Anger With Game Content Lock Spurs Reaction From Studio Head Curt Shilling 908
MojoKid writes "Studios and publishers are fighting back hard against the used game market, with the upcoming title Kingdoms of Amular the latest to declare it will use a content lock. In this case, KoA ups the ante by locking out part of the game that's normally available in single-player mode. Gamers exploded, with many angry that game content that had shipped on the physical disc was locked away and missing, as well as being angry at the fact that content was withheld from used game players. One forum thread asking if the studio fought back against allowing EA to lock the content went on for 49 pages before Curt Shilling, the head of 38 Studios, took to the forums himself. His commentary on the situation is blunt and to the point. 'This is not 38 trying to take more of your money, or EA in this case, this is us rewarding people for helping us! If you disagree due to methodology, ok, but that is our intent... companies are still trying to figure out how to receive dollars spent on games they make, when they are bought. Is that wrong? if so please tell me how.'"
Not on the disc (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't give a shit what an executive figurehead says out of the corner of his mouth. The outcome is all the matters and game developers are trying to charge the same price for a single use, non-transferable license as they used to charge for transferable media.
Yes that is wrong, because I as a customer have no desire to pay the same or higher price for a reduced value. I will download pirated copies or go without before I willfully entrap myself in this DRM/license pay-per-use dystopia being advanced by IP Rights Holders.
There's nothing wrong with making a profit, but don't complain to congress if you find that your scheme isn't viable in a free market. You'll lose money in your attempt to re-write the social contract.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Interesting)
How is it wrong to raise the price? This game is not that previous game you bought for the same price. In the same way Harry Potter is not star wars. They may come on DVD's but they are in no way the same movie.
And in short: you're going to go without. Good or bad the games industry is fed up with used games, and piracy. That means the entire experience is going to require you be authenticated with their service, constantly, and some of the core content will only exist on that service. In other words it's going to look at lot more like Steam, and a lot less like the 1980's.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:4, Interesting)
And for everything else, there's DnD 3.5.
Of course, the resulting sales failure *will* get blamed on piracy.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
Um... you do know what the F2p model is right? it's a giant DLC farm (if you want anything good you pay for it), and if you're only there for free you exists as a product to keep some other sucker paying 100 dollars a month for the game. That's what F2P is. Free to play is in no way free. They're going to try and hook you into 'well I spend 10 dollars, what's 10 more?" or "well I could spend 15 dollars a month on WoW, why not 15 dollars for that new Tank or gold to buy tanks or whatever. If there isn't one person paying 150 dollars for every 9 people who pay nothing they're going out of business as would Blizzard if they had no subscription revenue. If you aren't the sucker paying 150 dollars a month then their goal is to make you into that sucker, or you to die for that sucker to feel good about his 150 dollars a month.
Which works remarkably well at generating revenue, and is a perfectly valid business model. But one should be under no illusion what they're doing.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
Even better example would be TF2 where the things that are exclusively for purchase don't affect game balance at all.
The point is though - yes, this is a business model, and yes , it's aimed at generating revenue, but it is remarkably customer-friendly. The business model mentioned in the article above is just heavy duty assholery attempting to bypass existing laws and screw customers over.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:4, Interesting)
It's attempting to bypass the existing business model, which has failed. You may not like what they're doing, but we're going to see a lot of failed attempts at new business models.
As to world of tanks specifically: You can buy with real money what you can earn in game through playing. You may not have been steamrolled, but you're there to make the experience enjoyable for someone who bought their tank. That's kinda how the entire game works. That doesn't mean it isn't fun.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, i'm not saying we won't be seeing such attempts, but that they are flat out wrong, and I don't feel like letting myself be ripped off.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that you miss the point. Nobody is trying to stop them from making a profit. This isn't about us trying to make them poor, it's about people being fed up with companies acting more like parasites trying to squeeze more revenue from their product their predecessors did and is worth paying. They treat the consumers like they need their products. They forget that people aren't always able or willing to pay higher and higher prices for their merchandise.
Sure, F2P games are often there to provide a profit. We don't have a problem with that like we didn't have a problem buying and trading games back in the 80's and 90's. When I was growing up, part of the fun of buying a game was that after you got bored with it, you could trade it off with one of your friends. You'd still buy the latest games that came out when you had the cash, but your old games still held value. Even in this new age, I still enjoy breaking out the old Nintendo games sometimes.
As a side note, there are many truly free games out there. It's called OSS. I know that some people will complain about the low quality compared to the more polished proprietary games, but at least we have some free options. As for me, I haven't found any game, for pay or for free, that I enjoy as much as nethack. So, let them make a profit, but when that profit is made to spite the consumer, I say it's time to look for an alternative.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd just say it's about them double-dipping and trying to work around the first-sale doctrine.
Once a game is bought new, the creator shouldn't be able to say shit about how it's used. Licenses and CD-keys should be 100% transferable.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Informative)
... and none of it goes to the original developer!
And why should it? The developer was paid from the initial sale. Part of the value of the product for the initial buyer was the fact that it was his to now keep or sell. Wen you buy something, it's yours, and you have to right to use it, sell it, or throw it away if you want.
How many other industries let you sell something, and then still keep all rights to it? When a car company sells you a car, they don't demand that every time you sell that car, they get a portion of the sale. If you buy fries at McDonalds, your friend doesn't have to pay McDonalds a fee if you give them one of your fries. Suppose that I went out and built a radio and sold it to somebody. You would think I was crazy if I demanded that each time it was sold or given a way, I should get some of the profit. You would think me insane if I pushed laws demanding that you never take it apart or use its parts for other things. And yet, that is exactly what you propose for games. It's interesting to see how you and others like you have been conditioned to express shock and resentment when it's legal for people to do the same things with media that they do with any other legal product.
