The only reason why I haven't bought Dragon Age: Origins yet is because I hate BioWare's DLC system. Also being online 24/7 like Ubisoft wants me is definitely not something I will EVER do for my singleplayer games. I buy all my games, but if this becomes the common practice I suppose I am pretty much forced into piracy to play my games, since I am not willing (and currently; even unable to!) to be online 24/7 for my SP games.
And yes, there is also the fear of pulling the plug. Even BioWare did so with their NWN DLC due to issues with Atari, so it's definitely a possibility. And seeing how I am still playing 10 year old games or older now I don't suddenly want to find out I am unable at all because it's been wiped clean, unlike compatibility issues with newer software/hardware which can probably be worked around...
Fortunately TTG gives me a disk at the end, if not I would have definitely not bought all the games I did here.
Just say, for the sake of argument, that they didn't. How is that different from Steam, GOG or D2D?
I don't know about Hassat, but I've never bought a Steam game, and Ian only got Portal because it was free. I was interested in Sam & Max but didn't realise I'd get a DVD until ToMI was advertised, so that's when I bought Sam&Max Seasons 1 and 2. And due to the way the Wallace and Gromit DVD turned out to be, I didn't buy any episode and got them with coupons instead. And I'm not going to order the disc, either, since it's of no use to me.
I did buy Puzzle Agent, but that's because I want to support these guys, and I'm hoping it will sell enough that it will get an actual copy at some point. I think Telltale is being a nice enough company that people are more likely to keep buying from them if they change the way they work, but they'd lose me as a paying customer for sure if they stopped offering a DVD that has nothing to do with the Internet whatsoever.
I'd probably stick around on the forums and stuff though.
And I guess I'd buy non-game stuff too, like comics and stuff. Unless they start selling them in a "you need to be online to read them" way, of course.
There is no way my opinion would stop them from doing whatever they want of course, but I want to keep playing their games so I hope they don't do that :S
I guess I just don't get Yare's reasoning, I mean I get some of it but not all of it. If I want to replay the games, I'm not paying a second time. I paid once and will get to play as many times as I want. And not just me, but my husband, and potentially any roommates or family member living with us.
And that's apparently fine, because we're not paying for the experience of playing it once, like we're paying for a single plane ticket or a single meal at a restaurant, we're paying for the right to play it whenever we want for all of our life, and that extents to the whole household.
But if you sell it to someone else, then suddenly it's different. Even though you can't replay it because you've sold it. Why? The way I see it, only one person has the right to play it at a time. What does it change if it's me playing it five times or five different people playing it once? Ether way it's played five times and paid for only once.
Obviously we're not paying for the experience, but for the right to play it. That game comes with a right for someone to play it, as many times as they want. When you resell the right to play it, you can't play the game anymore, the new person can instead.
Seems to me that if you want to restrict that, you should also make sure that whoever buys it can only play it once, and never replay it. There is never going to be several people playing that same copy at the same time. Never.
I guess I just don't get where the discrepancy comes from. "That copy might be sold to millions of people!". Well, if it survives enough to go through that many transactions, it sure can be played a million times by me, the rest of my household, whoever inherits the game after I die and so on.
If the problem is that Gamestop is making money by taking someone's product for nothing and selling it to other people for a lot, then the person who's been had in the story isn't whoever made or sold the game in the first place. It's the person who sold it to gamestop, and the person who bought it from gamestop. And that's it.
Sure it's annoying, but it's also annoying that the person who grows the crops I'll eat is only paid a very small percentage of what I spend to get them, and the middleman takes the rest. People are making profit every where by buying something and reselling for more, sometimes ten times the price. It sucks, but that's how economy works.
Which reminds me of something my economy teacher used to say: most if not all of the time, economy and morality have diametrically opposed interests.
I'm in two minds about this. On one hand, I really see Mr. Yare's point, and I realize that this is a problem in the games industry (probably more so than for other forms of intellectual property). I want developers to get my money when I buy games. (I also like to cut out "useless" middlemen as much as possible, i.e. retailers, distributors, publishers--but that's a different discussion)
I never resell my own games, nor do I buy used games when new copies are readily accessible. I buy a lot of old games though; and in those cases, used copies are often the only option. (I don't use GameStop or similar stores, I prefer eBay, Play.com etc.) I'm also strongly against strict IP laws on general principle. While some degree of protection is necessary for IP holders, I think the current state of affairs, e.g. the DMCA, parts of the US patent system etc. is way out of hand.
