Technical limitations have always been what tied video games to physical media. With the current trends in development, this is becoming the exception. Most developers don't really need physical media anymore. Only the really huge, big-budget efforts will require the storage space that physical discs provide. And thanks to the direction Nintendo took with the Wii, a lot of developers have wised up to the fact that games don't have to be big-budget to sell or turn a profit.
Thanks to some of the decisions made by the console manufacturers, we won't see digital distribution really take over as the primary distribution channel until the next console generation. The only platform that its really feasible on right now is the PS3. (the Wii's external memory issues limit its storage, and Microsoft still clings to the idea of a 360 without a hard drive)
I've downloaded several games off of Steam. And frankly, I couldn't be happier with the experience I've had with their digital distribution system. The entire process was painless and easy, and the games ran fine. The prices were reasonable, and Steam even puts on regular specials and sales. (like you would expect from a brick-and-mortar store) I would have no problem buying most of my PC titles through services like Steam. (however, I too would prefer to have only one such service)
I think next gen systems will have a larger digital download presence but most people will still buy the game on disc, they will just have the option to buy it digitally. Still a lot of kinks to work out. I think that if MS makes a digital download system that has it so games bought on the console would also work on PC, and vise versa. That way they support both of their markets and would help pull gamers away from hard copy's. All it would take is a cloud system with a digital copy for both systems ready for download. Gamers would just have to log in to their live account on the PC of the xbox.
This would also hugely one up the sony because for one purchase you get twice the benefit.
This topic is really inetersting. Made me join the site actually.
The feeling of entitlement that people have which has become amplified with the internet, never ceases to amaze me. However, the issue is not quite as black and white as a game being an "experience."
Ultimately, it is the experience that someone is paying for and I tend to agree with Gwot for the most part. However, there's just no way to police something like that on an individual basis with hard copies. The same could be said about any media, book, dvd, etc. With a concert or theatre you can control it, but home entertainment is much more difficult.
"It's not about second hand. It's about where the second hand games are sold."~sprunghunt
This is the essential problem and virutally the same thing mp3s caused. A central or easily re-distribution location of "clean" digital media. No one really cares if you give a book to a friend or sell it at a garage sale. Yeah, it's the experience really, but the same goes for a hard copy of a game. Two people getting the experience for the price of one. There's just no way to prevent that and I don't think anyone wants to try. Not to mention, it isn't exactly easy to find someone to buy your "stuff." Even on the internet it's still not that quick, and technically, you don't get to "keep" a copy of the game, book, whatever.
However, when you create a central location for people to have an automatic buyer, ie Gamestop, it creates a much bigger issue which turns into a problem. I'm really surprised there isn't a law against re-selling the software in that way. I assume that it is legal, but I never really thought about the implications. I guess I just figured there was a system in place for the dev or publisher to receive some of the re-sell money or that they have factored this long ago. Like, if a game is sold back to Gamespot, it's essentially being bought back by the publisher for re-sell. Apparently that's not the case though. It's like the FBI warning on dvds. I may own a copy of a film and even have a viewing for friends in my home, but I can't charge people to watch it.
Of course I don't think people should be prevented from selling their stuff, whether it be Shakespeare or a hard copy of Half-Life2. No one is going to make a profit off that and while the game company may technically lose a sale, it's not quite the same as Gamespot re-selling hundreds of copies.
"Honestly, it pains me to see so many people who either work on games, or hope to, not caring about as much money as possible going to developers. Isn't this a bit of 'biting the hand that feeds you', or am I misinterpreting? But not supporting your own industry, the one that you hope will pay your bills and keep job positions open for you, seems a bit harsh. If even the people making games won't spend money that will go to the developers, who will?"~Mezz
Same here. I'm a bit shocked at some of the attitudes. I try to always buy new in support of the industry. I do search for good deals on older games, but in general I only buy something used if I just can't find a fresh copy.
Blockbuster, and almost every other movie rental store I've been to (because blockbuster sucks) sells previously viewed movies in the stores next to the new ones which are also next to the rentals. I'm sure there's a difference here because this is a rental place, but I'm just pointing out new copies are sold next to used ones.
Good discussion, I don't know where my opinions lie. Just gonna throw this in the mix.