Also, it's been a while since I've bought any games, but I find it unlikely that somebody would pay 90% of the new product price when they could get the new, out of the box version for only 10% more. Of course, if they would, that only goes to further show how much resentment people are feeling for the manufacturers.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
i think your inventing a point about something that has nothing to do with piracy .
if i'm a developer and want to sell a game for $42.00 - $48.00 to a game store and they want to buy it and we can come to an agreement then that should be okay. what happens to the game after is none of my business. the store now owns this copy of the game.
If the store wants to sell it to customer a for $59.00 and customer a agrees with this then that should be okay to. what happens from here on out is no-one's business other than customer a. customer a owns the copy now.
if customer a now wants to sell it back to the store for $5 and the store wants to buy it for that price. then no one is doing anything wrong and no one other than customer a and the store are involved in the transaction.
if then the store wishes to sell it to customer b for $54.95 and customer b accepts then go for it. the copy of the game is now customer b's.
if you can give me a single valid reason why any of these transactions are immoral or advise where the developer should get more money then i shall concede that something should be done to hinder the used game market.
resale of goods occurs in every other market, and no one has a problem with it. i don't understand why developers believe they should have some extra right to stop resale of their goods. nor do i understand why they get away with planned obsolescence in their products(which many of the schemes to combat the used game market are). planned obsolescence is a breach of consumer rights in at least the UK.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
i think your inventing a point about something that has nothing to do with piracy .
He's not inventing it. He's just echoing sound-bites from a half-dozen different press releases whining about the evils of the used game market. We don't see them a lot on slashdot, but on sites like, for example, The Escapist, every few months there's a new press-release from some butt-hurt developer telling people that customers who buy used games are no better than pirates.
And said sites are full of people like the OP, who seem to be about even money between being "reputation management"-level shills, or just empty-headed industry cheerleaders supporting these scumbags to the detriment of their own interests.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Interesting)
F2P (Free To Play) does NOT equal P2W (Pay To Win).
League of Legends is doing it right; it's free to play, and everything except skins are obtainable, though paying makes you get those faster. I have no problem with that kind of model and have invested about €100 so far over the course of two years.
Battlefield Heroes on the other hand, now there's a game that's pure P2W. Sometimes I play it for a few rounds just to see if it has improved; everytime I find it worse than before. It used to be an awesome game. Nowadays, it's all about how much money you can spend on those über weapons... Makes me sad. :(
Re:Not on the disc (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it wrong to raise the price? This game is not that previous game you bought for the same price. In the same way Harry Potter is not star wars. They may come on DVD's but they are in no way the same movie.
And in short: you're going to go without. Good or bad the games industry is fed up with used games, and piracy. That means the entire experience is going to require you be authenticated with their service, constantly, and some of the core content will only exist on that service. In other words it's going to look at lot more like Steam, and a lot less like the 1980's.
I think the automobile industry should do this also. Make it so software is required to drive the car, and that software gets downloaded everytime you start the car up.
That way the car manufactures can make money thru the used market without having to actually buy and sell used cars.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
This "take it or leave it" attitude is part of the problem. Aside from there being a lot of sly deception (does it clearly state on the box that you are buying a license rather than a game, and that it is worth less second hand, and that if you buy second hand you get a cut down version?) companies need to form relationships with their customers, and part of any relationship is a two way dialogue.
Customers have every right to complain, and in fact in this case it is absolutely vital because if they don't and the game fails to sell it will be blamed on piracy. We need to make it clear that the nasty DRM is what made it fail in the marketplace.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Interesting)
This "take it or leave it" attitude is part of the problem. Aside from there being a lot of sly deception (does it clearly state on the box that you are buying a license rather than a game, and that it is worth less second hand, and that if you buy second hand you get a cut down version?) companies need to form relationships with their customers, and part of any relationship is a two way dialogue.
Customers have every right to complain, and in fact in this case it is absolutely vital because if they don't and the game fails to sell it will be blamed on piracy. We need to make it clear that the nasty DRM is what made it fail in the marketplace.
After a horrible delivery fiasco, I was forced recently to buy a textbook via an adobe DRM type encryption method. I will never do it again. What I expected was something closer to a PDF file. What I actually got was a broken PDF-like document, only viewable in a horrible viewer with the lack of a decent zoom feature, the inability to *print* pages that I need (it will let you print some of them, but not others, and it doesn't tell you before you try it), an incomplete product (compared to the physical book) filled with broken links to the publishers website, and a 2 hour headache finding the links to the prior version of the book to make it work in a cumbersome wrapper. I'm annoyed enough that I'm trying to get a refund on it, and may push it as far as going for a charge back from my credit card company under the defective goods clause. If anyone from Bedford/St Martins is reading this: You need to step up, and deliver what you promise.
If people are having DRM experiences with games anything close to what I just had with a DRM protected textbook -- they indeed have every right to complaint, and need to do it loudly.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
Good or bad the games industry is fed up with used games, and piracy.
Yeah, and I want a pony.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I suppose that depends on how you go about increasing the prices.
I mean, if all Shilling wanted was to raise the price he could have simply, you know, charged more money for the product and then we'd not be having this silly conversation.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
That means the entire experience is going to require you be authenticated with their service, constantly, and some of the core content will only exist on that service. In other words it's going to look at lot more like Steam, and a lot less like the 1980's.
And that means that there will be a lot more piracy or people who just stop buying from the major game studios until they quit being greedy little shits who think they can violate the doctrine of first sale to make perpetual profits off of one copy of a game.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
They are fed up with the Doctrine of First Sale, yet whine when everyone else gets even more fed up with the rest of the copyright law.
I guess we're headed for another great video game crash; the combination of incompetence, rising development costs and feelings of entitlement reaching the level of absurd hubris in the industry are a deadly combination. Now if only they'll take the movie and music industries with them, we can start cleaning the corruption they have inflicted on us, such as ACTA.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to summarize this issue:
When you buy a hammer to assemble a bed you just bought, you're perfectly free to sell that hammer once you're finished using it. The hammer manufacturer can not demand that the person you sold it to pays them something too.
And it should be the same with games. If you decide you're done playing with a game and you want to sell it, then you should be free to sell your right to play the game. When you sell a used game, you lose the option to play it again in the future.
