'Gears Of War' Designer: Used Games Must Be Killed So Unsustainable Development Can Live

from the on-the-cross-of-commerce dept

Tue, Jun 18th 2013 5:41am — Tim Cushing

Gears of War designer Cliff Bleszinski has weighed in on the subject of used games in light of the Xbox One's antipathy towards them. (Of course, much of this has been walked back in recent days -- Microsoft has both taken a step backwards and kicked the can down the road, stating it won't be charging a fee for used games, but third parties are more than welcome to do exactly that. There are still a number of limitations that will make reselling Xbox One games unpalatable, if not close to impossible.)

Bleszinski's argument for killing off the used game market is not unlike Ben Kuchera's (Penny Arcade): AAA production values aren't sustainable unless everyone's paying full price. Bleszinski delivered his views via Twitter, handily gathered here by Gamepolitics.

"You cannot have game and marketing budgets this high while also having used and rental games existing. The numbers do NOT work people," he said.

"The visual fidelity and feature sets we expect from games now come with sky high costs. Assassins Creed games are made by thousands of devs."

"Newsflash. This is why you're seeing free to play and microtransactions everywhere. The disc based day one $60 model is crumbling.

"Those of you telling me 'then just lower game budgets' do understand how silly you sound, right?" said Bleszinski.

To paraphrase Mayor Quimby, I appreciate your passion on behalf of your medium, but I'm afraid you've got this all wrong.

If the current business model is unsustainable, why is that the consumer's fault? More specifically, why are customers being pushed into giving up their "first sale" rights, along with being asked to plug the holes in the leaky business model with wads of hard-earned cash?

On top of this imposition is the assumption the current model is the only model [$200m movie, anyone?] and that mankind greatly benefits from "thousands of developers" crafting AAA titles. This is completely backward. The industry exists because of its customers, not despite them. AAA studios are not benevolent deities. They're companies that exist because there's a market for their products. If this market dies, so do they. If the prices are too high, customers buy elsewhere. Or not at all.

Jim Sterling of Destructoid has crafted a very powerful response to Cliff's insistence that the gaming industry will die unless consumers pick up the monetary slack.

What really infuriates me about the used game debate is that, when people bring up the stratospheric development and marketing costs, it's treated as though they are noble endeavors, too sacred to be compromised. Rather than ask the question, "Do games need to be this expensive to make?" the question instead becomes, "How can we squeeze more money to keep making very expensive games?"

In a good business, the answer to something being too expensive to produce would be to, y'know,make it fucking cheaper to produce. Videogame consoles do this over time -- parts become less costly to manufacture, more efficient to put together. You'll find, with some of the most successful videogames on the market, the same is also very true. It's just that nobody will admit it.

Sterling points out that Call of Duty has been working off the same engine for years, with two studios alternating releases. Every year, a new Call of Duty game, one that grabs huge market share and makes a huge profit, thanks to the developers' willingness to build from its proprietary starting point. Why tear everything down and start from scratch? Why push to be the "visual" leader when it's clear a majority of customers aren't solely interested in purchasing bleeding edge software?

Likewise with the PC market. It's the true graphics leader, often far ahead of current consoles, and yet the biggest selling titles aren't industry showpieces. Sterling points to Minecraft, Terraria and Valve's old-as-hell-but-still-effective Source engine. Smaller studios are taking advantage of available technology to make beautiful games on a budget (The Witcher, Metro: Last Light). [On a personal note, while I do enjoy AAA eye candy now and then, I value the gameplay that much more. CIP: I've put over 192 hours into Just Cause 2, a game released three years ago whose gameplay still holds up to this day. That and Hotline: Miami, no one's idea of AAA beauty.]

But according to Bleszinski, the public doesn't want all of that stuff listed above. It only wants the best of the best, crafted by a team of thousands and sold in various deluxe packages at $60-$100 a pop, possibly with a helping of day one DLC on the side. And because Bleszinski believes this, he feels the public must be made to pay for the excesses of an industry. Back to Sterling for a rebuttal.

If so-called "AAA" games and the used market actually are incompatible, then I say that's a good friggin' thing. Anything to dispossesses publishers of the notion that they need to keep dumping truckloads of cash into games to the point where they need to sell more copies than the laws of reality allow...

It's not our fault games have gotten so expensive, and I resent the implication that it is. The fact this industry seems utterly fucking incapable of taking some damn responsibility for itself continues to disgust me, and I refuse to shoulder the blame for companies that cannot demonstrate one iota of self-reflection. If something you're doing is not working, change what you're doing! Stop trying to bend and break the world around you to try and manufacture an environment where your failed tactics could achieve some perverse form of success.

It's beginning to look like a few members of the industry have been cribbing pages from the disastrous playbook of the recording industry. Raise prices. Blame customers. Bend the world to your business model. Is it only a matter of time before the gaming industry begins lobbying Congress to shut down secondhand sales?

Oh, and if the above twitrant weren't galling enough, Cliff B. throws in a little something for those who find the online requirements of the Crossbone to be dealbreaker.

"If you can afford high speed internet and you can't get it where you live direct your rage at who is responsible for pipe blocking you," he said.

Really? Maybe I'll direct my rage at the entitled jackass who's supporting a company's decision to effectively limit its own market simply because it can't live without some sort of DRM infection. And what if you can't afford high speed internet? Well, you must be one of those people who live in the area marked "Whogivesashitland" in Cliffy's mental map. And trust me, plenty of rage has been directed at the "pipe blockers," but they care even less about their customer base than the area of the gaming industry Bleszinski represents.

Those interested in gutting the resale market to protect their margins are turning potential customers into enemies. If you can't adapt, you can't succeed. These moves being made by Microsoft (and supported by industry mouthpieces) are nothing more than attempts to subsidize an unsustainable business model by forcibly extracting the maximum toll from as many transactions as possible. The industry is not a necessity or a public good. If it's going to make the changes it needs to survive, it needs to give up this delusion.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: cliff bleszinski, customers, games of war, markets, used game, video games, xbox

128 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Akari Mizunashi (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 5:04am

I've learned long ago Cliff B. has been out of touch with gaming reality, and anything out of his mouth is utter stupidity and ignorance.

Despite this, however, I'm still disappointed the mentality he speaks of us widespread, as though these idiots can't see the facts before them.

Angry Birds is, by no means, a "AAA" title and yet it's managed to make more money than any "AAA" title out there. Why? Because it's got a price base of 99 cents, which attracts billions, yes with a "b", downloads. It's been using the same game engine as well.

Bethesda, makers of the Fallout and TES franchises, has been using their (broken) game engine for 4 games, and if Skyrim sales are any indication, it's proof companies can make stellar games and keep costs low.

EA and Ubisoft are two of the most asinine game companies out there. According to NPD, consumers spend nearly $2 billion on gaming last year, and if the most costly "AAA" title is $250 million to make, someone's either lying about profits or they're including their shovelware failures in the mix, which no respectable gamer's going to shell out $60 for.

I don't begrudge the opportunity, and massive risk, Microsoft is doing to allow gamers, for the first time ever to sell used digital games. I welcome the opportunity because it gives me flexibility.

But what I can't stand are articles like this which constantly omit this feature of the changes Microsoft is risking. Cliff B. obviously failed to take into account selling back a digital file is no different than gamers selling back a plastic disk.

Furthermore, it's this opportunity, when consumers knowingly sell off their games at a significant loss of what they paid, that allows them to try other games, usually at at the current MSRP.

The fact the gaming industry has three constant tiers of pricing based on their "production" of the games proves it's their model that's failing, not the consumer who is taking a loss at every turn and has been since the introduction of the NES (remember those old game stores which sold second hand NES cartridges we had to blow on to get to work?).

Gaming is a risky business by its very nature to do the consistent over-saturation of the market. Trying to sell the "next big thing" isn't going to be done unless thousand upon thousands of us review the game and offer our opinions.

With the 49k+ reviews on XBox 360, Bethesda owes each of them a massive "Thank you" as it was their near-5 star ratings which got me to buy Oblivion, and thus Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, Skyrim, and the latest Dishonored (which was full price because I trust Bethesda's quality.

The world is moving to digital, and it's disgusting those who are finally, and slowly, migrating toward it aren't looking to open the doors to make it better for everyone, but are looking to ensure the same prices of physical goods are carried with it, despite their costs being lowered.

Hell, even their marketing budget shrinks thanks to the customer base reviewing their products, and those ratings absolutely influence sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 8:24am
  
  Re:
  That. Amusingly those AAA titles are just eye candy. I find that pretty simple games tend to offer better playability and awesome plots than any of said AAA titles. I still play snes, genesis games. Because they are that awesome despite their ugly pixelated graphics. Which brings me to a point I find relevant: they are now competing with older, OFFLINE, easily un-DRMed games. I find no real need to stick to bleeding edge titles, this vast pool of older games suits me enough.
  
  As for the used market fears... Try to find an awesome game used. They are extremely hard to find. And honestly bad reviews will do a lot more damage than any supposed issues such market may present to the developer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 8:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Which brings me to a point I find relevant: they are now competing with older, OFFLINE, easily un-DRMed games"
    
    This certainly can't be an accident, launched today:
    
    http://www.gog.com/news/2013_nodrm_summer_sale_begins_on_gogcom
    
    They're really pushing their lack of DRM, and they're even giving away free copies of Torchlight! Yeah, if it's a choice between this and the "AAA" Aliens: Colonial Marines, I know which I'd take (yes, hyperbolic comparison but still...).
    
    "Try to find an awesome game used"
    
    Define "awesome". Plenty of copies of most console games used on Amazon from what I can see, although the actual level of savings might be lower for more popular titles...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 10:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's what I meant to say. Used games are harder to find and when you do find them it's not a really good deal.
      
