Pachter: Sony's Jack Tretton "Totally Opposed to Blocking Used Games"

[The Wooster]

So really, where we disagree is where you think used games are "worse" than piracy. Hell, I personally don't even think piracy is as bad as it's being made out to be, but to say that used games are WORSE than something that's illegal is just wrong to me.

Worse from a purely from the publisher's economic perspective. Used games have far larger and far more provable effect on game sales than piracy.

Personally, I think that while used sales do sometimes suck sales away from games that deserve them, particularly single player games, the overall net benefit - a thriving second hand market, games staying relevant for longer, the "hidden gem" factor - outweighs the negatives. But I can see why publishers hate them.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Tretton was responding to rumors that the as-of-yet unannounced successor to the PS3 - which, according to Kotaku, will be called the Orbis - won't support PS3 games and will block the use of used games

won't support PS3 games and will block the use of used games

won't support PS3 games

.....Are. You. !@#$ING. Serious?

...Well, I'm not getting it. Not unless they come up with some orgasm inducing games that make it an absolute necessity to get.

It took me almost 3-4 years to get my PS3 after it launched. I get the feeling I might wait even longer before getting this new one. I hate when backwards compatibility gets dropped.

 

[GonzoGamer]

So it's the Japanese that insist on the online pass then? Well fuck them.
"Didn't we bomb them a few years ago? What was in those bombs, fuckin fertilizer?" -Diceman

 

[RJ 17]

So really, where we disagree is where you think used games are "worse" than piracy. Hell, I personally don't even think piracy is as bad as it's being made out to be, but to say that used games are WORSE than something that's illegal is just wrong to me.

Worse from a purely from the publisher's economic perspective. Used games have far larger and far more provable effect on game sales than piracy.

Personally, I think that while used sales do sometimes suck sales away from games that deserve them, particularly single player games, the overall net benefit - a thriving second hand market, games staying relevant for longer, the "hidden gem" factor - outweighs the negatives. But I can see why publishers hate them.

No need for all the convoluted arguments, publishers hate used games cause they don't get paid on them, and everyone already knows this.

Personally I think the whole thing is a load of BS in the first place. Used games only become a REAL issue a few months after the game has been released. Where do game makers make the majority of their money with a game? At the launch date. Just as a band makes the majority of its money by doing concert tours rather than selling CDs, game publishers make their money within the first few days of a games release when EVERYONE has to buy it new. Want more people to buy your game new so you get paid rather than Gamestop? Here's a novel idea: make better games so people will WANT to buy your game used.

To qualify what I mean by "better games", I mean stop this "We want to be like CoD and crap out another shitty game every single year!" - Square-Enix, Ubisoft, et al. Make a quality product and market it correctly and you'll make a boatload of money when your game releases. Because chances are if someone is going out to buy your game 5 months after it's been released they had no intention of buying your game new in the first place, why? They weren't interested enough (and/or the price itself outweighed their interest for the game). In other words, you failed to MAKE the consumer WANT to buy your game new...and that's the purpose of marketing above all else, and then you can start talking about whether the game itself is crap or not.

The point is, if used copies of a game outsell new copies of a game, the publishers have no one to blame but themselves.

Case in point: Minecraft 360 made 20 million frickin' dollars in five frickin' days. Why? Quality product + good marketing = boatload of cash. Granted, this was with a franchise that had already more than proven itself, but the fact that people who likely have it for the computer were still willing to cough up about $20 to get it on their 360 still says a lot.

 

[Epona]

What he says is the absolute truth. It is anti-consumer. You know what is also anti-consumer? People who compare used games to pirated games.

Morally the two aren't even remotely similar. But from a business perspective? Used games are far worse than piracy.

From a business point of view, not buying product 1 in favor of buying product 2 (or no product at all) is as bad as piracy since company 1 isn't getting money.

Maybe consumers shouldn't get choices and we should just be told what to buy?

Personally, I think that while used sales do sometimes suck sales away from games that deserve them, particularly single player games, the overall net benefit - a thriving second hand market, games staying relevant for longer, the "hidden gem" factor - outweighs the negatives. But I can see why publishers hate them.

The used market HELPED this industry grow and destroying it will only hurt the industry unless they are willing to offer a Steam like service complete with kick ass daily deals. I don't ever see the big three doing that.

Understand the greed of publishers is just as bad as understanding the greed of bank robbers, IMO. At the very least, understanding the greed of publishers only encourages them.

 

[Epona]

Tretton was responding to rumors that the as-of-yet unannounced successor to the PS3 - which, according to Kotaku, will be called the Orbis - won't support PS3 games and will block the use of used games

won't support PS3 games and will block the use of used games

won't support PS3 games

.....Are. You. !@#$ING. Serious?

...Well, I'm not getting it. Not unless they come up with some orgasm inducing games that make it an absolute necessity to get.

It took me almost 3-4 years to get my PS3 after it launched. I get the feeling I might wait even longer before getting this new one. I hate when backwards compatibility gets dropped.

If they don't put a cell processor in the PS4, it may not be backward compatible.

 

[Baresark]

What he says is the absolute truth. It is anti-consumer. You know what is also anti-consumer? People who compare used games to pirated games.

Morally the two aren't even remotely similar. But from a business perspective? Used games are far worse than piracy.

I'll bite. Explain to me how, from a business perspective, used games are "far worse" than piracy.

I was more joking about the similarities. I know that they are morally, worlds apart. I would never endorse people getting something for free when others have to pay.

