Jimquisition: Fighting The 'Problem' Of Used Games

lord.jeff

New member
Oct 27, 2010
1,468
0
0
Crono1973 said:
lord.jeff said:
Crono1973 said:
No more appeals to the poor developers, I've had enough.

This has gotten out of control. The developers work for the publishers, they are one in the same and your sympathy for the developers has been used against you. The developers aren't your friends, they are employees of the "greedy" publishers. You can't separate the two so sympathy for one is sympathy for both.
How are they the same, in most cases developers and publishers are two completely different companies, that have two very different goals?


I always thought that a good incentive for buying new would be free DLC dollars to spend on that game, costumers feel a reason to buy new, nothing is locked out(if the DLC is done right) and some costumers may even buy extra DLC if they feel the value of the things they bought with the free bucks was worth it.
How are they not the same. The publisher has alot of a say in how a game is developed. The publisher is paying for it (like how you can order your cheeseburger without onions because you are paying for it). You cannot buy a game to support Bioware without giving most of that money to EA.

It's ok though, keep throwing your money at publishers you hate to support the developers. Don't let the facts get in the way.
EA is taking all the the money when I want to support Bioware, is what I got out of your last statement, you demonized EA without demonizing Bioware.
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2020
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
lord.jeff said:
Crono1973 said:
lord.jeff said:
Crono1973 said:
No more appeals to the poor developers, I've had enough.

This has gotten out of control. The developers work for the publishers, they are one in the same and your sympathy for the developers has been used against you. The developers aren't your friends, they are employees of the "greedy" publishers. You can't separate the two so sympathy for one is sympathy for both.
How are they the same, in most cases developers and publishers are two completely different companies, that have two very different goals?


I always thought that a good incentive for buying new would be free DLC dollars to spend on that game, costumers feel a reason to buy new, nothing is locked out(if the DLC is done right) and some costumers may even buy extra DLC if they feel the value of the things they bought with the free bucks was worth it.
How are they not the same. The publisher has alot of a say in how a game is developed. The publisher is paying for it (like how you can order your cheeseburger without onions because you are paying for it). You cannot buy a game to support Bioware without giving most of that money to EA.

It's ok though, keep throwing your money at publishers you hate to support the developers. Don't let the facts get in the way.
EA is taking all the the money when I want to support Bioware, is what I got out of your last statement, you demonized EA without demonizing Bioware.
Then you should learn to read.

I didn't say EA was taking all the money I said:

You cannot buy a game to support Bioware without giving most of that money to EA.


You do know what MOST means don't you.

EA/Bioware is an example. The point is that if you don't want to support a greedy publisher, you can't buy games from them even to support the developer. All the while people have been bitching about greedy publishers but they still give money to them in the name of the "poor developers" and they wonder why the publishers get greedier and greedier. Why should any publisher care what you think of them as long as you want to "support the poor developers"?

Are you saying that by buying Mass Effect 3 (for example), you aren't supporting EA?
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
In fact, EA owns BioWare completely, so supporting 'Poor BioWare' IS supporting EA, just as much as supporting the developer EA Sports is supporting EA.
 

Emergent System

New member
Feb 27, 2010
152
0
0
What a stupid video.

It opens by straw-manning game publishers as represented by their overpriced executives, as if that had anything to do with them making moeny being good or bad. That's a problem with the american corporate culture, not game publishers.

Then he starts going on about how new buyers of games should be "rewarded" with little extra content if they bought the game new - what he's done here is just rephrase "punishment for buying used" into "reward for buying new", even though they are the exact same thing. Then he just pulls opinions out of his ass about how this will make consumers glad because they will feel rewarded and whatever, and stating as self-evident fact that people regret their pruchases when they have to enter in 20 didgit codes to start playing, as if we haven't all been happily doing this with CD-keys since gaming was invented.

And pre-order bonuses. Pre-order bonuses? What?? How could he possibly support that? It encourages people to buy shitty games because they'll be buying them before they're out, and thus will often have no idea what the game will actually be like. That is really bad for gaming, and encouraging people ot show "faith" in unreleased games by buying them before they know how those games are is just... of course, it also still feels like the peopel who didn't pre-order will get punished for not pre-ordering when they see the stuff the pre-orders get. Assuming the stuff matters, that is.

