Epic: DLC Needed to Fight "Used Game Culture"

[StriderShinryu]

sNIP

Unequivocally NO.

You cant understand their desire to not want to have to compete with the used market because how many other commercial industries are there out there who even have the potential to bypass the second hand market?

Using your car analogy, What this is like is GM designing a car, someone selling it and GM withholding the right to remove the transmission if/each time the vehicle is sold so as they get a second round of profits for doing absolutely nothing.

There are a few rather important things you're forgetting there
A.) A used car is quite different from a new car (wear and tear, required repairs, lapsed warranty, need to safety, etc.) while a used game is exactly the same as a new one
B.) A used car actually costs a significant amount less than a new one, whereas a used game is often only a small fraction less than a new one meaning the two aren't really competing for the same consumer base. Generally, if you can pay $55 for a used copy you can also pay $60 for a new copy. With cars, however, the new one may cost $20000 while the used one costs $12000. It's very conceivable (in fact, it's almost always the case) that someone who is in the market for the $12000 car couldn't afford the $20000 one.
C.) With a used car, the maker of the vehicle is actually often taking a cut somewhere anyway whether it be through licensing paid by the used dealer and/or autoshop, after market warranties, parts costs, etc.

Also, the way the game industry works is different than pretty much every other entertainment medium out there in terms of where it's revenue is generated. You can't just say "But movies/music/books/etc. don't care much about used copies so games shouldn't either" because they really don't function the same way. Games, not counting the much reviled DLC (which actually costs extra time/money to make anyway), rely on a single revenue point in the form of a new copy sale. Everything else has multiple revenue points that essentially act to support and cross promote each other. Movies, for a quick example, have staggered theater releases often including extra 3D fees at some showings. Then, after the theatrical run, they have multiple home disc releases possibly staggered over months/years to encourage rebuying of the same product. There's also an entire world of tie in products, TV viewing licensing, and spin off deals for movies to cash in on that games don't have.

Once again, it's not that used = evil. It's that when you actually think about it logically, it's easy to see why game companies are quite eager to find ways around the rising used game market. There's a few different ways for them to do this, and certainly none they've tried so far have made everyone happy, but value adding DLC is far from the worst option. Look at the PC side of things where there's almost no used market and you often can't transfer used copies at all because so many things are paperweights after their single use activation code is entered the first time.

 

[Micalas]

You mean the culture of making games available to people who otherwise would never have bought them an thus has no effect on your bottom line whatsoever? THAT culture?

Do you honestly believe that the average consumer who would buy a game new, who comes into a store and sees that he can buy the exact same game for 10 bucks cheaper, would choose to pay 10 dollars more without any incentive whatsoever? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.

And I have a bridge to sell him for $10 cheaper.

 

[NerfedFalcon]

And I have a bridge to sell him for $10 cheaper.

Correction, you have half a bridge. Wink.

Well, I have an entire bridge that I'm just giving away to anyone who asks, and there's nothing the bridge's owner can do about it! If he sets up security, that just inconveniences his "genuine" customers, and I can work around it anyway in no time at all!

 

[Micalas]

And I have a bridge to sell him for $10 cheaper.

Correction, you have half a bridge. Wink.

Shhhh....that detail is hidden in the EULA.

 

[Dastardly]

sNIP

Unequivocally NO.

You cant understand their desire to not want to have to compete with the used market because how many other commercial industries are there out there who even have the potential to bypass the second hand market?

They're not trying to "bypass." They're trying to compete with it. They're trying to make sure there is a clear, measurable reason to buy new vs. used other than "Because." You want to talk about bypassing, you need to look at digital distribution -- no disc, no resale.

Using your car analogy, What this is like is GM designing a car, someone selling it and GM withholding the right to remove the transmission if/each time the vehicle is sold so as they get a second round of profits for doing absolutely nothing.

Not even almost. This is like GM designing a car, selling it with a warranty, and refusing to start the warranty back over at 0 years when it is resold. The value that is used up is used up, but the car still runs just fine (as long as the used seller is doing legit business).

"Withholding" is your problem. They're not "withholding" anything. They're including it with all of the new games, because new customers are paying them full price. Then the new customers are using those features. When they sell it, at a fraction of the original price, the used buyer is paying a lower price... and not paying the publisher. What reason does the publisher have to please someone who's not paying them?

If you want the extra features, pay for them, or complain to the guy selling you a used game at an inflated price. They're the ones who are doing "absolutely nothing" and still expecting top dollar for it.

Simply put the developers have no right...

In fact, they do. They invented the product. They built it, made it, created, everything. They can sell it for a bajillion dollars in chocolate gold coins if they want.

