God, will somebody tell these game producers and developers to stop being so damn entitled? I mean they seem to think that they have exclusive rights to all my money.
Used Game Sales "Killing" Single Player Titles
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
I always saw this, used games seem like a legal scam to me. I understand how its no different from any other used market, but I think that used games need to be fixed to help smaller developers get their cash. Everyone preorders the "big" games like CoD, allowing IW to make bank, but smaller games that cost 50-60 bucks go unnoticed because people wont spend 60 dollars on anything they don't know if they will like. The rumor about the anti-used games system for the new xbox will help this situation. If used games sales are changed, either through prevention or a deal where dev's get a cut of the sales, prices will drop. PC games are a good example of this, most PC games are 50 dollars at launch, only the console port games carry a $60 price tag.
(Un)Fortunately, I play PC only so I don't get the ability to buy used games, and I don't pirate games so I wont be affected by any changes to used games. Not being able to buy used kinda sucks when some games turn out to be buggy, so I hope game devs will release demos, or at least benchmarks to prevent pirating.
I hope something happens, I don't like paying 60 bucks for the new Assassins Creed when I can buy a far more original game like Serious Sam 3 for 30 bucks at launch.
(Un)Fortunately, I play PC only so I don't get the ability to buy used games, and I don't pirate games so I wont be affected by any changes to used games. Not being able to buy used kinda sucks when some games turn out to be buggy, so I hope game devs will release demos, or at least benchmarks to prevent pirating.
I hope something happens, I don't like paying 60 bucks for the new Assassins Creed when I can buy a far more original game like Serious Sam 3 for 30 bucks at launch.
Because I really give a crap about this "beast"'s growth and it's pile of money? This is the problem with your argument, you (and the publisher's) assume I care about how well there business is doing, well I don't. They make bad decisions? I ain't going to rush out and buy all their games new just so they don't go under, It's their responsibility not to push themselves under.Grey Day for Elcia said:
To use your own analogy the beast needs to evolve to survive this onslaught of "parasites" doesn't it? Otherwise it'll go extinct while others who did evolve flourish...
Which of course is NOT the consumer's fault. If a company builds a product that costs them too much to ever see a profit it deserves bankruptcy as the people in charge are idiots. They should be designing on a realistic budget for what returns they expect so they can see a profit without turning on their own customers for not giving them enough money. A small budget, well designed game doesn't need all the graphics and other money sinks to be enjoyable and make major money. The big games are struggling because they can outsell the small game 20 times and still only just breaking even. That isn't the people who buy the game's fault (no matter how they buy it), that is the person who overvalues what they were doing's fault.lacktheknack said:
If VW, BMW, Mercades, Chevvy, Ford or any other car manufacturer built an amazing vehicle that had the best of everything for like $10 million they'd never sell it for a profit, however build a small hatch or saloon with good compromises for $5k, sell it for $10k (base model) and boom massively profitable model. Games companies actually have an advantage over these too that a game is built then replicated cheaply a car isn't.
Fair enough.cookyy2k said:
AAA should implode and indie/AA should reign supreme for a while. It would really shake things up.
I think that is exactly what needs to happen. It is the only way we're going to get out of the rut of zero innovation we've fallen into. The industry seems to have become too bloated with shareholders, anything other than massive profit margins being branded a failure and comity design. True we wouldn't get our big blockbusters and gaming would have to take a step back from graphics up the ass for a while but I think it'd turn out positive in the long run.lacktheknack said:
Now, are you putting your money where your mouth is? I am. I haven't bought a AAA game since Portal 2, and nothing for a loooooong time since that.cookyy2k said:
It's the increasing greed of the games industry. They lose absolutly nothing from used game sales, since they still get paid for every unit they move and do not wind up supporting more than the number of units they sold to begin with. Claiming that they lose money from used games sales is a gigantic lie reinforcing an industry temper tantrum over how billions of dollars in profits aren't enough, and they see even more money they wish they had too.
Claiming that the kinds of games we want aren't viable anymore is not exactly correct. More honestly it could be said that the kinds of games players want aren't as profitable as puking out casual games and multiplayer titles. It's a way of trying to justify the loss of quality in the game industry and profiteering without it making it look like they are just being greedy.
