Jimquisition: When The Starscreams Kill Used Games

[wearesoneutralthatithurts]

You want to know why no one cares? Because no one is going to buy the damn thing.And it cant do its big brother thing when you toss a towel over it. I would like to see it recognize me or when I smile or go all grumpy cat through my heavy duty Hitch Hikers Guide "Dont Panic" towel.

"Kinect camera malfunction, system shutdown. Please send this to your microsoft-servicecenter"
not a nice thought, but very well possible. if these things can see in the dark and day and recognize you and log you auto-in if they see you face in the monitored space, then the possibility that this thing cant funktion with kinect is possible.
but even if nobody buys it-i dont like to ignore that because this sends the message "monitor me, i am okay with it, its for my own entertainment, do what you want"

I suddenly want to do one of the things they do in silly spy moves, rig up a picture of me in front of the Kinect so it always sees just the picture, thinks its me and goes about its dastardly business without looking deeper into why this strange person is always smiling at it.

This wont work.
Look at the wired-demo. that this monitors heart rate -so there dont seem to be a human. It monitors moves and force-if you jump, ther force is appied to your feet and kinect can see that-if you make a fist and flex muscles, kinect can see that (might work on heat?)

putting Vaseline on the lens might work. But I don't want to have to do this shit just to play good actual games...
I get monitored if I drive bus, while I buy my food, even when I take a walk on the street.
my home is my camera-free-safe haven. I can be like i want.
I can playing dark souls totally naked in the summer because "fuck you, heat"

but this wont work with kinect-because this thing is soo god, it WILL SEE that i dont wear anything AND send it into the fucking servers.

Kinect would and will impair my freedom of expression because of the permanent monitoring-its proven, that people behave not like, well normal, like they would behave if they arent monitored. And i dont want that in my home. So i wont buy it but is want to fight the thought that ist okay for a PRIVATE COMPANY to put MY home under surveillance from inside. The state wouldnt do that-okay, the last time the state did kinda this was the DDR until 1989...But the never had such good cameras and had to have people listen to the mini-microphones hidden in the house. Now this data(and how much of it) is stored somewhere away out of my control...


look that video, i dont know how to put it into a posting, so here the link to the youtube-wired demo where the thing shows what it can.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Hi5kMNfgDS4

The sad part is there is a decreasing number of targets for the publishers "blame list". Next in line is "Lets Plays are making people not buy games", Then of-course attempt to kill piracy (attempt #544), Then Gun lobbyist, Then Competition is killing gamesales, Last but not least "Steam sales are spoiling the console market".

Gronkh, a german lets player was in one deponia game by deadalic-because he had a lets play deponia 1 and after that, the sales went high and more people bought the game-so he got the second game first and started a lets pay even before the sale started. And in the 3 game, he has a NPC with his voice and look as a little gift because his lets play helped daedalic to sell more games-

i think this might be the best argument against that kinda bullshit.-if the publishers try te delve even deeper in to asshole-land^^

 

[Something Amyss]

The different with used games compared to other product is that the game is always the same no matter how long its been between the use.

Like Compact Discs and DVDs, right?

Its usually a business entirely focused on second hand sale.

You use cars as an example (as everyone invariably does), but there's a ton of dealers that deal in both new and used cars. You know why they don't push used cars over new ones?

This is secrets of the universe stuff right here, so read on only if you're willing to risk me blowing your mind:

Still with me?

They give dealers incentive to sell new by not shafting them on the markup.

This is one of the other ways video games are "unique" in the world: their markup is freaking awful. Jim's 2 dollar statement isn't really that far off. Publishers want ALL THE MONIES but they want retailers to stock their stuff, including consoles which have a lower markup than games.

I'd like to see you try and run a business on a 2-3% markup. If you ever decide to, keep me posted. I'm wondering how you'd feel about the poor gaming industry then.

In the meanwhile, first sale doctrine says nothing about the permanence of an item, just its nature as a good. Virtually EVERY industry has tried to make the case that it's a special snowflake.

Honestly, Jim's thesis is not wrong here. The root of the problem is that the gaming industry has treated retail like shit for decades. Attacking used games may work as a stopgap measure, but it doesn't change the underlying problem.

