Total Biscuit vs the Jimquisition

[Xdeser2]

Honestly my take on this is that it does not matter whether or not its hurting devs or publishers. You cant constrict consumer rights because you're losing money. You get into the game of capitalism, you accept all the potential risks as well as the rewards. Its supposed to be a consumer driven and directed system, and its completely unfair to ask consumers to give up the ability to say, IDK SELL A PHYSICAL COPY THATS THEIRS TO BEGIN WITH because "Oh no, I cant think of a legitimate way to compete with that."

The move to digital on PC showed a positive way to compete with that, seeing as it had many different competing sources to keep the competition rather high. Consoles, however, are (as everyone well knows) closed systems, and I doubt Sony or M$ are going to allow an independent third party to digitally sell games on their console. Physical sales NEED to be there to counteract complete control.

Besides, every single used game represents a sale of a new game in the first place. places like game and gamestop (while, yes, shitty in their buisness practices) dont just open new games and sell them used. The problems publishers and by extension Devs are having is coming from the ridiculous cost of making games nowadays. AAA games get monitored ridiculously closely by publishers (sort of understandably, seeing as their throwing the kitchen sink into their production) and for the most part get railroaded down a particular path (seemingly at least) by focus groups, and then they expect every single game to sell like Call of Duty. What Publishers (and some Devs) need to do is (as hard as this is) is to lower their expectations somewhat. Unless your name is "Assassins Creed", "The Elder Scrolls" (well, any RPG by Bethesda for that matter) "Mass Effect", "Battlefield", "Call of Duty" or "Halo" dont expect 3 Million sales+ first week -_- (Im not saying dont try now and again, but curb it down a bit, gaming is all about finding that right balance between the art of its creation and the finances needed to do so, and TOO DAMN MUCH is being spent on marketing)

Oh...the original topic? Yeah, I quite like both Jim and TB. Sure, TB might not always align perfectly with my opinions, but isn't that kinda the point of his channel? Think of him like a gaming pundit.

 

[xPixelatedx]

To summarise;

Sterling: Stop blaming retail stores, it's all because of the publishers! Microsoft is ruining the video games industry!

Bain: Stop blaming the developers and the publishers, it's all because of the retail stores! Blame Gamestop! Used games are ruining the video games industry!


I'm grossly oversimplifying, but I feel like they've both got tunnel vision. No one is innocent here. The stores and the publishers are all sharks trying to take chunks out of each other - and us.

True, but objectively speaking its still more the developer's fault. Let me elaborate: Used game stores have always existed. Not only that, when video rental stores were popular they rented games as well! While I understand Total Biscuit's arguments (SOME of them hold water), what Jim said is still valid, there is always a dragon to slay.

The only thing that's truly changed over time are games; the way they are made and the way they are sold. If used game sales have increased enough that it is truly hurting the industry, the developers and/or publishers have done something in this last gen in the way they make and/or sell games that has deterred people from buying new. Again, that's their fault. But if instead used game sales are more or less the same as they were 10+ years ago, (like I think) why are they now hurting the industry when they weren't before? Because games cost too much money to make these days. Again, this is the developers and publishers fault.. We don't need Hollywood actors for good games. We don't need multi-million dollar developed blockbuster set-pieces for every game, either. These things haven't made video games any better, and it's only the developers and publishers fault for feeling they must insert these things into nearly EVERY single game that comes out. Like Dead Space for example: the production cost of that series just kept getting higher and higher with each sequel because they kept jamming in things NO ONE asked for. That is indicative of the attitudes and practices that are really causing this problem. Even without used game sales hurting them, it's getting to the point that publishers and developers might not even break even, and it is ALL their fault.

The worst part? They know this... They know they are using an unsustainable model, and they know killing used games won't fix it. But it will extent the time they can use this business model, and to them that's a better solution then actually changing and adapting.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

my take on it.

my son, his main supply of games is; used old games (£10 range he gets with pocket money) Christmas/birthdays new games as gifts.

People who regularly sell their games; put that money straight back into their next gaming purchase as they purchase regularly.

then the 3rd demographic is the people who are just selling their old stuff to make money.

take used games out the equation; whats the point of my son getting a console for maybe 5 or 6 maybe games a year max? (and he wont be the only child in a similar situation)
Mr/Miss regular games purchaser now has to find that cash elsewhere while games they dont play anymore gather dust.

how people can not see this having a negative effect on sales, is beyond me.
the publishers are going to be shifting less units, so the loss will be passed on to the gamer to recoup
(dont know who believed they would see any savings passed down to them from the publisher if the publisher did make more money from thsi idea. whoever you are, please donate me some of your optimism)

used games don't go to the publisher, so they don't give a shit. All the money goes to places like Gamestop, who are very shady in their business practices and just as anti consumer.

whether tthey give a shit or not, this war on used games is going to hurt the console industry

 

[ThriKreen]

So why isn't the game industry demanding royalties from Gamestop on each used copy sold?

