PS3 will not play used games?

[Shifty Geezer]

While a game is playable forever as long as the media it is released on is readable;

Or follow many other industries and have built-in lifespan limits. How's about game discs that gradually wear out over time and use, so after a couple years or 5 playthroughs you gotta buy another one? That's more in keeping with the way consunmers are ripped off

 

[MrWibble]

This is my 256th post, and that makes me happy. Anyhoo...

I still think the key is for developers to find ways to convince people not to sell games off rather than to find ways to enforce it.

Trying to have some kind of sponsored resale service will really just encourage the current players in the market to undercut whatever margins are being made and do the same thing cheaper. Being on the high-street and just taking my games away from me for cash is likely to be a big win.

As a developer, if I was in a position to do so I'd be giving a lot more thought to how I can get people to keep putting my game into their console for a number of months, rather than play it for a few days or weeks and resell it.

That quiz game that Sony just brought out - asisde from the fact that it comes with a peripheral that will no doubt be required to play add-on versions (like with Eyetoy and the singing one), imagine if it had some kind of very cheap online-subscription (or for that matter, free). Ever time you play it downloads new questions. You'll never be in a position of knowing all the answers. It doesn't matter if you don't play it all the time, you'll keep the thing around because you dig it out occasionally when friends are around. A game like that would rarely be resold - only when the person selling it genuinely never plays it at all.

Make a game where the content expands or varies over time, or make games that aren't a case of sitting down and completing it, but something you want to dip into now and again. Those titles won't be making their way to the 2nd hand shelf...

 

[crystalcube]

For lot of people a good way is to buy second hand games and a lot of people who sell games would use the money they gain to buy more games. There are people whose buying decision is based on their ability to sell games. if they know that their game is going to be useless to others and they cant sell it they are going to think much harder and slow down their purchasing habits.

 

[Platon]

This is my 256th post, and that makes me happy. Anyhoo...

I still think the key is for developers to find ways to convince people not to sell games off rather than to find ways to enforce it.

Trying to have some kind of sponsored resale service will really just encourage the current players in the market to undercut whatever margins are being made and do the same thing cheaper. Being on the high-street and just taking my games away from me for cash is likely to be a big win.

As a developer, if I was in a position to do so I'd be giving a lot more thought to how I can get people to keep putting my game into their console for a number of months, rather than play it for a few days or weeks and resell it.

That quiz game that Sony just brought out - asisde from the fact that it comes with a peripheral that will no doubt be required to play add-on versions (like with Eyetoy and the singing one), imagine if it had some kind of very cheap online-subscription (or for that matter, free). Ever time you play it downloads new questions. You'll never be in a position of knowing all the answers. It doesn't matter if you don't play it all the time, you'll keep the thing around because you dig it out occasionally when friends are around. A game like that would rarely be resold - only when the person selling it genuinely never plays it at all.

Make a game where the content expands or varies over time, or make games that aren't a case of sitting down and completing it, but something you want to dip into now and again. Those titles won't be making their way to the 2nd hand shelf...

Although I all for making games last longer, being able to download episodes and stuff, fr the industry as a whole, that might not be all to good, as then games might be bying less games, including new ones. The other thing is that although by selling a used game the developers/publishers suffer, on the other hand I can imagine that many gamers reinvest the money they get from selling a game into bying a new game, benefiting some developer/publisher, that might have not gotten that money otherwise. People will need to keep buying new games, otherwise there will not be any used ones to sell. It is an autoregulatory market...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There's like 7,000 PS2 games or something, and I've seen about a couple of dozen, maybe 50, across mine and my friends collections. I own a handful. Personally I could happily accomodate only 100 titles a year if they were diversity and all of fantastic quality. So much choice means trying to pick the good stuff from amongst the dross.
To much choice does my head in. Like I was in town today looking for an opticians. There's over half a dozen within spitting distance of each other in town. I wondered round seeing the same types of glasses for the same types of prices. There's hundreds of frames to choose from, but very few styles. I've a very narrow bridge to my nose and so most specs don't fit, so despite hundreds of frames, there's very little variation and little to choose between them. Same with like shampoo or toothbrushes...there's loads to choose from, all of which do pretty much the same thing, so how on earth can you make a choice? Try them all and find the one that works best?

