Support NeoGAF

[Tellaerin]

Also, First Sale Rule means Mario/Jaffe/Cliffy/Marty can go step off. I bought your game, it's my right (even with your bullshit EULA that violates this right) to sell it or give it away without you getting profits. So, QQ bitches, you aren't getting "Used" sales. Boo-hoo. I'm sure you got enough from new copies in the first place.

If developers don't feel they're getting enough from new game sales, they need to take that up with the publishers handling their games and push for a bigger cut of the profits. And if the publishers are the ones saying they can't afford to loosen their purse strings unless they squeeze consumers harder, maybe the development community ought to stop blindly accepting that and start challenging them on it.

 

[FrostuTheNinja]

I think the only way DD is going to work in the long run is if you give the consumer a product key that shows they have ownership of the digital product and that they can sell said key to someone, so there's less of a loss.

The concept of digitally reselling a product is something that needs to be on the minds of Steam, GoG, and others if they really want put hard media under.

 

[Mario]

Also, First Sale Rule means Mario/Jaffe/Cliffy/Marty can go step off. I bought your game, it's my right (even with your bullshit EULA that violates this right) to sell it or give it away without you getting profits. So, QQ bitches, you aren't getting "Used" sales. Boo-hoo. I'm sure you got enough from new copies in the first place.

At no point in this thread did I ever suggest developers or publishers should get a piece of used game sales, or that used game sales should be in any way restricted.

In fact, if you read my comments, you will see that I said this was not the right approach at all.

 

[Megadragon15]

Prices are more flexible under DD than regular retail because the vendor under DD doesn't have the cost of the physical stock and buybacks etc imposing a floor on pricing. You also don't have physical price labelling issues - price adjustments can be rolled out instantly under DD.

DD portals have already shown that pricing adjustments can happen with increased frequency and can be quite aggressive with discounting and sales.

If that is not increased price flexibility, then I don't know what is.

Other then the occassional sale, I haven't seen much in the way of lower prices or discounts on both PSN and XBLA, two services that would be at the forefront of an all DD console future.

 

[Asmodai]

The concept of digitally reselling a product is something that needs to be on the minds of Steam, GoG, and others if they really want put hard media under.

This isn't going to happen. One person would buy it and sell it at a slightly cheaper price to everyone else. It would just be a trickle down effect: the first 100 000 people buy it at full price and sell it to the next 100 000 people, who sell it for slightly cheaper to the next people, etc.

The developers and publishers wouldn't be seeing a cent of those multiple resales and would never do it.

That said, DD is going to be monopoly dominated per platform, so the publishers are laughing anyway. Steam gets away with gouging PC gamers all the time.

 

[Mario]

Other then the occassional sale, I haven't seen much in the way of lower prices or discounts on both PSN and XBLA, two services that would be at the forefront of an all DD console future.

I don't see how that invalidates my point.

 

[Version 3.0]

Prices are more flexible under DD than regular retail because the vendor under DD doesn't have the cost of the physical stock and buybacks etc imposing a floor on pricing. You also don't have physical price labelling issues - price adjustments can be rolled out instantly under DD.

DD portals have already shown that pricing adjustments can happen with increased frequency and can be quite aggressive with discounting and sales.

If that is not increased price flexibility, then I don't know what is.

Price flexibility is already at 100%: technically, any item can be sold for any price at any time. I work in retail. We do price changes every damned day.

What you're talking about is simply a larger profit margin, meaning games could theoretically be sold at a lower price and still turn a profit. But DD removes several incentives to lower prices, without adding any. If you think a lower cost is an incentive to lower the retail price, you're seriously naive.

 

[Ca1amity]

Prices are more flexible under DD than regular retail because the vendor under DD doesn't have the cost of the physical stock and buybacks etc imposing a floor on pricing. You also don't have physical price labelling issues - price adjustments can be rolled out instantly under DD.

DD portals have already shown that pricing adjustments can happen with increased frequency and can be quite aggressive with discounting and sales.

If that is not increased price flexibility, then I don't know what is.

I didnt realize the publishers had to deal with buyback. As in, they dont buy shit all back. Isnt that one of Gamestops continual gripes about shit that doesnt sell, and a main reason they cite for taking preorders as a way to gage customer interest?

"Physical price labeling issues" are a non-issue at this point. Gamestop HQ has to merely roll a high priority email down the chain and voila 'as of 9am tomorrow game X is 5 dollars cheaper'. No one is calling district managers or getting on the telefax here.