They do, but the response from GameStop et al is "LAWL NOPE" and they can't do much about it like withhold the game to that retailer chain, since, well, they still have to get sales. With Wal-Mart, Best Buy, etc., they don't push the used games as much because they have other revenue streams (electronics, appliances, clothing, etc.) to rely on.

And what also makes it worse is that publishers and developers don't see the sale numbers for the used copies either, not just for royalties but just to see how well a game is doing. How would you feel if a game you made could be 10, 25% higher in units sold? Might help add some weight to the next contract when asking for funding.

-So... where's the evidence that stores have threatened publishers over selling cheap Steam games? Or are you just pulling this theory out of nowhere? Thought so. Moving on

Because it's true. One would think that with digital PC/Steam or PSN/XBL versions of the games, with no cost of physical media, they could price it lower. But as they are (usually) released at the same time as the physical ones at the retailers, they are priced the same (or at the relative $50 PC to $60 console). Someone throwing their weight around? Sure.

But notice that at the half year to year mark, as inventory at the stores gets exhausted, bam, the Steam version has tons of sales and permanent price drops. But the stores still tend to sell it new at $60, because they had bought it at the wholesaler price and want to keep it at $60 to make their profit from the sale.

Maybe devs/publishers should adapt to the market rather than attacking it.

We are, it's called going 100% digital - oh wait, you want your physical copy. Adding content via DLC - oh wait, you want everything now even content made a year later. Multiplayer perks - oh wait, you want a single player game. Single player stuff - oh wait, now you want multiplayer. I could go on, but I'll bet you on every type of change devs and publishers have tried to implement, there's been resistance.

The only act that hasn't met with resistance is lowering prices, but you mostly only see that on digital only titles. And even then, there's a certain mentality that a $60 game is better than a $10 one, with the thinking the latter is a bargain bin shovelware title. Although thankfully that's changing with Steam and mobile titles and people more accepting of the lower price.

I don't like this war on used games either, since it's clearly a way against Gamestop's business and we're all stuck in the middle.

I wish a publisher would just balls up and offer a game at a $30 price point on release just to see what happens.

 

[Olas]

TotalBiscuit has a point... wait no he doesn't, he's completely full of bullshit. His argument against used games boils down to "developers need to make more moneys" which I can see no justification for. His only suggested benefit to the consumer is the fairly speculative belief that removing used games will make all games cheaper because developers will suddenly feel more charitable now that they're earning larger profits. So TB, your saying we should abandon a system that we already know gets us cheaper games for one that will theoretically get us cheaper games, all because you have some bitterness toward retailers it seems.

The used game market formed as a natural response to inefficiency in the distribution system, people had old games they had no desire to play anymore and they were willing to sell them for a reduced price to someone else who'd be happy for the discount. That's reallocation of resources to where they can do the most good.

Developers, you don't want used games costing you sales? Create games that people will want to keep, make games that are unique, high in quality, or that have large replay value, games people will want to hold onto, not trade in as soon as they're done playing it through once. Don't make games with a throwaway 5 hour campaigns that are really just an excuse for an updated multiplayer mode. People are trading your games in because they only provide them with a limited amount of value.

You think I'd ever trade in my copy of Majora's Mask? Metroid Prime? The Orange Box? I'd never let go of the games I truly cherish. And if you aren't going to make games I have reason to want to keep, maybe you should make fewer profits on them as a result.


oh... uh... Jim!

By the way, I'm not defending retailors, as far as I'm concerned they're just a necessary evil. Actually they aren't even that necessary. Me and my friends tend to just trade and/or buy games from one another directly rather than subjecting ourselves to the jacked up rates of retailors. Cut out the middleman.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

Used games and consoles market is an entry point for people to become gamers.
My first two consoles,(SNES,N64) and all the games I bought for them,were bought used. Because at that young age I didn't had the opportunity to carry enough money in my pockets to afford non-used consoles and games!

I only started buying new consoles and games enough later,when I started doing things to earn money.
Today I might not buy used games,but if there werent the used market for both consoles and games when I was young I'd have never bought them and I'd have find other hobbies to grow with,and today perhaps I wouldn't be a gamer at all.