      Also, thanks for that link!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ltlw0lf (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 3:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      This certainly can't be an accident, launched today:
      
      It probably was. GoG has a "twice a year extravaganza" (my words, not theirs) where they mark down most if not their entire collection. Usually right after Christmas, and at the beginning of summer break. I usually spend my entire entertainment budget for the month on GoG in December and June. They usually have limited deals (less than 9 hours each,) where they have deep discounts on some titles (picked up Alan Wake/Wake in America bundle for the normal cost of one of the games last night,) and most of their collection is either 33% or 50% off. Every once in a while I go in there and buy something at full price, but I spend a lot more during these times for games that I really have no interest in playing but merely want to check them out (so far, it's been in my favor as I've found a bunch of games I play often now that I didn't even know about until I picked them up at discount.)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Akari Mizunashi (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 9:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    Are you sure you're not playing those titles on newer consoles?
    
    Between Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft, each of them sells older versions of games once famous on older consoles, proving many games can test time itself.
    
    It's absolutely mind boggling developers can't see this. Hell, people are hoping Bethesda port their games to the new consoles because want to still play them.
    
    I'd consider the cost of developing a port to a new console is far less a burden than trying to develop a new game and hope to hell it sells.
    
    Even the producer of the Zelda franchise stated "if things stay they same, they will die" and he's talking about one of the greatest selling franchises ever!
    
    I think the solution to the problem is to claim EA is a monopoly and break them apart. *snickers*
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 10:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Try being a fan of Mother or other games that are highly sought after...
      
      I wouldn't turn in my games if I knew how good they were. And the fact that there is no way to rent anymore besides Gamefly cements in my mind that publishers are losing opportunities to impress me by not opening new markets for themselves.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 10:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I've seen Sonic 4 for Xbox too and that title was one nice win if you ask me! I still got to buy it though =//
      
      I'd consider the cost of developing a port to a new console is far less a burden than trying to develop a new game and hope to hell it sells
      
      Final Fantasi VII. I'd sell my soul for a remake.
      
      I'm with you, older games should be ported to newer systems.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jesse (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 10:19am
  
  Re:
  We need to make a new sales tax, and give all the proceeds to video game makers. What would we do without titles like "Lollipop Chainsaw?"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
silverscarcat (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 5:32am

The only problem with digital only...
Is that until all of the world has high-speed internet at dirt-cheap prices, the digital world that we're all looking at won't happen.

Until everyone has the same internet speeds (super high) at low prices, it just won't work.

Even if you have over 60 mbps, it's slow compared to other places that have 1 gbps.

At the end of the day, that's the problem, too much of the world still doesn't have good internet, even if it is the future, the future is not here yet.

As for Digital games, well... Even Sony has gotten that right. Seriously, go look at their store for game DLs and see the prices they have. (Still need PS2 games, Sony, well, more of them).

MS, on the other hand, doesn't lower prices, at all. Maybe once in awhile they'll put a sale to lower the prices a couple of bucks, but that's it. Games on XBL tend to stay pretty expensive for a long time.

PS Plus, on the other hand, as my friend in Italy says "you can get 40+ titles for free over the course of one year from PS Plus. And every month they have games that are on sale from 10% to 75% off."

Note, I don't have a PS Plus subscription, but considering that they have Ico and Shadow of the Colossus for sale, I might get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:44am
  
  Re: The only problem with digital only...
  "Note, I don't have a PS Plus subscription, but considering that they have Ico and Shadow of the Colossus for sale, I might get it."
  
  PS Plus is a decent system, although I find the online store to be very clunky and annoying, even after their recent redesign. However I would say that PS Plus is worth it with one major caveat - you're only renting the games that come with the package. They rotate regularly with some decent titles available every month, but the second you stop being a subscriber, you lose the games.
  
  With that in mind, it can be very economical if you see a few games on there you'd like to play, and I've found it a great way to be exposed to some games/series I'd not have bothered with otherwise.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 10:31pm
    
    Re: Re: The only problem with digital only...
    I do have PS Plus, and it's great... but the redesign is horrible beyond all words and made the PS store way harder to navigate.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mega1987 (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:01am
  
  Re: The only problem with digital only...
  Those guys don't realized that certain consumers LIKED those classic old games.
  
  I much in favor of playing FFVII again, even in a PSP/PC/PSOne emu ports. or even playing the Megaman Legend Series again. (screw Capcom for screwing such great series in favor of thier unchanging street fighter.)
  
  I'm sure some of us like a certain old game that was released 10 years ago or less and still prefer to play them even there's a remake of them coming out into the market.
  
  Old and Used games must be thrown away and be disposed?
  It's like getting rid of your own history.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jake, 18 Jun 2013 @ 4:03pm
  
  Re: The only problem with digital only...
  If my math's accurate, a game that fills one dual-layer DVD would take about two and a half hours to download on a 60MB/s connection. That still beats Amazon's best time, without costing any extra for priority shipping; hell, for a lot of people it probably beats the time they'd take to get to the game store and back.
  
  And that kind of size is restricted mostly to the big-name, big-budget outfits who are throwing money at pure eye-candy, usually to make up for the fact that their game has sod-all else in the way of unique selling points. Smaller outfits willing to settle for lower-tech visuals don't often break the 1GB mark.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 4:21am
    
    Re: Re: The only problem with digital only...
    Yes, but what a lot of the industry thinking is that they ignore that people have bandwidth and usage caps, so anythinig they have to download is bad enough, but if your game with its 'always on built-in DLC' (Diablo III, I'm looking at you) will chew through your available amounts for no actual benefit, like a lot of these 'innovations'.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 5:52am

I don't understand why the games industry thinks that the customers are the ones who must change if their products and services aren't doing so well, and if their practices are "unsustainable".

If only I could have made customers cut off their right foot, then my left-shoe-only manufacturing business would have flourished.

This is a valid argument, according to the games industry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 5:55am
  
  Re:
  It's a valid argument according to all content monopoly industries. The reason? Their entire industry is based from the ground up on asking the collective public to sign away their own rights so their industry can exist. So why not ask for one more right in the same vein?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 5:53am

Holy Shit!
Blue IS cliffyb!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:06am
  
  Re: Holy Shit!
  Doubt it. Blue's usual argument is that he doesn't play games so games can be as unreasonably and prohibitively expensive as possible. Same for Internet access.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:27am
    
    Re: Re: Holy Shit!
    Nah, his usual schtick on these threads is to pretend that only 14 year old boys play videogames, and therefore any argument against them is invalid. or something.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Niall (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Holy Shit!
      He's just jealous of 14-year-old may-be-perpetual-virgins because he can't wait another 10 years until he is one!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jupiterkansas (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Holy Shit!
      His comments are more like "The real problem is Google!"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 5:59am

"Games Of War" in the article title, should be "Gears of War."
You made the error in the title, but got it correct in the article itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:21am
  
  Re:
  Bah. Fixed...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaulT (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:01am

"Assassins Creed games are made by thousands of devs."

Interesting that he brought that title up. I liked the idea of the AC games when they first came out, but I was somewhat put off when I heard about how repetitive the game was in its later stages. I then heard some good stuff about the second game saying that they'd solved most of the issues, so I decided to pick up a used copy of the first game to check it out. I enjoyed it, but agreed that I'd have felt somewhat ripped off if I'd have bought it new, due to the cut & paste nature of the gameplay design. Had the used copy not been available cheaply, I may not have bothered at all.

The game was good enough, however, for me to want to check out the sequel, which by this time had been out long enough for the GOTY edition to be reasonably priced. I agreed - far better. So much so, that when my family asked what I wanted for Christmas, I threw Brotherhood on there as a gift suggestion - which I received and enjoyed. Despite numerous flaws in the game design (especially AC3), it's now almost a done deal - until the games finally run out of steam completely and/or are no longer available on a format I wish to buy (the other games were on 360, I am not in the market for a XB1 in its current state), my family will buy me a copy of the latest game in the series at full price.

So, in other words, had the AC series had used copies blocked, UbiSoft would have rejected 4 new game sales, 3 of which were at full price. Anyone who doesn't consider the entire market for their product is a moron.

"CIP: I've put over 192 hours into Just Cause 2, a game released three years ago whose gameplay still holds up to this day."

It's on my to-play pile (although I don't recall if it was new or used). I regularly have a backlog of games, usually not obtained full price as I don't care about playing the latest game or online multiplayer. I'll just play the older games if the Xbox wants to stop me from playing legally obtained games because they didn't get to gouge me enough.

""Those of you telling me 'then just lower game budgets' do understand how silly you sound, right?" said Bleszinski."

No. I don't give a shit what you spent to make the game. I do know that I can't always afford to pay $60 for a new game, sight unseen since you also don't offer demos, and even when I can it's not what the games are worth. Especially if you can't get some of the money back once you've played it by reselling it to someone else who can't afford those prices.

Similarly, I don't give a crap how much Ford spent to design their new model, how much a band spent to record an album, how much a studio spent on a movie, how much Dyson spent to make their new vacuum cleaner, how much Apple spent to make their new phone, etc. I do know how much one of those things is worth to me, and I know their resale value. A value no other industry is trying to rob from me because they can't manage their own budgets.

I don't give a crap what your budget was, but I know that openly trying to rip me off will take your sales value from me from less than optimal to zero. I still can't understand what kind of fool thinks that blocking any sale whatsoever is better than not getting a cut of a used copy (which, by definition MUST have been paid for already), but that must be why I'm not panicking about the industry I work in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Real Michael, 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:02am

Cliff B., ever the corporate apologist.

Funny, some of the most timeless video games were developed on meager budgets, sometimes with as few as one or two programmers.

What is Cliff trying to say, that because a business CHOOSES to spend millions on production, that it's the consumers' responsibility to make concessions, including rescinding the first-sale doctrine, in order to adequately compensate for their vanity project?

Truly a classic example of an elitist talking down on us as if we're mere subjects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anonymouse, 18 Jun 2013 @ 10:20am
  
  Re:
  They are not elitists they are worse than that they are so full of themselves they actually believe the dribble they are spurting even though everyone knows it is rubbish, they just cannot admit they are wrong and they will take down their little part of the gaming industry becasue of it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
SkullKid, 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:03am

Used Games
I am usually 100% with TD on most issues but I don't really understand the issue around used games. Sure, they could change their business model and everyone could make Free-2-Play but Pay-To-Win MMO flash games but I don't think that is what anyone here wants.

