Et tu EA?

[digitalzombie]

I'd be pissed if I paid $10 today to get online for Bad Company 2, after seeing all the great hype that went into the marketing, only to find game lobbies half-full and no one using their mic. Not to mention their little issue of people's personal stats resetting for hours on end making the game unplayable. Charging a premium for THAT would be ripping people off.

 

[RA92]

I buy new when I can, but gaming is expensive and times are really tough for me right now. Also, is it better to buy the game used, or to not play it at all?

Time are tough, but come on baby daddy needs his fix! Just one more game! D: please! No Al don't cut me off! NO! I NEED THIS! I CANT...I HATE YOU!

Amongst this shitstorm of legal jargon, let me give you a standing ovation to your masterful analogy.

Well played Sir, well played.

 

[Nieroshai]

My pass for DS2 was free, but yeah, why does this exist?

Unlike making things such as cars or films, there are ongoing costs for games even after it's released. Someone has to pay for bandwidth and a dedicated server, and any patches that are released to add content or improve the game. If you make a car, the second it's shipped you stop paying costs for it. With a game, developers must continue to fund online support for it, even if it's passed on to someone else second-hand.

Um, since when? All of the rest of my ps3 games with online multiplayer have that multiplayer for FREE. FREE. NO CHARGE. NOT A PENNY. And a game that does not openly require a subscription like an MMO should NEVER charge extra for content that's ALREADY on the disc I paid the license to use.

That's exactly the point; if you pay the developer for the game, you receive full access to anything on the disc. The problem for EA is that anyone buying a used coy of the game is accessing bandwidth and online servers, essentially costing them money without having made them a contribution. If you buy games new, (and after a few months you can get good deals for them) you don't miss out on any EA games.

You realize every used game is not a new game, it used to be someone else's? That means someone has already-paid-for access? There's no extra bandwith from someone else playing my copy, it uses the bandwidth I used to use but don't use anymore. The contribution has already been made. You'd have to argue for a ban on used games for it to make sense, or else argue that every game is an account bound to the person's ID instead of the owner of the disc.

 

[JaymesFogarty]

My pass for DS2 was free, but yeah, why does this exist?

Unlike making things such as cars or films, there are ongoing costs for games even after it's released. Someone has to pay for bandwidth and a dedicated server, and any patches that are released to add content or improve the game. If you make a car, the second it's shipped you stop paying costs for it. With a game, developers must continue to fund online support for it, even if it's passed on to someone else second-hand.

Um, since when? All of the rest of my ps3 games with online multiplayer have that multiplayer for FREE. FREE. NO CHARGE. NOT A PENNY. And a game that does not openly require a subscription like an MMO should NEVER charge extra for content that's ALREADY on the disc I paid the license to use.

That's exactly the point; if you pay the developer for the game, you receive full access to anything on the disc. The problem for EA is that anyone buying a used coy of the game is accessing bandwidth and online servers, essentially costing them money without having made them a contribution. If you buy games new, (and after a few months you can get good deals for them) you don't miss out on any EA games.

You realize every used game is not a new game, it used to be someone else's? That means someone has already-paid-for access? There's no extra bandwith from someone else playing my copy, it uses the bandwidth I used to use but don't use anymore. The contribution has already been made. You'd have to argue for a ban on used games for it to make sense, or else argue that every game is an account bound to the person's ID instead of the owner of the disc.

Absolutely; the first owner has made their contribution for online play. The problem is when people buy games second hand, they obviously have intent to buy the game. Therefore, if they buy a game second hand, no money goes to the developer, so in their eyes it's a lost sale. It's this money that they're trying to get back; not just the money online. Issuing a ban on used games seems harsh; but forcing a 40% developer tax on used games, meaning that retailers issue 40% of the revenue of one used game to the respective developer, seems more sensible. To be honest, I don't like the idea that they lock away features just because you get the game second-hand. I'm just trying to picture how they see the situation.

 

[Nieroshai]

My pass for DS2 was free, but yeah, why does this exist?

Unlike making things such as cars or films, there are ongoing costs for games even after it's released. Someone has to pay for bandwidth and a dedicated server, and any patches that are released to add content or improve the game. If you make a car, the second it's shipped you stop paying costs for it. With a game, developers must continue to fund online support for it, even if it's passed on to someone else second-hand.

Um, since when? All of the rest of my ps3 games with online multiplayer have that multiplayer for FREE. FREE. NO CHARGE. NOT A PENNY. And a game that does not openly require a subscription like an MMO should NEVER charge extra for content that's ALREADY on the disc I paid the license to use.

