create profit for nobody but themselves. The used game and rental market has hurt the industry in a HUGE way. Game sales have not jumped at the same rate that new gamers have. Not by a long shot. The end result is that game studios are hurting to make a profit, even on highly rated games with mainstream appeal.
I can't think of a fair solution to used game sales, other than a small cut from each resale going to the publishers as well. Considering that would be impossible to track or regulate, I don't see it happening. I do see the rental thing eventually taking place, but all the big boys (EA, Microsoft, Sony, Activision, etc) will have to all agree to stop selling product to the rental chains until a revenue-sharing deal can be reached.
I guess I don't understand what the big problem is. Here is how I look at my gaming: I buy the game that I want. I play it, I beat it, I unlock some of the little unlockable stuff, and then I keep it. I almost always buy new games. The only times I've bought used games are for very old games that are usually out of print (think Saturn games here). Otherwise I pick them up when they drop to $20 at most (not used). I then keep the game for all eternity (because I am somewhat of a pathetic collector). I have never sold a game once, although I've often thought to myself that I probably should start.
I have from time to time been known to rent a game. But for nearly every instance of this - it's because it's a game I would never buy at full price, or it's simply too short to justify a $50 price tag. Like the Silent Hill games come to mind. I've played every one of them, beat every one of them, but never bought one. I'm not going to pay $50 for 10 hours of entertainment.
My biggest problem comes from them telling me that I don't own the game. I say to hell with that. I damn right own the game. I can do what I please with it. If I beat a game and then loan it to a friend that's my right. I do the same thing with books and movies. As long as they don't copy it mind you.
I can see how Sony wants a piece of that action though, but to them I say "Toughen up you babies". Nobody else seems to be complaining about it.
My biggest problem comes from them telling me that I don't own the game. I say to hell with that. I damn right own the game. I can do what I please with it. If I beat a game and then loan it to a friend that's my right. I do the same thing with books and movies. As long as they don't copy it mind you.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you understand. Sony made the console and digitally signed/approved the games. You want to play them? You abide by their rules. You don't like them? Don't buy them. Those are your two choices. If they decide you don't own the game, and make it so that they can enforce that decision, no amount of demanding/whining/bravado on your part is going to make any difference if you still purchase the console/game anyway.
Now it's entirely possible enough consumers will say, "not acceptable" with their wallets, in which case Sony might have to change their policy. But you simply stating HELL YEAH I OWN IT I BOUGHT IT LOL! doesn't make it so.
Also, yes lots of people are complaining about it. I garantee Microsoft and Nintendo have had meetings about this same problem. They have taken different approaches than Sony appears to be, but they are just as upset about the loss of profits, and rightfully so. This isn't a case of OMG GREEDY CORPORATIONS! Someone is making a lot of money off of used games and rentals, and right now ZERO of it makes it back to the developers.
doesn't that break some kind of fundamental consumer law?
BTW they ALWAYS give out this kind of jive. I remember when the returns policy was changed on games back in '96, so you couldn't take them back to the shop if you bought them. then EU law stepped in and said fuck you to the games industry and let people return goods. Greedy fucking laws like this are only run by the industry, but not actually legal. All games already say "not for resale" on the box, but no one pay attention to that because it's not actually legally binding.
we should all be familiar with this kind of setup hawken. Our 3d programs work on liscenses the exact same way. Its why the market isnt flooded with cheap 3dsmax version 6 copies right after version 7 gets released.
heh, too good. I'm not one for bashing consoles, but the scene where he says "this game is based on real Japanese history /cut/ here we see them battling a giant crab" & "this controller has a new motion sensitive technology /cut/ I think this is a great technical innovation" (or something ) had me laughing out loud, something that rarely happens when I stare at the internet.
oh except for when I saw a dalmation riding a bike.
[ QUOTE ]
we should all be familiar with this kind of setup hawken. Our 3d programs work on liscenses the exact same way. Its why the market isnt flooded with cheap 3dsmax version 6 copies right after version 7 gets released.
