Battlefield Dev: Anti-Used Games Tech Isn't "Evil" or "Stupid"

[ablac]

Used games are making developers struggle? Even a game that didn't sell well typically makes a profit.

I think what prevents a game from making a profit is not valuing a games price point and a game being shit.

Skyrim: 5-60 hour game that has loads of play methods, replay value and lots of things to do: 60USD

Vanquish: 5-7 hour game that has no multiplayer, real replay value or gamplay options: 60 USD

Which would you look at buying? And don't say neither because you're not into the games, that's not the point >:L

Another thing to mention about vanquish is that it is shallow, repetitive and just damn boring. Im glad I got it used cause I would be steaming if I had paid full price or anything close for that tripe. The used games market has a right to exist and a right not to be interfered with. They would love to remove it because it forces them to charge a much lower price ofr their games. If the market disappears then they will raise prices across the board.

 

[harvz]

coincidentally, the capcha words fit how im feeling at this, "ticked off".
the problem is that in Australia (i'm not sure how other countries do it), we dont tend to get discounted prices for a long time after release, I remember looking at devil may cry on ps3 something like a year to 18 months after release and it still being $100.

With microsoft and sony pretty much not playing ball with valve (as they are the only reasonable digital distributors that are large enough to be noticeable), getting rid of used games is a horrible idea, leaving the options at buying a new game for launch price for probably the first 6 months minimum or the over-priced and under managed digital side.

well, ps3, 360, pc, looks like we're gonna be hanging out for a while.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Rumors that next-generation consoles might block the use of pre-owned games has consumers in a bit of a huff these days, and some developers have backpedaled accordingly [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/117014-Crytek-Dev-Backpedals-on-Used-Games-Hate] on comments supporting the idea. At least one developer, however, thinks that gamers might actually see some benefits from the practice when all is said and done.

Yeah. Like the inevitable complications that come with, say, buying a long-since out of print game and discovering that I can't play it because there aren't any factory-sealed copies available anymore.

"I think [used-game blocking] can be a win and a loss," Patrick Bach, interim CEO of Battlefield developer DICE, told CVG [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/345972/dice-next-gen-used-games-block-can-be-a-win-and-a-loss/]. "I think it's a loss if it only means that you will be able to get fewer games for the same money. But in theory you could see it the other way, because a lot of companies making games today are struggling based on second-hand sales."

That's not how a "on the other hand" statement is supposed to work. You can't say "On one hand, gamers will get less money for fewer games, but on the other, developers will get more money for lower sales."

Many people would probably consider owning fewer games for the same price a loss, true, but Bach thinks that the driving question should be about quality and diversity, rather than quantity. By removing the secondary market and the risk that consumers will just purchase a used version of their game, he says, developers and publishers wouldn't be forced to follow the leader in popular genres to make a buck. "You feel like a lot of [online shooters] have the same formula and this is one of the reasons, which most people seem to not realize."

...oh, Christ. Really? That's your argument? Doesn't it rely on, say, someone already having purchased the used product? And then having had it for long enough that they felt it could be resold? If it has a swift turnaround time, it's a shit game. Most games make their big profits early in the release days, when second-hand sales are basically non-existent.

"[On] the positive side you could see more games being created because of this, and also more new IPs, because there'd be a bigger market for games that don't have for instance multiplayer," he said, noting that offline, single-player-only games were typically pirated.

Wait, hang on. Piracy is a whole 'nother issue. Are we trying to deal with secondhand games or piracy? Because you can't combat one with a solution intended to stamp out the other. In fact, wouldn't the destruction of the used game market just make piracy more common because it removes the legal, lower-cost alternative to buying a new game?

Bach did agree that gamers who want to amass as large a library as possible would be hurt by the technology. "If you want to buy as many games as possible then this could be a problem, but if you want more diverse games then it's a more positive thing than negative."

"As many games as..." what the fucking what? New games are $60 a pop! You don't need to be actively trying to build a dragon's hoard of games to break the bank on new games because they're pretty damn expensive already.

