Used Games = Piracy?

[Mannix]

There has been an interesting discussion happening at Penny Arcade (at least on the front page; I'd never cheat on you with another forum, baby) about used games and developers' use of codes to effectively disable features in used games. A few interesting points have been made: that from a developer's perspective used games are essentially the same as piracy as they never see a dime from either one and that when you buy anything used you pay less because there is increased risk of failure or decreased function and why should it be different than games. The counter argument is basically that people don't have a lot of money and need a cheap way to get stuff especially considering the $60 price point for most console games, also that finding a way to lower the price point would help get more people to buy new games more than removing functionality will.

I have to say that I agree that buying used games is essentially the same as piracy as far as the industry goes, but people are paying money to somebody so it isn't "as bad" to the average Capitalist American mind.
I disagree with them purposefully removing content as the increased risk factor comes in the form of disc scratches and other physical points of failure. The devs removing functionality would be like if car makers remotely made it impossible for the car to go faster than 20 miles per hour after the original owner sold the car.
And last, the decreased price point is why I game on PC exclusively and almost always only buy through Steam; the developers are getting my cash but there are always all kinds of crazy sales at some point on just about everything. (I personally think PC gaming is coming into something of a renaissance but that's another thread entirely).

I'm keen to hear what you guys think about this.

[Jagos]

*facepalm*

I grow so weary of the strawman argument that used games/piracy are killing the industry. Used games - Basically we have used games and physical mediums to back up said games. Be it a CD for PSX games or a memory card, $10, and a PSN game, people buy games they support. We are protected by the first sale doctrine that allows us to do whatever we want with a game. And there's various studies (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/technology/28scene.html?_r=1&ex=1280203200&en=33765024cbf62d4c&ei=5090&partner=techdirt&emc=rss) that show time (http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/08/drool-britannia-did-weak-copyright-laws-help-germany-outpace-the-united-kingdom.ars) and time (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/khan.copyright) again, if you let the developers/publishers get all they want, they'll jack the market price to monopolistic levels and people will have less to enjoy.

Right now, we have the PC, the PSN, Xbox's Live Arcade along with Wii minigames that have exclusive content. While I don't agree with distributing only to a harddrive that I can't back up without voiding the warranty, it's a great place to say that some games do fairly well on those platforms. Quite frankly, if more developers are focusing on the "used games means you aren't my friend anymore" then it means less to put into development. That's more anathema than one lost sale ever will be.

[Toast]

I have to say that I agree that buying used games is essentially the same as piracy as far as the industry goes, but people are paying money to somebody so it isn't "as bad" to the average Capitalist American mind.

Why is that? The game was paid for the first time. Any and every subsequent sale is really not the business of the industry. The developers, publishers, and primary retailers got their cut off the first sale of that product. Why should they be paid again for every time it changes hands? It's really no different whether you're talking about a game, a car, a book, or any other secondhand item.


I disagree with them purposefully removing content as the increased risk factor comes in the form of disc scratches and other physical points of failure. The devs removing functionality would be like if car makers remotely made it impossible for the car to go faster than 20 miles per hour after the original owner sold the car.
Same here. If the gaming industry wants to reduce the secondary market, maybe they could stop treating their customer base like criminals and quit packaging invasive and potentially damaging drm without the customer's permission. That issue aside, there are a host of other possibilities from making better, more innovative, games to better pricing and alternate business models.

[EVILNess]

On the topic of:
The counter argument is basically that people don't have a lot of money and need a cheap way to get stuff especially considering the $60 price point for most console games, also that finding a way to lower the price point would help get more people to buy new games more than removing functionality will.

Pay special attention to the bolded section.

The fact of the matter is that $60 is more or less arbitrary. Even if there are games that warrant such a tag, there are many more games that just don't. It's a price floor, it's what they know they can get away with selling a product for.

6 years ago it was $50 dollars. What happens is there are guys sitting in front of a computer and watching a line that says "Hey you can get away with selling the games for X amount of Dollars" When the current gen came out they said that increased costs would drive up the cost of games. That may have been true a few years ago, but COSTS GO DOWN OVER TIME. Guess what? We are still paying $60. Why? Cause they can charge us for it, and now that shit is seeping into the PC market as well.

Blargh.

[Yumil]

The industry is going the right way for the most part on this. They either cut off the free online functionality to used copies or they cut off free content updates(such as the Cereberus network in ME2).

This stuff is what they use a portion of the money they get from market to draw in more people down the line. They shouldnt make the game unplayable when sold used, but it's not like they shouldn't want money for things they've developed or funded after the disc.

[Kim]

I think I get what the PA guys are getting at with this. We are morally obligated to pirate any game we wouldn't buy new. That's a philosophy I can get behind!

[bluestarultor]

I don't even know why anyone cares about PA's opinion on this anymore. It's pretty obvious they have a poor understanding at best of what's going on.

Simply put, second-hand sales are NOT piracy and nobody treats them as such. The entire point of not giving away free features on second-hand games is to try to wring more pennies from second-hand buyers. Optionally. You don't NEED that stuff. It's DLC. Just giving it away free to first-hand purchases is supposed to encourage those, but it doesn't actually hurt anyone else. All it does is make people pay for stuff people normally would otherwise pay for.

[POS Industries]

Just a heads up, this is a perfectly great topic for debate if y'all want to keep an appropriately level head about it.

Discussions about controversies surrounding other PA comics are completely unrelated, however. If you'd like to discuss anything about that, you can start a different thread. If you want to get pissy about how they're treating the discussion of one subject you're mad about with more respect than another subject you're mad about in a big ol' logically fallacious comparison that has nothing to do with anything, try not to.

Thank you. You may continue.

[RobinStarwing]

I think the Industry Argument is stupid. It's half the reason I am not in any rush to switch out my DS-Lite, PS2, or original X-box right now for anything new...too expensive.

I am happy buying used and if I do buy new...it's because I did my research to find out if the game is worth that money. I also wait till the prices have come down enough on them to make it worth getting.

[BitVyper]

Selling the original copy of a game does not make that game freely available to anyone who wants to download it. It's selling a single piece of physical property that you own. It's no different from selling anything else. That this can be equated with piracy seems like pretty clear evidence that the companies are getting way out of hand anti-piracy stance.

Digital piracy can potentially be considered an infringement on the company's rights because it's copying a product and then distributing it for free to anyone on the planet who wants it. Selling your used games is not that. It's not even selling an equivalent product to the new ones because the disk/cartridge will not be in perfect condition, boxes will be damaged, manuals and artbooks will be missing, etc etc...

If you were to copy the game and then sell it, that might be a different thing, although I'm generally more inclined to say fuck'em since that's a relatively tiny thing compared to say, making it available through Bittorrent.

Once again, I am glad I stay away from anything on PA but the comic.

[bluestarultor]

Selling the original copy of a game does not make that game freely available to anyone who wants to download it. It's selling a single piece of physical property that you own. It's no different from selling anything else. That this can be equated with piracy seems like pretty clear evidence that the companies are getting way out of hand anti-piracy stance.

If you were to copy the game and then sell it, that might be a different thing, although I'm generally more inclined to say fuck'em since that's a relatively tiny thing compared to say, making it available through Bittorrent.


The thing is that this:
That this can be equated with piracy seems like pretty clear evidence that the companies are getting way out of hand anti-piracy stance.

IS NOT THE CASE.

I don't know how to stress that. The industry DOESN'T equate second-hand sales to piracy. They're just not giving away DLC for free. They're not making you pay to make the game function. The idea that the industry is thinking the way PA thinks they're thinking is nothing short of stupid.

[Specterbane]

Well I'm no developer, but I don't see how content should be denied to second hand purchasing, especially if it's free to begin with. People might compare this to things like buying used cars or books, but that analogy fails because when you're talking about digital information it doesn't have the same kind of "shelf-life" as a physical car. What possible reason should the industry deserve a cut of the change of hands for a game when they've already had their cut.

Let's play out what happens here: Bobby buys game X and finds out game X was not what he was looking for or gets bored with it. Bobby decides he no longer wants game X and will no longer play it, but his friend Suzy enjoyed it and would still like it. Suzy gives Bobby $5.00 for said game. So now Suzy owns game X and Bobby can no longer play game X, assuming Suzy does still play game X, there is no change in the gamer base for game X (in so far as the numbers are concerned)

With Bobby relinquishing all his rights to game X to Suzy for $5.00, I don't see any reason Suzy should be denied anything Bobby would have gotten for game X given that it has merely changed hands.

Now should Bobby change his mind and play game X without trying to regain his rights, he's pirating from the industry and should be caught. But that's a different issue from used games.

Now this doesn't even account for games that are no longer in print. But if Xenogears becomes illegal contraband I can't imagine what kind of price it's going to fetch after that.

[bluestarultor]

It's not being denied. They're just making you pay for it like normal. Let me explain how this really works.


What they're doing is trying to encourage people to buy original by giving away free extras by including codes. That's just what it all is: extras. It's DLC. You can pay for it later as a second-hand owner. That makes it no different than any other DLC. The fact that they give it to original buyers (or whoever first uses the codes) free is just being nice. The fact that anyone else has to pay for it is standard.


See, what PA is playing on is the backwards logic of the entitled. Rather than saying how nice it is that it's possible to get the DLC free, as a gift for buying the game first-hand, they've focused on trying to make people outraged that they have to pay for things that by all means they'd normally have to pay for.


In short, PA doesn't have a clue what they're talking about and basic logic shows that. DLC is something people normally expect to pay for, but PA has somehow, intentionally or unintentionally, missed that.

[Specterbane]

What they're doing is trying to encourage people to buy original by giving away free extras by including codes. That's just what it all is: extras. It's DLC. You can pay for it later as a second-hand owner. That makes it no different than any other DLC. The fact that they give it to original buyers (or whoever first uses the codes) free is just being nice. The fact that anyone else has to pay for it is standard.

Well no argument that PA screwed the pooch on an explanation (for as much as "Tycho" loves to parade around his writing ability it's never very sensible to most people). But a counter argument can still be made for why it's wrong to deny a second hand buyer anything a first hand buyer would get.

I'm taking the stand point that what the first hand buyer is selling to the second hand buyer is not simply the physical material but also the rights attached to that material. Again, the industry has gotten their cut of the first hand sale so why should someone buying second hand be penalized when the first hand buyer is no longer using the game?

To me this ultimately seems like the industry being greedy and telling gamestop (and the like) to screw itself for making money by being a middle man with used games (which they do make a ton with the outrageous mark-ups, that's a separate topic to me).

[bluestarultor]

Well no argument that PA screwed the pooch on an explanation (for as much as "Tycho" loves to parade around his writing ability it's never very sensible to most people). But a counter argument can still be made for why it's wrong to deny a second hand buyer anything a first hand buyer would get.

I'm taking the stand point that what the first hand buyer is selling to the second hand buyer is not simply the physical material but also the rights attached to that material. Again, the industry has gotten their cut of the first hand sale so why should someone buying second hand be penalized when the first hand buyer is no longer using the game?