What I'd like to see is some kind of compromise. I'd agree to removing the used games market for new games in exchange for dropping DRM in PC games. Or perhaps if we say that any intellectual property that is out of print automatically becomes public domain? That'd be pretty sweet. Wishful thinking though...
Or perhaps if we say that any intellectual property that is out of print automatically becomes public domain? That'd be pretty sweet. Wishful thinking though...
Maybe if you gave the option. Whoever holds the copyright can choose to keep the copyright by making a new printing, or it becomes public domain?
This way people wouldn't bother keeping the copyright if they think it's not worth reprinting it, and whichever option they choose you wouldn't get unobtainable stuff you wish you could pay for.
Maybe if you gave the option. Whoever holds the copyright can choose to keep the copyright by making a new printing, or it becomes public domain?
This way people wouldn't bother keeping the copyright if they think it's not worth reprinting it, and whichever option they choose you wouldn't get unobtainable stuff you wish you could pay for.
Yes! That's exactly what I meant. Copyright holders would retain their rights as long as they keep the product available for end users.
Yes! That's exactly what I meant. Copyright holders would retain their rights as long as they keep the product available for end users.
Right. When you said "automatically", I sound it was a bit harsh. I think there should be a delay to allow them to organise the next printing, and make sure to inform them they're losing the copyright, and everything. Automatically sounded more like "it expires and you might not even realise you've lost the rights".
I personally don't see the point of anything ever being copyrighted after the author dies. They're the only person who should get royalties from it. Not the publishers, not the descendants/heirs. Only the person who actually came up with it.
In case in a case of posthumous publishing you could have something like a five year delay or something. Like, five years after first printing or at the author's death, whichever comes later.
Anyway, I obviously don't make the laws, but I get annoyed at how copyright laws are only protecting "the middleman" as we've been saying, and so rarely protect the author.
There is never going to be several people playing that same copy at the same time. Never.
That's not quite right, since you can burn copies. Which is definitely something I do if I want to play a LAN MP game with a friend and then it turns out we both need a copy.
That's not quite right, since you can burn copies. Which is definitely something I do if I want to play a LAN MP game with a friend and then it turns out we both need a copy.
Well, add "legally" to my statement, then. But if you include illegal stuff, you might as well pirate it for free.
I'm quite pleased that in a few years used game sales will be pointless because all of the actual content will be non-transferable DLC.
I can see were your coming from Yare but the main problem I have with non-transferable DLC, is that it costs the same as a game without it. And if it’s a direct to drive game it should cost less than a DVD copy because there’s no manufacturing cost. I think it’s too draconian to make gamers be online 24/7 if they want to play games they paid for.
If you’re going to take the TV model for your company, why not look at how TV channels work. We pay for the TV channel and we can watch all its content. If we’re going to have to be online to play games we should only have to pay for that service and as long as we’re paying for the "channel" we can play all the games on it as much as we want for a prescription fee. But if we want to own the game, we can pay more for that right and buy a DVD.
I don’t support GameStop and never buy second hand games when I can help it. I never sell a game I like because I may want to play it again some day. I just don’t see why gamers should be punished because of companies like this. I don’t think non-transferable DLC is the solution.
Non-transferable DLC isn't the same as having to be online all the time to play.
The DLC solution is that the DVD you buy doesn't contain the entire game, the part that's missing has to be bought off the site of the people who made the game. BUT if you buy the game first-hand, there's a code to download that DLC for free. So if you buy it first hand, you get the entire game for the store price, but second-hand buyers that buy the game cheaper, have to give a bit of money to the creators of the game too to be able to actually play.
That DLC doesn't necessarily require you to be online ALL the time, but you do need an internet connection to download it the first time.
Having to be online all the time is more of a copy-protection than a way to prevent people selling on their games, though it can be used for that purpose too.
Yes but Yare is in favour of non-transferable DLC, meaning you can’t sell the game on or give it to someone else. I think games with non-transferable DLC should be cheaper. I think it’s a good idea for second-hand buyers having to give a bit of money to the creators
I'm 100% fine with non-transferable DLC in the vein of the ME2 stuff. The game is still playable, but you're missing some stuff. Seems like that makes sense and is fair for used purchases to not get everything, but to still get something that works. And hey, you can still buy your share back for ten bucks, so you may still be able to get a copy of your game for less money than a new copy still, if you plan it right. I wouldn't mind this becoming a standard part of the business, it feels like a nice compromise between industry and consumer needs. Both sides need to realize that there needs to be some form of respect between the two groups for each other. I think Ubisoft's online all the time DRM is against the needs of consumers, and the used games market as it exists today is against the needs of the developers.