The main reason I'm against used game (to an extent) is because GameStop is a piece of shit. Why should I give my money to them instead of the developers who make the games? GameStop is, in my experience, a complete and total rip-off for the consumer. They give me >$10 for my trade ins then they throw it back on the shelf with a yellow sticker for $5 less than the new game retail price. Is it any wonder they make so much money from the used game market? I would feel differently about this whole thing if GameStop would offer fair value for trade-ins.

I'm not some astroturfer or anything, I just don't understand how people can see GameStop as being on the side of the consumer when its been their practice to rip people off. It is my hope and belief that eliminating the used games market will help reduce the price of these type of games in the future. On the other hand, if the prices do not go down, do yourselves a favor cast your vote with your wallet. Do not buy the games that stay at a $60 price point regardless of the used games market being eliminated (pirate them?).

I think it will be an interesting experiment for Microsoft and I intend to watch this unfold very carefully. If, hypothetically, prices of new games went down say, $10 to $15, would that justify eliminating the used games market for those of you who are against it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:26am
  
  Re: Used Games
  "The main reason I'm against used game (to an extent) is because GameStop is a piece of shit."
  
  You're against the concept of used games, everything ranging from me selling my copy to a neighbour to a job lot of old games on eBay for a clearout, because you dislike one retailer's business model?
  
  "They give me >$10 for my trade ins then they throw it back on the shelf with a yellow sticker for $5 less than the new game retail price."
  
  Two major points:
  
  1) Nobody is forcing you to use GameStop, dumbass. If you find their offers unacceptable, take your entitled ass somewhere else. Buy your games new elsewhere, and resell them to friends, eBay, Amazon, whatever. If enough people do this, that model is unsustainable and they go out of business. If you don't do this, you're supporting them and keeping them in business.
  
  2) In your example, you ALREADY PAID for the game at full price. The publisher ALREADY got their cut. Why should they take another cut just because they want to? Nobody else, from the manufacturer of your monitor to the builder of your house is trying to demand a cut when you resell it - even if you do so at a profit. Why are games publishers so different?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - SkullKid, 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:54am
    
    Re: Re: Used Games
    "You're against the concept of used games, everything ranging from me selling my copy to a neighbour to a job lot of old games on eBay for a clearout, because you dislike one retailer's business model?"
    
    Yeah I hadn't considered that. I guess I was primarily focused on GameStop. Correct me if I'm wrong on this but didn't Microsoft say they were going to allow you to transfer your game license? I believe you can only do it once which kind of sucks but at least its something (I realize it doesn't make up for it though).
    
    "Nobody is forcing you to use GameStop, dumbass. If you find their offers unacceptable, take your entitled ass somewhere else. Buy your games new elsewhere, and resell them to friends, eBay, Amazon, whatever. If enough people do this, that model is unsustainable and they go out of business. If you don't do this, you're supporting them and keeping them in business."
    
    Damn, why are you so hostile? I was asking a legitimate question. Can we not debate this civilly as mature adults and without name-calling?
    
    "In your example, you ALREADY PAID for the game at full price. The publisher ALREADY got their cut. Why should they take another cut just because they want to? Nobody else, from the manufacturer of your monitor to the builder of your house is trying to demand a cut when you resell it - even if you do so at a profit. Why are games publishers so different?"
    
    By this logic would you say that the developer only deserves a single sale of their game? Would you also say it's fair that if one person buys the game they have the right to make copies of that game and sell them outside of Wal-Mart? I don't really think its a fair analogy here as we are not discussing material objects that physically degrade over time such as a house or car.
    
    I still have to think about this some more and try to consider all angles. I didn't even think about private sellers. It is an interesting subject to say the least. Also, In my opinion, the publishers can go fuck themselves. They are basically middle-men like GameStop. I'm more concerned with the developers actually getting fair value for what they do. I myself am an aspiring independent (PC) game developer and I know just how much work it really takes to make these games.
    
    I would totally be against passing legislation to prevent the sale of used games or anything like that. I do believe however, that the developers of the game should be able to do as they please with their software. If they want to restrict used game sales using built in methods I'm perfectly fine with that.
    
    I'm not even a console gamer so this doesn't really affect me so much. I do however, own 100+ games on Steam that I can't resell and that doesn't bother me at all because most of them I paid a fair price for (Not $60). I guess the point I'm trying to make is if we saw fairer pricing along with the elimination of the used games market (Steam-style) would people still feel as strongly? You say I'm entitled (I'm not sure what I'm pro porting to be entitled to) and yet you demand that software developers design their software in a way doesn't intrude on your right to resale. That seems more like an entitlement to me.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Used Games
      "Correct me if I'm wrong on this but didn't Microsoft say they were going to allow you to transfer your game license?"
      
      Details are very confusing, but such restrictions still have no business being on a physical disc IMHO.
      
      "Damn, why are you so hostile? I was asking a legitimate question. Can we not debate this civilly as mature adults and without name-calling?"
      
      I apologise, but you are going well outside of the logical realms of argument yourself. For example:
      
      "By this logic would you say that the developer only deserves a single sale of their game? "
      
      Of course not, and it's ridiculous to assume so. Don't make the same mistake as the troll contingent around here of thinking that I must somehow support piracy (your suggestion) just because I don't agree with being stripped of my rights. What you described is PIRACY and is of course not acceptable.
      
      In your case, you bought the game once, so the developer has made one sale. From there, you have first sale rights to do what you wish with the product you bought. Whether you decide to use the disc as a pretty coaster, throw it on a bonfire or resell it, you have every right to do those things without the developer being involved. That works fine with books, movies, Lego, cars, houses, you name it. It's even true for videogames for the last few decades. Why is it suddenly a problem now?
      
      "Also, In my opinion, the publishers can go fuck themselves."
      
      So, you approve of a move that's being made to placate them and help them increase their profit margins? That makes no sense.
      
      "I myself am an aspiring independent (PC) game developer and I know just how much work it really takes to make these games."
      
      Then why do you support something that reduces the market for that product? Shouldn't you be supporting things like Humble Bundle, GOG, etc. that are moving themselves away from DRM and other odious restrictions on consumers? Why support people who are moving away (did you see MS's rceen t record on dealing indie studios, for example? Do you not think things will just get worse when they control the retail channels with these kinds of moves?).
      
      "I do however, own 100+ games on Steam that I can't resell and that doesn't bother me at all because most of them I paid a fair price for (Not $60)."
      
      ...and your assessment of what was "fair" to pay for them included the convenience of digital and the resale value. e.g. you found the lack of resale acceptable because you made savings that couldn't be achieved with a physical disc, correct?
      
      My fair price for a digital disc includes the ability to resell it. You can't get full price and then remove value from it, and you can't force me to give up my rights without some value in return.
      
      "That seems more like an entitlement to me."
      
      If you mean, I would like to retain my rights to the products I have legally bought, as I do with any other product I buy, then yes that's entitlement. Why are you so eager to strip those rights from me?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Lurker Keith, 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Used Games
      There's a reason they call it a First Sale RIGHT. We have a right to sell what we own. W/ game discs, we own the disc.
      
      As to copying, it's against the law to make a copy. THAT is what Copyright is for, to say who can & can't make a copy. That is ALL it is supposed to do, hence the word "Copyright".
      
      When I buy a game disc, I own that disc, & can access whatever is on it. I accept that it isn't fair to make a copy for others, but I should be able to do whatever I want, physically, w/ that disc: loan/ trade/ sell.
      
      & discs do degrade. That's what a lot of people don't get. If people don't take care of their games, pre-Blu-ray discs got scratched & could stop working (B-rs are supposed to be scratch proof).
      
      So you know, I have never traded in a game, ever. I have bought some used. One time, not long ago, I got a used copy of a Wii game at GameStop, but it wasn't what I thought it was (turned out to be a non-upgraded DS port, w/ both screens on the TV at the same time), & for the first time I used their '7 day, no questions asked return policy'; I would've been stuck had I got it new. I turned around & got the game I expected the one I initially picked up was.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ChrisB (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Used Games
      How can you lose your mind when it comes to games? Everything else can be resold, but not games? If I had a Settlers of Catan board game, I should be able to sell it but not a Settlers of Catan video game? In what world does that make sense.
      
      The irony is a robust used game market supports a new game market. When they eliminate used games, the new game market will collapse and they will have to lower prices, thus lowering revenue. This developers/publishers are retarded.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Phillip (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Used Games
      "Yeah I hadn't considered that. I guess I was primarily focused on GameStop. Correct me if I'm wrong on this but didn't Microsoft say they were going to allow you to transfer your game license? I believe you can only do it once which kind of sucks but at least its something (I realize it doesn't make up for it though)."
      
      Yes, Microsoft is letting you transfer a game once and it can not be transferred again, but this is a limitation on what you can do right now with your 360.
      
      "By this logic would you say that the developer only deserves a single sale of their game? Would you also say it's fair that if one person buys the game they have the right to make copies of that game and sell them outside of Wal-Mart? I don't really think its a fair analogy here as we are not discussing material objects that physically degrade over time such as a house or car. "
      
      So game discs don't get scratched up? Online communities don't die off? I loved Red Faction: Guerrilla, but the online community completely died off in less than 1 month. It would take 5-10 mins to find a single match. If you bought that game new or used later you would likely never experience the multiplier or at least much of it as there was no one to play with. Also, once the game is sold I'm not playing it there is still only one person playing it at a time.
      
      If you don't like cars/houses what about movies/music there are no restrictions on those do you think Netflix and Redbox should be eliminated they allow you to watch movies without paying for them. Many of which have the same or higher budgets as video games. What about HBO? they show you movies that you would otherwise have to purchase for yourself?
      