If companies ban the used market,they might force some people who were buying used games to buy new ones,but it will cut a lot of people from entering gaming.The amount of new people starting gaming will lessen and in the long run they'll be losing money 'cause the total of people playing games will be less.

 

[Pebblig]

I don't really get the "it hurts the industry" argument, yes potentially it may do, but it's like the whole piracy argument, not everyone who bought the game used would have potentially paid full price for it if they couldn't have bought it used.

It's like with any used medium, such as second hand bookshops, it may "hurt the industry", but it's not like noone is benefiting from it, at least it provides jobs and income for other companies who buy and sell the used games.

Also, I totally agree with Jim, it's just the current "thing" that people in the industry will blame, until they find other things to blame.

 

[Eve Charm]

Ok here is a good question, do you know what gamestop doesn't sell? Xbox, ps1 games old nintendo games, Hell most are getting out of ps2 and psp if they haven't already gotten out. Since there isn't a gamestop nor any other big retailer selling these. All you have are the retro mom and pop stores or people themselves online. But you know who can sell these game digitally have have been able for years on end? MS, Sony, and Nintendo.

So where are the steam sales? And no I'm not talking about half off a 40 or 20 dollar game, Where is what would be a steam sale or hell even a weekly sale on these old console games you can't even buy new anywhere? Nintendo has just recently ran a certain game for 30 cents but still wants 15 bucks for any old n64 game. Where are my other games under a dollar or around a dollar or hell under the 5 dollar price point these guys won't drop under. During a summer steam sale there are about 50 to 100 games on sale for under 2 dollars and that's being kind. And that's just steam, The indie bundles and such themselves I can get multiple games for a dollar.

Hell lets look at 3 recent indie bundles.

Double fine bundle, stacking, costume quest and psychonauts for as low as a dollar, brutal legends with it for 8 dollars and the preorder and other junk at 35 and 80. Aren't the 4 games both all available digitally on 360 and ps3, why not get all of them for 8 dollars on the consoles?

Alan wake weekly, for a dollar I can get alan wake and alan wake american nightmare plus a ton of bouns stuff, Why can't I pick up the games on 360 for a dollar? I can still buy this one now till the end of the week.

THQ bundle, Some of if is pc exclusive but hell red faction armageddon, darksiders, metro 2033, and saints row, a game still sold new for 40 bucks, I picked up those and some pc exclusives for less then 8 bucks all of em. Pretty sure what I listed are on both consoles on demand, so why not cheap?



They'll do anything to cling to their outdated pricing model, used games or not, Digital or not, even not being sold new or not. They've had their on demand gaming for years and steam's been around for twice that. If they were gonna grow hearts and get into competing sales instead of just greed, they would of done it long ago.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

Well, i'm in the library so i can't watch either video but from what i have seen from Total Biscuit in the past he is a moron whose opinion doesn't have any resonance with me. I don't back Jim either but the few videos i have seen from him have made sense, even if his humour and presentation style really fucking aggravate me. The day i use other peoples opinions instead of my own is the day i 'deserve' to be put down though so who gives a shit what either of them has to say?

But the whole issue of used games sales is a smoke screen to hide the fact that new games are overpriced and the drop in price on used games shows a much clearer indication of what a games value actually is. I couldn't give 2 fucks about the industry and how much money it is or isn't making...that is nothing to concern me. All i concern myself with is value for money and with a few rare exceptions, games are never worth 40 quid (or the price new, depending where you live).

I look through my games collection and most of the games i have paid full price for have actually been long and entertaining. The games i have bought second hand are of slight interest and tend to get played and finished within a day or 2. Nothing would have made me pay full price for the second hand games so it's not the industry losing sales on used copies, it's second hand retailers making money out of poor products that failed to capture my imagination.

 

[StriderShinryu]

TotalBiscuit's view on this basically mirrors the view I've put forward for years now. The issue with used games is not specifically the used games, it's the parasitic GameSpot style of buying/selling them that has taken over almost everyone involved in the used games market. Also, as he notes, there really is no real defence of used games being some sort of messiah for the industry. At best, you can offer explanations for why certain things like the trade-in to buy new games continuum may have a minor tangible positive impact.

