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.
That's a different issue and related to alot more factors.
If we assume this is taking place ("this" being "games making low sales because they are released at the same time as other games") then there's many potential things going on:
Is it budget constraints that are causing this behaviour? (ie - only so much money to spend on games)
Or time constraints? (ie - only so much time to spend on games)
Is it marketing overlap? (ie - you can't hype your market your game because it's being drowned out by another game)
So sort of social factor, like needing to jump in while the multiplayer is still popular or while the game is still the current zeitgeist?
Which factor is at work here rather drastically changes what the market in question is like and how it will react to changes.
If, for instance, it's a budget constraint, it doesn't really matter when you are released unless you can steal impulse sales off the other games by releasing earlier or something.
Interestingly too, if it's all budget constraints then lowering the price of games will not lead to revenue increases, but will simply spread the income out over a larger set of games. This might have a positive effect on the industry though, as instead of 1 huge profit-making game and a bunch of other failures that get shutdown, you get a bunch of moderate successes that developers and publishers will continue to support.
I suspect, however, there are alot of time and social constraints at work here. There's only so many, like multiplayer shooters the market can support because of the time players devote to them and the critical mass of players you need in each game to make it work.
I would argue that gamers benefit more from having more games made then they do by saving some money buying used.
I'd agree, if there weren't already more games produced every year that are worth playing, and require more time than any reasonable person has to play them.
I don't buy the argument that we aren't seeing enough games produced. Even if used sales reduced the amount of games that came out each year by say, up to half...there'd still be a fuckton of games each year that are worth playing. Scarcity is a non-issue in this industry. Hell, the same is true for movies, music and books.
edit: Agreed, Quid. The entire games industry could collapse tomorrow, with no new videogames produced again EVER, and I'd still have probably half a decade or more worth of games I own but haven't actually played yet to go through.
And to those saying the industry is suffering...could you point to some actual data? Because I see a few of you saying that a lot, but I could swear the industry has grown significantly along with the rise of used game sales, and that it continues to be a multi-billion dollar a year industry. I see no sign of it failing, which is not to say there aren't companies that fail and dev houses that get a shitty deal with bad publishers from time to time.
I would argue that gamers benefit more from having more games made then they do by saving some money buying used.
My, and everyone else's backlog, says nope.
I'm thrilled to have a good backlog, it will provide me with ample video game related entertainment once second christmas is over and nothing worth a damn comes out until next November.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The fact that you can't play all the games is irrelevant. Fewer games means a lower chance of the games you want to play being released. For example, I don't play console fps, so COD and Halo could vanish tomorrow and it would never impact me. But if obsidian goes out of business, no number of other games can make up for that to me.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
And everyone banging the price drum, what so you think of the idea I have described several times already for having games release at different price points based on how much of the game is unlocked? So you can buy the full COD for $60, or you can buy a single player only version for $40, and unlock the multiplayer later as DLC. There are tons of ways you could handle this, like madden having fewer modes for $40 or a fighting game having fewer characters at that price. Now everyone can buy new, on launch day, regardless if budget constraints.
I would argue that gamers benefit more from having more games made then they do by saving some money buying used.
More games being made doesn't really matter, if there isn't also more money to go around. People will not suddenly start spending more money on their hobbies, just because they cost more. They'll eventually just move on to cheaper alternatives.
Like crappy 0.99$ 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.
My apologies. I've tried contributing to two discussions on different forums in different languages at once, and the result was predictably posting gibberish in both.
Let me try to rephrase my point a little more comprehensively and hopefully comprehensibly.
I think we can all agree that people buy used games due to budget constraints. If your budget allows you to buy the game new, you won't bother buying a game used. The thing to keep in mind about budget handling, is that it isn't a question of whether people have any money at all to spend on their hobbies, but which hobbies they choose to spend money on. I mean, I have more than one hobby that I can invest both time and money in and I choose the one that I consider most valuable. That's not a question of substitution, but of budget management.
I'm into film, into board games, into video games, into acting, writing and directing. I cannot do all those things all the time, I choose to do the ones I want based on how far I can afford to do them. Bringing this point back to topic: I'm saying that for all but enthusiast gamers, video games are just one option out of many. People don't have an inherent need to play video games. They can easily spend their time and money on something else. They don't "substitute" one for the other, but they change their priorities according to what they can afford (timewise, budget-wise, socially, etc.). Nobody's arguing that playing MH3 scratches the same itch as playing Angry Birds does. But if given the option to play a video game that eats up half my time budget and half my hobby budget, compared to spending the same amount on three different things I am interested in... I know which one I will choose to do.
To me it seems obvious that by fixing the "entry costs" of playing video games, the hobby itself becomes less attractive to people who have more interests than money and time to actually pursue them.
And everyone banging the price drum, what so you think of the idea I have described several times already for having games release at different price points based on how much of the game is unlocked? So you can buy the full COD for $60, or you can buy a single player only version for $40, and unlock the multiplayer later as DLC. There are tons of ways you could handle this, like madden having fewer modes for $40 or a fighting game having fewer characters at that price. Now everyone can buy new, on launch day, regardless if budget constraints.
Nope, that's just the same way things are now, but with more confusion. I think the market for "slightly cheaper, with less functionality" would be very limited.
The only thing that is likely to combat the price-sensitivity that used games support is a complete move to a PC-esque system, where price drops are frequent and timely, and big sales with huge discounts happen even on new (and sometimes not-yet-released) titles. As I mentioned further up, I could buy the new Tomb Raider game on PC for $36 right now, or $60 on 360/PS3. The only mitigating factor there is that if I *do* buy the PS3 version, I can play it and beat it and trade it in for $30+ back to use for other game purchases.
And everyone banging the price drum, what so you think of the idea I have described several times already for having games release at different price points based on how much of the game is unlocked? So you can buy the full COD for $60, or you can buy a single player only version for $40, and unlock the multiplayer later as DLC. There are tons of ways you could handle this, like madden having fewer modes for $40 or a fighting game having fewer characters at that price. Now everyone can buy new, on launch day, regardless if budget constraints.
Yeah... I'd have a hard time paying money for a broken game with no resale value. I might be interested if they were to create the illusion of empowering the consumer by casting it as more of an a la carte thing. $20 for the engine, $10 base single player content pack, $10 multi player. Say I don't want the extra campaign missions, then I don't have to pay for them.
Isn't that pretty much what we have now with DLC? Your game comes complete, and if you want more shit, you pay extra. Except for rare occurrences where a developer does something dumb like put important story content in DLC (I'm looking at you ME3).
I would argue that gamers benefit more from having more games made then they do by saving some money buying used.
I'd agree, if there weren't already more games produced every year that are worth playing, and require more time than any reasonable person has to play them.
I don't buy the argument that we aren't seeing enough games produced. Even if used sales reduced the amount of games that came out each year by say, up to half...there'd still be a fuckton of games each year that are worth playing. Scarcity is a non-issue in this industry. Hell, the same is true for movies, music and books.
edit: Agreed, Quid. The entire games industry could collapse tomorrow, with no new videogames produced again EVER, and I'd still have probably half a decade or more worth of games I own but haven't actually played yet to go through.
And to those saying the industry is suffering...could you point to some actual data? Because I see a few of you saying that a lot, but I could swear the industry has grown significantly along with the rise of used game sales, and that it continues to be a multi-billion dollar a year industry. I see no sign of it failing, which is not to say there aren't companies that fail and dev houses that get a shitty deal with bad publishers from time to time.
The games industry is making more money, but the productions cost more, the deadlines get extended and the publisher deals get worse. Basically, the problem is with the industry's business practices, which is why the industry's proposed solutions are all different variations of short-term ways to milk customers at the expense of long-term loyalty. It's actually been surprising how many hardcore gamers I talk to online and in real life who are completely unexcited about both the next generation and games in general.
I can't help but wonder how much of this comes from the employment practices in the industry. There are whole bodies of research that show that, after a certain number of hours worked per day/week, productivity plummets. From personal experience, I have found that the type of people who live at their desks for 70 hours a week become very narrowly focused on their jobs, to the extent where everything else gets filtered through their work.
With that in mind, it doesn't surprise me that an industry that operates like a series of well-paid sweatshops is having troubles making deadlines, delivering quality products, pleasing customers or innovating beyond minor incremental tweaks of mechanics and ideas from other games and media. It's actually just what you'd expect.
Phillishere on
+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.
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.
My apologies. I've tried contributing to two discussions on different forums in different languages at once, and the result was predictably posting gibberish in both.
Let me try to rephrase my point a little more comprehensively and hopefully comprehensibly.
I think we can all agree that people buy used games due to budget constraints. If your budget allows you to buy the game new, you won't bother buying a game used. The thing to keep in mind about budget handling, is that it isn't a question of whether people have any money at all to spend on their hobbies, but which hobbies they choose to spend money on. I mean, I have more than one hobby that I can invest both time and money in and I choose the one that I consider most valuable. That's not a question of substitution, but of budget management.
I'm into film, into board games, into video games, into acting, writing and directing. I cannot do all those things all the time, I choose to do the ones I want based on how far I can afford to do them. Bringing this point back to topic: I'm saying that for all but enthusiast gamers, video games are just one option out of many. People don't have an inherent need to play video games. They can easily spend their time and money on something else. They don't "substitute" one for the other, but they change their priorities according to what they can afford (timewise, budget-wise, socially, etc.). Nobody's arguing that playing MH3 scratches the same itch as playing Angry Birds does. But if given the option to play a video game that eats up half my time budget and half my hobby budget, compared to spending the same amount on three different things I am interested in... I know which one I will choose to do.
To me it seems obvious that by fixing the "entry costs" of playing video games, the hobby itself becomes less attractive to people who have more interests than money and time to actually pursue them.