I mean seriously, what is next? We start looking at those who wait for a game to go on sale like they are criminals? These people need to ditch their entitlement because it is tired and flat out wrong.

Ah, Hyperbole, how we love to substitute you for Truth. No one said "used sales are criminal." They're simply saying, "We want to find ways of making sure a new copy of the game has more toys (and thus more value) than a used copy of the game."

Oh, and claiming the money "only" goes to the publishers? Who do you think uses that money to fund those developers' next project? Ah... You're oversimplifying a system it appears you don't fully understand, and substituting rants for truth.

 

[lacktheknack]

ITT: People on crosses telling Epic to get down off their cross.

Consumers refuse to take responsibility for the fact that they have sway in the market. They want to reclaim used sales because game production is a really tough industry to break even in. They won't bend to your every will because that would be financial suicide. It's not money-grubbing if you aren't guaranteed to stay alive for another year without all the money you can get...

Cue the furious masses telling me how wrong I am, not backing themselves up at all, and telling me how I'm a fucktard because I support industries.

Used game sales, a long standing part of the industry, seems to have replaced piracy as the industry boogeyman of choice, with numerous [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112949-Heavy-Rain-Dev-Says-Pre-Owned-Sales-Cost-it-Millions] developers [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/110171-Fable-3-Dev-Used-Games-Sales-are-More-Problematic-Than-Piracy] blaming [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.125539-Realtime-CEO-Blames-Used-Games-for-Flat-Crackdown-Sales] them for poor, or lower than expected, game sales in recent years.

Here's a simpler solution to your woes, developers.

Make. Better. Games.

Also, isn't it just a little likely that people are less willing to buy games new since they know half the bloody content will be coming out as DLC over the ensuing 12 months and they'll have to pay for that on top of the new release price?

Yes, yes it is.

I do not support this. All my favorite games would vanish, and we'd see EVEN MORE war shooters, seeing that MW3 is currently objectively the best game ever.

Also, you're implying that devs aren't trying to make the best game they can in their time limits, which is a confusing and completely illogical viewpoint.

 

[lacktheknack]

Simply put the developers have no right to try to do what they are attempting to do

I have a reality check for you...

 

[VanityGirl]

You mean the culture of making games available to people who otherwise would never have bought them an thus has no effect on your bottom line whatsoever? THAT culture?

Do you honestly believe that the average consumer who would buy a game new, who comes into a store and sees that he can buy the exact same game for 10 bucks cheaper, would choose to pay 10 dollars more without any incentive whatsoever? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.

Coming from someone who works in a game store. People buy new stuff ALL the time, even if it's 5 bucks cheaper. Here's the mentality: "You mean for 5 extra dollars I can just get the new game? Then I'll take the new game"
Maybe people are scared of buying preowned games and the only incentive they have is that the new one hasn't been used yet.

Really, it happens a lot.

 

[Xanadu84]

You mean the culture of making games available to people who otherwise would never have bought them an thus has no effect on your bottom line whatsoever? THAT culture?

Do you honestly believe that the average consumer who would buy a game new, who comes into a store and sees that he can buy the exact same game for 10 bucks cheaper, would choose to pay 10 dollars more without any incentive whatsoever? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.

Coming from someone who works in a game store. People buy new stuff ALL the time, even if it's 5 bucks cheaper. Here's the mentality: "You mean for 5 extra dollars I can just get the new game? Then I'll take the new game"
Maybe people are scared of buying preowned games and the only incentive they have is that the new one hasn't been used yet.

Really, it happens a lot.

Does people buying used, saving money, and publishers and developers not getting a dime happen a lot too? Cause when my friends go into a store to buy a console game, it happens every time, assuming the option is available. And that has real world, business consequences that hurt gamers in the long run.

 

[McMullen]

You know what? I don't think Epic knows what they're doing anymore. UT3, Bulletstorm, their comments about PC gaming, and now saying they have to "fight" used game sales just paint a picture of a company that used to be good but has since forgotten how to make good games or avoid pissing off their customers.

 

[Sixcess]

Consumers refuse to take responsibility for the fact that they have sway in the market. They want to reclaim used sales because game production is a really tough industry to break even in. They won't bend to your every will because that would be financial suicide. It's not money-grubbing if you aren't guaranteed to stay alive for another year without all the money you can get...

I'm unconvinced by that argument, mainly due to the major cheerleaders of paid DLC being major studios owned by the likes of EA and Activision. It's the mega franchises like Gears of War, Mass Effect, Call of Duty that ship with the most day 1 DLC, not the indie studio titles that might genuinely need it.