As for the question of TB vs JS? Jim has always felt like an aggrendized aggregate of forum whining to me. TB feels more like he brings his own opinions to the table. Now, I'm not saying Sterling doesn't honestly share the views of the forum going majority, I'm just saying his views don't feel genuine because it's the same, in my opinion, eyebrow raising view you see dogpiled on on every internet forum. I don't find myself agreeing with either of them all of the time, but I do tend to agree with TB more often. So yeah, TB all the way if I've gotta make a choice.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I really do need to say one thing, here:

I'm siding (with/against) (TB/Jim) and (deciding/already agree) (game companies/game retailers) are the (good/bad) guy!

Let's get one thing clear.

Companies that make games, and companies that sell games, have one thing in common: they're both companies. They both operate with a profit motive, and seek to maximize their profits through whatever means available. Your satisfaction, welfare, or even rights, as a consumer are not their primary interest. Because the party of your choice is a bad guy here, does not mean the other party is a good guy. This isn't "retailers" versus "publishers" from our standpoint as consumers, this is "consumers" versus "corporations" as the endgame here for either is to maximize their own profits by eliminating competition; that comes out of our pockets as consumers.

 

[Rellik San]

There is only way to settle this: We need to get Jim and TB into a jelly/mud wrestling match, complete with thongs, the winner is clearly right whilst the other only has their loss of dignity to accompany them... THAT! Is the British way.

We should have Yahtzee referee it too, we have to keep these things British.

 

[Eve Charm]

Ok here is a good question, do you know what gamestop doesn't sell? Xbox, ps1 games old nintendo games, Hell most are getting out of ps2 and psp if they haven't already gotten out. Since there isn't a gamestop nor any other big retailer selling these. All you have are the retro mom and pop stores or people themselves online. But you know who can sell these game digitally have have been able for years on end? MS, Sony, and Nintendo.

So where are the steam sales? And no I'm not talking about half off a 40 or 20 dollar game, Where is what would be a steam sale or hell even a weekly sale on these old console games you can't even buy new anywhere? Nintendo has just recently ran a certain game for 30 cents but still wants 15 bucks for any old n64 game. Where are my other games under a dollar or around a dollar or hell under the 5 dollar price point these guys won't drop under. During a summer steam sale there are about 50 to 100 games on sale for under 2 dollars and that's being kind. And that's just steam, The indie bundles and such themselves I can get multiple games for a dollar.

Hell lets look at 3 recent indie bundles.

Double fine bundle, stacking, costume quest and psychonauts for as low as a dollar, brutal legends with it for 8 dollars and the preorder and other junk at 35 and 80. Aren't the 4 games both all available digitally on 360 and ps3, why not get all of them for 8 dollars on the consoles?

Alan wake weekly, for a dollar I can get alan wake and alan wake american nightmare plus a ton of bouns stuff, Why can't I pick up the games on 360 for a dollar? I can still buy this one now till the end of the week.

THQ bundle, Some of if is pc exclusive but hell red faction armageddon, darksiders, metro 2033, and saints row, a game still sold new for 40 bucks, I picked up those and some pc exclusives for less then 8 bucks all of em. Pretty sure what I listed are on both consoles on demand, so why not cheap?



They'll do anything to cling to their outdated pricing model, used games or not, Digital or not, even not being sold new or not. They've had their on demand gaming for years and steam's been around for twice that. If they were gonna grow hearts and get into competing sales instead of just greed, they would of done it long ago.

Why stream doesn't sell older games? Is that what you're asking.

I can answer that, steam isn't compatible with all older games. Games like Arcanum and Fallout 1-2 need a lot of rework to make it work, especially with the overlay steam has because of some difference in some library. I forgot its name.

Its the reason older games popping up on steam are such a big deal, normally older games don't have support because most developers have gone under, so there is no patch or even people to make deals with. Its the reason soul reaver made waves on this very forum when it got on steam.

Older games are just very hard to get on steam, the older it is the harder it is. I know this because I tried to run old games like arcanum in steam, they didn't work.

Older games are GOG's thing, because they don't need to convert a game to run in a platform like steam. All they need to to make sure the game works on an OS and let people download the installer.

No asking why I can get the same games dirt cheap on steam or other places and why consoles don't do the same with their older games that they don't have to piss off the new retailers with or to compete in a market where I can sometimes even get the same games for a fraction of the price on pc. I'm lucky if I can a good xbox classic for under 20 bucks or under 10 bucks. I have a massive selection of stuff and tons of stuff that would have a normal asking price of like 40 bucks for my 10 dollars elsewhere on pc.

 

[Gatx]

That's the developers owned by publishers. Not independent studios. Not everyone is owned by EA or Activision. deals based on sales are made, because "paying a dev for a game" only applies if the publisher's offer of "make this for this platform" offer is taken or publishers take an interest in the game early in development.