If we pay for the experience, say 60 bucks. And then feel that once the experience is over we feel the need to sell the game to make money back, would we do so if we didn't pay as much for the product in the first place? Am I selling the game because I can make 20 bucks, or am I selling it because I want 20 bucks because I wasn't happy paying 60?
I'm not trying to advocate some sort of downfall of video game prices, but the products themselves are pretty pricey in some cases. The guy that paid 20 bucks for my copy is partly doing so because he doesn't feel that paying 60 bucks would be worth it.
Anyways, that wasn't really meant to change anyone's mind.
Personally I'm not a fan of the digital download (for AAA titles). I actually LIKE having the case, and the manual and some shiny trinket that comes in the collectors edition. Also, I'm not sure how they could limit the experience in something physical without an uproar from the players. What if I get halfway through the game my computer crashes and I have to buy a new one and install the game again would I have to pay for it again?
couple of things come to mind regarding some of the arguments put forth that a
consumer (or worse, a game [re]selling boutique) is entitled to re-sell (or gift, or
trash, etc.) their purchased game as they see fit ...
as folks who predominantly have first-hand knowledge about what it takes (in time,
expenses, and expertise) for whole teams of people to put together games, how is
it you find it justifiable to compare the practice of reselling a game to that of reselling (or
giving, donating, checking out from the library, etc.) a book? I can't even think of a book
developed by a team of 50+ authors spending 3+ years toiling over it ... With DVDs, it's
at least built into the price the re-seller/renting business has to pay to acquire the
copies in the first place (as Kevin Johnstone points out). And if you're comparing it to
a car, well, when's the last time you bought a $40-60 car?
In regard to the extras of a packaged hard-copy game with manual and extras, well, that
stuff takes time/money/skills to produce as well, yet you think it should just be including
in your (ideal) $20 purchase that you can re-sell later if you see fit?
I'm also curious how 'just make better games' will solve the reality that on the whole, 'better
games' don't just get churned out every 6 months, so we're back to the fact that the
whole process involves big $$$ to produce, which *should* mean we as consumers are
willing to compensate fairly for these desired improvements (movie prices, etc. keep going
up, yet we don't seem to be boycotting studios to cut their ticket/DVD prices in half...but of course,
one could argue movies aren't really getting 'better', but the eye candy is more expensive
to produce).
Digital distribution seems to be the brightest option of all when it comes to giving a fair
shake to those that actually do the *producing* ... at least in regard to a service-to-demand
sort of paradigm for both the dev and consumer seeking 'experiential entertainment'.
Gwot: that's the way I feel about it though. It's a physical thing, and I have every right to think of it as such. I cherish my physical media
When it comes to digital distribution on the other hand, I agree with you. You're buying an 'experience'. Nevertheless, if I were to agree with you a 100%, then ideally you'd like to see that restricted to experiencing it once for the money, like a movie? I'd hate to see that happen, really. I regularly pull out old games and play them again, even for just a quick go.
Also, there's gog.com now, who sell all those old games I used to love (mid-90's) for 5-10 dollars. They directly compete with the 2nd-hand market, but they add extra incentive to buy through them (extra content, low price etc..) which makes perfect sense to me.
as folks who predominantly have first-hand knowledge about what it takes (in time,
expenses, and expertise) for whole teams of people to put together games, how is
it you find it justifiable to compare the practice of reselling a game to that of reselling (or
giving, donating, checking out from the library, etc.) a book? I can't even think of a book
developed by a team of 50+ authors spending 3+ years toiling over it
My point about books was just that they are both "experiences." Once you've read it, you've gotten your money's worth and it's quite common for people to loan, give, or even re-sell them. Not too many people get bent out of shape about that. There is the physical quality and value of the book to consider, but essentially if the words are legible you get the experience. Books probably change hands many more times then a game will and essentially it's the same no-sale for the author/publisher each time it does.
In the case of text books, which can exceed $100, it's quite common to buy them used in college:
The physical quality here is a major factor, and I don't know what the laws are regarding re-sell for bookstores. But if you don't think the publisher would love to get the full $135 for that book as opposed to, let's say 4 students, buying and re-selling the book to each other over 4 semesters, you're crazy. Instead of making $540, they make $135. Take a class of 120 and you're looking at $16000/semester, or close to $65000 for two years. And that's just one class. There are probably 2-3 per semester for a big art history class at a major university
The college bookstore usually buys back all the previous semesters books too, I'm not sure how much profit they make off that. I think one of the things the publishers do to combat that is come out with a new edition every few years or even months. Novels, of course, don't have the same revisionist problem for say a lit class. A tattered used copy is just as good as a brand spanking new version.