In the end even if the games industry was to get everything it wanted here, and ended the used game market, ended piracy, and all of those things which it grew into a multi-billion dollar industry despite the existance of, they still wouldn't produce that many epic single player games for serious games, because in the end puking out another deritive shooter based off of "boxed" mechanics and physics, or other form of casual game, is always going to be cheaper. Multiplayer which lets them say create a dozen maps and recycle them endlessly as oppoised to scores or even hundreds for a good single player game is going to remain a great way of making money off of a game for minimal investment in resources.
Overall we're looking at a sort of "carrot and a stick" approach here with the implication being that if we give the industry what they want right now, we'll get what we want, but in the end once they get what they want they will just keeping doing the same thing because that's where the most money is going to be made. Any promises inherant in such a nebulous "deal" might as well not exist.
That's my thoughts at any rate. I think we need an industry that is about the games first and the money second, rather than vice versa. I understand this is a "for profit" business and you can't expect the industry to take constant losses, but at the same token I think trying to squeeze every possible dime out of things is going too far. Capitalism is fine, but really the problem is that a few greedy morons always wind up ruining it for everyone else. The game industry needs to focus on making great games that happen to turn a profit, not pursueing the biggest possible profit, with a game happening to turn out being great being a relatively minor concern in the big picture.
I know many will disagree with me, but again, that's what I think.
Claiming that the kinds of games we want aren't viable anymore is not exactly correct. More honestly it could be said that the kinds of games players want aren't as profitable as puking out casual games and multiplayer titles. It's a way of trying to justify the loss of quality in the game industry and profiteering without it making it look like they are just being greedy.
In the end even if the games industry was to get everything it wanted here, and ended the used game market, ended piracy, and all of those things which it grew into a multi-billion dollar industry despite the existance of, they still wouldn't produce that many epic single player games for serious games, because in the end puking out another deritive shooter based off of "boxed" mechanics and physics, or other form of casual game, is always going to be cheaper. Multiplayer which lets them say create a dozen maps and recycle them endlessly as oppoised to scores or even hundreds for a good single player game is going to remain a great way of making money off of a game for minimal investment in resources.
Overall we're looking at a sort of "carrot and a stick" approach here with the implication being that if we give the industry what they want right now, we'll get what we want, but in the end once they get what they want they will just keeping doing the same thing because that's where the most money is going to be made. Any promises inherant in such a nebulous "deal" might as well not exist.
That's my thoughts at any rate. I think we need an industry that is about the games first and the money second, rather than vice versa. I understand this is a "for profit" business and you can't expect the industry to take constant losses, but at the same token I think trying to squeeze every possible dime out of things is going too far. Capitalism is fine, but really the problem is that a few greedy morons always wind up ruining it for everyone else. The game industry needs to focus on making great games that happen to turn a profit, not pursueing the biggest possible profit, with a game happening to turn out being great being a relatively minor concern in the big picture.
I know many will disagree with me, but again, that's what I think.
Even in the absence of an arbitrage/used market, prices on games would not have gone down anyway. Rising development costs combined with virtual price-hikes ensure that much.
Independent developers* get away with much lower prices, because they have more in say in their prices and generally operate on a much lower budget. Yet they're doing booming business despite the OTHER form of widespread digital arbitrage looming over their heads (piracy..yes I had to go there, and I'm sorry).
(assuming PC platform of course, as that's the one I'm most experienced with. I'm aware that a great many indies publish on consoles too, though many port to PC later. Just look for the "DirectX 9.0c" label under requirements and chances are high that it was ported from XBLA)
To put it more bluntly: If publishers know that customers are willing to pay 60 bucks for a relatively short single-player game (usually around 10 hours, plus a possible grind coefficient), they will charge at least 60 bucks regardless of what the rest of the market does.
That's an oligopoly, and given how few Big Publishers there are now, they don't really have much of a reason to change that.
Around 2000-2005, there were more viable game publishers in the defacto "AAA market" (there are technically more today, but a lot of them are strictly-casual, and I'm omitting self-published games). Incidentally, game prices competed just a bit more, relative to both their production cost, and competition. Even re-releases sometimes came at a strong discount. I could buy Greatest Hits versions of PS1 games, brand new for example.
While piracy wasn't quite as rampant (due to dial-up still being the dominant internet connection for the US), the used market was still there and they were still exploitative.