One thing I like about console games is they will never require online activation. Unless they go entirely DLC and scrap game media altogether.
Who knows what the next generation of consoles will bring. It seems like all the current consoles have already started moving in that direction. Also: See PSP Go--no physical media.
I've heard that WiiWare/Virtual Console titles are locked to work only on the console they were purchased on; users can't transfer purchased games to a new console. This restriction is apparently in place even if your console breaks and you get a new one on warranty. Pretty strict DRM if you ask me.
From what I hear, Live Marketplace and PlayStation Store titles are tied to the user account rather than the console itself; which sounds a bit more consumer friendly.
I don't use any of the current generation consoles though, so everything I've said may be entirely wrong...
What you say is true, but disc-based Wii games aren't locked to one Wii. Save games are, though (unless you have homebrew). This bugs me actually because at long last black Wiis have finally been released in North America and I already have a white one! I really want a black one...
From what I hear, Live Marketplace and PlayStation Store titles are tied to the user account rather than the console itself; which sounds a bit more consumer friendly.
The PSN method is actually quite good. You're allowed to have your account "active" on up to 5 PS3 systems. When you buy something on the PSN, you're allowed to download and install it on all of the consoles your account is active on. If you deactivate your account on one console, the content deactivates as well but then you can go activate your account on a different console.
Lots of PSN game sharing goes on but it's all above the bar, since Sony's license allows it.
What you say is true, but disc-based Wii games aren't locked to one Wii. Save games are, though (unless you have homebrew). This bugs me actually because at long last black Wiis have finally been released in North America and I already have a white one! I really want a black one...
You could buy a jar of black paint? :P
What you've described isn't just something on the Wii though. Some PS3 games don't let you copy save files despite the fact that the files can only be used with the profile they were originally saved to. This caused a friend of mine to lose a few save files when his PS3 was repaired as they replaced the hard drive but couldn't copy all the files.
I think the X-Box does something similar but I'm not sure.
Back on the topic of DLC and used games. It does seem like an interesting idea to limit some parts of the game if you buy it used until you spend a bit extra money. Despite all the gripe about piracy destroying the gaming industry second hand games do far more. Devil's Advocate time here you could possibly say that used games sells are worse, as they are still a guaranteed sell of the game, where as there's no guarantee that a pirate would buy the game anyway.
So there does have to be some sort of compromise, but it has to be smart. Wasn't EA wanting to not let people use the multiplayer if they bought a game used? That's not very smart. It seems more drastic and money grubbing since nowadays multiplayer is a big part of games. You might as well just not let people play the game at all until they cough up. Removing some weapons, classes, or unimportant story sections seems a much user friendly way to go.
Devil's Advocate time here you could possibly say that used games sells are worse, as they are still a guaranteed sell of the game, where as there's no guarantee that a pirate would buy the game anyway.
A pirate is just denying you money for an experience you provide. Somebody who buys a game second-hand (from a large company) is actually giving money to your competitor.
One of the main reasons for the second-hand trade is, I think, the high price of games nowadays. Few people are willing to spend €/$ 70 on a game they may or may not like, so they get it cheaper second-hand. If games were priced more reasonably (like Telltale games ), more people would buy first-hand, and profits for the creators of the game could actually go up.
I'm no expert on the field though, so I could be wrong.
A pirate is just denying you money for an experience you provide. Somebody who buys a game second-hand (from a large company) is actually giving money to your competitor.
Wait... you're in competition with games retailers? The people who sell your games?
I suppose you are aren't you, since the battle lines have been shifting for a while. It used to be shop vs shop, then shop vs internet, and now it's shop vs internet vs direct from the developers and everyone wants to offer the best deals.
One of the main reasons for the second-hand trade is, I think, the high price of games nowadays. Few people are willing to spend €/$ 70 on a game they may or may not like, so they get it cheaper second-hand.
Yes, I also suspect that has something to do with it.