Well when someone pirates a game, you can't prove that they would buy the game if they had the money. So that's technically not a lost sale. Whereas if someone buys a second hand copy of your game, the net effect is still the same, you get no money from that sale, but you have evidence that person was willing to buy the game, so that's a lost sale.

That is one of the most clear and lucid things anyone has said regarding this subject, and I never thought about it that way. I definitely learned something from that, so thank you.

I don't know if I agree still. I don't think the ability to track what wasn't sold is a valid way of looking at business. People like to not acknowledge the role that chains, such as Gamestop, have played in building videogames as an entertainment giant. And while I game almost exclusively on the PC (and have given up any hope of a used game market), I don't think that people who hold a physical product in their hands they no longer need or want, should only have a recourse of throwing it away. That is anti-consumer.

I think the only proper way to solve this "problem" (or ideological debate) is for gaming console companies to deregulate their licensing system and offer a lot more digital goods versus physical goods. But, part of the deregulation would have to be their acknowledgement that is cheaper to both produce and distribute digital goods, therefore the price of goods would have to come down. That is one of the biggest aspects of PC gaming after all: That games have typically been cheaper on the PC than on the console until recently, then it's only certain companies that are making that jump to increased prices....

I'm rambling, sorry. Thanks for the food for thought though, best response to a comment in a while.

 

[Shavon513]

Sony and Microsoft both are already starting to squeeze extra $$ from gamers via dlc. It's just going to get worse. Why would they try to block used games on top of everything else?

 

[Covarr]

Judging by Pachter's previous predictions, that means there's a 60% chance the PS4 will block used games. Oh dear.

At least it's better than 100%.

Also, I'm just glad that some higher-up says that blocking used games is bad, and even if he doesn't believe it himself it's a step forward... in a way. If the next Playstation DOES block used games though I say we all send this dude an e-mail linking to this article.

Slightly better than half your 'predictions' being right isn't a good thing for a 'market analyst'. It's barely better than guessing wildly. We shouldn't reward people for guessing wildly. We have the denizens of the internet for that.

Uh, he's not even right half the time. Honestly though, Carter's assertion that he's got a 60% chance of being wrong is a bit of an understatement; I'd peg it closer to 80% wrong. He's pretty much only right when he's predicting things that have already been announced. I look forward to him predicting Halo 4.

P.S. Thanks

 

[funcooker11811]

The point is, if used copies of a game outsell new copies of a game, the publishers have no one to blame but themselves.

What? They can blame the business that figured out how to cut the publisher out of the "who do we give money to" equation. They can blame the customer who decides that 5 bucks off the game is worth not giving a cent to the people that made the game.

You can say that publishers and developers are greedy because they want to profit from the things they put out there, but we outlaw piracy for pretty much the same reasons.

 

[Epona]

The point is, if used copies of a game outsell new copies of a game, the publishers have no one to blame but themselves.

What? They can blame the business that figured out how to cut the publisher out of the "who do we give money to" equation. They can blame the customer who decides that 5 bucks off the game is worth not giving a cent to the people that made the game.

You can say that publishers and developers are greedy because they want to profit from the things they put out there, but we outlaw piracy for pretty much the same reasons.

You sure do give Gamestop alot of credit. Here's a tip, Gamestop didn't figure out how to cut the publisher out. Used sales have been around for a very long time.

Let me ask you something. If I sell you a widget that I made, can I demand that you pay me royalties if you resell it?

 

[funcooker11811]

You sure do give Gamestop alot of credit. Here's a tip, Gamestop didn't figure out how to cut the publisher out. Used sales have been around for a very long time.

Let me ask you something. If I sell you a widget that I made, can I demand that you pay me royalties if you resell it?

Thanks for the tip! Here's one in return; businesses and publishers can refer to pretty much any form of media! Even the ones that aren't games!

And what you described is licensing. Not selling. The publishers license their products to Gamestop to be sold to the customer. In return, Gamestop gives the publishers a percentage of every game sold. Gamestop circumvents this by encouraging the sale of used games, where they buy it at a pittance and sell it at a premium.

Now if I licensed that widget to you, and one of the terms of that licensing was to be paid royalties, then yes. Yes, I would expect you to pay me royalties.

 

[Epona]

You sure do give Gamestop alot of credit. Here's a tip, Gamestop didn't figure out how to cut the publisher out. Used sales have been around for a very long time.

Let me ask you something. If I sell you a widget that I made, can I demand that you pay me royalties if you resell it?

Thanks for the tip! Here's one in return; businesses and publishers can refer to pretty much any form of media! Even the ones that aren't games!

And what you described is licensing. Not selling. The publishers license their products to Gamestop to be sold to the customer. In return, Gamestop gives the publishers a percentage of every game sold. Gamestop circumvents this by encouraging the sale of used games, where they buy it at a pittance and sell it at a premium.

Now if I licensed that widget to you, and one of the terms of that licensing was to be paid royalties, then yes. Yes, I would expect you to pay me royalties.

Ok, prove to me that publishers license games to Gamestop.

Gamestop doesn't pay royalties on new games sold, they buy the games from the publisher and they resell them or they get the new games from the publisher on credit and give them a percentage when new games are sold (say $48 out of $60). This is not licensing, this is how retail works and Gamestop is under no obligation to ONLY sell new games.

 

[ScruffyMcBalls]

Dude seems to know what he's talking about, he's clearly a businessman who doesn't just think of money, but thinks of the people it comes from. Gotta applaud that.

 

[Zefar]

um Ain't PS3 already unable to play older titles because they removed the backward compatible chip? Because it was too expensive to make?

I know there are versions that can play older titles but the newer models shouldn't be able to do that.