Regardless of the number of people it takes to make a game, I just don't think someone should be prevented from selling their console and entire game collection at a garage sale or to their friend, or even just letting them borrow a game. I think that's just kind of basic human tendancy through out the history of time. People are always trying to sell their stuff at one point or another. Now, selling it to Gamestop...a different story.
Pea: no I'm all for 'owning' the content I buy, digital or not. I should be able reuse and reinstall something I bought over and over again even across multiple computers. I'm perfectly fine with not being able to resell it though. As for older games, hell even I've picked stuff out of the bargain bin that you just can't find on shelves anymore. There's not much alternative when the retail guys are only stocking the latest stuff and not even developers support their older products anymore.
Welcome Brettzies. =]
I completely agree with you on policing under current circumstances. I don't think that is possible, nor even desirable. Changing distribution seems to be one way to just circumvent that without getting confrontational or cracking down on things the way they are currently. More likely this stuff will just fade away and be taken over by newer methods.
Books throw an interesting twist on things for me. Their resale has been an accepted device for so long nobody questions it. Technically they are content like anything else though. Like Pea, I put value into their physicality as well. I'm really curious to see if e-readers become a big deal or not in the future, as this could also change distribution for books and bring it more inline with other digital media. I've thought about getting one myself but they just look so clunky and cold, unlike the real thing. This is more an issue of the old world overlapping with the new, with someone like me being stuck on the fence I'm sure. It may be I just haven't spotted the e-reader that suits my taste yet.
Honestly, it pains me to see so many people who either work on games, or hope to, not caring about as much money as possible going to developers. Isn't this a bit of 'biting the hand that feeds you', or am I misinterpreting? But not supporting your own industry, the one that you hope will pay your bills and keep job positions open for you, seems a bit harsh. If even the people making games won't spend money that will go to the developers, who will?
Yea you're true.. i would also be very happy if "my" developer gets billions of dollars and also pays me billions of dollars bc of that... (this is a joke for itself) but i´m also customer and in fact I´m more customer than worker and I (<<) do not only pay for the right to play the game.
To make it short.. the developer/publisher/salesman wants MY money .. and if he doesn´t offers me something i want, he does not get my money.. and in this case i don´t care about the poor poor developer/publischer/salesman. Would you?
do you buy a game just bc it makes you happy that the developer got some money?
if so you donate it.. that is not bad.. but in this case you wouldn´t secoundhand buy it
to say "secoundhand sales are evil" means -I want the money of my customers, the more the better and if I don´t get it via a good products I have to restict their rights-
does this sounds like a developer you want do donate your money to?
I love secondhand game shops, when you find proper ones. In the same way that I love secondhand record shops. You can get gems that you'd forgotten about, or discover new things, and generally speaking get these things for cheap.
I kinda see it in the same way I see anything else: if I have paid for something, that gives me the right to sell it on. The rights to that particular incarnation of the product belong (or at least should belong) to me, because I have traded money for it. Any money made from the sale of that incarnation of the product should go to me, because until I sell it, I own it.
Plus, I fail to see how it can be compared to piracy. The point of piracy is that multiple copies can be made and profited from. The developer has already made their money for the original copy of the game sold, and so if that copy is sold again, it doesn't actually hurt them, as ownership of the game has moved, not been taken away.
The way I see it, if I make a product to be manufactured on a mass scale, and I sell each and every single unit made, I have made all the money that I can expect from those units. To expect money to come in because one of those units is sold again is ridiculous and greedy.
In the game shops around my area, the old gems are really rare. They actively discourage older games by not taking them in if they're older then a year.
The developer has already made their money for the original copy of the game sold, and so if that copy is sold again, it doesn't actually hurt them, as ownership of the game has moved, not been taken away.
Customer: I'll take a copy of XYZ game there (points that the new game behind the counter)
Clerk: Oh hey it says here we have a used copy for $5 less do yo want that instead?
Customer: Ok sure why not. I'm surprised you have a used copy that game came out this week didn't it?
Clerk: We have a 15 day return policy. A lot of people rush home beat it and bring it back. Would you like to sign up for our buy back program?