Ill give you increased frequency with DD. Although, the only example I can think of there is Steam and one case does not an accurate sample make.
Wal-mart just proved last week they can be as aggressive with discounting and sales though, its not exclusive to DD and I dont see this as a "key feature" of digital either. [In Canada at least, Arkham Asylum was discounted to 38 bucks for 2-days].

Once again, I have to point out that there is no reason for the current players to discount their prices in the all-digital future you support and the barrier to entry for competitors is insurmountable on the console side and prohibitive on the PC side.
Do you honestly see Microsoft lowering the cost of games once everything goes digital? Have you gone to buy a bigger hard drive or a wireless adaptor recently?

 

[TheSeks]

This isn't going to happen. One person would buy it and sell it at a slightly cheaper price to everyone else. It would just be a trickle down effect: the first 100 000 people buy it at full price and sell it to the next 100 000 people, who sell it for slightly cheaper to the next people, etc.

Actually, I think the way that "gifting"/selling the game on DD would work is by giving a rebate to the person with a "sell" option in the account history. If they want to give the game to another person as a gift, they transfer the DRM to the other persons account (IIRC XBL lets you "gift" MS points if you know the other persons account that is tied to a .net passport that you know for that account now).

Of course, the digital services are stupid and won't let you do that.

In fact, if you read my comments, you will see that I said this was not the right approach at all.

From what I'm reading you're of the opinion that games should go DD-only, which is *title quote here*, IMO. DD will NOT be popular with consumers until DD does the above and the three things that I want it to do. Jaffe/Cliffy/Marty can push DD-only as a method to stop "ZOMG USED SALES" all they want, but at the end of the day the consumers are going to tell them to shove it.

The real problem is that the publisher sets a price point and the consumer either has to jump that high or go to Gamestop to get it cheaper. If people are getting Used copies over new, what does that tell Publishers? The price needs to be lower (or they need to find a balance for investment to return rates for games), or they're going to sink.

 

[Mario]

Price flexibility is already at 100%: technically, any item can be sold for any price at any time. I work in retail. We do price changes every damned day.

I never said that retail couldn't do price adjustments every day. But retail can't really price as agressively as DD e.g. some games even go free to build awareness and the user base, and you can't price below a certain level at retail without taking a loss on those units.

What you're talking about is simply a larger profit margin, meaning games could theoretically be sold at a lower price and still turn a profit.

I am referring both to the logistics and the fact under DD prices can be set virtually without a negative cost per unit (bandwidth aside) anywhere between zero and whatever.

But DD removes several incentives to lower prices, without adding any. If you think a lower cost is an incentive to lower the retail price, you're seriously naive.

I disagree. In an all (or mostly) DD future (which is what most of my comments have been referring to), there is incentive to reduce price through increased competition via both the number of vendors and the number of products - both of which will be orders of magnitude above what retail has currently.

 

[cartman414]

You're the one blindly characterizing everyone who trades in their games at Gamestop as gullible fools, but I'm a halfwit for taking exception to it? Do you even know what 'hoodwinking' means? How are these poor souls being 'duped' or 'deceived'? Do you seriously think all the people trading in their games at Gamestop have never heard of the internet, don't know eBay and Craigslist exist, and are only trading in their games there because they don't know there are alternatives? You obviously don't want to believe this, but Gamestop's not preying on unsuspecting consumers. Give them a better alternative that's just as convenient and I'm sure they'd take advantage of it!

* facepalm * I said no such thing.

 

[Mario]

From what I'm reading you're of the opinion that games should go DD-only, which is *title quote here*, IMO. DD will NOT be popular with consumers until DD does the above and the three things that I want it to do. Jaffe/Cliffy/Marty can push DD-only as a method to stop "ZOMG USED SALES" all they want, but at the end of the day the consumers are going to tell them to shove it.

You lumped me in with others suggesting used games should be controlled or "taxed" in some way which was incorrect.

I have also not suggested games should go DD only, only that I think it is inevtiable over the longer term and that it will offer developers and publishers and opportunity to change their business model away from the traditional retail model which is unsustainable for many industry players (for a myriad of reasons beyond commercial used games sales).

 

[FrostuTheNinja]

Why can't a resell price be set by the publishers and the DD service? Maybe you can resell a product only X number of times.

I don't think this is an issue of DD services not being able to do this, I sincerely believe they DON'T want to do it as they think it might hurt their bottom line.