[/ QUOTE ]
sorry but 3dsmax is a high end developer tool. not something one can pop down to woolworths and buy with pamela andersons work out dvd.
games are media, not tools.
In related news, frustrated by missing out on the billion-dollar second-hand auto market, Chevrolet is demanding that it's costumers not resell their automobiles.
I seem to remember now that the movie studios have a plan in place for avoiding lost profits on sales of used movies too. Retailers are not allowed to sell used copies of movies until after a certain amount of time has passed since the release of the dvd. I can't find anything online supporting this though. It just occured to me. I'll keep looking.
doesn't that break some kind of fundamental consumer law?
re-sale is part of the games value for consumers
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think many people here do understand the logic.
Let's say hypothetically:
Sony has an "xbox live" equivalent, and the lite version is free and every ps3 owner gets one. Every time it boots up you have to log on. Now let's say as soon as you put your game in, it registers online that poopinmymouth is the owner, locking the game with my PS3 live account. I can certainly sell my physical CD and case to someone else, but Sony (in this hypothetical situation) has made it that when they put it in their PS3, log onto Hawken0327 PS3 live account, it goes Warning: Game and user account don't match up. Now the game won't run and won't boot.
If Sony makes this absolutely clear on the box before you buy there is
A) Nothing illegal about it Nothing you can do about it
I am certainly sympathetic for the end user who just wants to be able to buy used games for less than retail. But as a developer that feeds and houses and clothes myself from the income of these games, I want to be paid for my hard work. There are BILLIONS of dollars lost to rental and retail copies of games. Super Ostrich and I were talking, and he suggested (and I agree) that it would only take the large publishers Ubi, EA, Activision, Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo, to tell Blockbuster, EB games, and Gamestop: "We won't sell you any more games till you agree to our profit sharing plan". Movies have this in place, every X number of rentals, they get X number of dollars. Every used copy sold, X% goes back to the movie studios. It's only fair that we get paid for our hard work. Right now the retailers won't do this, so Sony is taking it into their own hands.
Hopefully I've spelled it out clearly how Sony could enforce this whether the consumer wants it or not.
Does anyone remember the original Phantasy Star Online for the Dreamcast? Your account tied itself to the Mac Address of your network adapter, essentially making it impossible to sell used without selling off your adapter with it. Your login would fail if you tried to play your disc from another Dreamcast. They used it for anti-piracy purposes, but it totally killed the used market for this particular game. Sony just plans to implement something like this on a larger scale.
real shame games worked like this, although dreamcast was the first to do online gaming for consoles and it was largely untested water (ok, except for the snes but that was telephone downloading not multiplayer).
I bought a karaoke add-on for my dreamcast but to play the songs I have to connect to a non existant server that sega shut down in 2002.
You know, the more I think about Sony's alleged plan, the more I like it. It has the potential to absolutely murder piracy. Although I'm sure none of you guys play pirated games :rolls:, I personally want to see this practice stamped out. Video games are probably the most stolen product on the market. Why shouldn't we try to improve our profits by any means necessary?
Piracy of video games isn't even thought of as a crime by most. I was online talking to a friend the other day and he tells me he's playing GUN. I tell him that I would've got him a copy at a discount through the Activision store, and he says, "Oh no worries, I'm playing a cracked PC version."
I understand perfectly Poop. This exact thing you mentioned above happened with Phantasy Star Online for the DC (and probably the other consoles as well). You put in your disc, sign up online - and it's now registered to your DC for life and unplayable on all others. *edit* Do'h! Ostrich beat me to it!
What I don't understand is how you can be so clearly for this proposal? Yes it will generate more money for Sony. But at what expense? Do you really think that sales of games will go up all that much? I hardly think so. People clearly aren't willing to pay full price for games since the secondary market is obviously doing so well. It will upset a lot of consumers who will just boycott Sony for doing this (not to mention the high price point that everyone else seems to be so hung up about).