Personally, I just wait for the game to drop in price. I'm a very patient guy... why are some people in such a rush to play the new games immediately after release? It's not like the game gets any worse if you wait a few months to play it. Sometimes it's amazing how quickly prices on new titles drop.
Telltale's games are different though; they are priced perfectly from the launch
One of the main reasons for the second-hand trade is, I think, the high price of games nowadays. Few people are willing to spend €/$ 70 on a game they may or may not like, so they get it cheaper second-hand.
I would just buy the game new and then sell it to someone if I didn't like it. But as a private seller, it wouldn't make as much of an impact.
Wouldn't it be a better solution for corporate second hand game selling (non private persons) to be done away with? And for those that are unsure about a game, just rent it? That way if they like it, they can buy it to keep and play forever. And if they don't then they just give it back and forget about it. Like the library system.
What happens if a company goes under, or refuses to sell the game anymore, and you have some copy protection on your game that doesn't let you play it on some new computer you get 10 years down the road? All of a sudden you have no game left, and are forced to either get a pirated version, or I suppose pay someone to re-program your game to make it playable again?
In this case, all buyers should be aware they are paying for the chance to play the game for a week? a year? or until something unfortunate happens, or they move and lose their account or computer. All games then would be technically rented. The buyer, when it comes down to it, would own nothing. And under that logic, the games themselves would have to be a whole lot cheaper. I just can't see paying $70+ for a game like that.
One of the main reasons for the second-hand trade is, I think, the high price of games nowadays. Few people are willing to spend €/$ 70 on a game they may or may not like, so they get it cheaper second-hand. If games were priced more reasonably (like Telltale games ), more people would buy first-hand, and profits for the creators of the game could actually go up.
I'm no expert on the field though, so I could be wrong.
"The high price of games?"
New games for new systems are ~$50. They've always been that much. Even for NES games and PC parser-based adventure games 25 years ago, they were still that much. Even when 50 bucks was more money back then.
Granted newly released console hardware is more money now, but again if you're talking computers, the prices for modern parts are again the same as they were back then.
I just checked a few Dutch sites, and new console games mostly sell for €60 here, while I'm pretty sure it used to be €50, and before the euro they were 50 guilders, which is less.
So maybe €70 was a bit of an exaggeration, but prices are steadily increasing, which can't help to increase first-hand sales.
So maybe €70 was a bit of an exaggeration, but prices are steadily increasing, which can't help to increase first-hand sales.
It's a lot more expensive to make games now. Consumers have a higher expectation. You can't ship Final Fantasy 7 today and have it sell well.
To sell the same number of games, you have to invest a stupendous amount of money in art resources. I mean, you still need PRICE * SALES to be >= DEV COST if you want to keep your studio open. Since dev cost is going up, you have to increase price or sales to stay afloat. There's no easy way to increase sales, unfortunately. DLC, merchandise, games being $10 more expensive, etc... are all necessary for modern video games to exist at this point.
I mean, Square has said they can't afford to remake FF7 with modern hi def art resources. We've painted ourselves into a corner, here.
I've been thinking for a while about the price of making games and how it will affect future development. Too many companies are trying to one up each other, so you're not talking about just the artistic cost, but hiring in actors, and good ones at that.
Bethseda is a big culprit. They've been bringing in big actors for bit part roles and it must cost them a fair bit, not to mention any royalties they might need to pay. The price of Patrick Stewart and Sean Bean alone must be the reason they could only get in 4 other voice actors for Oblivion :P
Now games cost millions to make, they need to make millions, or companies go bankrupt. It honestly can't go on like this can it?
I've liked game graphics less and less and less. It makes me sad to know that I have to pay more for something that I like less, that it cost more time and money, and that it might be destroying the industry.
And I think the new Yare meme, after "Telltale programmer says iPods are more powerful than Wiis", is going to be "Telltale programmer advocates game piracy".
Just throwing this out there, but 10 years ago, what is $60 now, would have been $45 or so. The value of our currency has kind of been dropping like a rock. (since the world seems to be realizing we don't provide any kind of product or have anything behind the money anymore)
So yeah, on top of massive increases in development costs, there's been some pretty steep inflation, too.
And remember, the talent who make video games live in large, expensive cities. The dollars we make don't go very far.
$1500+/mo for a studio in some places here, I can only imagine the cost of keeping a commercial office open. Not to mention California taxes the hell out of businesses (which is why game studios here are being closed or moved to Washington). California also figures they're entitled to a large cut of our paychecks, even though we drive over perpetually pot-holed roads.
