Epic: DLC Needed to Fight "Used Game Culture"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Dexter111:
snip
image
snip

That sir is a brilliant image, kudos for bringing it here.

OT: Alternatively Epic (thats not alternatively epic; I mean Alternatively to Epic), just make a game worth replaying - most of my favourites are games I've replayed close to a gazillion times (slight exaggeration there); people will only buy DLC if they liked the game/have far too much money. All you're doing with Day One DLC is giving people less of a reason to keep the game if its content that should come on the disc for free.

"Hey, a pristine game going for two-thirds of the new value, jackpot... oh wait half the content is missing *returns it to the shop*"

"Hey a (fairly) pristine game going for two-thirds of the new value, jackpot... oh wait half the content is missing *returns it to the shop*"

"Hey a good condition game going for half of the new value, jackpot... oh wait half the content is missing *returns it to the shop*"

"Hey..." I think you get my point.

The only person who wins here are the people selling it repeatedly.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Xanadu84:

DVS BSTrD:
You mean the culture of making games available to people who otherwise would never have bought them an thus has no effect on your bottom line whatsoever? THAT culture?

Do you honestly believe that the average consumer who would buy a game new, who comes into a store and sees that he can buy the exact same game for 10 bucks cheaper, would choose to pay 10 dollars more without any incentive whatsoever? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.

If it is a game that I KNOW I want, I'll get it new so that I make sure the game is intact, manual is intact, and for that intoxicating new game smell.

If it is a game I THINK I might want, I'll get it used so if I don't like it, I'm not out $60. Return it, maybe throw it towards that new game coming out next month.

So you think publishers should bank a sizeable percentage of there earnings on almost all customers being very concerned with creased manuals, and them valuing that more then cold hard cash? You think that people who prefer the smell of plastic to money make up most of the market?

Dastardly:
sNIP

Unequivocally NO.

You cant understand their desire to not want to have to compete with the used market because how many other commercial industries are there out there who even have the potential to bypass the second hand market?

Using your car analogy, What this is like is GM designing a car, someone selling it and GM withholding the right to remove the transmission if/each time the vehicle is sold so as they get a second round of profits for doing absolutely nothing.

__________________

Simply put the developers have no right to try to do what they are attempting to do which is to destroy industries because those subsidiary industries that supported the gaming industry for decades before digital distribution made it possible to eliminate the middle man are not directly shoveling their profits back to the PUBLISHERS. Not the people who toiled endlessly to create the game, the same guys who are eliminating innovation because its "risky" and might not be profitable, The same sort of guys that saw a game sell 3.5 million copies in two days that roughly translates into 200+ million dollars but want to cry foul because they arent making enough profit on their 75 million dollar investment. Make no mistake THATS who your defending when you defend this insane notion that used games are anything but good for the industry as a whole.

I mean seriously, what is next? We start looking at those who wait for a game to go on sale like they are criminals? These people need to ditch their entitlement because it is tired and flat out wrong.

It is hard to be sympathetic to these causes when (like the music and movie industires before them) there's a subtext of "no one should enjoy our intelectual property without us getting a cut" behind it. I'm sure if they could lock a sale you your DNA, they would.

and to me day one DLC is less efective than what Bioware does. I've encountered several used games with the unlock DLC code unclaimed because if you didn't care enough to keep the game, you probably wouldn't care about added content. However new added content makes us need to keep our disks to access something that may come several months or a year down the line. Better still, try a monster rancher style thing and have early unlockables that unlock by inserting older games your company makes.

At least try some creativity before obvious gouging.

Well Epic it's a good thing I don't like any of your games, because it's getting increasingly obvious you're a bunch of idiots.

Xanadu84:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Xanadu84:

Do you honestly believe that the average consumer who would buy a game new, who comes into a store and sees that he can buy the exact same game for 10 bucks cheaper, would choose to pay 10 dollars more without any incentive whatsoever? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.