 

[Version 3.0]

This isn't going to happen. One person would buy it and sell it at a slightly cheaper price to everyone else. It would just be a trickle down effect: the first 100 000 people buy it at full price and sell it to the next 100 000 people, who sell it for slightly cheaper to the next people, etc.

The developers and publishers wouldn't be seeing a cent of those multiple resales and would never do it.

That said, DD is going to be monopoly dominated per platform, so the publishers are laughing anyway. Steam gets away with gouging PC gamers all the time.

It may not happen, but it could. You're not thinking it through. A system that allows me to re-sell my ONE copy of a game to another user would work just fine, and the publisher could indeed see a percent of that sale, since they control the means to enable it. Maybe I get $10 and they get $20 from a used sale at $30. They wouldn't even have to allow me to see what the other guy paid. And they would also control at what point used sales are allowed--maybe there's a 6-month window after launch where they don't allow them. And also the amount of used sales could be controlled; maybe they only allow a handful of users to have their copies up for sale. Every facet would be under their control and profit them.

But I expect most publishers would think like you do, and dismiss the idea out of hand. That's too bad, because it's actually in their interest just as much as it is in consumers' interest. But they're pretty short-sighted; they see a sale at $30 and instantly assume it could've been a $60 sale.

 

[radioheadrule83]

I never said that retail couldn't do price adjustments every day. But retail can't really price as agressively as DD e.g. some games even go free to build awareness and the user base, and you can't price below a certain level at retail without taking a loss on those units.

I am referring both to the logistics and the fact under DD prices can be set virtually without a negative cost per unit (bandwidth aside) anywhere between zero and whatever.

I disagree. In an all (or mostly) DD future (which is what most of my comments have been referring to), there is incentive to reduce price through increased competition via both the number of vendors and the number of products - both of which will be orders of magnitude above what retail has currently.

When games prices are controlled solely by publishers and the console manufacturers it'll be just as rigid as it is now if not moreso imo. They'll have more ROOM to be flexible because they've cut out the middle man, but for the big titles you'd see the industry act like a fucking cabal imo. Fixing prices at pre-determined cash or points values as a norm.

£7.99, 1600 points, 1000 Nintendo bucks. People in here could wave Steam and one off promotions in my face all day if they liked -- nice offers and innovative marketing occur in the tangible retail space as well -- Valve are very good at making good PR moves. The other guys? The manufacturers? EA? Activision? They'll try and fill the black hole that HD development implies, make no doubt about it. There'll be adverts in shit you've already paid for, digital rights management, minimal ownership rights for the end consumer. I can't wait to see what happens to everyones' games and DLC once this generation starts fading into the past. I won't be surprised if the shit is forgotten as fast as PS2 backwards compatability, but I also won't be surprised if there's such an uproar from fans that they have to support it. I'm not saying digital distribution is a bad thing -- I fucking love it, its so convenient and awesome, it really is. However, I also like videogame retailers, tangible products and the retail space. I even like the used game market, I think people are justified trading in their super-fucking-expensive games when they no longer hold value in them, and I think if Gamestop or whoever are gonna take the effort out of that person selling it themselves - then thats a service they should be paid for. The pub/dev has already been paid once, maybe if they made their shit better or sold it at a more attractive price it wouldn't get traded-in in the first place.

One thing I always notice on used games shelves -- you don't see many copies of the really fucking good games.

One more thing: Standardised and tiered pricing just makes no sense to me given I derive varying value from software -- a movie is a movie, I get 2 hours+ of entertainment that I can rewatch whenever I like. Games are interactive and variable, mileage varies. Some games are 70 hour epics, others are pick up and play twitch gaming and they all get landed with the same price. Some have no replay value whatsoever, and in those cases I fully understand why used game markets exist.

 

[Tellaerin]

Here's the problem: the person that traded in what becomes that used copy got a fraction of the cost of the game in store credit. That's what's unfair.

No, it's merely legal. And at the same time highly exploitative, even if people are at fault for falling for it.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth, halfwit. I wasn't insulting anyone for not having easier access to as good a deal, I was criticizing Gamestop for hoodwinking those people.

So what are you saying, then? According to you, Gamestop's 'hoodwinking' people by giving them less than you think their preowned games are worth. 'Hoodwinking' them means that they're somehow being conned into a bad deal - that there's something deceptive or deceitful about the arrangement. That implies that the person trading in their games is a victim, some kind of gullible mark who's being preyed upon by those GS conmen. If they knew what their alternatives were, but willingly chose to do business with Gamestop anyway, they're not being 'exploited' or 'hoodwinked'.