That's exactly the point; if you pay the developer for the game, you receive full access to anything on the disc. The problem for EA is that anyone buying a used coy of the game is accessing bandwidth and online servers, essentially costing them money without having made them a contribution. If you buy games new, (and after a few months you can get good deals for them) you don't miss out on any EA games.

You realize every used game is not a new game, it used to be someone else's? That means someone has already-paid-for access? There's no extra bandwith from someone else playing my copy, it uses the bandwidth I used to use but don't use anymore. The contribution has already been made. You'd have to argue for a ban on used games for it to make sense, or else argue that every game is an account bound to the person's ID instead of the owner of the disc.

Absolutely; the first owner has made their contribution for online play. The problem is when people buy games second hand, they obviously have intent to buy the game. Therefore, if they buy a game second hand, no money goes to the developer, so in their eyes it's a lost sale. It's this money that they're trying to get back; not just the money online. Issuing a ban on used games seems harsh; but forcing a 40% developer tax on used games, meaning that retailers issue 40% of the revenue of one used game to the respective developer, seems more sensible. To be honest, I don't like the idea that they lock away features just because you get the game second-hand. I'm just trying to picture how they see the situation.

But it makes no sense for a developer to be paid for the same game twice. They already charged $60 for THAT license, yet they're going to charge more for the continued use of the same license? It might as well be me playing the game, in that it doesn't matter who uses something as long as it was paid for. If they charge for the used sale, why not require renewal of the initial contract every five years and force the original buyer to pay a fee to keep it operable? It's the same concept, and in no business can you ever expect someone who bought your merchandise to pay for it a second time, which essentially is what a used fee is.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

As for the claim that all of my comparisons are nothing like a video game, I have yet to see one good argument about that. Analog media is still media, you are still paying for a copy of the intellectual property stored in that format. You still don't receive copyright, but you do have the right to sell it on. When you add in digital media like CDs and DVDs, anyone who claims Videogames are not a comparable product is making about as much sense as someone who claims that water isn't wet.

Gonna try this again very slowly...

Books: Usually there's no teams of hundred of (talented) people working on them but one (or several) authors, it also usually doesn't cost millions to write in the first place and after it's out books are prone to wear and tear... me I usually spend the extra money to get a book new so it doesn't have dog ears and other smudges on it...
e.g. LOW RISK = HIGH REWARD --> is being printed in a certain number and there's more made if demand > supply. Books (especially some) can still be sold after dozens, in some cases hundreds of years and with the dawning of tablets also digitally.

Music: Same as for the books applies here, a music/recording studio is usually needed but provided by the labels... only other costs aside of that are man hours of the few (dozen?) people working on an album and commercials. The lion's share of the money is usually made by going on tours/concerts and selling merchandise. Yet again LOW-ish RISK = HIGH REWARD --> some artists are still making money with their music/selling it for their families long after they're dead, money is also being made if music is being licensed for any other works (video game, movie, documentary etc. or just playing on the radio)...

Movies: The most similar to video games in production costs and manpower, but as has been said before not very similar in the methods of sales. They had dozens of years to mature and movies undergo several stages: 1. Cinema (no used sales possible, most of the money is being made here); 2. DVD/Blu-Ray sales; 3. Rentals; 4. Merchandise; 5. Licensing to PayTV/FreeTV for showing said movies... HIGH RISK = HIGH REWARD

They are not at all similar to games, games are usually sold in the first 2-3 months when they are new Retail or Digital per Download and after that there's still some Re-Releases or Game Collections/Cover DVDs, but those are by far not as high profile or profitable as any of the other media. By buying used you are denying them their only profits out of the product and showing that you not only do not care about the people who worked hard for several years to make a game you enjoy but also directly help a developer or a franchise go under.

And yet again, it might be legal to do so... but morally it is worse than piracy because you have spent money on their product (just not to the right source) while the pirates did not and they don't directly constitute a lost sale.

Unlike making things such as cars or films, there are ongoing costs for games even after it's released. Someone has to pay for bandwidth and a dedicated server, and any patches that are released to add content or improve the game. If you make a car, the second it's shipped you stop paying costs for it. With a game, developers must continue to fund online support for it, even if it's passed on to someone else second-hand.

The costs of those "game servers" after release go against zero and can usually be financed by whatever sales are still going on 3-4 years after release, especially if they're not actually dedicated servers. Patches are fixes of whatever was broken with the game in the first place and are in the budget/plan for any software product from Day1 (unless the QA expenses are very high and they mean to make an "almost bug-free game" from the start).

