Support NeoGAF

[linsivvi]

Also, most games are NOT in competition with each other.

..........................................................................

 

[cartman414]

No it's perfectly fair. No one is pointing a gun at your head and forcing you to sell your game back to Gamestop. Don't like what they offer? Go elsewhere.

No, it's merely legal. And at the same time highly exploitative, even if people are at fault for falling for it.

Not to draw potentially ridiculous analogies, but I hope no one here backing up this line of thinking is willing to justify insurance companies ripping off patients and doctors just because they can for extra dough.

 

[Dambrosi]

No, it's merely legal. And at the same time highly exploitative, even if people are at fault for falling for it.

Not to draw potentially ridiculous analogies, but I hope no one here backing up this line of thinking is willing to justify insurance companies ripping off patients and doctors just because they can for extra dough.

Socialized Healthcare For The Win! Come on, Americans, join the rest of us in the civilized world! Then all your insurance problems will...disappear...:lol

And I'd hardly put used game sales in the same moral spectrum as medical insurance gouging. Games are a luxury item, after all, not a necessity like healthcare is.

In the end, you can live without games.

 

[Mash]

Socialized Healthcare For The Win! Come on, Americans, join the rest of us in the civilized world! Then all your insurance problems will...disappear...:lol

And I'd hardly put used game sales in the same moral spectrum as medical insurance gouging. Games are a luxury item, after all, not a necessity like healthcare is.

In the end, you can live without games.

This is GAF.

 

[Chozo]

And people whining about game prices are just embarrassing themselves. If you account for inflation and how much games give you these days, it's amazing how people's forget how small and simple games used to be at 30-40 bucks a pop back in the early 90's and 80's. No online multiplayer, no 10-15 hour campaigns, no co-op, amazing set pieces, sound, voice acting, challenge settings, etc.

If today's games were such an awesome value as you claim, you wouldn't be complaining about the used game market in the first place.

 

[McNum]

There are some instances of retail re-releases. Was this not the point of "Platinum Greatest Hits" or whatever it was called for the original Xbox? Perhaps they don't do this anymore, and your "Why?" is justified. But from a historical perspective, no, it's not "entirely missing," just underused.

You know, I immediately thought "What about Platinum releases?" after I hit submit, but it is still terribly underused. Also my main idea about it is to get the good games onto the supermarket shelves, just like you'll find good movies there. I can find Terminator 3 or Lord of the Rings in a supermarket for about $10-20. Not the collector's or extended editions. Just the movies for the people who want "just the movies." Why can't I find top selling games from the same year for about $15 on the same shelf? Ninjabread Man is there, though. Which is kind of sad.

Also, I just saw the God of War compilation news. Nice work. That's how it's done. Not my kind of games, but props to Sony for actually doing that.

 

[AndyD]

Tier 0: Before home release.
Tier 1: Console release.
Tier 2: Digital release.
Tier 3: Retail re-release.
Tier 4: Compilation release.
Tier 5: Digital re-release.

All these do exist today in one form or another.

0 would not work with mainstream games, and I think you agree.
1 is normal, $50 is too cheap.
2 is happening, but it needs to be day one on most games.
3 This happens with greatest hits and GOTY editions.
4 This happens but not enough.
5 This happens some with digital services.

I think a better breakdown is to have higher price disc editions, almost all CE with extras, fluff... Same day digital releases with no extras. Then follow the rest of the plan.

That way you get a lot of sales in DD because of cheaper prices and for discs you charge more.

Imagine a game say like Uncharted. It had tons of videos, extras, and stuff on the Bluray. That version, $60 in store. A stripped down, game only version on PSN $50. Or imagine something like COD4/5/6. Disc full of SP, MP, extras, $60. A digital only version with just MP, $30. Just SP, $30. Digital bundle $50.

That way you lure people with the discount but you ensure much fewer used copies float to ebay and Gamestop. You also still allow for hard copies for those who still want hard copies.

And it also lets them place a lot of value on the disc extras. Making of, behind the scenes, featurettes, much like the movie business where a disc is packed with extras, and the online versions are movie only and cheaper.

 

[Tim the Wiz]

No, it's merely legal. And at the same time highly exploitative, even if people are at fault for falling for it.

Not to draw potentially ridiculous analogies, but I hope no one here backing up this line of thinking is willing to justify insurance companies ripping off patients and doctors just because they can for extra dough.

It's not equivalent. Everyone requires health insurance to survive; so, that relationship must exist. The relationship with GameStop for people selling their used games is nowhere near as necessary. People are free to re-sell wherever they like. Should regulations that would impose fairer rates of buying and selling of used games by GameStop exist? I would argue that would be the appropriate sort of action. Banning the sale of used games by them altogether would be a huge overreaction. And one advocated for in large margin by those who see them as "stealing" profits from their work. I'm no friend of retail corporations, but it would be an overly-harsh agenda-driven decision that wouldn't have the best interests of the consumer at heart.