Then, after encouraging people to buy shitty games, he says that buyers should stop encouraging pubilshers from making shitty games by not buying them. Okay, dude, whatever. Why don't you complain some more about how taking 30 seconds ot enter in a code is waaay worse than losing tons of money after having spent years developing incredibly expensive games, because entitled duchebags don't feel that they should have to pay full price for their luxury products. Then he says some stupid stuff about capitalism without apparently understanding what the word means (he's for it one moment, against it the next, depending on if it's convenient for the point he's making at the time or not).

Then he said some smart stuff about DLC, but it sure isn't enough to make up for the parade of almost exclusive stupidity that was these last 3 videos.
 

lord.jeff

New member
Oct 27, 2010
1,468
0
0
Crono1973 said:
lord.jeff said:
Crono1973 said:
lord.jeff said:
Crono1973 said:
No more appeals to the poor developers, I've had enough.

This has gotten out of control. The developers work for the publishers, they are one in the same and your sympathy for the developers has been used against you. The developers aren't your friends, they are employees of the "greedy" publishers. You can't separate the two so sympathy for one is sympathy for both.
How are they the same, in most cases developers and publishers are two completely different companies, that have two very different goals?

I always thought that a good incentive for buying new would be free DLC dollars to spend on that game, costumers feel a reason to buy new, nothing is locked out(if the DLC is done right) and some costumers may even buy extra DLC if they feel the value of the things they bought with the free bucks was worth it.
How are they not the same. The publisher has alot of a say in how a game is developed. The publisher is paying for it (like how you can order your cheeseburger without onions because you are paying for it). You cannot buy a game to support Bioware without giving most of that money to EA.

It's ok though, keep throwing your money at publishers you hate to support the developers. Don't let the facts get in the way.
EA is taking all the the money when I want to support Bioware, is what I got out of your last statement, you demonized EA without demonizing Bioware.
Then you should learn to read.

I didn't say EA was taking all the money I said:

You cannot buy a game to support Bioware without giving most of that money to EA.


You do know what MOST means don't you.
Fine replace all with most, it doesn't change the point I was trying to get across.

EA/Bioware is an example. The point is that if you don't want to support a greedy publisher, you can't buy games from them even to support the developer. All the while people have been bitching about greedy publishers but they still give money to them in the name of the "poor developers" and they wonder why the publishers get greedier and greedier. Why should any publisher care what you think of them as long as you want to "support the poor developers"?

Are you saying that by buying Mass Effect 3 (for example), you aren't supporting EA?

That's not what I'm saying at all, it is true that I'm supporting EA by buying Bioware games I'm not arguing that point at all, but that wasn't the point of my comment, what I am saying is that EA is the greedy one not Bioware. Just because multiple companies take money from the same product it doesn't make them the same, because that would mean truck drivers would be video game developers/publishers because they get a portion of the money for delivering the games to the stores.
 

musim

New member
Nov 22, 2009
12
0
0
Again you're rallying against the publishers but the dev's are the ones paying the price for used games. The simple fact is we don't all the games that sell millions of games. The system you're suggesting gives way to a mob rules system where only the most popular survive.

I should mention I have genuinely enjoyed past rants you've given but this 3 parter is not one I can get behind. There's a bigger picture than is being painted for the audience.
 

Clonekiller

New member
Dec 7, 2010
165
0
0
musim said:
Again you're rallying against the publishers but the dev's are the ones paying the price for used games. The simple fact is we don't all the games that sell millions of games. The system you're suggesting gives way to a mob rules system where only the most popular survive.

I should mention I have genuinely enjoyed past rants you've given but this 3 parter is not one I can get behind. There's a bigger picture than is being painted for the audience.
Doesn't this whole thing boil down to one thing? Whether or not a game is good? If a small developer comes out with a game like The First Templar, should they be rewarded for their failure to produce a worthwhile game with similar profits made by the developers of Amnesia: The Dark Descent? It seems to me that, if a dev produced a poor-quality product, they shouldn't expect huge profits from it.