 

[Asmodai]

Why can't a resell price be set by the publishers and the DD service? Maybe you can resell a product only X number of times.

I don't think this is an issue of DD services not being able to do this, I sincerely believe they DON'T want to do it as they think it might hurt their bottom line.

Why would they want to let you resell the game? They don't make money that way and might have lost a sale on it.

And since DD services usually have a monopoly in the first place, there's absolutely NO reason for them to do so. They'd be acting against their own interests by doing what you propose.

 

[FrostuTheNinja]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I said in the second line.

I just find it funny that they won't even consider alternate options, as it would more than likely expand their business and bring a new group of consumers to their services.

I guess it's full retail or bust...

 

[Peronthious]

So what are you saying, then? According to you, Gamestop's 'hoodwinking' people by giving them less than you think their preowned games are worth. 'Hoodwinking' them means that they're somehow being conned into a bad deal - that there's something deceptive or deceitful about the arrangement. That implies that the person trading in their games is a victim, some kind of gullible mark who's being preyed upon by those GS conmen. If they knew what their alternatives were, but willingly chose to do business with Gamestop anyway, they're not being 'exploited' or 'hoodwinked'.

I would add to that not only if they knew what their alternatives were, but also if those alternatives were readily available. You can know about Goozex, eBay, Amazon, or what have you all you want, but if you're some kid who has no means to access those services you're being just as hoodwinked as the person who only knows about Gamestop.

 

[cartman414]

So what are you saying, then? According to you, Gamestop's 'hoodwinking' people by giving them less than you think their preowned games are worth. 'Hoodwinking' them means that they're somehow being conned into a bad deal - that there's something deceptive or deceitful about the arrangement. That implies that the person trading in their games is a victim, some kind of gullible mark who's being preyed upon by those GS conmen. If they knew what their alternatives were, but willingly chose to do business with Gamestop anyway, they're not being 'exploited' or 'hoodwinked'.

If getting, say, only $15 for a title that is resold for $36 isn't getting hoodwinked on the customer's side of things (and more likely than not the customer paid more for the game in the first place), then I don't know what is.

 

[Christine]

If getting, say, only $15 for a title that is resold for $36 isn't getting hoodwinked on the customer's side of things (and more likely than not the customer paid more for the game in the first place), then I don't know what is.

Okay, say for the sake of argument that people are being taken advantage of. Don't the developers and publishers of the game still have to ask themselves why people are placing such a carelessly low value on continuing to own it after they've played it? If moving a game around between players has greater perceived value to the customers than funding, developing and publishing it does, why?

 

[WildCard]

My own two cents in this is that consumers know pre-played games are sold on for more than they pay, so it's hardly a scam or a trick. Things here (Ireland) aren't as bad as the US as there isn't a big of a monolopy, hell Gamestop have had to offer major increases in their pre-played to get any in because stores like Smyths, Xtra-Game and Game are all in desperate competeition over this market already!

(We only recently had a Gamestop guy in who had loads of questions about our sell on prices for certain games, seems we were selling them for a tenner less than they were offering from store credit trade-in! :lol )

Also, from my own personal experience and from what I've noticed working is that some people can only uy the amount of games they do because they can trade in, they can get up to €30 (quite commmonly the price for the first four months if it retails at RRP €55) off a new release (assume again €55), which we offer at ten percent off with a "Loyalty Card."

I'm only playing Batman: AA because I finished Juarez and traded it in, wouldn't be able to afford it otherwise. So my view is the consumers ability to trade in games is moving new games, which is what Jaffe and co would want no?

 

[Tellaerin]

I would add to that not only if they knew what their alternatives were, but also if those alternatives were readily available. You can know about Goozex, eBay, Amazon, or what have you all you want, but if you're some kid who has no means to access those services you're being just as hoodwinked as the person who only knows about Gamestop.

Again, 'hoodwinked' implies that they're being tricked into it somehow. If they wanted to sell off their games through Amazon but can't for whatever reason, they're still knowingly making a choice: 'Gamestop's the only place I can do business with that'll give me anything for this old game. Do I just hold onto it, or do I trade it in towards something else I want?' I wouldn't call that being 'hoodwinked' or preyed upon.

If getting, say, only $15 for a title that is resold for $36 isn't getting hoodwinked on the customer's side of things (and more likely than not the customer paid more for the game in the first place), then I don't know what is.