Past that, its sales. Publishers take a huge amounts of profits though, with rumors going as high as 30-50%. Developers DO NOT get paid enough from publishers, and neither from console manufacturers for exclusives.

Developers should get royalties because they are the ones on the line here, they have the bulk of the risk because how cut throat publishers are.

So basically if I'm understanding this correctly, the idea is that devs should make more money, and in order for that to happen, either more new games are sold, or publishers should pay the devs more or give them a bigger a cut of the profits. But obviously they wouldn't want to do the latter so that's where the targeting of the used games market comes in.

But I'm not a business person, far from it. Maybe the other way just isn't feasible so they HAVE to go after used games.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

WhoTF is Total Biscuit? And why is the name being used in the same sentence as Jim's?

Anyway, Jim's got the right of it. I'm not buying the XOne unless it can be modded for homebrew purposes/media centre capabilities (perfectly legal where I am). Too many restrictions, I disagree with the route MS are taking and regardless, I've been content playing on my higher spec and more capable PC for long enough now that my 360 needs an update every time I turn it on.

The PS4, depending on what it does with used games (if anything at all) and always-online reqs. is the only possibility of a next gen console if I were to buy one, homebrew/emulators/etc excepted. The Wii U is frankly ridiculous with it's silly controller and tragic games line-up, despite that in all other ways it's perfect.

 

[rasputin0009]

I'm agreeing with Totalbisquit more than I agree with Sterling's view on used games. Who's more likely to be more consumer-friendly? People who are making games, or people who are strictly selling you games? And yes, companies are made up of people, too. I rather support the artists/publishers because, in the end, they're making the games.

On a side-note, what I don't like about the Xbone is the daily DRM combined with the always-on Kinect. I really don't want updated advertisements to what I've been doing, wearing, or saying. And other privacy issues that come along with it, too. But, in the case of used games, fuck'em. Gaming is a luxury, if you can't afford a full-price game every so often, then find another form of entertainment. You don't need to buy 10 used games a month and then sell them the next month.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I'm agreeing with Totalbisquit more than I agree with Sterling's view on used games. Who's more likely to be more consumer-friendly? People who are making games, or people who are strictly selling you games? And yes, companies are made up of people, too. I rather support the artists/publishers because, in the end, they're making the games.

Let's be careful to keep "developers" and "publishers" distinct from one another, as with the exception of a handful of companies, developers and publishers are distinct from one another. Developers are the ones actually making the games; publishers finance, distribute, and advertise. Publishers are middlemen just as are retailers, and neither have consumer-friendliness as their first priority.

 

[rasputin0009]

I'm agreeing with Totalbisquit more than I agree with Sterling's view on used games. Who's more likely to be more consumer-friendly? People who are making games, or people who are strictly selling you games? And yes, companies are made up of people, too. I rather support the artists/publishers because, in the end, they're making the games.

Let's be careful to keep "developers" and "publishers" distinct from one another, as with the exception of a handful of companies, developers and publishers are distinct from one another. Developers are the ones actually making the games; publishers finance, distribute, and advertise. Publishers are middlemen just as are retailers, and neither have consumer-friendliness as their first priority.

Publishers aren't as separate from the developers as you might think. They're the ones who keep servers going, pay for updates to games, pay for support, etc. They're still in the game publishing business to get games made. Developers and publishers go hand in hand because a developer hardly ever has enough resources to make a game on their own.

 

[nevarran]

They both make some valid points. Can't say who's opinion it "the right one" tho', these are issues from the kitchen, and I'm merely a consumer.

Cars are a luxury too...

That's debatable. If your work place is far from your home and there is no public transport or something, the car becomes more than a simple luxury.

 

[rasputin0009]

Gaming is a luxury, if you can't afford a full-price game every so often, then find another form of entertainment. You don't need to buy 10 used games a month and then sell them the next month.

Cars are a luxury too, does that mean I can't sell my car to get a new one now?

Just because its in the best interest of the developers and publishers, doesn't mean its the right move. Monopolization is in the best interest of them as well, but its something that is very anti-consumer and hampers our rights. Thats the thing about rights - you don't have to like them, you don't have to like how people use them, but people are allowed to use them as they see fit.

You didn't watch the video that this thread is about, did you?
He totally debunks the car analogy within the first five minutes. Because it's obviously stupid.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue here. Taking away used games doesn't give publishers a monopoly because publishers aren't one big company.