j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Ninjaed almost immediately, lame sir. also +1 cookie.
If the game wasn't terrible, maybe people wouldn't think to sell it. If it had replay value, etc. Heavy rain's poor performance is due to it's creators, not the consumers.
Heavy Rain Dev Says Pre-Owned Sales Cost it Millions
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Ninjaed almost immediately, lame sir. also +1 cookie.
If the game wasn't terrible, maybe people wouldn't think to sell it. If it had replay value, etc. Heavy rain's poor performance is due to it's creators, not the consumers.
son of a *****, would these developers just shut their whiney little mouths up about this?
There is no other industry where a company feels entitled to more money of a resold product. Do you know how many people wait a year after a new car comes out so they can buy it cheaper used? Ford and Chevy aren't throwing wild tantrums in magazines about the "mean old used car dealerships" stealing money and new car sales from them because people don't want to spend full price right away from a direct dealer.
No one would let any other company get away with this, and they don't. People wouldn't put up with HP demanding a cut from eBay whenever someone sells their laptop.
You make a product, you make a profit on it once when you sell it to a customer, and you have no more rights to money if they resell it... I thought this was accepted by just about everyone
There is no other industry where a company feels entitled to more money of a resold product. Do you know how many people wait a year after a new car comes out so they can buy it cheaper used? Ford and Chevy aren't throwing wild tantrums in magazines about the "mean old used car dealerships" stealing money and new car sales from them because people don't want to spend full price right away from a direct dealer.
No one would let any other company get away with this, and they don't. People wouldn't put up with HP demanding a cut from eBay whenever someone sells their laptop.
You make a product, you make a profit on it once when you sell it to a customer, and you have no more rights to money if they resell it... I thought this was accepted by just about everyone
Most people I know don't enjoy buying used games, because there's definitely a risk factor involved. The majority of people I know who bother buying used games are college kids or people otherwise stuck in some kind of rut, and would gladly shell out for new games once they run into some more cash.
As a developer, if you're so worried about this, why not start discounting your game so many months after the initial release date?
As a developer, if you're so worried about this, why not start discounting your game so many months after the initial release date?
K, here's my two cents...
How 'bout shut up and deal with that fact that not everyone is shitting money.
Plus it's not like it took a long time for Heavy Rain to hit the 1$ bin...
How 'bout shut up and deal with that fact that not everyone is shitting money.
Plus it's not like it took a long time for Heavy Rain to hit the 1$ bin...
It is. It's perfectly normal to resell what you own. Just because someone figure out that there is a way to ban that sort of thing doesn't mean shit. It's still not right. It's actually illegal. EULA doesn't mean shit either. It's not a legally binding contract.Nurb said:
Why don't they lower the prices of their games and maybe more people would buy them new. Sure there would still be used games for cheap, but more people would probably prefer to buy a new game. And less people would want to sell their games knowing they can't sell them for as much as they used to.
Step 1. Make your games better, instead of churning out shit over and over again.
Step 2. Make the price of games a bit cheaper.
Step 3. Stop giving too much money or power to those fucking publishers, they don't care about the industry, they care about how much money they can squeeze out of everyone else.
Step 2. Make the price of games a bit cheaper.
Step 3. Stop giving too much money or power to those fucking publishers, they don't care about the industry, they care about how much money they can squeeze out of everyone else.
no other industry (to my knowledge) harps on about used sales so much.
i really can't believe how some people lap up the concept that games are so totally different from movie dvds, tv show dvds, music, clothes, cars, tv's, prams, furniture, instruments, tools, jewellery... etc etc
i'd love to hear one reason why the games industry is such a delicate little flower compared to these other industries.
other than the whole reading the small print to see i'm buying a licence not a game
dont want me to sell something on once i'm done with it? make it so damn good i cant be without it
i really can't believe how some people lap up the concept that games are so totally different from movie dvds, tv show dvds, music, clothes, cars, tv's, prams, furniture, instruments, tools, jewellery... etc etc
i'd love to hear one reason why the games industry is such a delicate little flower compared to these other industries.
other than the whole reading the small print to see i'm buying a licence not a game
dont want me to sell something on once i'm done with it? make it so damn good i cant be without it
agreed. What are "limited rights" going to do against piracy anyway? Of course you're not allowed to pirate the game it's illegal. BUT PLEASE don't tell me I have to have my game the way you want it on my computer at all times. It's your IP from your game, but it's MY computer, and I'm gonna run it how I damn well please.StrixMaxima said:
When I go to buy a book, I go to a book store. New book store chains do not have used book sections. So in store advertising for new books by the publisher is not used to sell old books.
When I go to buy a movie or album, I go to a audio/video store. New audio/video store chains do not have used audio/video sections. So in store advertising for new audio/video by their distributer is not used to sell old audio/video products.
When I go to buy a video game, I go to a video game store. New video game store chains have used video game sections. So in store advertising for new video games by their publisher is used to sell old video games.
Is the problem the existance of old media sales? No. Other entertainment industries have less problems with competition, because they don't allow their cendors to sell used versions using their own advertising.
This is not the consumer's fault. The blame lies on two parties: The distribution chains that abuse your advertising too sell products you don't claim royalties from, and YOU, the publisher, for allowing this to continue for so fucking long.
The solution is simple: Change the rules of distribution. If game stores don't have new product to advertise, they don't have old product to sell either. They will dry up. Other distribution channels are waiting to pick up the extra business, ones that aren't fucking you over. Use them, instead of those that you claim are costing you money.
Doesn't that make sense? Do business that makes you money, and not business that costs you money. The large chains that are responsible for the used game fiasco will either have to play by your rules, or change their business model such that used game sales become all they do. Either is fine, because they'll stop being able to use YOUR advertising to sell stuff that doesn't make you money.
In this case, just because it says inside a sealed package that it's not a perchase of a product, but a license, because that writing is not accessible before you've handed them money, and they hand you the game, it is not a part of that contract. Which means that, by the time you've read that you haven't bought the game, you've already legally bought the game. You cannot go back and change the terms of a contract that is already completed.
As an example, let's say you buy a car from me. We don't sign a contract, I just take your money, and you take the car, and it's all amicable. This is a legal contract. I cannot, after you get the car home, then call you up and say 'By the way, just to be clear, you didn't actually buy the car, you bought the use of the car, and cannot resell it.' That's bullshit. The contract is done and over with.
And before you say 'You've only bought the physical media, not the software' I would like to point out that such a statement needs to be clearly communicated to the consumer before the point of sale.
You can look at the package of every single game that you've bought in the past 20 years. And unless it's for a subscription service, such as WoW, you will find, without exception, that every single game you have bought does not communicate this to you.
Thusly, by contract law, you have bought the game in toto, not in part.
When I go to buy a movie or album, I go to a audio/video store. New audio/video store chains do not have used audio/video sections. So in store advertising for new audio/video by their distributer is not used to sell old audio/video products.
When I go to buy a video game, I go to a video game store. New video game store chains have used video game sections. So in store advertising for new video games by their publisher is used to sell old video games.
Is the problem the existance of old media sales? No. Other entertainment industries have less problems with competition, because they don't allow their cendors to sell used versions using their own advertising.
This is not the consumer's fault. The blame lies on two parties: The distribution chains that abuse your advertising too sell products you don't claim royalties from, and YOU, the publisher, for allowing this to continue for so fucking long.
The solution is simple: Change the rules of distribution. If game stores don't have new product to advertise, they don't have old product to sell either. They will dry up. Other distribution channels are waiting to pick up the extra business, ones that aren't fucking you over. Use them, instead of those that you claim are costing you money.
Doesn't that make sense? Do business that makes you money, and not business that costs you money. The large chains that are responsible for the used game fiasco will either have to play by your rules, or change their business model such that used game sales become all they do. Either is fine, because they'll stop being able to use YOUR advertising to sell stuff that doesn't make you money.
