Used Games = Piracy? - Page 10

Magus · 08-28-2010, 11:45 PM

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 · 08-29-2010, 12:11 AM

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 · 08-29-2010, 12:26 AM

Quote:

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 · 08-29-2010, 01:24 AM

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 · 08-29-2010, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus

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 · 08-29-2010, 01:35 AM

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 · 08-29-2010, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus

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 · 08-29-2010, 04:32 AM

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 08-29-2010, 04:44 AM

Quote:

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 · 08-29-2010, 04:51 AM

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

08-28-2010, 11:45 PM	#91
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	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. Last edited by Magus; 08-28-2010 at 11:55 PM.

08-29-2010, 12:11 AM	#92
Jagos FRONT KICK OF DOOM! Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Howdy pardner... Posts: 6,399	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! >_< __________________ Copyright musings World ramblings Scifi stories

08-29-2010, 01:35 AM	#96
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	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. Last edited by Magus; 08-29-2010 at 01:40 AM.

08-29-2010, 01:24 AM	#94
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	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).