This is also why "Project 10$" isn't a "Rip-Off", while "Xbox Live Gold" largely is. Microsoft is making lots of money already by getting the licensing fee off the top of every console game being sold for their platform. They also get about 40% of every digital transaction being made (like DLC or those Arcade games) and they're making even more money by selling "virtual items" to stupid people for their avatars. It's just about maximizing profits in that case and not "server costs", while Project 10$ tries to get any money out of a sale of their game.

The only thing you've shown is that videogames cost more to make than an album or a book, and that companies don't properly support their releases for very long after launch. You haven't proved that there's any difference between videogames and movies at all, and you really havn't proved where the difference between them is as a product. It's like saying a motorcycle isn't a comparable product to a car, which isn't comparable to a truck, because each one has a different set of costs involved, both for the company and the customer.

I say videogames are a comparable product to books, music, and movies because all four products are physical products, that contain intellectual property, which is sold with a set of limited rights, none of which happen to be copyright. Your argument is like saying that a new flavor of coke isn't a drink because selling it carries a higher risk than just selling a jug of milk.

 

[oplinger]

The only thing you've shown is that videogames cost more to make than an album or a book, and that companies don't properly support their releases for very long after launch. You haven't proved that there's any difference between videogames and movies at all, and you really havn't proved where the difference between them is as a product. It's like saying a motorcycle isn't a comparable product to a car, which isn't comparable to a truck, because each one has a different set of costs involved, both for the company and the customer.

I say videogames are a comparable product to books, music, and movies because all four products are physical products, that contain intellectual property, which is sold with a set of limited rights, none of which happen to be copyright. Your argument is like saying that a new flavor of coke isn't a drink because selling it carries a higher risk than just selling a jug of milk.

It's not really about the physicality of the medium. It's about costs. That's where they differ. Costs are what make everything work. That's what it's all based on. Video game devs do not have a source of income besides that small window of sales. They get -nothing- else.

You're being silly in thinking costs have nothing to do with the differences in media. Yes a DVD is still binary coding on a disc, yes a game is the same as that. But movies make the money in the box office, games make the money with the binary on that disc. Nothing else.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The only thing you've shown is that videogames cost more to make than an album or a book, and that companies don't properly support their releases for very long after launch. You haven't proved that there's any difference between videogames and movies at all, and you really havn't proved where the difference between them is as a product. It's like saying a motorcycle isn't a comparable product to a car, which isn't comparable to a truck, because each one has a different set of costs involved, both for the company and the customer.

I say videogames are a comparable product to books, music, and movies because all four products are physical products, that contain intellectual property, which is sold with a set of limited rights, none of which happen to be copyright. Your argument is like saying that a new flavor of coke isn't a drink because selling it carries a higher risk than just selling a jug of milk.

It's not really about the physicality of the medium. It's about costs. That's where they differ. Costs are what make everything work. That's what it's all based on. Video game devs do not have a source of income besides that small window of sales. They get -nothing- else.

You're being silly in thinking costs have nothing to do with the differences in media. Yes a DVD is still binary coding on a disc, yes a game is the same as that. But movies make the money in the box office, games make the money with the binary on that disc. Nothing else.

Videogame devs are paid to make the game, that's where the budget goes, and is why 3D Realms were able to work on Duke Nukem Forever for so long without actually making a saleable product. Any profits they may see from the sales are bonuses, not the basis of their regular salary; almost all of the profits on the games go to the publisher, with the majority of what doesn't going to the retailer. Further, the risk on a AAA videogame, in terms of initial outlay, is significantly smaller than the risk in the same terms for a blockbuster movie. Movies have the box office returns to add to the DVD sales, but plenty of movies make enough on DVD sales that, if the DVD cost just as much to master as the movie cost to get made and in theaters, they'd still turn a profit. The "film has theaters and musicians have concerts" argument really doesn't fly when you actually look at the numbers.

 

[Spencer Petersen]

There's a simple fix here. Game Companies, make a game WORTH holding on to. Don't charge us because your shitty game isn't worth more than one playthrough. Keep it updated. Keep it supported. Fix bugs. Don't market a game like a movie and ***** when people treat it like a movie.

So you host your own servers and you charge for online passes because multiplayer has upkeep, ok. But when a game is traded in, isn't the original owner essentially selling his online pass? Why does it need to be re-bought? There aren't any extra people using the servers, for every game sold, 1 person uses the server. You aren't getting a raw deal here.