There's too many games. Too make generic run-of-the-mill games. LEss games, more diverse, with more choice and higher quality, would suit me fine.

 

[MrWibble]

Although I all for making games last longer, being able to download episodes and stuff, fr the industry as a whole, that might not be all to good, as then games might be bying less games, including new ones. The other thing is that although by selling a used game the developers/publishers suffer, on the other hand I can imagine that many gamers reinvest the money they get from selling a game into bying a new game, benefiting some developer/publisher, that might have not gotten that money otherwise. People will need to keep buying new games, otherwise there will not be any used ones to sell. It is an autoregulatory market...

In a lot of cases it's less the minor exchange of money that's bothering developers, and more the thought that increasing amounts of shelf space that could be occupied with their latest title is being taken up with anything else.

Like I say, I don't think it's a matter of making games last longer exactly, so much as extending their lifespan.

I doubt you'd be able to sustain content for a game to last indefinitely while being played all the time (online stuff being slightly different in this regard), but instead for games to be played only occasionally, but you keep going back to them.

In that way people would still be buying new games, getting enough stuff to keep them occupied all the time and maybe also paying for new content.

It doesn't have to be every title - just enough for the publishers and developers to be able to recoup anything they think they're losing.

The game industries distribution model will have to adapt sooner or later in the same way that music has already been forced to, and TV and movies look likely to follow.

 

[Magnum PI]

If games development costs are so much higher than other media, maybe that argues for the fact that the current model isn't sustainable?

Yes they should just stop making games.

Maybe the industry should adapt rather than expecting consumers and retailers to adapt (i.e. not participate in the used market)?

The industry is in fact adapting:

* off-shore dev
* licence games (less financial risk)

What else the industry can do ?

Of course you all know what the industry should do: lower the price of the games. Sorry that's very simplistic:
* gamers does not have infinite ammount of time, if game were cheaper i wouldn't buy more games => loss
* people are cheap, as long as they can buy an used game cheaper most will buy used => loss
* they are not guaranteed to sell that much more units because of the price lowering, and they would have a lower income from the game sales => loss

Publishers have very competent people in the economical/financial/marketing field, if this was an appropriate answer it would have be done for long.

If the current model isn't sustainable, it's logical to make it evolve.

If they find a way to prevent used games being resold they will do it, and i'm all for it, I just hope it won't be too late.

Nintendo claim that the revolution will be a safer plateform to develop for, because of the budgets that are supposed to be lower, it could help too, and if it helps lower publishers to survive and allows for some interesting original lower-budget titles i think it's great too.

It's the little companies that are suffering the most.

 

[Magnum PI]

There's too many games. Too make generic run-of-the-mill games. LEss games, more diverse, with more choice and higher quality, would suit me fine.

You should have bought a GC

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Don't have CON on GC. Or PES. Or SotC.

 

[a688]

Yes they should just stop making games.

Nobody is forcing them to make games in the first place. So yes, if they don't make as much money as they want, then they can quit making games and do whatever else they want to make money.

Of course you all know what the industry should do: lower the price of the games. Sorry that's very simplistic:
* gamers does not have infinite ammount of time, if game were cheaper i wouldn't buy more games => loss

Money is not infinite (especially that of consumers). Stores will do their best to sell items that make them the most profit or close. Consumers will buy items they like but only for a certain cost. If games were cheaper then consumers would have the ability to purchase more games.

* people are cheap, as long as they can buy an used game cheaper most will buy used => loss

Here is where you are wrong depending on what type of used game you are refering to. Is this a "new" used game where the game is less than a month old. In this case the price of a used game is usually barely less than that of a new game and most people will go for the new game on teh shelf and there are only a limited number of used games on the market (unless the game sucks).

If you are talking about games that are > 1 year or so then if the price of a "new" game isn't lowered (singnificently) then people will purchase a used game because people don't want to spend a lot of money on "last year's" game. The publishers already made a majority of their money and if they want to make more money then they should lower the price of the game.

* they are not guaranteed to sell that much more units because of the price lowering, and they would have a lower income from the game sales => loss

Welcome to the real world. There is no guarantee that they will gain money if they force stores to give them a slice of the profit. There is even less reason for stores to sell new games from that publisher or any games from that publisher at all. Stores arn't forced to buy or sell used games, nor are they forced to buy or sell new games.

