I'm not 100% sure, but i took it as finished the story. Different difficulty settings and achievements not being things that all games have. So if you didn't finish the game then your one of the 30%. I know I don't finish hardly any games.
I would say that for most it's they either hit some point where they don't want to play any more, or a new game takes them away. What i would love to know would be how long the average gamer will play a game of a type. How many people finish rented games, and how long on average they play different types of games.
When I was a kid games were more than just a DVD box with the disc in it. Awesome came with a psygnosis shirt and greeting cards with ingame graphics. SWOTL had a thick book with tactics, infos about WW2 and blueprints of almost all planes in the game. Several Ultima titles came with large maps of the gameworld, at least one of them on cloth instead of paper. Games used to come with the soundtrack on CD or a very small comic book. Some versions of UT came with making of videos and a training DVD for the editor. One of the Gothic games even came with a hardcover book explaining in detail how every aspect of the game was created from the first idea to the final packaging.
You want people to buy retail and not used for games with little to no replay value/multiplayer? Bring back these amazing bonus items.
I should also note that less than 30% of gamers ever finish games. So length and how hard the game is can't be the issue.
I agree. Even if they did finish or length was a factor, they would just adjust their time frame per game so their scheme would work with the new longer play time. Making the games longer wouldn't foil their plans...
I don't think adding multi-player to everything would help. If its tacked on and sucks, the majority of people won't play it and will return it.
So instead of cutting them out of the retail chain, (since I guess that isn't a popular option), how about delay their shipments so they get it a week after everyone else?
It would take a little longer to accumulate the trade in stock, and it might be long enough to get a few more new copies sold through some other retailers. In the mean time you can push digital distribution and the brick and mortar stores that only sell new. It could be pretty effective if they are able to price the new games about the same price as the used.
I don't see a nice guy approach to getting this done when they've already played the greedy bastard card?
If they really are cutting into profits, then we have something they desperately need to survive, which gives us leverage over them. If they won't play nice, put the screws to them, that's business. You're in it to make money not friends.
If you can be friends and make money in a mutually beneficial way great go for it, but when the deal turns lopsided, you can't be a doormat, but then you don't want to be aggressive and cut your legs off either.
I guess the question still remains, is the deal lopsided? I don't see any hard numbers anywhere, but that's probably because no one has done any public research. It has to be easier to pin down than piracy, but until there is hard evidence, we can only speculate.
What I mean about rehashes, is when they take a franchise, and just keep making sequels (ie; Halo). That also includes Assassin's Creed. I like the AC series, and I'm find with them making more, but it seems like that's the only thing coming out these days. New versions of Halo, sequels to AC and Gears, or variants on Lego or Guitar Hero games.
When I reference multiplayer, I'm saying that it's ONE method they could use to make people hold on to these games. The point is to increase the replay-ability of the game... that's their job to brainstorm ideas.
What I DON'T like seeing, are games that were obviously pumped out, and still charge full price for it. The backlash is you get people who don't trust buying new games.
I don't think EVERY game deserves a $60 price tag, but it's as though the game companies believe it HAS to be priced at $60. Why don't more games come out at $40? I DO expect games with huge development effort, to charge $60 (like AC).
The game industry has been driven WAY too much as a business, and not enough passion. Every game's development is based on the budget and anticipated profits. I'm not naive. I expect them to make a profit, but game companies use to love the games they were creating... and some still do, but there is sooo much junk in the market now, because it was good enough for a quick buck.
What I mean about rehashes, is when they take a franchise, and just keep making sequels (ie; Halo). That also includes Assassin's Creed. I like the AC series, and I'm find with them making more, but it seems like that's the only thing coming out these days. New versions of Halo, sequels to AC and Gears, or variants on Lego or Guitar Hero games.
When I reference multiplayer, I'm saying that it's ONE method they could use to make people hold on to these games. The point is to increase the replay-ability of the game... that's their job to brainstorm ideas.
What I DON'T like seeing, are games that were obviously pumped out, and still charge full price for it. The backlash is you get people who don't trust buying new games.
I don't think EVERY game deserves a $60 price tag, but it's as though the game companies believe it HAS to be priced at $60. Why don't more games come out at $40? I DO expect games with huge development effort, to charge $60 (like AC).
The game industry has been driven WAY too much as a business, and not enough passion. Every game's development is based on the budget and anticipated profits. I'm not naive. I expect them to make a profit, but game companies use to love the games they were creating... and some still do, but there is sooo much junk in the market now, because it was good enough for a quick buck.
Thats what I think games are mainstream games are refusing to develop and evolve. You've got the AAA games which are archaic and based on ten years of the past, their mechanics and whatever. New people find them unfathomable boring, inaccesible, the existing audience know they've played them already, get fed up.
Not even with the DS and Wii type games can they figure out how to hold onto the audience. Its like the same old people are making the same old games over and over again, just adapting them slightly to what they think the audience wants.
There trying to throw out a ton of products at a high price and saturate the market, so they get a decent come back, but people cant buy them all at the prices they want.
The people whom play games are diminishing, I think its obvious, they are tiring, seeing through the vacousness of the products that are being delivered to them.