      "I still have to think about this some more and try to consider all angles. I didn't even think about private sellers. It is an interesting subject to say the least. Also, In my opinion, the publishers can go fuck themselves. They are basically middle-men like GameStop. I'm more concerned with the developers actually getting fair value for what they do. I myself am an aspiring independent (PC) game developer and I know just how much work it really takes to make these games. "
      
      Microsoft is requiring all games to have publishers or they won't be allowed on the xbone. Hence the next oddworld won't be available on it. Frequently developers get nothing or almost nothing from the sales. They get a check from the publisher and maybe they get a bonus or a small cut for certain sales.
      
      "I would totally be against passing legislation to prevent the sale of used games or anything like that. I do believe however, that the developers of the game should be able to do as they please with their software. If they want to restrict used game sales using built in methods I'm perfectly fine with that. "
      
      So your car manufacturer should tie your car to your DNA and if you want to transfer it you need to go to the dealership and pay them to transfer it to a new sucker. You don't have restrictions on your movies or cds and they keep chugging along while getting more pirated than console games.
      
      "I'm not even a console gamer so this doesn't really affect me so much. I do however, own 100+ games on Steam that I can't resell and that doesn't bother me at all because most of them I paid a fair price for (Not $60). I guess the point I'm trying to make is if we saw fairer pricing along with the elimination of the used games market (Steam-style) would people still feel as strongly? You say I'm entitled (I'm not sure what I'm pro porting to be entitled to) and yet you demand that software developers design their software in a way doesn't intrude on your right to resale. That seems more like an entitlement to me."
      
      Most people don't have issues with the digital games not being transferable and understand that. The issue is on the xbone if you buy a disc at Best Buy/GameStop/Amazon you can not transfer that disc. Sony and Microsoft both offer digital copies of games right now on their consoles that you can sell/trade/etc and no one cares. The entire issue is that Microsoft is trying to changes physical discs.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - SkullKid, 18 Jun 2013 @ 8:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        A lot of good comments here. I can't realistically reply to them all so I'm just going to pick and choose the ones I feel that I can refute.
        
        "So, you approve of a move that's being made to placate them and help them increase their profit margins? That makes no sense."
        
        It's not just the publishers that are complaining. As this article shows. A lot of developers have a problem with the used game market. I don't give a shit about what publishers think, but I do care about the developers.
        
        "Then why do you support something that reduces the market for that product? Shouldn't you be supporting things like Humble Bundle, GOG, etc. that are moving themselves away from DRM and other odious restrictions on consumers? Why support people who are moving away (did you see MS's rceen t record on dealing indie studios, for example? Do you not think things will just get worse when they control the retail channels with these kinds of moves?)."
        
        I absolutely support things such as the Humble Bundle. I'm not sure what gave you the idea that I would be against such things. I'm also against DRM when it's purpose is to try and prevent copying and/or piracy (Something that can't be done). On the other hand, one could argue that Steam is itself DRM, and I love Steam. Honestly, I don't even like Microsoft, The issue here is the idea of Restricting Used Games though.
        
        "So your car manufacturer should tie your car to your DNA and if you want to transfer it you need to go to the dealership and pay them to transfer it to a new sucker. You don't have restrictions on your movies or cds and they keep chugging along while getting more pirated than console games."
        
        I don't think piracy is the issue here. The difference being that a downloaded (pirated) game / movie does not equate to a lost sale. With used games, you have a customer who is willing and able to pay, and in fact you have a completed sale. The problem is that the developer gets nothing from the sale of his own game. Private sellers are one thing (and completely acceptable, in my opinion.) but giant retail chains like GameStop just funnel money out of the hands of the developers and into the pockets of greedy corporations that do not give a fuck about their customers. That money should go to the developers, not to some middle-man.
        
        "There's a reason they call it a First Sale RIGHT. We have a right to sell what we own. W/ game discs, we own the disc."
        
        And you do have a right to do whatever you want with that disc. You are buying the disc, you can sell the disc. You are not buying the software on the disc, you do not own it, you have no right to sell it. What I'm saying is, your first sale right is not violated. You can sell the disc if you want, there just might not be many interested buyers if the software on that disc doesn't work anymore. You are buying a license to play a game, that license can be deemed non-transferable by the licensor. This is a common thing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lurker Keith, 18 Jun 2013 @ 8:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        And you do have a right to do whatever you want with that disc. You are buying the disc, you can sell the disc. You are not buying the software on the disc, you do not own it, you have no right to sell it. What I'm saying is, your first sale right is not violated. You can sell the disc if you want, there just might not be many interested buyers if the software on that disc doesn't work anymore. You are buying a license to play a game, that license can be deemed non-transferable by the licensor. This is a common thing.
        
        You are wrong. Yes, I buy the disc, but the value I buy isn't the plastic, it is indeed what is stored on the plastic. I bought the GAME.
        
        A game is no different from a book, as far as ownership goes. Both are covered by the same Copyright laws. I have no problem selling, loaning or trading a book. & there is no way to prevent that. Companies are using technology to make that more & more difficult for game discs, though.
        
        I understand, to an extent, trying to prevent it w/ non-degrading digital files (& even that is a misnomer: if a file is copied enough times, it can corrupt or degrade). But I physically own books, movies, TV shows & games. I should keep my First Sale RIGHTS on at least the physical editions of these tangible things.
        
        As I said, it's called a First Sale Right for a reason. Once a Copyright owner sales their copyrighted thing, they aren't supposed to have any degree of ownership over that particular copy; they exhausted their rights to it. There are laws in place to make sure no one makes a new copy, but the original is supposed to no longer belong to the Copyright owner.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        SkullKid, 18 Jun 2013 @ 8:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        "I bought the GAME"
        
        I think this is where you're wrong. You are not buying the game. You are purchasing a license to play the game. This is why you often must accept an EULA (Which is an acronym for "End User License Agreement").
        
        Although I'm not a lawyer or anything so I could be wrong. But it is my understanding that you are not purchasing anything but a license to use the software. Maybe someone with more knowledge of how this can elaborate?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lurker Keith, 18 Jun 2013 @ 8:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        I buy from Nintendo. Their games don't have a license agreement.
        
        The only time I had to read & click on a license agreement for them was on the Wii U (never owned a Wii, so I don't know if my sister had to click on a license agreement), & I don't remember it saying anything about the games.
        
        They actually came out & said they aren't restricting reselling games in an interview at E3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zvqwMnyhhn4#t=432s
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lord Binky, 18 Jun 2013 @ 12:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        Actually their games do and there is also one for the console itself. Here's a good snippet from the EULA for the 3DS.
        
        "After the Nintendo 3DS menu is updated, any existing or future unauthorized technical modification of the hardware or software of your Nintendo 3DS System, or the use of an unauthorized device in connection with your system, will render the system permanently unplayable"
        
        With EULA like that, no wonder you don't see things like Game Genie for every console anymore.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lurker Keith, 18 Jun 2013 @ 1:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        I already said the Wii U had a license, but it's for the console. & I'm pretty sure all the consoles have something like that these days. Even computers have them, so it's inescapable for the Hardware.
        
        Some of it is boilerplate saying unauthorized modifications may not be compatible w/ future updates, & Nintendo disclaiming liability for you bricking your system by an unsupported mod. Note I said "some", so you can't go attacking that.
        
        What Nintendo doesn't have is licenses on their GAMES! Do try to read. I even checked the manuals on a few games (over a week ago at the earliest, out of curiosity), & those didn't have a license agreement either.
        
        I don't remember reading any license agreements on the free games/ demos I downloaded via the eShop either. Also, the eShop language is "buy" & "purchase", not "license" nor "lease".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lurker Keith, 18 Jun 2013 @ 1:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        For completeness, I booted up the free game I downloaded (& it is an Ubisoft game, so 3rd Party), to check the digital manual. There is no license agreement even in that! You need to learn to read.
        
        What is there is "Legal Notices", which is the copyright boilerplate & the update compatibility boilerplate I mentioned.
        
        I do not have to agree to ANY license to play a game, other than that for the console, & that only ONCE. I put the game disc in, it goes through a brief load screen, the screens of who contributed to the game's creation & release, then the game boots; no license.
        
        What you may be getting confused on is the Licensed by Nintendo Seal. That has nothing to do w/ the buyer. That is saying Nintendo inspected & authorized the game. They kinda screwed up on that w/ Tales of Graces, from what I heard (it was released w/ game breaking (in a bad way) bugs over in Japan, & a fixed version released for the PS3).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 9:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        The problem is that in the United States there has been no ruling on digital distributed media in regards to the First Sale Doctrine.
        The in EU the courts have ruled that digital distributed media - that lacking a physical form, is protected the same way as physical media. Although they acknowledge that it is certainly easier to illegally copy and/or distribute, but that should no hinder consumer rights.
        What needs to happen in the US is this issue must be pushed by consumer advocate groups and a clear line must be drawn. This is not only about video games, but MP3's, eBooks, DLC, but software in general.
        When I buy something, I own it. Period. No one argues with physical media, but with the nebulous nature of digital media we have these arguments. I will say I fall in line that I own digital media that I purchased. As long as I do not violate copyright or trademark, ownership falls clearly into the consumer's court.
        Although there is no perfect analogy, well how can they be, that is why they are called analogies...I argue it does not matter if a good degrades over time, stays the same, or in other cases increases in value. A good example of this is a home. A home is usually purchased 'used.' Things fall apart and need to be replaced. It degrades. However, homes (generally - minus the 2008/09 hiccup) appreciate in value. Can you imagine if the builder of your home came back and asked you for a portion of your equity? "Hey, you are making more money selling the house than we did! No fair!" I would tell the builder to go to hell. So this is why I reject the "longevity" or "durability" argument of media.
        
        I do care about developers, but not to the point that I will give up my rights. They do not have a right to make money. As a wise poster on Techdirt said, "The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world... If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 10:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        That's certainly the interpretation that's being forced recently, but it's not always been the case. Presumably because the physical media and the data used to be irrevocably tied to one another. You bought the game, you resold it if and when you wished, however and to whoever you wanted.
        