Oh - and do you really think that the developer will give you more money for your hard work? (Not saying that you don't deserve it). It's just that they will take that money and put it towards other things like marketing more likely the huge amounts of lawsuits that will amount because of this.
Sorry for the arguement. In all honesty I'm more concerned with the principal itself as it will hardly affect me in the slightest if this does catch on.
I think those of us on the other side of the argument are also mainly concerned with the principle as well. Youre right, it probably wont increase how much we're paid, but maybe it wont be so hard for developers to actually make a PROFIT on their games once in a while.
I think Sony will get hurt by this in the short run, but this is a good step they're making in the long run.
Lots of Indie developers make profits on games. The reason that developers don't make any money is that publishers hammer out a share-cropping type deal to screw them over. Why is it that so many companies fail and yet the game industry keeps growing?
How about we look at it from the perspective of the store owner. I was involved in buying games for two different small stores. What we found is that unless you are WalMart and buying tons of units, you can't make a profit on games, and the distributors will make up lame excuses on how they don't have the good games to even sell you.
So if the developers are being screwed, and the shops are getting screwed, who are the folks making billions of dollars? I'll tell you who; assholes in suits. If you think for a second that this policy by Sony will result in 1 extra cent paid to developers, you are out of your mind. They have tons of money NOW, that they could give developers. Instead they give the bare minimum to a bunch of different developers and count on the fact that some of them will be able to deliver a product.
[edited for accuracy]
[edit]
About the choice. Well, I was already going to boycott Sony. I thought maybe it would be hard, but Sony is making it damn near impossible for me to want to buy their products even if I had the giant wads of cash laying around that I would need to buy a PS3.
[ QUOTE ]
Poop, you should know this best of all. You were just saying the other day how your publisher screwed you over. It is because they don't give a shit.
[/ QUOTE ]
I hold no love for Sony. If this was about a ten dollar per game price increase I'd be picketing the decision as well. This decision however will get rid of piracy and used games being sold too soon after the initial game ships. I know this will just make the suits more money, but honestly I just like the idea that people will be forced to buy their games. Call me crazy. Plus more money into the industry will indeed mean more money to go around. I don't delude myself into thinking I'll get some of it just because it's coming in, but I know that it will ensure a more profitable industry that will allow me to negotiate higher sallaries when it comes time to demand it.
While it does make the "suits" more money, Poop and I happen to work for a company that has a history of actually paying royalties. More money for the publisher means more royalties, so we will get rewarded if the games sell better because of it.
However, I see this more as a great way to actually strongarm the rental companies and used game retailers into a revenue sharing agreement, after which a magical solution for allowing rentals and used sales will become available.
While I understand what you guys are saying, and since you are getting royalties, maybe it would work out better for y'all. I guess the logic is that fewer dollars spent on used games will result in more of those dollars spent on new games. I think however that a lot of people will simply not buy games. Instead they would spend their entertianment dollars elsewhere and shrink the game market.
I read that article earlier today, Ninjas. All they said is that it will not be locked to a PS3 console. That doesn't preclude it from being locked to an account (whatever their online model is). So yes you could take your disc to your cousins house, and it would work on his PS3 because you are there to log into Ninjas4000 on PS3 live. So their answer doesn't dispell the idea.
The idea that people will take their monies elsewhere if they can't buy used, holds little water in my opinion. People will buy less frequently I'm sure, but they'll still come. Whether it's to Sony's trough remains to be seen, but they'll buy. Maybe a positive off shoot is that people would research more and care more about quality if their dollars don't go as far on games.
[ QUOTE ]
we should all be familiar with this kind of setup hawken. Our 3d programs work on liscenses the exact same way. Its why the market isnt flooded with cheap 3dsmax version 6 copies right after version 7 gets released.
[/ QUOTE ]
You can buy used Max legally in Europe just as you can buy any used software you want.
The market doesnt get flooded with old versions because of the trick that companies UPGRADE the old version and thats why they cant sell it off.
It's just another technological measure designed to circumvent fundamental laws. Why that's not a criminal offense I don't know.
