It sure feels like the game industry needs to do what the music industry did and figure out how to operate under the new system, rather than simply trying to strangle the things it doesn't like. Other industries have tried this. They failed.
There are shitty ways to kill off used games, but I'm not convinced the big console makers are going to go that route, regardless of how loud the occasional developer is about not liking used games.
They are doing that. What do you think all the DD systems are?
Which, funnily enough, also kill the used game market.
+1
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Consoles are specialized computer in the same way that my car's computer is a specialized computer. A console is a plug-and-play mechanism that does a single thing (or a few things) very well, requires almost no effort to use or maintain, and cannot be used as a mechanism for pirating or otherwise reproducing games. You're ignoring the fact that there are still very marked distinctions between consoles and PCs.
By that definition, consoles haven't existed for a generation.
Well, I can't use my 360 to rip copies of games, or in any way produce an illegal copy of a game. I can't use it to run Word or Excel or Photoshop, and I can't do much to meaningfully alter the OS. I can use it to stream music or movies, but I can also do that with my Comcast box and I wouldn't call that a PC, either. Playing a game on my 360 is no more complicated than putting a disk in a DVD player in most cases, not counting digital downloads (in which case it's still pretty simple).
Maybe you're just being cheeky and/or pedantic, but there are pretty obvious distinctions between PCs and consoles, even if the latter has inched a bit towards the former.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
And I think it won't be long before physical media for entertainment products is simply no longer produced. Because the internet can now stream HD video and you (Well, some. Me.) can download a 10GB game in less than half an hour, physical media is on borrowed time. So the reality is, pretty soon, we won't own physical copies of music, movies, books or games. Just the license to view.
People have been saying this for years, and it's still nowhere close to being true. The fact that you have awesome download speeds where you are doesn't mean lots of other people don't have shitty and unreliable download speeds. I'm in a decent metropolitan area, and if I can download a 1GB demo in less than a couple hours, I'm ecstatic. I'm please when I can make it through a whole Netflix movie without the connection dropping and rebuffering. And a lot more people have a closer experience to mine than to yours.
Dropping physical media means giving up on selling to anybody in the nation who doesn't have an extremely fast and reliable internet connection, and in the US, that's going to be a large number of people for quite some time.
I'm reminded of people who, 10 years ago, looked at their awesome high-end PCs hooked into their TV's PC-input jack, playing Quake 3 at 60fps on a wireless keyboard and mouse, and marveled at how awesome the experience was, and how it meant that consoles were extinct.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I don't really hold much weight with that argument because I've never seen any numbers that indicate people wait for that $5 price drop before they buy a game.
I like the ability to purchase and use previously owned games. My liking this is linked to a feeling of nostalgia, and the enjoyment I get from visiting used book / dvd / game stores and perusing their wares. When I find an old NES cartridge of Kirby's Adventure, for example, that reminds me of the time spent playing the game as a child.
But I recognize that my preference results from an emotive disposition, rather than some discernment of the market impact of used games, or sensible positions of assessment.
So, to the "no used games" decision I reply with "booo". But at least I'm able to discern that my reaction is just my saying "booo" at something I dislike for reasons tied to my enjoyment of used games stores and feelings of nostalgia for gaming cartridges.
I have the same "booo" reaction to digital downloads, since I like physical gaming cartridges. But, again, it's just me saying "booo" as the result of a preference. In terms of the economics of the gaming industry, and gaming company employees being able to feed their families, no used games is probably a good thing.
People have been saying this for years, and it's still nowhere close to being true. The fact that you have awesome download speeds where you are doesn't mean lots of other people don't have shitty and unreliable download speeds. I'm in a decent metropolitan area, and if I can download a 1GB demo in less than a couple hours, I'm ecstatic. I'm please when I can make it through a whole Netflix movie without the connection dropping and rebuffering. And a lot more people have a closer experience to mine than to yours.
Dropping physical media means giving up on selling to anybody in the nation who doesn't have an extremely fast and reliable internet connection, and in the US, that's going to be a large number of people for quite some time.
I'm reminded of people who, 10 years ago, looked at their awesome high-end PCs hooked into their TV's PC-input jack, playing Quake 3 at 60fps on a wireless keyboard and mouse, and marveled at how awesome the experience was, and how it meant that consoles were extinct.
It might be a reality in about 15-20~ years, though, if access to broadband in the U.S. continues to expand as it has been and if we assume that consumers do prefer the convenience of digital media vs other qualities of physical media if given the choice (some people have made the argument that even if/when we get to the point where almost every household has high speed internet access, the tactile nature of physical media will still give an edge in the market. I think they may be right, but the market hasn't proven it yet).