What i have gathered so far is... Free one time use DLC cards are great. (but shouldn't this make the game worth less too?)
Well, I avoided making a judgment call on the practice, myself. I was just pointing out that it's an action, an attempt to do something about the issue of used sales other than wring hands and mope. You need to either do as Vig says and put the screws to the middlemen pushing used, or take it to the consumer and give them a practical reason to choose new. It's not subtracting value from the game as a commodity if that DLC was always going to be paid DLC in the first place and all you're doing is handing out free tickets.
If you make a game longer or add multiplayer, you still aren't giving people a reason to buy new. Just a reason not to sell back. But you gotta face it, the marketing culture of the game industry is constantly focused on selling the Next Big Thing and the consumers do what they can to keep up. For many that means selling back all but their most cherished games -- and even those sometimes which they can buy back later. The most susceptible spot to sway the consumers on this issue is when they're deciding whether to get a new copy or a used copy. Trade-in stores give a price incentive to the used copy, so what can we do to add incentive to the new copy? Key word being add, since you will get much-deserved consumer backlash out of trying to remove incentive from the used copy.
So what you're saying is that epic and bungie are two money driven uncreative bunch of people?
And assassins creed?, this franchise has only been out for what, two major titles?
You're going to have to find better examples.
*sigh*
What I'm saying is, they were creative enough to create great games like Halo and AC, and because they were successful, they keep just adding to those franchises and nothing NEW is hitting the market. I'm fine with creating sequels to games, but that shouldn't be the only 'creativity' out of the company.
And AC has it's third one coming out shortly, so yes, it is a good example :P
I actually got into a conversation about this type of stuff with a friend not long ago. He was bitching about the fact that he bought Mass Effect 2 and DA: Origins from gamestop and felt he had been scammed out of the extra content. Personally, I think that the one time downloads are an awesome idea. It gives the user something special for making a point of buying new or paying the developers a fee. At the same time, I can only hope that any content delivered this was is "additional" content and not something that feels like "they sold me and ending."
Agreed... maybe overall it just takes providing some sort of 'extra' to reward the people purchasing it new. My view was to keep the new games from reaching the used market so quickly, but I also like the idea of encouraging the new purchases.
And I agree, the game itself should still remain as something you can sell/trade if you don't like/want it anymore, but just doesn't provide that 'freebie'. It should NOT be where the game comes on the disk, and the free DLC is a package of all the maps, where the next guy has to purchase the DLC to have a complete game.
What I'm saying is, they were creative enough to create great games like Halo and AC, and because they were successful, they keep just adding to those franchises and nothing NEW is hitting the market. I'm fine with creating sequels to games, but that shouldn't be the only 'creativity' out of the company.
And AC has it's third one coming out shortly, so yes, it is a good example :P
If a company creates a new sucessfull brand out of thin air, then they deserve the sales and the sequels they can make, and it's not like these games didn't add things to the sequels, they always try to add new things.
That and they do create new things, otherwise bungie wouldn't have got the idea to create halo, or epic the idea to create gears of war, or even assasins creed wouldn't have existed, oh and epic went to create shadow complex, there's alot of new things they do.
Bungie are moving on from halo now after reach to create something new.
Systemshock had a sequel, thief had a sequel, ultima spanned an entire 9 games, not counting the prequel, online games, underworld series and other additions.
And the end to this is, I do want this new halo reach, I do want gears of war 3, these are good game series, they deserve the money we pay them, what's so wrong with that?
I actually got into a conversation about this type of stuff with a friend not long ago. He was bitching about the fact that he bought Mass Effect 2 and DA: Origins from gamestop and felt he had been scammed out of the extra content.
Did you turn to him and say, "That's great! Now you know how the studio felt when you bought it used!"?
Consumers don't care how much games cost to make, or how much profit publishers rake in (and then dribble to developers), or not. In fact this whole argument about "not making enough money" is even more moot when put in the context of the likes of Activision earning a colossal $2+ billion for the entire MW franchise (the last game reportedly earned $1+ billion, the entire franchise before that release was already worth close to another $1 billion).. consumers see that and don't understand what's going on.
So the industry needs to be careful not to 'tax' and penalise consumers who may have already paid out (over the odds it would seem) for used games, for the sake of what is at bottom line, an increase in profit margins. The simply truth is that if publishers aren't making enough money they need to adjust their business models - which are universally failing in the digital age - this all just seems like the usual corporate knee-jerk reaction to loosing control over their income streams.
Its wrong when the extra money your paying doesnt actually go to the studio that makes the game, its also wrong when the price is artificially inflated, has nothing to do with costs or is immune to market forces, and is set at the highest arbitrary price that the publisher thinks they can get away with.
What's so horribly wrong with spending a bit extra to support the studio behind the game?
if it's not worth it, you can just wait a few months for the price to drop.
You've got to remember, consumers aren't thinking of the studios when they buy these games. They want to save their money any way they can. Remember, just like you, they had to work hard for that dollar too. Are you in the habit of passing up good deals, just so you can pay extra somewhere else, just so you can feel better about that store?