I don't think that is true. I think that there are plenty of people who could buy the games new, and only buy them used because the cheaper option is available. Even if people on averaged bought and played half as many games in a world without used, I still think it would be a net positive, because the fate of developers gets decided during a very short window post launch, and every used sale during that window (the infamous $55 used games included) actively hurts the chance of the developer getting hired to make another game.
I would argue that gamers benefit more from having more games made then they do by saving some money buying used.
I'd agree, if there weren't already more games produced every year that are worth playing, and require more time than any reasonable person has to play them.
I don't buy the argument that we aren't seeing enough games produced. Even if used sales reduced the amount of games that came out each year by say, up to half...there'd still be a fuckton of games each year that are worth playing. Scarcity is a non-issue in this industry. Hell, the same is true for movies, music and books.
edit: Agreed, Quid. The entire games industry could collapse tomorrow, with no new videogames produced again EVER, and I'd still have probably half a decade or more worth of games I own but haven't actually played yet to go through.
And to those saying the industry is suffering...could you point to some actual data? Because I see a few of you saying that a lot, but I could swear the industry has grown significantly along with the rise of used game sales, and that it continues to be a multi-billion dollar a year industry. I see no sign of it failing, which is not to say there aren't companies that fail and dev houses that get a shitty deal with bad publishers from time to time.
The games industry is making more money, but the productions cost more, the deadlines get extended and the publisher deals get worse. Basically, the problem is with the industry's business practices, which is why the industry's proposed solutions are all different variations of short-term ways to milk customers at the expense of long-term loyalty. It's actually been surprising how many hardcore gamers I talk to online and in real life who are completely unexcited about both the next generation and games in general.
I can't help but wonder how much of this comes from the employment practices in the industry. There are whole bodies of research that show that, after a certain number of hours worked per day/week, productivity plummets. From personal experience, I have found that the type of people who live at their desks for 70 hours a week become very narrowly focused on their jobs, to the extent where everything else gets filtered through their work.
With that in mind, it doesn't surprise me that an industry that operates like a series of well-paid sweatshops is having troubles making deadlines, delivering quality products, pleasing customers or innovating beyond minor incremental tweaks of mechanics and ideas from other games and media. It's actually just what you'd expect.
This only works under the assumption that it's industry practices that are the problem.
It's just as if not more likely that the issue is just that this shit is expensive to do. That a AAA release involves absolutely staggering amounts of work and money to create and that the current business model can't easily sustain the cost of producing them.
And again, while getting rid of used games will mean some people who bought used will buy new, it also means that some people who used to be able to afford buying new games because they could sell off their old ones will buy less new games. It also means that some people will be less willing to take a chance on that first week full price game without the knowledge that they can flip to for some cash if they don't like it or finish it fast, and will wait a year to get it for twenty bucks in a clearance sale.
There is no conclusive evidence that the lost sales the used games market causes overshadows the gained sales the used market generates or vice versa. Used games have both a positive and negative effect on sales.
The arguments against used games always dismiss the positive impact on the market the ability to sell and trade games has and the increased buying power it gives consumers.
They do, but I'm assuming the peace of mind of having a new game is worth the extra $5 over the gamble.
Plus, as I mentioned in my edit, it's not always about the price and this 54.99 shit is still ridiculously off topic.
How is the price difference between new and used games off topic in a topic about the possible elimination of used games?
Let me try to explain myself another way.
I see some people advocating the stripping of consumer rights based off a claim that $54.99 games are significantly cutting into developer and publisher profits.
However, no where does this group provide any support to back up that claim. In other words, this $54.99 argument is meant to obfuscate the real issues and be an emotionally charged plea to side with the poor developers and publishers and to hate that evil Gamestop. (oddly, this argument is also meant to guilt people into buying new and against their own rights...)
In other other words, this group (who I see you a part of) are willing to strip some consumer rights because developers might lose some money, maybe, possibly from these sales. Now, the claim sounds reasonable, but there's no proof to back up any of this.
If I may elaborate with a current political analogy. Some politicians in America are advocating for voter ID laws, ID's in order to vote. Now, on the surface this argument seems reasonable: a reasonable person could easily say "yes", I don't want non-citizens to vote, so IDs sound like a good plan to prevent that. However, much like this $54.99 argument, there's no evidence supporting the claim that voter fraud (thus the need for voter IDs) is even a problem. In short, the politicians manufactured a problem to promote their agenda of Voter ID laws to disenfranchise certain groups of individuals. In turn, this benefits the politicians advocating these "common sense" voter ID laws.
Let us return to this $54.99 argument. I see the same thing happening here: a "common sense" argument is being presented that a reasonable person would agree with: "yes", it sounds like people would go for that $54.99 game over the $59.99 game. However, again, like the voter ID issue, there's absolutely no proof that these sales are significantly cutting into developer/publisher profits, yet the argument advances because "it makes sense". But again, like the politicians, I see the developers and publishers pushing this argument in order to strip consumers of some of their rights; therefore, I see them manufacturing a problem in order to promote their own agendas ($$$).
So, until some sort of evidence besides "hunches," "gut feelings," or "common sense" is presented to support these claims, it's a non-issue to me meant to mislead the general public into feeling sorry for those poor developers and publishers and to hate that evil Gamestop.
TL;DR People who are advocating for changing the status quo and stripping consumer rights better provide proof.
I would argue that gamers benefit more from having more games made then they do by saving some money buying used.
I'd agree, if there weren't already more games produced every year that are worth playing, and require more time than any reasonable person has to play them.
I don't buy the argument that we aren't seeing enough games produced. Even if used sales reduced the amount of games that came out each year by say, up to half...there'd still be a fuckton of games each year that are worth playing. Scarcity is a non-issue in this industry. Hell, the same is true for movies, music and books.
edit: Agreed, Quid. The entire games industry could collapse tomorrow, with no new videogames produced again EVER, and I'd still have probably half a decade or more worth of games I own but haven't actually played yet to go through.
And to those saying the industry is suffering...could you point to some actual data? Because I see a few of you saying that a lot, but I could swear the industry has grown significantly along with the rise of used game sales, and that it continues to be a multi-billion dollar a year industry. I see no sign of it failing, which is not to say there aren't companies that fail and dev houses that get a shitty deal with bad publishers from time to time.
The games industry is making more money, but the productions cost more, the deadlines get extended and the publisher deals get worse. Basically, the problem is with the industry's business practices, which is why the industry's proposed solutions are all different variations of short-term ways to milk customers at the expense of long-term loyalty. It's actually been surprising how many hardcore gamers I talk to online and in real life who are completely unexcited about both the next generation and games in general.
I can't help but wonder how much of this comes from the employment practices in the industry. There are whole bodies of research that show that, after a certain number of hours worked per day/week, productivity plummets. From personal experience, I have found that the type of people who live at their desks for 70 hours a week become very narrowly focused on their jobs, to the extent where everything else gets filtered through their work.
With that in mind, it doesn't surprise me that an industry that operates like a series of well-paid sweatshops is having troubles making deadlines, delivering quality products, pleasing customers or innovating beyond minor incremental tweaks of mechanics and ideas from other games and media. It's actually just what you'd expect.
This only works under the assumption that it's industry practices that are the problem.
It's just as if not more likely that the issue is just that this shit is expensive to do. That a AAA release involves absolutely staggering amounts of work and money to create and that the current business model can't easily sustain the cost of producing them.
Whatever the problem is, you will not convince me that punishing the consumer by taking away their consumer privileges is the correct response.
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.
My apologies. I've tried contributing to two discussions on different forums in different languages at once, and the result was predictably posting gibberish in both.
Let me try to rephrase my point a little more comprehensively and hopefully comprehensibly.
I think we can all agree that people buy used games due to budget constraints. If your budget allows you to buy the game new, you won't bother buying a game used. The thing to keep in mind about budget handling, is that it isn't a question of whether people have any money at all to spend on their hobbies, but which hobbies they choose to spend money on. I mean, I have more than one hobby that I can invest both time and money in and I choose the one that I consider most valuable. That's not a question of substitution, but of budget management.
I'm into film, into board games, into video games, into acting, writing and directing. I cannot do all those things all the time, I choose to do the ones I want based on how far I can afford to do them. Bringing this point back to topic: I'm saying that for all but enthusiast gamers, video games are just one option out of many. People don't have an inherent need to play video games. They can easily spend their time and money on something else. They don't "substitute" one for the other, but they change their priorities according to what they can afford (timewise, budget-wise, socially, etc.). Nobody's arguing that playing MH3 scratches the same itch as playing Angry Birds does. But if given the option to play a video game that eats up half my time budget and half my hobby budget, compared to spending the same amount on three different things I am interested in... I know which one I will choose to do.
To me it seems obvious that by fixing the "entry costs" of playing video games, the hobby itself becomes less attractive to people who have more interests than money and time to actually pursue them.
This doesn't make any sense though. You are also keep trying to say you aren't talking about substitution while talking about substitution. It's a concept in economics that is about exactly what we are talking about.
Anyway:
1) Actually yes, we can assume that alot of people will not buy new if they can buy used. The used market in console gaming is fairly well established and trusted, so many people will buy used simply because it's cheaper. We know this in part because Gamestop operates on this very principle and makes alot of money doing it.
2) Your talk of other entertainment products they could spend it on doesn't work because they could do that right now. If you really could just substitute video games with, say, board games, why are you buying video games right now? And the answer is because obviously you value however many video games you buy now more then you do the number of board games you could buy with the same money.
Gamers are already prioritizing games over other forms of entertainment and marginal increases in the cost of gaming is not likely to do anything but see small drops in the number of units purchased or something, instead of some imagined total conversion where they suddenly go to the ballet every week and play Angry Birds more or something.
