Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Op Ed

Ars Technica - Buying used games: Developers, publishers don't care about you. Thanks Mark.
That's a bold statement, as gamers hate to be called pirates—and they will pirate your game in retaliation for being called pirates—but in both cases, the people behind the game aren't making any money from the sale. If you take the game online you're using their time and money. So where's the argument that developers need to keep these people happy?

BitMob - More Pixar, Less Uwe: How Hollywood Can Make a "Good" Video Game Movie.
This formula is responsible for movies of varying degrees of commercial success, though from a critic's perspective, they’re typically considered awful-to-middling films. For every Resident Evil -- arguably the only video game movie that stands on its own without much need to know the subject material -- we get several Uwe Boll movies and countless other generally bad adaptations. Most video game movies either go for broke on the game’s subject matter (Mortal Kombat, Prince of Persia) or try to adapt that same subject matter into something more filmlike (Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li, almost every Uwe Boll movie). But few of them are able to strike a balance that will resonate with fans and interest the general movie-going audience alike.

View
81 Replies. 5 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Older >

61. Re: Ars Technica - Buying used games Aug 28, 2010, 15:46 Sepharo
 
JohnnyRotten wrote on Aug 28, 2010, 15:34:
Sepharo wrote on Aug 28, 2010, 15:26:

It's about supporting the developer who makes games that you want to see more of. If a game costs $100 I certainly don't want more of that and wouldn't purchase it.

I'm on board with that theory - vote with your wallet when making a new purchase.

What I'm arguing against is that buying a used product in this one product line (games) is immoral but not in any other type of product line; and that this one product line should have special protections in the future that would make the used purchase of used product illegal.

I've mentioned before that I don't want any sort of special protections or anything like that. People should be able to do what they want but just know that when they buy used they're supporting GameStop (or the seller) not the developer who actually made the game.

There is no difference seen to the developer between purchasing used and pirating. The only difference to the user is that they aren't breaking the law and they're out $40 instead of $50. So once again we come down to morality is subjective, I'd rather pirate and then purchase new than buy used for $1 simply to not break the law.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
60. Re: Ars Technica - Buying used games Aug 28, 2010, 15:34 JohnnyRotten
 
Sepharo wrote on Aug 28, 2010, 15:26:

It's about supporting the developer who makes games that you want to see more of. If a game costs $100 I certainly don't want more of that and wouldn't purchase it.

I'm on board with that theory - vote with your wallet when making a new purchase.

What I'm arguing against is that buying a used product in this one product line (games) is immoral but not in any other type of product line; and that this one product line should have special protections in the future that would make the purchase of used product illegal.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
59. Re: Ars Technica - Buying used games Aug 28, 2010, 15:26 Sepharo
 
JohnnyRotten wrote on Aug 28, 2010, 14:14:
Then compare it to books, dvd's, cd's, or other products in similiar price ranges. My original points still stand unchanged. If it's stealing or causing some sort economic harm to buy used, then it's true at $5, $50, $5000, $500000, etc. The only thing we're talking about is the economics of scale at that point.

It's about supporting the developer who makes games that you want to see more of. If a game costs $100 I certainly don't want more of that and wouldn't purchase it.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
58. Re: Ars Technica - Buying used games Aug 28, 2010, 15:05 nin
 
My original points still stand unchanged.

LOL, good for you?

If you don't know the difference between disposable income and buying a home, I'm not sure what else to tell you.

It's obvious I'm wasting my time, I'm done. Those of you that want a free ride, don't complain when it's gone some day.

 
http://www.nin.com/pub/tension/
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
57. Re: Ars Technica - Buying used games Aug 28, 2010, 14:14 JohnnyRotten
 
nin wrote on Aug 28, 2010, 13:27:
The point isn't the value difference

It's a very big difference. As started earlier in the thread, the savings between a used a new game is minimal, and it's something that can easily be purchased by someone with ones days pay.

You chose to compare it to purchases that take most people years to pay off.

I'll be waiting for your $15,000 games...



Then compare it to books, dvd's, cd's, or other products in similiar price ranges. My original points still stand unchanged. If it's stealing or causing some sort economic harm to buy used, then it's true at $5, $50, $5000, $500000, etc. The only thing we're talking about is the economics of scale at that point.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
56. Re: Ars Technica - Buying used games Aug 28, 2010, 13:27 nin
 
The point isn't the value difference

It's a very big difference. As started earlier in the thread, the savings between a used a new game is minimal, and it's something that can easily be purchased by someone with ones days pay.