If it is a game that I KNOW I want, I'll get it new so that I make sure the game is intact, manual is intact, and for that intoxicating new game smell.

If it is a game I THINK I might want, I'll get it used so if I don't like it, I'm not out $60. Return it, maybe throw it towards that new game coming out next month.

So you think publishers should bank a sizeable percentage of there earnings on almost all customers being very concerned with creased manuals, and them valuing that more then cold hard cash? You think that people who prefer the smell of plastic to money make up most of the market?

Well, if the game is still $60 8 months after release, and there are used copies on the shelf for $25 (Final Fantasy XIII, we're looking at you here) then maybe the parent company should try something fun like LOWERING THE NEW PRICE ONCE IN A WHILE. And not just for your annual black Friday or Labor Day sale.

To Consumers: If you want the full game, pay full price. You don't get to bitch when you didn't get the whole game because you didn't pay the whole price. That's a risk you take. Second hand market thrives on it. I can buy the Warcraft Battle Chest, take out Frozen Throne, and sell it to my buddy at any price I dictate, that's how the used market works.

To Producers/Creators etc: If I pay 60 dollars, there had better be NOTHING locked on that disc. Day 1 DLC is one thing, but, no one is getting it used on day one! It shouldn't be there, ever. If you have to announce dlc before the game is out, you are screwing the new buyer. Stop it.

viranimus:

Simply put the developers have no right to try to do what they are attempting to do which

They have every right to do so. It's called a free market. There is nothing illegal with their business practices. I see it far too often on this web site people screaming that second hand market is protected by the free market, while forgetting so is trying to maximize profits and giving incentive to buy from them.

Do.Not.Start.Spouting.That."They.Already.Got.Their.Money."BS.
If only one copy was purchased new, and under some insane circumstances it was cycled around enough that everyone who wanted the game bought used, that company would no longer make games. So they try to get you to buy new, with stuff that says you only get it free if you buy new.
Just like with a car, you are only guaranteed working parts if you buy new. The company isn't taking anything away, they're just telling you no.

If a company wants to combat the used market, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO. Get over it. If you want them to stop, you have to stop buying used. It's called reciprocation, you don't get something for nothing. They owe you nothing, because you gave them nothing.

weker:

El Luck:
Or...you make a game that people wouldn't want to trade in.

El Luck:
Or...you make a game that people wouldn't want to trade in.

Yay more forced in multiplayers woot woot :D I know Jim had that big video about how people replay games, but I am sure there are more people that don't, which he failed to consider.
I don't tend to replay many games at all, excluding some with moral choice.
I would rather have this day one DLC (as long as it doesn't cost money when I buy the game, and also doesn't prove to be a crucial part of the game) then start forcing game styles on developers.

...Where did i mention forced multiplayer?

El Luck:

weker:

El Luck:
Or...you make a game that people wouldn't want to trade in.

El Luck:
Or...you make a game that people wouldn't want to trade in.

Yay more forced in multiplayers woot woot :D I know Jim had that big video about how people replay games, but I am sure there are more people that don't, which he failed to consider.
I don't tend to replay many games at all, excluding some with moral choice.
I would rather have this day one DLC (as long as it doesn't cost money when I buy the game, and also doesn't prove to be a crucial part of the game) then start forcing game styles on developers.

...Where did i mention forced multiplayer?

You didn't, why do you ask?
"game that people wouldn't want to trade in" for the common consumer these are games that you don't trade in. Most single player games, unless their the likes of fallout get traded in super quick, as there is no reason to keep them.

Kahunaburger:
Fingers crossed that the book industry never figures out a way to do this.

Give it time, with books going digital more and more look for things like "bonus chapters" or something of the sort to crop up eventually.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Xanadu84:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

If it is a game that I KNOW I want, I'll get it new so that I make sure the game is intact, manual is intact, and for that intoxicating new game smell.

If it is a game I THINK I might want, I'll get it used so if I don't like it, I'm not out $60. Return it, maybe throw it towards that new game coming out next month.