 

[AwRy108]

Don't feel like paging through all the replies on this, but I read the first post and have a few points:

• there's no way that the current state of broadband in the US is in any way, shape, or form conducive to the digital distribution of full retail titles
• there's too much greed exhibited by the companies that control data flow in the States
• the majority of people that actually have broadband will continue to dismiss digital distribution until devs work out a reasonable DRM system (Steam is the only platform to do it correctly)
• in a "I want it now" society, is there really an interest in waiting for hours for a full retail title to download?
• I still love to buy physical copes of games (and CD's!)--getting the physical copy along with all the artwork is a large part of the experience, and also exemplifies actual ownership
• the ability to buy/sell/trade goods is what the US economy was founded on, and is a portion of what makes all hobbies enjoyable

I realize that these points aren't necessarily shared by all; but I'm willing to be that most people would see the logic in at least of few of them. Either way, just my opinions.

Also: God of War and Twisted Metal are good games; but I still don't see why people seem to put Jaffe on a pedestal. Hell, as a designer, the guy has been dormant since the mediocre--and totally unsupported--Calling All Cars. Just because he's outspoken, doesn't mean he's preaching gospel.

 

[McNum]

All these do exist today in one form or another.

0 would not work with mainstream games, and I think you agree.
1 is normal, $50 is too cheap.
2 is happening, but it needs to be day one on most games.
3 This happens with greatest hits and GOTY editions.
4 This happens but not enough.
5 This happens some with digital services.

I think a better breakdown is to have higher price disc editions, almost all CE with extras, fluff... Same day digital releases with no extras. Then follow the rest of the plan.

That way you get a lot of sales in DD because of cheaper prices and for discs you charge more.

Imagine a game say like Uncharted. It had tons of videos, extras, and stuff on the Bluray. That version, $60 in store. A stripped down, game only version on PSN $50. Or imagine something like COD4/5/6. Disc full of SP, MP, extras, $60. A digital only version with just MP, $30. Just SP, $30. Digital bundle $50.

That way you lure people with the discount but you ensure much fewer used copies float to ebay and Gamestop. You also still allow for hard copies for those who still want hard copies.

And it also lets them place a lot of value on the disc extras. Making of, behind the scenes, featurettes, much like the movie business where a disc is packed with extras, and the online versions are movie only and cheaper.

I'm not from the US, so my dollar prices are likely off. But you're right in that expensive editions with actual content or gadgets would likely be a good way of making some extra money. Fighting games bundled with arcade sticks, or the entire Guitar Hero/Rock Band thing are examples of these. Not to mention Nintendo and the Wii Motion Plus bundles/Balance Board/Wii Play with free Remote thing.

The on-disk extras hadn't really crossed my mind, but all the Metal Gear Solids before 4 got an updated re-release. I bought MGS and MGS2 twice, for instance. The Force Unleashed is returning with a Sith Edition and on PC. It beginning to happen, but it's going a bit slow.

I suppose my main point is that while getting a slice of the used game sales directly would be nice for the publishers, it's not gonna happen. You can't beat Gamestop at Gamestop's terms. Make your own terms, supply re-releases and older games to those who want them and fill the market that would otherwise buy used. Then you get your slice of the used game sales. By undercutting them.

The trick to digital distribution isn't to eliminate retail. That's not happening either. The trick is to use DD to supply the customers with things retail can't or won't supply, or making a better offer on older games.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

Not going to happen. You're fools if you really believe that console makers will abandon physical media anytime in the foreseeable future (especially Sony and Nintendo), and discs are almost guaranteed to continue to be the primary storage and delivery format for games. And as long as that is true, publishers will have no choice but to deal with it.

Complimentary B&M and DD markets in balance with each other is the most elegant solution IMO - just look at Burnout Paradise for an example.

I was being a bit hasty when I said replace, but given the current gen your going to see a steady increase and eventually given the opinion of some devs maybe a move toward dd only games.

Not saying it's set in stone, but definitely not out of the realm of possibilities.

 

[linsivvi]

I was being a bit hasty when I said replace, but given the current gen your going to see a steady increase and eventually given the opinion of some devs maybe a move toward dd only games.

Not saying it's set in stone, but definitely not out of the realm of possibilities.

Unless human habits and behaviors drastically change in the next few years, which won't, DD of full-sized games will at best be a second option to retail.

 

[Ca1amity]

GAF still surprises me sometimes. Maybe its because its a forum where fans, journalists, "journalists", devs and "insiders" come together. Maybe its something else entirely - either way...

First off, there still seems to be some people in the "Pro-DD only future" camp that think that those opposed to the Death of Gamestop TM are in love with the company itself. I dont think there is anyone sane in here that likes Gamestop as a company, their used game policies routinely fuck the consumer out of fair trade in value on both ends of the spectrum.
This makes them greedy self-serving cunts. Surprise though - its the consumers "fault" for continuing to trade in at GS and get hosed. Here begins a much larger discussion about monopoly for another thread. Sufficed to say for now, the *nature* of Gamestop and the *function* of Gamestop are wholly separate.

Now, onto the topic at hand...

Will a digital distribution only scenario increase competition among publishers and therefore lower prices for consumers? Are you fucking kidding me? No.
Here's why:

If, as some pro-DD posters claim, Retail holds a monopoly on pricing through their hold on distribution then we can claim that (so far as one looks at price) the games industry is a regulated industry. The DD-only model proposes that a 'deregulation' of this industry will occur through the appearance of new competitors (a fallacy which I will address below) and the newfound ability for publishers to set their prices without restriction when GS is gone.