This will not beat piracy. When you're tampering with the electronics of the system you can disable this kind of crap. Like every anti-copy scheme ever invented it hurts only the legal user while the illegal downloaders avoid all these hassles.
The idea that people will take their monies elsewhere if they can't buy used, holds little water in my opinion. People will buy less frequently I'm sure, but they'll still come.
That's the same. Buying less frequently means they'll throw less money at games. If you want to halve your sales numbers that's all right but last I checked dev costs were doubling, not halving.
Replies
http://www.gamesradar.com/gb/ps3/game/ne...;sectionId=1006
WTF?
http://www.gamesradar.com/gb/ps3/game/ne...;sectionId=1006
[/ QUOTE ]
To be honest, I wish Nintendo and Microsoft would do something similar. The games industry loses so much money from used game sales and rentals. If the retailers would still give a cut from re-sales and rentals, the publishers wouldn't need to do this.
For once I am with Sony's decision.
What happens if I don't want my game anymore? What if I borrow a buddy's game? Will the game be software-locked to my PS3 only? Will my PS3 not play the same game if it's a differant BRD?
Saying game companies are "losing money" because people can buy and sell used games is like saying the industry is "losing money" because they can't come into your home, shoot you and rob you. They have no right to that revenue, they never have, and if things don't become super retarded in the future, they never will.
We have an awesome system for IP that has been working for hundreds of years. I see no reason how games are different from movies or books in this respect.
[ QUOTE ]
To be honest, I wish Nintendo and Microsoft would do something similar. The games industry loses so much money from used game sales and rentals. If the retailers would still give a cut from re-sales and rentals, the publishers wouldn't need to do this.
[/ QUOTE ]
To be honest, I wish the government would outlaw dissenting speech. The games industry loses a lot of money from bad reviews and word of mouth.
First Sale Doctrine. If you sell it, you have made your money and you lost ownership of the goods. Don't like it, don't sell it. Why do you feel you can't compete in a market when playing by the same rules as everyone else? Why do you think your industry is soooooo much different from every single other industry out there that it needs privileges, private laws?
If you don't like the laws in the western world you're free to sell your games only in Japan. I hear they have just what you're asking for.
The games stores exist only because of used sales. The games industry is so fucking greedy that it sells games for such a large percentage of their MSRP that stores can't hope to profit from it. Why do you think that gamestore employee is trying to sell you all those useless accessories, magazine subscriptions and warantees? Because they can't make money on games! You don't see electronics stores sell used vacuum cleaners because they can afford selling only the new stuff but that's not possible with games if you want to stay in business! That's the whole reason you see used game trade taking off outside of eBay and flea markets. You sow greed, you reap greed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH2w2l1JT...php%3Ft%3D20708
Because renting isn't broadcasting. You already sold the rental place a copy at a severely increased price.
[/ QUOTE ]
100% untrue in the US. They buy a standard copy for 49.99 and rent it out all they want.
Music, and movies, both of them get royalties from resales and rentals. Games don't. If the retailers won't fix it, I'm all for the console manufacturers doing it themselves. Nintendo has made similar policies before (more on the developer side than the retailer). Basically if you don't like it, don't but the PS3. Sony has to counter with making enough great exclusive games that you'll buy it anyway. I'm not saying they will, I'm just saying I agree with their business standpoint as a developer AND a gamer. If I don't want to pay full price, I'll wait a few months and buy it when the price drops. You don't get to expect to play the newest game out, a week after it drops, for half the price, and the developer/publisher get bupkiss. Not fair in my book at all.
I spend alot of money at used game stores. Most games just aren't worth the 'new' price to me. Even more so with this coming generation and it's 60+ price tags.
I'm also not fond of 'not owning the physical media'. To me, this tells me that Sony should buy back the physical media when I'm done with it. I also cancelled my HL2:E1 Steam order when I found out it was going to be put out on store shelves. I just prefer to own the physical copy.