You chose to compare it to purchases that take most people years to pay off.

I'll be waiting for your $15,000 games...

 
http://www.nin.com/pub/tension/
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
55. Re: Ars Technica - Buying used games Aug 28, 2010, 12:00 JohnnyRotten
 
nin wrote on Aug 27, 2010, 13:03:

No used vehicles or houses for you Nin?

You be sure and let me know when new games retail for $15,000-$150,000+. In the meantime, if you have a job you shouldn't have much trouble earning the $50-$60 for a game in a day, hopefully much less. If people can't afford that, maybe it's time for a better paying job and/or a different hobby.


The point isn't the value difference (perceived or actual) in the product, but that the "I only buy new" argument is an emotional one and not a logical one about harm (or at least not a consistent one). I only buy product type X because if I don't, others are hurt, but I don't care about how I hurt the makers of product type Y or Z cause they cost a lot more isn't being altruistic.

The only person who would could throw stones at other peoples glass houses in this debate is someone who never buys anything used, ever. Because in the end, if you aren't one of those people, the cry of "you are still playing games without paying the creators", applies across the board. Either you are stealing by buying used, or you are not. Either you are paying the original creator of the product, or you are not. Anything else is being selectively selfish.

The talking point about helping the developers in specific doesn’t seem to be based much in logic either. Are we really supporting the developers here, or are we really talking about supporting the distribution & publishing companies instead? I’m sure there is a trickle down argument to be made here (fat cats to poor developers), but again I don’t see how this doesn’t apply to every other industry (the guy putting the seats in the car on the factory floor, stapling down the rug on the floor, etc).

Painting Gamespot as a nefarious evil company is yet another emotional argument. Gamespot exists because customers purchase what they sell. The used program at Gamespot exists because the customers purchase what they sell (and vice versa!). As the activity is perfectly legal, painting Gamespot as the villain is pretty silly. If you really want to think this is somehow a nefarious activity, then the blame would reside with the consumers of the used games program.

I also don't hear those who think that this one specific type of product is special spending any time talking about how the games industry is going to share the risk of reselling the product. Purchasing a game from a consumer with the intent to sell it used doesn't make the sale auto-magically happen.

If a game company goes out of business – whom do we pay if we want to buy a new copy of said game. For example if I wanted to play Hellgate (single player since we got screwed on multiplayer LAN), how can I buy that new? I assume the odd store here and there has an old dusty copy floating around that never was sold, and was forgotten about, but outside of that, how can I make that purchase? Under the assumption that only new is good, when a game company goes out of business, do we forever lose the ability to purchase their products? Do we apply this across the board for all similar industries? Should we pass laws to remove product from the street the second the developer (not distributor or owner or shareholder thereof) of the product cannot be “paid”? Concern troll is concerned.

The "product doesn't degrade" argument is equally silly. If they didn't gog.com wouldn't exist. Gog.com sells new (authorized licensed versions of) games at around $5-$10 a pop. If the "product doesn't degrade" argument were valid Duke Nuke Em (or any game of the same time period) would have the same value as the most recently released product. It does not, nor does the value of any older game. The value of older game products does degrade - obsolete, superseded, or from a simple lack of interest - like other products. A key difference from most physical goods is the lack of scarcity. One copy of a game can be made into millions with little effort. Another item of note is the volume of released competing products in the game industry devalues games as well. These items make it inevitable that they lose value over time. The bits may not degrade in position (0 or 1), but they do degrade in value.

While I have no doubt that the gaming industry has reached the size where they could probably buy enough lawmakers to get an exception to the right of first sale, or other special protections, I don’t believe this is going to magically generate a new revenue stream for them. Consumers who are selling/buying in the used market are doing so at price points that are comfortable for them. Those price points are often significantly lower then the price points of new game products. I think that gap will be far enough apart that most won’t jump, or won’t enable them to jump it nearly as often.

At the end of the day, this is an appeal to emotion by an industry that has a track record of treating its customers very poorly - DRM, broken product that is shipped fixed, never fixed or incompletely fixed, incomplete games (DLC), advertises one thing on the box, delivers another, here today-gone tomorrow multiplayer, here today-gone tomorrow core game (UBI), etc.

When an industry with a poor track record of quality and cost control does this kind of appeal to emotion, one should be careful to see how this is going to impact you. It's clear to me that they want the reward of the second hand market without the risk. That doesn't benefit you.

