ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
Used Games : Thoughts on the future
- Thread starter @Spoonie
- Start date
Playing devils advocate here.
Are their costs too high? Multi million dollar advertising campaigns for starters could be seen as excessive given how effective viral low cost marketing can be.
Are the prices of new games too low? Would offering sufficiently enticing content or new IP as opposed to recycling the same old franchises year in year out allow them to raise them without customers objecting.
DLC in modern gaming is a massive revenue stream that the industry didn't have prior to online consoles is this not effective enough to milk more from their customers especially when content is clearly ready for when the game ships and then withheld because the devs know said content is very integral for many users?
For the record I buy all my games new and I've never traded any in, I've still got a stack of old machines and Discs/cartridges piled up gathering dust. I do understand that for some people trading in an old title provides the additional cash they need to purchase the next new one though.
Last edited:
The way I see it is this. Publishers are selling games at a premium because they know once they sell one copy there are going to be a few people that will buy it on the 2nd hand market and they see that as lost revenue. People are playing there games without paying them anything. The thing about software, like any copyrighted media is you don't own it. If you did then it wouldn't be illegal to make loads of copies and sell them down the market.
As mentioned by Roy in the other thread you own a license to use it, like a ticket to go on a fairground ride. Imagine some bloke with rollercoaster. To use it you have to insert a ticket (license) into a machine, this ticket allows unlimited rides for a lifetime. First customer turns up, buys a ticket and inserts it in the machine, has a ride, enjoys it, has 10 more then gets bored. He sells the ticket to his mate, his mate uses it then sells it etc.. The fairground owner checks on how many times the rollercoaster has been around, sees about 200 and thinks great, loads of money, I will build a bigger and better coaster for everyone to enjoy. Checks the takings. 1 ticket sold. It doesn't cover the cost of running the ride and he goes bust. If he starts up again he has two clear choices. 1. Sell the first ticket at a much higher price in case it gets sold on by the original purchaser. 2. Sell it cheap but impose some kind of policy that prevents transfer without him making a small fee.
This is how I see it, and before you start comparing buying a car from Renault don't. That is a ride you buy outright, Unlike when you pay a lease company to 'have a go' for a few years. Its s**t I know buy f gaming is to evolve those that provide us with the games need to be making the money. Not some high street store.
As mentioned by Roy in the other thread you own a license to use it, like a ticket to go on a fairground ride. Imagine some bloke with rollercoaster. To use it you have to insert a ticket (license) into a machine, this ticket allows unlimited rides for a lifetime. First customer turns up, buys a ticket and inserts it in the machine, has a ride, enjoys it, has 10 more then gets bored. He sells the ticket to his mate, his mate uses it then sells it etc.. The fairground owner checks on how many times the rollercoaster has been around, sees about 200 and thinks great, loads of money, I will build a bigger and better coaster for everyone to enjoy. Checks the takings. 1 ticket sold. It doesn't cover the cost of running the ride and he goes bust. If he starts up again he has two clear choices. 1. Sell the first ticket at a much higher price in case it gets sold on by the original purchaser. 2. Sell it cheap but impose some kind of policy that prevents transfer without him making a small fee.
This is how I see it, and before you start comparing buying a car from Renault don't. That is a ride you buy outright, Unlike when you pay a lease company to 'have a go' for a few years. Its s**t I know buy f gaming is to evolve those that provide us with the games need to be making the money. Not some high street store.
Books, music, film, art. All have been sold and resold for decades. Is the games industry special? Should it be treated any differently? If so why?
Have you ever borrowed or ripped a friends CD/Tape or DVD? Ever sold any of them either or do you buy new from a high street store and either keep until death or destroy said items?
This isn't a pop at you btw Spoonie, it's an interesting subject and given MS' colossal u-turn it's something which the gaming customer base has over the last few weeks loudly voiced it's opinion on.
Have you ever borrowed or ripped a friends CD/Tape or DVD? Ever sold any of them either or do you buy new from a high street store and either keep until death or destroy said items?
This isn't a pop at you btw Spoonie, it's an interesting subject and given MS' colossal u-turn it's something which the gaming customer base has over the last few weeks loudly voiced it's opinion on.
Last edited:
the music industry works off royalties, if you want to play a song on any broadcast medium you have to pay, so theres a constant stream of money coming in for years on good tracks.
the film industry, theres the cinemas, then the rental copies, then the dvd/bluray, streaming it from iTunes or sky, and then there isn't really a big second hand dvd market these days. but normally the film will gross much more than it cost to make before its even out of the cinema, so all the other mediums are bonus.
i also see the other side though, i pay £40-50 for a game that might have a 10-15hr storyline, i should be able to sell the title after I've finished it. (i never sell games personally) And like in other industries, why should the game developer get a cut of that.
games are already expensive as it is, the only way digital copies or the drm that MS wanted to bring in will work is if the digital copies are 25-50% cheaper they can't be sold at RRP when the physical product can be bought from a supermarket for 30% less.
i think the issue at the moment is that the games developers are saying they aren't making enough money and if they don't, then they won't be able to develop any more games, thus everyone loses out. So essentially, something has to happen, i just don't know what really. DLC seems to be one answer.