I also don't like the idea of having to lug my console whereever I plan on playing that game. Can't play it on my friend's console, can't bring it to work.
This is like making Flea MArkets and Pawn Shops pay royalties to the products they re-sell. It's just plain dumb.
[ QUOTE ]
Because renting isn't broadcasting. You already sold the rental place a copy at a severely increased price.
[/ QUOTE ]
100% untrue in the US. They buy a standard copy for 49.99 and rent it out all they want.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is true.
VHS tapes were sold to renters for a high amount of money, but since DVD's launch, rental houses have only to pay the MSRP on any given dvd.
That's how we would buy our dvd stock at Movie Trading Company.
A used ford has depreciated because it's a physical object that degrades. A videogame or DVD is a digital medium that is still exactly like the new version. You're analogy is severely flawed.
[/ QUOTE ]
digital media that comes in a physical housing to be fair. That housing can be damaged easily.
i guess this means no used ps3 sales as well.
the more i hear from sony the less i feel like im going to pass over the ps3. though i know i'll miss out on some great games.
[ QUOTE ]
VHS tapes were sold to renters for a high amount of money, but since DVD's launch, rental houses have only to pay the MSRP on any given dvd.
[/ QUOTE ]
ah, no wonder there started to be 36000000 copies of popular movies instead of 5 at rental places.
In those days, companies like Blockbuster would pay for the right to distribute a VHS movie rental a couple weeks before it was available to buy at the retail stores. I remember I had all this explained to me when I asked why I couldn't buy Ghost in the Shell, but could rent it.
They would also pay around 600 dollars for each VHS if my memory serves me correct.
The biggest gripe I have with what Sony was saying was that even though you buy the game, you don't own the physical unit, only the license to play it on your unique machine.
This leads me to wonder how much of a hassle it will be when, say, I lose my game and end up buying it again later. How is Sony going to handle the distribution of serial numbers? Is that game tied to my account, so any physical copy of the game will work in my machine as long as I bought the number for it?
What about if I need to replace my machine? Will it be a hassle to switch out serials from my old machine to my new one?
Aesir: At that point, I think having rental companies pay for licenses that determine how many copies of the game you can rent at once will be introduced. Similar to how paying for Max works for companies. They pay a license that gives them a certain amount of seats.
Though, that's the rental side of things.
I think what I personally have the biggest issue with is not being able to sell my old game to anyone, and for that matter, not being able to buy a used game on a whim.
I can't think of a fair solution to used game sales, other than a small cut from each resale going to the publishers as well. Considering that would be impossible to track or regulate, I don't see it happening. I do see the rental thing eventually taking place, but all the big boys (EA, Microsoft, Sony, Activision, etc) will have to all agree to stop selling product to the rental chains until a revenue-sharing deal can be reached.
I have from time to time been known to rent a game. But for nearly every instance of this - it's because it's a game I would never buy at full price, or it's simply too short to justify a $50 price tag. Like the Silent Hill games come to mind. I've played every one of them, beat every one of them, but never bought one. I'm not going to pay $50 for 10 hours of entertainment.
My biggest problem comes from them telling me that I don't own the game. I say to hell with that. I damn right own the game. I can do what I please with it. If I beat a game and then loan it to a friend that's my right. I do the same thing with books and movies. As long as they don't copy it mind you.
I can see how Sony wants a piece of that action though, but to them I say "Toughen up you babies". Nobody else seems to be complaining about it.
My biggest problem comes from them telling me that I don't own the game. I say to hell with that. I damn right own the game. I can do what I please with it. If I beat a game and then loan it to a friend that's my right. I do the same thing with books and movies. As long as they don't copy it mind you.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you understand. Sony made the console and digitally signed/approved the games. You want to play them? You abide by their rules. You don't like them? Don't buy them. Those are your two choices. If they decide you don't own the game, and make it so that they can enforce that decision, no amount of demanding/whining/bravado on your part is going to make any difference if you still purchase the console/game anyway.