        Now, it's different as digital content muddies the waters, but our rights still apply. If we own the media, we have resale rights of the media and whatever's on it but normally lose recourse if the media is damaged or lost. If we have a licence, we should be able to access the software responding to that licence independent of the media.
        
        There seems to be a trend where a lot of companies pick and choose the definition depending on what's more convenient to them. Want a download of the game you bought physically? Pay again, you only paid for that disc not the data. Want to resell your media or make a backup copy? Tough, it's a licence and we won't allow that.
        
        The industry needs to pick a single definition and roll with that, no matter the downsides to their side of the equation. But, they'll have a fight on their hands if this involves removing rights previously taken for granted (such as the ability to resell physical media).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Alt0, 12 Jul 2013 @ 12:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        You are correct in as far as games that have an EULA.
        (most modern games, especially on line multi-player games)
        
        It equates to selling your Windows disc so someone else can install windows on their PC. In these cases it is the plastic medium you "own" not the program on it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niall (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 8:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        To clarify this, Copyright gives the copyright holder a one-off right to control how each individual copy is passed on, once only. So once it has been sold or given 'legally' (in an authorised fashion would be better) to someone else, that one-off right has expired - for that copy alone. They can still legally restrict your ability to copy that copy - but that particular copy can be given away, thrown away, used as a coaster, passed around a whole group of friends, or whatever you like, as you specifically own that copy.
        
        So once you 'own' a copy of a file, then no-one should have any right to restrict what you do with it (subject to copying restrictions above). Now, with digital files this then gets into the territory of is it a sale or a licence - because if the companies want to treat it as a licence then they have certain legal responsibilities that they wouldn't have with sales.
        
        Also, a non-transferrable item by its very nature tends to be worth less than something that is inherently transferrable. If all you are effectively 'buying' is a (not even) lifetime licence to use a product that you may not even like that much, expect to see your sales suffer accordingly once people cotton onto this.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 8:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        With used games, you have a customer who is willing and able to pay, and in fact you have a completed sale. The problem is that the developer gets nothing from the sale of his own game.
        
        The developer already got paid for the game. I don't see the problem at all.
        
        What you're saying is that the sale of a used game equates to the loss of a sale of a new game. I don't see any reason to think that's true.
        
        Gamers buy both new and used games. Used games are a lower investment, so by buying them, they are buying a greater number of games than they would have otherwise. Sometimes, those games are so great that it will spur them to buy new games from the same company/style/franchise they would never have otherwise known they wanted.
        
        The death of the used game market, at best, will not increase sales in the new games market. At worst, it will reduce them.
        
        That money should go to the developers, not to some middle-man.
        
        Why is that? You say that like it's a moral imperative. I don't think it is.
        
        You are not buying the software on the disc, you do not own it, you have no right to sell it.
        
        This attitude encapsulates a great deal of what is wrong with the software industry today. Especially games.
        
        If I can't resell a piece of software, I'm not going to pay more than $10 for it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niall (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 8:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        To add to this, if I buy a used Ford, has Ford 'lost a sale of a new car'? What if I could never afford a new Ford? And what of the previous owner who may now with this money buy a different new Ford - where has Ford lost out?
        
        If Ford start demanding a cut of the used car market for their cars then I'll be damned if I buy one of their cars when there's plenty of competition. Is that 'piracy'?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        SkullKid, 18 Jun 2013 @ 10:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        Right but the difference is you are buying the car. Not buying a license to use it.
        
        Techdirt actually covered this a while back:
        http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/first-sale-doctrine/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_m edium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20wired%2Findex%20%28Wired%3A%20Index%203%20%28Top%20Stories%202 %29%29&utm_content=Google%20Feedfetcher
        
        Whether you agree with it or not is a different matter.
        
        Although some of you have raised some very valid points, I still remain unconvinced.
        
        Looking at it from another angle: it would be logical to suggest that the more money the developers / publishers make from the sale of a game the lower they can set the price. For arguments sake, lets consider that the developers are willing to lower the price of their game as long as they remain profitable (I know this may not always be the case).
        
        With that assumption in mind, wouldn't it seem unfair to the people like me who don't purchase used games but still have to pay the increased price the developer needs to charge in order to maintain profitability because they are losing sales to a used game market? You could of course, reverse it, and put the blame on me for wanting to keep my games instead of trading them in. But it seems to me that restricting the resale of games would be mutually beneficial to both the consumer and the developer in this case. The consumer gets to keep the game forever, and is able buy more games because of the lower price. While the developer is given the money from the sales and uses it to create more games. The only person that loses out are the chain stores that make a large portion of their profit by trading in used games.
        
        Sure, you can argue that the price of new games won't go down (even though we don't know this, and I would say its more than likely the price of new games does drop significantly). But if they did would you still feel the same way? Say the price of games halved to $30 (we are talking a billion dollars lost just to GameStop used games sales that now goes directly to the developer / publisher). Wouldn't you benefit more by this than having to trade your games into GameStop or find a seller on eBay, Craigslist, etc...? I know the people like me, who don't trade in their games, would benefit greatly from this. I'm sure I'm not the only one either.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 10:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        With that assumption in mind, wouldn't it seem unfair to the people like me who don't purchase used games but still have to pay the increased price the developer needs to charge in order to maintain profitability because they are losing sales to a used game market?
        
        Setting aside that it's not at all clear that sales are being lost to used games, my answer to this question would be "no".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        SkullKid, 18 Jun 2013 @ 10:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        How is it unfair to assume that someone who is willing to pay $40 - $55 for a used game wouldn't be willing to spend $30 on a new game? The assumption I was asking you to make was that the developer is willing to lower their prices as long as they can remain profitable. I think it would be hard to argue, that without a used games market, developers couldn't remain profitable by selling copies at $30 instead of $60.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        SkullKid, 18 Jun 2013 @ 10:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        I just read that M$ will be selling first-party Xbox One games for the same $60 price tag.
        
        If this is true, All the outrage over this is completely and totally justified. I just hope that people vote with their wallets and refuse to purchase a $60 game that you can't resell or else we will see it become the norm.
        
        It's really disappointing though. Microsoft had a perfect opportunity to make gaming more affordable than ever, but it looks like they are going to blow it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 10:45am
        
        Moot point
        While I would agree that Steam sales would seem to suggest that people would have no problem paying for new games if they prices were dropped like that, the idea that if the competition that is used games were to go away publishers would even be willing to consider doing so strikes me as rather naive.
        
        You're talking about people and groups that consider millions of sales to be a failure, long term planning(or even basic budgeting), or even just willing to adapt is just kinda beyond them, so charging less, so that they could sell more, would probably never even occur to them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        SkullKid, 18 Jun 2013 @ 10:57am
        
        Re: Moot point
        Yeah I guess I under-estimated exactly how much of the industry has been consumed by greed and corruption. It absolutely inexcusable to not have a significant drop in the price of games if the used game market is eliminated, especially when it comes to first-party titles.
        
        I am even more appalled by these so called "Gaming" sites that are reporting this as "Good News!" because the price for games won't be going up but instead staying at $59.99 like they are doing us some kind of favor.
        
        The fact that Microsoft has chosen to charge the same as Sony for new games ($59.99) seems completely idiotic to me. They had a very good opportunity to steal a lot of business away from Sony and Nintendo by reducing their prices.
        
        Oh well, I never intended to buy the new Xbox One or PS4 anyway. I still have Steam at least. I should almost be thanking Microsoft for the coming boom in the PC gaming market.
        
        If you are outraged, do not support them with your money!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 1:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        How is it unfair to assume that someone who is willing to pay $40 - $55 for a used game wouldn't be willing to spend $30 on a new game?
        
        That's not unfair. But that's not the hypothesis you proposed. You asked if it was unfair that people who don't purchase used games have to pay more than people who buy used games. I say no, that's not unfair.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 1:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        I think it would be hard to argue, that without a used games market, developers couldn't remain profitable by selling copies at $30 instead of $60.
        
        Actually, I think it would be really easy to argue against this. Used games sale do not have much, if any, negative effect on new games sales. Or, at least, there is no evidence whatsoever that they do.
        
        Aside from that, $30 for such a game (that I don't control and cannot resell) would still be dramatically overpriced.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niall (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 4:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        I live in the EU, so apparently I do own the copy of software that I buy ;) And you guys should as well. As was pointed out earlier in the thread, publishers refuse to be consistent whether it's a sale or a licence that a customer is paying for. That needs to be clarified and made consistent.
        
        And yes, it's as perfectly fair for you as a buyer of new games to pay whatever the company is making you to, as it claims, make up for second-hand sales. Firstly, no-one is forcing you to buy the game new/full price. Ok, I know some people have to - but there are people who want to do this. But you yourself have a choice. If the companies are pricing their content too high for people to want to pay $60, then they need to change their business model and cost management - the whole point of this article.
        
        Secondly, every other industry selling stuff seems to manage fine. If new car buyers or new furniture buyers or new television buyers have to theoretically 'pay to make up for people buying second-hand' then there is no special reason why games or books or movies or music should be exempt. They already have the special exemption that they can charge forever less a day for all copies of a one-off work, which the guy building the car, making the furniture or designing the TV doesn't get.
        
        So yes, it's utterly fair. You want to pay $60? Fine. Not happy with it? Don't buy it. If I want to buy it, I have the perfectly legal choice of paying �40 for it new, or a lot less for it second-hand. So cry me a river.
        
        There is also a fallacy in thinking that preventing second-hand sales would miraculously lead to a like-for-like increase in first-hand sales. If I can't afford $40 for a new game, or unless it's something I badly want (which is rare), I'll just go spend my money on something else, like a book or music or food out, or even a toy for my kid. How much is the game developer getting there? Am I 'forcing' you to pay extra then?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        I'm also against DRM when it's purpose is to try and prevent copying and/or piracy (Something that can't be done).
        
        What other purpose could DRM have?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niall (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 4:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        Controlling other legitimate uses - look at car software limiting independent repairs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - RadialSkid (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 11:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Used Games
      I don't really think its a fair analogy here as we are not discussing material objects that physically degrade over time such as a house or car.
      