And again, while getting rid of used games will mean some people who bought used will buy new, it also means that some people who used to be able to afford buying new games because they could sell off their old ones will buy less new games. It also means that some people will be less willing to take a chance on that first week full price game without the knowledge that they can flip to for some cash if they don't like it or finish it fast, and will wait a year to get it for twenty bucks in a clearance sale.
There is no conclusive evidence that the lost sales the used games market causes overshadows the gained sales the used market generates or vice versa. Used games have both a positive and negative effect on sales.
The arguments against used games always dismiss the positive impact on the market the ability to sell and trade games has and the increased buying power it gives consumers.
It doesn't dismiss it, it merely considers it smaller then the negative impact.
It's difficult to know which way it actually leans, but the industry seems to think it's more negative then positive.
I already mentioned this and it was ignored, but it's a very important point.
The majority of Gamestop's trade-in specials give extra credit when trading in towards the purchase of brand new stuff.
So when someone decides they are going to trade in a couple games to get a new release they want, it is often going to be a better deal for them to out their credit towards the $60 copy over the $55 dollar used copy, because they get more credit.
The simple fact that GameStop pushes these sorts of promotions constantly, on a weekly basis, and does it for pretty much every major new release, is proof enough that there is a sizeable amount of gamers who unload their used games turning around and buying a new game. If there wasn't, GameStop wouldn't bother exploiting it. So the "they just trade in games to buy more used games" argument doesn't exactly fly.
It is fair to assume that most consumers will go with the cheaper option, as long as they trust it. And sometimes, the $55 used copy is the cheaper option. But sometimes the new game is the cheaper option specifically because the used games market exists.
Person A trades in a game and gets bonus credit to buy a new one. Person B comes into the store later, has nothing to trade in, so he buys the used copy of the game Person A traded in. One person buys a new game, one buys a used game. Without the used market, person B probably still buys a game because five more bucks isn't much, but person A can't afford to buy the new game. Either way, one new copy is sold.
That is a very simplified and situational example for sure, but the point is that the new and used markets are more intertwined than a lot of detractors are willing to admit.
I would argue that gamers benefit more from having more games made then they do by saving some money buying used.
I'd agree, if there weren't already more games produced every year that are worth playing, and require more time than any reasonable person has to play them.
I don't buy the argument that we aren't seeing enough games produced. Even if used sales reduced the amount of games that came out each year by say, up to half...there'd still be a fuckton of games each year that are worth playing. Scarcity is a non-issue in this industry. Hell, the same is true for movies, music and books.
edit: Agreed, Quid. The entire games industry could collapse tomorrow, with no new videogames produced again EVER, and I'd still have probably half a decade or more worth of games I own but haven't actually played yet to go through.
And to those saying the industry is suffering...could you point to some actual data? Because I see a few of you saying that a lot, but I could swear the industry has grown significantly along with the rise of used game sales, and that it continues to be a multi-billion dollar a year industry. I see no sign of it failing, which is not to say there aren't companies that fail and dev houses that get a shitty deal with bad publishers from time to time.
The games industry is making more money, but the productions cost more, the deadlines get extended and the publisher deals get worse. Basically, the problem is with the industry's business practices, which is why the industry's proposed solutions are all different variations of short-term ways to milk customers at the expense of long-term loyalty. It's actually been surprising how many hardcore gamers I talk to online and in real life who are completely unexcited about both the next generation and games in general.
I can't help but wonder how much of this comes from the employment practices in the industry. There are whole bodies of research that show that, after a certain number of hours worked per day/week, productivity plummets. From personal experience, I have found that the type of people who live at their desks for 70 hours a week become very narrowly focused on their jobs, to the extent where everything else gets filtered through their work.
With that in mind, it doesn't surprise me that an industry that operates like a series of well-paid sweatshops is having troubles making deadlines, delivering quality products, pleasing customers or innovating beyond minor incremental tweaks of mechanics and ideas from other games and media. It's actually just what you'd expect.
This only works under the assumption that it's industry practices that are the problem.
It's just as if not more likely that the issue is just that this shit is expensive to do. That a AAA release involves absolutely staggering amounts of work and money to create and that the current business model can't easily sustain the cost of producing them.
The AAA model is a business practice. It was created by decisions made by publishers and developers, and the decision to keep going in that direction is a business decision.
From the desire to constantly build new engines to need to make everything EPIC instead of building to big moments, there's a lot of manufactured misery from the industry. The need to push closer and closer to photo-realism, include big name talent and license popular music are all business choices that expand budgets. The fact that everyone sees this as "the way it is" is an example of an industry that's on a death march to a self-imposed goal.
One of the biggest ignored revelations from both the Wii and Steam is that people will buy good games with lower production values. Nintendo and Apple have built businesses by treading on a different path.
I would argue that gamers benefit more from having more games made then they do by saving some money buying used.
I'd agree, if there weren't already more games produced every year that are worth playing, and require more time than any reasonable person has to play them.
I don't buy the argument that we aren't seeing enough games produced. Even if used sales reduced the amount of games that came out each year by say, up to half...there'd still be a fuckton of games each year that are worth playing. Scarcity is a non-issue in this industry. Hell, the same is true for movies, music and books.
edit: Agreed, Quid. The entire games industry could collapse tomorrow, with no new videogames produced again EVER, and I'd still have probably half a decade or more worth of games I own but haven't actually played yet to go through.
And to those saying the industry is suffering...could you point to some actual data? Because I see a few of you saying that a lot, but I could swear the industry has grown significantly along with the rise of used game sales, and that it continues to be a multi-billion dollar a year industry. I see no sign of it failing, which is not to say there aren't companies that fail and dev houses that get a shitty deal with bad publishers from time to time.
The games industry is making more money, but the productions cost more, the deadlines get extended and the publisher deals get worse. Basically, the problem is with the industry's business practices, which is why the industry's proposed solutions are all different variations of short-term ways to milk customers at the expense of long-term loyalty. It's actually been surprising how many hardcore gamers I talk to online and in real life who are completely unexcited about both the next generation and games in general.
I can't help but wonder how much of this comes from the employment practices in the industry. There are whole bodies of research that show that, after a certain number of hours worked per day/week, productivity plummets. From personal experience, I have found that the type of people who live at their desks for 70 hours a week become very narrowly focused on their jobs, to the extent where everything else gets filtered through their work.
With that in mind, it doesn't surprise me that an industry that operates like a series of well-paid sweatshops is having troubles making deadlines, delivering quality products, pleasing customers or innovating beyond minor incremental tweaks of mechanics and ideas from other games and media. It's actually just what you'd expect.
This only works under the assumption that it's industry practices that are the problem.
It's just as if not more likely that the issue is just that this shit is expensive to do. That a AAA release involves absolutely staggering amounts of work and money to create and that the current business model can't easily sustain the cost of producing them.
is this true? triple a titles seem to sell pretty well, enough to cover costs and make a tidy profit i would think. "not-sustainable" seems to suggest that publishers lose money on triple a titles, which seems unlikely.
i mean, the truth is, they just want to make more money, yeh? that's fine and good i think. couching it in terms like not-sustainable seems misleading.
unless of course it is actually not-sustainable. where are you getting the idea that it's not-sustainable from?
I already mentioned this and it was ignored, but it's a very important point.
The majority of Gamestop's trade-in specials give extra credit when trading in towards the purchase of brand new stuff.
So when someone decides they are going to trade in a couple games to get a new release they want, it is often going to be a better deal for them to out their credit towards the $60 copy over the $55 dollar used copy, because they get more credit.
The simple fact that GameStop pushes these sorts of promotions constantly, on a weekly basis, and does it for pretty much every major new release, is proof enough that there is a sizeable amount of gamers who unload their used games turning around and buying a new game. If there wasn't, GameStop wouldn't bother exploiting it. So the "they just trade in games to buy more used games" argument doesn't exactly fly.
It is fair to assume that most consumers will go with the cheaper option, as long as they trust it. And sometimes, the $55 used copy is the cheaper option. But sometimes the new game is the cheaper option specifically because the used games market exists.
Person A trades in a game and gets bonus credit to buy a new one. Person B comes into the store later, has nothing to trade in, so he buys the used copy of the game Person A traded in. One person buys a new game, one buys a used game. Without the used market, person B probably still buys a game because five more bucks isn't much, but person A can't afford to buy the new game. Either way, one new copy is sold.
That is a very simplified and situational example for sure, but the point is that the new and used markets are more intertwined than a lot of detractors are willing to admit.
I think this is an important point. The gaming industry is a unique ecosystem, one in which Gamestop plays an important part. Completely upending this without understanding how the pieces really fit together, solely because some execs and lawyers think they've invented the ultimate money tree, has the real potential to cause negative effects that cascade throughout the industry.
From my perspective, it looks like the console makers are building high-end niche machines aimed at enthusiasts - the Blu-Ray players of gaming - while doing everything they can to cut out the casual audience. Since the industry model, especially at the AAA level, is built around the fact that consoles are populist consumer items, I think they are in for a nasty shock followed by a hard crash.
I would argue that gamers benefit more from having more games made then they do by saving some money buying used.
I'd agree, if there weren't already more games produced every year that are worth playing, and require more time than any reasonable person has to play them.
I don't buy the argument that we aren't seeing enough games produced. Even if used sales reduced the amount of games that came out each year by say, up to half...there'd still be a fuckton of games each year that are worth playing. Scarcity is a non-issue in this industry. Hell, the same is true for movies, music and books.
edit: Agreed, Quid. The entire games industry could collapse tomorrow, with no new videogames produced again EVER, and I'd still have probably half a decade or more worth of games I own but haven't actually played yet to go through.
And to those saying the industry is suffering...could you point to some actual data? Because I see a few of you saying that a lot, but I could swear the industry has grown significantly along with the rise of used game sales, and that it continues to be a multi-billion dollar a year industry. I see no sign of it failing, which is not to say there aren't companies that fail and dev houses that get a shitty deal with bad publishers from time to time.