Now it's entirely possible enough consumers will say, "not acceptable" with their wallets, in which case Sony might have to change their policy. But you simply stating HELL YEAH I OWN IT I BOUGHT IT LOL! doesn't make it so.
Also, yes lots of people are complaining about it. I garantee Microsoft and Nintendo have had meetings about this same problem. They have taken different approaches than Sony appears to be, but they are just as upset about the loss of profits, and rightfully so. This isn't a case of OMG GREEDY CORPORATIONS! Someone is making a lot of money off of used games and rentals, and right now ZERO of it makes it back to the developers.
you buy it. you own it.
you can't sell it?
doesn't that break some kind of fundamental consumer law?
BTW they ALWAYS give out this kind of jive. I remember when the returns policy was changed on games back in '96, so you couldn't take them back to the shop if you bought them. then EU law stepped in and said fuck you to the games industry and let people return goods. Greedy fucking laws like this are only run by the industry, but not actually legal. All games already say "not for resale" on the box, but no one pay attention to that because it's not actually legally binding.
re-sale is part of the games value for consumers
Haha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH2w2l1JT...php%3Ft%3D20708
[/ QUOTE ]
heh, too good. I'm not one for bashing consoles, but the scene where he says "this game is based on real Japanese history /cut/ here we see them battling a giant crab" & "this controller has a new motion sensitive technology /cut/ I think this is a great technical innovation" (or something ) had me laughing out loud, something that rarely happens when I stare at the internet.
oh except for when I saw a dalmation riding a bike.
we should all be familiar with this kind of setup hawken. Our 3d programs work on liscenses the exact same way. Its why the market isnt flooded with cheap 3dsmax version 6 copies right after version 7 gets released.
[/ QUOTE ]
sorry but 3dsmax is a high end developer tool. not something one can pop down to woolworths and buy with pamela andersons work out dvd.
games are media, not tools.
WTF?
http://www.gamesradar.com/gb/ps3/game/ne...;sectionId=1006
[/ QUOTE ]
In related news, frustrated by missing out on the billion-dollar second-hand auto market, Chevrolet is demanding that it's costumers not resell their automobiles.
I don't understand the logic.
you buy it. you own it.
you can't sell it?
doesn't that break some kind of fundamental consumer law?
re-sale is part of the games value for consumers
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think many people here do understand the logic.
Let's say hypothetically:
Sony has an "xbox live" equivalent, and the lite version is free and every ps3 owner gets one. Every time it boots up you have to log on. Now let's say as soon as you put your game in, it registers online that poopinmymouth is the owner, locking the game with my PS3 live account. I can certainly sell my physical CD and case to someone else, but Sony (in this hypothetical situation) has made it that when they put it in their PS3, log onto Hawken0327 PS3 live account, it goes Warning: Game and user account don't match up. Now the game won't run and won't boot.
If Sony makes this absolutely clear on the box before you buy there is
A) Nothing illegal about it
I am certainly sympathetic for the end user who just wants to be able to buy used games for less than retail. But as a developer that feeds and houses and clothes myself from the income of these games, I want to be paid for my hard work. There are BILLIONS of dollars lost to rental and retail copies of games. Super Ostrich and I were talking, and he suggested (and I agree) that it would only take the large publishers Ubi, EA, Activision, Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo, to tell Blockbuster, EB games, and Gamestop: "We won't sell you any more games till you agree to our profit sharing plan". Movies have this in place, every X number of rentals, they get X number of dollars. Every used copy sold, X% goes back to the movie studios. It's only fair that we get paid for our hard work. Right now the retailers won't do this, so Sony is taking it into their own hands.
Hopefully I've spelled it out clearly how Sony could enforce this whether the consumer wants it or not.
I bought a karaoke add-on for my dreamcast but to play the songs I have to connect to a non existant server that sega shut down in 2002.
Piracy of video games isn't even thought of as a crime by most. I was online talking to a friend the other day and he tells me he's playing GUN. I tell him that I would've got him a copy at a discount through the Activision store, and he says, "Oh no worries, I'm playing a cracked PC version."