 

[oplinger]

The only thing you've shown is that videogames cost more to make than an album or a book, and that companies don't properly support their releases for very long after launch. You haven't proved that there's any difference between videogames and movies at all, and you really havn't proved where the difference between them is as a product. It's like saying a motorcycle isn't a comparable product to a car, which isn't comparable to a truck, because each one has a different set of costs involved, both for the company and the customer.

I say videogames are a comparable product to books, music, and movies because all four products are physical products, that contain intellectual property, which is sold with a set of limited rights, none of which happen to be copyright. Your argument is like saying that a new flavor of coke isn't a drink because selling it carries a higher risk than just selling a jug of milk.

It's not really about the physicality of the medium. It's about costs. That's where they differ. Costs are what make everything work. That's what it's all based on. Video game devs do not have a source of income besides that small window of sales. They get -nothing- else.

You're being silly in thinking costs have nothing to do with the differences in media. Yes a DVD is still binary coding on a disc, yes a game is the same as that. But movies make the money in the box office, games make the money with the binary on that disc. Nothing else.

Videogame devs are paid to make the game, that's where the budget goes, and is why 3D Realms were able to work on Duke Nukem Forever for so long without actually making a saleable product. Any profits they may see from the sales are bonuses, not the basis of their regular salary; almost all of the profits on the games go to the publisher, with the majority of what doesn't going to the retailer. Further, the risk on a AAA videogame, in terms of initial outlay, is significantly smaller than the risk in the same terms for a blockbuster movie. Movies have the box office returns to ad to the DVD sales, but plenty of movies make enough on DVD sales that, if the DVD cost just as much to master as the movie cost to get made and in theaters, they'd still turn a profit. The "film has theaters and musicians have concerts" argument really doesn't fly when you actually look at the numbers.

Yeah I guess you're right. I suppose since movies make that much more money, it's just silly for us to think that games should make similar amounts. I mean when a movie is a hit in the box office, and then makes the same amount of cash in DVD sales, who am I to argue that a video game might only sell 20,000 units and then get resold to half a million people.

I'm sorry that I'm arguing with you sir and...okay no..

Look, it's about costs, it doesn't matter what you care to compare it to, games only have one source of revenue, and used games are becoming an even larger bite out of that revenue. They need to combat that, or go bust. Going bust is not beneficial to any of us. So they have to combat it. Would you rather them go bust? Knowing that you don't give a damn that they have nothing to fall back on? I guess you'd like that world without video games huh.

This is ridiculous. In fact, you're being even more ridiculous by stating that movies make enough income off of DVD sales. They make DVD sales because of the theaters. Look at direct to DVD movies rather than theatrical releases. You'll notice a couple of things. 1. They're more similar to games. 2. No one gives a damn about them. 3. They have amazingly small budgets. 4. They sell next to nothing unless they get -really- lucky. Most aren't even advertised. Look up the term "Mockbuster"

The argument -does- fly when you look at the numbers that are actually similar.

 

[AngelBlackChaos]

You have to think of it this way. If you use the analogy of a second hand shop, or a thrift store, In those shops, you buy the product as is, damage and all, and deal with it as such.
Whenever you buy a second hand game, The basic use of the game, the gameplay, is perfectly intact. If it isnt, you can exchange it for the same product and get the same gameplay.

EA's position is an attempt to gain money over a lost sale. So, when you buy that secondhand game, you have two options. Use the pieces of gameplay you have, or buy the products to "repair" the gameplay, if you want it complete.

Just like if, say, a table had a gimpy leg. You could either fix it, so it was whole and complete, or, you could just deal with a gimpy table.

 

[oplinger]

There's a simple fix here. Game Companies, make a game WORTH holding on to. Don't charge us because your shitty game isn't worth more than one playthrough. Keep it updated. Keep it supported. Fix bugs. Don't market a game like a movie and ***** when people treat it like a movie.

So you host your own servers and you charge for online passes because multiplayer has upkeep, ok. But when a game is traded in, isn't the original owner essentially selling his online pass? Why does it need to be re-bought? There aren't any extra people using the servers, for every game sold, 1 person uses the server. You aren't getting a raw deal here.