Now, while I hate to drag up an old (and, I'll admit, usually poor) comparison industry - lets look at the American Cable Act of 1984 which deregulated cable industry prices. The results have been an increase in prices that greatly outpaced the rate of inflation.
What does this mean in the most basic terms? Accounting for inflation and cost of tech etc. the cable companies have increased prices for the purposes of increasing profits, seeing what the market will bear.
As companies beholden to shareholders like any other, games publishers will do the same because it makes good business sense. When they can sell the kind of limited edition/SE/cat helmet crap they already do and consumers in this market lap it up, anyone who says "gamers wont pay more than X though!" needs to think for a minute.

Consumers in this industry have already been conditioned to accept the $60 price point (and as an aside - thats an American price, the international margins are much wider). The publishers have no reason to drop prices and very few average consumers would expect it to happen. The publishers (now distributors) would merely have to make up some bullshit about bandwidth and server costs to justify keeping the price where it is, most people would accept that. As always, GAF =/= the majority of consumers.

'But what about all the game developers and small publishers who cant get shelf space? They'll sell their product for cheaper and the big players will be forced to adjust!'.
Right. That might happen its true. However, I challenge you to answer this. Where are these upstart developers going to get the money for the infrastructure required to support digital distribution? We're talking servers but also the ability to securely process your credit card information, keep track of authentication and a thousand other tiny things behind the business side of DD. The short answer is someone making an awesome game isnt. 9/10 they dont want to build a corporation to sell their game. So theyll use a proven distribution channel like Steam.

So, now Gamestop is gone. You can still only get your games from Steam/Impulse Microsoft/PSN. So, digital Gamestop/Bestbuy/Wal-mart. Congratulations. The world is yours, the revolution is here.
Except, now you cant sell your game to anyone. Now your property has an eventual expiry date on its usefulness since you own no physical media. Oh, and it was still $60.

Gamestop is fucking evil. The idea of publishers being entitled to the profits of their monopoly though? Thats asinine. The energy should be spent educating the average person that Gamestop is screwing them and encouraging competition in *every* field; whether traditional or digital and thereby getting people to stop trading *at* Gamestop.

 

[smenden18]

So, now Gamestop is gone. You can still only get your games from Steam/Impulse Microsoft/PSN. So, digital Gamestop/Bestbuy/Wal-mart. Congratulations. The world is yours, the revolution is here.
Except, now you cant sell your game to anyone. Now your property has an eventual expiry date on its usefulness since you own no physical media. Oh, and it was still $60.

Well said.

 

[cRIPticon]

Now, while I hate to drag up an old (and, I'll admit, usually poor) comparison industry - lets look at the American Cable Act of 1984 which deregulated cable industry prices. The results have been an increase in prices that greatly outpaced the rate of inflation.
What does this mean in the most basic terms? Accounting for inflation and cost of tech etc. the cable companies have increased prices for the purposes of increasing profits, seeing what the market will bear.
As companies beholden to shareholders like any other, games publishers will do the same because it makes good business sense. When they can sell the kind of limited edition/SE/cat helmet crap they already do and consumers in this market lap it up, anyone who says "gamers wont pay more than X though!" needs to think for a minute.

You are correct. It is a poor example. Deregulation made sure that innovation in services and tech could grow. The days of 2 movie channels, a couple of news networks and 5 sports channels are long gone. Hundreds of channels, new infrastructure, DVRs, widgets, marketing and promotion, etc. are all part of the business today.

Of course the reason to raise prices are to increase profits, at least partly. The rest has to do with investment in infrastructure, distribution and support. And, of course, to appease shareholders.

Gamers will pay whatever the threshold for their desire for content is on a person by person basis.

Consumers in this industry have already been conditioned to accept the $60 price point (and as an aside - thats an American price, the international margins are much wider). The publishers have no reason to drop prices and very few average consumers would expect it to happen. The publishers (now distributors) would merely have to make up some bullshit about bandwidth and server costs to justify keeping the price where it is, most people would accept that. As always, GAF =/= the majority of consumers.

:lol :lol yes, the justification to pay for enterprise grade platforms and telco strong SLA's are based in bullshit excuses. It is amazing to me how easily people dismiss the actual costs of running these infrastructures are. :lol :lol

And, BTW, want to take a guess regarding the expense of a service call center to handle customer complaints/questions are? One mobile developer said that if they handle just 2 calls from the same person it wipes out their entire profit margin on said game for that customer.

'But what about all the game developers and small publishers who cant get shelf space? They'll sell their product for cheaper and the big players will be forced to adjust!'.
Right. That might happen its true. However, I challenge you to answer this. Where are these upstart developers going to get the money for the infrastructure required to support digital distribution? We're talking servers but also the ability to securely process your credit card information, keep track of authentication and a thousand other tiny things behind the business side of DD. The short answer is someone making an awesome game isnt. 9/10 they dont want to build a corporation to sell their game. So theyll use a proven distribution channel like Steam.

In your previous paragraph you stated that it is a bullshit excuse that publishers will make up for keeping their DD prices fixed and now, in your following paragraph, you state that those very same things are real business concerns for small publishers? Which is it?