 

[Rattja]

The only problem here is money, plane and simple. We really need a better system, as this is clearly not working as intended.

Just look at what people make when they don't have a lot of money, and look at what they make when they do.

 

[MB202]

You know, I've seen many smart people like Yahtzee and MovieBob give GameStop a bad rep along with everyone else. The Jimquisition was slowly taking me out of that mindset. After this episode, though, I have to wonder why I or anyone else ever tried to shit on them in the first place. I'm going to shop at GameStop as much as I want now... Though I'd prefer there be a competing game store as well.

I don't remember Yahtzee saying bad things about GameStop... Maybe it was a long time ago, when bioshock was considered okay/good in his books.

I don't think it was a direct stab a GameStop, just a an occasional condescending tone here and there. The thing that stuck out in my mind the most was when he reviewed Batman: Arkham City, and really came down hard on anyone who DARED to by the game used. Yeah, I get it, give you're money to good people who make good games and all that, but still, I can't watch that video the same way after all I've seen.

 

[MB202]

You know, I've seen many smart people like Yahtzee and MovieBob give GameStop a bad rep along with everyone else. The Jimquisition was slowly taking me out of that mindset. After this episode, though, I have to wonder why I or anyone else ever tried to shit on them in the first place. I'm going to shop at GameStop as much as I want now... Though I'd prefer there be a competing game store as well.

I know that there are, of course, differences between stores because of who they hire, but I've never once had a bad experience with any of the local GameStops, and always wondered why people seemed to have such deep-seated hatred for them outside of possibly bad experiences with apathetic, snotty, or unhelpful employees.

And yeah, admittedly I don't have the same soapbox that Jim does, but I've tried getting across multiple times that the reason GameStop pushes used games so aggressively is because it's the only way they actually make any money. They shell out the price of getting new games shipped to them, and publishers take the profits from actually selling new games. How else do you expect them to keep their business afloat? It's not some conspiracy to deprive poor developers from getting paid (I doubt they get much of the royalties that the publisher takes anyway), it's just them trying to make a sustainable source of income, like every other person on this greedy planet.

Sadly I don't think publishers will ever stop looking for invisible boogeymen in the shadows. After all, the reason they're losing money and failing to meet expectations can't possibly be because of market oversaturation, unrealistic sales projections, and the fact that they all release their big titles during the same few months every year.

I, too, have never had a bad experience at GameStop. Every GameStop I've been to had helpful people, people who went out of their way to make sure I was satisfied, and best of all, I became really personable with some of the employees. I just love talking games with those guys.

You know, I'm reminded of how movie theaters don't get their money through actual ticket sales (or at least, not much) and get most of their money through selling snacks at the lobby. It's annoying, especially when the amount of candy is much smaller then the box it was in, but again, that's how they stay in business, and I can't really fault them for it, given the much bigger industry they're apart of isn't exactly saintly, either, and pulls a lot of bullshit as well.

Whenever I think of big industries like that and the gaming industry, I think of the TV Trope "Never My Fault":

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NeverMyFault

 

[punipunipyo]

Good one... and I hope Xbone just die already, I hope Sony is smarter than MS.Xbone...

PS: LOVE IT when you said "Origin", a pile of rubbish (Philippians 3:8)

 

[Mysnomer]

When The Starscreams Kill Used Games

The Xbox One will kill used games and control second-hand sales, and some people think that's great. Jim Sterling is not among them.

Watch Video

Jim, please petition the Escapist to let you post this video to Youtube as a video response to Total Biscuit's "Devil's Halibut- Used Games". Your charisma and self-assurance is powerful, and you are the ideal to counter to TB's similar traits. Reading through the comments on his video made me want to wretch, and his bias due to his negative feelings towards GAME color his perceptions and this video cleanly deals with that. His vast viewerbase is parroting his poorly formulated opinion, and I think this video is the best solution.

 

[Reyold]

What the... how'd this double post happen?

 

[Reyold]

snip

Jim may bring it up in a future episode, so we'll see.