Upkeep of servers is bandwidth based, and they don't give it to you indefinitely. The costs don't go up, but they're being used for longer periods of time. Meaning they pay the same amount for an extended period, maybe out of their projected time line. You pay for that, not the other guys slot in the magical fairy bandwidth river of foreverness you think exists on the internet.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The only thing you've shown is that videogames cost more to make than an album or a book, and that companies don't properly support their releases for very long after launch. You haven't proved that there's any difference between videogames and movies at all, and you really havn't proved where the difference between them is as a product. It's like saying a motorcycle isn't a comparable product to a car, which isn't comparable to a truck, because each one has a different set of costs involved, both for the company and the customer.

I say videogames are a comparable product to books, music, and movies because all four products are physical products, that contain intellectual property, which is sold with a set of limited rights, none of which happen to be copyright. Your argument is like saying that a new flavor of coke isn't a drink because selling it carries a higher risk than just selling a jug of milk.

It's not really about the physicality of the medium. It's about costs. That's where they differ. Costs are what make everything work. That's what it's all based on. Video game devs do not have a source of income besides that small window of sales. They get -nothing- else.

You're being silly in thinking costs have nothing to do with the differences in media. Yes a DVD is still binary coding on a disc, yes a game is the same as that. But movies make the money in the box office, games make the money with the binary on that disc. Nothing else.

Videogame devs are paid to make the game, that's where the budget goes, and is why 3D Realms were able to work on Duke Nukem Forever for so long without actually making a saleable product. Any profits they may see from the sales are bonuses, not the basis of their regular salary; almost all of the profits on the games go to the publisher, with the majority of what doesn't going to the retailer. Further, the risk on a AAA videogame, in terms of initial outlay, is significantly smaller than the risk in the same terms for a blockbuster movie. Movies have the box office returns to ad to the DVD sales, but plenty of movies make enough on DVD sales that, if the DVD cost just as much to master as the movie cost to get made and in theaters, they'd still turn a profit. The "film has theaters and musicians have concerts" argument really doesn't fly when you actually look at the numbers.

Yeah I guess you're right. I suppose since movies make that much more money, it's just silly for us to think that games should make similar amounts. I mean when a movie is a hit in the box office, and then makes the same amount of cash in DVD sales, who am I to argue that a video game might only sell 20,000 units and then get resold to half a million people.

I'm sorry that I'm arguing with you sir and...okay no..

Look, it's about costs, it doesn't matter what you care to compare it to, games only have one source of revenue, and used games are becoming an even larger bite out of that revenue. They need to combat that, or go bust. Going bust is not beneficial to any of us. So they have to combat it. Would you rather them go bust? Knowing that you don't give a damn that they have nothing to fall back on? I guess you'd like that world without video games huh.

This is ridiculous. In fact, you're being even more ridiculous by stating that movies make enough income off of DVD sales. They make DVD sales because of the theaters. Look at direct to DVD movies rather than theatrical releases. You'll notice a couple of things. 1. They're more similar to games. 2. No one gives a damn about them. 3. They have amazingly small budgets. 4. They sell next to nothing unless they get -really- lucky. Most aren't even advertised. Look up the term "Mockbuster"

The argument -does- fly when you look at the numbers that are actually similar.

The point is, the costs involved in videogames are significantly lower. If they can't recoup them without having to introduce crap like Project $10, then their business model is unsustainable, and they need to find ways to cut costs, instead of gouging and driving away customers. They might start by charging less for their games, in order to get more sales. I have never in my life paid $60 for a game, but I've bought plenty of new games for $20 -- which is a comparable price to a freshly released DVD. The original excuse for the high costs was that cartridges cost a lot to make -- and they did. However, charging $40 or more per game hasn't been necessary since the PS1 came onto the scene. Costs have gone up, but not enough that the unit price is anywhere near what it was in the cartridge days -- let alone higher, which is what the $60 price tag would imply. Face it, they're ripping us off.

 

[Spencer Petersen]

There's a simple fix here. Game Companies, make a game WORTH holding on to. Don't charge us because your shitty game isn't worth more than one playthrough. Keep it updated. Keep it supported. Fix bugs. Don't market a game like a movie and ***** when people treat it like a movie.

So you host your own servers and you charge for online passes because multiplayer has upkeep, ok. But when a game is traded in, isn't the original owner essentially selling his online pass? Why does it need to be re-bought? There aren't any extra people using the servers, for every game sold, 1 person uses the server. You aren't getting a raw deal here.

Upkeep of servers is bandwidth based, and they don't give it to you indefinitely. The costs don't go up, but they're being used for longer periods of time. Meaning they pay the same amount for an extended period, maybe out of their projected time line. You pay for that, not the other guys slot in the magical fairy bandwidth river of foreverness you think exists on the internet.