That's because you're not using the word 'hoodwinked' properly. :/ Gamestop offers customers x amount of credit for a used game. They also sell that same used game for y dollars. All of that is out in the open. It's not a secret. People aren't being conned into trading in their games. There's no trickery or deception involved. People - knowledgeable people, who for the most part know they could sell off their games through other channels - are willingly agreeing to part with them for what GS is offering. While I haven't gone out and taken a poll, I think that's because bringing your used games into the store and getting credit for them right there on the spot, which you can then put towards the purchase you came to make, is convenient. I know that's why I do it. Not having to deal with mailing things or waiting for payment is worth the difference to me.

Okay, say for the sake of argument that people are being taken advantage of. Don't the developers and publishers of the game still have to ask themselves why people are placing such a carelessly low value on continuing to own it after they've played it? If moving a game around between players has greater perceived value to the customers than funding, developing and publishing it does, why?

Because the perceived value of most games today goes through the floor after you beat them once. By the time you've finished, in most cases, you've had your fill of that game for a long while and would rather move on to a new experience than replay something you've already spent the time to master. Trade-ins help facilitate that, since they let you recover part of what you invested in what's now a worthless (to you) game and put it towards one you haven't played yet.

 

[woodypop]

In an all (or mostly) DD future (which is what most of my comments have been referring to), there is incentive to reduce price through increased competition via both the number of vendors and the number of products - both of which will be orders of magnitude above what retail has currently.

Greater detail, please?

(Isn't one of the major hurdles to less expensive games right now skyrocketing development costs?)

 

[Mario]

Greater detail, please?

In a crowded marketplace competing for the same consumer dollar, all other things being equal (a simplification), publishers will be pressured to compete on price.

The main point/influence is that there will be exponentially more "vendors" and exponentially more titles than there are in retail.

They will of course also be trying to compete via quality, awareness/marketing and licensing/branding.

Isn't one of the major hurdles to less expensive games right now skyrocketing development costs?

Yes, but then thats a different thing.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Other then the occassional sale, I haven't seen much in the way of lower prices or discounts on both PSN and XBLA, two services that would be at the forefront of an all DD console future.

It's worth noting that the price of DD games are considerably less than retail to start with, and, at least in my opinion, much better of a value proposition. Trine at $20 is a considerably better value than Gears of War at $60 (as you mention, Gears drops in price more than Trine, so it evens out). Given the lowered costs of distribution and the higher cut devs can make on it, I think we can expect decreased prices in a DD future.

If getting, say, only $15 for a title that is resold for $36 isn't getting hoodwinked on the customer's side of things (and more likely than not the customer paid more for the game in the first place), then I don't know what is.

Much as I think Gamestop is hurting the industry, I don't think they're hurting the consumer. Almost everyone knows that GS sells games for considerably more than they take in, and that they could get more for it at Amazon or ebay. They're paying a premium for the service gamestop provides, namely going through the work of finding a buyer for their product. Selling things on Amazon or ebay is time-consuming; you have to get in contact with the buyer, box it up, ship it out, among other things. Many people are willing to let GS charge them a $10-15 premium so the only work they have to do to resell it is drive to their local store.

 

[Woodsy]

Why would they want to let you resell the game? They don't make money that way and might have lost a sale on it.

And since DD services usually have a monopoly in the first place, there's absolutely NO reason for them to do so. They'd be acting against their own interests by doing what you propose.

I don't see this as the case at all. Look at it this way (dollars are hypothetical):

Gamestop sells game for $60: publisher get $20 profit, Dev gets $10, Gamestop gets $10.
Gamestop re-buys game for $30 and sells it for $50: Gamestop gets ANOTHER $20, Dev and Publisher get zilch

Now in a universe where you can re-sell DD codes:

Buy game on PSN/XBL for $60: Sony/MS take $20, dev gets 20
Get tired of game and upload DD code to online DD secondhand marketplace. Code sells for $40 and Sony/MS take a 10% cut - Sony/MS get another $2, Dev gets another $2 on the re-sell.

Something along these lines could work, but I don't really ever see discs going away and if they do, sales are going to plummet.

 

[woodypop]

In a crowded marketplace competing for the same consumer dollar, all other things being equal (a simplification), publishers will be pressured to compete on price.

The main point/influence is that there will be exponentially more "vendors" and exponentially more titles than there are in retail.