Developer... Damn it, robbed of another new game sale.
That's why devs are upset about the sale of used games. If they where cut in on the action they wouldn't be forced to go digital distribution which threatens the brick and mortar stores. If the stores want to survive it might be in their best interest to cut the dev's and publishers in on the used game action...
Personally 95% of the games I bought over the last 2 years have been via digital.
In the game shops around my area, the old gems are really rare. They actively discourage older games by not taking them in if they're older then a year.
Customer: I'll take a copy of XYZ game there (points that the new game behind the counter)
Clerk: Oh hey it says here we have a used copy for $5 less do yo want that instead?
Customer: Ok sure why not. I'm surprised you have a used copy that game came out this week didn't it?
Clerk: We have a 15 day return policy. A lot of people rush home beat it and bring it back. Would you like to sign up for our buy back program?
Developer... Damn it, robbed of another new game sale.
That's why devs are upset about the sale of used games. If they where cut in on the action they wouldn't be forced to go digital distrubution which threatens the brick and mortar stores. If the stores want to survive it might be in their best interest to cut the dev's and publishers in on the used game action...
Personally 95% of the games I bought have been via digital means.
This is what I think most of these developers are referring to. Not the fact that their game, that was released over 3 years ago, and isn't available new anymore, isn't bringing in money. It's when they release a game, and the same week they miss out on sizable chunk of sales because people trade them in and GameStop tries to force the used one down your throat instead. And the sad thing is that it looks like it might only get worse! Other companies have started to take notice of how well Gamestop is doing and they are starting to try used game sales out. I remember Best Buy, and Circuit City both trying this out. Sure it's a win for the Buisness, and for the consumer, but the people that lose are the people needed to make sure new games keep coming out .
Personally I like having a physical copy, so I really hope digital distribution doesn't take over. I really try and support game devs with my money when I feel it's deserved and I have the cash. I purchase as much as I can new (unless it's an old gem I missed out on) and I do not resell my games, and never will. But I am a bit of a collector like that, haha, I really like having the game, case, and manual, and have a hard time parting with it after I have bought it. Even games I wasn't too fond of that I though I would like (and reviews said were good) I still hang on to.
first year or so you need to activate your game over the web or phone (no commercial reselling possible.. more or less..and i don´t say anything about warez.. this is an other (real) problem)
and after that (e.g.) year you can buy the game (again) in a free version
Personally 95% of the games I bought over the last 2 years have been via digital.
That is because you play on your PC yeah? I play on my consoles much more then on my PC for a couple of reasons, I never had a PC that would handle any of the games I wanted to play, and I am a big console enjoy-er! I have Oblivion for my PC and 360, I enjoy it on my 360 more even though it looks better on my PC...
second hand sales...We the people could stop them, but we do not. If you want more then 11 bucks for your game then do not be a lazy ass, and put the game on craigslist, or Ebay. There are PLENTY of people who would be willing to give you more then gamestop would give you, and buy it for less for then what they sell it for.
Also fuck Gamestop, I went in to pre order Fable 2 Limited Edition, 3 weeks away, and they tell me oh we have stopped pre order on the LE fable 2. I said do you have the boxes in the back waiting? she said no, I said then how do you stop pre ordering a limited edition if someone wants it? Well each store has a certain amount of LE copies we can sell. I was pretty angry telling her she is dumb for not wanting to take my extra 10 bucks for some simple goofy stuff that I would collect. Is this common?
first year or so you need to activate your game over the web or phone (no commercial reselling possible.. more or less..and i don´t say anything about warez.. this is an other (real) problem)
and after that (e.g.) year you can buy the game (again) in a free version
Also fuck Gamestop, I went in to pre order Fable 2 Limited Edition, 3 weeks away, and they tell me oh we have stopped pre order on the LE fable 2. I said do you have the boxes in the back waiting? she said no, I said then how do you stop pre ordering a limited edition if someone wants it? Well each store has a certain amount of LE copies we can sell. I was pretty angry telling her she is dumb for not wanting to take my extra 10 bucks for some simple goofy stuff that I would collect. Is this common?
As an Ex-Gamestop employee I can tell you this wasn't her call, it was Gamestop's and yes it is common. Part is because they only buy so many copies of the game, and another part is so that they can say "you should have pre-ordered earlier" to try and get you to start coming back sooner and more often to their store so you don't "miss out".