The reality is that, for small developers, there are very inexpensive starting platforms (EC2, TwoFish, PayPal, etc.) services to get your enterprise off the ground. It's when you have to maintain millions of players that the stakes are higher.

So, now Gamestop is gone. You can still only get your games from Steam/Impulse Microsoft/PSN. So, digital Gamestop/Bestbuy/Wal-mart. Congratulations. The world is yours, the revolution is here.
Except, now you cant sell your game to anyone. Now your property has an eventual expiry date on its usefulness since you own no physical media. Oh, and it was still $60.

On this, I agree with you 100%

Gamestop is fucking evil. The idea of publishers being entitled to the profits of their monopoly though? Thats asinine. The energy should be spent educating the average person that Gamestop is screwing them and encouraging competition in *every* field; whether traditional or digital and thereby getting people to stop trading *at* Gamestop.

The reality is, at the very end of the day, the consumer really only cares about what is left in their wallet when they leave the store.

 

[Fantasmo]

Sorry angry developer man.

I'll buy what I want at a price I'm comfortable with, and I'll sell what I want, at the price I can get for it.

If things go all digital, things will largely be the same except I'll watch my wallet more carefully, and some of your stuff will probably be overlooked since I probably won't be able to sell it off.

Try not to cry too much about it.

 

[AwRy108]

So, now Gamestop is gone. You can still only get your games from Steam/Impulse Microsoft/PSN. So, digital Gamestop/Bestbuy/Wal-mart. Congratulations. The world is yours, the revolution is here.
Except, now you cant sell your game to anyone. Now your property has an eventual expiry date on its usefulness since you own no physical media. Oh, and it was still $60.

Wow, very well stated.

Gamestop is fucking evil. The idea of publishers being entitled to the profits of their monopoly though? Thats asinine. The energy should be spent educating the average person that Gamestop is screwing them and encouraging competition in *every* field; whether traditional or digital and thereby getting people to stop trading *at* Gamestop.

Agreed. However, moral or not, at the end of the day most people are going to shop wherever they can earn / save the most money; and for the "average" person who doesn't want to bother with something like ebay, GameStop is the easiest solution.

Also, while we're talking about saving money: why doesn't anyone bring up online retailers like Amazon? I buy 99% of my videogames from Amazon BRAND NEW and still manage to save between $5-$10 off of the MSRP every time.

 

[Andronicus]

i only buy used when shit is out of print, as for selling to gamestop....lolz ass rape trade in values

 

[Fourth Storm]

It would be interesting if the car dealership model was applicable. Of course, as stated on the first page, Gamestop is unaffiliated with the actual publishers. I'm picturing a perfect world, where the publisher bought back a game from the consumer and proceeded to do a little refurb job. A new case perhaps, nice instruction booklet, make sure the disc isn't scrathched, and reshrinkwrap it. Then, they could sell back the game to used game shops like Gamestop for a slight profit, and the Gamestops would sell it for even more profit. Everyone wins, including the consumer, who doesn't feel ripped off paying near full price for a used game. This is one of those perfect world scenarios, yes, and Gamestop would not want to sacrifice ANY profits most likely. Of course, if publishers felt the need to go completely digital in distribution, that would be even more disastrous for the retailers.

 

[Asmodai]

Lulz at all of the whiners in this thread complaining about how Gamestop is Evil Incarnate and the like. Yeah, we know the trade in values suck. But there aren't any alternatives that aren't a pain in the ass, like selling them on Ebay.

So when I have to get rid of a bunch of games I wish I hadn't purchased in the first place, I'll trade em in at Lucifer's Gamestop, if you don't mind.

 

[AwRy108]

It would be interesting if the car dealership model was applicable.

Yeah, the Cash For Clunkers program would induce lots of Bionic Commando (PS3 / 360) trade-ins, that's for sure.

 

[DidntKnowJack]

They both came off as assholes.

That said, fuck digital dsitribution.

 

[Giolon]

This have to do with why his Twitter account seems to be gone and his blog is "closed"?

 

[Tellaerin]

No, it's merely legal. And at the same time highly exploitative, even if people are at fault for falling for it.

Not to draw potentially ridiculous analogies, but I hope no one here backing up this line of thinking is willing to justify insurance companies ripping off patients and doctors just because they can for extra dough.

Are you just selectively ignoring the posts from people who have said that trading in stuff at Gamestop towards their next purchase is more convenient for them than going through other avenues, even though they know they could potentially get more that way? And that the added convenience makes that worth it for them?

It gets really irritating hearing people like you (and a couple of others here) outright saying that I'm 'stupid' or that I'm letting myself be exploited because I choose to take what Gamestop's offering on trade-ins rather than jumping through hoops to get a better deal. Want to arrange it so that these guys on eBay or Craigslist will come meet me at the mall to buy my used games so I don't have to deal with the hassle of mailing out packages and waiting for payment from the buyer? If so, I'd be happy to do that instead. You know of another retailer that's offering to buy back games at a better rate? Great! Now have them open an outlet at a place that's convenient for me to get to (like the Gamestops in the area are) and I'll gladly take my business to them instead. But until you or someone else can provide these things, I don't really need to hear how stupid I am for offloading games that are no longer worth anything to me in the easiest way possible.

