aaronspink
Veteran
Can you put that into a car analogy for us?
It's exactly what auto shops do with taking trade-ins and selling used cars.
so game devs should put in features that downgrade graphics and add bugs to resold games!
Sony joins EA and Ubisoft in considering limitations on used games
- Thread starter patsu
- Start date
so game devs should put in features that downgrade graphics and add bugs to resold games!
No need too, the bugs are already added with the brand new games and rarely ever fixed. Just take a look at the largest profitable game sold to date, MW2 and it's massive amount of cheating that's still out there. That seems like a huge bug to me.
Sometimes longer movie do have higher ticket prices, not to mention those 3D movie ticket prices. However, the point of using movie ticket for comparison is just to show that people have different choices for entertainment, not just games. So if a game is overpriced then the publisher shouldn't complain about poor sales.
It's actually quite simple. That is, if you charge a hundred dollar for a game, how many copies would it sell?
It can be argued that today a short game can be sold at similar price with longer game is because the existence of a second hand market. If a consumer thinks a short game only worth US$20, but sell for US$40, he may still buy it because maybe he can sell it back to a second hand game store to get his US$20 back.
I think Starcraft 2 can be a good example here. Starcraft 2 has almost no resale value, because battle.net is mandatory (a game serial number must be registered with a battle.net account). However, in some places (such as Taiwan and South Korea) there are time cards. That is, a full game is priced at NT$1,950 (~US$60), but you can also buy a time card for a month (NT$300, ~US$9) or even for a day (NT$50, ~US$1.5). If you only want to play its single player campaign, this is actually not a bad idea because it can be finished easily in a month. For those who are into its multiplayer aspect or crazy mods they can buy the full version. I think this model could be useful for other games too.
Not to mention that channels like HBO have tons of adverts. Its just adverts for whats on the channel. In a 1h45m movie hbo will have 15 minutes of ads.
Wonder how many people would take cheaper games but with 20minutes of previews and comercials before the game starts each time you want to watch it ?
YOu have two diffrent ideas there , which do you think is better for the consumer and which do you think is better for the developer/ publisher. I bet we will both sa something diffrent.
Of course there are those "ad in games" idea implemented in some games. Some are probably fitting (such as sports games with real sponsor ads) others are not as fitting (such as the "Coke-Cola" campaign in World of Warcraft, I was surprised to see a "Coke-Cola prize NPC" in front of the bank in Stormwine
).I think the developer/publisher should give consumers more choice. Trying to restrict second hand game market by using one-time code is not a very good idea IMHO because it does not increase the perceived value of a game, especially when the one-time code is tied to something essential to the game.
That's also why I brought up the Starcraft 2 example. If you intend to make a short game and you're very concered about the second hand market issue, you should go for renting model or episode game model. You can still sell "collector's edition" or full game for people who want to keep their games. This way, you don't have to worry about second hand market (because rent the game for a month is much cheaper than any possible second hand price, also the buyers are less likely to sell their games).
Of course, distribution is a problem, but these days it can be easily handled by digital distribution. Or selling very cheap CD in convenience stores (such as, you can sell a US$2 game CD with a one day code).
There are still problems with people who don't want to deal with internet game servers, but they can always buy full version.
Billy Idol
Legend
What is funny:
now that publisher learn the hard way that they cannot win against piracy...they turn around and start to bite those people who pay for games - nice!
now that publisher learn the hard way that they cannot win against piracy...they turn around and start to bite those people who pay for games - nice!
The problem with discussing this argument though is no data. It's only hypothetical, and we don't know how first-sales are affected by opportunity for 2nd hand sales, nor how many times a game can change hands, nor the difference between what makes a quickly sold title and what makes a keeper. Without data, both sides present their point with no means of evaluation, and we hit a logical stalemate.
If its creative enough it can fit in any senario. The only problem with a coke add is if its ripped strait from tv spots. But if they made it look like a product hat could exist in world of warcraft I wouldn't have a problem with it. Just like if i was playing a fallout 3 game i wouldn't mind seeing coke instead of nuka cola. But the ad would have to look out of the 20s. But movies have been doing those since ET . Th equesiton is what other adveritsments could they force on us. Its a give and take . I remember when everyone was pissed off at comercials before the previews at thearters but they fixed the format a little bit and they now give previews for tv shows , movies and other things with adds between.Of course there are those "ad in games" idea implemented in some games. Some are probably fitting (such as sports games with real sponsor ads) others are not as fitting (such as the "Coke-Cola" campaign in World of Warcraft, I was surprised to see a "Coke-Cola prize NPC" in front of the bank in Stormwine
What do you sugest putting the code on a part of the game that few care about ? For them to make moeny off it , they have to put the code on something valuble.