It's not totally under the radar: I just found an article about concerns over it on Gamesutra:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/193109/Concerns_raised_over_the_prying_eyes_of_Xbox_Ones_Kinect.php

@Jim: Loved how accurately Origin was represented. Well played, sir. Well played.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Car market is a bad example because when you're driving a Toyota, you're advertising for Toyota (like we both just did by talking about Toyota).

So if I buy a copy of a new game that's used, and I invite friends over to my house to play it with me, and chat online about how great it is....that's not free advertising?

The analogy stands, and is perfectly valid by your own logic.

I agree that MS and Sony don't deserve a cut at all and the game industry is the only industry that cares about used sales. I'm just pointing out that the information people are raging about, including Mr Sterling here, is false. MS and Sony are not killing the used game industry, in fact they are barely even wounding it. There will still be people who want to sell their games and people will still be able to buy them.

Except that the current "rumor" about how used games will be handled (the ones that don't just say "no used games, ever", that is) suggests that it's cutting Gamestop out of the picture almost entirely, leaving them with a relatively minimal cut (if anything).

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/124323-Update-Xbox-One-To-Take-Cut-With-Every-Pre-Owned-Sale

Which would, in fact, significantly harm the used games market.

That would significantly harm the used games market. It's also not true. That's kind of my point. It's a rumor and shouldn't be treated as fact.

http://www.insidegamingdaily.com/2013/05/27/microsoft-issues-official-statement-on-used-games-for-xbox-one/

Actually MS getting a cut of used games profit may (emphasis on may) be a good thing because, obviously, they don't count people who buy used games as consumers. If they did, they would have anticipated that the question would be asked and they would have had an answer.

PS: So is your tv so large that when you play games hundreds of people can see it? Or is your car invisible to anyone who isn't a friend of yours? Just kidding, I agree with you, it's a bad analogy.

 

[Reyold]

Gaming is a weird business, I can buy a car used, Books second hand and even garden tiles that other people have used..but games NO, Because it just hurts the industry you see, The publishers have actually convinced us that buying something used(witch is normal in other industries) is a harmful action when it comes to games.. man we're such suckers.

And how the hell did they manage to convince us that the game you have in your hand, That you have bought with your money is really not a product but a service??

Beats me, though I'm sure it has something to do with the AAA industry's voracious greed, something which, to the best of my knowledge, is unprecedented by any other industry. Then again, I don't keep up with other industries, so feel free to correct me if need be.

The main thing hurting games right now is the fact that you don't need them. It's not like they're as important as water or gasoline. I got rid of cable years ago. Didn't need it. No smartphone either. Just a dumb prepaid.

And I can live without the Xbox One.
Deal with it, Microsoft.

Not only that, but there are alternatives to AAA gaming as well. There's the indie market, where there are more innovative, cheaper games. And there's also emulation, which offers just about every game ever made since the beginning of the industry. This corporate nonsense might have a bit more power in keeping its customers if alternatives didn't exist, but alas, they do, and very nice ones at that.

 

[ShadowHamster]

Well, Jim, preaching to the choir is the feeling I usually get from your episodes, but it never stops me from watching more, thank god for you!

Anyway, I don't like Gamestop mostly because they kind of took over there market. I remember when we had 2-3 choices of game shop to go to, and Gamestop kind of killed the good ones, while letting the dumb ones kill themselves. In the end that is just good business, but it still always bugged me.

I have a bigger problem with developers who carry that aggresive "number one!" attitude even further. Even if I buy a game in hard form this is what developers of the game want me to know:

-60 dollars is fair! You have no idea how much money went into making the game, paying the creators and workers, marketing the game, and making the game available! 60 dollars is a fine amount to spend on our game, just ignore the factory costs you ever see that mark the game at a very small fraction of that cost! That is only the cost of the hardware distribution and doesn't reflect what we spent to make it!

This goes into the latest trends of games that make over a million dollars are failures as well. When you break down all the costs for actually putting the game to market, then it should seem obvious that 60 dollars if fucking ridiculous! They have always marked it that high, and they feel they can do so NOT because they value it so highly, but because they assume YOU will. It's easier for the every man to consider the purchase of a game over other entertainments, including movies, and music, because a game will last longer, may be replayable, may offer continued use from multiplayer, and thus 60 dollars is an investment into something that can just be used longer. When reflected at other multimedia pieces Music is often played WHILE doing something else, and Movies have maybe 3 viewings before it gets shelfed as something owned. Sure, you have the option to watch it later, but after the first watch the returns are much diminished. My dad once told me that the value of ANYTHING is what someone is willing to pay for it. Video Games have been upmarked for awhile, and not every game has the same value.