I do not support this. All my favorite games would vanish, and we'd see EVEN MORE war shooters, seeing that MW3 is currently objectively the best game ever.

It's the best selling, not the best - very different things as you must know. Besides, throwing Call of Duty into a discussion of box sales numbers is like bringing up WoW in relation to MMO subscriber numbers - it's such a one off aberation that it completely skews the figures.

Also, you're implying that devs aren't trying to make the best game they can in their time limits, which is a confusing and completely illogical viewpoint.

Actually in a lot of cases I don't think they are. Lazy sequels in particular are, and always have been, a feature of the games industry, just like movies. Maybe some people are trying to make the best game they possibly can, but I suspect 'good enough' is what they ultimately aim for a lot of the time.

Read the article that was put up today about Dead Island as it's a perfect example of a developer saying "this would be cool but y'know what, it's not essential, so fuck it."

I'll say again what I've said before in relation to developers and publishers complaining that they don't make enough money on their games - the industry has to pull back and work out a way to make the process of making games less time consuming. That's why the last thing we need right now is a new console generation, because any jump in the tech involved in current games would only extend development time and cost even more. If they do find they're running out of time or money or both and need to indulge in that other industry bugbear of 'crunch time' that lasts for months, then they need to be more realistic to begin with.

 

[Waaghpowa]

From what I see, used games aren't necessarily a lost sale. Someone needs to have bought a game new for it to be used first. Then when that person trades it in, they're transferring ownership to someone else. It's not like that person is still playing the game after they trade it in. So it's not a lost sale, because the game was already sold. It just means they didn't get an EXTRA sale.

But what do I know? I play PC games and haven't been able to trade them in for years.

Part of the reason why anyone buys used is to save money, so forcing shit like this on people isn't necessarily going to help. Also considering the current economic situation, a lot of people would be cutting back anyway.

 

[Waaghpowa]

From what I see, used games aren't necessarily a lost sale. Someone needs to have bought a game new for it to be used first. Then when that person trades it in, they're transferring ownership to someone else. It's not like that person is still playing the game after they trade it in. So it's not a lost sale, because the game was already sold. It just means they didn't get an EXTRA sale.

What if person A buys a used copy int he future? As I have done in hard times when it was a choice of: Play this game through a fourth time, or trade it in to get new game now, and when I'm more financially stable repurchase it at a lower price?

And again, if you can't afford the game, don't buy it. 60$ is a video game, or quite a bit of food. If I can't afford a 2 dollar soda I don't complain that it costs too much. If you don't pay the full price, there is nothing saying you can have the full game.
Economic situation? So, because people will have less money for video games they should cost less? Where does it end? How long until that policy is applied to the point that you can't make a profit off of games? You cannot base pricing of a luxury on economic status, it doesn't work. Food prices go up, minimum wage goes up, dollar worth goes down.

I for one don't understand buying a game brand new then trading it in only to buy it again. You're needlessly spending money on something you already own/owned. And I agree, if you can't afford it, stop whining and don't buy it. Games are a luxury anyway. I merely used the economic situation as a means of explaining why people would be inclined to spend less wherever possible, therefore why people would buy used. Though it goes back to what I said earlier, no money, don't get it.

But I don't think this whole day one DLC is going to affect much really, aside from annoy people and cause them to claim that the devs are cutting out content that should already be on the disc. The kind of people who would care for all that extra stuff is likely to get it new anyway. If I were to buy a game used, I wouldn't care much for that extra stuff.

I for one never buy used because I intend on keeping every game I purchase and make wise decisions on what I buy. But it's like I said earlier, I play PC games and can't trade them in or buy used anyway.

 

[Spencer Petersen]

Because when putting together an online community, make sure to keep it fragmented as possible to increase player annoyance and prevent people from having fun.

How about this. Offer the DLC but allow it to transfer to other players in your xbox live party. If one person owns Map Pack DLC #12, then let any player within their game lobby/party/local split-screen play those maps. It encourages people to take the plunge with their friends and allows players to get a taste of the content so they can decide whether its worth it for themselves. It also keeps the game better balanced as it puts all players on the same level, preventing people from "buying power"

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Or...you make a game that people wouldn't want to trade in.

I've already seen preowned copies of Skyrim. This argument is completely invalid.

Oh no, most definitely couldn't possibly be that someone just bought it and thought that the non-linear structure wasn't for them, or that the classless system wasn't very fun, or that in their opinion the world felt lifeless due to the usual dodgy uncanny valley models and poor Bethesda voice animations?

No game is ever going to achieve a 'zero returns' milestone while people are allowed to get away with such preposterous ideas as subjective tastes. Proportions of returns however may be what's worth looking at.