"The only thing I know is that people are not doing it to be evil and stupid, it's about trying to create some benefits for consumers."

For fuck's sake...

Look, I get it: you want to make more money. But for the love of Christ, just say that. Don't insult my intelligence by lying about it. That just gives me the impression that you know what you're doing is blatantly tilted in your favor and yet still think you can successfully get away with telling us that it isn't.

 

[The Lunatic]

Oh look, this person who benefits from something we lose from is telling us it's fine.

Let's listen to him.

 

[Snotnarok]

Used games are making developers struggle? Even a game that didn't sell well typically makes a profit.

I think what prevents a game from making a profit is not valuing a games price point and a game being shit.

Skyrim: 5-60 hour game that has loads of play methods, replay value and lots of things to do: 60USD

Vanquish: 5-7 hour game that has no multiplayer, real replay value or gamplay options: 60 USD

Which would you look at buying? And don't say neither because you're not into the games, that's not the point >:L

Another thing to mention about vanquish is that it is shallow, repetitive and just damn boring. Im glad I got it used cause I would be steaming if I had paid full price or anything close for that tripe. The used games market has a right to exist and a right not to be interfered with. They would love to remove it because it forces them to charge a much lower price ofr their games. If the market disappears then they will raise prices across the board.

Vanquish was alright looking I guess but my point more stands that the game is undeniably has less to offer to a game as huge as Skyrim. I mean even Gears of War had more for a more close comparison, singleplayer, co-op local/online, multiplayer, (future Gears) horde mode, and such.

See there's a lot there vs JUST single player and time-attack.

Sonic Generations launched for 30 bucks on PC, short 4-5 hour game with tons of replay value, really freaking good deal.

But yeah they should sort of price around what they're selling is all I'm saying.

 

[ablac]

Used games are making developers struggle? Even a game that didn't sell well typically makes a profit.

I think what prevents a game from making a profit is not valuing a games price point and a game being shit.

Skyrim: 5-60 hour game that has loads of play methods, replay value and lots of things to do: 60USD

Vanquish: 5-7 hour game that has no multiplayer, real replay value or gamplay options: 60 USD

Which would you look at buying? And don't say neither because you're not into the games, that's not the point >:L

Another thing to mention about vanquish is that it is shallow, repetitive and just damn boring. Im glad I got it used cause I would be steaming if I had paid full price or anything close for that tripe. The used games market has a right to exist and a right not to be interfered with. They would love to remove it because it forces them to charge a much lower price ofr their games. If the market disappears then they will raise prices across the board.

Vanquish was alright looking I guess but my point more stands that the game is undeniably has less to offer to a game as huge as Skyrim. I mean even Gears of War had more for a more close comparison, singleplayer, co-op local/online, multiplayer, (future Gears) horde mode, and such.

See there's a lot there vs JUST single player and time-attack.

Sonic Generations launched for 30 bucks on PC, short 4-5 hour game with tons of replay value, really freaking good deal.

But yeah they should sort of price around what they're selling is all I'm saying.

Sorry but I just feel that that game is such a shoddy woork created by such a great company. It felt like "I dont get Bayonetta 2 because of this?!" and it was just so poor in every way.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Secondly, games would become more rare (since you can't resell them). And last time I checked, rare items don't really go DOWN in price.

This is not how economics works. I mean, it is for free market commodities, but that's not what we're talking about.

To develop a game, let's say it costs $20 million. This is the sunk cost; no matter how many units they sell, this cost is fixed. This is the primary cost that publishers/developers are trying to recoup with game sales.

We'll assume it's a console game, so no digital distribution, and it costs $3 for the manufacture and shipping of each disc, case, and manual. This is the variable cost, it changes based on number of shipped games. And, since the game's going retail, the retailer is going to keep $12 from the sale. So, the developer/publisher gets $45 for each sale.

Now, 1 million people are willing to spend $60 on this game. Of those, half are willing to wait to buy used instead for $40. An additional 200 thousand people are willing to spend no more than $40 for the game. These people all buy used.