Side note – whenever this old chestnut of “we’re special” and “support the developers” comes up, this starts playing in my head: Slow pan from Sally Struthers to destitute developers, rich owners, richer publishers, etc. Voiceover: Look how poor and destitute we are. Please support the poor underpaid developers of the Lower Sahara. Only $59.95 a month can buy them enough to eat every day. Silly troll is silly.

Do we need to have special laws and support for an industry whose revenue model is broken? How will this really benefit the industry? Do industries with protected status/special laws continue to innovate and deliver competitive value to the customer?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
54. Re: Ars Technica - Buying used games Aug 28, 2010, 01:20 Sepharo
 
Beamer wrote on Aug 27, 2010, 12:13:
PLH fouwpi thiowreu hgfjio htup9iqewr tyywreou gtiu gtrf

STOP COMPARING USED GAMES TO USED HOUSES, FOR THE FUCKING LOVE OF GOD!


1) Games are not a depreciating good. Houses and cars are. When you buy a used game you get exactly what the new buyer got. There is no change in value nor in quality. When you buy a used house or used car this is 100% wholly different. The only incentive to buy new is to support the devs. There are billions of incentives to buy houses or cars new.

2) Houses and cars are prohibitively expensive. Many, if not most, Americans cannot afford to buy new. Video games are NOT prohibitively expensive. If you can afford $55 you can afford $60.

3) Houses and cars are in some way an investment. Equity. For one, you can put liens against them. For another, part of the cost is the inherent resale value. None of this applies to games.

4) Used cars are much, much, much cheaper. Used video games are $5 cheaper. For a new game that's about 8.5%. It's buy 12 get one free. Bullshit.

5) Used houses rely upon property and location, a limited quantity. Used games? Not so much. Houses NEED to be sold used for this reason.

6) Used cars are major goods. You cannot really sell them conveniently yourself. You need an aggregator. You do not for games. Fuck GameStop and their massive profits.


Jesus, people, it's a very dumb comparison. So painfully stupid it hurts my brain.
And Jesus people, DEVELOPERS DO NOT GET PAID FOR SHIPPED, THEY GET PAID FOR SOLD. STOP SPREADING THIS STUPID "the dev got paid anyway," CRAP. IF A GAME GOES UNSOLD AND GET SENT BACK TO THE PUBLISHER THE BONUS TO THE DEV IS LESS. PLUS, WHEN SHIPPING THEY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT USED SALES, SO THEY SHIP LESS.

And for godssake, you're all PC gamers. This is a battle waged almost solely due to GameStop. You people keep supporting GameStop in this, but GameStop doesn't deal with PC games. Hell, this entire discussion is mostly console based, and most of you hate consoles.

Lastly, a lot of you love Steam and praise the coming of digital downloads. Think those will ever be resellable? Of course not.

Beamer you're actually yelling about something I agree with for a change. Not that I don't agree with you often, I just don't often agree with your yelling.


Edit: I should clarify that I don't think used game sales should be stopped or prevented, I just think people should always buy new. Sort of like how I think we shouldn't prevent the KKK from marching but I really wish they wouldn't.

This comment was edited on Aug 28, 2010, 01:26.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
53. Re: Op Ed Aug 28, 2010, 00:28 Prez
 
I just wanted to add that used games wouldn't be as much of a problem if games weren't so... disposable. Ever play a perfectly average shooter that kept you more or less entertained throughout, but once the ending credits rolled, you couldn't name the lead character, the villain, any of the characters you supposedly cared deeply about and were trying to save, or the generic woozle they were fighting over for the whole 6 hours of the game? Who wouldn't sell a game like that once they were finished - you have all the attachment to it as a used disposable razor.

 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
52. Re: Op Ed Aug 28, 2010, 00:02 Jerykk
 
Used sales create INCREASED new sales, not the other way around. If we could magically stop used sales altogether tomorrow, we'd see new sales decrease, not increase.

It's important to recognize that "sales" is a very broad term. Sales of what? Different games are made by different developers. If I buy a used copy of Psychonauts, sell it and then use that money to buy a new copy of Madden, how does that help the creator of Psychonauts? They actually lost two sales while Madden gained one. Saying that used sales help the industry as a whole is just short-sighted. You need to be helping the creators of the games you actually play, not the conveniently broad "industry."

And most of the people who are buying used, at that lower price point, wouldn't buy new, otherwise they wouldn't take the risk of buying used in the first place.

This would be a more convincing point if Gamestop's used sales weren't the biggest part of their business. Gamestop's used games are typically only $5-10 cheaper than new games. Are you honestly telling me that the thousands of people who buy these used games wouldn't pay $5-10 to buy new copies if used copies weren't available?