And again, I'm fine with sequels to games. What I'm saying is, that seems to be the only thing studios are releasing these days. Hell, IMO one of the games with the most sequels is Call of Duty, but I still buy and enjoy them. And I buy them new... but I'd still love to see something new/different.
For example, I think Little Big Planet was a very welcomed change from the norm. So was Guitar Hero. And look how those games were consumed by the market. People loved them because they were unique. Hell, LBP was still selling for full price up until the end of last year... and people were still buying it... NEW! Imagine that.
Activision's "Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock" game hit an important milestone this week- it became the first title in the history of gaming to gross over $1 billion in sales. According to GameDaily.com, Activision CEO Mike Griffith announce the milestone at International CES last week. Source
LittleBigPlanet is variously sourced to have sold approximately 3 million units Globally across several platforms (can't find any financials on LBP but you can bet it's made the best part of £50+ million).
So with these numbers what's actually going on here. Whose crying foul and in what earnings/financial context are they doing so.
You've got to remember, consumers aren't thinking of the studios when they buy these games. They want to save their money any way they can. Remember, just like you, they had to work hard for that dollar too. Are you in the habit of passing up good deals, just so you can pay extra somewhere else, just so you can feel better about that store?
And again, I'm fine with sequels to games. What I'm saying is, that seems to be the only thing studios are releasing these days. Hell, IMO one of the games with the most sequels is Call of Duty, but I still buy and enjoy them. And I buy them new... but I'd still love to see something new/different.
Call of duty one of the games with the most sequels?, you're not trying hard enough
For example, I think Little Big Planet was a very welcomed change from the norm. So was Guitar Hero. And look how those games were consumed by the market. People loved them because they were unique. Hell, LBP was still selling for full price up until the end of last year... and people were still buying it... NEW! Imagine that.
Guitar hero is a massive franchise now, much like how halo and call of duty is.
Little big planet might potentially become one, it's getting a sequel, I think it is a good example of how the industry is getting more creative.
Did you turn to him and say, "That's great! Now you know how the studio felt when you bought it used!"?
haha, something to that extent. The thing is I pointed out, is that gamestop charges a whopping $5 less for the used games he bought then if he would have bought them new. If he wanted the extra content at that point he had to pay an extra $10 out of pocket. It would have been cheaper for him to buy it new when you throw in these one time freebies.
I don't think for a minute that there is a way to completely remove gamestop or used game sales without going all digital or requiring registration of some kind. Sure it works pretty well with steam but quite frankly, I like to have a hard copy of most all games I buy. The way I look at it is we live in a capitalist free market.
You can bitch and moan about the fact that someone had the entrepreneurship to start a glamorized pawnshop like gamestop but that same "can do" attitude is more or less what opened the game studio you work at. The best thing I can think to do is create a way to make buying new a better option than buying it second hand, and the DLC one offs seem like a good start to me.
Something else to remember, which will probably make the used market eat up more, is that Walmart, Best Buy, and Toys R Us are getting into that market too.
I miss the old used market, the one where you'd look through dusty bins and find some ancient game that you never thought you'd find, those places are all mostly shut down, that's how I envision a positive used game market.
Yeah eld, when used games means over a year old then it's a none issue because it fills the void left by it no longer being produced. It's the super fast turn around that of new copy's to used copy's coupled with the push of used over new that's is the problem.
BTW I'm greatly put off by the fact that no one pointed out the fact that we were using the terms bigger, longer and harder with out making a dick joke.
When i get off work i'll try and post up the collected responses of the pros and cons of the different systems of getting games into the consumers hands.
I miss the old used market, the one where you'd look through dusty bins and find some ancient game that you never thought you'd find, those places are all mostly shut down, that's how I envision a positive used game market.
I remember being like 13...
"Oh shit, Monster Rancher! I've heard of this game."
That was back when the industry moved at the speed of printed media. Demo CD's meant something and people shopped the bargain bins for old gems because there wasn't anything new due out for months...
I have a closet full of old games they wouldn't give me a dime for, but good luck prying them out of my cold lifeless fingers! Someone is going to have a field day on ebay when I'm gone.
Yea, the old resale market was a thing of beauty. I remember seeing stuff like the JVC X-eye, Philips CD-I, and all sort of other less common systems and games. These days its so rare to find a store that sells the real old school stuff that its like Christmas when you do run across one. I miss digging through bins of old dusty games just to find those one or two gems no one else noticed
Ahhhh yes... that's how EB Games started, from what I remember. Before it was bought out by Gamestop. I always remembered the new games were new, and the old games were the games you couldn't find new anymore, and it was always an exciting treasure hunt to find something rare and awesome...
I still look at old PS2 racks and the like for things like that, but you won't find much. The good news is that EB/Gamestop is SO oblivious to how rare things are that if you found, say, Final Fantas 7 on PS, you could pick it up for $9.99. Alternately, if you wanted to trade it in, you'd probably get about 10 cents. But given that they don't make selling used rare games for more their business, rather just selling ANYTHING used, I don't think they really care.
I HAVE come across some video game stores that are the more classic style of carrying new stuff, some used stuff, and rare stuff that they KNOW is rare and price accordingly. Finding places like those still kinda makes me happy :P
Current system:
+Instant play off hard copy.