How does the profit break down? 500 thousand people buy the game new for $60, netting the dev/pub $45 per sale, resulting in $22.5 million for the dev/pub. 700 thousand buy the game used for $40 netting the dev/pub $0. 2 million people are non-contributing jerks who pirate, but that's a completely separate issue. The game has made $2.5 million more than it cost to produce. This game is a failure.

But, what if there were zero used sales, and the dev/pub sold the game for $40? 1.2 million people would buy the game new for $40. Cutting off the manufacturing cost ($3) and retail cut ($8), the dev/pub makes $29 per sale, resulting in a profit of $34.8 million. By cutting out used games and lowering their prices, game companies can turn a game that barely made it's money back to a $14.8 million home run. Of course, if they don't lower their prices they'll get $45 million (a $25 million "let's buy all the executives private golf courses").

Do I think they'll lower their prices? Of course not. They'll keep selling at $60, and we'll (well, you'll; digital distribution has solved this particular problem for PC gamers, heh) keep paying it. But with more money going to the developers and publishers, they will be able to take slightly more risk and buy private jets for all their executives.

Who loses with no used game sales? Retailers. And by retailers, I mean Gamestop. And, honestly, Gamestop can die in a fire. Well, several fires. All across the country. One at each store and office should be sufficient.

Anyway, this isn't a freemarket economy.

Actually, the used games market is: people buy and sell at the best deals they can get. (What did I say? I meant the best deals Gamestop will give them. So it's more of a "Gamestop economy" than a freemarket. Except on eBay.)

But new games aren't on a "market," their price is set by the publisher, and the publisher makes, ships, and sells a certain number of units at that price. If they need more, they just manufacture an additional million units and ship them out. There won't suddenly be a "scarcity" of units, and even if there were, the publisher isn't going to suddenly raise the price of that game in response to demand.

Which means, when a publisher raises their price, they aren't "responding to market forces" or any nonsense like that. They're just taking more of your money because they want it.

All valid points, but the real horror with this idea is games the publishers or developers can't be bothered releasing any more copies of for whatever reason.

I buy lots of used games. (And usually very cheaply.). Not because I want new games cheaper. (Why would I pay 95% of the price for a used copy anyway?), but because I tend to buy things that are anything from 5-20 years old which really haven't been available new for ages.

The risk with this isn't with new games, but with older ones that the publisher no longer cares about.
Since copies can't be resold, once the publisher gives up on it, the game becomes unavailable by any means. (except possibly piracy, depending on how easy it is to crack the system.)

And what if the publisher collapses altogether? (Hey, it's happened plenty of times before.) - what happens to this game then?
The game can't be resold... The publisher no longer exists...
In short, this is a good way to ensure that certain games quickly cease to exist altogether.

 

[Snotnarok]

Used games are making developers struggle? Even a game that didn't sell well typically makes a profit.

I think what prevents a game from making a profit is not valuing a games price point and a game being shit.

Skyrim: 5-60 hour game that has loads of play methods, replay value and lots of things to do: 60USD

Vanquish: 5-7 hour game that has no multiplayer, real replay value or gamplay options: 60 USD

Which would you look at buying? And don't say neither because you're not into the games, that's not the point >:L

Another thing to mention about vanquish is that it is shallow, repetitive and just damn boring. Im glad I got it used cause I would be steaming if I had paid full price or anything close for that tripe. The used games market has a right to exist and a right not to be interfered with. They would love to remove it because it forces them to charge a much lower price ofr their games. If the market disappears then they will raise prices across the board.

Vanquish was alright looking I guess but my point more stands that the game is undeniably has less to offer to a game as huge as Skyrim. I mean even Gears of War had more for a more close comparison, singleplayer, co-op local/online, multiplayer, (future Gears) horde mode, and such.

See there's a lot there vs JUST single player and time-attack.

Sonic Generations launched for 30 bucks on PC, short 4-5 hour game with tons of replay value, really freaking good deal.

But yeah they should sort of price around what they're selling is all I'm saying.

Sorry but I just feel that that game is such a shoddy woork created by such a great company. It felt like "I dont get Bayonetta 2 because of this?!" and it was just so poor in every way.