 

[linsivvi]

Lulz at all of the whiners in this thread complaining about how Gamestop is Evil Incarnate and the like. Yeah, we know the trade in values suck. But there aren't any alternatives that aren't a pain in the ass, like selling them on Ebay.

So when I have to get rid of a bunch of games I wish I hadn't purchased in the first place, I'll trade em in at Lucifer's Gamestop, if you don't mind.

You haven't heard? People would rather pay the same price on DD without the ability to resell then to sell it to Gamestop for some money.

 

[Angry Grimace]

The ability to resell a game is part of it's inherent value as a $60 product, that in most cases has a quite low dollar-to-use time ratio compared to virtually any other consumer product. If we say you beat God of War in 10 hours, you paid 6 dollar an hour to play it.

The idea that the retail industry is nailing the publishing and development industry with used sales tends to fall flat when you consider the fact that publishers screw the retail industry with standardized high prices and don't take on non-selling stock.

Jaffe's "argument" ultimately lacks merit because digitally distributed titles don't have appreciably lower cost to reflect that a digital copy carries indisputably less value because you can do nothing with it once you no longer have a need for it.

I don't know the ultimate numbers, but I would be willing to place a wager that the vast majority of games sold DON'T get resold at all (if someone knows the ratio of games that get resold after initial purchase, I'd like to see it.). Because most of the games industries consumer base is willing to plop down $60.00 for a good game with no intention to resell it, the likelihood that the games industry is willing to reduce the price of digitally distributed titles doesn't seem particularly high.

 

[Asmodai]

You haven't heard? People would rather pay the same price on DD without the ability to resell then to sell it to Gamestop for some money.

Yeah. Hell, some people pay more, even considerably more, for a downloadable game than its retail counterpart. Steam has hilariously bad deals when not on weekend sales. But Valve laughs all the way to the bank, I suppose.

 

[AndyD]

You haven't heard? People would rather pay the same price on DD without the ability to resell then to sell it to Gamestop for some money.

Sometimes its about convenience, where the same game DD is a better deal than on disc simply because its always available.

But overall, for most games a disc is a great thing to resell and make sure you didn't pay $60 to play a 5 hour dud.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Sometimes its about convenience, where the same game DD is a better deal than on disc simply because its always available.

But overall, for most games a disc is a great thing to resell and make sure you didn't pay $60 to play a 5 hour dud.

The "convienence" factor is a total industry red-herring though. In truth, the only "convienence" of DD is that you don't have to leave your house. The fact is, the bandwidth required to make digitally distributed titles any less of a pain in the ass doesn't exist in most modern homes.

 

[John]

I'm downloading a 40GB install file that'll take a day, but hey, at least I don't have to get off the couch!

 

[AndyD]

The "convienence" factor is a total industry red-herring though. In truth, the only "convienence" of DD is that you don't have to leave your house. The fact is, the bandwidth required to make digitally distributed titles any less of a pain in the ass doesn't exist in most modern homes.

I meant some games that are available on a console as DD for example.

Stuff like Burnout. Its easy to just hop into a game on my PS3 without getting off the couch and change discs. Its a great MP game with long term support and not one that I would trade away while it was still worth anything. So for that game, DD is perfect. And its not too big either, 5GB or so IIRC.

I dont see 40gb games as DD, I dont see SP only games as DD and I agree that the bandwidth is not there today.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I meant some games that are available on a console as DD for example.

Stuff like Burnout. Its easy to just hop into a game on my PS3 without getting off the couch and change discs. Its a great MP game with long term support and not one that I would trade away while it was still worth anything. So for that game, DD is perfect. And its not too big either, 5GB or so IIRC.

I dont see 40gb games as DD, I dont see SP only games as DD and I agree that the bandwidth is not there today.

5GB is only cake for people with awesome connections. At my brother's house, where he has broadband, but not as good as mine, you're talking several hours. Even then, 5GB would take me on a 10MB connection a minimum of an hour or two. That's really not what I'd call "convenient."

And let's not forget that everyone wants their piece; Internet Providers already think they should muscle in pay per use plans on CURRENT use patterns. The average user in America doesn't run through 5GB of bandwidth at all in a month AFAIK.

The problem with Jaffe's argument (an argument that admittedly is not either origininated nor unique to Jaffe himself) is that it fails to consider anyone other than the basic fact that Gamestop themselves make money that Pub/Devs aren't. There's more than a single factor at play here though.

 

[DCharlie]

just thinking - when i was at uni during late Snes , early PS1 days - i had no choice but to trade in games fairly often to keep new ones coming in.

Just like to say - i loved it back then when EB / Game Uk etc were a bit silly!

Though you could sell your games back, ANY game could be traded in +5 quid to get any other second hand game. What happened in Liverpool pretty quickly was they ended up with shelves upon shelves of Starblade copies.

5GB is only cake for people with awesome connections. At my brother's house, where he has broadband, but not as good as mine, you're talking several hours. Even then, 5GB would take me on a 10MB connection a minimum of an hour or two. That's really not what I'd call "convenient."

a steam/half life solution is the way around this with the game effectively preloaded a week or so earlier. And background downloading of course - if you can sit and play whatever you already have whilst something downloads then that'd work.