Say you buy a season ticket for your favorite sports team. The ticket also includes a hot dog and soda whenever you go to the game. Say you have to leave for a while and you sell it to a friend so that it doesn't go to waste. Does the ballpark have the right to make your friend pay for the food because the ticket changed hands? Of course not, because the food was payed for with the season ticket. Likewise, the online pass was payed for by the original owner, so the company has no right to charge more just because another person is now the benefactor.

And as far as upkeep costs go its the responsibilities of the publisher to pay for upkeep. Sixty bucks a copy is more than enough to keep a server of proportionate size running, and that's assuming every single person who buys the game uses the multiplayer, which is not always true.

 

[thatstheguy]

You will find that a lot of gamers will argue for things that only suit themselves, when something they hate does something wrong, they will nitpick to no end, when something they like does something wrong, they pass it off as something excusable.

Pretty much the internet in a nutshell. Hell, that's pretty much everyone in a nutshell when you get down to it.

OT: EA has been getting so much shit lately, that I'm willing to give them a "subjective freebie" on this one.

Consider it a Get-out-of-Jail free card for some asshole on the internet's opinion.

 

[dWintermut3]

I agree entirely that REQUIRING the code stinks.

Mass Effect 2 did it right, as Bioware so often does: you got bonus goodies free if you had the code, if not, you could still pop in the disk and play.

I am going to be in the minority coming out in favor of the system but as someone who has bought a game used and tried to install it only to be told that the CD key is already in use and I am hosed, I like the approach to copyright protection that they'll give you *almost* full access, full access to the base game, maybe sans multiplayer, but if you want the goodies you need a virgin key.

 

[oplinger]

The point is, the costs involved in videogames are significantly lower. If they can't recoup them without having to introduce crap like Project $10, then their business model is unsustainable, and they need to find ways to cut costs, instead of gouging and driving away customers. They might start by charging less for their games, in order to get more sales. I have never in my life paid $60 for a game, but I've bought plenty of new games for $20 -- which is a comparable price to a freshly released DVD. The original excuse for the high costs was that cartridges cost a lot to make -- and they did. However, charging $40 or more per game hasn't been necessary since the PS1 came onto the scene. Costs have gone up, but not enough that the unit price is anywhere near what it was in the cartridge days -- let alone higher, which is what the $60 price tag would imply. Face it, they're ripping us off.

Significantly lower...to movies? yes. But so are the sales. They have been recouping the losses so far, but as the economy goes down hill more and more people are buying used, decreasing sales. That makes it harder to recoup the losses, because used games being cheaper is expected, and it'll happen. So why buy new if you get the same game for much cheaper in a month or two?

Alright, so let's do some math here. You mentioned you bought plenty of new games for 20 dollars. Okay, so.

50 million dollars[footnote]that's still quite large.[/footnote]. that'll be our budget.

50,000,000/20=2,500,000 units.

Have you ever sold 2.5 million of anything?

Now say, 50,000,000/60=84,000 units

That's much more reasonable isn't it? 50 is easy, so i'll let you do that one in your head.

Now, consider that 84,000 units is still a lot. and if it was back before 60 dollars was normal (That price hike, I was against.) 1,000,000 units sold meant you'd break even with a budget like that. Which is a lot of units sold. Say out of that 1,000,000 you only sell 200,000 units, and the rest of the sales ever are used sales.

200,000*60=12,000,000

50,000,000-12,000,000=38,000,000

38 million dollars in losses. now if we consider that the other 800,000 sales offered up 10 bucks. that's still 30 million in losses and the game would have to make money in other ways, or that's just an acceptable loss, they'll make it up with another franchise. That's not happening. So to be a hit, that's just breaking even with that budget, or going a little above.

Lets say we have a movie that costs 100 million, at the box office the movie pulls in 30 million in losses, 70 million. That's okay, in DVD sales in makes 50 million. They have a net gain. Then a network wants to give them a million or two to legally air the movie to the public, then they release the special directors cut platinum edition and it sells total for another 30 million.

that's 70,000,000+50,000,000+2,000,000+30,000,000=152,000,000. That's some great profits. even with the costs of putting it on DVD. The other sources of income -really- help the movie there. It cannot work that way for games, so they're finding other ways to regain lost profits. Movies don't have to care, even my bullshit movie can make profits.

 

[oplinger]

There's a simple fix here. Game Companies, make a game WORTH holding on to. Don't charge us because your shitty game isn't worth more than one playthrough. Keep it updated. Keep it supported. Fix bugs. Don't market a game like a movie and ***** when people treat it like a movie.