That sounds like a lot, it's only 500 euros for a studio in Paris. Well, was last time I checked. How big are your studios? The Parisian ones are 10 square meters.
Don't worry - I haven't even started on the daily miracle of the sunrise, the warmth of a loved one's embrace, or the joy of having random strangers try to cheer you up by being persistently and irritatingly positive.
Comments
The only reason why I haven't bought Dragon Age: Origins yet is because I hate BioWare's DLC system. Also being online 24/7 like Ubisoft wants me is definitely not something I will EVER do for my singleplayer games. I buy all my games, but if this becomes the common practice I suppose I am pretty much forced into piracy to play my games, since I am not willing (and currently; even unable to!) to be online 24/7 for my SP games.
And yes, there is also the fear of pulling the plug. Even BioWare did so with their NWN DLC due to issues with Atari, so it's definitely a possibility. And seeing how I am still playing 10 year old games or older now I don't suddenly want to find out I am unable at all because it's been wiped clean, unlike compatibility issues with newer software/hardware which can probably be worked around...
Fortunately TTG gives me a disk at the end, if not I would have definitely not bought all the games I did here.
Just say, for the sake of argument, that they didn't. How is that different from Steam, GOG or D2D?
So, your point?
I don't know about Hassat, but I've never bought a Steam game, and Ian only got Portal because it was free. I was interested in Sam & Max but didn't realise I'd get a DVD until ToMI was advertised, so that's when I bought Sam&Max Seasons 1 and 2. And due to the way the Wallace and Gromit DVD turned out to be, I didn't buy any episode and got them with coupons instead. And I'm not going to order the disc, either, since it's of no use to me.
I did buy Puzzle Agent, but that's because I want to support these guys, and I'm hoping it will sell enough that it will get an actual copy at some point. I think Telltale is being a nice enough company that people are more likely to keep buying from them if they change the way they work, but they'd lose me as a paying customer for sure if they stopped offering a DVD that has nothing to do with the Internet whatsoever.
I'd probably stick around on the forums and stuff though.
And I guess I'd buy non-game stuff too, like comics and stuff. Unless they start selling them in a "you need to be online to read them" way, of course.
There is no way my opinion would stop them from doing whatever they want of course, but I want to keep playing their games so I hope they don't do that :S
I guess I just don't get Yare's reasoning, I mean I get some of it but not all of it. If I want to replay the games, I'm not paying a second time. I paid once and will get to play as many times as I want. And not just me, but my husband, and potentially any roommates or family member living with us.
And that's apparently fine, because we're not paying for the experience of playing it once, like we're paying for a single plane ticket or a single meal at a restaurant, we're paying for the right to play it whenever we want for all of our life, and that extents to the whole household.
But if you sell it to someone else, then suddenly it's different. Even though you can't replay it because you've sold it. Why? The way I see it, only one person has the right to play it at a time. What does it change if it's me playing it five times or five different people playing it once? Ether way it's played five times and paid for only once.
Obviously we're not paying for the experience, but for the right to play it. That game comes with a right for someone to play it, as many times as they want. When you resell the right to play it, you can't play the game anymore, the new person can instead.
Seems to me that if you want to restrict that, you should also make sure that whoever buys it can only play it once, and never replay it. There is never going to be several people playing that same copy at the same time. Never.
I guess I just don't get where the discrepancy comes from. "That copy might be sold to millions of people!". Well, if it survives enough to go through that many transactions, it sure can be played a million times by me, the rest of my household, whoever inherits the game after I die and so on.
If the problem is that Gamestop is making money by taking someone's product for nothing and selling it to other people for a lot, then the person who's been had in the story isn't whoever made or sold the game in the first place. It's the person who sold it to gamestop, and the person who bought it from gamestop. And that's it.
Sure it's annoying, but it's also annoying that the person who grows the crops I'll eat is only paid a very small percentage of what I spend to get them, and the middleman takes the rest. People are making profit every where by buying something and reselling for more, sometimes ten times the price. It sucks, but that's how economy works.
Which reminds me of something my economy teacher used to say: most if not all of the time, economy and morality have diametrically opposed interests.