So you think publishers should bank a sizeable percentage of there earnings on almost all customers being very concerned with creased manuals, and them valuing that more then cold hard cash? You think that people who prefer the smell of plastic to money make up most of the market?

Well, if the game is still $60 8 months after release, and there are used copies on the shelf for $25 (Final Fantasy XIII, we're looking at you here) then maybe the parent company should try something fun like LOWERING THE NEW PRICE ONCE IN A WHILE. And not just for your annual black Friday or Labor Day sale.

Okay, but that's a separate issue. They lower the price and used game prices come down as well. Same loss. Besides, if you want a company to agree that it makes mathematical sense to lower their prices, they need to believe that they still make a good percentage per unit sold. Used games bring this percentage down, and encourage developers to keep prices high. Besides, the higher the volume of games are out their, the easier it is to support a secondhand market. More people who would think that 60 bucks is too much of a risk will spend a smaller amount and brave that risk, meaning more copies returned when the those individuals return the game. And people will return a game even if they like it.

They could offer the stuff you get from the collectors edition into the regular one. That would give physical stores more custom as well as making new copies more lucrative than used ones.

I agree with making Day one and preorder DLC over Online Pass. Online Passes are just stupidly executed.

DLC Needed to Fight Used Game Culture

No. No it isn't. A better business model is needed to sell more launch games.

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but has anyone noticed that the "used games" issue has only been a supposedly industry-threatening issue since the advent of nickel-and-dime DLC?

I'm getting sick of the companies and their bullshit. I'm also sick of all of the disinterested morons who think that all of this nonsense is a good idea.

The way the industry is headed, we'll be charged in gameplay per minutes with a connection fee. We as consumers are being ripped off in the name of higher profit margins. I realize that, as a business, profits are your desired result, but don't do it at the expense of your client base.

Then again, what I'm calling for is decency from a corporate culture and action from the most lazy people on earth.

We're all doomed.

It's like they aren't even looking over and seeing Steam, a service that permalocks used games to an account, making a castle out of money because people don't mind not being able to sell their games back when they are able to buy them at an affordable price, or better yet, for several hats that they just picked up in an engaging and goofy game.

I actually agree with online passes, if they work the way I think they work. If you buy the game new an online pass comes with it, if you buy it used you have to buy an online pass for £10, what's wrong with that? Didn't the new Batman game do that with the Catwomen part?

By the way the price of games in shops is mainly dictated by the shop. Are they going to lower the price of the new game and only get half of the profit? or keep it expensive and get you to buy used.

The dichotomy of that situation is broken when you look at steam sales and discover that most games' profits exceed what they were making in other markets despite being at a lower price, and that steam doesn't take full profit from used sales because they don't have any.

weirdguy:
It's like they aren't even looking over and seeing Steam, a service that permalocks used games to an account, making a castle out of money because people don't mind not being able to sell their games back when they are able to buy them at an affordable price, or better yet, for several hats that they just picked up in an engaging and goofy game.

Shush you. Your logic has no place in this discussion. Now if you excuse me I need to go figure out which DLC codes unlock the start menu of this game I just picked up.

El Luck:
Or...you make a game that people wouldn't want to trade in.

I've already seen preowned copies of Skyrim. This argument is completely invalid.

Console versions of skyrim don't use steamworks, right? Otherwise, it'd be impossible to sell a used copy back when the code is spent.

uh huh .....

try selling that again when the DLC is actually WORTH a damn

Wasted Frank:
I actually agree with online passes, if they work the way I think they work. If you buy the game new an online pass comes with it, if you buy it used you have to buy an online pass for £10, what's wrong with that? Didn't the new Batman game do that with the Catwomen part?

By the way the price of games in shops is mainly dictated by the shop. Are they going to lower the price of the new game and only get half of the profit? or keep it expensive and get you to buy used.