      I've heard this argument several times...games DO degrade, albeit in a different way. They degrade in the sense that they become obsolete. Houses don't become obsolete. Really, cars don't either.
      
      For example, a 1959 Cadillac Eldorado convertible sold new for $7,401, which would be about $57,000 in today's money. Yet these cars routinely trade hands today for upwards of $200,000, and can be driven pretty as you please on the road today. Games, by contrast, are frequently unplayable two years after release. They lose any online support, updates, and don't even get me started on those stupid one-time codes.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Used Games
      I guess the point I'm trying to make is if we saw fairer pricing along with the elimination of the used games market (Steam-style) would people still feel as strongly?
      
      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!! Reduced prices! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
      
      :-)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 10:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Used Games
      "I don't really think its a fair analogy here as we are not discussing material objects that physically degrade over time such as a house or car."
      
      Oh, really... what about a DVD, or a BluRay, or a CD, or a (well treated) Book then. A used game (on disc) degrades about the same, yet we don't have the MPAA, RIAA, or the Authours Guild trying to pull this shit with their physical products.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Lurker Keith, 19 Jun 2013 @ 3:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        To be fair, I'm pretty Hollywood & the Record Labels did try (whether it was w/ tapes or CDs/ DVDs, I'm not sure; wouldn't surprise me if they attempted it w/ each change), but ultimately the courts told them "NO! We're not undoing First Sale Rights."
        
        I don't understand why that isn't good enough for everyone?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris Brand, 18 Jun 2013 @ 9:54am
    
    Re: Re: Used Games
    "Nobody else, from the manufacturer of your monitor to the builder of your house is trying to demand a cut when you resell it" - except for fine artists, who are working hard to get legislation introduced so that they get a cut whenever the artwork they produced is resold (search for "Resale Royalty" or "droit de suite"). Of course if they succeed, you can bet that all the rest of the "content industries" will be lining up demanding the same treatment (hell, it's probably in the TPP...)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - SkullKid, 18 Jun 2013 @ 10:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Used Games
      I feel like this is very different than what Microsoft is doing. They are taking steps to deal with the problem by adjusting their business model. This is the correct way to go. Legislation is not the answer. Haven't we been sitting around justifying, in a way, piracy, because the MPAA / RIAA refuses to change their business model? Lobbying for laws should not be the answer. Yet we condemn Microsoft when they adjust their own business models in order to survive in a rapidly changing market. If they tried to go about this Used Game sales restriction by passing laws against it I would be absolutely, vehemently, opposed to such action. But they aren't, they are going about it the right way. Now people are claiming we should have laws regarding "First Sale" that forces the video game industry right back into an outdated and obsolete business model.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Niall (profile), 19 Jun 2013 @ 4:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        Kudos to MS for adjusting their business model. But it still sucks.
        
        And you already have those First Sale laws that does actually force the video game industry to play by the same economic rules as any other industry:
        Make what the customer wants or that you can persuade them they want, make it cheaper or better than your competitors, or go out of business.
        
        Of course, the content industries prefer to buy legislation to legal-away competition and keep any gravy train going, rather than actually innovate.
        
        I've spent more money in the last few years on Free-to-play games on micropayments than I have on actual games. Because the offer so much more, and I could give a rat's arse that mediaeval venice has authentic-looking poo on the floor or that my headshot shows the right percentage of blood to brains, or that the gun used is both authentic-looking and 'authorised'.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dennis deems (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:28am
  
  Re: Used Games
  The used game market does not begin and end with GameStop. There's eBay, Amazon Marketplace, Craigslist, etc. etc.
  
  If you were willing to part with a game for $10, what do you care what the buyer does with it? Let them sell it for a dime or $100, it should be nothing to you if you got your $10.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChrisB (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:30am
    
    Re: Re: Used Games
    I guess you don't have Kijiji wherever you are. I get (and sell) most of my used games there. Way better prices than GameStop, and have been doing it for years. GameStop is for kids who's parents don't know any better.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:49am
  
  Re: Used Games
  It's kind'a silly to have that discussion now as games will most likely have gone all digital in a decade even on console. A big part of why we PC gamers have so readily given up used games is because of the crazy sales that steam and the other digital platforms pull. Which is quite the opposite to say Xbox where not only prices drop far slower but there are also more people with smaller budgets.
  
  Example: this weekend Witcher 2 was on for 6,5 euro but on Xbox you won't find a year old AAA for their game gets traded in fast and they loose sales for it. They make a good game -> people keep their game and they sell more new copies.
  
  For me, just the online drm on xbox one is a complete dealbreaker and when you combine that with the no used games - Microsoft really shot themselves in the foot with a shotgun.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:50am
    
    Re: Re: Used Games
    middle part of the comment got cut :s
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:52am
    
    Re: Re: Used Games
    *Example: this weekend Witcher 2 was on for 6,5 euro but on Xbox you won't find a year old AAA for their game gets traded in fast and they loose sales for it. They make a good game -> people keep their game and they sell more new copies.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Used Games
      wtf
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:17am
  
  Re: Used Games
  GameStop is not the only place to buy and sell used games you know. There also EB Games, EBay, Amazon, the flea market and so on. And some people sell use games directly to their friends at school or work or whatever.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lurker Keith, 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:35am
    
    Re: Re: Used Games
    EB shouldn't be on your list. Last I checked, they're owned by GameStop now.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Costa, 18 Jun 2013 @ 10:26am
  
  Re: Used Games
  I didn't know gamestop was the only entity in the universe buying second hand games.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:08am

Honestly, I can attest that in troubled times I.E. seperation there were times where I could not afford internet access for about a month due to moving and buying half of my old stuff. If my only source of videogames would have been on the X1 I would have likely been dangling from a ceiling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:12am

Aging gamer rants, not focused enough.
I guess here's the payload: the standard Techdirt assertion of "turning potential customers into enemies". -- To begin with, "potential" customers are doing the corporation no good, and to end with: still plenty of kids who'll buy even if all the problems are real. -- The mindless change-for-sake-of-change consumerism just accelerates, despite ranting of geezers. It's the basis of Microsoft.

You're on the one hand aging out of the target demographic and railing at the kids who don't grasp that they're being taken for a ride, and on the other hand, another Techdirt staple, advising those IN the industry how they're doin' it all wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:37am
  
  Re: Aging gamer rants, not focused enough.
  "To begin with, "potential" customers are doing the corporation no good"
  
  So why do they spend so much money on advertising if not to turn potential customers into paying customers? It's surely a waste of money if they never go from one group to another.
  
  "You're on the one hand aging out of the target demographic"
  
  Define "target demographic". You're the one who usually makes claims that are easily proven wrong. So here's your chance to redeem yourself.
  
  According to the ESA (http://www.theesa.com/facts/index.asp), gamers are an average of 30 years, having gamed for an average of 13 years. What is it about Blesinski's games and/or the Xbox One that doesn't fit within this demographic - bearing in mind that many TD commenters are within this age bracket or within a reasonable margin? What is the demographic they are actually targeting? Sources are very welcome.
  
  I'll wait.
  
  "advising those IN the industry how they're doin' it all wrong."
  
  The comment section is public and free for those within the industry to correct the articles or present their own side of the story. If you know any, see if they wish to drown out the moron troll bridge who do nothing but whine and call names, adding even less.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call me Al, 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:14am

""You cannot have game and marketing budgets this high while also having used and rental games existing."

I think its his inclusion of "marketing budgets" in this line which says it all to me.

Surely the purpose of marketing is to sell more games. So if your marketing budget has balooned to such a size that it becomes a liability in terms of overall budget then I have to say "You are doing it wrong!".

He speaks as if the marketing budget is an end in itself. "Nevermind how good the game is, look at how much money we spent trying to get people to buy it!"

I've become very wary of buying new games when they are newly releases. I'm simply not willing to pay �50 for a game I may or may not enjoy.

I do though I keep an eye out for friend's recommendations and or cut price games I feel I should try. Mass Effect is a prime example, I got a budget copy of the first and loved it. I bought ME 2 on release at full price. ME3 I bought the collector's edition. I also got other friends to play and buy the games.

Second hand games in a franchise (and everything is a franchise these days it seems) are marketing if you treat the consumers right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:18am

Cliffy needs to direct his rage at whoever sold him that broken calculator, because everyone else's numbers add up just fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:30am

Used game Sales
The idea that used game sales detract from new sales is fallacious. A reasonable assumption is that peoples budgets for games is fixed, and without second hand sales they would buy fewer, or cheaper games. It is therefore quite probable that killing off second hand sales will actually reduce the studio's sales.
That is those people who relied on selling a their copy of an old game to buy a new game will not purchase the new game, but spend their money on a cheaper game elsewhere, as will those people who would have bought the second hand game.
Not being able to afford the game is also a driver of piracy, and therefore the studio could end up claiming that they were destroyed by piracy, when they had a business model failure, pricing themselves out of the market by insisting that player pay full price for their copy of the game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lowestofthekeys (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:33am

That mentality has always bothered me. You see it so often in the movie industry where they'll focus so much of the financials on the visual aspects like the CGI or the actors, and then expect a huge return.

People can smell that shit, and they don't like being tossed a sugar-frosted piece of poo.

Also, this guy brings up a good point about video games: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7121-Dark-Souls-and-Dark-Sales
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 10:30am
  
  Re:
  Okay, that video was excellent, nailed the point perfectly.
  
  Especially liked the ending there, where he compares the publishers and their actions with that of a 10-year old kid, who wants things regardless of reality, and then throws a fit when they don't get it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:36am

Used Games
What happens if I have more than 1 console, say, one in the living room and one in the bedroom? Will I have to buy 2 licenses?? That's just crazy.

Also, With the xbox 360, I've got 2 broken units (both purchased brand new, neither has been played all that often), just cheap crappy hardware. So if my unit breaks and I get a replacement, I can't play the games I already purchased?