Now I know game companies are going to say that a game is designed to be played only once and so if people could just resell their games, they (the companies) would go out of business. My answer: so what?
First of all, my father had only one hammer since he moved out of his parent's home when he was 20. He's 60 today and still has that hammer. When I moved out, I bought a hammer (as well as some other tools) and I plan to keep those tools my whole life. There's one hammer per household, and yet hammer manufacturers don't seem to be going out of business.
People don't buy just one video game in their entire life. They buy quite a few. Even when they can freely resell those games, they still buy several games. Also, video games can be more expensive than a hammer. If hammer manufactures can do it, then why can't game studios? I think it's clear that game studios are just trying to use the fact that their product is digital instead of physical to make more money.
Second, if people don't want to keep your game their whole life, then that's your own fault. Major game studios these days release games that last just a few hours (I think the average is 8 hours). Compare this to the 90's when a game could last 50+ hours. 8 hour games also cost quite a lot, usually $50 - $60. Let me rephrase that: you're expected to pay $60 for just 8 hours of entertainment. And then you're expected to pay that again on a regular basis (hence why we have dozens of sequels to most major games - Call of Duty franchise anyone?)
It's normal that when your product is so expensive but is useful only for a few hours, your customers will try to resell it after they're done with it. See, my girlfriend bought a hammer last month because she had to nail a painting to her wall; she never uses a hammer but she decided to keep it instead of selling it to a friend or neighbor, because she might need a hammer again in a few years.
So instead of complaining that customers don't want to keep your game very long and quickly resell it, why don't you make games that people want to play for a while? Some suggestions to achieve that:
- Longer storyline that lasts 50+ hours (like most games in the 90s)
- Stop holding our hand and penalize getting killed within the game! I played Modern Warfare and when I died, I came back to life right where I had fallen. No wonder I finished the game in a single afternoon! And by the end I hated the game, because while too hard is frustrating, too easy is boring.
- Add a reason to replay the game. For instance, I recently played a game where after finishing the campaign, I could restart a new campaign with all my earned skills, weapons and upgrades. This also enabled me to access secret areas and do stuff you can't do the first time you play. Just don't over do it - replaying the entire game 10 times just to pick up some development art sucks.
- Make expansions to the game. Lots of them. For 5+ years. I hate sequels because sequels add content but also remove some of it. Good expansions (i.e. not cheap DLC that add a costume or a new gun but expansions that are almost as big as a full game) are what I look for. In sandbox games, it's also fun to have one huge map in the same game rather than 3 smaller maps spread through 3 games (think of Grand Theft Auto series and what it would have been like if you could play in Liberty City, Vice City and San Andreas all at once, from the same game).
Just by using expansions, you can make your game last years. You can even price expansions the
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
A couple of things you're missing here:
1/ Their 'contracts', EULAs, whatever are not sacrosanct, they are subject to various laws and quite likely violate consumer laws in many countries; they rely on having more lawyer money than you to counteract this. This *should not* be a viable business model - to break the law and get away with it because of how much money you have. If they don't want to do business under certain countries' consumer laws they should just not sell their products in those countries, but they want it both ways.
2/ They treat the transaction as a simple sale when it suits them and a license when it doesn't. If they are effectively tying you to a onerous and difficult to understand contract which limits your rights such as return, resale, reinstallation etc. in various ways, this should be made clear at the point of sale - there should be a license/contract document for you to sign saying you understand these provisions and agree to them (subject to consumer and contract law). Why don't they do this? Because they want to falsely make out that it *is* a simple sale. This is fraudulent and should be stopped - and hopefully will be stopped when someone makes an appropriate legal challenge in a country with sane consumer laws.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. Until one of the contract clauses specifies something that is illegal, in which case that contractual clause is null and void - it doesn't exists, and you can ignore it.
Every content industry, gaming included, hates the first sale doctrine. Actually, every industry hates the first sale doctrine. If the car industry could prevent the sale of used cars, and force you to buy exclusively new cars, they would probably pop the cork, and the cheers would be heard all around the world. But they haven't found a way to go around the first sale doctrine.
(no internet discussion is complete without a car analogy)
A company could try to do so. They'll sell you the car, but only lease you the right to turn on the engine. So you can sell the car, but then, the new buyer would have to get a new engine (or rather the license for an engine). Of course, you wouldn't pay the same amount for this car. And it's clearly a way to get around the first sale doctrine.
The analogy goes even better: if you don't like that car idea, you can go and buy a different car under better terms (it's a different car, since the car manufacturer has a monopoly on its brand).
So why don't the car industry do that? Because if they did, the blatant attempt at weaseling out of the first sale doctrine would be obvious enough, and they'd get crucified. So it's telling that the content industries think they can get away with it, and indeed, they succeed in doing that.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree they are being jerks.
But if you invest $10,000,000 to make the first coffee table, then you are going to want to make at least $10,000,000 back.
And if you invested $30,000,000 in three other failures, then you are going to price this game to make $40,000,000 or go bankrupt.
That investment is people's salaries, rent on the buildings, power bills, computer and desks.
Once you get past that base cost, sure, the extra copies are "free".
I think the publishers are cheating, swindling, weasels who want us to pay 5 times for the exact same content. And we have a right to scream and shout about it and try to convince people not to buy the products.
But try to be realistic about the real costs to make these games.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
That investment is people's salaries, rent on the buildings, power bills, computer and desks.
Oh boo freaking hoo. Most of us would be out on the street from one significant financial slip-up, but we're supposed to pity the boneheaded fuckers in the game industry who can't tell good business from their own assholes?