With Love and Courage
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Internet is not needed to make activation universal. It would be trivial to build an edge cellular modem into every console for authentication purposes if the console lacks an Internet connection. The more I think about it, the more I think this is the way to go. Sell discs with single use codes that unlock all of part of games (depending on price) and everyone (but GameStop) wins.
Internet is not needed to make activation universal. It would be trivial to build an edge cellular modem into every console for authentication purposes if the console lacks an Internet connection. The more I think about it, the more I think this is the way to go. Sell discs with single use codes that unlock all of part of games (depending on price) and everyone (but GameStop) wins.
Or maintain the current game market system, and focus upon increasing profits through micro payments of in-game content.
Still not entirely sure what problem the "no used games" is meant to solve. When a game is purchased used the developer doesn't get money...but that system seems to be working.
Internet is not needed to make activation universal. It would be trivial to build an edge cellular modem into every console for authentication purposes if the console lacks an Internet connection. The more I think about it, the more I think this is the way to go. Sell discs with single use codes that unlock all of part of games (depending on price) and everyone (but GameStop) wins.
So the console in my basement doesn't work anymore because I don't get a signal? Sounds wonderful.
I really hope one of the two manufacturers blocks used games and the other doesn't. I want to witness the chaos.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Internet is not needed to make activation universal. It would be trivial to build an edge cellular modem into every console for authentication purposes if the console lacks an Internet connection. The more I think about it, the more I think this is the way to go. Sell discs with single use codes that unlock all of part of games (depending on price) and everyone (but GameStop) wins.
Or maintain the current game market system, and focus upon increasing profits through micro payments of in-game content.
Still not entirely sure what problem the "no used games" is meant to solve. When a game is purchased used the developer doesn't get money...but that system seems to be working.
The problem it solves is the problem of reduced sales figures which hurt developers, and reduce the chance of more games being made.
Incidentally, I'm really happy to see a lot of people coming out against used games for this reason. I've been saying that buying used was the same as piracy and worse than outright stealing a new copy from a store (which would require the store to buy another new copy) for over a decade, and I'm glad that position is taking root. If you care about developers making games, then you should buy new, IMO.
Still not entirely sure what problem the "no used games" is meant to solve. When a game is purchased used the developer doesn't get money...but that system seems to be working.
Considering theres a real 'lack of numbers' problem its hard to say whether its working or not. Maybe less/no used sales would mean more new sales and thus some games would have done better and various studios would have survived. And maybe not.
Internet is not needed to make activation universal. It would be trivial to build an edge cellular modem into every console for authentication purposes if the console lacks an Internet connection. The more I think about it, the more I think this is the way to go. Sell discs with single use codes that unlock all of part of games (depending on price) and everyone (but GameStop) wins.
Or maintain the current game market system, and focus upon increasing profits through micro payments of in-game content.
Still not entirely sure what problem the "no used games" is meant to solve. When a game is purchased used the developer doesn't get money...but that system seems to be working.
The problem it solves is the problem of reduced sales figures which hurt developers, and reduce the chance of more games being made.
Incidentally, I'm really happy to see a lot of people coming out against used games for this reason. I've been saying that buying used was the same as piracy and worse than outright stealing a new copy from a store (which would require the store to buy another new copy) for over a decade, and I'm glad that position is taking root. If you care about developers making games, then you should buy new, IMO.
I spend a lot of time around students who primarily purchase their textbooks used from resellers. So, I'm aware of the utility found in buying used products. I don't know if buying used is akin to piracy or stealing, but if it is, there's a lot of shit that the universal maxim "Only buy new products." would fuck up: Cars, books, games, eBay, Goodwill, Real Estate, etc.
There's far more nuance in this issue than I think you're admitting.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
You do not want to bring textbook publishers into this.
Fuck those guys.
Fuck them with a 14th edition dildo
You do not want to bring textbook publishers into this.
Fuck those guys.
Fuck them with a 14th edition dildo
I agree that persons would not want to bring that into consideration. The question is why video games are qualitatively different from all the other products that are permitted to be sold and bought as used.
If it is permissible to buy used text books, why is it not permissible to buy used games?
I've never felt like a used-game is ripping off developers because they're paid a contracted amount to produce a game by a publisher, regardless of sales. If the publisher wants to grant bonuses on sales or Metacritic or any other number of factors that's up to the two parties. But no developer is going under because half of the 200K copies they sold to retailers went back to GameStop and were subsequently resold.
It's not used sales that are killing these publisher's bottom line, it's the "games are 60 dollars no matter what" mentality that the publisher's won't let go of. Just price shit accordingly! I can't count the number of times I've read people on this and other forums write "can't wait to buy this for 20/30/40/X dollars" about some game. Publishers, do the fucking research! You've got marketing teams already in place on every prominent gaming website and forum checking the pulse of the fanbase for months before a game comes out, why not get a feeling for what people are ready to spend?