Starcraft 2 is the biggest rip off of our time and no oneis complaining. They took what was once a $50 game and have split it into 3 $60 games. Then they tied online to battlenet which will stop you from selling the games.
THey should just go fully DD . The hardcore will follow and if they continue to get big enough games that are DD only then others will follow and then no more used game market.
I hope its this upcoming gen but even if its the one after that there will be a day when our kids ask us about what funcoland and gamestop were and how it was possible and then laugh at us for having to use coasters to keep games on.
Used gamers don't pay the publishers for their games so why would the publishers care ?
I'd say that its big enough so that game publishers are risking being ridiculed by proposing these one-time code schemes.
It can be something valuable but not necessarily essential, just like something in a "collector's edition." For example, it can be some additional maps or levels. It can be just like some perks for pre-ordering.
Well, I disagree. Starcraft 2 has more contents in its single player campaign than Starcraft, all three races combined, which also sold for US$50 ten years ago IIRC. So I wouldn't call it a rip off. Although they don't provide the renting model in the US, but I think what they did in Taiwan and South Korea may be an experiment for a potentially larger implementation elsewhere.
That doesn't tell them if adding codes will increase or decrease revenue though, which is the only thing they care about.
Gradthrawn
Veteran
As has been mentioned before, it limits the flexibility of the title for new purchasers, as well. Sharing the title with friends/family becomes difficult to impossible without also sharing their online account (violating TOC
), and allowing others to play online as them. Multi-gamer households, for example, who have different accounts for each gamer (e.g. mom, dad,.and son).That doesn't tell them if adding codes will increase or decrease revenue though, which is the only thing they care about.
It will not affect the reputation of the publishers, it will affect the reputation of gamespot and other used game vendor unless they drastically reduce the price of their used wares.
Ultimately, Gamespot is not going to be able to sell a used Madden game for $5 dollars less than new. Basically Gamespot is going to have to sell their used EA games where a price advantage still exist even when taking account for the online service access fee. Anything less and new Madden titles will be more attractive then Gamespot's used wares.
If I were EA, I would work with Gamespot to sell packaged codes with their used goods so that the consumers can still buy used Madden like they do today with online play out the box. The underlying distribution of revenue would be different but the consumer experience would be practically the same except for a code input like new buyers do currently.
Yes, compromise would be the best solution for everyone.
IMHO developers do not deserve money from the secondary/used game market. No other consumer product allows for the manufacturer to make profit from used equipment unless they themselves are handling the inventory.
With that said tying online content of a game to a single user account directly reduces the value of the game. If 2 siblings share a PS3 or Xbox360 and both of them like playing Madden each sibling will now be required to pay a fee to be able to play that game online.
My Solution:
Tie the online content to the machine instead of user account (plausible since each machine has its own unique number).
Pros:
Allows multiple people who share the console to play the same game under different accounts.
Cons:
Does not allow the game to be borrowed to a friend or relative without paying an additional fee
Does not allow housholds with more then 1 console to share games between the consoles without an additional fee.
Fix for Solution:
Incorporate the same system PSN games currently use that can allow up to 5 consoles to be activated for a particular game/title but possibly limit it to 3 consoles total with no option to deactivate any specific machine (the game can only be activated on 3 machines).
My solution allows a game to change hands between family and friends to a certain limit and will also possibly allow future sales in the secondary market. A solution to help the developers regain costs from the secondary market is to incorporate a time system between the first activation and all subsequent activations. If a game is activated on 12-25-2010 then the game can only be activated on up to 3 other machines until 3-25-2011. This would allow a title to exist in the secondary market for titles that have a precieved value/shelf life of only a couple of months. Yet used games that are older then 3 months in the secondary market would now be required to pay an additional $10 to activate an additional 3 machines for 3 months.
This in my opinion is the only FAIR way for developers to request money from the secondary market even though I personally find it offensive for them to do so. Developers should not be rewarded for making games that nobody wants to keep after only 1 week or 1 month!! Furthermore after 3 months of a games release new titles should drop by $10, this will increase the chance of people who purchased the game to keep it as they believe the return would be to low and might be a carrot for those looking for newer games to buy a title new instead of used.
The more game companies try to punish thier consumers the less chance they have of keeping them or gaining new ones.
I made a post over a year ago saying Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo should create their own trade in program for games. The service would be directly tied into each consoles OS and be able to pull inventory from all the games they currently own (using trophies) that automatically tells them the "trade in" value of that game. The user also is shown all the available used games that have been traded in by other users and what the value of that game currently is. Then all these guys have to do is charge a small fee..like $2 per "trade" (games shipped to the user) that would give a cut to the developers. Then MS/Sony/Nin would get thier cut by selling the shipping containers at local brick and mortar stores that includes pre-paid postage say $7. The only limitation would be is that the monies recieved from trading in a game cannot be used at any other place within the market place..only for purchasing used games. This way developers get their cut, the people managing the inventory and shipping get thier cut and the consumer isn't being charged a "fee" for something they feel they should be getting for free.