All they have to do is sell the games cheap and DRM-free to turn pirates into customers. It's not fucking rocket science. People will be able to pirate your games just as easily either way. In the current situation, the incentive to pirate is driven by horrific DRM and a $60+ cost, and the disincentive is a little bit of up-front effort. Sell the game for under $20 without DRM and probably half of the pirates become customers, while you retain all your old customers, and you get new customers who couldn't afford your games before or were offended by the DRM! The downside? Fucking nothing! You can lay off your DRM developers who can crawl back into the dark pit they came out of and shut down your DRM servers. Your initial costs are CUT, your running costs are CUT, and it BRINGS IN MORE REVENUE. Figure it out morons!
As for used games, if you sell your games cheap and DRM-free with online backup and official support, why would anyone buy used? Seriously it's astounding that these are the idiots who get rich.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:4, Insightful)
but definitely don't steal it.
What about downloading it?
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
When was the last time you had to agree to 'terms' when purchasing your game? You don't get to learn about them until you get home and open the box, or even until you finish installing it.
Why should those terms be enforced? Why should their violation be considered copyright infringement? You bought a copy, now you should be able to do with it whatever you want. Including reselling it.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
Just wait until the copyright expires.
That's great, so roughly 45 years after my unborn grandchildren die of old age, the copyright will finally expire.
but definitely don't steal it.
First off, you cannot steal something if they still have the item. Secondly, by their own words, buying used = pirating, so why not? The greedy fucks view it the same, so why pay any money to Gamestop for it then?
Re:Not on the disc (Score:4, Informative)
don't steal it. Just wait until the copyright expires.
there won't be enough seeders then.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not on the disc (Score:4, Insightful)
Valve has proven that while gamers will bitch about it they will put up with anti-resale measures. Heck if you make the service you are locking them into treat them well (unlimeted redownloads, massive discounts in sales etc) then they might even grow to like it (I'd say I see far more positive posts on steam round here nowadays than negative ones).
I guess the only questions left for devs are
1: which is more controversial and/or more profitable. Preventing resale altogether as valve and blizzard do or trying to cream some money off resale through content that is free to the first owner but chargable to subsequent owners.
2: how to balance strength of the protection measures verses inconviniance caused to user.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
Robert Heinlein, Life Line, 1939
Sheer poetry from the Dean of Science Fiction, early in his career and long before he was famous.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:4, Interesting)
OK, we're going to have this talk about RAH and the evolution of his political leanings. The man was complex. He was a huge advocate of the dissociation of social mores of sex and marriage from state regulation. He had homosexual characters in his books in the 1940's, and biracial couples in the 1950's. Group marriage, line marriage, and so forth were social norms in his works. This is not right-wing liberatarianism. This is... something else. Many of his ideas were controversial, but they became so popular during the 60's "free love" movement that unwanted hippies were camped on his lawn.
But he didn't "descend into right-wing liberatarianism". He started in extreme liberatarianism and moderated his projection of his views to sell books. As they became less political tracts and more entertainment, they moved more units. But his views didn't change - except during a painful divorce - which I personally could forgive him for having been there.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Funny)
Does he know the mayor of Boston?
Re:Not on the disc (Score:4, Insightful)
So he's not just some random executive, he's a gamer at heart.
A gamer who wants to badly fuck other gamers over to make an easy buck. It's utterly absurd that he thinks he has a right to perpetual profits after the original point of sale for a particular copy of a game.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
A gamer who wants to badly fuck other gamers over to make an easy buck.
The most hilarious thing is that he doesn't understand how markets work at all.
People discount the price they're willing to pay by the amount they'll get back later if they sell used. When I go out and sell a used game for $20 that I originally paid $50 for, that's $20 I put toward the purchase of the next new game I buy. If I don't have that $20 in my pocket, I'm not paying more than $30 for the next game because I literally don't have the money anymore. Meanwhile, the guy who would have bought the game used from me has still only got $20 to buy a game, and if the game doesn't cost $20 then he can't afford it either.
There are three actual ways to make more money selling video games: Either you set the price more appropriately (because it's either higher or lower than the sweet spot, which means that volume times price is not maximized), or you make better games so that more people buy them, or you make games that are just as good more efficiently so that you have lower costs against the same revenues. There is no option that says "fuck over your paying customers" because that doesn't work.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only that I have to defend Gamestop a little here - I know several people who work at Gamestop, and three of them are store managers.
Here's how it works according to the fucktard who wrote the article: "The remaining $31.99? Pure profit..."
Now, here's how it works in reality:
- On that one game, Gamestop got $31.99 in profit. That profit went back into the sales figures for the store to pay for new inventory and to pay the wages of the workers and the rent to the property owner (Gamestops are in malls or strip malls, they never own a standalone storefront building on corporate-owned land).
- On several other games, Gamestop plunked down $20-25 in either store credit or cash payout. Those games sat at the $45 price point for a while. Then the $40 price point. Then $35. Then $30. Then $25. Then $20. Somewhere between $25 and $20, the "pure profit" that the fucktard article-writer assumes turned into a loss.
- On even more games, Gamestop plunked down maybe $10-15. The same thing happened. Maybe they managed to sell it at $20-25, maybe they sold it at less.
The short version is, sure, on that ONE used title Gamestop got a net $31.99 profit. Maybe that was enough to pay for one worker for roughly 2 and a half hours worth of time if they're at the standard $12/hour. On a number of other titles, Gamestop barely broke even, or even lost money when the game fell into "crap it's old, get it out of here, chuck it in the $5-10 bargain bin" range. Because that WILL happen to some titles, even if Gamestop shelled out $20-25 for it when it was new.
There's a Gamestop near my location that was posting sales numbers in the top 100 Gamestop stores for most of Christmas. They just got word anyways that they are getting shut down in February. Apparently Gamestop decided rent in the area isn't enough to justify keeping the store open, even with fantastic sales on both the new and used end.
So before you vilify Gamestop, think about that. A lot of the people working those stores are actual gamers. A lot of the people working those stores are trying to make ends meet. And the dirtiest secret of all... the "profits" for an operating Gamestop store are nowhere near CLOSE to what Asshat McDouchebag writing for ShitHardware, a crappy blog site with a broken registration system, came up with by pulling numbers out of his lying ass.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Interesting)
You obviously don't understand how the supply chain works.