I've never felt like a used-game is ripping off developers because they're paid a contracted amount to produce a game by a publisher, regardless of sales. If the publisher wants to grant bonuses on sales or Metacritic or any other number of factors that's up to the two parties. But no developer is going under because half of the 200K copies they sold to retailers went back to GameStop and were subsequently resold.
It's not used sales that are killing these publisher's bottom line, it's the "games are 60 dollars no matter what" mentality that the publisher's won't let go of. Just price shit accordingly! I can't count the number of times I've read people on this and other forums write "can't wait to buy this for 20/30/40/X dollars" about some game. Publishers, do the fucking research! You've got marketing teams already in place on every prominent gaming website and forum checking the pulse of the fanbase for months before a game comes out, why not get a feeling for what people are ready to spend?
It is quite strange that all games seem to cost the same amount, given that I thought prices were supposed to relate to production costs.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Internet is not needed to make activation universal. It would be trivial to build an edge cellular modem into every console for authentication purposes if the console lacks an Internet connection. The more I think about it, the more I think this is the way to go. Sell discs with single use codes that unlock all of part of games (depending on price) and everyone (but GameStop) wins.
Even for authentication purposes you're giving the cellular structure and grid way more credit than it deserves. Aside from the grid having gaps in coverage, much like the internet, connection stability and data flow are problems the cellular network have, again like the internet. You're also talking about cluttering up an already overtasked infrastructure with more use. Besides it's not something the console developers can just implement on their own. Contracts for cellular hardware have to be made, as well as cellular service. And it's not a permanent solution - what happens when those contracts for service dry up and don't get renewed? It bricks the console.
The importance of permanence of hardware and access to provided services on it is something we're about to be privy to this console generation. The Playstation 4 has a major flaw in backward compatibility (be it on disc or content provided) because of the Playstation 3's Cell processor. It is in nobody's best interest, in terms of cost, to add it just for BC's sake. As such we're not getting it. The lesson learned (hopefully) is that proprietary, specialized hardware is a bad road for any given function.
Your idea is neat, but there's absolutely no way it works by any means.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Internet is not needed to make activation universal. It would be trivial to build an edge cellular modem into every console for authentication purposes if the console lacks an Internet connection. The more I think about it, the more I think this is the way to go. Sell discs with single use codes that unlock all of part of games (depending on price) and everyone (but GameStop) wins.
Even for authentication purposes you're giving the cellular structure and grid way more credit than it deserves. Aside from the grid having gaps in coverage, much like the internet, connection stability and data flow are problems the cellular network have, again like the internet. You're also talking about cluttering up an already overtasked infrastructure with more use. Besides it's not something the console developers can just implement on their own. Contracts for cellular hardware have to be made, as well as cellular service. And it's not a permanent solution - what happens when those contracts for service dry up and don't get renewed? It bricks the console.
Ignoring the gaps in coverage, it would be pretty easy to implement this actually. You wouldn't need an always-online thing. You just need to encrypt errything and then give each game a unique identifier and each disc a unique identifier. Then upon the first time the game starts, the console sends the disc and game identifier to a central server which, if this particular combination has not been pinged with before, sends back the associated decryption key.
The unlock code would be on the order of 256 bits. Not a huge stress.
(This ignores the gaps in coverage or temporary outages which make the plan necessarily cut off a few people. And I don't necessarily think it's a good idea, just that with the magic of cryptography, it is possible.)
You do not want to bring textbook publishers into this.
Fuck those guys.
Fuck them with a 14th edition dildo
I agree that persons would not want to bring that into consideration. The question is why video games are qualitatively different from all the other products that are permitted to be sold and bought as used.
If it is permissible to buy used text books, why is it not permissible to buy used games?
You can buy used games. You can buy all the used games you want. Will the PS4 play them, though?
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
This is...well, not impossible, but problematic. Definitely adds cost.
EDIT: Also, it would almost certainly be broken, just like everything else ever.
That is true, it'd add cost at the factory.
The scheme is unlikely to be broken through in theory though. In practice it'd depend on specific implementation.
I mean using a good cipher, you're fucked without the decryption key.
In any case, even if it is broken, if the idea is to cut down on used game sales then the publishers are fine. They've made it so that anyone wanting to play a used game has to go find shit on warez sites to play used games without paying them. Even if more people than usual do so, there's a huge section of users who can't or won't bother, which is all they need to make it worth it, if it is.
I guess the concise version of my point is that if playing a used game without permission and pirating a game are functionally similar, most of the market won't bother and will just pay the used game fee.
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
All I really want is to be able to play new or used games on the PS4 without ever being required to connect the console to the Internet.