This would be a bad model to go to, and will drive people to the PS4.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- SkullKid, 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:13am
  
  Re: Used Games
  "What happens if I have more than 1 console, say, one in the living room and one in the bedroom? Will I have to buy 2 licenses?? That's just crazy."
  
  I don't believe so. You can have up to 10 family members who can access your games. The only drawback is that only one person can play a game at a given time. This doesn't really change much as if it was disk based you would still need to either A.) Buy another disk. or B). Move the disk to the other console, meaning only 1 person can use it at a time.
  
  "Also, With the xbox 360, I've got 2 broken units (both purchased brand new, neither has been played all that often), just cheap crappy hardware. So if my unit breaks and I get a replacement, I can't play the games I already purchased?"
  
  I believed its tied to your XBL account in the same way that Steam games are tied to your Steam account on PC. The good thing about this is that you always have your games anywhere you go. No matter where you are you can access your games as long as you have your login information and an internet connection.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 8:50am
    
    Re: Re: Used Games
    The good thing about this is that you always have your games anywhere you go.
    
    The bad thing about this is that you are at the mercy of Microsoft and have to let them spy on you to play the games you paid good money for.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - SkullKid, 18 Jun 2013 @ 1:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Used Games
      Indeed. I was just trying to point out that there is at least SOME measure of value for the customer. It's not all bad, just mostly.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 1:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Used Games
        But even that measure of usability is very, very weak. It would be just as easy to allow the essential game data to be written to a memory stick and playable anywhere you go.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChrisB (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:33am
  
  Re: Used Games
  Don't forget. If you get banned on XBOX 1, all your legally purchased games are gone, even the offline ones. Anyone would be a fool to buy an XBOX 1.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Phillip (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:40am
    
    Re: Re: Used Games
    I don't like the xbone but Major Nelson addressed this question the other day, if you get banned you will not loose your games. Granted this is what they claim now. I will not fully believe it until it happens.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:43am

Business Model Failure
The gaming industry is game console heavy. That is part of their problem. Not everyone who plays any computer games wants or owns a game console. So they have limited to their market to a subset of users - fairly hardcore gamers. Casual gamers get lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:55am

AAA games are, for the most part, complete and utter rubbish.
Gears of War is ugly, awkward and just not at all fun to play. CoD and the sports games are rehashed year after year. Bioware re-sell KoTOR with a new skin (and more forced LGBT relationships) whenever possible.

/rant

On topic:
No-one else gets to strip the first sale rights of customers, why should game publishers? You'd think it ludicrous if 2nd hand book shops were banned but that's the closest thing I can think of.

I'd add my voice to those suggesting that they cut the advertising money, people want your games anyway there's no need to spend so much paying off IGN...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lurker Keith, 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:57am

Nintendo welcomes used games
Nintendo is the ONLY console maker this cycle not trying to block used games, at all. Unlike the PS4, the Wii U doesn't even support DRM to restrict used games, even if 3rd Parties wanted to (probably part of why they have so little 3rd Party support currently):

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2013/06/11/wii-u-does-not-provide-publishers-ability-bloc k-used-games#.UcBdbr4o7IU

As Reggie told GameTrailers (see video in that linked article), Nintendo doesn't need to block used games, because they are confident they make quality games most people want to keep. Case in Point, I don't trade in my games, & one I want, Xenoblade, can't even be found, new or used.

Also, I didn't run into any DRM issues w/ my game saves on my Sister's Wii when I had to move only mine to my Wii U. I had read stuff that made me worry about that (using the Transfer Tool transfers everything that can be transferred, whether you want it all to or not -- & my sister had a few VC games that she'd've been upset if I permanently transferred them). The Transfer Tool is only necessary if you have Virtual Console games, etc., or games w/ online capability. Game saves for games on disc that don't have online multiplayer can be transferred just using an SD Card, w/o the Transfer Tool. I like backing up my game saves, incase they get corrupted (that is from a single game save corrupting back on the GameCube); I could put those back-ups on any Wii or Wii U I wanted. The original saves may still be on my sister's Wii; I don't believe I removed them.

The only problem I had w/ the manual transfer is I had to start each game, so it would create the game data files, individually, before it would let me copy my saves from the SD Card. All the games I've played since have all worked from the copied Wii saves just fine.

My understanding on the block on games w/ Multiplayer is more to prevent cheating. If I gave a friend a copy of my save w/ the Ultimate Weapons unlocked, that would be unfair to those who are still working through the game or hadn't found them. Luckily, I didn't have a game w/ Multiplayer when I did the transfer; I do have one now, but I own my Wii U.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Phillip (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:49am
  
  Re: Nintendo welcomes used games
  Nintendo is the ONLY console maker this cycle not trying to block used games, at all. Unlike the PS4, the Wii U doesn't even support DRM to restrict used games, even if 3rd Parties wanted to (probably part of why they have so little 3rd Party support currently):
  
  Neither does Sony, they do not run or enable any DRM. They said they won't stop a publisher from trying to do a code based activation but it won't use Sony servers to enforce or enact this. This is the same way current system games try to restrict online access with online passes. However, pretty much all the publishers announced they are dropping online passes:
  http://www.vg247.com/2013/06/13/online-pass-is-not-coming-back-its-dead-says-ea-labels-pres ident/
  
  Nintendo never had this publishers do this, because frankly Wii is and was terrible for online play. In trying to "protect" kids they created the worlds worst friends list with friend codes and horrible interfaces. They've made it slightly better with console codes instead of per-game codes but it is still not good.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 8:06am
    
    Re: Re: Nintendo welcomes used games
    Hmmm... I'm not sure I agree with you on Nintendo. IMHO, the online play doesn't really drive used sales, and so the lack of it shouldn't be a factor. In fact, I' d almost say the opposite - games like Zelda and Mario tend to hold their retail value much longer than other franchises, and so the used prices would drive more to them, not less. It's possible that the lack of regular online users might stop them from pulling this kind of stunt, but I don't think it's the major reason.
    
    I'd argue that if Nintendo do have less of a problem with used games, it's because they both develop and publish most of their successful franchises, and sell the console at profit on day one (this was true of the Wii, not sure about the Wii U). So, they don't need to try scalping their customers so much because they already have several bites of the cherry.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Phillip (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 2:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Nintendo welcomes used games
      I wasn't saying it does. That is the only thing that is currently restricted. the latest shooter/sports/game etc they have one time use codes to try to capture money if you sell the game, and the new owner wants to play online.
      
      So with nintendo having shit for online support people don't care and the codes weren't worth the cost in infrastructure and support to implement. As far as I know there aren't any games on the 360/wii(u)/ps3 that tried to restrict single player. Some added "free" access to DLC or one time codes for "online" but that is it. This is all that people will be able to do with Sony or nintendo. Unless either company tried to stop a 3rd party there isn't DRM on either system is all I was pointing out since neither will do this with their games. Sony said they'll let publishers do whatever they think might work, and at the moment there is almost no 3rd part on the Wii U so it remains to be seen what if anything will happen
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Lurker Keith, 18 Jun 2013 @ 3:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Nintendo welcomes used games
        What I took away from Sony's announcement/s was that they had something in the PS4 they could use to restrict games, similar to what Microsoft announced, but the backlash against Microsoft made them back off the decision to use it for their 1st Party releases, but that it is there & they won't stop 3rd Parties from using it.
        
        Here's an interview w/ Jack Tretton & he's evasive on if there is DRM built into the PS4 that 1st Party games just aren't going to use: http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/ulnvnz/playstation-4-e3-2013--jack-tretton-drops-the-mic
        
        Noone outside of Sony & their partners knows for sure if PS4 has dormant restrictions or not, nor what form they take.
        
        Nintendo said in an interview at E3 no such technology exists in the Wii U.
        
        I have not gone online w/ the few games I have that can for Wii or Wii U (I never got into the online stuff; I'm used to being in the same room w/ my friends for multiplayer), so I don't know if there any codes for those. However, I read my instruction manuals (games are really complex now), & haven't come across anything that talks about an online code.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spike, 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:07am

CliffyB got rich quick off the Gears exclusivity publishing deal with Microsoft and is incredibly blind to what that deal really cost him. He would have sold far more copies of Gears if it were multi platform, maybe he should look at Microsoft first before blaming everyone for buying used games.

Simply put, it cost him magnitudes higher in lost profits than what used games did. You can't listen to what this guy says anymore, he does NOT represent gamers anymore.

Oh, how I wish he would come back to his senses like the Unreal Tournament days....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:13am

glad you included the little about the movie industry. they need just as big a boot up the arse as the guy here. if only those in Congress who are equally as thick, that have this same attitude, that receive back handers in order to keep the industry from adapting, from progressing, would do what they should, take a step or two back, look at the bigger picture, see and realise what pricks they are being made and DO SOMETHING SENSIBLE ABOUT IT!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:25am

Vested interest in the status quo
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this the same company that licenses out the unreal engine and makes a killing off if it. Like 25% of all revenues related to use of the engine. Only on new games of course...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:27am

Gamers are STILL stupid
They'll pay, they'll suffer abuse, they'll give up their privacy, they'll surrender their security, and they'll pay again. And AGAIN.

Then they'll whine about how badly they're treated.

If they had any sense, any self-control, any discipline, any backbone, they would have long since put EA out of business -- and in doing so, fired a warning shot across the bow of every other game vendor/supplier/service. And we would not be seeing conversations like this.

I have no sympathy for gamers. Let them burn. Let them suffer. They deserve it for being so short-sighted, so lazy, so incredibly stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 8:55am
  
  Re: Gamers are STILL stupid
  Ditto for anyone paying 'full price' for a movie or music.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 10:35am
  
  Re: Gamers are STILL stupid
  'I have no sympathy for gamers. Let them burn. Let them suffer. They deserve it for being so short-sighted, so lazy, so incredibly stupid.'
  