I've read most of what's been said here. My two cents: Gamestop and the like are ushering in there own demise, or are aware of the impending demise of brick-and-mortar stores and trying to get every penny they can in the meantime.
On a side note, I will never buy something with the stipulation that I cannot re-sell it. That's fucking bullshit.
I haven't read all the posts, so maybe this was mentioned beforehand.
The only reason that this is a problem with video games is that the 2nd-hand market is so readily available to the consumer. It is the only form of entertainment that I can think of that has the retail stores (Gamestop) actively trying to sell you used copies. This is a problem with Gamestop. Compare them to Best Buy or Walmart or Target or whoever else. These stores only sell new copies, don't buy used copies and don't sell used copies. This is how major retailers should be.
Now think of DVD and/or book stores. Barnes and Noble or Borders don't sell used books, and don't buy them back either. If you want a used book, then go to a used book store which are completely separated from the major chains. And the secondhand book business is HUGE! Same with DVDs. Place to buy used DVDs? Blockbuster - NOT Best Buy or Walmart.
I'm not saying 'secondhand sales are evil'. I'm only saying that Gamestop is.
That's actually a good point, Luxury. Chains like GameStop are some of the only ones to blur the lines between regular retail and the used market. I don't know of any used bookstores that sell new books. Even if they do get a shipment of "new" books in somehow, they still label them used and sell them at used prices.
Game-centric store chains like GameStop sell new product alongside used product. If they were really a pawnshop, (and that's what they are registered as) shouldn't they only sell used product? This creates a conflict of interest, and is one of the reasons why game companies are pissed off at them.
So you've never paid for and will never pay for a game on steam then? =P
Well, actually, I've never used Steam. When you pay for a game do you own it or are you renting it? Is it like tv, where I'm allowed to watch but not record/show and am actually paying the cable provider for the service to recieve the signal and not the programs being distributed on the signal?
I can understand the annoyance with Gamestop, they shouldn't be making that much money on a used game, especially not for $5 cheaper than a new one. What can you do about it? Insist that Gamespot can only make $10 profit max on a used game, or bring down the price of games so that Gamestop doesn't have a market anymore....its anyones guess. However, I do feel as a consumer that once I buy soemthing it belongs to me. Not the IP, content but the actual product.
I don't know if anyone is questioning it's legality so much as morality...but that was an interesting read. I wonder what will happen on the appeal....
If publishers and developers really want to send a message to GameStop, the best way they can do it is by refusing to sell their new games to GameStop. That would mean forgoing a certain number of potential sales. But it wouldn't be all that much. Wal-Mart is the biggest games retailer in the country, not GameStop. A lot of people, including less "in-the-know" parents, will stop going to GameStop if the latest and greatest games are only available there used. (or not at all, in the case of many brand-new titles) The whole "you better pre-order" shtick will also go out the window.
I bought mariokart for the Wii for ¥4500 on it's release, 2 weeks later I sold it back to another video rental store called Tsutaya for ¥5500 because it had sold out. They went on to sell it for ¥6500
Replies
Thanks to some of the decisions made by the console manufacturers, we won't see digital distribution really take over as the primary distribution channel until the next console generation. The only platform that its really feasible on right now is the PS3. (the Wii's external memory issues limit its storage, and Microsoft still clings to the idea of a 360 without a hard drive)
I've downloaded several games off of Steam. And frankly, I couldn't be happier with the experience I've had with their digital distribution system. The entire process was painless and easy, and the games ran fine. The prices were reasonable, and Steam even puts on regular specials and sales. (like you would expect from a brick-and-mortar store) I would have no problem buying most of my PC titles through services like Steam. (however, I too would prefer to have only one such service)
This would also hugely one up the sony because for one purchase you get twice the benefit.
The feeling of entitlement that people have which has become amplified with the internet, never ceases to amaze me. However, the issue is not quite as black and white as a game being an "experience."
Ultimately, it is the experience that someone is paying for and I tend to agree with Gwot for the most part. However, there's just no way to police something like that on an individual basis with hard copies. The same could be said about any media, book, dvd, etc. With a concert or theatre you can control it, but home entertainment is much more difficult.