+/-Ability for resale.
-Only first sale supports developers.
-Fixed prices.
Current system options:
DLC
+Can keep the player playing for months after the main story is finished.
-Takes time and resources away from other games.
One time use cards DLC cards
+/-Reduces the incentive to buy used copies by diminishing the value.
-Requires the imputing of a code.
Multiplayer
+extends the replay-ability of games.
-Is not applicable for all games.
Registration system:
+Instant play off hard copy.
+Can be downloaded whenever and wherever is needed.
+Creates a second chance for developers to make money off used copys.
+/-Reduces the value at trade in.
-Requires a internet connection.
-Requires the imputing of a code.
-Fixed prices.
Digital distribution:
+No price lock, prices can be changed as needed.
+Can be downloaded whenever and wherever is needed.
+/-No ability for resale
-Requires internet connection.
-Have to wait to play.
Free to play:
+No cost to play.
+/-Things in game cost real money.
-No ability for resale of in game items.
-Requires a internet connection.
But that point would always be at the point of purchase, Steam is very resonable when it comes to offlining, such as when you drag your laptop or something away from the net, you can just pop into offline mode.
That and I forsee internet being so widely available in the future that it wont be an issue anymore.
I could possibly see more platforms going the steam route, that and I want steam to get on consoles.
You forgot to mention that depending on the service (steam/psn/xbl/etc.) the games can be locked to your system, so if the system fails you lose all your games. Nintendo does this. And from the sounds of it psn+ will lock them to your account, meaning if you stop paying for the service any games you've downloaded will stop working. For xbla I'm not sure if this is still true, but games used to be both account+hardware locked, so if your hardware failed and you got a new 360 you'd have to be online whenever you wanted to play your games from that point on.
Of course all of this pales in comparison to the fact that once the NEXT generation of systems starts up theirs no telling what will happen to all those games you bought. Will they all become hardware locked so they can be unloaded from the online systems servers? Will users need to purchase 'classic' emulation codes to run them on the new hardware as the old hardware stops being supported? Etc. No matter what system they go with, at some point your game library is going to become unusable, and the only way or you to play the games you purchased will be to pirate them.
You forgot to mention that depending on the service (steam/psn/xbl/etc.) the games can be locked to your system, so if the system fails you lose all your games.
You should probably remove steam from that list.
It's linked to your account not the hardware. Anywhere you can install steam and log-in you can download the games. You can create backup copies and you can play offline. Steam Cloud syncs your controls and custom settings, even your sprays and saved games carry over to any PC. You never lose your settings or saves even if you uninstall and delete all of the content from your machine.
I recently set up a new system and when it came to Steam I didn't have to do anything but install and log in.
If anyone is doing a service like this right, its Valve.
EDIT:
I'm also not being charged just to connect to steam.
If there is one core difference between Steam and XBL/PSN its that the user is responsible for the hardware. Which honestly, MS and Sonys current upgrade schedule and pricing for things like external drives and blows ass.
$130 for 250gb HD? I can get a faster 1TB drive for under $100.
$40 for a 8gb flash drive? $15 for the same thing in the next isle over.
The problem I see with a steam type system on consoles, is the storage space. I guess they ARE finally getting larger drives, but so are the games. I would hate to start juggling games on my system, because I didn't have room for all my purchased games.
And again, I don't care how 'common' people think the internet is becoming, there are still many conditions where people use game consoles, and don't have access to the internet.
A few examples: people use them in RVs and cars, while traveling. Consoles are often used for kids in hospitals (who probably wouldn't appreciate the bandwidth usage). Soldiers use them in remote areas, like Irag and Afghanistan. Not to mention, people who still can't afford a monthly internet bill, but manage to get a console as a gift.
So, even though it may work for me or you guys, downloading games, or requiring internet access, is not always an option for people. Even if Steam will let you play offline, you still need the access to have the game.
I have to say I am against registering games to be able to play, from a customers point of view...if I have to register a game, I won't buy it...simple as that. I am glad my console hasn't adopted that 'system' yet...or I'd have to stop playing...or start pirating...I don't want to wake up one day and not be able to play a game a bought years ago, because the publisher had to close its doors...
Games are not a service, they are a product...back in the days, when gaming was confined to Arcades, it was a service...you went there, and put some quarters into the machines for having fun...but then came home consoles and PC games ant turned games into products...you went into the store, got a game and you could say 'This is mine.' You have an actual physical thing to take home...(MMOs are an exception...they have never become products)...turning them back into a service is a bit odd...especially if you charge customers for it as if they were still products and make them look like products...you still go into the store to get the game, but it isn't yours anymore...you bought the license to rent it...also the videogame service is an open-ended one...it doesn't end like a car repair...it's similar to cable TV...and that means ongoing costs for the publisher...and that means ongoing costs for the customer...
Ahh man, I was hoping I could buy some used games by entering this thread!
Just Kidding... Good points all around really. Not sure if it was mentioned, but I would guess that due to the economy being shitty, people are trying to save money any way they can. In fact, games are a form of entertainment, where as other things like rent, food etc. come first. So the fact that people are still willing to buy games used or new says a lot I think. When things turn around in the near future I don't think this will be as big of an issue. Hopfully most companies in the game industry will be seeing record numbers. Fingers crossed!