We've all resold stuff at some point I am sure, I know I have (I bought Far Cry 3 for £15 off a mate). I don't think the games industry is a special case though, its just been brought to light because of recent news.
I think gamers were too quick to just the whole DRM thing and Microsoft did a shocking job in communicating it. Who knows what it would have meant if everyone that played a game had to pay a fee? Maybe game prices would have been £15 cheaper on the Xbox because the shrink wrapped purchasers weren't subsidising those that pick it up as used.
There is also a question of whether or when we will see mainstream game play via subscription. All my music is now subscription and that suits the way I listen, I also use Netflix for a lot of viewing so maybe gaming will go that way? Its difficult to see that at the moment when a game costs so much. I'd love to know how much they reckon they could sell a game for if everyone that played it paid the same amount of money. £20 maybe?
Cliffy "i ***** my Lambo on the internet" B being one of the loudest spouting that, irony clearly lost on him. I do appreciate he, nor his wealth are representative of the whole industry however if the financial workability of your industry is in question turning around at your customers and bitching like a spoiled kid doesn't endear you. Perhaps looking at what you are in control of first and trying to cut away the fat would be a good move.
The XBone was going to result in people buying a physical disc which the machine effectively converted to a digital use only with all the restrictions that results in. Hence people weren't impressed. You ipod/ipad/imac etc doesn't have to report every 24 hours in order for you to access your library either which I'd imagine would piss people off if apple introduced that kind of system.
It was a colossal mess at E3, different messages seemingly coming from everyone who was interviewed and what they were saying was confused and incomplete. Turning around and then accusing people of not understanding their message or aim showed they hadn't even realised how poorly they'd communicated it and by that point any kind of recovery was long lost.
The fact several year old titles are still full price on XBL on demand and that when pressed with the "does this mean games will be cheaper" and "will you have sales like on steam" were met with mumbling further increased peoples level of mistrust. If they'd come out with a clear and unified message and had given people a choice between digital or even optional DRM lock on physical discs rather than the one option like it or lump it then it could have gone very differently for them.
I remember when N64 cartridges were £59.99 so you could argue £39.99 isn't that bad.
The checking was because of allowing the resale of games. If it had just been a download model like iTunes then there would have been no need for it. As soon as you trying and implement a hybrid type model you are going to need checks to ensure nobody abuses it by installing the game and selling it on. I would love to see the digital versions coming in much cheaper than the physical media versions but I don't think anyone fancies taking a risk it will hit their revenue anymore. The only answer to that would have been download only and we know everyone would have gone mental regardless of the price.
Hondata'd EP3 Type R
Im guessing Im pretty much the reason for thread
I see what you mean when you compare it to a fareground ticket. That makes more sense to me, and it can sink in explained like that. However, It certainly worries me that Ive been paying £40 for a license. I cant see why the Gaming industry is so "unique" compared to Films. The cost is the biggest issue here. Im paying a Tenner for a DVD, Im guessing Im not actually buying the movie, just a "license"? that's £10, thats fair enough. £40 is a joke if this is the case. Im sure a movie such as Avengers etc costs a fair amount more than a Video Game to make?I just think they are trying to combine PC and Console, when they shouldn't IMO. PC has all this online library, steam etc, great if you want that get a PC. The Casual gamer appears to be getting forced out...
BMW 440i
It's fairly similar to the computer software industry though, eg. You buy Microsoft Office for Mac at £100 or something, you get 3 licenses. They are trying to get away from the buy a dvd and keep it, and more towards the license buying approach. Hardly much of a difference in terms of gaming, other than you may lose a few £ over the year, and I do mean literally a few £ per game if you keep a game like FIFA for a year.
Im guessing Im pretty much the reason for thread
It was needed TBH as the Xbox thread was getting full.Films are interesting as I am not sure the DVD market is their primary source of income. I would expect cinema viewing to be a bigger revenue stream. Musicians have royalties and live performance incomes in addition to sales. Computer games only really have a single revenue stream for the game itself and that the initial shrink wrapped purchaser. They are trying to add DLC as a way to increase revenue but this means more development time and cost.
As I mentioned before, if the market went all digital and everyone had to pay to play at £20 a game, with no resale, would it really be a bad thing?