With that said tying online content of a game to a single user account directly reduces the value of the game. If 2 siblings share a PS3 or Xbox360 and both of them like playing Madden each sibling will now be required to pay a fee to be able to play that game online.
My Solution:
Tie the online content to the machine instead of user account (plausible since each machine has its own unique number).
Pros:
Allows multiple people who share the console to play the same game under different accounts.
Cons:
Does not allow the game to be borrowed to a friend or relative without paying an additional fee
Does not allow housholds with more then 1 console to share games between the consoles without an additional fee.
Fix for Solution:
Incorporate the same system PSN games currently use that can allow up to 5 consoles to be activated for a particular game/title but possibly limit it to 3 consoles total with no option to deactivate any specific machine (the game can only be activated on 3 machines).
My solution allows a game to change hands between family and friends to a certain limit and will also possibly allow future sales in the secondary market. A solution to help the developers regain costs from the secondary market is to incorporate a time system between the first activation and all subsequent activations. If a game is activated on 12-25-2010 then the game can only be activated on up to 3 other machines until 3-25-2011. This would allow a title to exist in the secondary market for titles that have a precieved value/shelf life of only a couple of months. Yet used games that are older then 3 months in the secondary market would now be required to pay an additional $10 to activate an additional 3 machines for 3 months.
This in my opinion is the only FAIR way for developers to request money from the secondary market even though I personally find it offensive for them to do so. Developers should not be rewarded for making games that nobody wants to keep after only 1 week or 1 month!! Furthermore after 3 months of a games release new titles should drop by $10, this will increase the chance of people who purchased the game to keep it as they believe the return would be to low and might be a carrot for those looking for newer games to buy a title new instead of used.
The more game companies try to punish thier consumers the less chance they have of keeping them or gaining new ones.
I made a post over a year ago saying Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo should create their own trade in program for games. The service would be directly tied into each consoles OS and be able to pull inventory from all the games they currently own (using trophies) that automatically tells them the "trade in" value of that game. The user also is shown all the available used games that have been traded in by other users and what the value of that game currently is. Then all these guys have to do is charge a small fee..like $2 per "trade" (games shipped to the user) that would give a cut to the developers. Then MS/Sony/Nin would get thier cut by selling the shipping containers at local brick and mortar stores that includes pre-paid postage say $7. The only limitation would be is that the monies recieved from trading in a game cannot be used at any other place within the market place..only for purchasing used games. This way developers get their cut, the people managing the inventory and shipping get thier cut and the consumer isn't being charged a "fee" for something they feel they should be getting for free.
Last edited by a moderator:
Another advocate of the price-per-hour metric! Here's an example for you to consider - ICO. It was a seven-ish hour game IIRC. Personally I wouldn't have bought it had I known how short it was, because I'm kinda cheap that way, BUT it was an incredible experience (marred by the stupid Japanese ending where you're forced to play for an hour and a half when you just want to go to bed. Dang, the Japanese make some moronic game design decisions!) and lots of players definitely regard it as worth the money and will argue aplenty that you can't put such a prosaic value as playable hours on such an atmospheric creation. If priced per hour, this game should have been released for £10 compared to other games with massive replayability worth hundreds of hours of play. Would the game be worth the asking price if it was filled with tens of hours of padding, maybe level grinding? does quality of experience not count for much?
deathindustrial
Regular
I am not sure if a game focussed study exists but we can look at other content based industries, books for example:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=584401
Summarized here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/technology/28scene.html
Cheers
I'm the type of person who thinks some games are worth a lot more then the $60 they charge while too many others are not worth half of what they are selling it for. This however relates to MY opinion on each particular game, I thought ICO was worth 2x the money I spent on it...Need 4 speed undercover was overpriced by about $20.
My point is when it comes to entertainment the value of the product is not derived from the hours or money invested into it but the final product that is produced. Therefore the developers earn the money on the goods they produce based on quality...not investment. Just because they are 60 million in the hole developing the game doesnt mean they deserve to get all that money back in terms of game sales just as I wouldn't want someone who only spent 10 million to only get back their initial investment on a great game.
The movie industry is the closest thing we have to video games in terms of budget and percieved value. If Transformers 3 doesn't bring in enough money at the theater would anyone think it is appropriate for them to now require copies of movies to be activated (ala Divx of the past) to regain money from the used market? The consumer should not be made to suppliment the creators of entertainment just because they feel they are not making enough money due to poor sales.
Similar threads
- Locked