That was actually one point I tried to touch on earlier. The people that WERE buying the new games, probably no longer have the money to do so. So, they have either switched to buying used, or they have stopped completely (leaving companies to find a scapegoat, ie; the used market).
I should also clarify (if I hadn't already), I hate seeing so many gaming companies close their doors lately, and I don't want to sound like I'm saying 'f those companies' when I make my points here. I really would like to find a way for the gaming companies to remain profitable, so they can make the epic games that I prefer.
I just don't like the idea of forcing the consumer to give these companies money, because their profits have dropped. Almost EVERY company has dropped because of this economy, and I don't see why gaming companies should be any different.
I work for an automotive supplier, and when car sales are down, so are my company's profits. The last two years, I have seen many friends/co-workers get laid of off from here as a result of people not buying cars. I don't blame the used car market.
Notman, I already have to uninstall games as it is on my xbox so the storage space thing is a non issue. And i don't think that anyone thought that you were anti developer. Your just helping to remind us of the real world, and i have to say thank you for doing that!
Piflik, So then you don't own any blizzard games? Registration should never be mandatory but should be worth it to do. The ability to download the game anywhere your logged in at seems worth it to me.
Ok now were bringing up allot of good points. I'll start listing all the things that are wanted from what ever system comes next.
Option to buy a hard copy.
Ability to play whenever and wherever.
Ability to play games even with out a internet connection.
Dynamic pricing*. (does not work with hard copies)
Ownership of games saved to account not system.
Ability to buy games online.
Ability to download games on any compatible system as many times as wanted. (only can be played from one location at a time.)
What else?
*The ability to change the price of a game as needed once its out. ALA steam sales. Hard copy's are sold at a cost to the store so the store needs to make back that cost. They can't change the new unit prices as needed because the price they paid for the unit has stayed the same.
Maybe you were getting at this, but sell hard copies (at whatever price), and offer a downloadable version at a discounted rate. The problem is, I don't think game companies will do that, despite the lack of packaging costs. It seems like they want it one way or the other, and full price no matter what.
Actually, I just thought of something else (based on the used car example). Maybe the game companies should get into the used game market themselves. If they had a buy back program that competed with Gamestop, then they'd be able to earn money new AND used. So, essentially, they could sell their own games twice.
Bullshit. Nearly every industry in the world can sustain itself with a used market but somehow games are special and need special rules to fight off the EVIL free market?
I disagree. There is a very clear economic reason why used games sales create a major problem for the industry. It's for that very reason that a tourist site or a movie theater does not allow visitors to resell their tickets to others once they leave.
The following three factors are at play:
1. Used copies are virtually identical to the new copies. Unlike for a car, furniture, or computer, the enjoyment and reliability isn't too different for a new and a used copy.
2. A number of people (3+) can enjoy a single copy of a game, by taking turns owning it over the useful life of the game.
3. Reselling a copy is not free of risk, cost, or annoyance (risk = at purchase time, you can't be sure you will be able to resell; cost = markup charged by stores or sites that allow you to resell; annoyance = time spent and the fact that you may want to play in the future).
Suppose a price that creates the biggest total value (utility) for both the buyers and the seller is $30 per person playing. But for many practical reasons, you have to price the game per copy (with resale rights) (which allows multiple persons to enjoy the game).
If every game was resold exactly twice, with no transaction costs, and with no inconvenience, there is no problem: you can achieve the same outcome by selling it at 3 x $30 = $90 per copy with resale rights.
But the vast majority of people would NOT buy at that price because of point 3 above. And selling at $30 per copy with resale rights is a lot less than $30 per person (since some people do resell their copy), so it also doesn't work.
In the end the seller chooses some price in between (say $40), but it's still quite painful: you lose many customers who don't want to resell and would have bought only at $30; and you still don't quite get the full $30 per person in cases when the game is resold.
The only way to avoid this problem is to price per person rather than per copy (e.g., with online registration). Or you have to live with this inefficiency of the existing market structure.
Replies
It could be the games just suck
Playing through every campaign? I've played WC3 for 100+ hours and barely done any of the single player.
I would say that for most it's they either hit some point where they don't want to play any more, or a new game takes them away. What i would love to know would be how long the average gamer will play a game of a type. How many people finish rented games, and how long on average they play different types of games.
With that said, all the stores on the consoles have a long way to go before they reach the steam level.
You want people to buy retail and not used for games with little to no replay value/multiplayer? Bring back these amazing bonus items.
And the pestilence that is DLC does not count!
I don't think adding multi-player to everything would help. If its tacked on and sucks, the majority of people won't play it and will return it.
So instead of cutting them out of the retail chain, (since I guess that isn't a popular option), how about delay their shipments so they get it a week after everyone else?
It would take a little longer to accumulate the trade in stock, and it might be long enough to get a few more new copies sold through some other retailers. In the mean time you can push digital distribution and the brick and mortar stores that only sell new. It could be pretty effective if they are able to price the new games about the same price as the used.