To me this ultimately seems like the industry being greedy and telling gamestop (and the like) to screw itself for making money by being a middle man with used games (which they do make a ton with the outrageous mark-ups, that's a separate topic to me).

I think you're missing the point of what a gift is. See, they don't have to give ANYONE free DLC. They're doing it as a marketing tactic.

Find a way to transfer the DLC onto something the new owner can take and I'm pretty sure you're home free.



Let me give an example of this. You buy a pair of shoes from the store and get a second pair free. Then you sell the original pair of shoes to someone else and keep the free pair. The new person cannot go to the shoe store and demand a free pair of shoes.

This is something we accept as normal. It's the same basic idea at work here. You want a second pair of shoes, you go buy your own second pair of shoes.

[RobinStarwing]

I think you're missing the point of what a gift is. See, they don't have to give ANYONE free DLC. They're doing it as a marketing tactic.

Find a way to transfer the DLC onto something the new owner can take and I'm pretty sure you're home free.



Let me give an example of this. You buy a pair of shoes from the store and get a second pair free. Then you sell the original pair of shoes to someone else and keep the free pair. The new person cannot go to the shoe store and demand a free pair of shoes.

This is something we accept as normal. It's the same basic idea at work here. You want a second pair of shoes, you go buy it yourself.

What if you only want to buy one shoe? That discriminates against all people with a pegleg!

In seriousness...there will always be ways around the DLC stuff.

[bluestarultor]

What if you only want to buy one shoe? That discriminates against all people with a pegleg!

In seriousness...there will always be ways around this block.

Well, yes, you can either get the second pair of shoes from the original owner, or steal a pair of shoes from the store if you're not willing to pay for them. Those are called data transfer and piracy.

The point is that you don't NEED the DLC, so it's not punishing anyone the way anti-piracy tactics try to.

[Tev]

Maybe I just don't play enough new games but I have a question about this whole thing.

Say I have a game installed on my computer and it has been registered and such. The I get a new computer and/or in the case of say Blizzard, for the sake of an example, lose my Battle.net password and have to make a new account. Would the game treat me like a new and secondary owner and refuse me download-able content? And if not......why?

[bluestarultor]

Maybe I just don't play enough new games but I have a question about this whole thing.

Say I have a game installed on my computer and it has been registered and such. The I get a new computer and/or in the case of say Blizzard, for the sake of an example, lose my Battle.net password and have to make a new account. Would the game treat me like a new and secondary owner and refuse me download-able content? And if not......why?

That really depends on the system and how it's determined. In the case of both a new machine AND a new account, you're fucked no matter what system they use, though.

[Odjn]

The game company owns the content they produce. I own the disc on which they put the content onto. I can do anything I want with that disc because the disc belongs to me. The car industry has the same problem. They get over it. So should you, game industry.

[bluestarultor]

The game company owns the content they produce. I own the disc on which they put the content onto. I can do anything I want with that disc because the disc belongs to me. The car industry has the same problem. They get over it. So should you, game industry.

Yes, but the DLC isn't on the disc. ;)


Edit: I guess I shouldn't be so flippant about it, but as I said, I doubt they'd actually prevent you from transferring the DLC if there's an actual means of doing it, and by the same logic, the DLC is on their servers, and again, not necessary. They're not preventing you from playing the game. They're just making you actually pay for the extras as per normal. Nobody is being stopped from getting the extras. It's just a matter of companies choosing to waive the fee if you have codes that come with the game. The fee is the normal aspect. Waiving it is the special one.

[phil_]

blues, you know that the thing they wrote this comic about is a code that locks people out of online play, right? Like, if you don't buy the game new, you can never play online? 'Cause it seems like you don't know that.

[bluestarultor]

blues, you know that the thing they wrote this comic about is a code that locks people out of online play, right? Like, if you don't buy the game new, you can never play online? 'Cause it seems like you don't know that.

I'll admit that, no, I didn't read the article, as there was no link and I don't read PA. Can you pay to unlock it? And if not, why is anyone paying for the game? Sounds like something good to boycott.

In short, info-hunting time on my part. I was under the impression people were bitching about free DLC, and I guess I got it wrong. Be back in a bit. ;)


EDIT:

LINK TIME!

http://www.geekosystem.com/thq-punishes-used-game-buyers/

Okay, so here's the deal. It's a WWE wrestling title, which doesn't really need the online. (In fact, did any of them even have online stuff before? Honest question.) Also, by paying $10, you not only can unlock the online bits, but also get a full DLC pack. The original announcement was made by a guy with less than a silver tongue, but the creative director isn't paid to be smooth.

It's not the best setup, but it's not quite as bad as I was personally thinking based on the info I was given.


In short, it's not "never" and the online comes with a bunch of shiny new stuff when you buy it, so it's not great, but it could be worse.

[phil_]

Not to sound bitchy, but, yeah, you really should read the articles you're arguing about. (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=261330) If you read a bit deeper, you can see that second-hand buyers can play online once for $10 (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=261275), but that's pretty awful.

However, this is for a wrestling game, so it's hardly Halo.

[bluestarultor]

Not to sound bitchy, but, yeah, you really should read the articles you're arguing about. (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=261330) If you read a bit deeper, you can see that second-hand buyers can play online once for $10 (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=261275), but that's pretty awful.

However, this is for a wrestling game, so it's hardly Halo.

This is why people are generally encouraged to post links and snippets of what they're actually talking about.

I DID read the first post, but it didn't mention any specifics and I was operating under the assumption that people were all talking about what it sounded like, which they weren't.

Also, I did some quick research and made an edit, in case you missed it. ;)

Just to reiterate, the $10 also nets them the full first DLC pack, so it's not to just play online. Playing online comes with new shiny objects.



Edit: Actually, upon reflection, this doesn't change things at all. The guys who buy the game get a free online play code like other people would get free guns in a shooter. Buying the ability to play online actually nets you more than you otherwise would have started with. The real question becomes how much of the $10 the original owners would have to pay to get the same DLC pack. If it's $10, you get a discount on the items, or very charitably get the online portion free anyway.

Sadly, there doesn't seem to be a price on the DLC items alone that I can find.

I'll admit it's still kind of shaky, but it seems they realized that and are doing their best to make up for it without backpedaling and losing face.

[Yumil]

Like I said earlier, if it uses their servers, aka they are paying for it, it's perfectly fine for them to charge a one time cost for it. But, it's been a free part of the franchise for at least 2 titles(my roommate has 09 and 10...let's not get into that), so I can understand the outrage.

Basically, they use some of their money made from the game sells to further the game in both content and bandwidth. A player who gets bored with the game will stop using bandwidth. A player who buys said game from the bored player will start using bandwidth, but the entity paying for the bandwidth does not get a cut of this used sell. It's fair to charge for anything that is outside the game disc.

[Jagos]

Maybe I just don't play enough new games but I have a question about this whole thing.

Say I have a game installed on my computer and it has been registered and such. The I get a new computer and/or in the case of say Blizzard, for the sake of an example, lose my Battle.net password and have to make a new account. Would the game treat me like a new and secondary owner and refuse me download-able content? And if not......why?

This came up recently on another forum that I visit:

Guy lost his code for Starcraft 1. Calls Blizzard to get it re-registered since he has since lost the comp that he played it on.

Blizzard wanted him to send the CD and all materials PLUS $10 to get a code when he had already bought it full price the first time around.

So yes, game companies bone you when they can.

Basically, they use some of their money made from the game sells to further the game in both content and bandwidth. A player who gets bored with the game will stop using bandwidth. A player who buys said game from the bored player will start using bandwidth, but the entity paying for the bandwidth does not get a cut of this used sell. It's fair to charge for anything that is outside the game disc.

Somehow, I have a thought that bandwidth is getting cheaper every year and more and more companies are just finding ways to pad their bottom lines rather than actually, ya know... Do work.

[bluestarultor]

I was under the impression bandwidth costs were rising. :sweatdrop

Or is that server costs?

[Krylo]

When the current gen came out they said that increased costs would drive up the cost of games. That may have been true a few years ago, but COSTS GO DOWN OVER TIME. Guess what? We are still paying $60. Why? Cause they can charge us for it, and now that shit is seeping into the PC market as well.

Please look up the cost of producing video games today versus last generation... and the generation before... and the generation before, etc.

ALSO: the worth of money changes, particularly during times of economic crisis.

ALSO AGAIN: Costs don't go down on NEW things. The consoles aren't new, and the costs have gone down. Games that came out when they consoles were new have had their prices go down. New games, however, are still new. They are going to cost the full price point.

I'm really not sure what part of the economic model, exactly, you don't understand, but I know you don't because 'PRICES GO DOWN OVER TIME' doesn't apply at all to newly produced video games.

Any more than it's a reason that theaters should cost less, or new blu-ray movies should take a dive in costs.

You aren't paying for the cost of manufacturing the CD--which does go down--you're paying for the three million dollars worth of man hours that go into producing new games, which, short of us hitting the technological singularity all of a sudden, isn't going to be reduced by new technology any time soon.

I think I get what the PA guys are getting at with this. We are morally obligated to pirate any game we wouldn't buy new. That's a philosophy I can get behind!

Well I don't know if the devs or PA guys are saying that, but I'm going to. Because everything I've heard about EB or Gamestop or basically any other used game store that's not some ma and pa place in the middle of nowhere is that they are fucking evil monster corporations that fuck everyone they can as hard as they can.

And really, if you wouldn't buy it new, you aren't supporting the devs ANYWAY, so yeah. Go ahead and pirate.

Well I'm no developer, but I don't see how content should be denied to second hand purchasing, especially if it's free to begin with. People might compare this to things like buying used cars or books, but that analogy fails because when you're talking about digital information it doesn't have the same kind of "shelf-life" as a physical car. What possible reason should the industry deserve a cut of the change of hands for a game when they've already had their cut.

If you want to compare it to a new car, let's actually make the argument a thing that's feasible.

You buy a new car and they give you a bottle of oil, which'll probably last the car around a year before needing to be changed.

You sell the car a year later, there's no reason a car company should send the new owner a bottle of oil for free. The car company hasn't gotten anything from the new owner.

The same goes for online play and DLCs.

The game company produces DLCs after producing the game. They are things that the company is doing for THEIR customers. In so much as used game buyers are SOMEONE'S customers, they are not the customers of the game company itself. As such, a game company has no prerogative to send the new owners nice things that they have made since.

Online play is the same way. When you log onto an online game of Halo you are sitting on Microsoft's servers, using Microsoft's bandwith, and Microsoft's hardware. If you didn't buy the game from Microsoft, and Microsoft doesn't charge you for online access (which they do through Live gold, but that's just MS, not THQ, whom are actually putting in the online code), then Microsoft isn't getting paid for the usage of their hardware and bandwidth.

Charging used game owners a one time fee to access their hardware and bandwidth allows them to be paid for it.

When you buy a used game and go online you're costing a developer money without actually giving them anything.

here is no change in the gamer base for game X (in so far as the numbers are concerned)And?