Because I live in the sticks and decent Internet service just doesn't exist here.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
It is not my job to maximize the profits of the videogame industry. It is not some failing-but-essential industry that we need to just give money to.
It's doing just fine under the current model.
This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
I think there is a problem with gamers over-identifying with the companies that make them, allowing those companies to take advantage, whether it's shoddy employee terms and conditions, console wars, or things like this OP.
I'd like to see gamers supporting crap like this a lot less.
I figure I could take a bear.
+2
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I would argue that gamers benefit more from having more games made then they do by saving some money buying used.
First of all, comparing buying used to piracy is lunacy. As is saying its worse than piracy. Excercising ones legal consumer rights and privileges is not anywhere close to stealing and piracy.
Second, used games can help new game sales as much as hinder them. How the hell do you think lots of people afford new games in the first place? Why do you think most of Gamestops trade-in specials are "get bonus credit when you trade towards x new game or console!"?
Gaming has a high cost of entry and the ability to sell old games to afford new ones is one of the key ways it stays affordable and fuck anyone who dares call me equal to or worse than a pirate because I traded in a couple games so I could buy Borderlands 2.
I would argue that gamers benefit more from having more games made then they do by saving some money buying used.
More games is less important than better games.
Define better. Is it games with scaled back production values, less artist, writers, programmers, designers, voice actors, shrinking in every way while staying at the same price? Is it the system we have now, where every big game is such a calculated risk that we see less innovation and more and more of the same types of games, where every game developed is a risk of a game company going under? Do we want games to become so few and far between where we have "FPS Game 2013", "Open-World Game 2013" and "RPG 2013", with no variation between and no risks taken? Or would the entire industry collapsing produce better games?
I think a lot of people have a twisted view of how the gaming landscape would actually look if every game was a low budget indie game. We wouldn't get more variety, more innovation, or more risks being taken. Those things take balls and talent and drive. For every Fez or Vessel or Hotline Miami made, we'd have hundreds of shitty, tired, games. Because the people producing the art behind these AAA games would just flat out leave the games industry. We'd go back to the days of shitty voice acting, awful textures, and incomprehensible writing. The games industry shrinking wouldn't make the games industry better. It would just make it shittier in different, but more apparent, ways.
So yes, something has to give here. Either development costs have to go down naturally or at least stable out, or revenue needs to increase dramatically. Or both.
Which leads me to a question, if used games went away entirely, but the cost of entry lowered significantly (lets say down to $45 for a new game at release, with steam style sales going on frequently), and there were no technological hurdles, how many people rallying for used games would exit the marketplace? If a system like that worked flawlessly, where you could play your games even on another person's console if you logged into your account, would you take your money out of the industry?
How many people here are only willing to afford this hobby because of the ability to trade in their games and buy used games?
It is not my job to maximize the profits of the videogame industry. It is not some failing-but-essential industry that we need to just give money to.
First sentence, you're correct. However, on the second sentence, it sorta is (except for the essential and need parts). It's a floundering industry. It's not doing so hot right now. And, well, if you plan on continuing to have this hobby, you do need to give money to the industry. Because if people don't, the industry will fail.
It's doing just fine under the current model.
THQ, Midway, 38 Studios, any other number of development houses or publishers falling, HARD. One misstep and your company goes under. One Homer and you're screwed. The industry isn't doing fine by the current model. Either it needs to change, or gamers need to change or both.
This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
I think there is a problem with gamers over-identifying with the companies that make them, allowing those companies to take advantage, whether it's shoddy employee terms and conditions, console wars, or things like this OP.
I'd like to see gamers supporting crap like this a lot less.
Look at Doublefine. Everyone likes Doublefine, right? Or at least see the appeal of that company. Almost everything out of that studio has been gold. Yet this time last year they were in a good deal of trouble. If you really follow what's been going on with them, they were pretty much ready to close their doors last year. And this is after already changing their business model to less tentpole games, and more small and odd little games with no chance of going used. So they went the crowd funding route. And now the entire fate of the company rests on the Doublefine Adventure doing well. If it doesn't, it could be everyone there is out of a job. A good studio that puts out fantastic, but sometimes flawed games.
If a studio like that can't make it, we do have a problem. And it's complex, and large, and isn't going to be solved by any one thing. Changing used games might be part of the solution, or it might be a different problem all unto itself. However, identifying with those who make things you like isn't a bad quality, any more than me saying that Spielberg or Pratchett were heroes of mine growing up. I want those who make things I enjoy to succeed. I want more of those things I enjoy. And I want my money to go to the people who produce things I enjoy, not some middleman. I figure if it's not worth it for me to buy it new, it's more than likely not something I need to buy anyway.