 

[Angry Grimace]

a steam/half life solution is the way around this with the game effectively preloaded a week or so earlier. And background downloading of course - if you can sit and play whatever you already have whilst something downloads then that'd work.

That's not an actual solution for anything other than day/minute 1 preorders.

 

[Brofist]

The "convienence" factor is a total industry red-herring though. In truth, the only "convienence" of DD is that you don't have to leave your house. The fact is, the bandwidth required to make digitally distributed titles any less of a pain in the ass doesn't exist in most modern homes.

I agree with this, the convenience factor is definitely overstated.

Actually there may be just as many inconveniences. Installing a new HDD, buying a new model system (slim PS3 anyone?). Imagine having to download every game in your collection again. I have a 100MB fiber connection, and I wouldn't even want to have to do that. I have a feeling the hardcore DD only proponents haven't really thought everything through.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

I agree with this, the convenience factor is definitely overstated.

The convenience factor depends on where you're coming from. It's always amazing reading these argument to realize how different gaming demographics are (namely PC-centric vs. console-centric gamers). If you think that DD is weaksauce that has no place, you obviously don't game on the PC very often or use services like Steam. If you think that DD-only is the future worth dreaming about and that we should be there right now, you obviously don't game on consoles very often.

Either way, I empathize with devs/publishers who lament the effects of used game sales on their bottom line, but ultimately I think they're barking up the wrong tree if they really think that it's one of their biggest barriers to succeed in making profitable games.

 

[DailyVacation]

So, now Gamestop is gone. You can still only get your games from Steam/Impulse Microsoft/PSN. So, digital Gamestop/Bestbuy/Wal-mart. Congratulations. The world is yours, the revolution is here.
Except, now you cant sell your game to anyone. Now your property has an eventual expiry date on its usefulness since you own no physical media. Oh, and it was still $60.

Wholeheartedly endorsing GameStop's business model is one extreme, while doing away with physical media and sticking to DD is another.

The solution IMO is to stick with the traditional middle ground, back to the time when there was neither GameStop nor DD -- when people bought physical media from legit retailers and enjoyed everything physical and virtual about them from the packaging to the actual software. And yes, rental was still possible, and resale was an option, but just not facilitated by a middle man that gets the better end of the stick.

My main gripe about GameStop isn't the fact that you can trade in your game, but rather everyone is cheated out on the deal -- the publishers, developers, consumers, even the software with potential scratches, and the packaging with those horrendous yellow stickers -- everyone but GameStop!

 

[Night_Trekker]

My main gripe about GameStop isn't the fact that you can trade in your game, but rather everyone is cheated out on the deal -- the publishers, developers, consumers, even the software with potential scratches, and the packaging with those horrendous yellow stickers -- everyone but GameStop!

I dunno, I love shopping for cheap (older) games at GameStop. There's a possibility the discs might be scratched, but there's a 30 day returns policy. You can remove the stickers with something like Goo Gone. The shitty GameStop "box art" sucks, but you can print out replacements if it bugs you that much.

It seems to me the only people really getting screwed are the people trading their games in.

 

[LiquidJin]

Thanks for the great read everyone.

I'm normally torn on this issue, because I see it from the dev side and realize that they are getting screwed harshly. However, this thread has made me acknowledge that these consequences are more of a by-product of their relationship with publishers and the direction of the industry at large; GameStop gets the blame because they are the outsider.

When I look at the industry today, I am reminded of the housing and car markets. We've lost touch with the 'normal' customer and have focused entirely on the segment with the deepest pockets. Instead of having a normal balance where affordable/accessible products make up the largest chunk and premium/advanced products are a niche we have the opposite or a situation where it's split 50/50. The market won't and can't support that loadout of products, but we keep forcing it out there anyway.

GameStop was forced to survive in this conflicting environment, so they bolstered a controlled market designed to make things more affordable. Very similar to the horrendous loans being offered to people who couldn't afford to buy a home, or the trade-in program with vehicles. I won't drift into this in this post, but the effect was to mask that we were obviously forcing product into a market that couldn't afford it in the name of growth. Now, almost everyone(except Nintendo) is seeing GameStop make huge profits and thinks we're still doing the right thing, only they need to get a piece of this new action.

I find this meme by Jaffe and others to be naive now. To tax those profits is a commitment to continuing this assault against the wave of customers who find gaming too expensive and inaccessible. My question to all of them is, are you really looking at this as a long-term career or is this a path to cash in quick before the tidal wave backlash?

DD is the future, and it's nothing to be scared of. We are paying for the manufacturing of these discs, their packaging, their shipping, and the amount of space they take up at retail. DD will eventually relieve us of these costs with some restrictions, but won't replace packaged versions which will have to go for more money.

In the beginning, as they do now, the platform holders will milk us as much as they can. However, if gaming is to experience genuine growth then they will have to relinquish their reins on being a retailer and instead take the role of a commercial land lord. I also feel that at this time that they will heavily decrease their roles as a game publisher as well and make commercial virtual real estate their top priority - like a new cable company, only global.

 

[plagiarize]

everyone in this thread bitching about how gamestop turns people away from new games and towards pre owned just lost the right to bitch about having pre-orders pushed on them. pre-order = new copy.

GameStop regularly goes to great lengths to get many many people to pre-order a given game. Game specific performance tracking, pre-order bonuses, etc etc.