The gamer base doesn't matter to most game devs. They don't give a shit if there are three people or three million people playing the game. They only care about how many people bought the game first hand in the first place. They aren't getting monthly fees, just the one time fee.

Just like the people who sell fans don't give a shit if there are thirty million people using their fans at right this moment, so long as thirty million people bought them in the first place.

The only time the gamer base for game x matters is when game x = MMORPG.



The game company owns the content they produce. I own the disc on which they put the content onto. I can do anything I want with that disc because the disc belongs to me. The car industry has the same problem. They get over it. So should you, game industry.

DLC and online play aren't on the disc. This argument has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion of what developers are actually doing.

That discriminates against all people with a pegleg!
Well of course it does. The industry hates pirates.

[Amake]

Remember when Nintendo had "authorized second hand dealers"? I wonder what happened to that. And why the stores still pay the same pittance for used games, if not even less, as when they had to cut the producers in on the profits. I mean, I assumed they still did that until I read the comic.

[Jagos]

I was under the impression bandwidth costs were rising. :sweatdrop

Or is that server costs?

Bandwidth continues to fall (http://gigaom.com/2008/10/07/wholesale-internet-bandwidth-prices-keep-falling/)

The networks are already established. While they do have to be maintained, that's more a fixed cost. Additional linkage (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/get-ready-for-metered-broadband-texas.ars). Makes sense that bandwidth costs less as more people are put onto broadband networks.

Server costs have their own challenges however. With servers, you need not only maintenance, but you also need air conditioning (dissipate heat) and more efficient parts that can stand all of the work needed. Then there's updating and upgrading those dern things...

Regardless, broadband being what it is, it's highly negligible that either of these two price points aren't already calculated in the money received from a game.

[Fifthfiend]

Jerry Holkins makes a very good argument, in the universe where people who buy one of a company's games used would never buy one of that company's games new in the future. In this universe, he's a dumbass.

And it's nice that he has friends in the video game industry and that he's willing to listen sympathetically to their views that they're entitled to all the money in the universe, but that doesn't actually mean that buying used goods is any less legitimate than it's been in the whole history of buying any kind of non-perishable product or that it's any less douchey to artificially rig games to break because too many people enjoyed them.

logically fallacious

Nope.

EDIT: So this is what that tweet was about? Ugh.

[Krylo]

Jerry Holkins makes a very good argument, in the universe where people who buy one of a company's games used would never buy one of that company's games new in the future. In this universe, he's [is] a dumbass.
Agreed.

artificially rig games to break because too many people enjoyed them.But that's not what's happening. What is happening is that Devs are saying you can't have anything that's not actually on the disk without giving them money.

Online play isn't on the disk. It's on a server someplace else. Extra DLC content isn't on the disk. It's on a server someplace else.

Now if they started not shipping the whole game so that you couldn't use it at all without buying it new, or so that parts of the game that shouldn't require connecting to their servers don't work/aren't there, or altered their EULA to make it illegal to transfer ownership of your software license that'd be a different argument.

They aren't doing any of that, though. They're more or less just saying, 'if you want the extra things on our servers you have to pay us for them.'

[POS Industries]

Nope.
Yep. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_spite)

Agreed.
Yeah, I mean, I don't know how one can actually manage to find a way to state an opinion on something so utterly boring and unimportant as this and cause a huge fucking uproar over it like we have here, but man did he ever.

[Fifthfiend]

But that's not what's happening. What is happening is that Devs are saying you can't have anything that's not actually on the disk without giving them money.

Online play isn't on the disk. It's on a server someplace else. Extra DLC content isn't on the disk. It's on a server someplace else.

Now if they started not shipping the whole game so that you couldn't use it at all without buying it new, or so that parts of the game that shouldn't require connecting to their servers don't work/aren't there, or altered their EULA to make it illegal to transfer ownership of your software license that'd be a different argument.

They aren't doing any of that, though. They're more or less just saying, 'if you want the extra things on our servers you have to pay us for them.'

Doesn't really change what I said though. Regardless of whether all the game is on the disc, or half is on the disc and half is on the server, or whatever, they're still breaking that game at the point of exchange, it's still douchey, and justifying it on the basis that "we get cheated" by used markets is extra-specially douchey in that way people become once they've decided they're entitled to all the money in the world.

EDIT: And really the server distinction doesn't mean a lot cause it's not like the music industry didn't lose it over used CD sales in the 90s. And games publishers aren't supporting any more than the same copy of that game than they would be if the original buyer had happened to keep it. All servers change is that they create a reliable way of nuking paid-for product by remote, fulfilling the promise of every executive who ever dreamed of DVDs that would just stop working whenever the publisher decided it wanted you to buy another one.

[Krylo]

Doesn't really change what I said though. Regardless of whether all the game is on the disc, or half is on the disc and half is on the server, or whatever, they're still breaking that game at the point of exchange, it's still doucheyWould it be more or less douchey to just require everyone, initial customer or not, to pay a fee to access their online servers that cost them real dollars?

Also, would it be more or less douchey to give only original customers like, really shitty t-shirts that no one wants and an artbook no one cares about, instead of mostly useless DLC content?

Making your 'extra free goodies bag' digital content that can be purchased by those who don't get it is no better or worse than making it a bunch of real life stuff that can be purchased from their online store/catalog/whatever if you really want it.

and justifying it on the basis that "we get cheated" by used markets is extra-specially douchey in that way people become once they've decided they're entitled to all the money in the world.The THQ guy should never be allowed to talk to the press, this is true, however:

You do realize that used games is actually an entire business that is built entirely upon fucking its customers right? Like, ok, even if I were to agree that it's douchey to not enable free online/give free DLC to rebuys, that still means that THQ is like, "Hey guys, we're going to screw you a little bit but also provide you with (apparently) quality entertainment while we do it," while Gamestop is pretty much just all, "Hey guys we're going to fuck you. Hard. And then we're going to fuck you a little more."

You have one market that is trying to get as much money as possible out of what they produce here, while another market is paying you five bucks for a game they had nothing to do with which they turn around and sell for fifteen dollars, except they aren't really giving you five dollars. They're giving you five dollars of in store credit. So really they aren't giving you anything at all, because they know they've basically trapped you into coming back and spending more of your money with them. The only thing they've give anything to is themselves, all while stealing ten of your dollars you could have gotten if you had just sold it directly to the consumer. A 2-300% mark up is ridiculous.

And while they're fucking you they don't even have the good conscience to treat their employers like anything but shit.

Like I said in my first post, it's more ethical for you to just pirate a game than buy it used. As an added bonus, the pirated version will probably already have the DLC/Online Play/whatever else cracked.

EDIT: And really the server distinction doesn't mean a lot cause it's not like the music industry didn't lose it over used CD sales in the 90s. And games publishers aren't supporting any more than the same copy of that game than they would be if the original buyer had happened to keep it. All servers change is that they create a reliable way of nuking paid-for product by remote, fulfilling the promise of every executive who ever dreamed of DVDs that would just stop working whenever the publisher decided it wanted you to buy another one. So your argument is basically that all DLC should have already been included on the disk, basically?

I mean I'll agree there are some companies that definitely release shit on DLC that should have been there in the first place (*coughactivisioncough*), but I don't think it's a valid criticism of DLC as a whole.

Edit: or are you arguing against like Ubisofts bullshit DRM thing where you had to have your single player game connect to the internet every so often? Because that is complete and utter bullshit, but not really connected, even vaguely, to what we're discussing here.

[Specterbane]

Well the general point I've been trying to drive at is that any content has been paid for or given away already by the person who was using it. It should be theirs to do with as they please. If they want to sell it with the game I think they should be able to.

If you want to relate DLC in games to cars then you don't relate it to a can of oil cause that's standard maintenance for a car. Instead you relate it to a stereo or a spoiler that was installed after purchase, because it's not needed for the function of the car but it is a part of the car now that it's been installed and is factored into the sale and re-purchase price.

I can't see how the industry can say this hurts them when if the game never changes hands they'd never see another dime anyway. To me DLC has been incorporated into the game if purchased and should stick with the game. However infeasible that may be in practice, that's my thinking from more of an ethics stand point (that it's wrong to want to be paid twice for something that is simply changing users).

Now, would I pay for DLC on a used game when the original buyer didn't have to? Sure why not, it's $10. That doesn't mean I have to like doing it, I'm just willing to pay that for it.

[Kim]

Providing bonus stuff for buying the game new, or pre-ordering it, is fine by me. Atlus does it all the time. It's why I've got this totally bitchin' Persona 4 art book thing. Getting some of the DLC free, or anything like that, is also a totally cool way to encourage people to buy new.

PA's latest stupidity frustrates me because I'm poor. I literally can not afford to buy every single game that looks remotely interesting. I suspect this isn't much of a problem for them, which would explain the gaping logic gaps in their argument. Plus, if I buy new every game that might possibly maybe be good, I'll inevitably end up supporting bad games.

From my perspective, this means that I should only buy games that I know will be worth the money, and come from companies that I want to support. If I didn't rent or buy used, I generally wouldn't be buying the game at all. My budget wouldn't allow it. Either way, the developers don't get any money, so what does it matter?

Treating it like it's no different than pirating, especially after they've thrown a corn field's worth of strawmen at anyone who argues in favor of pirating under any circumstances whatsoever, is kinda offensive. Treating renting/buying used like it's morally reprehensible to begin with is, too.

I mean, I'm trying to think of a way to explain all this better, but I don't really need to. Pretty much everything wrong with what they said should be readily apparent, and this is just another instance of them having their heads up their asses.

[bluestarultor]

Providing bonus stuff for buying the game new, or pre-ordering it, is fine by me. Atlus does it all the time. It's why I've got this totally bitchin' Persona 4 art book thing. Getting some of the DLC free, or anything like that, is also a totally cool way to encourage people to buy new.

PA's latest stupidity frustrates me because I'm poor. I literally can not afford to buy every single game that looks remotely interesting. I suspect this isn't much of a problem for them, which would explain the gaping logic gaps in their argument. Plus, if I buy new every game that might possibly maybe be good, I'll inevitably end up supporting bad games.

From my perspective, this means that I should only buy games that I know will be worth the money, and come from companies that I want to support. If I didn't rent or buy used, I generally wouldn't be buying the game at all. My budget wouldn't allow it. Either way, the developers don't get any money, so what does it matter?

Treating it like it's no different than pirating, especially after they've thrown a corn field's worth of strawmen at anyone who argues in favor of pirating under any circumstances whatsoever, is kinda offensive. Treating renting/buying used like it's morally reprehensible to begin with is, too.

I mean, I'm trying to think of a way to explain all this better, but I don't really need to. Pretty much everything wrong with what they said should be readily apparent, and this is just another instance of them having their heads up their asses.

No worries. I already had it covered pages ago. ;)

I don't even know why anyone cares about PA's opinion on this anymore. It's pretty obvious they have a poor understanding at best of what's going on.