It should also be kept in mind that used games often serve as an avenue for gamers to enter a genre they don't usually play. For example: I never had much of an interest in Batman: Arkham Asylum. However, a couple years after it's release, I saw a used copy on Amazon for 5 bucks. I figured, why not, and I picked it up. I rather enjoyed the game, and am now considering buying Arkham City. Point being, if I wasn't able to buy this game used, I would never have played it, and subsequently had never been interested in it's sequel.

And lastly, if we're going to be talking about big pictures, lets take a look at the far reaching impact outlawing used game sales might have on other industries. For example, if used game sales became illegal, what's to stop Hollywood from doing the same thing? No used movie sales. Similarly, what about those devs over at Ford? No used car sales. It is my personal belief that anyone who purchases something, and thus claims ownership of that something, should maintain the ability to do what ever they want with their property, including selling it. That's one of those fundamental rights things.
 

squid5580

New member
Feb 20, 2008
5,106
0
0
Scrustle said:
Really? You don't mind the Rage pass thing? That seems unusual for you Jim...

But I personally think it's just as much of a dick move as locking off multiplayer. It doesn't matter what the content is that is locked, if it's already on the disc publishers have no right to deny it to you. You own the content, you bought the disc, they shouldn't be allowed to hold anything away from you. That's extortion.

But I agree that pre-order bonuses are fine too. They aren't things that are already on the game disc and aren't necessary to make the game a complete experience, but still offer an incentive to buy new. Although I would prefer that the DLC in question also be available for purchase separately. I should be allowed to have the content if I want it. I shouldn't be denied any possibility to access it because I didn't buy the game in a certain way. Not only does it act as an incentive to buy new it also makes more money for publishers as well. Since you would need to pay for it that would give you an incentive to buy the game new because that way you would get it for free, and it is a way for publishers to make extra money out of something which would not require them to put any more effort or money in to making new content. It's the perfect way to do it for both gamers and publishers! It's madness that this method isn't more widely used.
I don't know why he didn't use Alice Madness Returns as a good example of this code nonsense done right. Buy it new and get the full first game for free. Buy it used and you get the full game anyways. Now that is incentive to buy new lol. Although there is achievements for the first one to bring it to the full 1K and that is gonna piss people off.

Side note it is an EA game so maybe, just maybe, they are learning
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2020
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
kiri2tsubasa said:
When it comes to lose in profits generally the executives and other higher-ups do not lose much. It is the peons and underlings that suffer from these losses such as pay cuts or mass layoffs.

Captcha: linguistic propri. I guess I am a good orator, or at least good with linguistics.
So what does this mean? Just put up with the shit a publisher spews because if you refuse to buy from them, you are only hurting the peons and underlings?

Don't you see that nothing will change as long as this attitude is prevalent.

I am about one online pass away from buying 100% used.
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2020
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
Only 4 pages on day 2. This 3rd video doesn't seem to have had as big an impact as the first 2. It seems to me like this video was more about competing with the used market which I really don't think is a worthwhile goal.

I'll just say it:

The used market exists and is legal. Deal with it! Don't try to compete with it, you'll just end up punishing used buyers. Don't try to kill it, you'll just end up punishing used buyers. Just accept that is exists and is part of doing business in a capitalist society where consumers have a right to resell.
 

Beautiful End

New member
Feb 15, 2011
1,755
0
0
rembrandtqeinstein said:
Beautiful End said:
And why should I pay 60 bucks for it when I can buy it used at Gamestop, or from a friend or eBay or whatever, waaaaay cheaper than that?
When you get it from a friend or even piratebay you aren't consuming $50 that you had reserved for spending on games. When you get it from ebay there isn't a management structure pressuring employees to redirect new purchases to used ones.

Even if Gamestop closes, people are STILL gonna sell used games. Your cousin will, eBay will, pawn shops will, and so on. Same with car sales, book sales, etc. You can't stop it and you can't claim it's a crime or else every single person on Earth would be a criminal.
Straw man, nobody is talking about prohibiting used games. The problem is that there is a finite amount of money people will spend. The question is who receives the money. Is it gamestop or is it the publisher. If it is gamestop then what motivation does the publisher have to finance games?

