Codemasters CEO Calls Pre-Owned Sales Model "Destructive"

[Skratt]

The games industry needs to stop blaming retail outlets for a problem which they are solely responsible for at the core.
Stop selling and treating games like movies,
stop trying to sell games that most people will play once and never touch again,
stop abandoning support for your game after release,
stop refusing to lower prices over time,
stop packaging all your updates in shitty DLC,
stop releasing sequels that add nothing meaningful to the series,
stop blaming consumers,
stop releasing broken games,
stop including abusive DRM,
stop giving pre-order bonuses,
stop excluding modding tools,
stop releasing shallow games,
stop releasing shitty movie tie-ins,
stop making copies of popular games,
stop giving in to media outcry and censorship,
STOP BLAMING OTHERS,
and then maybe well consider holding on to your game rather than trade it in.

Goddamn, I couldn't have said it better.

 

[JediMB]

To be fair, 5-10% of the money generated through a pre-owned game sale should go back to the publisher.

No it shouldn't, you don't want to set that precedent. The publishers are not entitled to anything from a used sale otherwise the gamer who sold the game to Gamestop would also have to pay 5-10% to the publisher. See how quickly that could turn into a big mess?

It's outrageous that places like GameStop are basically stealing sales because they encourage their customers to sell the games back as quickly as possible. They're basically an expensive rental store.

Obviously a law could be instated that would force retailers to pay this fee if they are to be allowed reselling pre-owned software, which would not directly affect the consumer... unless GameStop and such store decide to adjust what they pay for the used games so that they'll get the same (ridiculous) profit. But the consumer always has the option of not being lazy and selling the game directly to another consumer.

And, yes, it is ridiculous that someone will buy the game new for $60 ($15-20 profit, est.), return it 10 days later for $35, and then they sell it again for $55 (another $20 profit), and then the cycle repeats a couple of times. Meanwhile, the guys who actually slaved to create and market the game don't get anything beyond the original sale.

This is why I avoid both purchasing pre-owned games and selling my own. That nasty trend doesn't need feeding, even if it means I can't afford playing as many games as I otherwise would.

 

[JediMB]

To be fair, 5-10% of the money generated through a pre-owned game sale should go back to the publisher.

No it shouldn't, you don't want to set that precedent. The publishers are not entitled to anything from a used sale otherwise the gamer who sold the game to Gamestop would also have to pay 5-10% to the publisher. See how quickly that could turn into a big mess?

It's outrageous that places like GameStop are basically stealing sales because they encourage their customers to sell the games back as quickly as possible. They're basically an expensive rental store.

Obviously a law could be instated that would force retailers to pay this fee if they are to be allowed reselling pre-owned software, which would not directly affect the consumer... unless GameStop and such store decide to adjust what they pay for the used games so that they'll get the same (ridiculous) profit. But the consumer always has the option of not being lazy and selling the game directly to another consumer.

And, yes, it is ridiculous that someone will buy the game new for $60 ($15-20 profit, est.), return it 10 days later for $35, and then they sell it again for $55 (another $20 profit), and then the cycle repeats a couple of times. Meanwhile, the guys who actually slaved to create and market the game don't get anything beyond the original sale.

Why does any of this mean the publishers have any right to keep their hooks in the game and constantly profit from it after the first sale? Why can't they subsist off of first sales like they used to? Maybe the problem is that people don't want to hold on to their games for more than 10 days?

Okay, judging from my two replies, I'm getting the best vibe from you, Fronzel, so I choose to reply to you.

The problem is that GameStop has created a video game culture where people think you're supposed to sell a game as soon as you've finished it in order to buy a new one. Even if you like the game and might want to play it again later.

This hasn't always been a huge problem, because this didn't use to be how people looked at games. Video games used to be almost as much about collecting as playing, but the culture of collecting games has almost been completely annihilated.

This isn't so much about rights as it is about the survival of the industry. Developers can't survive unless their games sell well enough, and it would be a crying shame if a popular game's developer went out of business because 90% of the people who played the game bought it used. This is about a necessary change to save the industry from stagnation.

But, I dunno, I'm probably not making a very convincing argument.

MovieBob made an interesting video [http://gameoverthinker.blogspot.com/2010/10/episode-41-revolution.html] on the subject, and he probably gets the message across better than I can. Or not. I don't really know.

 

[JediMB]

BTW, I am sorry I don't give you a good "vibe". LOL, that's one original way of ignoring posts.

It's not so much ignoring you as it's giving up on an argument when I feel like it isn't going to go anywhere. It's a lot less frustrating than going back and forth about the same thing over and over, yeah?

I used to be able to debate issues like these for weeks on end, but I'm just not up to it anymore.

EDIT: As for your list of issues plaguing the video game market today, one could ask oneself what is the cause and what is the effect. Granted, the people who did The Getaway had no fucking excuse for not even explaining how to recover health in the instruction booklet, but DRM is definitely the effect of various factors (piracy and trade-ins, mainly) hurting game sales. Sure, one could argue that DRM might just do even more damage, but that doesn't change the fact that it was implemented for a reason.

 

[JediMB]

- Publishers are not entitled to get paid more than one time per copy

Perhaps you could tell me why they are not? Why are they, both publishers and developers, not entitled to profit from their hard work when others apparently are entitled to profit multiple times from that very same work?

Why is it fair that the people who are supposed to be the link between Production and Consumption are allowed to loop the product and profit back to themselves indefinitely (cutting Production out almost completely) while the people who did the actual work behind the product suffer for it?