Simply put, second-hand sales are NOT piracy and nobody treats them as such. The entire point of not giving away free features on second-hand games is to try to wring more pennies from second-hand buyers. Optionally. You don't NEED that stuff. It's DLC. Just giving it away free to first-hand purchases is supposed to encourage those, but it doesn't actually hurt anyone else. All it does is make people pay for stuff people normally would otherwise pay for.

It's not being denied. They're just making you pay for it like normal. Let me explain how this really works.


What they're doing is trying to encourage people to buy original by giving away free extras by including codes. That's just what it all is: extras. It's DLC. You can pay for it later as a second-hand owner. That makes it no different than any other DLC. The fact that they give it to original buyers (or whoever first uses the codes) free is just being nice. The fact that anyone else has to pay for it is standard.


See, what PA is playing on is the backwards logic of the entitled. Rather than saying how nice it is that it's possible to get the DLC free, as a gift for buying the game first-hand, they've focused on trying to make people outraged that they have to pay for things that by all means they'd normally have to pay for.


In short, PA doesn't have a clue what they're talking about and basic logic shows that. DLC is something people normally expect to pay for, but PA has somehow, intentionally or unintentionally, missed that.

[Eldezar]

Does TF2 function without DLC.

[bluestarultor]

Does TF2 function without DLC.

Yes. Steam and updates don't count as DLC.

[Eldezar]

Oh, I always considered DLC to include updates and patches to a game. So I guess you are talking more along the lines of The Engineer Update vs. the OSX Represent Earbuds?

[bluestarultor]

Oh, I always considered DLC to include updates and patches to a game. So I guess you are talking more along the lines of The Engineer Update vs. the OSX Represent Earbuds?

Sort of, but more like the difference between the Engie update and going out and buying a super-special wrench for $5 that doesn't get randomly dropped.

That's the point of DLC is that it's a system whereby you get special items via microtransactions.

[krogothwolf]

Can some explain to me the difference between buying used games, garage sales and ebay? Seriously, If you purchase anything from a garage sales or ebay you're doing the same thing as buying used games aren't you? You're giving money to someone else for a product they didn't have make but bought and are now done with. Or Pawn Shops/Used Book Stores/Salvation Army Places. Honestly, I don't understand why everyone keeps putting Games in a category of their own when compared to other products.

I have no problem buying a game used, I also have no problem with them having stupid DLC in a new game for "free" but charging for it if you bought used. So having 8 maps on the game disk then 8 maps DLC for free if you bought it new, or at a price if bought used I don't see a problem with this at all. Limiting functionality of it though I would have a problem with, like charging someone who bought it used to pay money before they can play it online I don't agree with.

[Donomni]

There is no difference whatsoever between buying used and buying it from a garage sale/ebay, except that you end up supporting a middle-man like Gamestop more instead of the previous owner directly.

The reason Vidja Games are somehow considered separate from most other media has been stated before: The games industry still wants everyone to buy new games, but doesn't(or rather, won't) understand people can't always pay out the ass for a new game without giving something else up... like food, or medicine, or cooling or heating and electric. They'll wise up eventually, but it's a matter of when, not how.

As for all these extra charges: Well, I understand DLC as an incentive, but online multiplayer is normally a key feature in games, and the feature in some of them. Not including that simply because someone bought it used is a bit of a ripoff.

[krogothwolf]

I didn't say not include multiplayer, I did say that is ridiculous if they did that. I said I could understand not including some maps.

I don't care about how to greedy industry feels about it, I can't understand how bloggers/comic book writers/other people feel so divided on this. It's pretty cut and dry for every other form of medium so why do they put video games in a different light. It's hard to listen to someones argument knowing that more then likely they have no qualms about buying something else used but go "USED VIDEO GAMES BAD!"

Sorry, if I see a game for 60 bucks new that I'm iffy on getting, I won't buy it, if I see it used for much cheaper I'll get it. I really don't care about Gamestop giving me "store credit." It's not like I'm not buying video games ever again and the credit is going to waste. I buy 1 game month, 2 if I get decent enough trade in value from played games. Removing that means I will buy less games new and used.

[BitVyper]

I don't know how to stress that. The industry DOESN'T equate second-hand sales to piracy. They're just not giving away DLC for free. They're not making you pay to make the game function. The idea that the industry is thinking the way PA thinks they're thinking is nothing short of stupid.

The actions of developers seem to indicate that they feel they have a right to limit the access of secondhand users. I am aware of your opinion that this is not the case or that it's justified; although I'm not exactly sure where free DLC comes into it, as getting a secondhand game doesn't confer any DLC as far as I'm aware. If it's a special edition game, or something where that copy specifically has access to certain content, then as long as no copies are being made, I'm not sure where the issue would be.

Jumping on my comments with giant bold allcaps and responding to other people smugly with emoticons is not actually making me anymore likely to consider the things you say in the future. In fact it's got me thinking I ought to just filter out everything you say.

[Nique]

I can't believe this is even a debate at all. If I buy a used desk am I STEALING from the desk manufacturer?

The answer is emphatically no, and also that any apologies or justification for any industry person holding such a whining 'me first' opinion are wrong. The game has been bought and they have made their money. End of story. If buying new was the only option then guess what? I wouldn't be playing those games.

[Yumil]

Here's the thing. They aren't destroying the used game market, they aren't really trying to. They are just trying to get back some money with the tactics of charging for online play(requires entities outside the disk) and dlc(requires data outside the disk).

Theres a reason why MMO's require a monthly fee(or an adequate micro-transaction model) as it's expensive to continue to maintain and update old products. Patches that fix vital parts of the game should be free(as in the Backbreaker patch which actually has made the game playable), but anything extra should have a charge.

We've been getting free online play for a long time, perhaps they've started seeing a dip in their products as used copies proliferate their userbase. We don't have all the data, but I can see where they calculate the time one copy would use their resources and have that all included in the price. In that case, any additional transfer would significantly alter the profitability of that price they calculated for one household to have the one disc. One can't charge the first owner for the 10 people who are going to use it used in a daisy chain of transactions. This is where this model comes in.

In Smackdowns case they feel that $10 is what a single household will use on average with online play before they get bored and stop using it. It's included in the original price, but since it's an ongoing cost to Smackdown, it's not transferable like the disc.

If we were comparing cars, it'd be like the dealership giving you a 5 year subscription to satellite radio with the purchase of a new car and the person buying it getting pissed off to find that the subscription is nontransferable. You got it for free when buying the car, heck there is still a couple years left on your subscription, but they'd have to subscribe themselves to get the satellite radio.

EDIT: Generally one rents a game to play the single player. It sucks if you want to test online first before you buy it(perhaps they should have some sort of trial for each individual machine), but the main reason is still there. This method may not work on primarily online games(Shooters for the most part), but works on ones that had proved profitable before their online modes were introduced.

[Krylo]

although I'm not exactly sure where free DLC comes into it, as getting a secondhand game doesn't confer any DLC
True, but:
http://masseffect.bioware.com/info/cerberus/

Buying them first hand sometimes does. The second hand users apparently don't like this kind of business model wherein they have to buy the DLC while the first hand users don't.

The online multiplayer thing is the same exact issue, except for the things Yumil pointed out vis a vis gamers just being used to getting it for free.

I can't believe this is even a debate at all. If I buy a used desk am I STEALING from the desk manufacturer?

The answer is emphatically no, and also that any apologies or justification for any industry person holding such a whining 'me first' opinion are wrong. The game has been bought and they have made their money. End of story. If buying new was the only option then guess what? I wouldn't be playing those games.No one who isn't a raging moron is saying that it is theft.

What they are saying is that limiting second hand user access to online play or DLC that comes free to first hand users is no different than, well:

it'd be like the dealership giving you a 5 year subscription to satellite radio with the purchase of a new car and the person buying it getting pissed off to find that the subscription is nontransferable.

Speaking of, that's a great analogy. The last time I bought a car satellite radio wasn't even a thing, so I was really having trouble coming up with something close, but this is basically it right here.

[Jagos]

Here's the thing. They aren't destroying the used game market, they aren't really trying to. They are just trying to get back some money with the tactics of charging for online play(requires entities outside the disk) and dlc(requires data outside the disk).


Get back? They made the money the first time. Just because they feel entitled to a used gamer's money doesn't necessarily make it so.


Theres a reason why MMO's require a monthly fee(or an adequate micro-transaction model) as it's expensive to continue to maintain and update old products. Patches that fix vital parts of the game should be free(as in the Backbreaker patch which actually has made the game playable), but anything extra should have a charge.

Odd... DFO is free along with DnD Online (3D). DnD Online did rather well considering the fact that it was once considered a WoW killer. Nowadays, it does well by selling more content online. All of that money goes into maintaining the game. But if there IS a way to not have a monthly fee, people can usually find it.

We've been getting free online play for a long time, perhaps they've started seeing a dip in their products as used copies proliferate their userbase. We don't have all the data, but I can see where they calculate the time one copy would use their resources and have that all included in the price. In that case, any additional transfer would significantly alter the profitability of that price they calculated for one household to have the one disc. One can't charge the first owner for the 10 people who are going to use it used in a daisy chain of transactions. This is where this model comes in.

I'm calling shenanigans. The used gamers add TO the database, not take from it. Think about if ONLY new gamers were allowed to be in a game. Now imagine that some children buy the game four months later from Gamestop.

How exactly is that a bad thing? Now that they've effectively taken that option away, what's probably going to happen is more people turn in the game out of frustration and it limits their market. Basically THQ just stabbed themselves in the foot without realizing that they're hemorrhaging yet.

In Smackdowns case they feel that $10 is what a single household will use on average with online play before they get bored and stop using it. It's included in the original price, but since it's an ongoing cost to Smackdown, it's not transferable like the disc.

And again, I'll say that it's a fixed cost. The only thing that may be negotiable is the server but that can't be THAT expensive compared to other costs of gaming.


EDIT: Generally one rents a game to play the single player. It sucks if you want to test online first before you buy it(perhaps they should have some sort of trial for each individual machine), but the main reason is still there. This method may not work on primarily online games(Shooters for the most part), but works on ones that had proved profitable before their online modes were introduced.

Yep, so they've effectively gimped Gamefly, Gamestop, and anyone else holding these games. Oh, and those codes? $10 per person per rental...

They've just helped them make MORE money!

[Krylo]

Jagos--In every part you quoted Yumil was talking about server costs.

They're getting back the money they spend on server maintenance and bandwidth. He never talked about increasing the number of users in the database, he said they were possibly seeing a dip in profits due to a combination of server maintenance and used copies proliferating.

Further, server costs aren't a fixed cost, nor is bandwidth. It must be maintained and paid for by someone, and a used game buyer isn't contributing toward that cost, even as they use the server.

ALSO: DFO and DDO use microtransitions. It's 'free to play' but they still charge their players. Unless you're recommending that THQ present microtransistions to pay for their servers, that whole paragraph makes no sense.

You seem to have completely misunderstood everything he was saying.

[Yumil]

I will admit that I didn't type up what I was saying very well. The part he misconstrued about players in the database is very hard to read at the start.

