Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

daedalus wrote:And if this isn't good enough, I could also just simply retort with "used bookstores didn't kill book publishing."

That's actually a pretty good point.

Platuan4th wrote:

And game companies should care about this WHY?

Vintage video gaming earns them no money and is a niche market. Companies need to look forward NOT backward.

And again, people buying vintage games are NOT customers of these companies.

Please, give me a real reasonable and logical(ie. not emotional or nostalgic) reason why vintage game players should be considered by companies making games.

Because if people looked ahead in time more than 15 minutes and didn't seem to be under the mentality that companies can force them to buy their products, then they might become selective and possibly even resentful of an industry looking to hamstring them in such a way. Also, because it will INCREASE piracy, not the other way around.

And again, used bookstores didn't kill book publishers.

daedalus wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

And game companies should care about this WHY?

Vintage video gaming earns them no money and is a niche market. Companies need to look forward NOT backward.

And again, people buying vintage games are NOT customers of these companies.

Please, give me a real reasonable and logical(ie. not emotional or nostalgic) reason why vintage game players should be considered by companies making games.

Because if people looked ahead in time more than 15 minutes and didn't seem to be under the mentality that companies can force them to buy their products, then they might become selective and possibly even resentful of an industry looking to hamstring them in such a way. Also, because it will INCREASE piracy, not the other way around.

No company is forcing us to buy their products. And the only people they're "hamstringing" are people who are choosing to be(especially since it's generally only $5-10 dollars more to buy new over used at places that resell). I actually do buy used and vintage/retro games, but I do so knowing that I'm at a disadvantage over new(the disc is lower quality due to use, the system may not be supported, I don't get the benefits of pre-orders or release offers, I lose out on the option to return defective product, etc.). This is just one more thing you need to learn and inform yourself on.

Also, I don't feel your used bookstore analogy really works, as the majority of books don't have a shelf life where they're published for 2-4 years then never printed again.

Grundz wrote:\There is, the difference being that one was willing to get the game, maybe, but got it used for whatever reason, price, sales pitch, some gamestop offer, whatever.

And the other was willing to break laws to get it. Either way, the developers get nothing from the sale (or lack thereof), so the distinction is unimportant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

daedalus wrote:And if this isn't good enough, I could also just simply retort with "used bookstores didn't kill book publishing."

That's actually a pretty good point.

No it isn't, it takes far more resources and capital to make even a five dollar indy game than it does a full length novel.

Melissia wrote:

Grundz wrote:\There is, the difference being that one was willing to get the game, maybe, but got it used for whatever reason, price, sales pitch, some gamestop offer, whatever.

And the other was willing to break laws to get it. Either way, the developers get nothing from the sale (or lack thereof), so the distinction is unimportant.

I'm sorry for telling you how it is, I'll let you wallow next time you make inaccurate sweeping generalizations on something I have in depth knowledge about, have a nice day.

Platuan4th wrote:
Also, I don't feel your used bookstore analogy really works, as the majority of books don't have a shelf life where they're published for 2-4 years then never printed again.

Which is all that much more reason why this kind of policy isn't good (for enthusiasts).

I'm picturing it now.

Old daedalus: You found a copy of RAGE and you're playing it now? (watch him play) Man, when I was younger, games were so much better.
icarus: Sure, dad.
Old daedalus: No, seriously, it WAS better.

Melissia wrote:lol, I have no problem with policies like this. The companies don't profit from used sales, so they have no reason to serve people who buy the game used equally compared to those who buy new.

Wolfun wrote:
This. The only reason why people don't like this, or project 10 dollar, is because they're cheap.

However, it's places like Gamestop (especially when I've heard they'll buy games for a few bucks and then try to sell them at $20) who are making all that money, not the people who made the game.

That's why I always buy new.

Polonius wrote:Digital content is one area where used sales really, really hurt producers.

If I buy a used car, I get less car than if I bought it new. If I buy a used 40k army, I have to put time and effort into fixing/setting it up.

If I buy a used video game... I've got the exact video game. There's no natural depreciation that encourages new sales. Computer game makers realized long ago that they need to put enough content into a game to make people actually buy it. There's little market for "used" computer games.

It seems to me that offering more content for the people that actually pay full price is a good way to encourage people to, well, pay full price.

As they say, "you get what you pay for."

This. Absolutely this. 100% agreed. If you guys don't like it, don't buy the game, theres no reason to complain otherwise, nobody is MAKING you buy the game, nor is this a product that you need to have.

Besides that, I don't understand why this is so shocking, game companies started doing this years ago (Battlefield Bad Company 2 is one of the first IIRC).

Grundz wrote:This is slightly different from just providing DLC to purchasing users on launch, they are just adding it on the front end instead of the back end, which is negative. instead of getting something new and exciting for buying it from XYZ , we are instead takings something away.

Not really. I have yet to seem content that is really part of the main game. In Rage for example, its 'sidequests' that people didn't even know of until they read the article linked in the first post. Its often extra gameplay modes, extra gear, weapons etc, that is nonessential to enjoying the game. If you want the EXTRA stuff, buy it at full price, if its not important to you, get it used. Since its clearly important to you have to have this extra stuff that isn't part of the main plotline, an integral part of the game, or a core gameplay element advertised as being in the game out of the box, you clearly DESIRE this extra content. You should therefore purchase it at its full price, since what you want is NOT INTEGRAL to the game.

daedalus wrote:I don't think I've ever sold a game, however, I don't like the secondhand market becoming crippled in such a way. Next time you walk into a vintage game shop, Slackers or whatever equivalent you might have around and you see that Nintendo 64 hanging on the wall, and you think to yourself "$42 and I could have two controllers, Goldeneye, two 40s of malt liquor, and fun for myself and a friend for the weekend? feth yes!", imagine now if they had some way of making it so that you couldn't play multiplayer if you hadn't originally bought the game yourself? How about if Smash Bros. only limited you to half the characters unless you bought it new? "No problem," you say, "I'll just buy the new copy, or I'll just send $5 to Nintendo to have them unbreak my game for me." Oh, wait, it's 10+ years old. You can't find it new, and even if you could, how do you know that the activation server is available still to bless your copy? It's effectively bit-rot. You see this a lot in computer gaming but with hardware no longer existing to run old software.

This is an illogical argument. The cost of a 10+ year old used game plus DLC will be CHEAPER than a new copy of the game...

And again, as other posters (and Penny Arcade) have stated, you are not a customer of the developer/publisher if you purchased used, why should they be interested in your opinion of their practice if you're not supporting them in any way.

Grundz wrote:I'm sorry for telling you how it is

Really, huh, where'd you do tha-- oh wait you didn't.

There's technical differences, but to the bottom line of the developer they're irrelevant. Kinda like the differences between being rejected from a job offer because you were underqualified, or being rejected because you're overqualified-- the difference, to the unemployed person, is unimportant, because they still don't have a goddamned job.

Melissia wrote:No it isn't, it takes far more resources and capital to make even a five dollar indy game than it does a full length novel.

And you generally charge more for even the lowest rent game than you do for the cheapest book. I can go to the dollar store and buy cheap information printed on bound paper. Sometimes even two sets for a dollar. It won't be very good, but it's there. At the same time, I can buy VERY good information printed on bound paper for $100+.

Perhaps games aren't being valued properly? Perhaps they do not produce an efficient amount of capital per the resources put in to them?

Hollywood manages to survive as well.

daedalus wrote:And you generally charge more for even the lowest rent game than you do for the cheapest book.

And the reason for this is becaaaaause....

Melissia wrote:[...] it takes far more resources and capital to make even a five dollar indy game than it does a full length novel.

And actually many books cost 20-30 USD for a ~350-400 page book. There's quite a few independent games that are cheaper than that despite taking more capital and investment to make than the book.

And if you're talking about AAA titles, well, those take millions of dollars and tons of investment to make on average.

Melissia wrote:
There's technical differences, but to the bottom line of the developer they're irrelevant.

How many developers do you know? have worked for? from what knowledge are you drawing this conclusion?

Grundz wrote:How many developers do you know?

Know in a general sense, not a personal sense? I've chatted with various developers from Kaos, Gas Powered Games, and Relic, as well as people from THQ, the producer for all of these developers.

Grundz wrote:from what knowledge are you drawing this conclusion?

Because that's pretty much the statements made by THQ and its various developers on the subject.

Exact quote from Cory Ledesma, THQ's creative director, is [link]:

"I don't think we really care whether used game buyers are upset because new game buyers get everything. So if used game buyers are upset they don't get the online feature set I don't really have much sympathy for them."

"That's a little blunt but we hope it doesn't disappoint people. We hope people understand that when the game's bought used we get cheated," he continued.

THQ (and likely most other producers and developers) doesn't really care what used game buyers think. They're not their customers, they didn't give any money to the producer/developer. The devs don't owe the buyers of used games anything, they only owe actual customers a good gaming experience.

daedalus wrote:

Melissia wrote:No it isn't, it takes far more resources and capital to make even a five dollar indy game than it does a full length novel.

And you generally charge more for even the lowest rent game than you do for the cheapest book. I can go to the dollar store and buy cheap information printed on bound paper. Sometimes even two sets for a dollar. It won't be very good, but it's there. At the same time, I can buy VERY good information printed on bound paper for $100+.

And also at the same time, you can buy VERY bad information(ie. self-published book or "urban fiction") for a surprising amount of money.

Grundz wrote:

Melissia wrote:
There's technical differences, but to the bottom line of the developer they're irrelevant.

How many developers do you know? have worked for? from what knowledge are you drawing this conclusion?

Plenty, and I can tell you that they don't give a flying feth.

chaos0xomega wrote:
This is an illogical argument. The cost of a 10+ year old used game plus DLC will be CHEAPER than a new copy of the game...

Indeed. So cheap it won't cost you a dime, because you won't be able to find it. You'll probably be able to find the game, sure. Where are you getting the DLC from? The company that stopped selling the game 10 years ago? They might have and offer it still.

Listen, I'm not pissed about the fact that the used guy has to pay still for it. I mean, I am, but that's not the drive behind my argument. I'm arguing that it just WON'T BE THERE. If there was a way to guarantee that the extra content, whatever it was, would exist in perpetuity somewhere for a flat fee, then great. But we're talking about what is effectively evaporating art here, and that's not cool.

daedalus wrote:Listen, I'm not pissed about the fact that the used guy has to pay still for it. I mean, I am, but that's not the drive behind my argument. I'm arguing that it just WON'T BE THERE.

Then you should start a thread bashing ALL DLC, rather than drag this one off topic with your hatred of DLC? Because ALL DLC will have this problem.

Melissia wrote:

daedalus wrote:And you generally charge more for even the lowest rent game than you do for the cheapest book.

And the reason for this is becaaaaause....

Melissia wrote:[...] it takes far more resources and capital to make even a five dollar indy game than it does a full length novel.

And actually many books cost 20-30 USD for a ~350-400 page book. There's quite a few independent games that are cheaper than that despite taking more capital and investment to make than the book.

And if you're talking about AAA titles, well, those take millions of dollars and tons of investment to make on average.

Fine. Now explain how Hollywood survives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

daedalus wrote:Listen, I'm not pissed about the fact that the used guy has to pay still for it. I mean, I am, but that's not the drive behind my argument. I'm arguing that it just WON'T BE THERE.

Then you should start a thread bashing ALL DLC, rather than drag this one off topic with your hatred of DLC? Because ALL DLC will have this problem.

Fair enough.

daedalus wrote:Fine. Now explain how Hollywood survives.

Through movie theaters, theatrical re-releases, special editions, extended editions, platinum editions, director's cut editions, special extended platinum director's cut editions, etc.

Used copies of games don't require extra servers, extra technical support or anything extra on the part of the developers or publishers. No extra resources are used by people selling on their used games. To the company that makes them there is no difference (other than a change in IP address) to denote one person having sold the game on to someone else.

DLC such as map packs, extra skins etc are things that will add money to the coffers without forcing you to buy an "online pass" or "core game content" if you buy second hand and are things that will, presumably, be bought by multiple people down the purchase chain. If I see a game that requires me to purchase extra passes etc if I get it second hand it is not getting bought.

They just want another slice of the pie. Price your games so they are not pushing £50 for a new title and/or actually give us a game that is worth the money and more people might buy new.

SilverMK2 wrote:They just want another slice of the pie.

And why shouldn't they get money from someone who is buying their game? There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Heck that's how royalties work in any other industry.

Someone buys the game, then sells it to gamestop, who sells it to another person, who then sells it to gamestop, who sells it to another person, who then sells it to gamestop, who sells it to another person, who then sells it to gamestop, who sells it to another person.

And despite five people having bought and played the game, the developers only got money from one of them.

Therefor to the developers, the four who bought used are not customers. They don't give a damn what those non-customers think. After all, they're not customers. They only care what the first one thinks. That's the only person they're responsible to, as that's the only person whose purchase resulted in them getting money.

Melissia wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:They just want another slice of the pie.

And why shouldn't they get money from someone who is buying their game? There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Heck that's how royalties work in any other industry.

It is not how it works in any other industry when people sell goods on. 2nd hand car dealers don't need to pay a percentage on to the manufacturer of the car when they sell on and buyers don't need to send a cheque to Ford when they buy a second hand Fiesta in order to get the radio to pick up more than classic FM. The majority of car manufactures seem to be more than happy to embrace the 2nd hand market by selling used cars right along side their new stock rather than try to kill it.

SilverMK2 wrote:It is not how it works in any other industry when people sell goods on.

And? Most other industries have other caveats that allow the manufacturers/developers/producers/etc to profit off of used markets.

And if you honestly think that the book industry doesn't absolutely loathe the used book market, you haven't paid much attention. They pass around fliers and put advertisements in their books asking people not to sell the book to a used book store, they practically go around BEGGING people to not buy used and instead to buy new. If book publishers could do what the gaming industry is doing right now, they would in a heartbeat, they'd do it so fast there'd be a fething dust cloud and trail right out of a Loony Toons cartoon behind them.

The only thing that's stopping them is that they basically physically can't because of the nature of their product.

SilverMK2 wrote:Used copies of games don't require extra servers, extra technical support or anything extra on the part of the developers or publishers. No extra resources are used by people selling on their used games. To the company that makes them there is no difference (other than a change in IP address) to denote one person having sold the game on to someone else.

We're not talking about Dave selling it to Joe.

We're talking about shops like GameStop which buy the games 'Like New'(usually only offering store credit or having a very specific '30 day' window where you can get 20% more for your sellback) and then resell them for almost retail prices, of which absolutely none of it goes to the developers.

DLC such as map packs, extra skins etc are things that will add money to the coffers without forcing you to buy an "online pass" or "core game content" if you buy second hand and are things that will, presumably, be bought by multiple people down the purchase chain. If I see a game that requires me to purchase extra passes etc if I get it second hand it is not getting bought.

Yes, it's annoying but the secondhand market is also becoming stupidly ludicrous for the companies which run them. Gamestop and EB Games make absurd amounts because people will buy a new game "Preowned" for $2 less than the retail price.

They just want another slice of the pie. Price your games so they are not pushing £50 for a new title and/or actually give us a game that is worth the money and more people might buy new.

Highly doubt that a price drop would do anything about it, to be frank.

Melissia wrote:

daedalus wrote:Fine. Now explain how Hollywood survives.

Through movie theaters, theatrical re-releases, special editions, extended editions, platinum editions, director's cut editions, special extended platinum director's cut editions, etc.

Absolutely, I have the special extended super rad shiny einsteinium copy of Starcraft 2 that came out. I thought about getting the one for Fallout 3 also, but I'm glad I opted for the normal edition of that. I've been kind of bummed because I haven't seen "The Complete Ultima Collection" come up in stores recently. I'm kind of concerned I might have missed out on my chance to buy that. Hopefully the EA Vault will rerelease it soon.

With the exception of movie theaters, those opportunities are all there (and, in some cases, being exercised). Not really sure what the analogue to theaters would be. Tournaments, maybe? I think those actually used to be kind of big in the 90s. Maybe the companies could drum up interest in their games and make a few bucks that way.

Mind you, I'm also paying on average two to five times the amount for a video game that I do for most movies.

Melissia wrote:

Grundz wrote:How many developers do you know?

Know in a general sense, not a personal sense? I've chatted with various developers from Kaos, Gas Powered Games, and Relic, as well as people from THQ, the producer for all of these developers.

Grundz wrote:from what knowledge are you drawing this conclusion?

Because that's pretty much the statements made by THQ and its various developers on the subject.

Exact quote from Cory Ledesma, THQ's creative director, is [link]:

"I don't think we really care whether used game buyers are upset because new game buyers get everything. So if used game buyers are upset they don't get the online feature set I don't really have much sympathy for them."

"That's a little blunt but we hope it doesn't disappoint people. We hope people understand that when the game's bought used we get cheated," he continued.

THQ (and likely most other producers and developers) doesn't really care what used game buyers think. They're not their customers, they didn't give any money to the producer/developer. The devs don't owe the buyers of used games anything, they only owe actual customers a good gaming experience.

You are correct, the CEO of the producing company saying that he has no sympathy for someone that buys a used game is the same thing as the developer creating changes to the product in question under the direction of marketing.
You win, or just can't/refuse to/ see the difference, or just like to argue to balloon your post count, or something, I'm not sure.

Melissia wrote:If book publishers could do what the gaming industry is doing right now, they would in a heartbeat, they'd do it so fast there'd be a fething dust cloud and trail right out of a Loony Toons cartoon behind them.

The only thing that's stopping them is that they basically physically can't because of the nature of their product.

Actually, they tried something vaguely similar once upon a time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbs-Merrill_Co._v._Straus

It was one of those rare flashes of insight that got us First Sale Doctrine.

They're still trying it, in fact, with the eBook markets.

daedalus wrote:Mind you, I'm also paying on average two to five times the amount for a video game that I do for most movies.

I'd say how much mroe I'm paying for games than movies, but I'd not want to have to divide by zero. I don't watch movies anymore... too expensive for so little entertainment value...

Melissia wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:It is not how it works in any other industry when people sell goods on.

And? Most other industries have other caveats that allow the manufacturers/developers/producers/etc to profit off of used markets.

And if you honestly think that the book industry doesn't absolutely loathe the used book market, you haven't paid much attention. They pass around fliers and put advertisements in their books asking people not to sell the book to a used book store, they practically go around BEGGING people to not buy used and instead to buy new. If book publishers could do what the gaming industry is doing right now, they would in a heartbeat, they'd do it so fast there'd be a fething dust cloud and trail right out of a Loony Toons cartoon behind them.

To borrow a phrase from you: And?

If we could stop people doing things we didn't want them doing just because we didn't want them doing it the world would probably explode. As I said initially - used games don't cost games companies any more - they don't need to invest in more servers, more coders or anything. In the same way that we all (well, most of us ) can see that GW is loosing sales by raising prices, games companies can learn a lot from reducing prices and selling more units new - but then there would be more copies in circulation so they would actually need to invest more money in supporting their game

They just want to grab even more money.

@ Kan - so, you don't have a problem with used games as such, you just have a problem with people making money from it? There is nothing stopping Rage and other developers setting up their own stores to sell second hand games. But then that would be a whole other expense for them and they just want to make money for free... kind of like the 2nd hand game stores... expect, you know, without any actual additional expenses...

Melissia wrote:They're still trying it, in fact, with the eBook markets.

daedalus wrote:Mind you, I'm also paying on average two to five times the amount for a video game that I do for most movies.

I'd say how much mroe I'm paying for games than movies, but I'd not want to have to divide by zero. I don't watch movies anymore... too expensive for so little entertainment value...

I do watch movies, but between Redbox($1 a movie) and Netflix(~$8 or 9 a month since I only use the streaming service) and only buying movies I REALLY want to own, the price is negligible.

Then again, I really only buy 2-3 video games on average a year. Last year was a fluke in that I bought nearly 7(including vintage games to replace some lost in Katrina) . However, I'm NOT including the 20 that came with the older thick style PS2 I bought, since I've only touched one(SOCOM II to make sure the system and controllers worked) to replace the one lost to same.

SilverMK2 wrote:To borrow a phrase from you: And?

And... my point is obviously that your counterpoint to my previous stated point is pointless and not actually a counter to my point..