They will of course also be trying to compete via quality, awareness/marketing and licensing/branding.

I pretty much gathered that would be the explanation.

But aside from the bolded portion, how is that any different from the current situation? And, to address the bolded part, aren't there already quite a few "vendors" and titles in retail? From my perspective, there's already hardly a shortage of games produced. The conditions under which you've speculated pricing will work in favor of the consumer via DD currently exist. The only difference I see is that under the DD model, the flexible pricing options inherent with physical copies get nixed.

 

[woodypop]

Now in a universe where you can re-sell DD codes:

Buy game on PSN/XBL for $60: Sony/MS take $20, dev gets 20
Get tired of game and upload DD code to online DD secondhand marketplace. Code sells for $40 and Sony/MS take a 10% cut - Sony/MS get another $2, Dev gets another $2 on the re-sell.

That makes sense to you and me, but I wonder if Sony/MS would see that second sale as a $2 gain, or as an $18 loss (from a potential new sale).

My gut feeling is that they'd see it as an $18 loss and justify that as reason enough to disallow re-selling DD codes.

 

[Juice]

:lol :lol at anyone suggesting the publishers will ever allow customers to resell downloadable content.

It would take the prospect of utter failure of the platform (i.e. PS3 in a couple more years), or an act of the U.S. Congress to see that happen.

 

[rainking187]

In a crowded marketplace competing for the same consumer dollar, all other things being equal (a simplification), publishers will be pressured to compete on price.

The main point/influence is that there will be exponentially more "vendors" and exponentially more titles than there are in retail.

They will of course also be trying to compete via quality, awareness/marketing and licensing/branding.

I seriously doubt any new unheard of vendors are going to have any effect on the prices of games from huge well known companies. Maybe there will be some competition among smaller DD games, making the prices go from $15 to $10, but some company no ones ever heard of before releasing a war game is not going to cause Activision to panic and drop the price of whatever Call of Duty game happens to be out at the time.

 

[Mario]

I pretty much gathered that would be the explanation.

But aside from the bolded portion, how is that any different from the current situation? And, to address the bolded part, aren't there already quite a few "vendors" and titles in retail?

From my perspective, there's already hardly a shortage of games produced.

That may seem the case, but what happens when you go from the current retail situation where physical stocks are biased towards popular and more recent games to a DD situation where every game released is always available? The consumer is going to have signficantly (exponentially!) more choice. You will also have an increased number of niche titles that would have otherwise never made it to retail to further add to the range of what is available.

You also move from a situation where retail chains are making the "final" pricing decisions to one where developers and publishers are making those decisions, and are all independently in a position to modify their pricing at any time (more or less). At any time, any of those players may attempt to "beat the market" via a sale, discount, bundling, or some other price based incentive to capture consumer dollars. And given how much content will be out there, many will be trying.

The conditions under which you've speculated pricing will work in favor of the consumer via DD currently exist. The only difference I see is that under the DD model, the flexible pricing options inherent with physical copies get nixed.

When you combine the above with the ability to be able to price close to zero without cost (bandwidth aside), you have a radically different style of market.

The opinion of many in the thread seems to think that publishers will somehow collude in this kind of market to keep prices where they are or push them higher. I take a more optimistic view in favour of the consumer.

 

[Cynar]

Also, First Sale Rule means Mario/Jaffe/Cliffy/Marty can go step off. I bought your game, it's my right (even with your bullshit EULA that violates this right) to sell it or give it away without you getting profits. So, QQ bitches, you aren't getting "Used" sales. Boo-hoo. I'm sure you got enough from new copies in the first place.

I love you

 

[MedHead]

The opinion of many in the thread seems to think that publishers will somehow collude in this kind of market to keep prices where they are or push them higher. I take a more optimistic view in favour of the consumer.

As bad as the digital market is now, I think its wishful thinking to believe it will get better should the main competition disappear. Digital games don't currently have to worry about the used market, a driving force in the reduction of prices on physical copies. Once used games stop being a problem, there isn't much reason for a digital game to drop in price.

Sure, game companies could lower their prices to be competitive with other digital services, but that's putting too much confidence in these businesses. I'd rather have the current system, where I have a little more power and choice in my purchasing decisions.

 

[LiquidJin]

You guys aren't thinking in 3D.

If we want to assume that in this business only retailers compete against each other then, yea, fear the DD future where console manufacturers can also be retailers / distributors.