-Even though we want 60 dollars from you, we also want you to know that we don't feel that fee should let you OWN anything. If your buying a hard copy, then that is the fee of viewing, and if your being a software copy, that is our fee of allowing you access to the code. However, at the end of the day, that all belongs to us, and your fee was simply used to let you look at OUR product. This is why we don't offer returns on product for things like poor quality of design, short games, or various other continued complaint points we dismiss. That was the risk you took paying the fee to view OUR product.

You know, when I was a little kid, my parents had 2 or 3 things they purchased only to discover awful product. I'm not talking broken, just not really useable, and they returned them. Microwaves that were terrible, and cooked uneven. Teapots that poored wrong. 2 or 3 times IN THE WHOLE of me growing up, my parents returned this product to the store, and simply said "This sucks" and they were RETURNED THEIR MONEY!!!!

But that hasn't been the practice of the game producers in some time. They want us to know that THEY own the game, and you are simply paying a fee to mess around with it. Almost as if it's out of the kindness of their hearts that they'd let us "borrow" it for a bit. That is the LARGEST reason I purchase used, because if your game is BAD, or SHORT, or NOT FUCKING FINISHED I can simply return the thing and get some other thing, or possibly just my money, back. Because used game stores are willing, at spot, to say that the product I PURCHASED is MINE!!!

I mean, there is a list of things like this that the game producers have made common practice for decades. They aren't fair, they are honestly aggressively hostile about at times. There is a TED talk about telling someones emotions by paying attention to their faces, and thus "lie reading" people. These guys aren't even good liars people, and when you see them talk about "customers" a lot of time you get the impression where an annoyance between money and them. That is about as much as they care about you, and so I care very little for them. To me, a good game truly is art, and production values, and sales should never come before making sure the art is good. I love games, and the game production companies are really just an annoyance between me and great games.

 

[Clovus]

Jim, I think you really misrepresented what Ben was saying. I'm sure that Ben Kuchera does not think that MS, EA, Activision are going to lower the price on games because they want to pass along the savings. He is not some moron who thinks that corporations are going to be trickling down their savings to the plebes. Games, like all merchandize, are priced at what the market can bare.

The last part of the video actually addresses something that gets to Ben's point. If MS squashes used games, you will still see games like Tomb Raider not sell enough. No one is really arguing that used games are the reason that Squeenix can't sell an insane number of copies at $60. People only have so much money, and they have other cheaper options for entertainment. That includes movies, cheaper games, TV, lots of other stuff, and used games.

So, let's assume that MS and the publishers will not introduce any kinds of sales ... at first. This won't work out well for them. They won't be able to blame piracy or used game sales. At that point there's only a couple solutions: stop making "AAA" expensive games or CHANGE THE PRICE.

I don't really know how much the used game market affects publishers. Maybe a lot, maybe a little. But they are certainly afraid of it, and that seems to be affecting their pricing. Whether or not getting rid of the used game market will make much of a difference in sales, the companies will have to come to the conclusion eventually that lowering prices to increase the market is the best way to make some money. Sure, games like COD will continue to stay expensive, since the publisher is making plenty of money at $60 a copy, but that doesn't work for all games.

Steam does not have sales because Valve are so nice. It's because Valve realized how much more money they could make. It isn't because of competition between retailers. There's already competition between the different companies actually making the games. When someone goes to buy a game and Publisher A's AAA game is $30 and Publisher B's game is $60, it's not hard to figure out who will win. Publisher B is going to have to start charging less or die.

People discount the idea of discounts because the companies are SO GREEDY, but that's exactly why they'll start selling at a discount; they'll finally realize that's how they get the most money.

 

[Natalie Norment]

I might as well just buy all the used games for my Xbox360 while I still have a chance. The same goes for getting a PS3 and doing the same thing. Seriously, why are companies so hell bent on making it harder for the consumers to trust them?