That is how it works, intrestingly though, because it's a generated code people have worked out how to generate them, and because they generate working codes there's a chance that that freshly package shiny new retail version you bought contains a code someone else already redeemed. Isn't it funderful!?

Additionally I was under the impression that DLC was the combat against used games. Admittedly most DLC is craptacular which is probably why it isn't working.

For those championing digital distribution, I don't know about the US, but here in Blighty the price of a new game is £49.99, it's just everyone except Argos sells them for £39.99. When you get to the playstation store however the price is £49.99, and they can maintain a higher price point for much longer than shops because they don't need to worry about getting rid of stock...

Can someone please tell me where the hell developers and publishers get this idea that used games is somehow a personal insult to them? It's confounding to me where they get this attitude that they are somehow entitled to the money of a used game. You already got the money for the game sale you moron! You have no further say in what happens to the game once you sell it! Where the hell do they get the idea that they do? I can't think of any kind of product which works that way. And calling it a "culture", like it's come kind of rebel group on the fringes of society who are the only ones doing this, is just insane. What the hell are these guys smoking?

If it isn't one excuse for bad sales, it's another. Hell, just admit that maybe, just maybe, your games aren't quite as good as you really think they are. And maybe, just maybe, the economy sucks right now, and people have to cut back on their game buying in order to buy other things. Things like, ya know, food.

Grey Carter:
"What people need to understand is that extra content is something that you have to plan," said Fergusson, talking to Game Informer Magazine. "You don't just lift up a rock and say, 'oh shit, there's new levels!'," added Gears of War lead designer Cliff Bleszinski.

Day-one DLC is often developed in tandem with the base game, but is usually budgeted separately. "There are people who think that the first day of DLC development is the day after you launched," said Fergusson. "That's not the way it works. A lot of it is that you have to prepare and plan and manage your resources and your people and everything to allow for that."

Fergusson went on to argue that DLC, and presumably he means good DLC rather than the largely inconsequential stuff we've seen so far, is a preferable alternative to gated multiplayer systems, like EA's controversial Online Pass program. A carrot rather than a stick, if you will. "It's less about shipping what's left over. It's not about, 'Oh, we had this map left over'... it's keeping the disc in the tray," he said. "In a used game culture that you have to actively fight against, I think DLC is one of the ways that you do that.

The real issue here is day-one DLC that costs money.

And that's where this stupid argument just falls flat.

And also, releasing DLC every few weeks in a multiplayer context. Call of Duty, I'm looking at you.

viranimus:

Dastardly:
sNIP

Unequivocally NO.

You cant understand their desire to not want to have to compete with the used market because how many other commercial industries are there out there who even have the potential to bypass the second hand market?

Using your car analogy, What this is like is GM designing a car, someone selling it and GM withholding the right to remove the transmission if/each time the vehicle is sold so as they get a second round of profits for doing absolutely nothing.

There are a few rather important things you're forgetting there
A.) A used car is quite different from a new car (wear and tear, required repairs, lapsed warranty, need to safety, etc.) while a used game is exactly the same as a new one
B.) A used car actually costs a significant amount less than a new one, whereas a used game is often only a small fraction less than a new one meaning the two aren't really competing for the same consumer base. Generally, if you can pay $55 for a used copy you can also pay $60 for a new copy. With cars, however, the new one may cost $20000 while the used one costs $12000. It's very conceivable (in fact, it's almost always the case) that someone who is in the market for the $12000 car couldn't afford the $20000 one.
C.) With a used car, the maker of the vehicle is actually often taking a cut somewhere anyway whether it be through licensing paid by the used dealer and/or autoshop, after market warranties, parts costs, etc.