This is the essential problem and virutally the same thing mp3s caused. A central or easily re-distribution location of "clean" digital media. No one really cares if you give a book to a friend or sell it at a garage sale. Yeah, it's the experience really, but the same goes for a hard copy of a game. Two people getting the experience for the price of one. There's just no way to prevent that and I don't think anyone wants to try. Not to mention, it isn't exactly easy to find someone to buy your "stuff." Even on the internet it's still not that quick, and technically, you don't get to "keep" a copy of the game, book, whatever.
However, when you create a central location for people to have an automatic buyer, ie Gamestop, it creates a much bigger issue which turns into a problem. I'm really surprised there isn't a law against re-selling the software in that way. I assume that it is legal, but I never really thought about the implications. I guess I just figured there was a system in place for the dev or publisher to receive some of the re-sell money or that they have factored this long ago. Like, if a game is sold back to Gamespot, it's essentially being bought back by the publisher for re-sell. Apparently that's not the case though. It's like the FBI warning on dvds. I may own a copy of a film and even have a viewing for friends in my home, but I can't charge people to watch it.
Of course I don't think people should be prevented from selling their stuff, whether it be Shakespeare or a hard copy of Half-Life2. No one is going to make a profit off that and while the game company may technically lose a sale, it's not quite the same as Gamespot re-selling hundreds of copies.
Same here. I'm a bit shocked at some of the attitudes. I try to always buy new in support of the industry. I do search for good deals on older games, but in general I only buy something used if I just can't find a fresh copy.
This isn't entirely true, at least for North America.
http://www.blockbuster.ca/previously_enjoyed/default.aspx
Blockbuster, and almost every other movie rental store I've been to (because blockbuster sucks) sells previously viewed movies in the stores next to the new ones which are also next to the rentals. I'm sure there's a difference here because this is a rental place, but I'm just pointing out new copies are sold next to used ones.
Good discussion, I don't know where my opinions lie. Just gonna throw this in the mix.
If we pay for the experience, say 60 bucks. And then feel that once the experience is over we feel the need to sell the game to make money back, would we do so if we didn't pay as much for the product in the first place? Am I selling the game because I can make 20 bucks, or am I selling it because I want 20 bucks because I wasn't happy paying 60?
I'm not trying to advocate some sort of downfall of video game prices, but the products themselves are pretty pricey in some cases. The guy that paid 20 bucks for my copy is partly doing so because he doesn't feel that paying 60 bucks would be worth it.
Anyways, that wasn't really meant to change anyone's mind.
Personally I'm not a fan of the digital download (for AAA titles). I actually LIKE having the case, and the manual and some shiny trinket that comes in the collectors edition. Also, I'm not sure how they could limit the experience in something physical without an uproar from the players. What if I get halfway through the game my computer crashes and I have to buy a new one and install the game again would I have to pay for it again?
consumer (or worse, a game [re]selling boutique) is entitled to re-sell (or gift, or
trash, etc.) their purchased game as they see fit ...
as folks who predominantly have first-hand knowledge about what it takes (in time,
expenses, and expertise) for whole teams of people to put together games, how is
it you find it justifiable to compare the practice of reselling a game to that of reselling (or
giving, donating, checking out from the library, etc.) a book? I can't even think of a book
developed by a team of 50+ authors spending 3+ years toiling over it ... With DVDs, it's
at least built into the price the re-seller/renting business has to pay to acquire the
copies in the first place (as Kevin Johnstone points out). And if you're comparing it to
a car, well, when's the last time you bought a $40-60 car?
In regard to the extras of a packaged hard-copy game with manual and extras, well, that
stuff takes time/money/skills to produce as well, yet you think it should just be including
in your (ideal) $20 purchase that you can re-sell later if you see fit?
I'm also curious how 'just make better games' will solve the reality that on the whole, 'better
games' don't just get churned out every 6 months, so we're back to the fact that the
whole process involves big $$$ to produce, which *should* mean we as consumers are
willing to compensate fairly for these desired improvements (movie prices, etc. keep going
up, yet we don't seem to be boycotting studios to cut their ticket/DVD prices in half...but of course,
one could argue movies aren't really getting 'better', but the eye candy is more expensive
to produce).
Digital distribution seems to be the brightest option of all when it comes to giving a fair
shake to those that actually do the *producing* ... at least in regard to a service-to-demand
sort of paradigm for both the dev and consumer seeking 'experiential entertainment'.