Basically, they calculate the cost and how long they think the average buyer will play the game online. They put that towards the purchase. Used games are outside this calculation. They are merely trying to fix a drip. They earn a profit either way, but they earn more this way and it's actually fair to ask money for it as it's a cost they have for the life of the game.

[Jagos]

What I'm saying is that perhaps there are better ways than gimping their game to the detriment of the used game market.

By charging for online play, it makes the game seem less valuable (if the customer knows that) because A) they might have a defective copy or B) they might not know about the $10 code that they're not used to doing. This may effectively split the market for the game maker's game. Also, less people will rent the game because of this split. One of two things could occur for Gamefly or other rental/used game stores. Add the $10 code to the price or warn people about this online disconnect. So again, this limits their market.

My stance is more or less that they'll have even more unintended consequences of 1) making the used game market stronger against this specific deal or 2) causing people to shop elsewhere for this niche game.

In regards to the server costs, I would need to see their numbers for the last 2 games to say that they're doing better or worse. This may be more an experiment on how people may shy away from this game because the DRM/DLC might be too confusing to some.

[Yumil]

My proposed solution would be to add a system to give a free trial to each individual console.

Like, record the MAC address and give them 10 days and explain to them that they either need to input their code that comes with the game or if they bought it used to purchase the online functionality.

[Nique]

No one who isn't a raging moron is saying that it is theft.

But morons who people listen to are unfortunately. Hence my mild ragepost.

As far as DLC and subscription services... Look as long as I'm being sold a complete game right off the bat, whatever. If they want to give freebies as an incentive (and not actually remove something crucial and "give" it to new buyers) to purchase a title new, well that's already done to some degree. Tycho's post though isn't talking solely about online games or DLC, unfortunately, and pretty well pissed me off.

[Specterbane]

Ultimately it seems like the developers have adopted the mind set of "if you're not with us you're against us" and don't want to allow the customer the right to get back some of the money they paid when they're done with it. To me that's the whole point of selling a used game.

If I'd never heard anything about taking away online multi-player I doubt I ever would've given it much though. Because at that point it's not much different than offering a nifty special gun as an incentive to pre-order customers, just extended to all new buyers now as well.

Did anyone ever ask the question of what happens when someone buys a game in new condition but months later on the back stock?

[krogothwolf]

Did anyone ever ask the question of what happens when someone buys a game in new condition but months later on the back stock?

Anything New gets shipped with a slip in it with a code. Regardless of whether its "old" if it's New all products get shipped the same.

That's another grumble. Video Games don't really drop in price as they age while the console they are on is "current generation" they generally stick at the $60 price point for 2 years. It doesn't really make sense to me that they do this to be honest.

I do agree with the "issue trail code" for multiplayer for used/rental copies though. I can live with that.

[Viridis]

More PA Words (http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/27/room-481/):
It turns out that used games are a tremendously controversial issue. Part of the reason response to the comic and post has been so massive is that (aside from our inflammatory presentation) this conversation has been a long time coming. The thing for the commentariat to do about this issue typically is to carve out as populist a stance as possible, to cluck and tut tut about it so as to ingratiate themselves to you as much as possible, and then follow up by posting a picture of a belt buckle. That strikes me as a bit precious.
Because this is the Internet, every argument was spun in a centrifuge instantly and reduced down into two wholly enraged, radically incompatible contingents, as opposed to the natural gradient which human beings actually occupy.
People who buy used games are not pirates, by definition. Used games (used everything, really) are and will continue to be a legal and protected form of commerce. Other industries have done what they can to co-opt, destroy, or harvest those markets, but their existence is settled law. What I have said is that the end result of that purchase from a developer perspective must be indistinguishable. Isn't it? That is the question I couldn't answer. I still can't answer it. And because I couldn't, I had to change the way I invested my leisure dollar.
People want to talk about used cars, or libraries, or any other thing really, but I'm not talking about the universe in general - I'm talking about the tiny part of it I have any control over. That bit up there is the part I can't resolve: the moral dimension contained within the purchase. Yes, I'm giving somebody money when I buy used. Is that sufficient? What is the end result, and what systems am I sustaining by doing so?
I'd rather not think about things like this, believe me. I'd rather be Mr. Perpetual Good Times, but I'm not built that way. On the whole, I'd say thinking has been a tremendous inconvenience.
(CW)TB
please don't insist

[bluestarultor]

More PA Words (http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/27/room-481/):

Those are... words, alright. I can't figure out if they actually say anything meaningful, though.

[Kim]

I think the best thing I heard about this I heard on Twitter.

Nothing as precious as a rich dude lecturing about the ethics of Capitalism

[Fifthfiend]

The more this goes on the more I'm waiting for Jerry Holkins to literally transform into John Galt.

[Hanuman]

Remember kiddies, never reduce, reuse or recycle.
It's unethical.

[Fifthfiend]

I don't know how to stress that. The industry DOESN'T equate second-hand sales to piracy. They're just not giving away DLC for free. They're not making you pay to make the game function. The idea that the industry is thinking the way PA thinks they're thinking is nothing short of stupid.

Except for Cory Ledesma, creative director for THQ, who specifically says that used buyers are cheating them and that additional content is a reward to original buyers for their loyalty, which is what started this whole thing.

But hey thanks for callin' me stupid.

Speaking of, that's a great analogy.

It's a great analogy in that the person buying the used car would be completely right to be pissed off that the satellite subscription was nontransferrable, which would be ridiculous.

[bluestarultor]

Except for Cory Ledesma, creative director for THQ, who specifically says that used buyers are cheating them and that additional content is a reward to original buyers for their loyalty, which is what started this whole thing.

But hey thanks for callin' me stupid.

Creative director isn't paid to be smooth, for one, and for two, if you'd read the article I posted, there's a guy also from THQ who says they'll be including a full DLC pack with the online play because he wants second-hand buyers to feel like they're getting more than a "get out of jail" card.

Aside from that, feeling cheated isn't the same as calling it piracy, which he specifically didn't do when he spoke on the issue. I read the quote. Piracy is something entirely distinct from that and the second-hand market is NOT being treated the same, or else you'd have to pay a fee to play the actual game, rather than unlock the online content, which in a wrestling game is frankly not all that important.

In short, what I said wasn't wrong. Maybe unnecessarily confrontational, but not wrong.

[Fifthfiend]

Aside from that, feeling cheated isn't the same as calling it piracy

It actually is the same in every meaningful substantive sense which relates to this issue.

But I mean you're right they are different words, with syllables and letters and everything.

But you certainly did link to THQ's post-facto damage control, which means... nothing whatsoever, because it's post-facto damage control.

Yep. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_spite)

That's not even the right logical fallacy to wrongly accuse people of in relation to what you were talking about, and is pretty much just an amazing non sequitur.

[bluestarultor]

It actually is the same in every meaningful substantive sense which relates to this issue.

But I mean you're right they are different words, with syllables and letters and everything.

But you certainly did link to THQ's post-facto damage control, which means... nothing whatsoever, because it's post-facto damage control.

I'll give that to you.



On the other hand, I think we can agree that disabling online portions of the game is not a very good anti-piracy measure. Given that doing so is much like refusing to put a cherry on a banana split and therefore does not serve as much of a deterrent.

There is a difference between combating piracy and rewarding original purchases. Both deal with the company's profits, yes, but both are treated distinctly.

The goal of anti-piracy measures is to attempt to make the game unplayable for the pirates. Removing online functionality in a largely single-player game doesn't serve that. If they'd been going anti-piracy, they would have disabled one's ability to play the game entirely. With consoles being online now, this isn't actually all that hard. It just hasn't been all that necessary.

Rewarding an original purchase is a much better fit to the current situation. The game is still playable, but original buyers get something more, which second-hand buyers have to buy separately. That's exactly what's going on here. The only difference in this case, ignoring the DLC pack, is that rather than shiny items being in the mix, it's a shiny extra mode of play. Yeah, it's been in there in previous iterations, but the same rules apply. The online play in this case is no different than any other DLC. People just got up in arms because it's stuff that hadn't been DLC before.



In short, the online mode is no different from any other free DLC that publishers include in first-hand purchases. The only reason anyone is complaining is because they don't see it for what it is and have come to expect it to not be treated as DLC from previous titles.

This is not to stop piracy in any way, shape, or form, regardless of how one interprets the guy's words.

[Yumil]

In short, the online mode is no different from any other free DLC that publishers include in first-hand purchases. The only reason anyone is complaining is because they don't see it for what it is and have come to expect it to not be treated as DLC from previous titles.


People hate Online modes being treated as DLC for any game, regardless if previous titles in the series did not have it. I mean, look at all the crying with Resident Evil 5's versus multiplayer. People expect online multiplayer to be free, and it's slowly not going to be.

[Kim]

The problem was more that RE5's versus multiplayer was already on the disc and that Capcom was making them pay to unlock it.

[bluestarultor]

People hate Online modes being treated as DLC for any game, regardless if previous titles in the series did not have it. I mean, look at all the crying with Resident Evil 5's versus multiplayer. People expect online multiplayer to be free, and it's slowly not going to be.

That's a fair point. Most online services are subscription-based and/or rely on micro-transactions. We may eventually see a new model emerge with a lump sum setup if this continues.

I think that would be really interesting for the indie market, myself included. We've already seen the lump-sum-and-subscriptions setup with the likes of Everquest (at least in the sense that you buy it on a CD; I've never played, but my brother bought the disc), but it might be interesting to combine the lump sum approach with micro-transactions, instead.

[Nique]

Hey if they REALLY want to sucker me into buying games new, gimme some tangible collectible without raising the already insane price point. And I don't mean %^&*ing PSP Decals.

[bluestarultor]

Hey if they REALLY want to sucker me into buying games new, gimme some tangible collectible without raising the already insane price point. And I don't mean %^&*ing PSP Decals.

But then it would be harder to sucker people into pre-ordering or buying collector's editions!

[Yumil]

The problem was more that RE5's versus multiplayer was already on the disc and that Capcom was making them pay to unlock it.
The Smackdown is probably the same, but it's just the client code that is on the disc, not the full functionality.

[Nique]

But then it would be harder to sucker people into pre-ordering or buying collector's editions!

10 years in the future developers complain 'Consumers not preordering our games and buying the extra special bundle are both metaphorically and literally stealing the food from the mouths of my children! the horror!'

[Aldurin]

This . . . I need to find these threads before they grow almost beyond keeping track.

All the gaming industry should care is to the point where someone buys the game new and helps the company toward the millions that they make with the specific game, then start making a new one, rinse and repeat. They already got their profit out of the manufacturers cost of the game disc and case.

And with the DLCs, what whining there is should stop. A person buys a DLC for a game in the same way person might buy a trailer for their truck. They intend to have the trailer for the purpose of using in conjunction with the truck and expect to not be able to tow the trailer if they sell the truck. (I know this isn't an exact analogy as you can sell the trailer with the truck if you care but the point is you know you will stop using it.)