I never resell my own games, nor do I buy used games when new copies are readily accessible. I buy a lot of old games though; and in those cases, used copies are often the only option. (I don't use GameStop or similar stores, I prefer eBay, Play.com etc.) I'm also strongly against strict IP laws on general principle. While some degree of protection is necessary for IP holders, I think the current state of affairs, e.g. the DMCA, parts of the US patent system etc. is way out of hand.
What I'd like to see is some kind of compromise. I'd agree to removing the used games market for new games in exchange for dropping DRM in PC games. Or perhaps if we say that any intellectual property that is out of print automatically becomes public domain? That'd be pretty sweet. Wishful thinking though...
Maybe if you gave the option. Whoever holds the copyright can choose to keep the copyright by making a new printing, or it becomes public domain?
This way people wouldn't bother keeping the copyright if they think it's not worth reprinting it, and whichever option they choose you wouldn't get unobtainable stuff you wish you could pay for.
Right. When you said "automatically", I sound it was a bit harsh. I think there should be a delay to allow them to organise the next printing, and make sure to inform them they're losing the copyright, and everything. Automatically sounded more like "it expires and you might not even realise you've lost the rights".
I personally don't see the point of anything ever being copyrighted after the author dies. They're the only person who should get royalties from it. Not the publishers, not the descendants/heirs. Only the person who actually came up with it.
In case in a case of posthumous publishing you could have something like a five year delay or something. Like, five years after first printing or at the author's death, whichever comes later.
Anyway, I obviously don't make the laws, but I get annoyed at how copyright laws are only protecting "the middleman" as we've been saying, and so rarely protect the author.
Well, add "legally" to my statement, then. But if you include illegal stuff, you might as well pirate it for free.
If you’re going to take the TV model for your company, why not look at how TV channels work. We pay for the TV channel and we can watch all its content. If we’re going to have to be online to play games we should only have to pay for that service and as long as we’re paying for the "channel" we can play all the games on it as much as we want for a prescription fee. But if we want to own the game, we can pay more for that right and buy a DVD.
I don’t support GameStop and never buy second hand games when I can help it. I never sell a game I like because I may want to play it again some day. I just don’t see why gamers should be punished because of companies like this. I don’t think non-transferable DLC is the solution.
The DLC solution is that the DVD you buy doesn't contain the entire game, the part that's missing has to be bought off the site of the people who made the game. BUT if you buy the game first-hand, there's a code to download that DLC for free. So if you buy it first hand, you get the entire game for the store price, but second-hand buyers that buy the game cheaper, have to give a bit of money to the creators of the game too to be able to actually play.
That DLC doesn't necessarily require you to be online ALL the time, but you do need an internet connection to download it the first time.
Having to be online all the time is more of a copy-protection than a way to prevent people selling on their games, though it can be used for that purpose too.
I've heard that WiiWare/Virtual Console titles are locked to work only on the console they were purchased on; users can't transfer purchased games to a new console. This restriction is apparently in place even if your console breaks and you get a new one on warranty. Pretty strict DRM if you ask me.
From what I hear, Live Marketplace and PlayStation Store titles are tied to the user account rather than the console itself; which sounds a bit more consumer friendly.
I don't use any of the current generation consoles though, so everything I've said may be entirely wrong...
The PSN method is actually quite good. You're allowed to have your account "active" on up to 5 PS3 systems. When you buy something on the PSN, you're allowed to download and install it on all of the consoles your account is active on. If you deactivate your account on one console, the content deactivates as well but then you can go activate your account on a different console.
Lots of PSN game sharing goes on but it's all above the bar, since Sony's license allows it.
You could buy a jar of black paint? :P
What you've described isn't just something on the Wii though. Some PS3 games don't let you copy save files despite the fact that the files can only be used with the profile they were originally saved to. This caused a friend of mine to lose a few save files when his PS3 was repaired as they replaced the hard drive but couldn't copy all the files.
I think the X-Box does something similar but I'm not sure.
Back on the topic of DLC and used games. It does seem like an interesting idea to limit some parts of the game if you buy it used until you spend a bit extra money. Despite all the gripe about piracy destroying the gaming industry second hand games do far more. Devil's Advocate time here you could possibly say that used games sells are worse, as they are still a guaranteed sell of the game, where as there's no guarantee that a pirate would buy the game anyway.