It is not my job to maximize the profits of the videogame industry. It is not some failing-but-essential industry that we need to just give money to.
It's doing just fine under the current model.
This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
I think there is a problem with gamers over-identifying with the companies that make them, allowing those companies to take advantage, whether it's shoddy employee terms and conditions, console wars, or things like this OP.
I'd like to see gamers supporting crap like this a lot less.
1) It's not doing that fine. There's been studio collapses all over the map for years now.
2) There's every reason a fan of an entertainment industry should want that industry to succeed. That's what keeps the products those fans like flowing. How you express that is certainly up for grabs, but the health of the video games industry is most assuredly the concern of people who play video games.
First of all, comparing buying used to piracy is lunacy. As is saying its worse than piracy. Excercising ones legal consumer rights and privileges is not anywhere close to stealing and piracy.
Second, used games can help new game sales as much as hinder them. How the hell do you think lots of people afford new games in the first place? Why do you think most of Gamestops trade-in specials are "get bonus credit when you trade towards x new game or console!"?
Gaming has a high cost of entry and the ability to sell old games to afford new ones is one of the key ways it stays affordable and fuck anyone who dares call me equal to or worse than a pirate because I traded in a couple games so I could buy Borderlands 2.
Or you trade in your old games and buy another used game.
The connection to piracy is tenuous at best, but a used sale is still different than a new sale. Just in a different way then piracy is different from a purchase.
Videogames are not going to disappear. Companies go bankrupt all the time. Restaurants are famous for it. That doesn't mean an entire industry will disappear!
Videogames are not going to disappear. Companies go bankrupt all the time. Restaurants are famous for it. That doesn't mean an entire industry will disappear!
Why?
I mean, "the industry will fail" is too much doom and gloom, but there's no reason the industry must continue in anything like it's shape now.
Videogames are not going to disappear. Companies go bankrupt all the time. Restaurants are famous for it. That doesn't mean an entire industry will disappear!
I didn't say the industry will go away, but that it will fail. It will fail to be even close to the size or scope that it is right now. To attract the sort of talent it does at the moment. Collapse and become much much smaller. Which, at that point Gamestop would go away anyway. If consoles fail, all we have is PC/Android/iOS games. And guess what, those are all platforms without used games.
Really other than the DS I have lost interest in console gaming. I know for years I have heard computer games were one foot in the grave but yet they have far more interesting games even with indy games than a console has.
Yes it would suck if Sony and Mircosoft ban used games. I tend not to buy a used game as if it really interested me enough to buy it I would have done it in the first place. Rarely have I bought a used game only with a certain system did I really not care if the game was used only if it worked {a neo geo pocket].
I don't mind digital downloads of games for a time I really mistrusted it and avoided it. Yes there is something about having the game in person and able to play when you find it again rather than spend x time downloading it over and over when you get a new drive or computer
I would argue that gamers benefit more from having more games made then they do by saving some money buying used.
More games being made doesn't really matter, if there isn't also more money to go around. People will not suddenly start spending more money on their hobbies, just because they cost more. They'll eventually just move on to cheaper alternatives.
Like crappy 0.99$ games on their phones.
Killing the used games market will do the opposite of helping the industry.
I would argue that gamers benefit more from having more games made then they do by saving some money buying used.
More games being made doesn't really matter, if there isn't also more money to go around. People will not suddenly start spending more money on their hobbies, just because they cost more. They'll eventually just move on to cheaper alternatives.
Like crappy 0.99$ games on their phones.
Killing the used games market will do the opposite of helping the industry.
That only works if you assume $1 smartphone apps are a substitute for $60 console games. I don't think that's true at all.
I would argue that gamers benefit more from having more games made then they do by saving some money buying used.
More games being made doesn't really matter, if there isn't also more money to go around. People will not suddenly start spending more money on their hobbies, just because they cost more. They'll eventually just move on to cheaper alternatives.
Like crappy 0.99$ games on their phones.
Killing the used games market will do the opposite of helping the industry.
That only works if you assume $1 smartphone apps are a substitute for $60 console games. I don't think that's true at all.
Not to us, no.
But my point wasn't that the games were interchangeable, but that the money was. And that consumers will get their gaming enjoyment from whoever asks less of them.
We already see that effect now. See: Whenever publishers get stupid and choose to release their big games all in the same 2-week time period. People will only buy 1 or maybe 2 games, and pass over the others. Which then don't sell and often end up sinking the developer.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
I would argue that gamers benefit more from having more games made then they do by saving some money buying used.
More games being made doesn't really matter, if there isn't also more money to go around. People will not suddenly start spending more money on their hobbies, just because they cost more. They'll eventually just move on to cheaper alternatives.
Like crappy 0.99$ games on their phones.