Yes, and people who really care SHOULD buy new, but should is a long way from "fuck you if you don't, you're not my customer."

Technically, if you buy used, you really aren't a customer because you haven't actually paid the creators for their work. You paid somebody else. If a pirate makes copies of a game and sells them, do the buyers qualify as customers of the publisher and/or developer? No, not really. Same thing applies to used sales.

The fact that someone can get some dollars back from a big name like halo or mass effect or whatever and give another lesser known game a shot is keeping a lot of studio's afloat.

Or they could buy a used copy of the lesser known game (which would make more sense, as the more obscure game is a bigger risk) and use it to buy a new copy of the heavily-hyped, big-budget franchise game. Or most realistically, they could buy a used copy of either game, sell it and use that money to buy a used copy of the other game.

This comment was edited on Aug 28, 2010, 00:10.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
51. Re: Ars Technica - Buying used games Aug 27, 2010, 22:56 Kabuto
 
Ruffiana wrote on Aug 27, 2010, 20:42:

Movies have multiple revenue streams. If movies were only ever released on DVD direct to consumers then it would be an apt comparison, but by the time a movie reaches the home DVD ownership phase, it's already had a run in movie theaters and probably made a profit. It's been available on pay-per-view, and it's been on HBO/Showtime for a couple of months. Even after it's put onto a DVD and sold at Best Buy they can still make money from a film by licensing the rights to cable or network stations. Unlike games, movies have much more longevity. People will watch buy and a movie from decades ago.

Music has rapidly changed it's business model over the years to deal with digital format and ease of copying/distribution. Like films, a recording artist can bring in money from live venues and concerts (akin to movie theaters in being a unique, one time experience), album sales, individual track sales through iTunes, Amazon, etc...licensing of songs for use in film, television, or games. Like movies, music is ageless. People will buy music that they like and hold on to it. Unlike films or games, it takes far, far fewer people to produce a piece of music...so the financial investment and risks are much lower.

As for books, it doesn't take multi-million dollar investments and huge teams of people to create a book...so there is substantially less financial risk involved. There's also some value of a book associated with the physical good, the printed word on paper...and those goods do degrade over time. They grow musty, their spine gets broken, pages tear, print fades. Unlike a game, people are likely to hang on to a book for decades and re-read years, decades, or even centuries after they were written. Keep in mind that books in digital format is a fairly new industry, but it's already having an impact on retailers world-wide.

So while the formats of various media are similar their costs to produce and markets are radically different. Games really only have one market for making money, in a very limited time frame, and yet are still are on par with films in terms of cost to produce, market, and distribute. The reason you don't hear more from the film, music, or book industry about used sales is because it's just not cutting into their profitability in the same way...but that could very well change in the future.

You're arguing differences in business models, not fundamental differences in the products themselves.

As others have already suggested, if game publishers aren't able to survive with their current business models, then they should should probably explore other options, rather than complain about a long established consumer right.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
50. Re: Op Ed Aug 27, 2010, 21:18 Ruffiana
 
@Ars, Tycho, Ledesma, Nin, Beamer, & Jerykk. Stinging Velvet has it right. Used sales create INCREASED new sales, not the other way around. If we could magically stop used sales altogether tomorrow, we'd see new sales decrease, not increase. There are so many new sales made b/c people are expecting to sell the games when they are done. IF they weren't able to do this, they wouldn't buy them.

It may increase initial sales (this is purely a speculative point) but it certainly impacts additional sales from people who have the money to buy a new game, but opt instead to buy a used copy that's now available for $5 less. It's arguable that you'd see less retail activity in total, fewer total copies of games sold and re-sold, but also arguable that the total revenue going to publishers and developers would be greater.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
49. Re: Ars Technica - Buying used games Aug 27, 2010, 20:54 Ruffiana
 
When I rent a movie does the movie director gets paid for my rental copy...

Actually, yeah. They do.