I don't see a nice guy approach to getting this done when they've already played the greedy bastard card?
If they really are cutting into profits, then we have something they desperately need to survive, which gives us leverage over them. If they won't play nice, put the screws to them, that's business. You're in it to make money not friends.
If you can be friends and make money in a mutually beneficial way great go for it, but when the deal turns lopsided, you can't be a doormat, but then you don't want to be aggressive and cut your legs off either.
I guess the question still remains, is the deal lopsided? I don't see any hard numbers anywhere, but that's probably because no one has done any public research. It has to be easier to pin down than piracy, but until there is hard evidence, we can only speculate.
When I reference multiplayer, I'm saying that it's ONE method they could use to make people hold on to these games. The point is to increase the replay-ability of the game... that's their job to brainstorm ideas.
What I DON'T like seeing, are games that were obviously pumped out, and still charge full price for it. The backlash is you get people who don't trust buying new games.
I don't think EVERY game deserves a $60 price tag, but it's as though the game companies believe it HAS to be priced at $60. Why don't more games come out at $40? I DO expect games with huge development effort, to charge $60 (like AC).
The game industry has been driven WAY too much as a business, and not enough passion. Every game's development is based on the budget and anticipated profits. I'm not naive. I expect them to make a profit, but game companies use to love the games they were creating... and some still do, but there is sooo much junk in the market now, because it was good enough for a quick buck.
And assassins creed?, this franchise has only been out for what, two major titles?
You're going to have to find better examples.
Thats what I think games are mainstream games are refusing to develop and evolve. You've got the AAA games which are archaic and based on ten years of the past, their mechanics and whatever. New people find them unfathomable boring, inaccesible, the existing audience know they've played them already, get fed up.
Not even with the DS and Wii type games can they figure out how to hold onto the audience. Its like the same old people are making the same old games over and over again, just adapting them slightly to what they think the audience wants.
There trying to throw out a ton of products at a high price and saturate the market, so they get a decent come back, but people cant buy them all at the prices they want.
The people whom play games are diminishing, I think its obvious, they are tiring, seeing through the vacousness of the products that are being delivered to them.
Well, I avoided making a judgment call on the practice, myself. I was just pointing out that it's an action, an attempt to do something about the issue of used sales other than wring hands and mope. You need to either do as Vig says and put the screws to the middlemen pushing used, or take it to the consumer and give them a practical reason to choose new. It's not subtracting value from the game as a commodity if that DLC was always going to be paid DLC in the first place and all you're doing is handing out free tickets.
If you make a game longer or add multiplayer, you still aren't giving people a reason to buy new. Just a reason not to sell back. But you gotta face it, the marketing culture of the game industry is constantly focused on selling the Next Big Thing and the consumers do what they can to keep up. For many that means selling back all but their most cherished games -- and even those sometimes which they can buy back later. The most susceptible spot to sway the consumers on this issue is when they're deciding whether to get a new copy or a used copy. Trade-in stores give a price incentive to the used copy, so what can we do to add incentive to the new copy? Key word being add, since you will get much-deserved consumer backlash out of trying to remove incentive from the used copy.
*sigh*
What I'm saying is, they were creative enough to create great games like Halo and AC, and because they were successful, they keep just adding to those franchises and nothing NEW is hitting the market. I'm fine with creating sequels to games, but that shouldn't be the only 'creativity' out of the company.
And AC has it's third one coming out shortly, so yes, it is a good example :P
And I agree, the game itself should still remain as something you can sell/trade if you don't like/want it anymore, but just doesn't provide that 'freebie'. It should NOT be where the game comes on the disk, and the free DLC is a package of all the maps, where the next guy has to purchase the DLC to have a complete game.
If a company creates a new sucessfull brand out of thin air, then they deserve the sales and the sequels they can make, and it's not like these games didn't add things to the sequels, they always try to add new things.
That and they do create new things, otherwise bungie wouldn't have got the idea to create halo, or epic the idea to create gears of war, or even assasins creed wouldn't have existed, oh and epic went to create shadow complex, there's alot of new things they do.
Bungie are moving on from halo now after reach to create something new.
Systemshock had a sequel, thief had a sequel, ultima spanned an entire 9 games, not counting the prequel, online games, underworld series and other additions.
And the end to this is, I do want this new halo reach, I do want gears of war 3, these are good game series, they deserve the money we pay them, what's so wrong with that?
Did you turn to him and say, "That's great! Now you know how the studio felt when you bought it used!"?
So the industry needs to be careful not to 'tax' and penalise consumers who may have already paid out (over the odds it would seem) for used games, for the sake of what is at bottom line, an increase in profit margins. The simply truth is that if publishers aren't making enough money they need to adjust their business models - which are universally failing in the digital age - this all just seems like the usual corporate knee-jerk reaction to loosing control over their income streams.
if it's not worth it, you can just wait a few months for the price to drop.
You've got to remember, consumers aren't thinking of the studios when they buy these games. They want to save their money any way they can. Remember, just like you, they had to work hard for that dollar too. Are you in the habit of passing up good deals, just so you can pay extra somewhere else, just so you can feel better about that store?