Killing the used games market will do the opposite of helping the industry.
That only works if you assume $1 smartphone apps are a substitute for $60 console games. I don't think that's true at all.
Not to us, no.
But my point wasn't that the games were interchangeable, but that the money was. And that consumers will get their gaming enjoyment from whoever asks less of them.
You are trying to draw a distinction between these two statements that doesn't exist. Or, rather, your statement about the interchangeability of money makes no sense in this context and you are really just restating the same thing: that if console games rise in price, consumers will play smartphone games more. This is the definition of substitution.
And it isn't correct for the vast majority of people. These products are not substitutable. Just from a consumer behaviour standpoint, people don't play a smartphone game and a PS3 game at the same time or for the same reasons. They won't substitute one for the other if PS3 games rise in price. They don't scratch the same itch.
Posts
They are doing that. What do you think all the DD systems are?
Which, funnily enough, also kill the used game market.
Well, I can't use my 360 to rip copies of games, or in any way produce an illegal copy of a game. I can't use it to run Word or Excel or Photoshop, and I can't do much to meaningfully alter the OS. I can use it to stream music or movies, but I can also do that with my Comcast box and I wouldn't call that a PC, either. Playing a game on my 360 is no more complicated than putting a disk in a DVD player in most cases, not counting digital downloads (in which case it's still pretty simple).
Maybe you're just being cheeky and/or pedantic, but there are pretty obvious distinctions between PCs and consoles, even if the latter has inched a bit towards the former.
People have been saying this for years, and it's still nowhere close to being true. The fact that you have awesome download speeds where you are doesn't mean lots of other people don't have shitty and unreliable download speeds. I'm in a decent metropolitan area, and if I can download a 1GB demo in less than a couple hours, I'm ecstatic. I'm please when I can make it through a whole Netflix movie without the connection dropping and rebuffering. And a lot more people have a closer experience to mine than to yours.
Dropping physical media means giving up on selling to anybody in the nation who doesn't have an extremely fast and reliable internet connection, and in the US, that's going to be a large number of people for quite some time.
I'm reminded of people who, 10 years ago, looked at their awesome high-end PCs hooked into their TV's PC-input jack, playing Quake 3 at 60fps on a wireless keyboard and mouse, and marveled at how awesome the experience was, and how it meant that consoles were extinct.
But I recognize that my preference results from an emotive disposition, rather than some discernment of the market impact of used games, or sensible positions of assessment.
So, to the "no used games" decision I reply with "booo". But at least I'm able to discern that my reaction is just my saying "booo" at something I dislike for reasons tied to my enjoyment of used games stores and feelings of nostalgia for gaming cartridges.
I have the same "booo" reaction to digital downloads, since I like physical gaming cartridges. But, again, it's just me saying "booo" as the result of a preference. In terms of the economics of the gaming industry, and gaming company employees being able to feed their families, no used games is probably a good thing.
It might be a reality in about 15-20~ years, though, if access to broadband in the U.S. continues to expand as it has been and if we assume that consumers do prefer the convenience of digital media vs other qualities of physical media if given the choice (some people have made the argument that even if/when we get to the point where almost every household has high speed internet access, the tactile nature of physical media will still give an edge in the market. I think they may be right, but the market hasn't proven it yet).
Or maintain the current game market system, and focus upon increasing profits through micro payments of in-game content.
Still not entirely sure what problem the "no used games" is meant to solve. When a game is purchased used the developer doesn't get money...but that system seems to be working.
So the console in my basement doesn't work anymore because I don't get a signal? Sounds wonderful.
I really hope one of the two manufacturers blocks used games and the other doesn't. I want to witness the chaos.
The problem it solves is the problem of reduced sales figures which hurt developers, and reduce the chance of more games being made.
Incidentally, I'm really happy to see a lot of people coming out against used games for this reason. I've been saying that buying used was the same as piracy and worse than outright stealing a new copy from a store (which would require the store to buy another new copy) for over a decade, and I'm glad that position is taking root. If you care about developers making games, then you should buy new, IMO.
Considering theres a real 'lack of numbers' problem its hard to say whether its working or not. Maybe less/no used sales would mean more new sales and thus some games would have done better and various studios would have survived. And maybe not.
I spend a lot of time around students who primarily purchase their textbooks used from resellers. So, I'm aware of the utility found in buying used products. I don't know if buying used is akin to piracy or stealing, but if it is, there's a lot of shit that the universal maxim "Only buy new products." would fuck up: Cars, books, games, eBay, Goodwill, Real Estate, etc.
There's far more nuance in this issue than I think you're admitting.
Fuck those guys.
Fuck them with a 14th edition dildo
I agree that persons would not want to bring that into consideration. The question is why video games are qualitatively different from all the other products that are permitted to be sold and bought as used.