The games industry is making more money, but the productions cost more, the deadlines get extended and the publisher deals get worse. Basically, the problem is with the industry's business practices, which is why the industry's proposed solutions are all different variations of short-term ways to milk customers at the expense of long-term loyalty. It's actually been surprising how many hardcore gamers I talk to online and in real life who are completely unexcited about both the next generation and games in general.
I can't help but wonder how much of this comes from the employment practices in the industry. There are whole bodies of research that show that, after a certain number of hours worked per day/week, productivity plummets. From personal experience, I have found that the type of people who live at their desks for 70 hours a week become very narrowly focused on their jobs, to the extent where everything else gets filtered through their work.
With that in mind, it doesn't surprise me that an industry that operates like a series of well-paid sweatshops is having troubles making deadlines, delivering quality products, pleasing customers or innovating beyond minor incremental tweaks of mechanics and ideas from other games and media. It's actually just what you'd expect.
This only works under the assumption that it's industry practices that are the problem.
It's just as if not more likely that the issue is just that this shit is expensive to do. That a AAA release involves absolutely staggering amounts of work and money to create and that the current business model can't easily sustain the cost of producing them.
The AAA model is a business practice. It was created by decisions made by publishers and developers, and the decision to keep going in that direction is a business decision.
From the desire to constantly build new engines to need to make everything EPIC instead of building to big moments, there's a lot of manufactured misery from the industry. The need to push closer and closer to photo-realism, include big name talent and license popular music are all business choices that expand budgets. The fact that everyone sees this as "the way it is" is an example of an industry that's on a death march to a self-imposed goal.
One of the biggest ignored revelations from both the Wii and Steam is that people will buy good games with lower production values. Nintendo and Apple have built businesses by treading on a different path.
Agreed on the silliness of many decisions around AAA title development. One thing that's always struck me as odd about game design is that so many major titles seem to treat each new game like something which must be hand made from the ground up. If they could, I suspect they'd reset the universe and start with the Big Bang again and then claim development costs were spiraling out of control.
Movie studios don't burn down the lot and throw away the cameras, murder the actors and then wonder why movies cost so much to make when there's an idea for a sequel a few years later. Why are we doing this with games? Why aren't more studios taking the art, engines, sounds, AI, animations, etc from a game and then using many of those assets (plus new ones where necessary) to tell a new story? Especially when it comes to sequels, though I think this could be employed across genres/IPs as well.
If you build a big replica of a city for a GTA game, why the hell not use a bunch of those assets for an RPG set in the same city? Why not repurpose some stuff to make an RTS? Or a flight sim?
There's been a bunch of backlash against Square Enix for "milking" FFXIII, but I'll be damned if it's not a smart move to *NOT* toss all the assets they've developed and making XIII-2 and now Lightning Returns. Sure, there's new stuff as well, but plenty of those assets were used in the earlier title(s) and now aren't being wasted.
I'd also comment that there are people (like myself) who will always choose new over used when buying games. I don't think there is anything wrong per se with buying used games, it's just I don't do it.
I would agree with some earlier posters who said that shortage of games to play is no longer a problem. With indie games and steam games flood into the market in many genres, and the big companies produce large numbers of 'big budget graphics extravaganza' games. There is no shortage of supply with games, if anything we have an excess of supply and are beginning to reach the limits of our ability to consume based on free time rather than money.
The problem with the AAA model is that too many publishers see the CoD and WoW money and push for high-budget games without thinking. Overspending and unrealistic expectations have been a serious problem the last few years.
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.
My apologies. I've tried contributing to two discussions on different forums in different languages at once, and the result was predictably posting gibberish in both.
Let me try to rephrase my point a little more comprehensively and hopefully comprehensibly.
I think we can all agree that people buy used games due to budget constraints. If your budget allows you to buy the game new, you won't bother buying a game used. The thing to keep in mind about budget handling, is that it isn't a question of whether people have any money at all to spend on their hobbies, but which hobbies they choose to spend money on. I mean, I have more than one hobby that I can invest both time and money in and I choose the one that I consider most valuable. That's not a question of substitution, but of budget management.
I'm into film, into board games, into video games, into acting, writing and directing. I cannot do all those things all the time, I choose to do the ones I want based on how far I can afford to do them. Bringing this point back to topic: I'm saying that for all but enthusiast gamers, video games are just one option out of many. People don't have an inherent need to play video games. They can easily spend their time and money on something else. They don't "substitute" one for the other, but they change their priorities according to what they can afford (timewise, budget-wise, socially, etc.). Nobody's arguing that playing MH3 scratches the same itch as playing Angry Birds does. But if given the option to play a video game that eats up half my time budget and half my hobby budget, compared to spending the same amount on three different things I am interested in... I know which one I will choose to do.
To me it seems obvious that by fixing the "entry costs" of playing video games, the hobby itself becomes less attractive to people who have more interests than money and time to actually pursue them.
This doesn't make any sense though. You are also keep trying to say you aren't talking about substitution while talking about substitution. It's a concept in economics that is about exactly what we are talking about.
Anyway:
1) Actually yes, we can assume that alot of people will not buy new if they can buy used. The used market in console gaming is fairly well established and trusted, so many people will buy used simply because it's cheaper. We know this in part because Gamestop operates on this very principle and makes alot of money doing it.
2) Your talk of other entertainment products they could spend it on doesn't work because they could do that right now. If you really could just substitute video games with, say, board games, why are you buying video games right now? And the answer is because obviously you value however many video games you buy now more then you do the number of board games you could buy with the same money.
Gamers are already prioritizing games over other forms of entertainment and marginal increases in the cost of gaming is not likely to do anything but see small drops in the number of units purchased or something, instead of some imagined total conversion where they suddenly go to the ballet every week and play Angry Birds more or something.
I think we probably just think of different things when we use the term substitution. Instead of changing what consumers buy to satisfy their gaming "itch", I'm arguing that customers simply turn to satisfy some other "itch" and ignore gaming altogether. It's not that they game with something else, but that they do something else with their time entirely. To borrow from some Wikipedia terms, a substitute good satsifies the same need as the original good, whereas I'm arguing that what will happen is that interest in a good (video games) will decrease once the expenses rise. I'm also not sold on this being only a marginal increase (in which case I'd agree that we probably wouldn't see much change at first), I think the price change would be substantial. Thanks to e-bay you can get used games for as little as 10-15% of the original price.
As for the rest of your argument.. gamers aren't the group that I'm talking about here. Gamers, i.e. enthusiasts, have decidedly different purchasing behaviour from non-enthusiasts.
I would argue that gamers benefit more from having more games made then they do by saving some money buying used.
I'd agree, if there weren't already more games produced every year that are worth playing, and require more time than any reasonable person has to play them.
I don't buy the argument that we aren't seeing enough games produced. Even if used sales reduced the amount of games that came out each year by say, up to half...there'd still be a fuckton of games each year that are worth playing. Scarcity is a non-issue in this industry. Hell, the same is true for movies, music and books.
edit: Agreed, Quid. The entire games industry could collapse tomorrow, with no new videogames produced again EVER, and I'd still have probably half a decade or more worth of games I own but haven't actually played yet to go through.
And to those saying the industry is suffering...could you point to some actual data? Because I see a few of you saying that a lot, but I could swear the industry has grown significantly along with the rise of used game sales, and that it continues to be a multi-billion dollar a year industry. I see no sign of it failing, which is not to say there aren't companies that fail and dev houses that get a shitty deal with bad publishers from time to time.
The games industry is making more money, but the productions cost more, the deadlines get extended and the publisher deals get worse. Basically, the problem is with the industry's business practices, which is why the industry's proposed solutions are all different variations of short-term ways to milk customers at the expense of long-term loyalty. It's actually been surprising how many hardcore gamers I talk to online and in real life who are completely unexcited about both the next generation and games in general.
I can't help but wonder how much of this comes from the employment practices in the industry. There are whole bodies of research that show that, after a certain number of hours worked per day/week, productivity plummets. From personal experience, I have found that the type of people who live at their desks for 70 hours a week become very narrowly focused on their jobs, to the extent where everything else gets filtered through their work.
With that in mind, it doesn't surprise me that an industry that operates like a series of well-paid sweatshops is having troubles making deadlines, delivering quality products, pleasing customers or innovating beyond minor incremental tweaks of mechanics and ideas from other games and media. It's actually just what you'd expect.
This only works under the assumption that it's industry practices that are the problem.
It's just as if not more likely that the issue is just that this shit is expensive to do. That a AAA release involves absolutely staggering amounts of work and money to create and that the current business model can't easily sustain the cost of producing them.
The AAA model is a business practice. It was created by decisions made by publishers and developers, and the decision to keep going in that direction is a business decision.
From the desire to constantly build new engines to need to make everything EPIC instead of building to big moments, there's a lot of manufactured misery from the industry. The need to push closer and closer to photo-realism, include big name talent and license popular music are all business choices that expand budgets. The fact that everyone sees this as "the way it is" is an example of an industry that's on a death march to a self-imposed goal.
One of the biggest ignored revelations from both the Wii and Steam is that people will buy good games with lower production values. Nintendo and Apple have built businesses by treading on a different path.
But now you've completely shifted your definition of "industry practices". This response isn't about work hours or pay or management structure anymore, it's about the type of games being made.
Which is exactly the point everyone is making. If by "business practices" you now mean "making AAA games" then of course people are going to be concerned about the industry's health because they like the kind of games it makes.
No one is ignoring that smaller budget games can sell, they are just pointing out that AAA games can also sell like gangbusters. That people like them. And that many people would consider it a damn shame were they to start disappearing.
I find it interesting that when you come down to it, the industry that objects the most to used sales, and actively tries to shut it down is the software industry.