Publishers have very competent people in the economical/financial/marketing field, if this was an appropriate answer it would have be done for long.

You could clean a mansion in a single minute with a sweeping generalization like that. Guess what, companies make mistakes.

If the current model isn't sustainable, it's logical to make it evolve.

We finally (sort of) agree on something.

If they find a way to prevent used games being resold they will do it, and i'm all for it, I just hope it won't be too late.

Either you are extrememly ignorant/stupid, work for a publisher, or like having somebody take more money from you (which is exceedingly similar to the first item). Also, since you arn't thinking of everything, what are people going to do with games they don't want anymore? Hey, lets make more trash to throw away. (PS: CDs/DVDs are made of plastic which is strangely enough made from oil. Which, last time I checked, isn't a non-renewable resource and is in great demand (strangely enough raising the prices).)

Nintendo claim that the revolution will be a safer plateform to develop for, because of the budgets that are supposed to be lower, it could help too, and if it helps lower publishers to survive and allows for some interesting original lower-budget titles i think it's great too.

Safer? How will it be "safer", less piracy? Piracy has nothing to do with used games (unless you think everybody who sells used games first copied the disc and then resold it). Oh shit, if publishers spend less money making a game then they'll have more of it? I think you finally see how publishers need to change to survive.

It's the little companies that are suffering the most.

Won't somebody think of the children.

 

[Farid]

Your excuses for other industries are bullshit.

What? You need to pass some of that dope my way, it must be great stuff.

No shit. Publishers are greedy bastards.

Either you are extrememly ignorant/stupid

This is a way too agressive manner to discuss things, a688.
Those remarks are unnecessary, even if you're vehemently disagreeing with what Magnum PI says, please try to keep the discussion "clean".


On topic, the whole original claim in the first post is dubious at best, I don't see the need to discuss this, really.
But we all know that unfounded rumors based on pure speculation never stopped anyone from discussing a subject around here, so...

 

[Magnum PI]

a688's :

Instead of just yelling your convictions and insulting people couldn't you develop some reasonning ? You could be more convicing.

Your post above shows no respect for the intelligence of other forumers.

 

[fearsomepirate]

This is my 256th post, and that makes me happy. Anyhoo...

I still think the key is for developers to find ways to convince people not to sell games off rather than to find ways to enforce it.

That's the only way to think. There was a recent presentation to M$ about how DRM is doomed, both because it's always crackable (you must provide the user with both the encrypted data and the key for him to be able to see anything on his TV), and because a superior business model that doesn't rely on strict DRM to make a profit and gives the customers what they want will always kill the crappy DRM'd product that keeps consumers from doing what they want.

In the case of losing profits off used games, you need incentives to keep games. Some thoughts and examples:

-Online multiplayer and user mods have kept various PC games alive through whole console life cycles. Xbox Live instantaneously made Splinter Cell 2&3 and Halo 2 keepers for anyone who had those games and online. The ability to create user content could extend product life even further.

-Make games that are fun to play for a long time. Animal Crossing, RPG's, and racing sims like Forza and Gran Turismo accomplish this handily.

-Sequelitis: why do you think EA updates their franchises yearly? Release a new game, and you'll reduce demand for the used copies of the old one.

-Stores make huge profits off used games. Buying back a game for $5 and selling it for $20 is a sweet deal. This is both anti-publisher and anti-consumer. Cut out the middle man and offer consumers more than the store does if they trade in a game you published toward one of your new titles. Cut deals with local competitors to Gamestop and EB to keep them stocked with used games/get breaks on new games/whatever if they give you kickbacks on used titles.

-Offer to let customers trade in games directly to you (by mail or through the store) for cool limited edition gear, like t-shirts, duffel bags, hats, figurines, etc. Then repackage them in shiny new cases and sell them as "like new" at a 20% discount to the store, who passes that discount along to the consumer (hmm...I like this, it's very "everyone wins").

The company that gets creative with marketing and sales strategy will win. The company that relies on DRM will fail. You'd be surprised at how thick marketing people can be. They're all too often prone to looking at a problem 1-dimesionally (i.e. used games hurt sales of new games, so we must figure out how to stop sales of used games), or even if not, creative proposals get axed by accountants or VP's who aren't accustomed to thinking out of the box.