But let's not make asses of ourselves:

- Why would a publisher put themselves in a position where they continue to get raped by retail, when Valve and Blizzard have shown them another way? They wouldn't. As a matter of fact, most of them will start retailing their own stuff, and use the leverage of their portfolios to force the console makers to slow their rolls.

- Why would console manufacturers put themselves in the position of being the most expensive to develop for/distribute through after seeing the PS3 stumble out the gate after doing the same things? They wouldn't. They would be sure to get every and any edge they could on the competition which grows bigger and tougher each year (Now they've got Apple, Microsoft, and Verizon to deal with in addition to the tech startups that are constantly nipping at their heels. And, honestly, at EA's stock price what's to stop someone like Newscorp from combining them and Gamespy together to join the other Titans?)

- Lastly, and I said this before, XBLA and PSN are small fish in a small pond. They may get bigger, but if they want to expand to a larger pond they aren't going to be able to do it without other retailers. Before Gamestop and EB merged, Walmart was running shit like they do with almost all packaged goods. Do you guys really think that XBLA and PSN are going to be able to replace the Walmart effect of going in for groceries and coming out with a game if they don't lease space out to other retailers?

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

No, it''s completely different. You can't compare cars or houses with videogames, that's silly.
They're totally different markets, for parties involved, IP regulations, time on the market, etc etc.

How is it any damn different? With a physical good, the 1's and 0's are still on physical medium.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

This could be further proof DD games probably will rarely drop in price in their lifetime besides temporary sales. Has anyone noticed that most DD games have not officially dropped in price at all. For example, why in the world is Siren: BC still $39.99 and Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix still $15? I am not saying these great games are not worth the money, but these games still have not dropped in price. If these were retail releases, there would be a much better chance of their prices dropping or them going on sale. Now seriously, if something such as Siren: BC which probably sold fairly decent I suppose hasn't dropped in price yet, do you think something like Call of Duty 7 or Gears of War 4 would ever permanently drop through DD? To be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if their prices increased.

 

[SmokyDave]

This could be further proof DD games probably will rarely drop in price in their lifetime besides temporary sales. Has anyone noticed that most DD games have not officially dropped in price at all. For example, why in the world is Siren: BC still $39.99 and Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix still $15? I am not saying these great games are not worth the money, but these games still have not dropped in price. If these were retail releases, there would be a much better chance of their prices dropping or them going on sale. Now seriously, if something such as Siren: BC which probably sold fairly decent I suppose hasn't dropped in price yet, do you think something like Call of Duty 7 or Gears of War 4 would ever permanently drop through DD? To be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if their prices increased.

Agreed on all, especially the bolded, which has already happened. WipeOut HD on the UK PSN received a price increase.

 

[McBradders]

This could be further proof DD games probably will rarely drop in price in their lifetime besides temporary sales. Has anyone noticed that most DD games have not officially dropped in price at all. For example, why in the world is Siren: BC still $39.99 and Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix still $15? I am not saying these great games are not worth the money, but these games still have not dropped in price. If these were retail releases, there would be a much better chance of their prices dropping or them going on sale. Now seriously, if something such as Siren: BC which probably sold fairly decent I suppose hasn't dropped in price yet, do you think something like Call of Duty 7 or Gears of War 4 would ever permanently drop through DD? To be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if their prices increased.

Retailers make their margin on the stock and need to clear room so they lower prices. Other than re-releases like "Greatest Hits" or "Platinum" RRP on games rarely actually drops.

DD has no space issues so there's no need to clear inventory etc. etc. etc.

Agreed on all, especially the bolded, which has already happened. WipeOut HD on the UK PSN received a price increase.

Wait, wat?

Are you sure that's not including the Fury pack?


Also, if you want a true representation of how DD can (and likely should) work, the AppStore is a great one. Publishers have direct control over pricing and you see sales and promotions go on all the time. When you have a competitive DD marketplace that's when you'll see companies actually compete. While they are shackled to retail they're having to simply tow the line with what retailers want as if they turn on them, they're fucked.

 

[SmokyDave]

Wait, wat?

Are you sure that's not including the Fury pack?

Yup. A few months prior to Furys release the price of vanilla HD was increased from £11.99 to £13.99. Sony blamed the UK currency but that's utter shite.

 

[McBradders]

Yup. A few months prior to Furys release the price of vanilla HD was increased from £11.99 to £13.99. Sony blamed the UK currency but that's utter shite.