I guess Jaffe would be totally cool with all that going away.

 

[charlequin]

If you think that DD is weaksauce that has no place, you obviously don't game on the PC very often or use services like Steam.

Actually, I can see why gaming on the PC would lead someone further to the conclusion that DD has no place on consoles. On PC, DD is definitely not perfect, but between Steam and Impulse I can actually come out pretty solid on the deal (i.e. actually get benefits for buying DD that don't exist for physical games, backed by the promises of independent companies with reputations at stake.) I'm not really worried that I won't be able to play my copy of Half-Life 2 in ten years or that I won't be able to install it on my Nth new computer if I feel like it.

Compare to the console world where I'm already greeted with authentication and redownload issues and I have no guarantee whatsoever that anything I buy will ever be available on future systems...

 

[2DMention]

Now if only the price of Terrabytes of memory would drop, and the Internet Infrastructure of the U.S.A. would catch up with the ludicrous speed fiber-optics of the rest of the world...

Gamestop pretty much has a monopoly on used games. How is that different from DD where only the publisher can sell it to you?

Consumers in this industry have already been conditioned to accept the $60 price point (and as an aside - thats an American price, the international margins are much wider). The publishers have no reason to drop prices and very few average consumers would expect it to happen. The publishers (now distributors) would merely have to make up some bullshit about bandwidth and server costs to justify keeping the price where it is, most people would accept that. As always, GAF =/= the majority of consumers.

yes, the justification to pay for enterprise grade platforms and telco strong SLA's are based in bullshit excuses. It is amazing to me how easily people dismiss the actual costs of running these infrastructures are.

There's no way you could convince me that infrastructure costs > printing, publishing and shipping games. No fucking way.

 

[faust666]

everyone in this thread bitching about how gamestop turns people away from new games and towards pre owned just lost the right to bitch about having pre-orders pushed on them. pre-order = new copy.

This would be true if the only way to purchase a new copy of a game was to pre-order it. It's not.

GameStop regularly goes to great lengths to get many many people to pre-order a given game. Game specific performance tracking, pre-order bonuses, etc etc.

Deposits on pre-orders are pushed to secure a sale over another retailer and pre-order bonuses aren't created by GameStop. It's extra work they "blackmail" a publisher into giving in exchange for prominent display and advantage over competitors who don't get the bonus. Not exactly the selfless act you're making it out to be.

 

[kodt]

The funny thing is that Gamestop actually promotes new game sales by offering exclusive pre-order bonuses for new games that no other store offers. Many games have exclusive in game items now.

Certainly they try to get you to trade in old games when you buy a new one, but they are encouraging new sales.

DD future is great, if DRM is absent from it. Unlimited physical or digital backups, no expiration dates, no limited installs, no online activation. This or DRM'ed games should be $30-40. Then if you want to pay $60 you get a DRM free copy. Of course piracy would be easier then.. but piracy is already easy.

Steam could implement a game sale system, where you can sell your game for a price you set to another account. Once sold you lose rights to that game.

 

[plagiarize]

This would be true if the only way to purchase a new copy of a game was to pre-order it. It's not.



Deposits on pre-orders are pushed to secure a sale over another retailer and pre-order bonuses aren't created by GameStop. It's extra work they "blackmail" a publisher into giving in exchange for prominent display and advantage over competitors who don't get the bonus. Not exactly the selfless act you're making it out to be.

i'm not making anything out to be selfless.

i'm saying 'if you want to bitch about Gamespot pushing used games on customers, you can't bitch about them pushing new games via pre-order on customers.'

i fully understand the business motivations behind both of these.

why do Gamestop want exclusive pre-order bonuses? why to push sales of new games.

why would they want to do that?

well to put it simply, they understand that if they don't sell NEW games, there won't be as many used games to trade in and make more money off of. every used game on their shelves was bought new SOMEWHERE once, and guess what? they would like to be that somewhere.

there are no used games without new game sales. that's why Gamestop PUSH new games with pre-orders and pre-order bonuses, and in store adverts showing off the latest and greatest upcoming games.

publishers and retailers constantly fight for our money. as much as Gamestop 'blackmail' publishers for shelf space, publishers blackmail Gamestop for the same thing. it's give and take, neither is 'the good guy' in this.

you think it's just Gamestop keeping price parity on Steam with retail when EA publish Valve's games at retail? of course it isn't.

the thing is, every previous precident for reselling used product says this: the manufacturer got their cut when they sold it to the retailer. anything and everything that happens after that point is tough titties for the manufacturer.

sure they'd love it if they were making some of that used game money, but they have no right to it.

what they can do though is through multiplayer, or a stream of downloadable content (free or not) is keep used games off Gamestop's shelves. Fallout 3 and Halo 3 aren't readily available currently because of the map packs and updates. GTA4 filled up shelves until Lost and the Damned came out, and then it became hard to find used once more.

make your game stay relevant. that's the pro consumer way to go. that doesn't upset retail, and it keeps your revenue stream going longer.

unless devs and pubs can demonstrate why a game is different to a DVD or a CD or a car or, well, anything else anyone can walk into a store and buy, they get nothing from used sales.

'buh buh buh that one company has done a really good job at making money from them!' is nothing but sour grapes frankly.