And mind you that you can't fairly compare entertainment products to things like furniture or food, since their functions and marketplaces are entirely different.

...because someone is obviously working full time on the publishers end to make gamers believe the opposite.

No, this isn't even about publishers. Hell, in an ideal world all games would be self-published by their developers. This is 100% about the developers, who are forced to work through publishers.

Imagine of the publishers didn't have to pay the developers part of the profit from game sales. That would make about as much sense as the retailer not having to pay the publishers. Should the developers simply be happy with what they had received upon handing the gold/master disc over to the publisher, and simply disregard that they're not making a dime when the game sells 20 million copies and rakes in enormous amounts of money to the publisher?

Now I'm done. You can reply to this if you'd like, but you won't get another answer from me. Hope you at least see where I'm coming from.

 

[Sephiwind]

To be fair, 5-10% of the money generated through a pre-owned game sale should go back to the publisher.

But I doubt GameStop cares enough about the game industry to do something like that.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. If the developers want a piece of the profits from used games then they should front some of the cash. Remember places like Game Stop have to actually buy back the game from someone in order to resell it. Since they are fronting all the cash/credit, and risk for the used game, then they shouldn't have to share any of the profit.

 

[JediMB]

To be fair, 5-10% of the money generated through a pre-owned game sale should go back to the publisher.

But I doubt GameStop cares enough about the game industry to do something like that.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. If the developers want a piece of the profits from used games then they should front some of the cash. Remember places like Game Stop have to actually buy back the game from someone in order to resell it. Since they are fronting all the cash/credit, and risk for the used game, then they shouldn't have to share any of the profit.

Well, if we're talking about risk... how about the risk of paying for the development of the game? Taking all the risk there and then not getting anything back from a great deal of the sales?

Also, you might want to read the rest of this little debate before replying to the first post in the chain... =P

 

[theSovietConnection]

I still fail to understand why game publishers deserve to get paid again for something they were already paid for...there is no other industry that expects this (is there?)

I don't think it's that they expect to get money back from a copy they have already sold, it's that they'd rather see a new copy sold then the used one. Every industry is like that, the video game industry is just a little more confrontational about it then the others.

 

[SelectivelyEvil13]

Snip

Very well said!

The only destructive thing about this matter is the tactics the industry use in order to usurp the used market and reach into the pockets of consumers. Already games have been generally reduced in terms of substance and product, even, yet the pricing is incongruous. The ostensible purpose of DLC to extend gameplay has revealed often that it is truly there to milk a few more dollars for scant content, and now the industry heads want it to completely negate the second-hand market. It's interesting how "free" economies are viewed by these types of people: Screw any competition so we can play ball our way.

Instead of passing blame to the consumers and shops like Gamestop, the games industry needs to reevaluate their pricing, antagonistic actions, and quality. $60 is a lot to put down for an item that they do not want us to even "own," especially when it may be incomplete or rely on DLC to serve as a non-refundable and resale-proof leech. As stated by many others, we expect to get what we pay for and consumers want quality.

 

[galaxygamer]

The Codemasters CEO can eat my tangy asshole after I come back from the gym.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I still fail to understand why game publishers deserve to get paid again for something they were already paid for...there is no other industry that expects this (is there?)

In a sense, you could say that, yes, every other entertainment media industry does expect to get paid multiple times for the same product. Every other entertainment media, from books to movies to music, relies on multiple releases of the same product for revenue.

Sometimes they are looking to resell to the same buyer (Like that DVD you bought last year? Well now you really need to buy the super duper extended edition!).

Sometimes they are looking to entice new buyers (That hardcover version of last years best seller cost too much? Here you go, buy the softcover version!).

If all of those other media forms relied on accruing their revenue through a single new release sale you can bet they'd be just as ticked off about used sales, and just as interested in subverting them, as game makers are.

 

[Xanthious]

It's heartwarming to see that the companies that make games feel they deserve some benefit that no other company in the history of the free market has enjoyed. Honestly, what makes them so god damned special? Does Ford come asking for money when their cars get resold? Don't think so. Does Toshiba expect a cut of the cash I get when I sell my old Plasma TV? Again, nope, not in the least.

Used goods being sold is nothing new. Hell it's been going on for as long as people have been making and selling things. Why the gaming industry chooses to get butt hurt over it is beyond me.

However, instead of pissing and moaning about it what they should be doing is asking what they could be doing to entice people to buy new instead of used. Maybe they could get away from this trend of charging more and more while they provide less and less of an actual product. I know I refuse to pay for sixty dollars for half of a game and then pay another 40 or however much on top of that for DLC.

The game market as it exists today is quick to point a finger at anyone but themselves. If it's not pirates its used game sales or maybe evil monkeys. It's never their fault though, never. Honestly the more I hear come out of their mouths the more I feel the more of these entitled pricks that go under and close up shop the better. If they really want to improve the gaming industry they need to stop passing the buck and look in the fucking mirror.

 

[Togusa09]

If they eliminated used console game sales, could that mean the console market would go the same way as the PC market? Transitioning towards pure online distribution due to customers seeking better value? Which could be good or bad. Better value and cost efficiency, but how valuable is the extra advertising provided by having those retailers?

These days whenever I hear "X is killing Y" I assume that they're just getting their asses kicked by X in the Y market, and they lack the creative inspiration to seek a new solution, so just seek a way to make what X does illegal.

 

[Korey Von Doom]

You know whats also destructive? Releasing bad games, I'm looking at you Flashpoint: Dragon Rising.