Also, the way the game industry works is different than pretty much every other entertainment medium out there in terms of where it's revenue is generated. You can't just say "But movies/music/books/etc. don't care much about used copies so games shouldn't either" because they really don't function the same way. Games, not counting the much reviled DLC (which actually costs extra time/money to make anyway), rely on a single revenue point in the form of a new copy sale. Everything else has multiple revenue points that essentially act to support and cross promote each other. Movies, for a quick example, have staggered theater releases often including extra 3D fees at some showings. Then, after the theatrical run, they have multiple home disc releases possibly staggered over months/years to encourage rebuying of the same product. There's also an entire world of tie in products, TV viewing licensing, and spin off deals for movies to cash in on that games don't have.

Once again, it's not that used = evil. It's that when you actually think about it logically, it's easy to see why game companies are quite eager to find ways around the rising used game market. There's a few different ways for them to do this, and certainly none they've tried so far have made everyone happy, but value adding DLC is far from the worst option. Look at the PC side of things where there's almost no used market and you often can't transfer used copies at all because so many things are paperweights after their single use activation code is entered the first time.

Xanadu84:

DVS BSTrD:
You mean the culture of making games available to people who otherwise would never have bought them an thus has no effect on your bottom line whatsoever? THAT culture?

Do you honestly believe that the average consumer who would buy a game new, who comes into a store and sees that he can buy the exact same game for 10 bucks cheaper, would choose to pay 10 dollars more without any incentive whatsoever? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.

And I have a bridge to sell him for $10 cheaper.

Micalas:

And I have a bridge to sell him for $10 cheaper.

Correction, you have half a bridge. Wink.

LastGreatBlasphemer:

Micalas:

And I have a bridge to sell him for $10 cheaper.

Correction, you have half a bridge. Wink.

Well, I have an entire bridge that I'm just giving away to anyone who asks, and there's nothing the bridge's owner can do about it! If he sets up security, that just inconveniences his "genuine" customers, and I can work around it anyway in no time at all!

LastGreatBlasphemer:

Micalas:

And I have a bridge to sell him for $10 cheaper.

Correction, you have half a bridge. Wink.

Shhhh....that detail is hidden in the EULA.

viranimus:

Simply put the developers have no right to try to do what they are attempting to do which is to destroy industries because those subsidiary industries that supported the gaming industry for decades before digital distribution made it possible to eliminate the middle man are not directly shoveling their profits back to the PUBLISHERS. Not the people who toiled endlessly to create the game, the same guys who are eliminating innovation because its "risky" and might not be profitable, The same sort of guys that saw a game sell 3.5 million copies in two days that roughly translates into 200+ million dollars but want to cry foul because they arent making enough profit on their 75 million dollar investment. Make no mistake THATS who your defending when you defend this insane notion that used games are anything but good for the industry as a whole.

I mean seriously, what is next? We start looking at those who wait for a game to go on sale like they are criminals? These people need to ditch their entitlement because it is tired and flat out wrong.

We should all know what happens if games (especially of owned studios) do not hit expected sales targets...

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6119143/troika-closes
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/181974/ea-we-blew-it-with-bullfrog-westwood/
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/701123/ea-says-pandemic-closed-because-it-was-too-expensive-not-bad-games/
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/16/activision-reportedly-closing-bizarre-creations/
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/28776/Bigpoint_Buys_Radon_Labs_Opens_Berlin_Office.php

etc.

Publishers won't be the ones immediately closing down, just look at SEGA, ATARI, Interplay etc. that screw up over and over again but still cling to life by a thread to come back and usually screw up some more.

Even if they don't close down the developers right away, it is highly likely that you won't see any more of the games you like... I thought this was basic consumerism and everyone knew by now, you're not just "helping the Publishers" but also help a studio which games you like stay afloat and directly vote for "more games like this" in the process...

If you like a game, say Psychonauts or Beyond Good & Evil or Mirror's Edge or whatnot and want more of it you have to buy it, not pirate, not buy used, but buy a new copy of it to signal them that "You like".

If you don't like a game, say Call of Duty and want them to stop you have to stop buying it, not continue to buy it and then complain...

viranimus:

Dastardly:
sNIP

Unequivocally NO.