And again, I'm fine with sequels to games. What I'm saying is, that seems to be the only thing studios are releasing these days. Hell, IMO one of the games with the most sequels is Call of Duty, but I still buy and enjoy them. And I buy them new... but I'd still love to see something new/different.
For example, I think Little Big Planet was a very welcomed change from the norm. So was Guitar Hero. And look how those games were consumed by the market. People loved them because they were unique. Hell, LBP was still selling for full price up until the end of last year... and people were still buying it... NEW! Imagine that.
LittleBigPlanet is variously sourced to have sold approximately 3 million units Globally across several platforms (can't find any financials on LBP but you can bet it's made the best part of £50+ million).
So with these numbers what's actually going on here. Whose crying foul and in what earnings/financial context are they doing so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mario_games_by_year
Nintendo are the masters of everything that has to do with franchising and sequels.
haha, something to that extent. The thing is I pointed out, is that gamestop charges a whopping $5 less for the used games he bought then if he would have bought them new. If he wanted the extra content at that point he had to pay an extra $10 out of pocket. It would have been cheaper for him to buy it new when you throw in these one time freebies.
I don't think for a minute that there is a way to completely remove gamestop or used game sales without going all digital or requiring registration of some kind. Sure it works pretty well with steam but quite frankly, I like to have a hard copy of most all games I buy. The way I look at it is we live in a capitalist free market.
You can bitch and moan about the fact that someone had the entrepreneurship to start a glamorized pawnshop like gamestop but that same "can do" attitude is more or less what opened the game studio you work at. The best thing I can think to do is create a way to make buying new a better option than buying it second hand, and the DLC one offs seem like a good start to me.
BTW I'm greatly put off by the fact that no one pointed out the fact that we were using the terms bigger, longer and harder with out making a dick joke.
When i get off work i'll try and post up the collected responses of the pros and cons of the different systems of getting games into the consumers hands.
I remember being like 13...
"Oh shit, Monster Rancher! I've heard of this game."
And then nobody in my family ever saw a CD again.
That was back when the industry moved at the speed of printed media. Demo CD's meant something and people shopped the bargain bins for old gems because there wasn't anything new due out for months...
I have a closet full of old games they wouldn't give me a dime for, but good luck prying them out of my cold lifeless fingers! Someone is going to have a field day on ebay when I'm gone.
Ha monster rancher that's one of them.
I still look at old PS2 racks and the like for things like that, but you won't find much. The good news is that EB/Gamestop is SO oblivious to how rare things are that if you found, say, Final Fantas 7 on PS, you could pick it up for $9.99. Alternately, if you wanted to trade it in, you'd probably get about 10 cents. But given that they don't make selling used rare games for more their business, rather just selling ANYTHING used, I don't think they really care.
I HAVE come across some video game stores that are the more classic style of carrying new stuff, some used stuff, and rare stuff that they KNOW is rare and price accordingly. Finding places like those still kinda makes me happy :P
What i have so far is,
You can play as soon as you put it in.
You can trade it in when your done with it.
What would you say you wish was better about that system?
Current system:
+Instant play off hard copy.
+/-Ability for resale.
-Only first sale supports developers.
-Fixed prices.
Current system options:
DLC
+Can keep the player playing for months after the main story is finished.
-Takes time and resources away from other games.
One time use cards DLC cards
+/-Reduces the incentive to buy used copies by diminishing the value.
-Requires the imputing of a code.
Multiplayer
+extends the replay-ability of games.
-Is not applicable for all games.
Registration system:
+Instant play off hard copy.
+Can be downloaded whenever and wherever is needed.
+Creates a second chance for developers to make money off used copys.
+/-Reduces the value at trade in.
-Requires a internet connection.
-Requires the imputing of a code.
-Fixed prices.
Digital distribution:
+No price lock, prices can be changed as needed.
+Can be downloaded whenever and wherever is needed.
+/-No ability for resale
-Requires internet connection.
-Have to wait to play.
Free to play:
+No cost to play.
+/-Things in game cost real money.
-No ability for resale of in game items.
-Requires a internet connection.
And you should also mention not all digital distribution requires you to be online, aka steam.
So what bullet points did i forget? Because it would seem that there would have to be more that i forgot for the current system.
That and I forsee internet being so widely available in the future that it wont be an issue anymore.
I could possibly see more platforms going the steam route, that and I want steam to get on consoles.
Of course all of this pales in comparison to the fact that once the NEXT generation of systems starts up theirs no telling what will happen to all those games you bought. Will they all become hardware locked so they can be unloaded from the online systems servers? Will users need to purchase 'classic' emulation codes to run them on the new hardware as the old hardware stops being supported? Etc. No matter what system they go with, at some point your game library is going to become unusable, and the only way or you to play the games you purchased will be to pirate them.
It's linked to your account not the hardware. Anywhere you can install steam and log-in you can download the games. You can create backup copies and you can play offline. Steam Cloud syncs your controls and custom settings, even your sprays and saved games carry over to any PC. You never lose your settings or saves even if you uninstall and delete all of the content from your machine.
I recently set up a new system and when it came to Steam I didn't have to do anything but install and log in.
If anyone is doing a service like this right, its Valve.
EDIT:
I'm also not being charged just to connect to steam.
If there is one core difference between Steam and XBL/PSN its that the user is responsible for the hardware. Which honestly, MS and Sonys current upgrade schedule and pricing for things like external drives and blows ass.
$130 for 250gb HD? I can get a faster 1TB drive for under $100.
$40 for a 8gb flash drive? $15 for the same thing in the next isle over.
play anywhere, redownload unlimited times, easy backups, and crazy sales.
And again, I don't care how 'common' people think the internet is becoming, there are still many conditions where people use game consoles, and don't have access to the internet.
A few examples: people use them in RVs and cars, while traveling. Consoles are often used for kids in hospitals (who probably wouldn't appreciate the bandwidth usage). Soldiers use them in remote areas, like Irag and Afghanistan. Not to mention, people who still can't afford a monthly internet bill, but manage to get a console as a gift.
So, even though it may work for me or you guys, downloading games, or requiring internet access, is not always an option for people. Even if Steam will let you play offline, you still need the access to have the game.
Games are not a service, they are a product...back in the days, when gaming was confined to Arcades, it was a service...you went there, and put some quarters into the machines for having fun...but then came home consoles and PC games ant turned games into products...you went into the store, got a game and you could say 'This is mine.' You have an actual physical thing to take home...(MMOs are an exception...they have never become products)...turning them back into a service is a bit odd...especially if you charge customers for it as if they were still products and make them look like products...you still go into the store to get the game, but it isn't yours anymore...you bought the license to rent it...also the videogame service is an open-ended one...it doesn't end like a car repair...it's similar to cable TV...and that means ongoing costs for the publisher...and that means ongoing costs for the customer...
Just Kidding... Good points all around really. Not sure if it was mentioned, but I would guess that due to the economy being shitty, people are trying to save money any way they can. In fact, games are a form of entertainment, where as other things like rent, food etc. come first. So the fact that people are still willing to buy games used or new says a lot I think. When things turn around in the near future I don't think this will be as big of an issue. Hopfully most companies in the game industry will be seeing record numbers. Fingers crossed!
I should also clarify (if I hadn't already), I hate seeing so many gaming companies close their doors lately, and I don't want to sound like I'm saying 'f those companies' when I make my points here. I really would like to find a way for the gaming companies to remain profitable, so they can make the epic games that I prefer.
I just don't like the idea of forcing the consumer to give these companies money, because their profits have dropped. Almost EVERY company has dropped because of this economy, and I don't see why gaming companies should be any different.
I work for an automotive supplier, and when car sales are down, so are my company's profits. The last two years, I have seen many friends/co-workers get laid of off from here as a result of people not buying cars. I don't blame the used car market.
Piflik, So then you don't own any blizzard games? Registration should never be mandatory but should be worth it to do. The ability to download the game anywhere your logged in at seems worth it to me.
Ok now were bringing up allot of good points. I'll start listing all the things that are wanted from what ever system comes next.
Option to buy a hard copy.
Ability to play whenever and wherever.
Ability to play games even with out a internet connection.
Dynamic pricing*. (does not work with hard copies)
Ownership of games saved to account not system.
Ability to buy games online.
Ability to download games on any compatible system as many times as wanted. (only can be played from one location at a time.)
What else?
*The ability to change the price of a game as needed once its out. ALA steam sales. Hard copy's are sold at a cost to the store so the store needs to make back that cost. They can't change the new unit prices as needed because the price they paid for the unit has stayed the same.
I disagree. There is a very clear economic reason why used games sales create a major problem for the industry. It's for that very reason that a tourist site or a movie theater does not allow visitors to resell their tickets to others once they leave.
The following three factors are at play:
1. Used copies are virtually identical to the new copies. Unlike for a car, furniture, or computer, the enjoyment and reliability isn't too different for a new and a used copy.
2. A number of people (3+) can enjoy a single copy of a game, by taking turns owning it over the useful life of the game.
3. Reselling a copy is not free of risk, cost, or annoyance (risk = at purchase time, you can't be sure you will be able to resell; cost = markup charged by stores or sites that allow you to resell; annoyance = time spent and the fact that you may want to play in the future).
Suppose a price that creates the biggest total value (utility) for both the buyers and the seller is $30 per person playing. But for many practical reasons, you have to price the game per copy (with resale rights) (which allows multiple persons to enjoy the game).
If every game was resold exactly twice, with no transaction costs, and with no inconvenience, there is no problem: you can achieve the same outcome by selling it at 3 x $30 = $90 per copy with resale rights.
But the vast majority of people would NOT buy at that price because of point 3 above. And selling at $30 per copy with resale rights is a lot less than $30 per person (since some people do resell their copy), so it also doesn't work.
In the end the seller chooses some price in between (say $40), but it's still quite painful: you lose many customers who don't want to resell and would have bought only at $30; and you still don't quite get the full $30 per person in cases when the game is resold.
The only way to avoid this problem is to price per person rather than per copy (e.g., with online registration). Or you have to live with this inefficiency of the existing market structure.