Don't say sorry, I didn't even get to play Vanquish because I didn't want to pay 60 bloody bucks for it. It looked interesting but never got to it. Hell I didn't get to finish Bayonetta because of my system dying on me.

 

[ScruffyMcBalls]

An increase in game diversity but a decrease in the number of games I can actually afford. Can someone explain to me why I should be happy about this? Oh and it's pretty clear this guy is talking out his ass and trying his hardest to blow sunshine up mine, and I like my ass just as it is; unmolested and dark, thank you very much.

 

[Anthony Ventura]

I think this is another company acting childish. This will kill a large portion of business for so many companies. That guy said it will force game studios to do something new. I beg to differ, the studios aren't going to change at all. why would a company like call of duty change their juggernaut when now it has a higher price tag. All this is doing in my eyes is killing the little studios, and the smaller games. Oh and not to forget how many games get rented yearly? That means all those companies that invest in buying those games (ie. red box and others) just lost toooons of money if no one can play their games. which means that tons of sales drop. How many video games do you think rental companies buy, a fucking lot.

Also think about the poor quality of the disc they give you, how many people here have touched their console when they were running a game and scratched an entire level off there game. I already bought the game i will never spend that price again on something i have already had.

it just pisses me off that they think that this is the first thing they think to jump to then something else. How about you make cost as much as time as you play it. cut the loading screens out, cut the cinematic out., cut the online play out, figure out the actually playable time, and then price it. that will push companies harder than ever to make a game that plays for hours and hours, that will make them spend less time on spending tons of money on overly heavy cinematic games, and actually worry about a game. You might be able to play a call of duty where ever other level isn't a walk-through cinematic.

do you guys remember the golden days of gaming where the ratio of cinematic to game play where greatly different. super mario brothers had what a flag falling? a villain falling? a castle falling? and the end of the game. now every single fucking level they shove something down our throats, and you can't skip the video never, not ever anymore.

I think we all want a game that will test our minds and test our skills. I'm tired of playing cinema shooters, I'm tired of playing cheat code filled sandbox games. I'm tired of playing games that are only a meant to be downloadable content (ie. call of duty wm3) look at all those "arcade games" or "network games" they sell like hot cakes because there minimalist games. Castle crashers was amazing, orcs must die was amazing. i can play those games for hours and hours over again. look and rayman origins, what a rose among thorns. Which brings me to my next point. For the first time since arcades and atari games and trendy again, everyone plays them. Fathers, mothers, grandmothers, your stupid older sister, your dumbass kid brother. the reason why their sales are dropping and the reason why you have juggernauts that stand so tall are due to the trendiness of the gaming world. go ask the call of duty, halo, and gears of war players what other games they play? you will run in to only a few that actually have other games or have even played other games. Go back 13 years and ask a gamer what games they play. no one then was like "i only have a ps2 for metal gear solid". fuck no you had crash bandicoot, bomber man, twisted metal, gran turismo, the original call of duties.

ITs not fucking hard at all to make a great game that will last and will have tons of replay value. i will say though that when you sell juggernauts and you want to make something else your stuck between the rock and hard space of "should i lose money and make an original game, or should i make the same money on a shitty sequel knowing that i will catch the next generations' money."

"Give me a side scroller, give me a platform, give me an infinite amount of coins to collect. give me a challenge tower to fight, give me a princess to save, challenge my brain with a portal gun, let me live in a world of which we have none."

 

[Christopher Williamson]

Honestly, the only way I could see this not becoming a huge negative is if the overall price of the games being made is dropped by some margin. If Used Games become Null and Void, obviously all the profit coming from the bought games will then be going to the developers from that point on. I think that could and probably would give them more room to be more innovative and bring new things to the table. They would also be making enough profit if it goes well, to lower the overall prices. If prices keep going up and this Anti-Used Game Tech actually becomes a real thing, they're going to lose out.

 

[BBboy20]

I think the moral of the story is don't reduce consumer flexibility which has becoming the opposite for a lot of things in the last couple of years.