When it comes to digital distribution on the other hand, I agree with you. You're buying an 'experience'. Nevertheless, if I were to agree with you a 100%, then ideally you'd like to see that restricted to experiencing it once for the money, like a movie? I'd hate to see that happen, really. I regularly pull out old games and play them again, even for just a quick go.
Also, there's gog.com now, who sell all those old games I used to love (mid-90's) for 5-10 dollars. They directly compete with the 2nd-hand market, but they add extra incentive to buy through them (extra content, low price etc..) which makes perfect sense to me.
In the case of text books, which can exceed $100, it's quite common to buy them used in college:
[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Jansons-History-Art-Western-Tradition/dp/0131934554[/ame]
The physical quality here is a major factor, and I don't know what the laws are regarding re-sell for bookstores. But if you don't think the publisher would love to get the full $135 for that book as opposed to, let's say 4 students, buying and re-selling the book to each other over 4 semesters, you're crazy. Instead of making $540, they make $135. Take a class of 120 and you're looking at $16000/semester, or close to $65000 for two years. And that's just one class. There are probably 2-3 per semester for a big art history class at a major university
The college bookstore usually buys back all the previous semesters books too, I'm not sure how much profit they make off that. I think one of the things the publishers do to combat that is come out with a new edition every few years or even months. Novels, of course, don't have the same revisionist problem for say a lit class. A tattered used copy is just as good as a brand spanking new version.
Regardless of the number of people it takes to make a game, I just don't think someone should be prevented from selling their console and entire game collection at a garage sale or to their friend, or even just letting them borrow a game. I think that's just kind of basic human tendancy through out the history of time. People are always trying to sell their stuff at one point or another. Now, selling it to Gamestop...a different story.
Welcome Brettzies. =]
I completely agree with you on policing under current circumstances. I don't think that is possible, nor even desirable. Changing distribution seems to be one way to just circumvent that without getting confrontational or cracking down on things the way they are currently. More likely this stuff will just fade away and be taken over by newer methods.
Books throw an interesting twist on things for me. Their resale has been an accepted device for so long nobody questions it. Technically they are content like anything else though. Like Pea, I put value into their physicality as well. I'm really curious to see if e-readers become a big deal or not in the future, as this could also change distribution for books and bring it more inline with other digital media. I've thought about getting one myself but they just look so clunky and cold, unlike the real thing. This is more an issue of the old world overlapping with the new, with someone like me being stuck on the fence I'm sure. It may be I just haven't spotted the e-reader that suits my taste yet.
Yea you're true.. i would also be very happy if "my" developer gets billions of dollars and also pays me billions of dollars bc of that... (this is a joke for itself) but i´m also customer and in fact I´m more customer than worker and I (<<) do not only pay for the right to play the game.
To make it short.. the developer/publisher/salesman wants MY money .. and if he doesn´t offers me something i want, he does not get my money.. and in this case i don´t care about the poor poor developer/publischer/salesman. Would you?
do you buy a game just bc it makes you happy that the developer got some money?
if so you donate it.. that is not bad.. but in this case you wouldn´t secoundhand buy it
to say "secoundhand sales are evil" means -I want the money of my customers, the more the better and if I don´t get it via a good products I have to restict their rights-
does this sounds like a developer you want do donate your money to?
I kinda see it in the same way I see anything else: if I have paid for something, that gives me the right to sell it on. The rights to that particular incarnation of the product belong (or at least should belong) to me, because I have traded money for it. Any money made from the sale of that incarnation of the product should go to me, because until I sell it, I own it.
Plus, I fail to see how it can be compared to piracy. The point of piracy is that multiple copies can be made and profited from. The developer has already made their money for the original copy of the game sold, and so if that copy is sold again, it doesn't actually hurt them, as ownership of the game has moved, not been taken away.
The way I see it, if I make a product to be manufactured on a mass scale, and I sell each and every single unit made, I have made all the money that I can expect from those units. To expect money to come in because one of those units is sold again is ridiculous and greedy.
Customer: I'll take a copy of XYZ game there (points that the new game behind the counter)
Clerk: Oh hey it says here we have a used copy for $5 less do yo want that instead?
Customer: Ok sure why not. I'm surprised you have a used copy that game came out this week didn't it?
Clerk: We have a 15 day return policy. A lot of people rush home beat it and bring it back. Would you like to sign up for our buy back program?
Developer... Damn it, robbed of another new game sale.