The gaming industry can actually do better off with DLCs than the actual disc as the secondhand owners of the game will have to pay for the DLC for the same price the first owner did, making it possible for DLC sales to exceed the disc sales. And that's money to them.

The the secondhand owner shouldn't whine because the option of paying for extra content is not denying you extra features, but rather making an opportunity for them.

Shit in life costs money. Deal with it. The only real problem is the people who actually pirate by getting around having to pay (stealing) and by copying and selling the game for personal profit (and thereby breaking the copyright laws).

[Nique]

I belive the potential execution of creating a distinction between new/used products is what people are concerned about.

The gaming industry can actually do better off with DLCs than the actual disc as the secondhand owners of the game will have to pay for the DLC for the same price the first owner did, making it possible for DLC sales to exceed the disc sales. And that's money to them.


This is pretty reasonable, sure.

But imagine a game like Final Fantasy VII had required a 'code' to 'unlock' the 'bonus content' (let's say this is the entire ending disc of the game). And this 'code' could only be used by one 'device'. Well if you're the kind of guy to go out and buy an 80+ hour RPG new you're probably going to want the option to use that code, so a used copy of this game becomes, essentially, worthless when it's time to resell it.

This is an extreme example, but so is the idea of blaming the consumer for "not supporting" a gajillion dollar industry.

And I mean, look, buying used is a pretty great way to avoid the rampant consumerism and 'must have now' debt lifestyle corporations would love for all of us to adhere to, and it can also help support local buisnesses. So when you start talking about adding artificial 'incentives' to buy new you're talking about trying to force people into buying new. Pretty clear who has the moral highground here. (And if someone says 'Pirates' I will cut you.)

[Kim]

http://i34.tinypic.com/2cwmtuc.jpg
Pirates!

[Nique]

DAMN IT!

[Jagos]

Someone gets it! (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/8040-Experienced-Points-Bargains-Are-for-Cheaters)

[Viridis]

The thing that movies have that games don't is a graduated pricing system that lets people pay according to how much they care about a given title. If you're anticipating a film, you can pay top-dollar to see a single showing in the theater. Or you can wait a couple of months, pay a bit less, and see it at the cheap theater. Or you can wait until it comes out on DVD and watch it until you go blind. Or you can wait until the DVD gets marked down. Or you can wait until the movie appears on cable. The less you care, the longer you wait and the less you pay. Games should have been doing this as a matter of standard procedure years ago.I've often wondered why they don't do this. Thinking to myself "Game X STILL costs $Y?" Anyone have any insight into why this is?

[greed]

Wait. Don't they already do this? I mean there's release at full price, drop to 70-80% a year or so later, drop to 40-50% after that if it hits platinum, drop to 20% several years later as a budget title, drop to like 5% or less a decade later as a bargain bin classic release/VC release etc. I mean sure some companies fuck around with this(Nintendo, why the fuck is Super Paper Mario, Brawl and Galaxy 1 still going for the same amount as Galaxy 2?), and games that do badly might never get the later releases, but it's still a pretty common system.

It's just a slower progression than movies have.

[Yumil]

And I mean, look, buying used is a pretty great way to avoid the rampant consumerism and 'must have now' debt lifestyle corporations would love for all of us to adhere to, and it can also help support local buisnesses. So when you start talking about adding artificial 'incentives' to buy new you're talking about trying to force people into buying new. Pretty clear who has the moral highground here. (And if someone says 'Pirates' I will cut you.)

It's not forcing anyone to buy new, it's forcing used games to have less of a profit margin. No more buying a game for $15 then reselling it for $50 just because the new price is still at $60. No one is going to buy a used game if they want the online mode for $50 when it costs $10 for the online mode. What it should do is lower the cost of used games to come in line with the cost of that extra mode and in part, those that don't care for that extra mode will be better for it. Everyone but the used game racketeers will be happy.

[Jagos]

Just heard the news:

Linkage (http://www.slashgear.com/sony-investigating-charging-to-play-online-portions-of-first-party-titles-2498809/)

Even if there are folks out there who buy a title explicitly for that reason, publishers apparently believe that your main focus should be the “campaign,” and not the extra stuff. With that in mind, if you do buy the game used, and the person who owned it before you already used that code? You’ll just have to pay for it. For chargeable downloadable content that you got as an extra bonus for buying the game new, that makes perfect sense. But, for multiplayer titles like EA’s Medal of Honor, it seems to be just another way to make money.

But, that’s not stopping Sony from investigating their options. Sony already approves of publishers like THQ and EA charging folks for online features, and according to Andrew House (President of Sony Europe), the company that built the PlayStation brand is actively seeking a solution to charge for their first party titles as well. Here’s his official statement on the subject:

It starts... The nickel and diming for people's money...

[Marc v4.0]

Starts? Fairly certain 90% of DLC released for 360 titles has been nothing but that for years, with only about 5% of what is left actually worth buying.

[Donomni]

Wait. Don't they already do this? I mean there's release at full price, drop to 70-80% a year or so later, drop to 40-50% after that if it hits platinum, drop to 20% several years later as a budget title, drop to like 5% or less a decade later as a bargain bin classic release/VC release etc. I mean sure some companies fuck around with this(Nintendo, why the fuck is Super Paper Mario, Brawl and Galaxy 1 still going for the same amount as Galaxy 2?), and games that do badly might never get the later releases, but it's still a pretty common system.

It's just a slower progression than movies have.

Well, that's the thing: The slower progression in price drops makes it really fucking hard to get a game for less then 20 bucks unless it's either used or half a decade old. Since we live in the age of the internet, this also means you will likely be spoiled on the game's plot before you even get it!

More importantly, that 5-year-old game is still $20 or so new. For some people, that's still all they can splurge on a month.

[Meister]

After following the debate here and elsewhere for some time all I have to say is I wish I could get just ten bucks off new games in exchange for locking the online multiplayer I never use anyway.

[Nique]

It's not forcing anyone to buy new, it's forcing used games to have less of a profit margin.

By decreasing the usefulness of the used game? It seems like you don't quite get what I'm saying, which I'm prepared to admit might be my fault but here's more or less what I'm getting at; Although the reasonable disscussion is focused on DLC and Online play, those aren't the only games or features of games they are talking about.

Certain devs and publishers want to make it more difficult for you to buy used at all becuase they view it as harmful to them as pirating. Lowering the price point for used games is, in actuality, probably the opposite of what they want.

These are buisnesses trying to argue with dubious logic how we owe them more money. They are grasping at straws and whining about the reality of conducting buisness.

Everyone but the used game racketeers will be happy.


You're buying used games from the wrong place (i.e. Gamestop)

After following the debate here and elsewhere for some time all I have to say is I wish I could get just ten bucks off new games in exchange for locking the online multiplayer I never use anyway.

A reasonable compromise like this will be met with deflecting arguments and insane reasoning about why the price point needs to be the same for the good of thw world!

[Yumil]

Although the reasonable disscussion is focused on DLC and Online play, those aren't the only games or features of games they are talking about.
I have yet to hear of any developer or publisher talking about more than that.

[Nique]

A quick google search reveals this article on Wired.com (http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2010/08/used-games/)

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… when the game’s bought used we get cheated.

Ledesma’s remarks reminded me of a conversation I had at a party a couple of years ago with another rather outspoken game director, who asserted much the same sentiments regarding anyone who purchased used games. In fact, he went a bit further — he didn’t see any difference between a used-game purchaser and a pirate, he said, and quite frankly he’d almost rather people just pirate the games versus buying them used.


I don't hear any distinction between online/ DLC games and others in those statments. This may be the only legitimate action they can take at this time, but it sounds like there's sum folks just as mad at me for buying a one-player game used.

[bluestarultor]

Fifth and I already argued the first one. The second one is more damning. It would be even more damning if there was a name to it to show it was someone who actually mattered (for all we know, it could have been that jackass from Bob's Game), but it's still pretty damning.

[Magus]

The used games industry is not "racketeering", it is straight up lawful capitalism just like used car lots or Suncoast selling you used movies. Selling used games at not-really-very-good-prices is no less unethical than selling this piece of shit WWE game at full-price in the first place. People have a problem with GameStop because they're sort of monopolistic in that they purchased/merged with EB Games so there isn't another big used games company out there, plus trading in games is not at all a good idea for the consumer, but that's just common sense, I only traded in a game once and didn't like the price I got, didn't bother with it again. This is not really hard to figure out.

GameStop also sells new games and unlike Wal-Mart if you want a specific title, they have it! New! Day one! The games industry ignores this fact because they want to pretend that their profit is being hurt by GameStop. Hey, maybe it is! But is it unfair for GameStop to hurt their profit? Hell no, it's fair as fair. Get over it.

In any case, this shit with non-transferrable DLC and DRM-locking and not being able to buy used copies of Starcraft II is going to screw over PC gaming pretty quickly if it hasn't already. Like, I'm afraid to borrow my bro's completely legitimate Starcraft II disc to play on my own PC for a few days because I'm afraid that it probably won't even work on my comp, plus it has to be connected to the internet, which is pretty damn lame. Blizzard is driving me nuts, frankly, and so are all the other companies producing games for the PC market.

Basically, console games work on any copy of that console forever, since PC games don't do that I can't see the PC market ever competing with console games, which they're already having a problem with and have been. Like, there was this period for about four years there where I thought the PC market had "got" it, and it was going to be a great future for it, but then shit went downhill fast.

EDIT: Also their argument for the $60 price point is total bullshit, because the cost of development has not actually gone up just because the graphics are prettier. This is also why Blu-Ray price points is fucking ridiculous as well, since they can release the film on DVD at a lower price, though at least here maybe they can argue the Blu-Ray disc cost five dollars more to make (prolly not true but I don't really know). Resolution has jack-all to do with development costs, and graphical horsepower has jack all to do with development costs, either. If they can release a 100 million dollar movie like The Dark Knight on DVD for 20 dollars they can release a 100 million dollar video game on a Blu-Ray disc for 50 dollars (or hell, 55 at most if that extra 5 is actually justified by actual costs). The 60 dollar price point is based entirely on the elasticity of market demand, not increased development costs. I know this because SNES games used to cost 60 dollars new, too, try to tell me that wasn't just because of market demands, try to tell me it cost that much more to make an SNES game because the graphical horsepower the coders and designers were working with was more powerful than the NES. It's bullshit.

Hell, they had more of an excuse because cartridges were expensive as hell.

[Jagos]

This would be the part where I rant about how to make the gaming world better...

But even if my ideas could take a hold, all it'll do is make the gaming industry look that much worse by comparison.

It's just depressing that Ledesma is THAT FRIGGIN RETARDED! >_<

[Nique]

This would be the part where I rant about how to make the gaming world better...

The game industry is a crappy place. I have sympathy for anyone working in this field. Even those involved in gaming journalism. It's popular and since so many are willing to work in it so it breeds competitivness which breeds or attracts douchebags. I doubt anyone has all of the answers but blaming consumers for anything is not one of them (the answers, that its)

[Magus]

Gaming journalism sounds slightly less horrible than QA testing where you can only work nine-month contracts because otherwise they'd have to give you health insurance. At least with journalism it's sort of like you're working for an independent publication (until your boss fires you because you gave one of the magazine/website financiers' games a bad review).