And furthermore how are used games different from piracy as far as publishers are concerned?
Hehe, straw man. Don't know what you meant by that but I like it :p

I still don't see the problem. Yes, employees are encouraged to offer used games, but if the customer says no, well what else can they do? The simple solution is just saying No every time someone offers a customer a used game.
The publisher does see some money from used game sales. They just want it all. Unless Gamestop is stealing loaded trucks in the middle of the night, they must get the games from somewhere. Again, I offer Blops as an example. The game was so...great, i guess, that one one traded it at all. The demand was high, though. As soon as one person traded it in, someone bought it immediately. So the solution was getting more new copies of the game. People who came and asked for used copies had to buy a new one if they wanted the game that badly; not like it was a bad thing.

Not only that, but if a publisher has a game that just won't sell brand new, either because it's lame or not recent, they send us their copies to be sold as new, simply because people are usually willing to risk losing a couple of dollars for an okay game. And they can always return it if it sucks. One game that comes to mind that did this was Midnight Club for the 360 and PS3. Personally, I liked the game but I guess it wasn't selling, so we sold the new copies as new. Then it suddenly sold. Extra bonus for giving someone a new copy with the price of a used game. And believe me, Gamestop could not possibly get away with something like this without the publisher being aware of this; Gamestop isn't some sort of Pop & Mom rental store.
I think that's a great policy, especially for lame games. For example, I wouldn't buy Duke Nukem for 60 bucks, but sure, I might buy it for 40 bucks if I know I can always return it if I hate it.

Bottom line: Publishers do see money out of used game sales, especially if they're buying it at Gamestop! When i sell my game to my cousin, the publishers see no money from that transaction, that's for sure. Publishers just want ALL of the money. I can understand their point of view, but making a scene every time their game is sold used is not the way to go and it is not a crime either.
 

Jennacide

New member
Dec 6, 2007
1,019
0
0
Ugh, I wouldn't mind preorder bonuses as a form of reward for new purchases, if they'd stop with the insane concept of 8 different kinds of preorder bonuses, at 8 different chains. Not only is that schizophrenic, it's FUCKING. IRRITATING. I don't want to be shoehorned into buying my game at a specific place to get the one bonus I'd like. How about you make ONE really good preorder bonus instead of dicking around with your time and pissing people off?
 

Sir Prize

New member
Dec 29, 2009
428
0
0
I'm pretty in agreement here, while I do not like imputting long codes, it's fine for first day DLC. If a game isn't selling well with new sales than there's probably a reason other than people looking for a good deal. Chances are that reason is probably that the game isn't very good or didn't get advisted well, both of which are the fault of the company/publisher.
 

Laughing Man

New member
Oct 10, 2008
1,715
0
0
The good ole days, back in the day when you didn't get pre-order bonuses, or little gifts to go out and pre order a game on the basis that you'll get some nice uber gun or some secret hidden map. You went out and pre-ordered it because you had read the pre release reviews and played the prequels and you were pre-ordering it because you knew it was gonna be great.

The good ole days when you bought a brand new game for the brand new price and the only thing you got was the knowledge that you had a brand new game at a brand new price on the day of release and if you wanted the game cheaper you had to wait until it either dropped in price or until someone decided to trade it in.

I am strongly against any kind of pre-order bonus or day one purchase rewards. In the best cases it is worthless crap such as skins and content that does nothing of any worth and at its worst it is content that can split a community, BF3 and your Karkand add on pack I am looking at you here.

If you buy a game brand new you buy it brand new because you want the game and you want the game because it is good, because the people behind it have done their work and given you a game that is worth the brand new purchase price, not because you'll be missing out on some shitty extra uber weapon or some missing content and don't even get me started on the locked multiplayer non sense.

If the developers have not done their job, not convinced you that the game is worth the price then you wait until it hits a price that reduces the risk / reward ratio.

Day one content and pre order content IS not a reward, it is a smoke screen to distract you from the reality that the game may not be very good, it is gaming alcohol designed to make that 2 pointer look like a 10. It is a carrot that is waved in front of your faces with the caveat that if you don't buy now you will either never be able to buy it or will have to wait x amount of time before being charged extra for it.