You cant understand their desire to not want to have to compete with the used market because how many other commercial industries are there out there who even have the potential to bypass the second hand market?

They're not trying to "bypass." They're trying to compete with it. They're trying to make sure there is a clear, measurable reason to buy new vs. used other than "Because." You want to talk about bypassing, you need to look at digital distribution -- no disc, no resale.

Using your car analogy, What this is like is GM designing a car, someone selling it and GM withholding the right to remove the transmission if/each time the vehicle is sold so as they get a second round of profits for doing absolutely nothing.

Not even almost. This is like GM designing a car, selling it with a warranty, and refusing to start the warranty back over at 0 years when it is resold. The value that is used up is used up, but the car still runs just fine (as long as the used seller is doing legit business).

"Withholding" is your problem. They're not "withholding" anything. They're including it with all of the new games, because new customers are paying them full price. Then the new customers are using those features. When they sell it, at a fraction of the original price, the used buyer is paying a lower price... and not paying the publisher. What reason does the publisher have to please someone who's not paying them?

If you want the extra features, pay for them, or complain to the guy selling you a used game at an inflated price. They're the ones who are doing "absolutely nothing" and still expecting top dollar for it.

Simply put the developers have no right...

In fact, they do. They invented the product. They built it, made it, created, everything. They can sell it for a bajillion dollars in chocolate gold coins if they want.

I mean seriously, what is next? We start looking at those who wait for a game to go on sale like they are criminals? These people need to ditch their entitlement because it is tired and flat out wrong.

Ah, Hyperbole, how we love to substitute you for Truth. No one said "used sales are criminal." They're simply saying, "We want to find ways of making sure a new copy of the game has more toys (and thus more value) than a used copy of the game."

Oh, and claiming the money "only" goes to the publishers? Who do you think uses that money to fund those developers' next project? Ah... You're oversimplifying a system it appears you don't fully understand, and substituting rants for truth.

ITT: People on crosses telling Epic to get down off their cross.

Consumers refuse to take responsibility for the fact that they have sway in the market. They want to reclaim used sales because game production is a really tough industry to break even in. They won't bend to your every will because that would be financial suicide. It's not money-grubbing if you aren't guaranteed to stay alive for another year without all the money you can get...

Cue the furious masses telling me how wrong I am, not backing themselves up at all, and telling me how I'm a fucktard because I support industries.

Sixcess:

Grey Carter:

Used game sales, a long standing part of the industry, seems to have replaced piracy as the industry boogeyman of choice, with numerous developers blaming them for poor, or lower than expected, game sales in recent years.

Here's a simpler solution to your woes, developers.

Make. Better. Games.

Also, isn't it just a little likely that people are less willing to buy games new since they know half the bloody content will be coming out as DLC over the ensuing 12 months and they'll have to pay for that on top of the new release price?

Yes, yes it is.

I do not support this. All my favorite games would vanish, and we'd see EVEN MORE war shooters, seeing that MW3 is currently objectively the best game ever.

Also, you're implying that devs aren't trying to make the best game they can in their time limits, which is a confusing and completely illogical viewpoint.

viranimus:
Simply put the developers have no right to try to do what they are attempting to do

I have a reality check for you...

Xanadu84:

DVS BSTrD:
You mean the culture of making games available to people who otherwise would never have bought them an thus has no effect on your bottom line whatsoever? THAT culture?

Do you honestly believe that the average consumer who would buy a game new, who comes into a store and sees that he can buy the exact same game for 10 bucks cheaper, would choose to pay 10 dollars more without any incentive whatsoever? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.

Coming from someone who works in a game store. People buy new stuff ALL the time, even if it's 5 bucks cheaper. Here's the mentality: "You mean for 5 extra dollars I can just get the new game? Then I'll take the new game"
Maybe people are scared of buying preowned games and the only incentive they have is that the new one hasn't been used yet.

Really, it happens a lot.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here