The standard business model for video rental stores was that they would pay a large flat fee per video, approximately US$65, and have unlimited rentals for the lifetime of the cassette itself. Sumner Redstone, whose Viacom conglomerate then owned Blockbuster, personally pioneered a new revenue-sharing arrangement for video, in the mid-1990s. Blockbuster obtained videos for little cost and kept 60 percent rental fee, paying the other 40 percent to the studio, and reporting rental information through Rentrak. What Blockbuster got out of the deal, besides a lower initial price, was that movies were not available for sale during an initial release period, at least at an affordable price point - customers either had to rent, wait, or buy the film on tape at the much higher MSRP targeted at other rental chains and film enthusiasts, at that time then between $70–$100 before the end of the initial release period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_Inc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rentrak

This comment was edited on Aug 27, 2010, 21:05.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
48. Re: Op Ed Aug 27, 2010, 20:43 jdreyer
 
@Ars, Tycho, Ledesma, Nin, Beamer, & Jerykk. Stinging Velvet has it right. Used sales create INCREASED new sales, not the other way around. If we could magically stop used sales altogether tomorrow, we'd see new sales decrease, not increase. There are so many new sales made b/c people are expecting to sell the games when they are done. IF they weren't able to do this, they wouldn't buy them. And most of the people who are buying used, at that lower price point, wouldn't buy new, otherwise they wouldn't take the risk of buying used in the first place. This is the case with all media. Just check used blurays on eBay and used books on Amazon.

As for Steam games, yeah, I can't resell those, but since I'm picking up AAA games for pennies on the dollar, I can hardly complain. If I always had to pay full price for Steam games, I would have exactly 0.
 
Avatar 22024
 
"It's just a bunch of mystic bovine scatology to me." - 1badmf
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
47. Re: Ars Technica - Buying used games Aug 27, 2010, 20:42 Ruffiana
 
I tend to prefer comparing them to books, movies and music, which makes a lot more sense. In that comparison we see as well that gaming companies are the only ones trying to eradicate used sales aggressively, rather than just promoting digital distribution and waiting it out.

Why? Because they can, and people put up with it.

Movies have multiple revenue streams. If movies were only ever released on DVD direct to consumers then it would be an apt comparison, but by the time a movie reaches the home DVD ownership phase, it's already had a run in movie theaters and probably made a profit. It's been available on pay-per-view, and it's been on HBO/Showtime for a couple of months. Even after it's put onto a DVD and sold at Best Buy they can still make money from a film by licensing the rights to cable or network stations. Unlike games, movies have much more longevity. People will watch buy and a movie from decades ago.

Music has rapidly changed it's business model over the years to deal with digital format and ease of copying/distribution. Like films, a recording artist can bring in money from live venues and concerts (akin to movie theaters in being a unique, one time experience), album sales, individual track sales through iTunes, Amazon, etc...licensing of songs for use in film, television, or games. Like movies, music is ageless. People will buy music that they like and hold on to it. Unlike films or games, it takes far, far fewer people to produce a piece of music...so the financial investment and risks are much lower.

As for books, it doesn't take multi-million dollar investments and huge teams of people to create a book...so there is substantially less financial risk involved. There's also some value of a book associated with the physical good, the printed word on paper...and those goods do degrade over time. They grow musty, their spine gets broken, pages tear, print fades. Unlike a game, people are likely to hang on to a book for decades and re-read years, decades, or even centuries after they were written. Keep in mind that books in digital format is a fairly new industry, but it's already having an impact on retailers world-wide.

So while the formats of various media are similar their costs to produce and markets are radically different. Games really only have one market for making money, in a very limited time frame, and yet are still are on par with films in terms of cost to produce, market, and distribute. The reason you don't hear more from the film, music, or book industry about used sales is because it's just not cutting into their profitability in the same way...but that could very well change in the future.

This comment was edited on Aug 27, 2010, 20:48.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
46. Re: Op Ed Aug 27, 2010, 20:13 Tumbler
 
And why? Because the "loss" they suffer from Gamestop selling used games isn't anywhere fucking NEAR the loss they'd suffer if Gamestop stopped selling their new games.

They (publishers) have also bitched about the whole pre-sale model ending up with far less sales to the stores other than what they will sell. No more buying a bunch and hoping they sell, now they only buy what they need and that means fewer purchases...so not fair. Then they're crazy excited about pre-orders because it means their game is going to sell shit loads! Woo hoo pre orders! No wait bad cause you should have ordered more!

If the next gen of games on the consoles move to non resellable I don't think the industry will fourish, I think it will turn on itself and the big players with the large franchise like halo, god of war, call of duty, etc will soak up most of the money and this will force many dev studio's out of business. This will end up flooding the work force with cheap labor and life at dev studio's will seem like a picnic compared to this shit conditions that will become the norm once the publishers only start pushing out maybe a dozen games a year.

Used game sales are actually a fantastic thing for the industry. The fact that someone can get some dollars back from a big name like halo or mass effect or whatever and give another lesser known game a shot is keeping a lot of studio's afloat. That will all change if they move to a model where everyone pays $60 for everything and then it's yours forever, no refunds.