If Gamestop sells a NEW copy of a game at $60, then they may make $5-6 "profit" on it. The wholesale prices on the brand new games in the box sent to the stores are HIGH.
This is why you will NEVER, EVER, EVER AGAIN see a single-purpose store that sells nothing but brand new in the box games and systems. You won't. Think about it - when's the last time you saw a Software Etc? Oh yeah they started selling used games before they went under. How about Babbage's? Oops, gone under. The margins simply will not and probably will not ever support a "new only" software storefront business model any more.
Instead, you have Best Buy, you have Target, you have Walmart, and you have the rinky-dink "electronics" sections of other department stores where they staff minimum wage employees 2-3 to a store, or if they get up to 4-5 then they have someone minding the REALLY high ticket items like plasma TV's and $2000 cameras.
That is the reality. Margins on brand new games SUCK. The fact that Gamestop will manage to have new releases and launch parties when Crap of Dookie: Modern Warfare 4: Beating A Dead Horse comes out next year is because the USED game market subsidizes getting the brand new copies into the store. And that's the complete truth of the matter.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:4, Informative)
The whole point of this discussion that it is not additional content. It is part of the single player game that can not even be accessed unless you pay the original point of sale at the original price.
This would be like buying a book with pages missing out of the middle.
Except as multiple people have noted, it's not on the disc. It's additional downloadable content, and it's not necessary for the single player game. This isn't like a book with missing pages - the single player game is complete, and you don't need the DLC to finish it. This is more like buying a book new and having a bookmark in it with a URL for an additional free short story.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Interesting)
No it isn't. It isn't a compromise at all.
A compromise is where both parties give up a little, to reach an "acceptable" solution, where otherwise there is an intractible situation.
Here, we have a game company pushing the envelope to push the transaction in its favor. Right ot wrong, this is not a compromise.
A compromise would be more along the lines of:
"we understand and respect the first sale rights of our customers who buy game discs, but also need to keep the lights on. Because of this, we have decided to offer the base game without any of the optional expansions for a reduced price. We reduced the price due to the extremely vanilla nature of the offering. The expansions can be purchased online as a downloadable content license for a fair price each. The single player basic campaign will not be crippled without the dlc, but the dlc does improve its enjoyability and replay value. You can redownload the dlc expansions any time you like, but they are tied to your user account, and are nontransferable."
Selling a dlc expecting game for the price of a full title, selling the dlc for premium prices on top of that, and offering some dlcs as special exclusives is *not* a compromise.
You are selling a purposefully deficient gaming experience for full price. This is dick move #1.
You try to make us all feel better by offering an exclusive dlc for "free". This dlc is designed so that second hand players cannot legally get it without buying another copy of the game band new. This is dick move #2.
The non dick-move solutions are as follows:
1) "exclusives" should be promotional only. This means "buy the game before christmas eve, and get this special novelty exclusive dlc for free!" (With the intent that 4 or 5 months later you offer the same dlc for sale for a modest price.) The only other time an exclusive dlc is appropriate is for a specific console vendor promotion. If you plan on selling a slimmed doen base game with the intent of selling dlc to make up for it, then you have to price your offering appropriately. If your game is super ultra vanilla without the dlc, offer it for 30$ instead of 60, and charge another 30$ for the dlc. If you want to bundle, then offer a "free" (ahem.) Download ticket for the dlc in the game pack marked 60$. Don't shut out second-hand buyers. Offer them the missing content for a reasonable fee. This way you stand to monetize the 2nd and 3rd hand sales. These are sales of the dlc that you didn't have to pay merchanising costs for. Instead of complaining that you didn't get those people to spend 60$, accept the 30$ they are spending on the dlc. (If they buy smartly, they can still buy used and get the dlc cheaper than new, which is why they buy used in the first place. People who buy used put up with intrinsic bads like scratched disks, missing manuals, beat up cases and the like already. Don't penalize them harder because you want the full 60$ from their wallets.)
In short: "required" (for the full game experience) non-transferrable dlc is *already* a compromise. Don't be a greedy whorish assfuck by dickishly witholding dlc content from second hand buyers that would happily buy the dlc from you, but don't want to pay your MSRP for the game disk. Don be a greedy whorish assfuck by double dipping your customers with a 60$ brand new disk that requires 20$ or more of seperate dlc to be playable. Those are not compromises. Those are being unreasonable, and you will hurt customer relations, and your brand, resulting in future lost sales.
The second hand market is a reality. Instead of pitching a hissyfit that you can't make only brand new sales, offer to service the second hand purchasers for a modest fee. Monetize the second hand market. Don't try to expunge it.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
No it isn't. It isn't a compromise at all.
How much do games cost in the store? How much did they cost 10 years ago? 20? 30? Games have gotten cheaper when inflation is taken into account. Here: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/10/an-inconvenient-truth-game-prices-have-come-down-with-time.ars [arstechnica.com]
we have decided to offer the base game without any of the optional expansions for a reduced price
It's believed that consumers take the price of good as a reflection of quality. If you see a game that is $40 on a shelf that's filled with $60 games most people will assume that there is something wrong with that $40. I'm not saying that the American games retail market can't change but I doubt it.
Selling a dlc expecting game for the price of a full title, selling the dlc for premium prices on top of that, and offering some dlcs as special exclusives is *not* a compromise.
...
Don't shut out second-hand buyers. Offer them the missing content for a reasonable fee. This way you stand to monetize the 2nd and 3rd hand sales.
I don't know what game you're complaining about but it isn't Amular. If you buy Amular new then you also receive a code to buy the dlc for free. If you buy Amular used and if it doesn't come with an unused code then you can purchase the dlc like normal. You seem to be arguing that the companies should be doing exactly what they are doing.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
Economically, there is no difference between not buying and pirating.