I remember walking into a Gamestop in 2004 with my friend looking to sell his Pokemon Ruby, and I walked out of the store with said game for a little more the 1 dollar Gamestop offered (I offered 1 dollar and ten cents, and sold to the highest bidder. And it was painfully obvious how big of a sham it was when you could look down through the display case and see Pokemon Ruby, used, sitting there for 35 bucks).
In 2000, I remember walking into Babbage's and seeing a used Armored Core: Master of Arena for a few bucks less, sitting right next to a brand new one. They didn't even try to hide the price difference.
Independent developers* get away with much lower prices, because they have more in say in their prices and generally operate on a much lower budget. Yet they're doing booming business despite the OTHER form of widespread digital arbitrage looming over their heads (piracy..yes I had to go there, and I'm sorry).
(assuming PC platform of course, as that's the one I'm most experienced with. I'm aware that a great many indies publish on consoles too, though many port to PC later. Just look for the "DirectX 9.0c" label under requirements and chances are high that it was ported from XBLA)
To put it more bluntly: If publishers know that customers are willing to pay 60 bucks for a relatively short single-player game (usually around 10 hours, plus a possible grind coefficient), they will charge at least 60 bucks regardless of what the rest of the market does.
That's an oligopoly, and given how few Big Publishers there are now, they don't really have much of a reason to change that.
Around 2000-2005, there were more viable game publishers in the defacto "AAA market" (there are technically more today, but a lot of them are strictly-casual, and I'm omitting self-published games). Incidentally, game prices competed just a bit more, relative to both their production cost, and competition. Even re-releases sometimes came at a strong discount. I could buy Greatest Hits versions of PS1 games, brand new for example.
While piracy wasn't quite as rampant (due to dial-up still being the dominant internet connection for the US), the used market was still there and they were still exploitative.
I remember walking into a Gamestop in 2004 with my friend looking to sell his Pokemon Ruby, and I walked out of the store with said game for a little more the 1 dollar Gamestop offered (I offered 1 dollar and ten cents, and sold to the highest bidder. And it was painfully obvious how big of a sham it was when you could look down through the display case and see Pokemon Ruby, used, sitting there for 35 bucks).
In 2000, I remember walking into Babbage's and seeing a used Armored Core: Master of Arena for a few bucks less, sitting right next to a brand new one. They didn't even try to hide the price difference.
I really doubt that will happen. Although I am hopeful that all these new avenues for indie developers to sell will help. Also the fact that today's graphics have reached the point where huge amounts of money would be required to push it further, I can see indie games looking like AAA games in 5 years due to AAAs not been able to push the graphics much further and the technology of today being more accessible to everyone. We just need to hope that today's indies and small devs don't become tomorrow's EA...lacktheknack said:WE WILL KILL AAA TOGETHER! >cookyy2k said:
Pretty sure someone posting on a video game website cares about the beast by virtue of them, you know, enjoying the products it produces, lol.cookyy2k said:
Not in the slightest, it can keel over and die for all I care. There will always be games being developed and produced without the lumbering beast of the producers and this over bloated industry. I don't care one little bit for the producers/businesses/industry, I care about the end product. Why would I care in the slightest about their bottom line? I'm not a shareholder or employee, I owe them no loyalty. As long as there is someone, somewhere who knows how to program and can make a reasonable experience I'm fine.Grey Day for Elcia said:
Games you play on Xbox: Saints Row 3, Skyrim, Halo, Fallout 3, Mass Effect 2. Every single one of them produced and made available from the largest companies in gaming, all costing millions to make.cookyy2k said:
But you don't care at all if they go bust, right?
lololol
Yet another weak excuse from the game industry, Let me get this straight you charge $120 to 140 bucks for a new game and then act all surprised when we go looking for a second hand copy and then you have the nerve to tell us, the consumers its all our fault.
Publishers greed has put them in this position and their answer to this problem is more greed, schemes like project ten dollar for example. It's no wonder game sales are falling, we as consumers are simply sick of this bull and are looking for other options. They really have no one to blame but themselves.
Publishers greed has put them in this position and their answer to this problem is more greed, schemes like project ten dollar for example. It's no wonder game sales are falling, we as consumers are simply sick of this bull and are looking for other options. They really have no one to blame but themselves.
It's a problem they can approach any way they wish, seeing how its their problem.Zeel said:
Their approach is to strangle the used market out of existence.
I assume you're OK with this, seeing that it's not your problem?