Hondata'd EP3 Type R
Films are interesting as I am not sure the DVD market is their primary source of income. I would expect cinema viewing to be a bigger revenue stream. Musicians have royalties and live performance incomes in addition to sales. Computer games only really have a single revenue stream for the game itself and that the initial shrink wrapped purchaser. They are trying to add DLC as a way to increase revenue but this means more development time and cost.
As I mentioned before, if the market went all digital and everyone had to pay to play at £20 a game, with no resale, would it really be a bad thing?
Maybe not, but its extremely evident Publishers are greedy mofo's so they aren't going to do this.
Maybe Im just poor, but a 99p Song or a 69p app sat on a Cloud somewhere is fine, but a £40 game is a hard pill for me to swallow TBH.
Piracy is a huge issue for game companies, they pour millions into producing games and nearly all are pirated before they're even released
I agree that the market should go purely digital and drop the price to £20 per title. With zero piracy the games companies will make more money (and no dvd manufacture/label printing etc...)
And £20 is a throw-away amount. You'd spend more on a night out
But what will actually happen is everyone will b**ch and moan about it so they'll back down and remove the licensing - games will still cost £40 and you'll get ass raped for DLC just like now. They'll start putting less and less into games and concentrate more on paid add-ons that they can control.
I agree that the market should go purely digital and drop the price to £20 per title. With zero piracy the games companies will make more money (and no dvd manufacture/label printing etc...)
And £20 is a throw-away amount. You'd spend more on a night out
But what will actually happen is everyone will b**ch and moan about it so they'll back down and remove the licensing - games will still cost £40 and you'll get ass raped for DLC just like now. They'll start putting less and less into games and concentrate more on paid add-ons that they can control.
A song is 3mins long and costs 99p to listen at homeIm guessing Im pretty much the reason for thread
I just think they are trying to combine PC and Console, when they shouldn't IMO. PC has all this online library, steam etc, great if you want that get a PC. The Casual gamer appears to be getting forced out...
An album being 45 - 60 mins costing £9.99
A film is 90 mins, costs £10-15 to own (the right to watch it at home)
A tv series box set is around £40 for about 10-15 hours of tv (that was free to see in the first place)
A game is 15-20 hours long in single player mode and costs £40
when you put it like that, then games are in line with that pricing strategy, no?
Has anyone mentioned yet that console gamers are getting the hardware for a pittance? Now they want effectively half price games, too?
This is going to sound really knobish, but on the whole, I think console gamers just want a free ride. Something for nothing, pretty much. Whereas PC users tend to spend thousands and thousands on their gaming experiences, and accept that luxuries aren't cheap. Although sometimes I hate PC DRM (Origin) I accept it, because overall it's a benefit to me. No physical copies, I own the license to use it for life, and can download it on any machine, anywhere, ever, and always up to date.
This is going to sound really knobish, but on the whole, I think console gamers just want a free ride. Something for nothing, pretty much. Whereas PC users tend to spend thousands and thousands on their gaming experiences, and accept that luxuries aren't cheap. Although sometimes I hate PC DRM (Origin) I accept it, because overall it's a benefit to me. No physical copies, I own the license to use it for life, and can download it on any machine, anywhere, ever, and always up to date.
The only real problem with that is songs are on the radio, films are at the cinema for a fiver, tv series are on tv for free
All of those things if you buy, you've probably already heard/seen in full and love it so much you want to own it
Games you mostly have to buy blind. Some games end up being a whole year of entertainment (like forza/cod for me) and an utter bargain, other games you finish the same night you buy them and you've pissed £40 into the wind
Nissan 350z
Pretty much this.
PC Gaming already proves that no 2nd hand market + Digital only titles can work its just the console peasents having a knee jerk reaction when faced with the prospect of updating to the same model.
Evo 5 RS
Long and short of it is the above. There's not a lot to discuss despite peoples firm opinions on it. There's not been any room for second hand games in the PC sector for years now, and now others are following in that path. Backing up Roy's point, it's pretty standard practice for most console gamers (especially youths) to want to trade in their games in order to get newer titles. So people are obviously going to kick up a fuss at the prospect of having to fork out more if they want to play.
It's all a case of face facts, although MS seem to be missing the point that digital media should be cheaper.
It's all a case of face facts, although MS seem to be missing the point that digital media should be cheaper.
Good analogy.
People comparing to music/films - they are of course also digitally copied illegally but there are many aspects to music and films which don't translate to games. e.g. going to see a band live, going to the cinema - other revenue streams which can be exploited which there isn't for games.
I think the digital download system is fine in the future, but to get people to adopt it there needs to be an incentive versus buying from a shop. At the moment it's more expensive, takes ages and you don't physically own a disc. I don't really see why anyone would go for that given the choice. Publishers need to play a role in getting people to adopt digital downloads and give customers a reason for doing so - not forcing us to.