That's untrue. Resale allows the original purchaser to recoup some of the cost of buying the product. This either makes the product more valuable (i.e. the seller can charge a higher price for the new product), or means the buyer has more money to spend on the next product they want (so they can buy more games or higher priced games as a result). At the end of the day, this means that the publishers should be making more money from each purchaser since a proportion of the money flows up from the resale activities.
Of course, the publishers are restricting resale, under the premise that if people can't buy a used game at a knock-down price, they will instead buy a brand new one at full price. If this were true, then preventing resale would make sense. However, IMHO this isn't going to happen - people only have a certain amount of money to spend on games, and if they can't get old ones for the knock-down price they will either buy less games or turn to the black market.
All this is, of course, disregarding the loss of sales from the primary purchasers who boycott as a result of feelng that they are being abused by the vendor.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you get the content for free, if you're the original owner, but you need to buy it, if you're a second-hand owner? That's frustrating, but it's not as bad as it could be.
Anyway, my suggestion to them would be to have a market on their own website, where you can auction/sell activation codes to the games that you own. That way, they can track the second hand market, make it easier for people, and also perhaps make a tiny profit off of each sale (say, 5% or 10%). Also, this would make it very easy to trade/sell DLC. In fact, I should probably set up a third party website like this.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
There's something called the first sale doctrine , which applies to books and which logically should extent to all media.
These are attempts to cheat it, just like DVD regions are a cheat attempt at price fixing.
Call things by their true names, will ya?
Re:Not on the disc (Score:4, Insightful)
The only perceived entitlement is that of the publisher and maker believing that they have a right to a percentage of all sales: used, new or otherwise.
I also like how being a business makes you inherently not evil. Just replace “business” with “assassin” and you've described the “free market”. Just because I kill people for money doesn't make me evil. I'm just trying make a profit. Now, if I could just get rid of all those government regulations about not killing people. It's really killing my business model. Stupid people and their perceived entitlement to life.
This is my concern as well (Score:5, Insightful)
So, this type of DRM is a great reason not to buy the game since I won't be able to play it later. It has a limited life span.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Interesting)
Why should I have to go and get something that I have already bought, paid for and had delivered? Will they recompense me for my time and inconvenience? I doubt that but even if they did, unless they refunded the whole some by way of apology, I would still be pissed. This has all gone to far and I, as someone who had always been happy to buy lots of games in the past, download the cracked copy every time now because I do not want to put up with this BS. If I cannot play the game, when I want (i.e. no need for internet etc.) I would rather have a copy. If I am going to have to go online (to download half the game) I may as well download an entire game. I am not even prepared to put the CD into the drive every time I want to play (why should I? My CD drive is not internal!), I just want to play.
I have got about a cubic metre of games that I have bought in my room but now I download. I do not mind paying but I do mind having to put up with all the shit. If they provide good extras (manual maps etc.) I will buy it and download the crack. For me it is not about the money, it is about being able to play it when I want.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not on the disc (Score:4, Insightful)
"And what happens when there is nothing else?"
Games are toys. There will always be toys. Crave something different.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
"And what happens when there is nothing else?"
Games are toys. There will always be toys. Crave something different.
Today it is games and toys. Tomorrow, it will be tools and necessities. We fight this battle over baubles in the hopes that we will not have to fight over the things that really matter.
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not on the disc (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not on the disc (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah.. so when you resell the car, the trunk should lock, the A/C should stop working, and the gas mileage should drop from 27mpg to 21mpg.
We want to keep the "premium" car experience to first purchasers.
Why yes it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that wrong? if so please tell me how
There's nothing wrong with wanting to make a profit. There's everything wrong about withholding product and lying about it.
Re:Why yes it is. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think they are lying about anything. They are being very clear in what they are doing and why they are doing. People are not happy with what they are doing, but I don't think deception is involved.
Re:Why yes it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually yes. It involved deception. When you buy a game, there is a reasonable expectation that you will be able to play everything that is in the disc. More over, there is an expectation that you will get a "complete experince".
It's kinda like if you bought out The Dark Knight only to find that the last 15 minutes are locked by a subscription system. Or like going to see a movie and then just before the last part the managers ask you for an extra fee to see the end.
This is the kind of thing that you would expect to be informed beforehand. So while it isn't a crime, it deserves all the backslash it can get, I hope you are not suggesting that the gamers should shush about this.
Re:Why yes it is. (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think they are lying about anything. They are being very clear in what they are doing and why they are doing.
Do they clearly state that when their activation/DLC servers are turned off, you will no longer have access to the complete game you paid for unless you are still using the original install? Because, that's how this works.
Once you activate the content using the code on on the package, that code is no longer valid. So, that first install is the only one with the full content available.
Re:Piracy is great (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Piracy is great (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, that's not entirely true. Pirating games looks shitty compared to Steam in my opinion.
* No need to find new crack every time the game updates (or even check for new version.. it auto-updates)
* In-game chat system, with one-click multiplayer join function (for those games that support it)
* Savegames are stored on Steam's servers and synced between machines (for those games that support it)
* Consistent screenshot / gallery system across games, with upload support to Steam servers.
* Game statistics and achievements, displayed online on your profile.
* Direct access to high-speed download of games, no virus risk, minimal game install process.
* No need to search around, try different downloads, find one that downloads fast, then find out if it has virus, then find out if it works... Just click-click-click-click-click, and it downloads, full speed.
Yes.. Steam can fail (server down, can not start single player game), and it's offline modus can really do with some improvement (you have to be online to play offline? What?), but overall it does give some value over pirating games.
Re:Piracy is great (Score:5, Interesting)
See, that's not true, Steam is a perfect example of why it isn't.
Valve has managed to create a DRM system that actually adds value to the game for the majority of users. Every single Valve game is just as easy to pirate as games from other publishers, yet they lose very little sales to piracy. Why do you think that is? It is because Valve makes buying from steam more attractive than piracy.
"Is that wrong? if so please tell me how" (Score:5, Informative)
First sale doctrine. QED.