You make a game one time. after that initial cost, creating more copies costs nothing. distributing copies costs as little as the material it is delivered on, and the cost of transporting it.
Compare this to the Auto industry. they have to design cars that look better, and perform better than the competition, but after finally having the car design finished, they have to build the entire car from scratch every time they send one off to be distributed.
Could you imagine if transferring a car title required you to pay the manufacturer 10% of the car's original sale price?
Yet it's the software industry that is dying. The one, single industry in the world that enjoys the benefit of having costless production of units is the one that somehow suffers from people reselling their product used.
Go in, get the girl, kill the dragon. What's so hard about that? ... Oh, so THAT'S what a dragon looks like.
I never buy used anymore but that's mostly because I am either buying a game day one and therefore buying it new, or it is not as important to me to have it day one and thus I can wait half a year for it to go on sale for twenty bucks.
And honestly, waiting half a year to buy a new copy on sale isn't really any better than buying a used game. Games are pretty much determined to be a success or failure on their initial sales. If you're not buying a game within like, the first month give or take, you're not really doing much of anything help make the game an official success.
I would argue that gamers benefit more from having more games made then they do by saving some money buying used.
I'd agree, if there weren't already more games produced every year that are worth playing, and require more time than any reasonable person has to play them.
I don't buy the argument that we aren't seeing enough games produced. Even if used sales reduced the amount of games that came out each year by say, up to half...there'd still be a fuckton of games each year that are worth playing. Scarcity is a non-issue in this industry. Hell, the same is true for movies, music and books.
edit: Agreed, Quid. The entire games industry could collapse tomorrow, with no new videogames produced again EVER, and I'd still have probably half a decade or more worth of games I own but haven't actually played yet to go through.
And to those saying the industry is suffering...could you point to some actual data? Because I see a few of you saying that a lot, but I could swear the industry has grown significantly along with the rise of used game sales, and that it continues to be a multi-billion dollar a year industry. I see no sign of it failing, which is not to say there aren't companies that fail and dev houses that get a shitty deal with bad publishers from time to time.
The games industry is making more money, but the productions cost more, the deadlines get extended and the publisher deals get worse. Basically, the problem is with the industry's business practices, which is why the industry's proposed solutions are all different variations of short-term ways to milk customers at the expense of long-term loyalty. It's actually been surprising how many hardcore gamers I talk to online and in real life who are completely unexcited about both the next generation and games in general.
I can't help but wonder how much of this comes from the employment practices in the industry. There are whole bodies of research that show that, after a certain number of hours worked per day/week, productivity plummets. From personal experience, I have found that the type of people who live at their desks for 70 hours a week become very narrowly focused on their jobs, to the extent where everything else gets filtered through their work.
With that in mind, it doesn't surprise me that an industry that operates like a series of well-paid sweatshops is having troubles making deadlines, delivering quality products, pleasing customers or innovating beyond minor incremental tweaks of mechanics and ideas from other games and media. It's actually just what you'd expect.
This only works under the assumption that it's industry practices that are the problem.
It's just as if not more likely that the issue is just that this shit is expensive to do. That a AAA release involves absolutely staggering amounts of work and money to create and that the current business model can't easily sustain the cost of producing them.
The AAA model is a business practice. It was created by decisions made by publishers and developers, and the decision to keep going in that direction is a business decision.
From the desire to constantly build new engines to need to make everything EPIC instead of building to big moments, there's a lot of manufactured misery from the industry. The need to push closer and closer to photo-realism, include big name talent and license popular music are all business choices that expand budgets. The fact that everyone sees this as "the way it is" is an example of an industry that's on a death march to a self-imposed goal.
One of the biggest ignored revelations from both the Wii and Steam is that people will buy good games with lower production values. Nintendo and Apple have built businesses by treading on a different path.
But now you've completely shifted your definition of "industry practices". This response isn't about work hours or pay or management structure anymore, it's about the type of games being made.
Which is exactly the point everyone is making. If by "business practices" you now mean "making AAA games" then of course people are going to be concerned about the industry's health because they like the kind of games it makes.
No one is ignoring that smaller budget games can sell, they are just pointing out that AAA games can also sell like gangbusters. That people like them. And that many people would consider it a damn shame were they to start disappearing.
These are all industry practices. In this case, it looks like an industry full of overworked drones and greedy execs who are destroying the industry to fulfill a goal - bigger and better AAA games/more microtransactions/wholesale IP clampdowns - that they have set for themselves. When a company shows a new path - Wii Sports - it is ignored for more photo realistic brown building.
From the outside, it looks like a flailing business model. The fact that it is flailing is insane when you consider that we're talking about an industry that is currently more profitable than Hollywood. The fact that studios are failing left and right, and everyone is starting to realize that the next generation looks troubled out of the gate, just highlights this.
I find it interesting that when you come down to it, the industry that objects the most to used sales, and actively tries to shut it down is the software industry.
You make a game one time. after that initial cost, creating more copies costs nothing. distributing copies costs as little as the material it is delivered on, and the cost of transporting it.
Compare this to the Auto industry. they have to design cars that look better, and perform better than the competition, but after finally having the car design finished, they have to build the entire car from scratch every time they send one off to be distributed.
Could you imagine if transferring a car title required you to pay the manufacturer 10% of the car's original sale price?
Yet it's the software industry that is dying. The one, single industry in the world that enjoys the benefit of having costless production of units is the one that somehow suffers from people reselling their product used.
Uh, that's not really a benefit. The basically zero marginal cost of production is why IP even exists. Because that kind of market causes all the costs to be born by initial producer in a lump sum investment and not at all by anyone else along the chain. That makes used sales far more harmful.
Cars also degrade extremely quickly, which keeps the used car market far more in check.
And that's the unexamined assumption. I have also seen quite a lot of data on these threads that point the other way - i.e. the used game ecosystem actually benefits new games through trade-ins and building word of mouth for sequels. It is quite possible that used games actually serve as a profit driver for new games and cutting out of the loop will cost the developers.
One of the interesting things about the used car markets is that it allows younger and poorer drivers to develop a brand loyalty for manufacturers and models they cannot otherwise afford. So when they get to the point where they can afford a new car, they choose the car makers who built their used cars.
Lots of research on this. It's a major reason that NO car company tries to restrict used sales from their dealers.
It becomes a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem, but the used industry is so large because game pricing is so rigid at launch, and prices aren't adjusted quickly.
Other products with similar use patterns don't have such a huge issue with used sales, mostly because prices are lower and the benefits of saving money are easily outweighed by other factors.
If we saw more flexibility in pricing, and ways for consumers to adjust the price of gaming to fit the value they desire, then there is nothing inherently wrong with limiting used sales (minus more esoteric rights-based arguments). I don't necessarily have faith that this will be the case, though.
I already mentioned this and it was ignored, but it's a very important point.
The majority of Gamestop's trade-in specials give extra credit when trading in towards the purchase of brand new stuff.
So when someone decides they are going to trade in a couple games to get a new release they want, it is often going to be a better deal for them to out their credit towards the $60 copy over the $55 dollar used copy, because they get more credit.
The simple fact that GameStop pushes these sorts of promotions constantly, on a weekly basis, and does it for pretty much every major new release, is proof enough that there is a sizeable amount of gamers who unload their used games turning around and buying a new game. If there wasn't, GameStop wouldn't bother exploiting it. So the "they just trade in games to buy more used games" argument doesn't exactly fly.
It is fair to assume that most consumers will go with the cheaper option, as long as they trust it. And sometimes, the $55 used copy is the cheaper option. But sometimes the new game is the cheaper option specifically because the used games market exists.
Person A trades in a game and gets bonus credit to buy a new one. Person B comes into the store later, has nothing to trade in, so he buys the used copy of the game Person A traded in. One person buys a new game, one buys a used game. Without the used market, person B probably still buys a game because five more bucks isn't much, but person A can't afford to buy the new game. Either way, one new copy is sold.
That is a very simplified and situational example for sure, but the point is that the new and used markets are more intertwined than a lot of detractors are willing to admit.
It's not a matter of how intertwined they are, it's a question of whether it's a net positive or negative effect. And the only people with the information to put that together are the publishers. Who seem to think net negative.
It's in no way definitive since the publishers could just be stupid, but the only thing we have to go on seems to suggest that used sales are not a boon to the industry's profitability.
I never buy used anymore but that's mostly because I am either buying a game day one and therefore buying it new, or it is not as important to me to have it day one and thus I can wait half a year for it to go on sale for twenty bucks.
And honestly, waiting half a year to buy a new copy on sale isn't really any better than buying a used game. Games are pretty much determined to be a success or failure on their initial sales. If you're not buying a game within like, the first month give or take, you're not really doing much of anything help make the game an official success.
Not doing much to make the official post-launch numbers no. And those, sadly, are a big part of the benchmarks set for developers.
However, later sales are still a help to people who made the game and DD systems have given games longer tales which hopefully is bringing the industry around.
And that's the unexamined assumption. I have also seen quite a lot of data on these threads that point the other way - i.e. the used game ecosystem actually benefits new games through trade-ins and building word of mouth for sequels. It is quite possible that used games actually serve as a profit driver for new games and cutting out of the loop will cost the developers.
One of the interesting things about the used car markets is that it allows younger and poorer drivers to develop a brand loyalty for manufacturers and models they cannot otherwise afford. So when they get to the point where they can afford a new car, they choose the car makers who built their used cars.
Lots of research on this. It's a major reason that NO car company tries to restrict used sales from their dealers.
No, that's not the same assumption you want to talk about in this post. I'm talking about what the guy I was responding to brought up: the low marginal cost of creating a copy of a video game (or most other digital products) Quite simply, because of low marginal costs of production, storage, etc, games are far more succeptible to being undercut by a used market then something like a car because the original creator bares almost all of the cost.