  I wish I could argue against this more, but like you said if gamers as a whole were willing to stand up for themselves, companies like EA would have gone broke years ago, so unfortunately it comes down to individual gamers who are willing to pass on what might be great games, rather than pay companies who have shown nothing but contempt for their 'customers'.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keroberos (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:41am

Step 1: Stop used games sales.

Step 2: ?

Step 3: Profit.

Sound familiar?

If the amount of used units sold is a significant drain on the new market, you're doing something wrong. I think they also need to stop focusing mainly on the online multi-player aspect of these new games (an over saturated market) and start delivering some solid single player games that take longer than a dozen hours to complete and they might lessen the amount of used games on the market in the first week after launching a new game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mariush (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:44am

Games...
I have over 2800 hours of playing in Left 4 Dead 2, it's a game I enjoy playing with friends after work for a couple of hours a day.
No exceptional graphics, but fun.

Also played each Half-Life game, probably at least 3-5 times.

They're all Valve games, polished, nicely made.

Granted, Valve has the budget and can afford to spend time to get everything right, but it's still a very a good example of how a small number of people can create games and extend their lives by involving community into making maps,mods, custom campaigns, hats (see Team Fortress 2)...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Xanatos, 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:49am

"The fact this industry seems utterly fucking incapable of taking some damn responsibility for itself continues to disgust me"

Winner: most succinct quote of the year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 7:51am

"Those of you telling me 'then just lower game budgets' do understand how silly you sound, right?" said Bleszinski.

I'm curious which of the millions of successful cell phone apps took "thousands of devs" and millions of dollars to create?

I'm pretty sure it's possible to make successful titles without all that manpower/money. I'd also suggest that if it's a "AAA" title, it shouldn't need to be a whole new game every year. A new DLC/patch/storyline would probably be more than enough...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 8:19am

Hahaaha free Advertisement - player reviews works

I never heard of nor played Just Cause 2 but by reading the comments here i had to try it out and now i am hooked

Thank you gentlemen :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 8:35am

Way to go guys! Protect your shit to the max!! In fact protect it so much that people cannot even buy it, that will teach them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 8:36am

Gamers to Gears of War designer:
Let us know how that works out for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 8:38am

CliffyB is the Michael Bay of video games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 8:43am

Spending too much time+money on graphics is the problem
I think the guy outlines the exact problem with the video game industry in his arguments against used games.

They spend WAY too much money and effort on unimportant parts of the game, specifically the graphics, and too little on making the gameplay itself good. If your gameplay sucks, then no one will play your game, no matter how cool your graphics, no matter how awesome your story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TimothyAWiseman (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 9:14am

Graphics aren't the only things
This particular article struck me as a bit melodramatic, yet I agree with all of its core points.

Chief amoung them for me is that graphics are not what make a game great. I do enjoy good graphics, and they are a factor, but only one amoungst many. The gameplay and story are more important. I played Planescape: Torment fairly recently and it was phenomenal despite the graphics being dated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bengie, 18 Jun 2013 @ 9:41am

Thousands
Well, there's your problem, thousands of developers.

Learn to manage, get decent programmers, and be realistic. You have have better games for less money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 1:38pm
  
  Re: Thousands
  Yeah, that popped out at me as well. Even if you count graphic artists, cinematographers, musicians, voice actors, etc., as "developers," the need for thousands of them on a single title points to some really serious, heavy-duty managerial problems at the company. As in the sort that could kill the company.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 9:43am

Meanwhile, off in Valve land Good King Newell is still telling publishers they can make more money by selling more units at a lower price point. But publishers say that devalues "The Brand".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 1:41pm
  
  Re:
  But publishers say that devalues "The Brand".
  
  Yeah, that one of their standard excuses. And one of their most ludicrous ones. It smacks of them pricing based on their personal feelings of the product (this game is so awesome that it's an insult to be paid less than x per unit!), rather than based on what will maximize their returns. In other words, it's really bad business.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymouse, 18 Jun 2013 @ 10:00am

Leave them alone, seriously !!!!!
Let them have their little experiment and see how it develops cos although it is obvious to the majority where this is going they need to experience the financial losses , that is the only way these narcissistic people will be forced out of the industry and out of the gaming community , those that think they have total control over what people buy and that think they can force people to buy their products.

I personally refuse to buy their games and i know there will be millions who feel the same, and as there are no used games of theirs in the market their games are going to be doomed to fail.

This is actually rather good as it will destroy those with the attitude that they know what is best and those big games companies will collapse and others can start developing better games with them out of the way.

I predict them to lose on the first game they do this with, or at least not make even half the profits they are used to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 10:35am

So... the gaming accountants go to the same school as the MPAA/RIAA accountants?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2013 @ 10:58am

If Cliff designed a game that was anything but lowest common denominator horse shit I'd take his opinion slightly more seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 11:38am

I am a firm Supporter of being able to Sell off the things I have bought should I feel doing so.And I am also a Proud Dinosaur who owns no DRM/Digital File Stuff.I have lots of physical things here which are cool.1500 Books..lots of Rarities including 303 Vintage Pulp Magazines, Music Vinyl,Cassette,CD.........Games........Films on DVD/Blu-Ray.
I do love to own what I Buy and I do enjoy knowing that what I keep to my Grave will in fact be Willed to my Heir.
I am in the Driver's Seat ! Lovin It.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Cowherd, 18 Jun 2013 @ 12:07pm

I have high speed internet. Have had high speed internet since forever. I've never used it to jump through the hoops of DRM peddlers nor will I ever do so.

But I have no rage directed at them either. Because they don't deserve my attention. I have already decided I'm not interested in Microsoft's new DRM box. Just like I decided long ago I'm not interested in commercial PC games anymore, because of DRM.

The DRM peddlers can go F themselves for all I care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 12:09pm

Another entry on the list
Well, time to add another company to the 'do not buy from' list it seems, anyone who holds customers and their rights in such disregard and/or contempt is one I refuse to support by purchasing from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord Binky, 18 Jun 2013 @ 12:30pm

Reality Check
Bleszinski has always been an asshole and a reliable source for absurd comments that make your brain hurt if you try to follow the logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sharp as a marble, 18 Jun 2013 @ 1:11pm

you need to look back at the way some of the more popular online MP games originated. look at counterstrike and teamfortress classic. they were fan created FREE mods. they spawned a whole generation of competitive online gaming and are where alot of other games have stolen many of their ideas. the other onling games that created a huge popularity of online fps gaming were Quake3 arena and UnreaReal tournament, both of which offered FREE fully functional demos. this is how online gameing started. this is where it needs to get back to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
art guerrilla (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 1:30pm

its a sign of the times: all style, no substance...
1. not a gamer, just play the occasional mahjong, bejeweled, backgammon, etc...

2. i'm so old, i remember a stupid game called pong which had a line, two rectangles, and a dot, and we spent EONS playing the shit out of that thing...
had NOTHING to do with 3D, ray-traced graphics, etc, but was damn good fun...

3. never have bought a console, and never will (for all kinds of reasons), but i bet i put enough quarters in a space invaders arcade game to buy 10 consoles...
again, no fancy graphics, just mowing down pixelated aliens until you get hand cramps...
good times...

4. however, what *really* struck me in the douchenozzles clueless comments, was that 'modern' games *HAVE TO* have 3D, ray-traced, hyper-realistic, mega-world graphics to even dare put up on the shelf...
as another poster pointed out, angry birds is hardly a cutting-edge graphics superstar, yet the authors/publishers seem to have made a couple pennies on that one...

not everyone either needs or wants to buy a ferrari...

now, get off my cathode ray tube ! ! !

art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom Landry (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 4:49pm

"The visual fidelity and feature sets we expect from games now come with sky high costs. Assassins Creed games are made by thousands of devs. "

a perfect example of why Cliffy was a great PR guy for Epic but why he is despised as a producer etc.

Cliff, the days of Carmack vs. Sweeney and peoples infatuation with graphical fidelity are long gone. Im surprised a study has never been done showing how players, after no more than 15 minutes, cease to pay attention to graphics and concentrate on gameplay (an attribute that seems to be sorely lacking in most AAA games nowadays).

Much like the movie and music industry, most of these astronomical costs can be attributed to maintaining a management model that is wholly unnecessary. Luxury high-rise offices, outrageously expensive PR spending, management bonuses and perks, departmental redundancy etc.

You might want to pull your head out of your pampered ass long to see that a handful of guys working out of their garage, brown bagging lunches and a little help fro kickstarter are producing AAA quality games for under a million.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John85851 (profile), 18 Jun 2013 @ 6:04pm

Why not do this for car, CD, and comic book sales
Why do people get all up in arms when the word "computers" is mentioned. No one is complaining about used car sales killing new car sales. No one is complaining about used CD sales killed new CD sales. Okay, granted, the entire CD market is down, but I'm making a point. ;)

Then why is this any different for video games? Yes, the developers don't get money from used game sales, but neither does Ford when someone buys a used car. Newsflash: the original company already got their money when they first sold the product.

Here's a much better example: comic books. Does DC Comics try to get a cut of the sale of Action Comics #1 when it sold for over a million dollars at auction? No, because someone somewhere bought it from DC (then National) at a newstand in 1938.
Or another example: many comic books from the 1990's are being sold for less than cover price. Is DC getting upset because 1) they're not getting a cut of these sales and 2) people are buying these comics instead of new comics?

Why are companies complaining when, like many posters are saying, people sell the game for less than they paid for it? Why does the company think it should get a cut of a $40 sale at Gamestop instead on top of the $60 the customer paid when he originally bought it?
Basically, the main issue is one that TechDirt talks about over and over: make a better product at a reasonable price and people will buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alt0, 12 Jul 2013 @ 1:05pm

All I play anymore is Digitally downloaded AAA MMOs
I pay full price (usually) for a "license"
My PC cost over 3K (as did my wife's who also plays)
Broadband internet is another cost related to gaming I incur.
What can I say we like playing on-line games with friends we made across the country (globe).

I never buy or sell used games BUT I will be damned if yet another of my rights is taken away
by either the government or some corporation that is trying to convince me its
"for my own good"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]