Re:"Is that wrong? if so please tell me how" (Score:5, Insightful)
If Ford started selling the key to your car as a "free" app for your smartphone, but anyone buying that same car second hand had to shell out $1500 for a new "key," how long do you think it would take for before either a) congress enacts a law outlawing the practice, or b) FoMoCo's HQ is burnt to the ground?
Or c), GM, Chrysler, VAG, Toyota, Honda, Subaru, BMW, Mercedes, etc all start doing it too and everyone just accepts it as the new norm. Because, sadly, "c" is where the video game world is headed.
Re:"Is that wrong? if so please tell me how" (Score:5, Insightful)
Because some industry hack told you his wishful thinking and you lapped it up? I'll sell you a controlling interest in the Brooklyn Bridge at a discount rate...
Yes, it's wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
They are preventing someone from having anything of value to sell after they are done with it. Perhaps if the game didn't cost so much in the first place it would have less value used and more would buy it new - what a concept. I don't buy too many games these days but I play many older ones and some online games. It's stunts like this that would prevent me from buying this game new OR used. $50 and $60 dollars per game is crazy and has greatly curtailed my desire to buy. Between crappy DRM that makes my life hell and is now starting to limit even hardware changes to publishers pulling crap like this to ensure I cannot resell any game I buy I simply have no stomach to purchase their crap. Let them go bankrupt and someone who values their customers more take their place so far as I'm concerned....
Re:Yes, it's wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yes, it's wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop used sales, and your product becomes worth less... one might get more of each sale, but the total number of sales tends to go down resulting in a net decrease of income. Sadly, new industries keep forgetting that there is more to a market then the immediate first order effects.. learning how things interconnect is important. grrr.
Re:Yes, it's wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of people will buy a game, mess with it, and if they get enough, or if they don't like it all that much , they'll pawn it.
Take that away and they will become far more wary of what to pay for.
GREED is not good. Do they even notice? (Score:3)
As with music and everything else, the big USED product market didn't prevent various massive industries from being born... which are now using their power to warp reality and politics.
Infinite stock price growth is what fuels this war with their customers. Share holders are all that matters today nobody thinks of customers. The past is not enough, they must wring every cent from you in every way conceivable or the board picks a new CEO. Many newspapers that died were still profitable but not as high as de
OK then. (Score:5, Insightful)
companies are still trying to figure out how to receive dollars spent on games they make, when they are bought. Is that wrong? if so please tell me how.
In my case they need to figure out a better way to receive my dollars. There's absolutely nothing wrong with what they are doing. It simply means that I will refuse to support their business by purchasing their products. If enough people feel the same way, then they will either find a way to stop treating people like shit and make money or go out of business.
Re:OK then. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well said. The problem here is, like Garth Brooks, some companies believe that used games are somehow the bane of their existence. I've seen games sell upwards of a million or more copies in a week, and how again is used killing them? Oh, it's out of their control. Something I don't care about.
I know people use it all the time, but damnit, the First Sale doctrine is alive and well. If they want to "license" us a copy of the game, then we should be able to exchange media when ours is scratched by our kids playing frisbee. We should also be able to get a replacement if we break the disc. Currently, you're mostly shit outta luck with respect to the latter (and the former, but it varies by publisher.) But if they want this sort of licensing model (effectively killing used game sales), then they should be prepared for the consequences of their new model.
Trouble is, they want (like the music and movie industry) to have it both ways. No need for them to uphold any sort of content licensing agreement, but if they want to squeeze you, the customer, about something like used games or DLC, then they want that power. Funny how companies are like that. :)
And no, I am not interested in their game. They (and EA) have decided to make it difficult for me, so I will make it difficult for them to continue with this business model by NOT buying their games. Quite simply, if it's not "evil pirates" it's those goddamned "evil used buyers." I'm tired of fucking hearing it. Clamping down on your paying customers is NOT going to solve the infringement problem... nor is it going to garner you any goodwill, which once you lose, takes YEARS to get back.
Re:OK then. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's absolutely nothing wrong with what they are doing
There is absolutely everything wrong with they are doing.
I understand that digital delivery and games that can be played online has confused the issue, along with the persistent confusion over what copyright is.
However, it is really this fucking simple:
Customer purchased product from store.
Customer owns product from store.
Customer after some period of time sells product used to somebody else.
Store already got paid, so they have no legal interest, much less moral or ethical interest, in the second sale.
First Sale Doctrine covers this. Everywhere else in the physical world you cannot pull this fucking shit for two seconds without being called crazy greedy retarded sons of bitches.
I have said before, and some of disagreed with me (they are wrong), but when you pay for copyrighted content you are granted rights in return for the consideration you paid. Part of that, is quite obviously, the ability to sell your copy. Traditionally in the past this was very easy to wrap your mind around with when it came to art and books, since they were physical items you could touch and pick up. Every single time a piece of artwork or book is sold the legal entitlements that came from copyright are transferred. It is completely legal, moral, and ethical to be able to do so. You own it, the physical medium and those rights.
They can try all the EULA crap that they want. That does not make it right, or legally defensible in a court of law. Shilling is a greedy fucking dumbass who cannot understand why he cannot get a part of each and every resale in perpetuity. Quite simply, he is not satisfied with being legally compensated one time, but has major entitlement issues to believe (erroneously) that he has every right to be compensated when his customer sells the game to another gamer used.
The fundamental problem being that Shilling does not want to understand copyright as it currently is, or what it was designed to be. Shilling, and other shitheads like him, only want to be part of a world where they have absolute control over every copy everywhere and that it always remains their direct property under their direct control at all times.
Well fuck him, and fuck Microsoft with their 720. When I purchase physical mediums, or directly download copies of copyrighted content I will absolutely protect, by force if required, my right to transfer those rights to anyone I please for any amount of consideration I please.
There is everything wrong with they are doing from every perspective you can think of.
Re:OK then. (Score:5, Informative)
They can try all the EULA crap that they want. That does not make it right, or legally defensible in a court of law.
I am not sure if that is true any more (in the US) since late last year in the Autodesk trial.