 

[a688]

This is a way too agressive manner to discuss things, a688.
Those remarks are unnecessary, even if you're vehemently disagreeing with what Magnum PI says, please try to keep the discussion "clean".

I would say that post was mean, with a personal attack but not "overly" agressive. But I'll stand by everything in there as true .

-Online multiplayer and user mods
-Make games that are fun to play for a long time
-Sequelitis: why do you think EA updates their franchises yearly? Release a new game, and you'll reduce demand for the used copies of the old one.
-Stores make huge profits off used games. Buying back a game for $5 and selling it for $20 is a sweet deal.
-Offer to let customers trade in games directly to you

The company that gets creative with marketing and sales strategy will win. The company that relies on DRM will fail. You'd be surprised at how thick marketing people can be.

While I agree over all with what you said, I'll disagree somewhat with calling the act which stores go through buying/selling used games anti-consumer/anti-publisher. The prices they charge are unfair to consumers but nobody is being forced to purchase them or sell them in the first place. Stores are providing a service that consumers want and are willing to pay for. If publishers were willing to do the same thing and offer a compelling reason for consumers to switch over to them, then the publishers would get the money, not the stores. Since nothing is stopping the publishers from doing this, I don't believe what the stores are doing is "anti-publisher".

 

[fearsomepirate]

By that logic, almost nothing any business does anywhere ever is anti-consumer, since no one forces you to buy anything except maybe food...right down to all the crap that MS products (such as WinXP) do, since no one makes you buy them, either.

Gamestop/EB have a virtual monopoly on the used game market. They leverage this to basically cut everyone a pretty bad deal. Most people don't see any point in hanging on to games they'll never play again. Might as well sell them back for $10, so that someone else can buy them for $44.95, because you might as well save 5 bucks, right? The fact that no one gets a good deal means the market is ripe for someone to move in and do something creative. Best Buy could seriously conquer if they sold games for less and gave users more for their old games.

Don't ever assume that if corporations would and could do something, and it would benefit them, then they would already have done it. I can find hundreds if not thousands of counterexamples. Think of corporate leadership as being a big, dysfunctional family of blind, deaf, retarded trolls. Then everything will make sense.

 

[jvd]

If sony could stop used games from working it will help the devs but hurt them greatly .

Used games have become a huge deal now .


However if used games didn't exist on sonys platform but did on the xbox then people with less money will go to them .


At gamestop players choice games are traded in less often than any other type of game . Why ? Because we offer so little for them and they sell less used as there isn't much price diffrence.


IF games were to drop down to 30$ the used market would be cut in half if not greater . Gamers would most likely get 10 or sofor a used game and we would sell them at 20$ only a 10$ savings and with that many people will rather buy new .

 

[V3]

If sony could stop used games from working it will help the devs but hurt them greatly.

Used games have become a huge deal now.

Used games has the same effect as piracy, Its not as big of a problem in US, but it is a big problem in Japan, and its even blame to increase software prices too. No doubt it'll hurt Sony more but they do get more royalty too I suppose.

However if used games didn't exist on sonys platform but did on the xbox then people with less money will go to them.

If Developers and Publishers really want such thing (I hope not), 3rd parties will simply boycott platforms that don't have such technology. It'll be like copy protection or region protection. Something that is expected as standard by Devs and Publishers. I don't think Sony can enforce it alone. But the industry can definitely flex its muscle to do it.

 

[threepac3]

Has anyone even considered that if this feature does exist that this would make PS3 automatically incompatible with PS4 when it is released?

 

[Farid]

Used games has the same effect as piracy, Its not as big of a problem in US, but it is a big problem in Japan, and its even blame to increase software prices too. No doubt it'll hurt Sony more but they do get more royalty too I suppose.

Speaking of which. Remember this controversy?

http://www.arts.or.jp/judge/judge_tokyo/t_17.html

(It's in English)

 

[crystalcube]

Has anyone even considered that if this feature does exist that this would make PS3 automatically incompatible with PS4 when it is released?

thats in distant future ... but in near future it would make backward compatibility with PS2/PS games useless