So you host your own servers and you charge for online passes because multiplayer has upkeep, ok. But when a game is traded in, isn't the original owner essentially selling his online pass? Why does it need to be re-bought? There aren't any extra people using the servers, for every game sold, 1 person uses the server. You aren't getting a raw deal here.

Upkeep of servers is bandwidth based, and they don't give it to you indefinitely. The costs don't go up, but they're being used for longer periods of time. Meaning they pay the same amount for an extended period, maybe out of their projected time line. You pay for that, not the other guys slot in the magical fairy bandwidth river of foreverness you think exists on the internet.

Say you buy a season ticket for your favorite sports team. The ticket also includes a hot dog and soda whenever you go to the game. Say you have to leave for a while and you sell it to a friend so that it doesn't go to waste. Does the ballpark have the right to make your friend pay for the food because the ticket changed hands? Of course not, because the food was payed for with the season ticket. Likewise, the online pass was payed for by the original owner, so the company has no right to charge more just because another person is now the benefactor.

And as far as upkeep costs go its the responsibilities of the publisher to pay for upkeep. Sixty bucks a copy is more than enough to keep a server of proportionate size running, and that's assuming every single person who buys the game uses the multiplayer, which is not always true.

You're using the idea completely ass backwards. Bandwidth is not like a hot dog, it's more like a flat rate water bill at an apartment. The average usage of water gets calculated, the costs of that water is put together, and divided among the residents. It's a projected cost for the people who buy it new to keep the servers up and running. Your 60 bucks is not going -entirely- to server upkeep, it's mostly going to fill the hole they dug getting the game out there. So instead of making the game cost more based on their projections, they budget it out for a certain amount of time. If someone enjoys the online for 2 years, and then sells it, what's to stop the next guy from wanting his 2 years? Well let's see, it's no longer cost effective to keep the servers up after 30 months, and we go out of budget. So they have to charge more to give people who bought it used to give them full enjoyment.

...Of course, no it's not going to work like that, maybe in a perfect world. but that's where the charge would come from if it wasn't just them filling the giant hole in their pocket. Which any reasonable business should do, especially if it's something they see no returns on anyway.

 

[Timmibal]

I say videogames are a comparable product to books, music, and movies because all four products are physical products, that contain intellectual property, which is sold with a set of limited rights, none of which happen to be copyright. Your argument is like saying that a new flavor of coke isn't a drink because selling it carries a higher risk than just selling a jug of milk.

Dude, are you just playing devil's advocate? Or did you really not read his post?

Ok, let's go through this systematically.

First, lets take PC games out of the equation. With the amount of DRM and serial registration they have to go through, most recent releases on PC can be said to have a resale value just north of $dick, if they can be resold at all!

Secondly, risk to cost is probably the most irrelevant part that you took out of the argument. I agree that for the most part, games cost WAY too fucking much. Especially here in Australia. It is indeed within the customers rights to seek the best available deal. Cost to the customer as a monetary value is kind of supernumary to the argument in this case, since what the issue is dealing with is WHERE the money is going, rather than HOW.

To drastically simplify matters. Producers really only have two viewpoints on who gets money for their product. Them, and everybody else.

Now let's go through all three of the media examples you state are the same as games. Like a huge freaking number of the rest of you, I busted my hump in the retail sector for years before finding a 'real' job. And like many of you, I picked up a few things while I was there. So let's break it down.

Books: As I posted before, books are sold wholesale by the publisher to the retailer. Which means as far as the owner of the IP is concerned, there is no such thing as a 'lost' sale. The closest equivilant is in instances of vast undersale, the retailer can return the titles for a credit against future purchases. This is rare, however, and usually only applies to issues where a smaller retailer has vastly overestimated demand. This in and of itself is enough to render the resale value of a book completely moot in the eyes of the IP holder. Books are also a limited count resource. Only so many copies are produced, and a reprint is only done when demand is sufficient.

Music: Closer. Physical CDs do hold some limited resale value, insofar as they can be directly returned to live stock, assuming that there is no damage to the item. Unfortunately there's a big fucking crack in the bridge comparing them to games in this aspect. Retailers, unless something has VASTLY changed in the last month since I last bought a CD, do not encourage the resale of a CD. Returns where the item is not faulty is a relatively rare occurance, and it is SOP for a retailer NEVER to accept a return or exchange without valid proof of purchase.