Now, your second bit here is exactly what I'm talking about above and the point is, we don't know. You say there's lots of research for cars on this subject and I'm saying we seem to have none of games so we can't assume the same things work. Especially since publishers, unlike car companies as you point out, are very interested in restricting the used market. Are they dumb or do they know something we don't?
The problem with the AAA model is that too many publishers see the CoD and WoW money and push for high-budget games without thinking. Overspending and unrealistic expectations have been a serious problem the last few years.
And this is how I see the current gaming industry. And when I read about the game industry "failing," maybe I'm okay with that.
It's not like gaming as a hobby will cease to exist. There will always be gamers, and there will always be video games, and there will always be video game "systems," even if the precise definitions of what those things are might shift.
Right now, the AAA model places a lot of companies in a situation where they have to drop $10M on game development and then sell a hojillion copies, and because they need to sell that game to the mass market, they need to make sure it has mass market appeal. Can't be too experimental, has to be flashy, ideally it should be a sequel to an existing franchise. A few months ago, I spent an evening at a friend's house playing CoD. Except actually, it might not have been CoD. Maybe it was MW? Honestly, I don't remember which one it was. It was the one where I ran around shooting dudes with machine guns. It was pretty. It played like every other game in that genre. It was... fine. I'm not quite sure why I should be so upset that someday there might be fewer of those games around.
I like a lot of AAA games, sure. Mass Effect, Mario, Zelda, God of War, Assassin's Creed, Elder Scrolls, Borderlands, Fallout. They're good games. I enjoy them. No matter what happens to the industry, we will see a certain number of super-polished gaming experiences. We always have, since the days of the NES. We'll also always see a lot of smaller, experimental games. The ones that are cheap and sometimes interesting and sometimes they become breakout hits. The question, I think, is what happens to the games in the middle? The expensive games that aren't that great, the Dante's Infernos and Bulletstorms. Will they live or die? I dunno. I don't really care, I guess.
If I surrender the middling games that try to be experiences and only half-succeed, if I let them die a cold and gloryless death, do I get to keep buying used games? Do I get to keep my physical media? Because if so, give me a knife and I'll stab those fuckers myself.
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.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Let's not forget that a used car is very different from a new car, and it is VERY rare for a new car to be competing with used cars from the same model year, vs games where a new game is competing with an identical copy within weeks (sometimes days) of launch. I don't think that cars and games are comparable at all in this regard.
I would argue that gamers benefit more from having more games made then they do by saving some money buying used.
I'd agree, if there weren't already more games produced every year that are worth playing, and require more time than any reasonable person has to play them.
I don't buy the argument that we aren't seeing enough games produced. Even if used sales reduced the amount of games that came out each year by say, up to half...there'd still be a fuckton of games each year that are worth playing. Scarcity is a non-issue in this industry. Hell, the same is true for movies, music and books.
edit: Agreed, Quid. The entire games industry could collapse tomorrow, with no new videogames produced again EVER, and I'd still have probably half a decade or more worth of games I own but haven't actually played yet to go through.
And to those saying the industry is suffering...could you point to some actual data? Because I see a few of you saying that a lot, but I could swear the industry has grown significantly along with the rise of used game sales, and that it continues to be a multi-billion dollar a year industry. I see no sign of it failing, which is not to say there aren't companies that fail and dev houses that get a shitty deal with bad publishers from time to time.
The games industry is making more money, but the productions cost more, the deadlines get extended and the publisher deals get worse. Basically, the problem is with the industry's business practices, which is why the industry's proposed solutions are all different variations of short-term ways to milk customers at the expense of long-term loyalty. It's actually been surprising how many hardcore gamers I talk to online and in real life who are completely unexcited about both the next generation and games in general.
I can't help but wonder how much of this comes from the employment practices in the industry. There are whole bodies of research that show that, after a certain number of hours worked per day/week, productivity plummets. From personal experience, I have found that the type of people who live at their desks for 70 hours a week become very narrowly focused on their jobs, to the extent where everything else gets filtered through their work.
With that in mind, it doesn't surprise me that an industry that operates like a series of well-paid sweatshops is having troubles making deadlines, delivering quality products, pleasing customers or innovating beyond minor incremental tweaks of mechanics and ideas from other games and media. It's actually just what you'd expect.
This only works under the assumption that it's industry practices that are the problem.
It's just as if not more likely that the issue is just that this shit is expensive to do. That a AAA release involves absolutely staggering amounts of work and money to create and that the current business model can't easily sustain the cost of producing them.
The AAA model is a business practice. It was created by decisions made by publishers and developers, and the decision to keep going in that direction is a business decision.
From the desire to constantly build new engines to need to make everything EPIC instead of building to big moments, there's a lot of manufactured misery from the industry. The need to push closer and closer to photo-realism, include big name talent and license popular music are all business choices that expand budgets. The fact that everyone sees this as "the way it is" is an example of an industry that's on a death march to a self-imposed goal.
One of the biggest ignored revelations from both the Wii and Steam is that people will buy good games with lower production values. Nintendo and Apple have built businesses by treading on a different path.
But now you've completely shifted your definition of "industry practices". This response isn't about work hours or pay or management structure anymore, it's about the type of games being made.
Which is exactly the point everyone is making. If by "business practices" you now mean "making AAA games" then of course people are going to be concerned about the industry's health because they like the kind of games it makes.
No one is ignoring that smaller budget games can sell, they are just pointing out that AAA games can also sell like gangbusters. That people like them. And that many people would consider it a damn shame were they to start disappearing.
These are all industry practices. In this case, it looks like an industry full of overworked drones and greedy execs who are destroying the industry to fulfill a goal - bigger and better AAA games/more microtransactions/wholesale IP clampdowns - that they have set for themselves. When a company shows a new path - Wii Sports - it is ignored for more photo realistic brown building.
From the outside, it looks like a flailing business model. The fact that it is flailing is insane when you consider that we're talking about an industry that is currently more profitable than Hollywood. The fact that studios are failing left and right, and everyone is starting to realize that the next generation looks troubled out of the gate, just highlights this.
Except CoD makes insane amounts of money too, no matter how much you keep ignoring it. And alot of people like that kind of game. If WiiSports is the only game in town, we are all poorer for it.
You keep trying to link bad working conditions and AAA game development together for some reason, which makes no sense. They are separate issues. For one, the industry has sucked for ages now, long before the current emphasis on AAA games.
Just on the AAA games subject, what you are missing is that it has been in many ways a successful model for the industry. Sales and revenue were going up for many years under it. In fact, the timing of recent drops in revenue could indicate this is an effect of the weak economy more then anything. Regardless, finding ways to increase revenue could help the issue alot.
It is, however, a volatile model and this seems a big issue. It's leading to the same kind of behaviour you see from Hollywood: lots of very safe big budget projects to lower the risk of a bomb.
The parallels are closer than you think, Shryke.The major factor is time, software moves faster than cars. people buy cars more infrequently, and cars fall into the used category slower.
games age and become unplayable over time, just as cars do. especially console games when the generation moves on.
the main difference is; unsold units don't cost much of anything with software.
unsold units for everything else equal tangible monetary loses. Software is the about the only industry that DOESN'T take a major loss on unsold products. yet are the only industry insisting unsold products caused by used sales are destroying them.
galdon on
Go in, get the girl, kill the dragon. What's so hard about that? ... Oh, so THAT'S what a dragon looks like.
I'm with you Jeffe. If (and it's a big if) the anti-used game types are right and continuing along this path will mean less games, I'm totally okay with losing the middle-of-the-road games that end up killing studios like THQ.
Big, AAA titles aren't going anywhere, and experimental indie titles aren't going anywhere...and really, that's all I ever really play or value in any meaningful way.
Posts
That's a different issue and related to alot more factors.
If we assume this is taking place ("this" being "games making low sales because they are released at the same time as other games") then there's many potential things going on:
Is it budget constraints that are causing this behaviour? (ie - only so much money to spend on games)
Or time constraints? (ie - only so much time to spend on games)
Is it marketing overlap? (ie - you can't hype your market your game because it's being drowned out by another game)
So sort of social factor, like needing to jump in while the multiplayer is still popular or while the game is still the current zeitgeist?
Which factor is at work here rather drastically changes what the market in question is like and how it will react to changes.
If, for instance, it's a budget constraint, it doesn't really matter when you are released unless you can steal impulse sales off the other games by releasing earlier or something.
Interestingly too, if it's all budget constraints then lowering the price of games will not lead to revenue increases, but will simply spread the income out over a larger set of games. This might have a positive effect on the industry though, as instead of 1 huge profit-making game and a bunch of other failures that get shutdown, you get a bunch of moderate successes that developers and publishers will continue to support.
I suspect, however, there are alot of time and social constraints at work here. There's only so many, like multiplayer shooters the market can support because of the time players devote to them and the critical mass of players you need in each game to make it work.
My, and everyone else's backlog, says nope.
I'd agree, if there weren't already more games produced every year that are worth playing, and require more time than any reasonable person has to play them.
I don't buy the argument that we aren't seeing enough games produced. Even if used sales reduced the amount of games that came out each year by say, up to half...there'd still be a fuckton of games each year that are worth playing. Scarcity is a non-issue in this industry. Hell, the same is true for movies, music and books.
edit: Agreed, Quid. The entire games industry could collapse tomorrow, with no new videogames produced again EVER, and I'd still have probably half a decade or more worth of games I own but haven't actually played yet to go through.
And to those saying the industry is suffering...could you point to some actual data? Because I see a few of you saying that a lot, but I could swear the industry has grown significantly along with the rise of used game sales, and that it continues to be a multi-billion dollar a year industry. I see no sign of it failing, which is not to say there aren't companies that fail and dev houses that get a shitty deal with bad publishers from time to time.