 

[QUINTIX]

They didn't think of the used market at all

Pure conjecture
Jim Sterling alleges they where thinking of used games.

internet exploded over the "fee on second-hand games" statement made by a Microsoft rep

I believe you are referring to Phil Harrison, who was trying to explain:
since the whole bluray needs to be copied to a hard drive, a friend who wishes to keep a game from a shared disc would not need to run over to a gamestop to purchase it, and said friend would not be paying full price either.

He botched it badly.

 

[irishda]

Not only that but Valve realised that dropping prices down meant a HUGE increase in sales and overall profits. Companies like Microsoft and EA are only looking at the short term gains. They're basically The Once-ler from The Lorax, cutting down the Truffula trees to make a tidy buck right up until the last tree is felled.

Well, it is and it isn't. Dropping the price also means enough people have to buy it to make up the difference. If you drop a $60 game to $5, you need to sell 12 items at the sale price in order to match the profits of just one sale at the original price. So while your sales numbers might sky-rocket, that doesn't necessarily mean your profits have too.

That's exactly what I just said. A huge increase in sales meaning an increase in overall profits.

You've just countered what I've said by agreeing with me.

Let's see if you can spot where I disagreed with you.

You said:

...dropping prices down meant a HUGE increase in sales and overall profits.

I said:

Dropping the price also means enough people (read: MORE people) have to buy it to make up the difference. While your sales numbers might sky-rocket, that doesn't necessarily mean your profits have too.

To recap: Your sales will go up, but your profits won't necessarily, because you got your sales increase by DECREASING your profits with each sale. If I sold one car for $10,000, and you sold 30 cars for $300 each; did you make more money than me because you sold more?

 

[Hazy992]

Not only that but Valve realised that dropping prices down meant a HUGE increase in sales and overall profits. Companies like Microsoft and EA are only looking at the short term gains. They're basically The Once-ler from The Lorax, cutting down the Truffula trees to make a tidy buck right up until the last tree is felled.

Well, it is and it isn't. Dropping the price also means enough people have to buy it to make up the difference. If you drop a $60 game to $5, you need to sell 12 items at the sale price in order to match the profits of just one sale at the original price. So while your sales numbers might sky-rocket, that doesn't necessarily mean your profits have too.

That's exactly what I just said. A huge increase in sales meaning an increase in overall profits.

You've just countered what I've said by agreeing with me.

Let's see if you can spot where I disagreed with you.

You said:

...dropping prices down meant a HUGE increase in sales and overall profits.

I said:

Dropping the price also means enough people (read: MORE people) have to buy it to make up the difference. While your sales numbers might sky-rocket, that doesn't necessarily mean your profits have too.

To recap: Your sales will go up, but your profits won't necessarily, because you got your sales increase by DECREASING your profits with each sale. If I sold one car for $10,000, and you sold 30 cars for $300 each; did you make more money than me because you sold more?

See how I emphasised the word huge? I thought it would be obvious what I meant by that; that the overall sales are large enough to still be more profitable with lower margins. You're just nitpicking for the sake of it.

Relevant
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/10/24/less-is-more-gabe-newell-on-game-pricing/

 

[QUINTIX]

snip

price elasticity of demand
Look it up

 

[irishda]

See how I emphasised the word huge? I thought it would be obvious what I meant by that; that the overall sales are large enough to still be more profitable with lower margins. You're just nitpicking for the sake of it.

Relevant
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/10/24/less-is-more-gabe-newell-on-game-pricing/

My apologies then, as your post looked similar to ones I've seen on this site before, namely, "If games were sold for a lower price, then more people would buy them." It's true, but it doesn't necessarily mean a good thing from a business standpoint. For instance, (and to keep it as simple as possible) Steam sales from $60 to $5 means 12 times as many people have to buy the game in order to make it profitable. There are success stories (according to your article, 75% off any GTA stands as one of the best sellers of all time, although I would contend that's only really a bargain for the last one, maybe San Andreas too). But I'm willing to bet there's also a lot of failures, as the only other example Gabe provides is that of the revenue off a 13 year old game that probably didn't cost that much to begin with.