Movies. Again, close, but no cigar. Again the resale value of the item is mitigated by the retailers refusal to accept a return without proof of purchase. The Retailer may accept the return, but does not encourage the customer to return the item.

Comparatively to say that retailers encourage returns on console games is to drastically understate the issue. "TRADE IN 5 GAMES TO GET 'FINAL GEARS OF MASS OPS OF THE DEAD' FOR ONLY $10!" brightly coloured banners cry. "DON'T PAY WITH MONEY, PAY WITH YOUR OLD GAMES!" vibrant signs on the shelves entreat. And oh, boy do they make it easy for you to do so. I could break into your house, steal your entire game library and trade it in with often barely a photo ID required.

Console games are different to other forms of media, for all of the reasons outlined in previous posts, but for the sake of this argument, primarily because retailers treat them differently. Resale is in direct competition with new sales, and as stated before, a resold game does in fact constitute a direct 1:1 lost sale to the publisher. No ambiguity, no extrapolation by loaded statistics as so often ridiculed in arguments against file sharing.

Resale hurts the game industry for exactly the same reasons ascribed to piracy. I can understand producers trying to circumvent resale, and I do believe that in this instance, EA is most definately in the right. From a developer and producer's perspective, a resold game is just as damaging as a bootleg copy, perhaps moreso, because the resale is being legally and actively marketed as a cheaper alternative to the legitimate copy.

 

[Spencer Petersen]

There's a simple fix here. Game Companies, make a game WORTH holding on to. Don't charge us because your shitty game isn't worth more than one playthrough. Keep it updated. Keep it supported. Fix bugs. Don't market a game like a movie and ***** when people treat it like a movie.

So you host your own servers and you charge for online passes because multiplayer has upkeep, ok. But when a game is traded in, isn't the original owner essentially selling his online pass? Why does it need to be re-bought? There aren't any extra people using the servers, for every game sold, 1 person uses the server. You aren't getting a raw deal here.

Upkeep of servers is bandwidth based, and they don't give it to you indefinitely. The costs don't go up, but they're being used for longer periods of time. Meaning they pay the same amount for an extended period, maybe out of their projected time line. You pay for that, not the other guys slot in the magical fairy bandwidth river of foreverness you think exists on the internet.

Say you buy a season ticket for your favorite sports team. The ticket also includes a hot dog and soda whenever you go to the game. Say you have to leave for a while and you sell it to a friend so that it doesn't go to waste. Does the ballpark have the right to make your friend pay for the food because the ticket changed hands? Of course not, because the food was payed for with the season ticket. Likewise, the online pass was payed for by the original owner, so the company has no right to charge more just because another person is now the benefactor.

And as far as upkeep costs go its the responsibilities of the publisher to pay for upkeep. Sixty bucks a copy is more than enough to keep a server of proportionate size running, and that's assuming every single person who buys the game uses the multiplayer, which is not always true.

You're using the idea completely ass backwards. Bandwidth is not like a hot dog, it's more like a flat rate water bill at an apartment. The average usage of water gets calculated, the costs of that water is put together, and divided among the residents. It's a projected cost for the people who buy it new to keep the servers up and running. Your 60 bucks is not going -entirely- to server upkeep, it's mostly going to fill the hole they dug getting the game out there. So instead of making the game cost more based on their projections, they budget it out for a certain amount of time. If someone enjoys the online for 2 years, and then sells it, what's to stop the next guy from wanting his 2 years? Well let's see, it's no longer cost effective to keep the servers up after 30 months, and we go out of budget. So they have to charge more to give people who bought it used to give them full enjoyment.

...Of course, no it's not going to work like that, maybe in a perfect world. but that's where the charge would come from if it wasn't just them filling the giant hole in their pocket. Which any reasonable business should do, especially if it's something they see no returns on anyway.

If they really don't want to front the costs of servers they can open the field to player run servers. Or if people are real cheap, an option for shitty hosted servers. But if they want to make the big move and front the costs themselves they should be prepared to, ya know, front the cost themselves. They can't complain that they are losing money from upkeep if they made a conscientious decision to provide the upkeep.

How about a compromise, on release they will host the servers and issue a statement. They will agree to front the costs for servers for a set period of time and in the meantime they will allows player-hosted servers to take root. After around 1-2 years they will give a warning that the company servers will be shutting down but at that point people will be able to support the game themselves. The real fans will probably be willing to help out. The casual players will probably have moved on. And everyone wins. People keep playing the game, the company no longer has upkeep costs. All we need from the company is some time to set up and modding capabilities. Not really much to ask for really.