If you want to reward players for buying your game then, take the pre order non sense, the day one release content and stick it up your arse, then take the time and money you spent coming up with it and give it to the guys who make the core of the game and then ensure that the game you release is worth the stand alone brand new day one release price on it's own merit, not because you will get a gun that shoots beer at dwarves.
 

JPH330

Blogger Person
Jan 31, 2010
397
0
0
Jennacide said:
Ugh, I wouldn't mind preorder bonuses as a form of reward for new purchases, if they'd stop with the insane concept of 8 different kinds of preorder bonuses, at 8 different chains. Not only is that schizophrenic, it's FUCKING. IRRITATING. I don't want to be shoehorned into buying my game at a specific place to get the one bonus I'd like. How about you make ONE really good preorder bonus instead of dicking around with your time and pissing people off?
I agree.

You know, I bet if they put all the bonuses in all the preorders, that would be better for the developers, publishers AND consumers. Instead of getting this OR this OR this for preordering, it'd be getting this AND this AND this for preordering. The player would get more content, it'd be no additional work for the devs, and the publishers would get more money because they'd likely get more preorders.
 

grumbel

New member
Oct 6, 2010
95
0
0
Varya said:
There IS a difference between being forced to enter a code to get online acces and getting a few bonus items as a gift for buying it new.
While there is a difference it is a very small one and the line between the two can be very blurry to say the least. In essence the whole thing hinges on that there is a clearly established "main game". This "main game" concept however is hard to keep up when you have preorder/bonus-DLC that more or less integrates into the main story and in turn fractures the experience, leaving people without it feeling as if they missed out on things and leaving people who have it feel forced to enter the code.

That is essentially the problem with what EA did in Mass Effect and Dragon Age, the bonus-DLC is in essence a part of the main game and without reading a few FAQs and walkthroughs it is impossible to tell how exactly it will impact the overall experience. It can even make the overall experience worse when bonus items such as weapons or armor throw of the games balance and leave you with confusing items in your inventory (i.e. getting high level armor at the start of the game that you can't use until hours later). The bonus thus becomes more of an annoyance then a welcome addition.

There are of course other areas where things are more clear, a special preorder-costume, that is cosmetic-only and clearly not part of the main narrative might not have such issues, especially when it's use is limited to multiplayer, not the main story. But whenever the bonus items integrate into single-player it can quickly turn into a complete mess.

And as annoying as codes for multiplayer might be, at least with those there actually is a very clear line of what you get and what you miss out on.
 

jthwilliams

New member
Sep 10, 2009
423
0
0
So I think I have finally come to a realization that has been bothering me throughout this series (on used games). From Jim?s perspective online play is a fundamental part of the game itself and not a add on. As someone who rarely plays a game ?online?, I think I?ve been missing the point till now.
That being said, online is exactly where it makes sense to have a fee. I would almost say sell new games with a 12 month online pass and then make people buy a 12 month pass to play online if they buy it used. Online is where the manufacture must maintain and run extra equipment in order to keep the game going. Of course you could argue that a pass should be transferable as long as it still have time on it, but that is a different argument.
That being said, I 100% agree with Jim that games shouldn?t all cost $60 out the door. It is basically collusion and price fixing at a scale that monopoly busters should take an interest in, but will not. If it wasn?t, there would be much more variety of pricing as there is in the PC game market.
 

jthwilliams

New member
Sep 10, 2009
423
0
0
So I think I have finally come to a realization that has been bothering me throughout this series (on used games). From Jim?s perspective online play is a fundamental part of the game itself and not a add on. As someone who rarely plays a game ?online?, I think I?ve been missing the point till now.
That being said, online is exactly where it makes sense to have a fee. I would almost say sell new games with a 12 month online pass and then make people buy a 12 month pass to play online if they buy it used. Online is where the manufacture must maintain and run extra equipment in order to keep the game going. Of course you could argue that a pass should be transferable as long as it still have time on it, but that is a different argument.
That being said, I 100% agree with Jim that games shouldn?t all cost $60 out the door. It is basically collusion and price fixing at a scale that monopoly busters should take an interest in, but will not. If it wasn?t, there would be much more variety of pricing as there is in the PC game market.