If it is permissible to buy used text books, why is it not permissible to buy used games?
It's not used sales that are killing these publisher's bottom line, it's the "games are 60 dollars no matter what" mentality that the publisher's won't let go of. Just price shit accordingly! I can't count the number of times I've read people on this and other forums write "can't wait to buy this for 20/30/40/X dollars" about some game. Publishers, do the fucking research! You've got marketing teams already in place on every prominent gaming website and forum checking the pulse of the fanbase for months before a game comes out, why not get a feeling for what people are ready to spend?
It is quite strange that all games seem to cost the same amount, given that I thought prices were supposed to relate to production costs.
Even for authentication purposes you're giving the cellular structure and grid way more credit than it deserves. Aside from the grid having gaps in coverage, much like the internet, connection stability and data flow are problems the cellular network have, again like the internet. You're also talking about cluttering up an already overtasked infrastructure with more use. Besides it's not something the console developers can just implement on their own. Contracts for cellular hardware have to be made, as well as cellular service. And it's not a permanent solution - what happens when those contracts for service dry up and don't get renewed? It bricks the console.
The importance of permanence of hardware and access to provided services on it is something we're about to be privy to this console generation. The Playstation 4 has a major flaw in backward compatibility (be it on disc or content provided) because of the Playstation 3's Cell processor. It is in nobody's best interest, in terms of cost, to add it just for BC's sake. As such we're not getting it. The lesson learned (hopefully) is that proprietary, specialized hardware is a bad road for any given function.
Your idea is neat, but there's absolutely no way it works by any means.
Ignoring the gaps in coverage, it would be pretty easy to implement this actually. You wouldn't need an always-online thing. You just need to encrypt errything and then give each game a unique identifier and each disc a unique identifier. Then upon the first time the game starts, the console sends the disc and game identifier to a central server which, if this particular combination has not been pinged with before, sends back the associated decryption key.
The unlock code would be on the order of 256 bits. Not a huge stress.
(This ignores the gaps in coverage or temporary outages which make the plan necessarily cut off a few people. And I don't necessarily think it's a good idea, just that with the magic of cryptography, it is possible.)
This is...well, not impossible, but problematic. Definitely adds cost.
EDIT: Also, it would almost certainly be broken, just like everything else ever.
You can buy used games. You can buy all the used games you want. Will the PS4 play them, though?
That is true, it'd add cost at the factory.
The scheme is unlikely to be broken through in theory though. In practice it'd depend on specific implementation.
I mean using a good cipher, you're fucked without the decryption key.
In any case, even if it is broken, if the idea is to cut down on used game sales then the publishers are fine. They've made it so that anyone wanting to play a used game has to go find shit on warez sites to play used games without paying them. Even if more people than usual do so, there's a huge section of users who can't or won't bother, which is all they need to make it worth it, if it is.
I guess the concise version of my point is that if playing a used game without permission and pirating a game are functionally similar, most of the market won't bother and will just pay the used game fee.
Because I live in the sticks and decent Internet service just doesn't exist here.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
It's doing just fine under the current model.
This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
I think there is a problem with gamers over-identifying with the companies that make them, allowing those companies to take advantage, whether it's shoddy employee terms and conditions, console wars, or things like this OP.
I'd like to see gamers supporting crap like this a lot less.
Second, used games can help new game sales as much as hinder them. How the hell do you think lots of people afford new games in the first place? Why do you think most of Gamestops trade-in specials are "get bonus credit when you trade towards x new game or console!"?
Gaming has a high cost of entry and the ability to sell old games to afford new ones is one of the key ways it stays affordable and fuck anyone who dares call me equal to or worse than a pirate because I traded in a couple games so I could buy Borderlands 2.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
I don't think I can be friends with this filthy pirate anymore.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
More games is less important than better games.
Define better. Is it games with scaled back production values, less artist, writers, programmers, designers, voice actors, shrinking in every way while staying at the same price? Is it the system we have now, where every big game is such a calculated risk that we see less innovation and more and more of the same types of games, where every game developed is a risk of a game company going under? Do we want games to become so few and far between where we have "FPS Game 2013", "Open-World Game 2013" and "RPG 2013", with no variation between and no risks taken? Or would the entire industry collapsing produce better games?
I think a lot of people have a twisted view of how the gaming landscape would actually look if every game was a low budget indie game. We wouldn't get more variety, more innovation, or more risks being taken. Those things take balls and talent and drive. For every Fez or Vessel or Hotline Miami made, we'd have hundreds of shitty, tired, games. Because the people producing the art behind these AAA games would just flat out leave the games industry. We'd go back to the days of shitty voice acting, awful textures, and incomprehensible writing. The games industry shrinking wouldn't make the games industry better. It would just make it shittier in different, but more apparent, ways.