Classy

 

[YianGaruga]

Now in a universe where you can re-sell DD codes:

Buy game on PSN/XBL for $60: Sony/MS take $20, dev gets 20
Get tired of game and upload DD code to online DD secondhand marketplace. Code sells for $40 and Sony/MS take a 10% cut - Sony/MS get another $2, Dev gets another $2 on the re-sell.

Something along these lines could work, but I don't really ever see discs going away and if they do, sales are going to plummet.

How the hell would that ever work?
With DD, stock is unlimited. Why would Sony/MS allow you to sell your code for $40 and take a 10% cut, if they could sell the same game at $40 themselves and take 100%?

I really don't think resale of DD codes will ever happen. I might be good for the consumer, but the companies will gain nothing in the process.

 

[KtSlime]

YianGaruga, Isn't it sad how easily consumers give up what few rights capitalism gives them. Too bad the government doesn't do their jobs and look out for the interests of it's citizens, and instead panders to big business and lobbyists.

DD needs to be worked out, I will not tolerate a DD only game delivery system, there are already 2 games that Sony has decided to move from UMD to DD, that I would have purchased, however will not.

 

[Brofist]

There probably won't ever be a legit way to resell your DD games. Not if publishers have any say. They wouldn't push DD just to create a similar situation.

I can see people resorting to selling their accounts with games though, in the same way some sell WoW accounts.

 

[mr afghan jones]

All game devs including Jaffe seem utterly oblivious to just how much they NEED the used game industry to survive.

When I take my old games in a trade them at a store, sure the original developer gets fuck all when the store sells them later on. But when I trade my games in, I use that credit to buy new games.

That is the fundamental point that all devs seem to miss. The number of new game sales that are funded either fully or partially by used game trade ins is huge.

Stores should not 'cut in' developers into used games because they essentially already are. When they give people store credit at trade-in they are basically taking a hit on their profits for the item that person spends the credit on, which is usually a new title.
When Jaffe gets the first week sales figures for God Of War 3 he should think long and hard about how many of those sales were funded by Gamestop and other retailers via store credit given on other games.

 

[YianGaruga]

All game devs including Jaffe seem utterly oblivious to just how much they NEED the used game industry to survive.

When I take my old games in a trade them at a store, sure the original developer gets fuck all when the store sells them later on. But when I trade my games in, I use that credit to buy new games.

That is the fundamental point that all devs seem to miss. The number of new game sales that are funded either fully or partially by used game trade ins is huge.

Stores should not 'cut in' developers into used games because they essentially already are. When they give people store credit at trade-in they are basically taking a hit on their profits for the item that person spends the credit on, which is usually a new title.
When Jaffe gets the first week sales figures for God Of War 3 he should think long and hard about how many of those sales were funded by Gamestop and other retailers via store credit given on other games.

But how many people use their trade-in credit to buy the $5 cheaper "used" game that Gamestop has sitting on the shelf right next to it most of the time?

 

[McBradders]

Publishers could also place an eBay-esque tax on DD resales so they get a cut from the sales which would also be tracked.

 

[LiquidJin]

Publishers could also place an eBay-esque tax on DD resales so they get a cut from the sales which would also be tracked.

I'm not sure the Publishers could do this, since they can't do it now unless they refuse to support offline play.

I do think that SONY could really profit by adopting the resale strategy shown to be profitable by other retailers into their gamesharing initiative rather than trying to eliminate it.

So rather than reselling your game, people who gameshare their games and get that person to buy get a cut placed back in their PSN wallets, the publisher gets their cut, and SONY takes a smaller cut than normal since the original customer did most of the marketing leg work. They make out on the back end, because that original customer has to spend their PSN trade-in money somewhere...

All it would take is gameshare to be timed like a rental.

 

[Version 3.0]

But how many people use their trade-in credit to buy the $5 cheaper "used" game that Gamestop has sitting on the shelf right next to it most of the time?

Plenty, I'm sure. But that's none of your business, nor is it publishers' business. Nor is it any of their business who rents from Gamefly, or buys a game at a yard sale or any other second-hand sale.

But plenty of people trade in to buy new games. It bears repeating ad nauseum that Gamestop sells more new games than any other retailer. That's not a coincidence or an accident, it's a direct consequence of their used game business. I'd like to have that phrase tatooed on every publishing executive's forehead, backwards of course, so they can stop crying about their biggest retail partner "stealing" their revenue.

 

[GuardianE]

Les seemed to completely miss the point, make assumptions about statements made, and get defensive about them during the twitter conversation.