I'm thrilled to have a good backlog, it will provide me with ample video game related entertainment once second christmas is over and nothing worth a damn comes out until next November.
My apologies. I've tried contributing to two discussions on different forums in different languages at once, and the result was predictably posting gibberish in both.
Let me try to rephrase my point a little more comprehensively and hopefully comprehensibly.
I think we can all agree that people buy used games due to budget constraints. If your budget allows you to buy the game new, you won't bother buying a game used. The thing to keep in mind about budget handling, is that it isn't a question of whether people have any money at all to spend on their hobbies, but which hobbies they choose to spend money on. I mean, I have more than one hobby that I can invest both time and money in and I choose the one that I consider most valuable. That's not a question of substitution, but of budget management.
I'm into film, into board games, into video games, into acting, writing and directing. I cannot do all those things all the time, I choose to do the ones I want based on how far I can afford to do them. Bringing this point back to topic: I'm saying that for all but enthusiast gamers, video games are just one option out of many. People don't have an inherent need to play video games. They can easily spend their time and money on something else. They don't "substitute" one for the other, but they change their priorities according to what they can afford (timewise, budget-wise, socially, etc.). Nobody's arguing that playing MH3 scratches the same itch as playing Angry Birds does. But if given the option to play a video game that eats up half my time budget and half my hobby budget, compared to spending the same amount on three different things I am interested in... I know which one I will choose to do.
To me it seems obvious that by fixing the "entry costs" of playing video games, the hobby itself becomes less attractive to people who have more interests than money and time to actually pursue them.
Nope, that's just the same way things are now, but with more confusion. I think the market for "slightly cheaper, with less functionality" would be very limited.
The only thing that is likely to combat the price-sensitivity that used games support is a complete move to a PC-esque system, where price drops are frequent and timely, and big sales with huge discounts happen even on new (and sometimes not-yet-released) titles. As I mentioned further up, I could buy the new Tomb Raider game on PC for $36 right now, or $60 on 360/PS3. The only mitigating factor there is that if I *do* buy the PS3 version, I can play it and beat it and trade it in for $30+ back to use for other game purchases.
Yeah... I'd have a hard time paying money for a broken game with no resale value. I might be interested if they were to create the illusion of empowering the consumer by casting it as more of an a la carte thing. $20 for the engine, $10 base single player content pack, $10 multi player. Say I don't want the extra campaign missions, then I don't have to pay for them.
The games industry is making more money, but the productions cost more, the deadlines get extended and the publisher deals get worse. Basically, the problem is with the industry's business practices, which is why the industry's proposed solutions are all different variations of short-term ways to milk customers at the expense of long-term loyalty. It's actually been surprising how many hardcore gamers I talk to online and in real life who are completely unexcited about both the next generation and games in general.
I can't help but wonder how much of this comes from the employment practices in the industry. There are whole bodies of research that show that, after a certain number of hours worked per day/week, productivity plummets. From personal experience, I have found that the type of people who live at their desks for 70 hours a week become very narrowly focused on their jobs, to the extent where everything else gets filtered through their work.
With that in mind, it doesn't surprise me that an industry that operates like a series of well-paid sweatshops is having troubles making deadlines, delivering quality products, pleasing customers or innovating beyond minor incremental tweaks of mechanics and ideas from other games and media. It's actually just what you'd expect.
I don't think that is true. I think that there are plenty of people who could buy the games new, and only buy them used because the cheaper option is available. Even if people on averaged bought and played half as many games in a world without used, I still think it would be a net positive, because the fate of developers gets decided during a very short window post launch, and every used sale during that window (the infamous $55 used games included) actively hurts the chance of the developer getting hired to make another game.
This only works under the assumption that it's industry practices that are the problem.
It's just as if not more likely that the issue is just that this shit is expensive to do. That a AAA release involves absolutely staggering amounts of work and money to create and that the current business model can't easily sustain the cost of producing them.
There is no conclusive evidence that the lost sales the used games market causes overshadows the gained sales the used market generates or vice versa. Used games have both a positive and negative effect on sales.
The arguments against used games always dismiss the positive impact on the market the ability to sell and trade games has and the increased buying power it gives consumers.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
Let me try to explain myself another way.
I see some people advocating the stripping of consumer rights based off a claim that $54.99 games are significantly cutting into developer and publisher profits.
However, no where does this group provide any support to back up that claim. In other words, this $54.99 argument is meant to obfuscate the real issues and be an emotionally charged plea to side with the poor developers and publishers and to hate that evil Gamestop. (oddly, this argument is also meant to guilt people into buying new and against their own rights...)
In other other words, this group (who I see you a part of) are willing to strip some consumer rights because developers might lose some money, maybe, possibly from these sales. Now, the claim sounds reasonable, but there's no proof to back up any of this.
If I may elaborate with a current political analogy. Some politicians in America are advocating for voter ID laws, ID's in order to vote. Now, on the surface this argument seems reasonable: a reasonable person could easily say "yes", I don't want non-citizens to vote, so IDs sound like a good plan to prevent that. However, much like this $54.99 argument, there's no evidence supporting the claim that voter fraud (thus the need for voter IDs) is even a problem. In short, the politicians manufactured a problem to promote their agenda of Voter ID laws to disenfranchise certain groups of individuals. In turn, this benefits the politicians advocating these "common sense" voter ID laws.
Let us return to this $54.99 argument. I see the same thing happening here: a "common sense" argument is being presented that a reasonable person would agree with: "yes", it sounds like people would go for that $54.99 game over the $59.99 game. However, again, like the voter ID issue, there's absolutely no proof that these sales are significantly cutting into developer/publisher profits, yet the argument advances because "it makes sense". But again, like the politicians, I see the developers and publishers pushing this argument in order to strip consumers of some of their rights; therefore, I see them manufacturing a problem in order to promote their own agendas ($$$).
So, until some sort of evidence besides "hunches," "gut feelings," or "common sense" is presented to support these claims, it's a non-issue to me meant to mislead the general public into feeling sorry for those poor developers and publishers and to hate that evil Gamestop.
TL;DR People who are advocating for changing the status quo and stripping consumer rights better provide proof.
Whatever the problem is, you will not convince me that punishing the consumer by taking away their consumer privileges is the correct response.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
This doesn't make any sense though. You are also keep trying to say you aren't talking about substitution while talking about substitution. It's a concept in economics that is about exactly what we are talking about.
Anyway:
1) Actually yes, we can assume that alot of people will not buy new if they can buy used. The used market in console gaming is fairly well established and trusted, so many people will buy used simply because it's cheaper. We know this in part because Gamestop operates on this very principle and makes alot of money doing it.
2) Your talk of other entertainment products they could spend it on doesn't work because they could do that right now. If you really could just substitute video games with, say, board games, why are you buying video games right now? And the answer is because obviously you value however many video games you buy now more then you do the number of board games you could buy with the same money.
Gamers are already prioritizing games over other forms of entertainment and marginal increases in the cost of gaming is not likely to do anything but see small drops in the number of units purchased or something, instead of some imagined total conversion where they suddenly go to the ballet every week and play Angry Birds more or something.
It doesn't dismiss it, it merely considers it smaller then the negative impact.
It's difficult to know which way it actually leans, but the industry seems to think it's more negative then positive.
The majority of Gamestop's trade-in specials give extra credit when trading in towards the purchase of brand new stuff.
So when someone decides they are going to trade in a couple games to get a new release they want, it is often going to be a better deal for them to out their credit towards the $60 copy over the $55 dollar used copy, because they get more credit.
The simple fact that GameStop pushes these sorts of promotions constantly, on a weekly basis, and does it for pretty much every major new release, is proof enough that there is a sizeable amount of gamers who unload their used games turning around and buying a new game. If there wasn't, GameStop wouldn't bother exploiting it. So the "they just trade in games to buy more used games" argument doesn't exactly fly.
It is fair to assume that most consumers will go with the cheaper option, as long as they trust it. And sometimes, the $55 used copy is the cheaper option. But sometimes the new game is the cheaper option specifically because the used games market exists.
Person A trades in a game and gets bonus credit to buy a new one. Person B comes into the store later, has nothing to trade in, so he buys the used copy of the game Person A traded in. One person buys a new game, one buys a used game. Without the used market, person B probably still buys a game because five more bucks isn't much, but person A can't afford to buy the new game. Either way, one new copy is sold.
That is a very simplified and situational example for sure, but the point is that the new and used markets are more intertwined than a lot of detractors are willing to admit.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
The AAA model is a business practice. It was created by decisions made by publishers and developers, and the decision to keep going in that direction is a business decision.
From the desire to constantly build new engines to need to make everything EPIC instead of building to big moments, there's a lot of manufactured misery from the industry. The need to push closer and closer to photo-realism, include big name talent and license popular music are all business choices that expand budgets. The fact that everyone sees this as "the way it is" is an example of an industry that's on a death march to a self-imposed goal.
One of the biggest ignored revelations from both the Wii and Steam is that people will buy good games with lower production values. Nintendo and Apple have built businesses by treading on a different path.
is this true? triple a titles seem to sell pretty well, enough to cover costs and make a tidy profit i would think. "not-sustainable" seems to suggest that publishers lose money on triple a titles, which seems unlikely.
i mean, the truth is, they just want to make more money, yeh? that's fine and good i think. couching it in terms like not-sustainable seems misleading.
unless of course it is actually not-sustainable. where are you getting the idea that it's not-sustainable from?
I think this is an important point. The gaming industry is a unique ecosystem, one in which Gamestop plays an important part. Completely upending this without understanding how the pieces really fit together, solely because some execs and lawyers think they've invented the ultimate money tree, has the real potential to cause negative effects that cascade throughout the industry.