WTF??
What I don't understand is how you can be so clearly for this proposal? Yes it will generate more money for Sony. But at what expense? Do you really think that sales of games will go up all that much? I hardly think so. People clearly aren't willing to pay full price for games since the secondary market is obviously doing so well. It will upset a lot of consumers who will just boycott Sony for doing this (not to mention the high price point that everyone else seems to be so hung up about).
Oh - and do you really think that the developer will give you more money for your hard work? (Not saying that you don't deserve it). It's just that they will take that money and put it towards other things like marketing more likely the huge amounts of lawsuits that will amount because of this.
Sorry for the arguement. In all honesty I'm more concerned with the principal itself as it will hardly affect me in the slightest if this does catch on.
I think Sony will get hurt by this in the short run, but this is a good step they're making in the long run.
How about we look at it from the perspective of the store owner. I was involved in buying games for two different small stores. What we found is that unless you are WalMart and buying tons of units, you can't make a profit on games, and the distributors will make up lame excuses on how they don't have the good games to even sell you.
So if the developers are being screwed, and the shops are getting screwed, who are the folks making billions of dollars? I'll tell you who; assholes in suits. If you think for a second that this policy by Sony will result in 1 extra cent paid to developers, you are out of your mind. They have tons of money NOW, that they could give developers. Instead they give the bare minimum to a bunch of different developers and count on the fact that some of them will be able to deliver a product.
[edited for accuracy]
[edit]
About the choice. Well, I was already going to boycott Sony. I thought maybe it would be hard, but Sony is making it damn near impossible for me to want to buy their products even if I had the giant wads of cash laying around that I would need to buy a PS3.
Poop, you should know this best of all. You were just saying the other day how your publisher screwed you over. It is because they don't give a shit.
[/ QUOTE ]
I hold no love for Sony. If this was about a ten dollar per game price increase I'd be picketing the decision as well. This decision however will get rid of piracy and used games being sold too soon after the initial game ships. I know this will just make the suits more money, but honestly I just like the idea that people will be forced to buy their games. Call me crazy. Plus more money into the industry will indeed mean more money to go around. I don't delude myself into thinking I'll get some of it just because it's coming in, but I know that it will ensure a more profitable industry that will allow me to negotiate higher sallaries when it comes time to demand it.
However, I see this more as a great way to actually strongarm the rental companies and used game retailers into a revenue sharing agreement, after which a magical solution for allowing rentals and used sales will become available.
Link
While I understand what you guys are saying, and since you are getting royalties, maybe it would work out better for y'all. I guess the logic is that fewer dollars spent on used games will result in more of those dollars spent on new games. I think however that a lot of people will simply not buy games. Instead they would spend their entertianment dollars elsewhere and shrink the game market.
The idea that people will take their monies elsewhere if they can't buy used, holds little water in my opinion. People will buy less frequently I'm sure, but they'll still come. Whether it's to Sony's trough remains to be seen, but they'll buy. Maybe a positive off shoot is that people would research more and care more about quality if their dollars don't go as far on games.
we should all be familiar with this kind of setup hawken. Our 3d programs work on liscenses the exact same way. Its why the market isnt flooded with cheap 3dsmax version 6 copies right after version 7 gets released.
[/ QUOTE ]
You can buy used Max legally in Europe just as you can buy any used software you want.
The market doesnt get flooded with old versions because of the trick that companies UPGRADE the old version and thats why they cant sell it off.
This will not beat piracy. When you're tampering with the electronics of the system you can disable this kind of crap. Like every anti-copy scheme ever invented it hurts only the legal user while the illegal downloaders avoid all these hassles.
The idea that people will take their monies elsewhere if they can't buy used, holds little water in my opinion. People will buy less frequently I'm sure, but they'll still come.
That's the same. Buying less frequently means they'll throw less money at games. If you want to halve your sales numbers that's all right but last I checked dev costs were doubling, not halving.