 

[cartman414]

Are you just selectively ignoring the posts from people who have said that trading in stuff at Gamestop towards their next purchase is more convenient for them than going through other avenues, even though they know they could potentially get more that way? And that the added convenience makes that worth it for them?

It gets really irritating hearing people like you (and a couple of others here) outright saying that I'm 'stupid' or that I'm letting myself be exploited because I choose to take what Gamestop's offering on trade-ins rather than jumping through hoops to get a better deal. Want to arrange it so that these guys on eBay or Craigslist will come meet me at the mall to buy my used games so I don't have to deal with the hassle of mailing out packages and waiting for payment from the buyer? If so, I'd be happy to do that instead. You know of another retailer that's offering to buy back games at a better rate? Great! Now have them open an outlet at a place that's convenient for me to get to (like the Gamestops in the area are) and I'll gladly take my business to them instead. But until you or someone else can provide these things, I don't really need to hear how stupid I am for offloading games that are no longer worth anything to me in the easiest way possible.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth, halfwit. I wasn't insulting anyone for not having easier access to as good a deal, I was criticizing Gamestop for hoodwinking those people.

Socialized Healthcare For The Win! Come on, Americans, join the rest of us in the civilized world! Then all your insurance problems will...disappear...

And I'd hardly put used game sales in the same moral spectrum as medical insurance gouging. Games are a luxury item, after all, not a necessity like healthcare is.

In the end, you can live without games.

You're right. I realized the fallacy in my analogy after posting it, but only just now returned to this thread.

It's not equivalent. Everyone requires health insurance to survive; so, that relationship must exist. The relationship with GameStop for people selling their used games is nowhere near as necessary. People are free to re-sell wherever they like. Should regulations that would impose fairer rates of buying and selling of used games by GameStop exist? I would argue that would be the appropriate sort of action. Banning the sale of used games by them altogether would be a huge overreaction. And one advocated for in large margin by those who see them as "stealing" profits from their work. I'm no friend of retail corporations, but it would be an overly-harsh agenda-driven decision that wouldn't have the best interests of the consumer at heart.

Now the bolded is a course of action I agree with.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

I really disagree with the non-Jaffe guy.
Jaffe's comments on the second hand market are fairly typical and are even conservative compared to many.

Game prices will be more flexible when retail is gone.

LOL. I don't think you could be further from the truth. How is DD not the same thing as retail? The only difference is that you're screwed if you don't like the DD game. You can trade or ebay the game if it's a physical copy from a retail store.

 

[Mario]

LOL. I don't think you could be further from the truth.

Prices are more flexible under DD than regular retail because the vendor under DD doesn't have the cost of the physical stock and buybacks etc imposing a floor on pricing. You also don't have physical price labelling issues - price adjustments can be rolled out instantly under DD.

DD portals have already shown that pricing adjustments can happen with increased frequency and can be quite aggressive with discounting and sales.

If that is not increased price flexibility, then I don't know what is.

 

[TheSeks]

DD, for me, needs to do three things before it becomes my defacto buying method for retail/disc games:

1) Sales, weekly, daily, I don't give a shit. PSN does this randomly. XBL has started to do a week deal for ONE content (which isn't enough). Steam has crazy weekend deals. Console makers need to see Steam for that.
2) Perma-price drops as the age of the game goes on. Sales data per month couple with supply/demand of the game means keeping it at $50 for another month or dropping it to $20 and getting more sales, after that drop (if it isn't a sale, which isn't happening on PSN often enough) it stays at that price. No, "one week only" does not entice me to save $5 on your game, publishers. In fact, it steers me away.
3) DRM needs to let me back-up games to CD-R/DVD-R/whatever and put a key that checks on the internet once with it. 5 a console is alright, but I want a physical hard-copy to go with my digital. Or, optionally: Do a deal where I can pay $10 or thereabout (price of whatever it is to print the game on a DVD/Blu-ray/CD and shipment to me) and keep my copy.
4) EULA needs to go. You're "renting" games more than actually "owning" them now a days. Want to back up your copy of your store-bought game so you can make sure disc-rot doesn't get it? TOO BAD! YOU'RE VIOLATING THE EULA!
---
Also, First Sale Rule means Mario/Jaffe/Cliffy/Marty can go step off. I bought your game, it's my right (even with your bullshit EULA that violates this right) to sell it or give it away without you getting profits. So, QQ bitches, you aren't getting "Used" sales. Boo-hoo. I'm sure you got enough from new copies in the first place.

 

[Tellaerin]

Thanks for putting words in my mouth, halfwit. I wasn't insulting anyone for not having easier access to as good a deal, I was criticizing Gamestop for hoodwinking those people.

You're the one blindly characterizing everyone who trades in their games at Gamestop as gullible fools, but I'm a halfwit for taking exception to it? Do you even know what 'hoodwinking' means? How are these poor souls being 'duped' or 'deceived'? Do you seriously think all the people trading in their games at Gamestop have never heard of the internet, don't know eBay and Craigslist exist, and are only trading in their games there because they don't know there are alternatives? You obviously don't want to believe this, but Gamestop's not preying on unsuspecting consumers. Give them a better alternative that's just as convenient and I'm sure they'd take advantage of it!