So there does have to be some sort of compromise, but it has to be smart. Wasn't EA wanting to not let people use the multiplayer if they bought a game used? That's not very smart. It seems more drastic and money grubbing since nowadays multiplayer is a big part of games. You might as well just not let people play the game at all until they cough up. Removing some weapons, classes, or unimportant story sections seems a much user friendly way to go.
A pirate is just denying you money for an experience you provide. Somebody who buys a game second-hand (from a large company) is actually giving money to your competitor.
I'm no expert on the field though, so I could be wrong.
Wait... you're in competition with games retailers? The people who sell your games?
I suppose you are aren't you, since the battle lines have been shifting for a while. It used to be shop vs shop, then shop vs internet, and now it's shop vs internet vs direct from the developers and everyone wants to offer the best deals.
Personally, I just wait for the game to drop in price. I'm a very patient guy... why are some people in such a rush to play the new games immediately after release? It's not like the game gets any worse if you wait a few months to play it. Sometimes it's amazing how quickly prices on new titles drop.
Telltale's games are different though; they are priced perfectly from the launch
I would just buy the game new and then sell it to someone if I didn't like it. But as a private seller, it wouldn't make as much of an impact.
Wouldn't it be a better solution for corporate second hand game selling (non private persons) to be done away with? And for those that are unsure about a game, just rent it? That way if they like it, they can buy it to keep and play forever. And if they don't then they just give it back and forget about it. Like the library system.
What happens if a company goes under, or refuses to sell the game anymore, and you have some copy protection on your game that doesn't let you play it on some new computer you get 10 years down the road? All of a sudden you have no game left, and are forced to either get a pirated version, or I suppose pay someone to re-program your game to make it playable again?
In this case, all buyers should be aware they are paying for the chance to play the game for a week? a year? or until something unfortunate happens, or they move and lose their account or computer. All games then would be technically rented. The buyer, when it comes down to it, would own nothing. And under that logic, the games themselves would have to be a whole lot cheaper. I just can't see paying $70+ for a game like that.
"The high price of games?"
New games for new systems are ~$50. They've always been that much. Even for NES games and PC parser-based adventure games 25 years ago, they were still that much. Even when 50 bucks was more money back then.
Granted newly released console hardware is more money now, but again if you're talking computers, the prices for modern parts are again the same as they were back then.
So maybe €70 was a bit of an exaggeration, but prices are steadily increasing, which can't help to increase first-hand sales.
It's a lot more expensive to make games now. Consumers have a higher expectation. You can't ship Final Fantasy 7 today and have it sell well.
To sell the same number of games, you have to invest a stupendous amount of money in art resources. I mean, you still need PRICE * SALES to be >= DEV COST if you want to keep your studio open. Since dev cost is going up, you have to increase price or sales to stay afloat. There's no easy way to increase sales, unfortunately. DLC, merchandise, games being $10 more expensive, etc... are all necessary for modern video games to exist at this point.
I mean, Square has said they can't afford to remake FF7 with modern hi def art resources. We've painted ourselves into a corner, here.
Bethseda is a big culprit. They've been bringing in big actors for bit part roles and it must cost them a fair bit, not to mention any royalties they might need to pay. The price of Patrick Stewart and Sean Bean alone must be the reason they could only get in 4 other voice actors for Oblivion :P
Now games cost millions to make, they need to make millions, or companies go bankrupt. It honestly can't go on like this can it?
And I think the new Yare meme, after "Telltale programmer says iPods are more powerful than Wiis", is going to be "Telltale programmer advocates game piracy".
So yeah, on top of massive increases in development costs, there's been some pretty steep inflation, too.
$1500+/mo for a studio in some places here, I can only imagine the cost of keeping a commercial office open. Not to mention California taxes the hell out of businesses (which is why game studios here are being closed or moved to Washington). California also figures they're entitled to a large cut of our paychecks, even though we drive over perpetually pot-holed roads.
Everything is lame, hahaha.
That sounds like a lot, it's only 500 euros for a studio in Paris. Well, was last time I checked. How big are your studios? The Parisian ones are 10 square meters.
You're so cynical
On the plus side... um... rainbows are for free?
When they say "pot of gold", it's not so much a pot as it is a bucket. And the "gold" they speak of is just crispy golden pieces of fried chicken.
His bitter laughter breaks my heart.
Don't worry - I haven't even started on the daily miracle of the sunrise, the warmth of a loved one's embrace, or the joy of having random strangers try to cheer you up by being persistently and irritatingly positive.