[Amake]

Hell, they had more of an excuse because cartridges were expensive as hell. And they had a 10 dollar Nintendo licence fee per cartridge.

Except the games that weren't licenced by Nintendo.

And those still cost the same.

[Magus]

I think Nintendo's thirst for cash is well known, though since they have released the cheapest games and game console this generation they can be forgiven, even with there being ninety versions of the DS, GBA, etc. At least they finally dropped their seal of approval shenanigans when Sony broke into shit and started undercutting their profit margin.

Like, the only explanation I can think of for game prices going up that might make a little sense is the licensing fee for game/design engines for the developers went up, but why the licensing fee went up for say, Euphoria or RAGE or something is left unexplained, plus I don't think this has been mentioned as a reason? Plus they could develop their own engine and actually save money by paying a licensing fee to develop on a particular engine, I suspect?

Plus there is inflation, but since the new price was arbitrarily arrived at based on what they could get as opposed to an actual market setting the price (since Nintendo charges 50 for their games, yes they are not as graphically powerful but since that isn't an actual reason for the price to be higher, it is moot), it doesn't seem to make sense. Games ain't tomatoes, there aren't bumper crops or blights of them. The inflation rate doesn't account for a 20% increase in price.

[Yumil]

EDIT: Also their argument for the $60 price point is total bullshit, because the cost of development has not actually gone up just because the graphics are prettier. This is also why Blu-Ray price points is fucking ridiculous as well, since they can release the film on DVD at a lower price, though at least here maybe they can argue the Blu-Ray disc cost five dollars more to make (prolly not true but I don't really know). Resolution has jack-all to do with development costs, and graphical horsepower has jack all to do with development costs, either. If they can release a 100 million dollar movie like The Dark Knight on DVD for 20 dollars they can release a 100 million dollar video game on a Blu-Ray disc for 50 dollars (or hell, 55 at most if that extra 5 is actually justified by actual costs). The 60 dollar price point is based entirely on the elasticity of market demand, not increased development costs. I know this because SNES games used to cost 60 dollars new, too, try to tell me that wasn't just because of market demands, try to tell me it cost that much more to make an SNES game because the graphical horsepower the coders and designers were working with was more powerful than the NES. It's bullshit.

Hell, they had more of an excuse because cartridges were expensive as hell.

Do you even have any understanding about how many manhours it takes to do anything in HD gaming wise compared to last generation with SD? I can't really comment on video, so I can't really equite anything for blueray, but there is a significant change in cost from PS2/XBOX->PS3/XBOX360, even comparing the starts.

NES and SNES days don't mean much as it's not much harder to develop an 8-bit sprite vs a 16-bit sprite. In fact, one could say with a talented artist may have an easier time doing SNES graphics than NES graphics well due to the major limitations of the NES.

DVDs as a medium can't really be compared to games, for couple of reasons.
#1. Movies are designed to make quite a bit of their money in the box office. Games only have their disc release.
#2. Games typically have a significantly longer play time(there are exceptions) .

According to boxofficemojo.com Darknight made $1,001,921,825 lifetime in the boxoffice. Show me any game that makes just under 10x their cost before they are released on disc.

[Nique]

Complaining about video game prices is, plain and simple, complaining about the economy. They are no more overpriced than any other form of entertainment.

but there is a significant change in cost from PS2/XBOX->PS3/XBOX360, even comparing the starts.

I'd like to see some citation here becuase I'm having trouble figuring out how drastic this change could possibly be. HD picture quality is great, but it really isn't as earth shattering as we (for some reason?) make it out to be. PC games have handled it for...a pretty long time now.

DVDs as a medium can't really be compared to games, for couple of reasons.

Someone made the point that video games really shouldn't be treated like movies at all for many reasons and this just adds to that statement. I think it may have been Noncon. It could have been you. I don't know. Anyway, whoever you are, you were right!

[Viridis]

I'd like to see some citation here becuase I'm having trouble figuring out how drastic this change could possibly be. HD picture quality is great, but it really isn't as earth shattering as we (for some reason?) make it out to be. PC games have handled it for...a pretty long time now.I think it's less about the picture quality and more about the shear amount of resources that have to be produced for these games. The detail on characters and random background clutter of the world all has to be modeled, textured, weighted, animated... As the capability to render increases, the work here increases.

[Nique]

Yeah, not trying to be difficult! Just want to see some numbers.

[Krylo]

Well: "according to John Hight, Director of Product Development at Sony Computer Entertainment, God of War III cost $44 million to develop. The average cost of creating a game today sits at $18-28 million dollars" (http://terminalgamer.com/2010/03/09/god-of-war-iiis-production-cost-revealed/)

I've seen 3-10 million as numbers for the PS2 era, but I can't actually find any data after some googling, so take that with a grain of salt.

Edit: wait, here we are: Here’s the problem as I see it: Production values have risen to a level that games are starting to cost $3 million to $10 million to produce. (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=6864) Ken Williams. 2005.

[Kurosen]

If it's a console release, you're generally looking at $10 million minimum. If it's a "a triple A" kind of game, 20 million is the bare minimum and even that's edging to $25 mil.

[bluestarultor]

Yeah, not trying to be difficult! Just want to see some numbers.

Well, as an example, when God of War went HD, those giants? The entire WORLD of the first game could have fit in its hand according to a quote I read from one of the creators. That's the polygon difference.

Simply put, graphics take up most of a game's budget these days. Not just the models, but the models, textures, normal and UV maps, motion capture, lip sync, etc.

Shamus Young talks about the costs of games here. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/7652-Experienced-Points-The-Final-Fantasy-VII-Remake-is-a-Fantasy) He's better-equipped to talk about it than I personally am.

[Aerozord]

Ok I have recently started alot of studying in economics, business, and gaming industry in particular. I honestly haven't read all of the points made (its 11 pages after all) just wanted to toss in my two cents

Price of games is not arbitrary, its the equilibrium point of the market to maximize profits. Before you cry foul remember they are a business they exist to make money. Also only 5% of the games made turn a profit. These take tens of millions to make, so failing often kills a company. They need every cent they get. Sure some make hundreds of millions, but those are rare.

These companies only see a profit when you buy a new game. They dont care how you got the games, just that they see zero profit. Its about not supporting what you love then stealing from them. We had this arguement about Dragon Age's incentive code that you wouldn't get if you bought a used copy.

actually, same thing goes for renting to a lesser degree. Not saying dont do it, or that its morally wrong. just be aware you aren't supporting the developers by doing it. If that doesn't bother you, more power to ya

[Nique]

actually, same thing goes for renting to a lesser degree. Not saying dont do it, or that its morally wrong. just be aware you aren't supporting the developers by doing it. If that doesn't bother you, more power to ya

As I see it the problem is one I can sympathize with. But to actively blame me as a consumer for legally purchasing a product and or service becuase they get a raw deal from other companies when it comes to rentals or used game sells is self-defeating and highly insulting. Most gamers I know including myself buy new and used - Customers may be hard to deal with but you don't attack their perfectly legal spending habits.

[Aerozord]

personally, I feel you can do whatever the hell you want. Pirate, copy, rent, whatever. People that do that, while understanding the end result, dont bother me. Who am I to say they are bad. Just so long as they understand this doesn't support the ultimate creators and if they dont get enough the company will die.

I guess ideally, if you really like a game, you should buy a new one just to encourage more like it, even if you already rented it or whatever

[Nique]

I guess ideally, if you really like a game, you should buy a new one just to encourage more like it, even if you already rented it or whatever

I dont even... I mean, are you even being serious or what? Ideally I wouldn't have people who want my money telling me how to structure my life so that I can give them more money.

EDIT: Ok that came out sort of dickish I just don't get what it is you're trying to say.

[Aerozord]

I view things like rentals and piracy as a sample. As a rule if I like it I buy it legitimately. If I dont like it I pass it by and move on. It lets me try alot of things, but only hand over my cash to things I want to see more of.

Is this method a waste of money since I either already have the game for free, or paid for a rental? yup. Is it illegal since I still pirate crap and never buy? again yes but I'd never buy it anyways. Though it gets me the end result I want, I dont have to risk 60 bucks a pop on a game I might not like, but I still give that cash to the people that worked so hard to bring me this product. While those that make crap, get nothing for making crap. Plus I can take alot more risks since I dont invest until I know if I like it or not.

Ok, suppose I misspoke. This is ideal for me, probably not for you. But I want to give them money, they need my money to make more games, I dont view them getting my money as bad or them wanting it as negative. This came up in the DRM arguement. Maybe the method they use is bad, that there is nothing wrong with what you are doing, but they do have every right to expect a profit for their work.

[Marc v4.0]

It is important to note, and it may have been already, that just because a the physical piece the game is encoded on sells for many times the actual value of the materials and production of game into said disc does not mean the company logs a proft every time they sell a game New. That money has to go to filling in the gap left by the money paid to every single person up and down the ladder who had a few moments contribution in the process of getting a final product.

Only after that hole is filled do they see actual profit. It's easily imaginable, with the costs of making the game itself, that the hole sometimes only just gets filled, or even at times does not. Whatever profits do get logged I would wager 9 times out of 10 either gets eaten up almost completely by work on the next game in the line, or on other games and/or marketing. Doesn't mean they aren't greedy, no, but doesn't mean they live like fat cats sucking the golden teet like a celebrity or big-shot oil tycoon.

We like to look at those names on the package and imagine a great, faceless corporation just trying to squeeze every penny out of you it can so they can fill their pools with orphen tears because the tears of regular children just don't cut it anymore, but it just isn't.

[Jagos]

Every game company runs a risk. Hell, every business has a risk to run. Whether it's a publisher or a developer, there's the belief in a safety net.

You develop exclusively on 1 console, you run the risk of losing audiences. You develop on the PC, you run the risk of losing your audience through various other "noises" or DRMing your way out of good cash (Ubisoft).

What would be a great idea is to allow more developers to develop on consoles at lesser prices. What would h%*&% PS3 difficult to program for. What would help is to have ways to implement newer business models on consoles rather than using law to try to curb people finding ways to emulate consoles on their PC.

And while they can expect a profit, that doesn't necessarily make it so when either A) the game is bad or B) it's 6+ years old and still overpriced.

[Marc v4.0]

Yeah, I agree with that

[Yumil]

What would be a great idea is to allow more developers to develop on consoles at lesser prices. What would h%*&% PS3 difficult to program for. What would help is to have ways to implement newer business models on consoles rather than using law to try to curb people finding ways to emulate consoles on their PC.

I'm a big proponent of XBLIG. While there is a lot of shit on the service, it gives a good source for developers to get their titles to the market by making less roadblocks. The certification process to get on XBLA and PSN is crazy, and Wiiware/DSIWare is barely just better.

The whole console market should embrace this. Honestly, lower budget games are still being played. Hell, look at the huge casual market. The various Appstores and what not are becoming a large force. Opening up development on rather safe platforms is what is needed.

Piracy hurts indie gaming on the PC as many don't put any DRM in their products or rely on their distribution network(Steam) to do that for them. The consoles add a layer of security that the layman won't be able to circumvent(with pc they just download a torrent and at most install a patch).

Quality titles will make profits, regardless of the cost.

[Nique]

This is ideal for me, probably not for you. But I want to give them money

What? I do want to support companies that make games I like. I bought Arkham Asylum new. I bought FFXIII new (ok bad example). But I mean, ok I'm late to the party on some titles but they sound like fun - I should go pay full price for an older title when a used copy is just as good and half the price? If I had to pay full price for every game in my collection I wouldn't own half of them anyway. The entire problem they are presenting just seems like an excercise in futility.

The whole console market should embrace this. Honestly, lower budget games are still being played. Hell, look at the huge casual market.

btw, any PS3 owners out there should really be playing Fat Princess. Best game of capture the flag I ever played.

[Jagos]

I view piracy like this: Why care? If they like to play the game, tell 10 people about it and 2 get the game themselves, then you've made a profit.

I know that Steam has been cracked 20 ways from Sunday but it continues to make money with crazy sales. Also, the small time developers make their games and have a pretty strong relationship with Steam (at least from my biased Valve-is-the-Best POV)

Piracy isn't going to go away. Even with the Humble Indie Bundle being pirated, they made millions on their "make your own price" model (though they could have done better...)

I just believe that most companies have to find ways to make games more valuable with more giveaways. Kinda like what Blizzard did with Starcraft (that $120 model was pretty friggin sweet... I would have tried to get it if I wasn't dirt poor and in college right now.

-Edit- And Scott Pilgrim should be on the PSP NOW!

[Nique]

The problem is that they see piracy (and now some saying used buying too I guess) as a 1:1 loss when it isn't. Is Piracy wrong morally or whatever? IMO, yes more or less. Does every pirated copy of a game = one lost sale? Almost certainly no.

If they like to play the game, tell 10 people about it and 2 get the game themselves, then you've made a profit.

I don't know if this really is accurate either though. I mean, TBH I think "Gamers" are really like A-list douchebags pretty often especially in the sub culture of pirating the ever loving crap out of everything. Things shared between pirates likely stays pirated.

[Jagos]

By that same token, let's remember that the US has the most disposable income. Other countries where gaming is the choice between food or a game is kind of a easier to see why they do it.

See also: Brazil, China, Czechoslovakia

[Ravashak]

CzechoslovakiaIn what century are you living?

[Jagos]

Fine, Czech Republic and Slovak. Happy?

[Aerozord]

I should go pay full price for an older title when a used copy is just as good and half the price?

yes

but I dont expect you to. I see where you are coming from but I am arguing this from standpoint of developer that wants to see return on their product, not the consumer that wants to play games. Yea you'd only get half as many games, but then be supporting 100% of the developers that made those games.

As a developer, I'd rather you buy 5 new games and pirate 5 more, then buy 10 games used.

[Jagos]

The problem with their POV, is that it's incredibly short -sighted. There's little to no longevity in their planning.

If they had donate buttons instead of licensing deals, we could figure something out. Or maybe if they'd stop doing stupid things to piss off their fanbase (Activision, Ubisoft...), we could enjoy the games.

And one other idea, licensing engines for X amount of dollars? Stupid. Give it up for free and charge something for distribution. Having developers become publishers in some sense may actually increase the profits. These are just a few ideas.

Right now, as I see it, their mindsets seem quite limited.

[bluestarultor]

The problem is that they see piracy (and now some saying used buying too I guess) as a 1:1 loss when it isn't. Is Piracy wrong morally or whatever? IMO, yes more or less. Does every pirated copy of a game = one lost sale? Almost certainly no.



I don't know if this really is accurate either though. I mean, TBH I think "Gamers" are really like A-list douchebags pretty often especially in the sub culture of pirating the ever loving crap out of everything. Things shared between pirates likely stays pirated.

The issue with the 1:1 thing is that there's no good way to guess how many people would have otherwise bought the game. There IS some data that says what happens after a game is pirated. To be blunt, it doesn't turn into a sale. But that's something that's easy enough to guess from common sense. If you've played and beaten and still own a game, chances are you're not going to rush out and buy it, no matter how much people like to wave the moral flag of how they, sample size of one, are going to or would.

So while not every copy pirated is a lost sale, pretty much every copy pirated as a "demo" is.

That leaves you with only half the picture. You know that a pirated copy is not going to turn into a sale, but you don't know how many sales are actually being lost to pirated copies. In the business of business, you always hedge your bets with money, meaning in this case, they're making unreasonable assumptions.

The problem with their POV, is that it's incredibly short -sighted. There's little to no longevity in their planning.

If they had donate buttons instead of licensing deals, we could figure something out. Or maybe if they'd stop doing stupid things to piss off their fanbase (Activision, Ubisoft...), we could enjoy the games.

And one other idea, licensing engines for X amount of dollars? Stupid. Give it up for free and charge something for distribution. Having developers become publishers in some sense may actually increase the profits. These are just a few ideas.

Right now, as I see it, their mindsets seem quite limited.

The issue with licensing an engine is that that's the deal that makes most sense.

First off, making an engine from scratch is hard. You have to really know what you're doing and be comfortable with low-level access, which is why we reuse them to high Heaven once we have one finished and debugged. Writing them is simply not fun. That's a double-whammy, because it means that other people aren't going to want to have to write one. So how do you get your money out of the pit? You license it. People are willing to pay good money so they don't have to go through the hassle.

Basically, an engine is no different than any other software package. The programming industry lives and dies by reusable code. If you need something pre-done for you, you shop around and buy the package that best fits your needs, modify it as necessary if it's legal in the terms, and integrate it into the rest of your system. It lets you get your own work done and get the product out faster.

If engines were all free, it would mean a LOT of time and money down the hole with no way to recoup the costs. Aside from that, there are free open-source engines out there, such as Blender's or OGRE. They just don't see business use to my knowledge. I can't speak for their quality, but they are out there for the indie guys.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

You know there is a simpler way they can do this that won't amount to screwing everyone over (I'm almost defiantly not buying a new gen system if this goes live). Pressure law makers or used game stores to provide a 50% cut of all used game sales on their titles. You make a profit off a game you refuse to rerelease. And we don't have to wake up in the morning to find Game stop boarded up because the insecure babies caused a second game crash.

[Jagos]

You do realize that Madden '06 players would revolt right?

[Kyanbu The Legend]

That's a risk worth taking. (If you were responding to me)

[bluestarultor]

You do realize that Madden '06 players would revolt right?

People still play Madden '06? I thought all the servers were shut down for up to Madden '09 due to lack of interest. :rolleyes:

(Seriously, though, that was a bad move on their part.)

[Jagos]

That's more a joke.
Most sports games are notorious for reselling at $2 dollars in one year.
People still play Madden '06? I thought all the servers were shut down for up to Madden '09 due to lack of interest. :rolleyes:

(Seriously, though, that was a bad move on their part.)

Actually, it's not. It causes everyone to update to the new game and keep EA's money train rolling. Think about if someone put up a dedicated server for their older games...

You know there is a simpler way they can do this that won't amount to screwing everyone over (I'm almost defiantly not buying a new gen system if this goes live). Pressure law makers or used game stores to provide a 50% cut of all used game sales on their titles. You make a profit off a game you refuse to rerelease. And we don't have to wake up in the morning to find Game stop boarded up because the insecure babies caused a second game crash.

This would actually be the worst thing to happen to gaming. It'd be just like when the DMCA was created by the RIAA. That would kill gaming more than anything.

[Magus]

I don't see polygon count as increasing the price, since to me it just seems like "use stronger computer to generate 3D models with larger polygon count", but yeah, if it literally takes more manhours because they have to model more individual objects then it makes sense that the price would go up on the high end. However, the games that used to sell for 20.00 on the low end when released as Greatest Hits are now 30.00 minimum brand-new, it's kind of annoying, and the controller, instead of replacing the Dualshock 2 at 29.99, they just raised the price to 50.00 and left the Dualshock 2 at 30.00 (for whatever reason I can't really fathom, okay, it costs more because it has SIXAXIS in it, which was a near-worthless money sink at this point, it's not the consumer's fault). Basically I just see a lot of price-gouging going on in little ways in an attempt to get more money out of people for no particular reason (especially as applies to games that continue to not cost as much as others--God of War III possesses the quality to charge 60.00, probably, but WWE is shit at any price so for that particular company it's not justified, it's just because in the current market they can charge that much that they do, as I doubt it cost near as much as GoW3 and probably is a nth of the quality).

The idea of making games stores give a 50% cut of used game sales to the companies is insane, btw, I agree with Jagos on that. Pretty soon used book stores will be having to pay 50% to the publishers or Suncoast will have to start paying 50% to the studios, for something that is a hard-copy one-unit item. Online distribution is one thing, but a single physical game disc is a single physical game disc.

[bluestarultor]

I don't see polygon count as increasing the price, since to me it just seems like "use stronger computer to generate 3D models with larger polygon count", but yeah, if it literally takes more manhours because they have to model more individual objects then it makes sense that the price would go up on the high end. However, the games that used to sell for 20.00 on the low end when released as Greatest Hits are now 30.00 minimum brand-new, it's kind of annoying, and the controller, instead of replacing the Dualshock 2 at 29.99, they just raised the price to 50.00 and left the Dualshock 2 at 30.00 (for whatever reason I can't really fathom, okay, it costs more because it has SIXAXIS in it, which was a near-worthless money sink at this point, it's not the consumer's fault). Basically I just see a lot of price-gouging going on in little ways in an attempt to get more money out of people for no particular reason (especially as applies to games that continue to not cost as much as others--God of War III possesses the quality to charge 60.00, probably, but WWE is shit at any price so for that particular company it's not justified, it's just because in the current market they can charge that much that they do, as I doubt it cost near as much as GoW3 and probably is a nth of the quality).

The idea of making games stores give a 50% cut of used game sales to the companies is insane, btw, I agree with Jagos on that. Pretty soon used book stores will be having to pay 50% to the publishers or Suncoast will have to start paying 50% to the studios, for something that is a hard-copy one-unit item. Online distribution is one thing, but a single physical game disc is a single physical game disc.

This... Let me explain this to you.

There is no magic "increase polygon count" button. It all has to be done by hand. Maybe you can get away with using a base model for characters, but that base model still needs to be made. Even then, you have to do all their different outfits over it, which is basically the same amount of work as just starting from scratch unless you have standardized meshes like Oblivion where all the world shares the same ten or so basic outfit shapes.

I mean I hate to break it to you, but this is definitely not your area of expertise. The reason things are more expensive to make is entirely because of the higher polygon count.

[Krylo]

Well the higher polygon count and the fact that game prices haven't been keeping up with inflation for the last 30 years.