From my perspective, it looks like the console makers are building high-end niche machines aimed at enthusiasts - the Blu-Ray players of gaming - while doing everything they can to cut out the casual audience. Since the industry model, especially at the AAA level, is built around the fact that consoles are populist consumer items, I think they are in for a nasty shock followed by a hard crash.
Agreed on the silliness of many decisions around AAA title development. One thing that's always struck me as odd about game design is that so many major titles seem to treat each new game like something which must be hand made from the ground up. If they could, I suspect they'd reset the universe and start with the Big Bang again and then claim development costs were spiraling out of control.
Movie studios don't burn down the lot and throw away the cameras, murder the actors and then wonder why movies cost so much to make when there's an idea for a sequel a few years later. Why are we doing this with games? Why aren't more studios taking the art, engines, sounds, AI, animations, etc from a game and then using many of those assets (plus new ones where necessary) to tell a new story? Especially when it comes to sequels, though I think this could be employed across genres/IPs as well.
If you build a big replica of a city for a GTA game, why the hell not use a bunch of those assets for an RPG set in the same city? Why not repurpose some stuff to make an RTS? Or a flight sim?
There's been a bunch of backlash against Square Enix for "milking" FFXIII, but I'll be damned if it's not a smart move to *NOT* toss all the assets they've developed and making XIII-2 and now Lightning Returns. Sure, there's new stuff as well, but plenty of those assets were used in the earlier title(s) and now aren't being wasted.
I would agree with some earlier posters who said that shortage of games to play is no longer a problem. With indie games and steam games flood into the market in many genres, and the big companies produce large numbers of 'big budget graphics extravaganza' games. There is no shortage of supply with games, if anything we have an excess of supply and are beginning to reach the limits of our ability to consume based on free time rather than money.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
I think we probably just think of different things when we use the term substitution. Instead of changing what consumers buy to satisfy their gaming "itch", I'm arguing that customers simply turn to satisfy some other "itch" and ignore gaming altogether. It's not that they game with something else, but that they do something else with their time entirely. To borrow from some Wikipedia terms, a substitute good satsifies the same need as the original good, whereas I'm arguing that what will happen is that interest in a good (video games) will decrease once the expenses rise. I'm also not sold on this being only a marginal increase (in which case I'd agree that we probably wouldn't see much change at first), I think the price change would be substantial. Thanks to e-bay you can get used games for as little as 10-15% of the original price.
As for the rest of your argument.. gamers aren't the group that I'm talking about here. Gamers, i.e. enthusiasts, have decidedly different purchasing behaviour from non-enthusiasts.
But now you've completely shifted your definition of "industry practices". This response isn't about work hours or pay or management structure anymore, it's about the type of games being made.
Which is exactly the point everyone is making. If by "business practices" you now mean "making AAA games" then of course people are going to be concerned about the industry's health because they like the kind of games it makes.
No one is ignoring that smaller budget games can sell, they are just pointing out that AAA games can also sell like gangbusters. That people like them. And that many people would consider it a damn shame were they to start disappearing.
You make a game one time. after that initial cost, creating more copies costs nothing. distributing copies costs as little as the material it is delivered on, and the cost of transporting it.
Compare this to the Auto industry. they have to design cars that look better, and perform better than the competition, but after finally having the car design finished, they have to build the entire car from scratch every time they send one off to be distributed.
Could you imagine if transferring a car title required you to pay the manufacturer 10% of the car's original sale price?
Yet it's the software industry that is dying. The one, single industry in the world that enjoys the benefit of having costless production of units is the one that somehow suffers from people reselling their product used.
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UChq0-eLNiMaJlIjqerf0v2A? <-- Game related youtube stuff
http://galdon.newgrounds.com/games/ <-- games I've made. (spoiler warning: They might suck!)
And honestly, waiting half a year to buy a new copy on sale isn't really any better than buying a used game. Games are pretty much determined to be a success or failure on their initial sales. If you're not buying a game within like, the first month give or take, you're not really doing much of anything help make the game an official success.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
These are all industry practices. In this case, it looks like an industry full of overworked drones and greedy execs who are destroying the industry to fulfill a goal - bigger and better AAA games/more microtransactions/wholesale IP clampdowns - that they have set for themselves. When a company shows a new path - Wii Sports - it is ignored for more photo realistic brown building.
From the outside, it looks like a flailing business model. The fact that it is flailing is insane when you consider that we're talking about an industry that is currently more profitable than Hollywood. The fact that studios are failing left and right, and everyone is starting to realize that the next generation looks troubled out of the gate, just highlights this.
Uh, that's not really a benefit. The basically zero marginal cost of production is why IP even exists. Because that kind of market causes all the costs to be born by initial producer in a lump sum investment and not at all by anyone else along the chain. That makes used sales far more harmful.
Cars also degrade extremely quickly, which keeps the used car market far more in check.
And that's the unexamined assumption. I have also seen quite a lot of data on these threads that point the other way - i.e. the used game ecosystem actually benefits new games through trade-ins and building word of mouth for sequels. It is quite possible that used games actually serve as a profit driver for new games and cutting out of the loop will cost the developers.
One of the interesting things about the used car markets is that it allows younger and poorer drivers to develop a brand loyalty for manufacturers and models they cannot otherwise afford. So when they get to the point where they can afford a new car, they choose the car makers who built their used cars.
Lots of research on this. It's a major reason that NO car company tries to restrict used sales from their dealers.
Other products with similar use patterns don't have such a huge issue with used sales, mostly because prices are lower and the benefits of saving money are easily outweighed by other factors.
If we saw more flexibility in pricing, and ways for consumers to adjust the price of gaming to fit the value they desire, then there is nothing inherently wrong with limiting used sales (minus more esoteric rights-based arguments). I don't necessarily have faith that this will be the case, though.
It's not a matter of how intertwined they are, it's a question of whether it's a net positive or negative effect. And the only people with the information to put that together are the publishers. Who seem to think net negative.
It's in no way definitive since the publishers could just be stupid, but the only thing we have to go on seems to suggest that used sales are not a boon to the industry's profitability.
Not doing much to make the official post-launch numbers no. And those, sadly, are a big part of the benchmarks set for developers.
However, later sales are still a help to people who made the game and DD systems have given games longer tales which hopefully is bringing the industry around.
No, that's not the same assumption you want to talk about in this post. I'm talking about what the guy I was responding to brought up: the low marginal cost of creating a copy of a video game (or most other digital products) Quite simply, because of low marginal costs of production, storage, etc, games are far more succeptible to being undercut by a used market then something like a car because the original creator bares almost all of the cost.
Now, your second bit here is exactly what I'm talking about above and the point is, we don't know. You say there's lots of research for cars on this subject and I'm saying we seem to have none of games so we can't assume the same things work. Especially since publishers, unlike car companies as you point out, are very interested in restricting the used market. Are they dumb or do they know something we don't?
And this is how I see the current gaming industry. And when I read about the game industry "failing," maybe I'm okay with that.
It's not like gaming as a hobby will cease to exist. There will always be gamers, and there will always be video games, and there will always be video game "systems," even if the precise definitions of what those things are might shift.
Right now, the AAA model places a lot of companies in a situation where they have to drop $10M on game development and then sell a hojillion copies, and because they need to sell that game to the mass market, they need to make sure it has mass market appeal. Can't be too experimental, has to be flashy, ideally it should be a sequel to an existing franchise. A few months ago, I spent an evening at a friend's house playing CoD. Except actually, it might not have been CoD. Maybe it was MW? Honestly, I don't remember which one it was. It was the one where I ran around shooting dudes with machine guns. It was pretty. It played like every other game in that genre. It was... fine. I'm not quite sure why I should be so upset that someday there might be fewer of those games around.
I like a lot of AAA games, sure. Mass Effect, Mario, Zelda, God of War, Assassin's Creed, Elder Scrolls, Borderlands, Fallout. They're good games. I enjoy them. No matter what happens to the industry, we will see a certain number of super-polished gaming experiences. We always have, since the days of the NES. We'll also always see a lot of smaller, experimental games. The ones that are cheap and sometimes interesting and sometimes they become breakout hits. The question, I think, is what happens to the games in the middle? The expensive games that aren't that great, the Dante's Infernos and Bulletstorms. Will they live or die? I dunno. I don't really care, I guess.
If I surrender the middling games that try to be experiences and only half-succeed, if I let them die a cold and gloryless death, do I get to keep buying used games? Do I get to keep my physical media? Because if so, give me a knife and I'll stab those fuckers myself.
Except CoD makes insane amounts of money too, no matter how much you keep ignoring it. And alot of people like that kind of game. If WiiSports is the only game in town, we are all poorer for it.
You keep trying to link bad working conditions and AAA game development together for some reason, which makes no sense. They are separate issues. For one, the industry has sucked for ages now, long before the current emphasis on AAA games.
Just on the AAA games subject, what you are missing is that it has been in many ways a successful model for the industry. Sales and revenue were going up for many years under it. In fact, the timing of recent drops in revenue could indicate this is an effect of the weak economy more then anything. Regardless, finding ways to increase revenue could help the issue alot.
It is, however, a volatile model and this seems a big issue. It's leading to the same kind of behaviour you see from Hollywood: lots of very safe big budget projects to lower the risk of a bomb.
games age and become unplayable over time, just as cars do. especially console games when the generation moves on.
the main difference is; unsold units don't cost much of anything with software.
unsold units for everything else equal tangible monetary loses. Software is the about the only industry that DOESN'T take a major loss on unsold products. yet are the only industry insisting unsold products caused by used sales are destroying them.
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UChq0-eLNiMaJlIjqerf0v2A? <-- Game related youtube stuff
http://galdon.newgrounds.com/games/ <-- games I've made. (spoiler warning: They might suck!)
Big, AAA titles aren't going anywhere, and experimental indie titles aren't going anywhere...and really, that's all I ever really play or value in any meaningful way.