They could end up adopting something like steam however where older games get discounted heavily and start popping up in sales but they can do that now...and they don't, classic titles that they put out in special boxes and call em platinum, or whatever, those are a rip off compared to the games current value. And games on demand on xbox live? Those prices are fucking ridiculous. Somehow I don't have confidence that sony or MS or the publishers in general going all digital would have the same outcome as steam. I think it's "slightly" more likely that they see it as a license to steal our money. Oh you want this game? $55, it's 6 months old so we'll give you a discount. At 12 months we'll go down to $52.50. Not valid with coupons or special offers.
 
99gamers.com-Game trading site, PC digital trading!
Kickstarter "Game Developer"!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
45. Re: Op Ed Aug 27, 2010, 19:02 ASeven
 
Creston wrote on Aug 27, 2010, 18:41:
As usual, the gaming industry is full of "woe is me" bullshit. Hey, publishers, maybe you can add some more DRM and fucking hoops to jump through for your legitimate customers. How you imbeciles keep managing to stay in business is beyond reason.

Because, unfortunately, most gamers are even more imbecile than them and will buy anything.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
44. Re: Op Ed Aug 27, 2010, 18:59 StingingVelvet
 
PHJF wrote on Aug 27, 2010, 18:31:
Music alone has really made the jump to being a mostly digital product.

Actually I just read on CNN not long ago that CDs still account for almost 80% of music sales, so even in music the physical medium still reigns supreme by a large margin, and that's 10 years or more after the rise of MP3 as a common thing.

I think all 4 mediums are kidding themselves if they think physical media is going away any time soon.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
43. Re: Op Ed Aug 27, 2010, 18:41 Creston
 
Tumbler wrote on Aug 27, 2010, 17:10:
Why not try this with gamestop? Gamestop gets new games 30 days late? Oh right all those promotions and pre-orders...yeah better to just attack consumers, cause we won't fight back...

No, the idiot publishers bend over fucking BACKWARDS to accomodate any demand of Gamestop's with regards to new games. Exclusive items? Sure! Hookers and Blow for your midnight release parties? You got it! Letting you fuck my wife? No problem!

They're a bunch of fucking morons. They bitch and whine and bitch about Gamestop killing them, but instead of banding together and saying to Gamestop "Fuck you, you ain't getting any more games," they just keep bending over and grabbing their ankles.

And why? Because the "loss" they suffer from Gamestop selling used games isn't anywhere fucking NEAR the loss they'd suffer if Gamestop stopped selling their new games.

Which tells you all you need to know about their quote that "everybody buys everything used."

As usual, the gaming industry is full of "woe is me" bullshit. Hey, publishers, maybe you can add some more DRM and fucking hoops to jump through for your legitimate customers. How you imbeciles keep managing to stay in business is beyond reason.

As for the Netflix thing, eh, fair enough. It's not like I keep up with the news on "big business whines about customers not showering them in 100 dollar bills" anyways.

Creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
42. Re: Op Ed Aug 27, 2010, 18:40 ASeven
 
PHJF wrote on Aug 27, 2010, 18:31:
Games, music, books, movies are not goods but intellectual propriety. Intangible assets that do not govern by the exact same legal laws as ordinary goods. They're a different type of beasts and the basis of why this discussion is generating so much flames everywhere.

They are transferred on physical medium which holds value in almost all cases. Video games are still almost entirely sold ON A STORE SHELF as a PHYSICAL MEDIUM, just like movies and books. Music alone has really made the jump to being a mostly digital product. Anything on a store shelf will depreciate as per standard economic rules.

Besides, being entirely digital does not immediately void traditional economic theory. Items immune to physical depreciation still suffer time depreciation; a game which came out three years ago is not "worth" a game which came out yesterday. All you have to do is look at Steam and see this. You could argue that Steam is only competing with physical sales and is thusly forced to lower prices, and that were video games entirely digital they would forever retain their initial value... but that's a bold argument to make. Thousands of years of economic practice aren't going to be whisked away because a good has been digitized.

You are 100% correct on this, I was just pointing out most entertainment media you buy on shelves is seen in the eyes of economics and the law as intangible goods. And you are absolutely correct on time depreciation or to be more technically correct, the life expectancy of the IP which renders the point that these items don't have any sort of depreciation moot since they don't depreciate in the physical sense but they do in the intellectual and financial one.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
81 Replies. 5 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo