InstantAction CEO: Retailers Are "Parasites and Thieves"

[lafona]

To all that oppose the used game industry(Namely this assclown in particular),

You complain that you're not getting a cut of the profit from used game sales. Before I go on a tirade of how rediculous that is, I will say that from a very thin moral standpoint, you MAY be right. However, the absurdity of your claim is profound, and let me tell you why.

You are in the video game development industry. You built a business around making and selling, not buying and selling. This idea that you should get a cut from someone elses industry is both morally and legally moronic. TO get away from the used games industry, let's look at pawn shops. A pawn shop buys and sells everything, including games, but also guns, jewelry, and other items. If a pawn shop buys and sells a gun, does Ruger deserve to get a cut of the resold pistol? If a pawn shop buys and sells a wristwatch, does Rolex deserve to get part of the money that the pawn shop has invested and turned a profit on?

The answer to this is no. Ruger and Rolex, like every other manufacturer, have a very simple relationship with their customers. They make and sell, and the customer buys. They have no right nor grounds to demand or even suggest that they recieve money from the actions of another company simply because they have a name on the product, and the used games industry is no different. If you want to turn a profit on your own used games, then expand your business model to include buying and selling used games as well as manufacturing and development.

Until that day though, keep your hands off and your mouth shut.

Sincerely, ShadowKatt.

thank you for that eloquent answer. I couldn't agree more. The fact that this guy is complaining about this is the equivalent of a child having to choose a toy, and then crying over some other kid playing with the one he didnt choose.

the fact of the matter is this: without used games sales, retailers would not make enough money to stay in business. the cost of owning a store and the competitive market for game sales, especially when competing with juggernauts like wal-mart, means that companies cannot make enough money with strictly selling games on a large basis. Used games sales are something that would happen, whether the retailers did it or not, and quite frankly, it is the reason that a lot of people can afford to play games. i know many people who wouldnt play most of the games they do without the cheap prices offered by companies like EB games(Game Stop).

Not only that, but then there is the publisher promotion that comes with being able to play those old games. When games go out of print, unless they are cult classics, they are gone forever. This means that many games not lucky enough to make the "platinum addition" cut would be inaccessible to people who just got the system. Games would fade off into obscurity or be lost in closets and forgotten, rather than purchased again and again by new fans. This would do more damage to companies just looking for a little press than the supposed ton of money they would be losing, because no one would have them any more.

that's all i can think to say right now, but i am sure there are quite a few more reasons this guy is an asshat. anybody got something i missed?

 

[SelectivelyEvil13]

This is a good point, and maybe we'll see game rentals coming under fire next
If I can rent a game and then beat it overnight and never want to play it again I have to wonder what, exactly is my incentive to spend $70 on it new?

I have to agree with about everything you've previously stated, but this is what I honestly do now: Blockbuster video/gaming pass for the month. Try a game, boom! Return. Rinse and repeat. And while I'm there I check out the used games to boot! One time they were doing a buy 1 get 1 deal for 360 games and I loaded up on some older titles. My entire game collection practically doubled in under half the cost.

And by doing this quick n' play and as someone who does not have a lot of time to invest in gaming, what incentive is there to actually buy a brand new game, $60, for a miniscule single player campaign? That's all I play the game for now, so how is Call of Duty X worth even half that high price if most of the gameplay, not even really a lot of game content, is something that is far less work to produce? Then they have the audacity to outright blindside customers with outrageous DLC content that you don't even own that probably took a coffee break with the map editor. I remember when I did play online years ago: $60 for a game with multiplayer and a campaign several hours long. $15, a quarter of the cost, for less maps that came with the game to begin with. Many times, we even see DLC that appears to have been omitted or outright locked from the original game! In essence, that makes the full game really $75 (American).

Another problem that I have noticed is that they do not lower the prices on some of the most undeserving titles. How long did it take for Modern Warfare 2 to get a price drop? It's still about $50 online!

What I have grown to despise is that little notice that there is an 'update' for the game. Then complaints abound. Then another 'update' followed by another round of complaints regarding a one step forward and two steps back approach. As mentioned by BloodSquirrel, games seem to be just pumped out, but as a result we can see the slips in quality control that get by and balance issues that somehow got past.

The more people like this CEO open their mouths about the used game industry, the more they paint themselves as covetous, egotistical twats who have lost all connection with the average consumer and our limited expendable funds. Now I say it's our turn to be unsympathetic.

 

[CanadianWolverine]

Wait, wait, wait...

"They're parasites and thieves,"

Is a publisher (even a small time one) calling retail, one of their possible distribution channels this?

Does no one else see the irony of someone who takes the creative works of others (developers) and sells it as their own calling someone else out for taking the hard disc copy at a discount from the customer and reselling it? Pot, I would like you to meet Kettle, sheesh.

More and more every day I want to see more Stardocks and Valves, those who not only self publish but allow for others to use their channels as well. Besides, with the customer service I get as a PC gamer in retail these days, they don't deserve my patronage either, they only have eyes for the console scene now and are leaving things like Steam to corner the PC market. A few of the major problems I see facing digital distribution however is lack of reliable ISP infrastructure and non-refundable/warranty issues due to poor service/product pushes a customer to go back to retail space for their entertainment desires but those are not insurmountable odds if there was better political lobbying for public infrastructure and if online markets would keep customers by building trust and loyalty by issuing credit.

 

[Billion Backs]

I sold my car once and I didn't feel obliged to share any of that money with Buick. I wonder if Mr. Castle has ever sold any of his own property. Has Mr. Castle ever sold a car, or his home, or his old TV? Would he feel obliged to share his money with Ford, or his house builder, or Sony? I don't think so, and yet he feels that game companies should get another cut when their games are resold.

In what land does this make sense? Was he beaten in the head by an irate game player? Maybe he ate lead paint as a child...

A car is a physical object, subject to deterioration and such.

A video game is, for the most part, intellectual property which you, the buyer, or the retailer, do not have the rights to. A game is merely a "pass", it's not ownership.

So, uh, there's a world of difference.

And as it is pretty common in the business world or in the world in general, both sides are kind of greedy dicks and no matter where the argument goes it's the consumers who get fucked.

 

[technoted]

I'm fine paying a small fortune for games, I understand what the guy's saying and I can't blame him they lose a lot of money from that, although companies like Gamestop need to make money as well, it's a double edged sword.

Christ, Blizzard will have taken £180 off of me in games by the end of the year...

 

[Samurai Goomba]

If you could provide a back-catalog then perhaps there would be more new sales.
If you're dismissing retailers as thieves, then why are you supplying them?

Because he likes the free publicity, the exposure, and the audience that the retailer brings in, but doesn't think retailers should get to benefit from his games at all. In other words, he wants to exploit what retailers offer to the game industry, but not have to do anything to help them. It's pretty safe to say most of the money any retail game store gets is through used game sales, because it all goes into the store. BUT that profit keeps the store going, which profits the developers by providing a lot of locations in population-dense areas where people who don't like digital distribution can see his game and buy it in physical form. Retailers also advertise and inform customers about new releases.

I agree that the way GS does things is unethical, because the company is made up of weasels, but used games are necessary for the survival of the retailer. Tax and fine used games 'till nobody wants 'em, and suddenly the retailers go under. And then what? Then he'll be crying that the industry is soo bad because nobody will buy his game, when the real reason is that people don't want a digital version or don't frequent his store website. All of a sudden he doesn't get his publicity anymore.

All of this not mentioning that resale is completely within the rights of the consumer. Always had been, always should be. "Legal theft" makes about as much sense as "legal murder," or "legal rape." You're not getting robbed, you're skewing the numbers to show that you didn't make as much of a profit as you possibly could have if an entire industry didn't exist.

"Gee, we'd sure sell more bikes if nobody could ever sell a used bike."
"We sure would. Hey, let's chart the most we could possibly gouge out of customers if we killed this industry, show it to the bike media and call it 'lost sales.'"

 

[Noobstick]

So gents, how long do you reckon it's gonna take before, say, the auto industry or school textbook printers start clamoring for their slice of the second-hand market?

Mr. Castle needs to get rid of this ridiculous sense of entitlement. He is not entitled any kind of control over what people do with their legally bought games, and if he wants to have this kind of control he better go the steam route and offer something substantial in return.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I HATED Street Fighter 4. Even set on easy, I couldn't beat the last two fights in anyone's "story" (yes, I'm terrible at fighting games). $50 down the drain. Now tell me, if I contacted the publisher and said, "Hey, can I trade in this game toward another one of yours?" what do you think they'd say? GameStop lets me do that, even if I'm getting pennies back. There's also the fact that used game stores have games that can no longer be bought anywhere else.

When publishers start offering the same type of services--even better services actually--then GameStop and its ilk will die. Until then, publishers apparently expect us to keep their games forever (even if we're not good at them) or throw them away without getting anything back for them. Yeah, I don't think so.

 

[Interference]

Jesus, that interview is FULL of solid gold bullshit. My favourite? The "if you can legally steal it's still stealing" bit. Last time I checked, the concept of stealing was to "acquire something illegally." I mean, that's a hilariously nonsensical thing to say.

This fixation some publishers have that they're convinced they still own the games you've bought is ridiculous. It's mine now. Short of copying it I can do what I damnwell like within reason.

GameStop rang, Louis, and they told me to leave you a message: they invite you to bite their money-making, vitally important to the future survival of the games industry, shiny, metal arse.

 

[Breaker deGodot]

Maybe if games didn't cost me $70 fucking dollars after tax I would buy them new?
Seriously, I'm so sick of publishers and developers whining about this shit.

Publishers dick the consumer around to no end. They do! Let's take EA's games; every game now has to be some sort of DLC platform that pushes and pushes you to buy their DLC which is 95% crap. Take Activision who raised the prices of their games and releases map packs which should be free for $15. Take Ubisoft with their absurd DRM!

These assholes push us and squeeze us for every fucking penny and we endure it because we believe we're "supporting the industry". So you know what? Now that publishers have been in turn dicked around as bad as the consumers, they sit there and whine and whine about it to no fucking end. "Bawwwww we aren't making all this money, bawwwww how dare people give gamers discount prices!" You know what? DEAL WITH IT. I'm tired of this shit and if you want used game sales to stop hurting you could STOP TRYING TO JUICE YOUR CUSTOMER BASE.

Are publishers under some kind of spell where 2 billion dollars of profit a year is just not good enough? No other industry complains this much and they seem like a bunch of toddlers who weren't allowed to have a piece of candy less it spoil their dinner.

Wow. I don't know if you know about this, but you sounded a hell of a lot like Ayn Rand just now.

 

[Digital_Utopia]

I sold my car once and I didn't feel obliged to share any of that money with Buick. I wonder if Mr. Castle has ever sold any of his own property. Has Mr. Castle ever sold a car, or his home, or his old TV? Would he feel obliged to share his money with Ford, or his house builder, or Sony? I don't think so, and yet he feels that game companies should get another cut when their games are resold.

In what land does this make sense? Was he beaten in the head by an irate game player? Maybe he ate lead paint as a child...

A car is a physical object, subject to deterioration and such.

A video game is, for the most part, intellectual property which you, the buyer, or the retailer, do not have the rights to. A game is merely a "pass", it's not ownership.

So, uh, there's a world of difference.

And as it is pretty common in the business world or in the world in general, both sides are kind of greedy dicks and no matter where the argument goes it's the consumers who get fucked.

The game itself, like words on a page or music on a CD is intellectual property that you have no rights or ownership of. However, the media the game comes on, as well as any packaging or documents is part of a product that you purchase, and thus own.

In every other type of content - from used record stores to stores specializing in the purchase and selling of used DVDs, once the original media was sold, the record company or the movie studio gets no additional money from any subsequent sales of the product. So why on Earth should games be any different?

 

[StriderShinryu]

Why is it only the gaming industry, one of the most profitable industries in the world, bitches about used sales?

I don't hear ANY of this moaning from used car dealerships, used DVD sales, used books, nothing. Someone had to have bought the game new in order for used to exist; you already made your money.

First, both the movie and music industries have lodged similar complaints in the past. Authors and publishers before that sometimes expressed resentment that libraries provided a way to legally read a book for free. This is not isoloted to just the video game industry.

Second, both the movie and music industries have alternate streams of revenue. Concert tours and box office receipts alone are often enough to make a significant profit. The game industry only has the equivalent of the album or DVD home release. When games like <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/92955-1-5-Million-Bought-Dead-Space-3-Million-Played-It>Dead Space net 3 million players but only 1.5 million sales, you'd be crazy to believe that the publishers and developers wouldn't resent such a potential loss in revenue.

I was going to post pretty much the same thing. While it's certainly true that there are issues to be raised about this topic (new game prices being too high for one), it's not really correct to be comparing industries.

With movies, for example, there's the domestic theatrical launch, the international theatrical launch, the home video release, the later home video release of the special edition, the sales of TV rights, possible cross marketing, merchandising sales, etc. In comparison most games only have a home release, with an international release often tied up with another company altogether. The difference in number of revenue streams makes a huge difference.

 

[StriderShinryu]

What does that make Project Ten Dollar?

The actions of a parasite, stealing from people that technically aren't their customers.
As I've said before, the aim of "Project Ten Dollar" and similar developer actions that punish people for buying used is to destroy the used games market by taking away the savings that customers get for buying used. When combined with the high prices GameStop already charges for some of its used games, "Project Ten Dollar" can actually force customers to pay more than the full price for games...

Well, to be fair, they're not forcing anyone to do anything. In most cases so far, Project $10 is not required to get enjoyment out of the title (though, unfortunately, that is changing with the decision to start locking entire multiplayer modes behind P$10). Also, you almost always have the option of just buying a new copy and saving yourself the trouble. You're not forced to buy the used copy, you're not forced to pay for P$10 even if you do buy the used copy, and you're not forced to not buy the new copy.

On the topic of P$10, there's also stubbornness on the side of the used game retailer that needs to be taken into account. They already make a decent chunk of change off used game sales and yet they're the ones still choosing to sell used copies for only $5 less than new copies. If they had fairness to the consumer on their minds they would ensure that their copies of P$10 games, at the least, are sold for enough less than the new copies to make up the difference. Of course, as business, they have no need to be fair to their consumers but we have the right to just buy our used games elsewhere.

 

[pneuma08]

Wait, wait, wait:

...if a product doesn't sell, they box it up and send it back to the publisher.

(From the article.)

Um, no? Not in my experience at least. Retailers sit on these things until they drop in price and finally sell them (many times less than what they paid for them) or they end up in the garbage. They don't return them to the publisher for presumably a refund. They don't get a "free pass" if a game tanks.

 

[Mromson]

Buying a game Used is the equivalent of piracy. In either case, the developer doesn't get paid.

 

[Lyri]

Exactly, I think more people should look at steam numbers for possible evidence that games simply cost too much. If games were like $20 I'd be buying a hell of a lot more of them.

If they put older games at sale price then, sure why not?

I think you missed a point though on how used game traders pretty much screw everyone but themselves.
That game you no longer play is worth $10 to the retailer, sure you could probably get more but they don't want to pay that and your options are pretty low when it comes to shifting it.
Then they clean it, mark it up and back on the shelf for profit.

Not only do they take developers cash but they take yours too and then make more on top of that.

Ok Someone please correct me if i'm wrong here but....most games sell a million units on average at full price right? Full price being $60

Thats $180 MILLION. Oddly enough I somewhat doubt it takes $180 Million to develop and publish a game.

Each disc costing about 10 cents, thats 100k, say a team of 20 to make the game at $50k a year, thats $1M. That leaves $178,900,000 dollars for marketing (which there isnt much of compared to stuff like movies), distribution etc.

So 60 x 1m = 180m?

Come again?
Not only are you bad at math but you're not very realistic. They will not use the profit from the game for marketing as they have other costs to deal with, like paying the guys who made the employees.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

If you could provide a back-catalog then perhaps there would be more new sales.
If you're dismissing retailers as thieves, then why are you supplying them?

He doesn't given his place of employment.

 

[T_ConX]

All a used game means is that someone bought it new for full price, got tired of it after a while, and then decided to trade it in for a fraction of the original value in store credit.

Solution: Make games that people wouldn't want to trade in for $20 credit after paying $60 for.

 

[squballs1234]

Gamestop/EBgames, trade in prices are insulting...3 weeks ago i went to trade in a copy or MotorStormacific Rift (perfect condition never played, since i hate racing games.) which cost 35 dollars used on their selves. along with a copy of StarWars The force unleashed (also perfect condition) which was going fo 25 dollars used. For BOTH GAMES they were going to give me 9$ of in store credit towards my next purchase....