So yes, something has to give here. Either development costs have to go down naturally or at least stable out, or revenue needs to increase dramatically. Or both.
Which leads me to a question, if used games went away entirely, but the cost of entry lowered significantly (lets say down to $45 for a new game at release, with steam style sales going on frequently), and there were no technological hurdles, how many people rallying for used games would exit the marketplace? If a system like that worked flawlessly, where you could play your games even on another person's console if you logged into your account, would you take your money out of the industry?
How many people here are only willing to afford this hobby because of the ability to trade in their games and buy used games?
First sentence, you're correct. However, on the second sentence, it sorta is (except for the essential and need parts). It's a floundering industry. It's not doing so hot right now. And, well, if you plan on continuing to have this hobby, you do need to give money to the industry. Because if people don't, the industry will fail.
THQ, Midway, 38 Studios, any other number of development houses or publishers falling, HARD. One misstep and your company goes under. One Homer and you're screwed. The industry isn't doing fine by the current model. Either it needs to change, or gamers need to change or both.
Look at Doublefine. Everyone likes Doublefine, right? Or at least see the appeal of that company. Almost everything out of that studio has been gold. Yet this time last year they were in a good deal of trouble. If you really follow what's been going on with them, they were pretty much ready to close their doors last year. And this is after already changing their business model to less tentpole games, and more small and odd little games with no chance of going used. So they went the crowd funding route. And now the entire fate of the company rests on the Doublefine Adventure doing well. If it doesn't, it could be everyone there is out of a job. A good studio that puts out fantastic, but sometimes flawed games.
If a studio like that can't make it, we do have a problem. And it's complex, and large, and isn't going to be solved by any one thing. Changing used games might be part of the solution, or it might be a different problem all unto itself. However, identifying with those who make things you like isn't a bad quality, any more than me saying that Spielberg or Pratchett were heroes of mine growing up. I want those who make things I enjoy to succeed. I want more of those things I enjoy. And I want my money to go to the people who produce things I enjoy, not some middleman. I figure if it's not worth it for me to buy it new, it's more than likely not something I need to buy anyway.
1) It's not doing that fine. There's been studio collapses all over the map for years now.
2) There's every reason a fan of an entertainment industry should want that industry to succeed. That's what keeps the products those fans like flowing. How you express that is certainly up for grabs, but the health of the video games industry is most assuredly the concern of people who play video games.
Or you trade in your old games and buy another used game.
The connection to piracy is tenuous at best, but a used sale is still different than a new sale. Just in a different way then piracy is different from a purchase.
That is just utter nonsense.
Videogames are not going to disappear. Companies go bankrupt all the time. Restaurants are famous for it. That doesn't mean an entire industry will disappear!
Why?
I mean, "the industry will fail" is too much doom and gloom, but there's no reason the industry must continue in anything like it's shape now.
I didn't say the industry will go away, but that it will fail. It will fail to be even close to the size or scope that it is right now. To attract the sort of talent it does at the moment. Collapse and become much much smaller. Which, at that point Gamestop would go away anyway. If consoles fail, all we have is PC/Android/iOS games. And guess what, those are all platforms without used games.
Yes it would suck if Sony and Mircosoft ban used games. I tend not to buy a used game as if it really interested me enough to buy it I would have done it in the first place. Rarely have I bought a used game only with a certain system did I really not care if the game was used only if it worked {a neo geo pocket].
I don't mind digital downloads of games for a time I really mistrusted it and avoided it. Yes there is something about having the game in person and able to play when you find it again rather than spend x time downloading it over and over when you get a new drive or computer
More games being made doesn't really matter, if there isn't also more money to go around. People will not suddenly start spending more money on their hobbies, just because they cost more. They'll eventually just move on to cheaper alternatives.
Like crappy 0.99$ games on their phones.
Killing the used games market will do the opposite of helping the industry.
That only works if you assume $1 smartphone apps are a substitute for $60 console games. I don't think that's true at all.
Not to us, no.
But my point wasn't that the games were interchangeable, but that the money was. And that consumers will get their gaming enjoyment from whoever asks less of them.
You are trying to draw a distinction between these two statements that doesn't exist. Or, rather, your statement about the interchangeability of money makes no sense in this context and you are really just restating the same thing: that if console games rise in price, consumers will play smartphone games more. This is the definition of substitution.
And it isn't correct for the vast majority of people. These products are not substitutable. Just from a consumer behaviour standpoint, people don't play a smartphone game and a PS3 game at the same time or for the same reasons. They won't substitute one for the other if PS3 games rise in price. They don't scratch the same itch.