That's why devs are upset about the sale of used games. If they where cut in on the action they wouldn't be forced to go digital distribution which threatens the brick and mortar stores. If the stores want to survive it might be in their best interest to cut the dev's and publishers in on the used game action...
Personally 95% of the games I bought over the last 2 years have been via digital.
This is what I think most of these developers are referring to. Not the fact that their game, that was released over 3 years ago, and isn't available new anymore, isn't bringing in money. It's when they release a game, and the same week they miss out on sizable chunk of sales because people trade them in and GameStop tries to force the used one down your throat instead. And the sad thing is that it looks like it might only get worse! Other companies have started to take notice of how well Gamestop is doing and they are starting to try used game sales out. I remember Best Buy, and Circuit City both trying this out. Sure it's a win for the Buisness, and for the consumer, but the people that lose are the people needed to make sure new games keep coming out
Personally I like having a physical copy, so I really hope digital distribution doesn't take over. I really try and support game devs with my money when I feel it's deserved and I have the cash. I purchase as much as I can new (unless it's an old gem I missed out on) and I do not resell my games, and never will. But I am a bit of a collector like that, haha, I really like having the game, case, and manual, and have a hard time parting with it after I have bought it. Even games I wasn't too fond of that I though I would like (and reviews said were good) I still hang on to.
first year or so you need to activate your game over the web or phone (no commercial reselling possible.. more or less..and i don´t say anything about warez.. this is an other (real) problem)
and after that (e.g.) year you can buy the game (again) in a free version
of course the prices have to be fair
like going to the cinema
and buying a dvd some time later
That is because you play on your PC yeah? I play on my consoles much more then on my PC for a couple of reasons, I never had a PC that would handle any of the games I wanted to play, and I am a big console enjoy-er! I have Oblivion for my PC and 360, I enjoy it on my 360 more even though it looks better on my PC...
second hand sales...We the people could stop them, but we do not. If you want more then 11 bucks for your game then do not be a lazy ass, and put the game on craigslist, or Ebay. There are PLENTY of people who would be willing to give you more then gamestop would give you, and buy it for less for then what they sell it for.
Also fuck Gamestop, I went in to pre order Fable 2 Limited Edition, 3 weeks away, and they tell me oh we have stopped pre order on the LE fable 2. I said do you have the boxes in the back waiting? she said no, I said then how do you stop pre ordering a limited edition if someone wants it? Well each store has a certain amount of LE copies we can sell. I was pretty angry telling her she is dumb for not wanting to take my extra 10 bucks for some simple goofy stuff that I would collect. Is this common?
Absolutely not. I won't buy it.
As an Ex-Gamestop employee I can tell you this wasn't her call, it was Gamestop's and yes it is common. Part is because they only buy so many copies of the game, and another part is so that they can say "you should have pre-ordered earlier" to try and get you to start coming back sooner and more often to their store so you don't "miss out".
On a side note, I will never buy something with the stipulation that I cannot re-sell it. That's fucking bullshit.
The only reason that this is a problem with video games is that the 2nd-hand market is so readily available to the consumer. It is the only form of entertainment that I can think of that has the retail stores (Gamestop) actively trying to sell you used copies. This is a problem with Gamestop. Compare them to Best Buy or Walmart or Target or whoever else. These stores only sell new copies, don't buy used copies and don't sell used copies. This is how major retailers should be.
Now think of DVD and/or book stores. Barnes and Noble or Borders don't sell used books, and don't buy them back either. If you want a used book, then go to a used book store which are completely separated from the major chains. And the secondhand book business is HUGE! Same with DVDs. Place to buy used DVDs? Blockbuster - NOT Best Buy or Walmart.
I'm not saying 'secondhand sales are evil'. I'm only saying that Gamestop is.
Game-centric store chains like GameStop sell new product alongside used product. If they were really a pawnshop, (and that's what they are registered as) shouldn't they only sell used product? This creates a conflict of interest, and is one of the reasons why game companies are pissed off at them.
Well, actually, I've never used Steam. When you pay for a game do you own it or are you renting it? Is it like tv, where I'm allowed to watch but not record/show and am actually paying the cable provider for the service to recieve the signal and not the programs being distributed on the signal?
I honestly don't know.
I don't know if anyone is questioning it's legality so much as morality...but that was an interesting read. I wonder what will happen on the appeal....