Which, as said fine print is not on the packaging or in any way introduced before the contract is agreed upon, and consideration is exchanged, it has nothing to do with that contract and is not legally admissible in any discussion on what said contract entails.Mr Ink 5000 said:
In this case, just because it says inside a sealed package that it's not a perchase of a product, but a license, because that writing is not accessible before you've handed them money, and they hand you the game, it is not a part of that contract. Which means that, by the time you've read that you haven't bought the game, you've already legally bought the game. You cannot go back and change the terms of a contract that is already completed.
As an example, let's say you buy a car from me. We don't sign a contract, I just take your money, and you take the car, and it's all amicable. This is a legal contract. I cannot, after you get the car home, then call you up and say 'By the way, just to be clear, you didn't actually buy the car, you bought the use of the car, and cannot resell it.' That's bullshit. The contract is done and over with.
And before you say 'You've only bought the physical media, not the software' I would like to point out that such a statement needs to be clearly communicated to the consumer before the point of sale.
You can look at the package of every single game that you've bought in the past 20 years. And unless it's for a subscription service, such as WoW, you will find, without exception, that every single game you have bought does not communicate this to you.
Thusly, by contract law, you have bought the game in toto, not in part.
And that's where I kinda question how much they actually "lost", and you would have to take into account the people that wouldn't have bought the game at all if they couldn't get it that cheap. Personally, after playing the demo and seeing how bad and boring the game was, I wouldn't spent more than $5-10 on it (and $10 is still kinda pushing it), and I'd never find it for that price new.Logan Westbrook said:
Maybe if you want to make more money from new game sales, maybe make the game cheaper. $60 is A LOT of money for a game.
You can actually sell a license if you want, as long as the license isn't exclusive to you (with your name on it). And games fortunately don't require of you to sign your name in a real contract when you buy them. No one would buy games if that were the case.Mr Ink 5000 said:
thank you, even less reason the industry should stop cryingAdam Jensen said:
loved your game by the way Adam
Once again I fail to sympathize on this issue.
Particularly on Heavy Rain, a game billed more as a story experience. Unless you're hell bent on playing the game right out of the gate you might as well wait for a used copy. Which there are sure to be a few of, because people don't get a ton of replay value out of a story they already know.
The upside as I see it for the developer is that now that Heavy Rain has received some good press, regardless of how well this first iteration sold the next offering will be that much more in demand. That will raise sales of new copies as more people are looking forward to a new release.
Particularly on Heavy Rain, a game billed more as a story experience. Unless you're hell bent on playing the game right out of the gate you might as well wait for a used copy. Which there are sure to be a few of, because people don't get a ton of replay value out of a story they already know.
The upside as I see it for the developer is that now that Heavy Rain has received some good press, regardless of how well this first iteration sold the next offering will be that much more in demand. That will raise sales of new copies as more people are looking forward to a new release.
the schmucks haven't even realized that they're stimulating piracy big time with all this.
Honestly day 1 dlc/online gameplay that you only get with an original purchase
Both have long LONG been passed by pirates
Here you go sir cough up 200 euros/dollars/pounds for the total game which we made inavailable to you cause you were so stupid to actually buy the game but not for the full retail price in store.
Wait so this means... If I sell you the house I built, and you sell it on, I am entitled to money you got for that resale?
Sweetums! I wish the world worked that way too, I'd never get a job and just start radically screwing over honest people too
Honestly day 1 dlc/online gameplay that you only get with an original purchase
Both have long LONG been passed by pirates
Here you go sir cough up 200 euros/dollars/pounds for the total game which we made inavailable to you cause you were so stupid to actually buy the game but not for the full retail price in store.
Wait so this means... If I sell you the house I built, and you sell it on, I am entitled to money you got for that resale?
Sweetums! I wish the world worked that way too, I'd never get a job and just start radically screwing over honest people too