From the Freedom to Tinker blog [freedom-to-tinker.com]:
The Ninth Circuit's decision in Vernor significantly erodes the first sale doctrine with respect to software and other mass-licensed digital goods. ... ...
In Timothy Vernor's case, however, the publisher of the AutoCad software argued that it never actually sold the copies Vernor bought, so there was no "first sale" for copyright purposes. Under the software publisher's logic, which the Ninth Circuit adopted in the case, both the copy and the intellectual property embodied in the copy were only licensed, and quite restrictively so, pursuant to the terms of a mass end user license agreement (EULA); nothing was ever sold, despite the retail transaction that put copies of the software into the hands of the initial purchaser, and despite the downstream transaction that put those copies into Timothy Vernor's hands.
Under Vernor, software copyright owners not only own the work embodied in every copy of a program they sell, they own every copy, too. Consumers are left with both empty pockets and empty hands.
I strongly believe First Sale doctrine should extend to software, but the EULA looks like it is sneaking in to block it.
...if so please tell me how... (Score:5, Insightful)
I still got my original copies of Chrono Cross & Star Ocean 2 from launch day. Just sayin'...
Re:...if so please tell me how... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not every game wants to be that epic. In this day and age you're competing as much for time as for money. If people can't pick up your game and be done with it in a week (when they buy the next big game) you might not sell very many - because if you aren't Skyrim you're better to be Portal than Divinity 2: Ego Draconis or the First templar . "Long" is not a selling point anymore and nor is "50 hour experience" or "70 hour experience".
Want to know why? Because the people who have money to game all have their original copies of chrono cross and star ocean too, and guess what, those people all have (or are trying to get) jobs, and families and stuff now, and spending 70 or 80 hours on one game doesn't have the appeal it did when they were younger. People *might* want a few games a year that are big epics, but most of the time they want portal, uncharted 3, call of duty or any collection of other 'short' games interspersed amongst their skyrims and WoW/SWTOR time.
Rewarding people for helping us (Score:4, Insightful)
... this is us rewarding people for helping us!
Where did this jackass study economics? This ain't the way it works: I give you money, you give me something of equal value in return, period. His former dean and professors should fail him retroactively.
What a spin doctor.
Re:Rewarding people for helping us (Score:4, Funny)
>study economics
Curt Schilling was never an economist.
He was pitcher for the Red Sox, however. Bloody ankle and all.
This is called "learning your second career by the seat of your pants."
--
BMO
Re:Rewarding people for helping us (Score:4, Informative)
physical products that come in a box are quite often bought with the notion that you could resell them like books.
note: book publishers don't like used book sales either, but have to live with it.
book publishers would probably use disappearing ink too if they thought they could get all publishers onboard.
Doublespeak (Score:4, Insightful)
"We're not trying to take more of your money, we're rewarding you! By generously allowing you to access content that you've already bought from us and that already belongs to you. But we don't allow you to resell that content that you bought, even though you're legally entitled to. We don't want to reward you as much as that."
DLC (Score:4, Insightful)
[rant]Game companies are already forking us over on DLC. When you buy a game, figure on 2x the list price in order to get a *complete* game.[/rant]
I never buy new games anymore. I wait until you can buy the game, all the expansions, and all the DLC on Steam for $20 before I buy it.
49 pages of comments and that's the best he's got? (Score:3)
How clueless can you get. This guy clearly didn't bother to read any of the comments or he wouldn't have made such an ignorant statement that completely ignores his customers. How's that shoe leather tasting, Mr Shilling?
The Fight Against Ownership (Score:4, Insightful)
The market. (Score:3, Interesting)
I've bought more legitimate games for my PS3 than any other system. Want to know the secret? I pay $25.00-$50 per game. They ship from the UK, from OZGameShop.com There's no DRM, there's no bullshit. I put them in my PS3, they install, and they play. I don't have to be online to use them. I own 26 Playstation 3 games, I even preordered 2 of them and paid full price $70-100. That's more than every other console I own combined. If you try to force me to pay $60-120/game. I will stop buying games again. You will have priced me out of the market. I will prefer to spend my $500 on PC hardware, and crack your software. Because I can't justify YOUR prices. There's a point where buying a game is a good honest deal and I will buy many games. But then there's the point where you're ripping me off blind, and I will stop buying your products. It's your choice really. I pay well above average for the humble bundles as well. My first payment was $35 because I saw the value of what they wanted to sell. I wouldn't own any PS3 games or even a PS3 if I couldn't get the games I want for $25 each. You wouldn't have 29 sales of games, hardware, and controllers without that available. That's about $1200 Sony and it's publishers would be missing. Don't screw over gamers, and we won't screw you over. Stop acting like entitled children. You don't own our money and we don't owe you anything.
Dear Curt Shilling (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see that you might struggle to understand why you shouldn't get a cut every time something you once produced is re-sold. After all, when you buy a used book you send some money to the original publisher right?. And every time you sell your used car, you are happy to make sure a percentage makes its way to the original manufacturer don't you?.
Just think, that beautiful antique Ming vase you brought, the original effort and creativity that went into the painting. It's unique, some Chinese artisan spent months, or even years, of their life making it. They would never do that if they didn't know that hundreds of years later when you bought it at an auction in New York, they were not going to get a cut of that.
Yes, I see your problem. Your problem is that an item's value consists of it's useful value (the value of actually using it), plus the residual value. The residual value is the amount the owner can get by selling the item once they have no further use for it. You are attempting to reduce the residual value artificially. Your problem is that reduces the actual value of the game over all. So guess what? people won't pay you as much for it.
Your other problem is that you really don't understand the above.
Re:Dear Curt Shilling (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, look up 'droit de suite.' You may laugh. Or cry.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems developers can't win with day-1 DLC. If they release it normally, it's content that should've been released on the disc (even if it was gold or content locked before the DLC was finished). In this case, they're including a one-time-use code to get the DLC for free; isn't that better than asking ALL players to buy the DLC?
I don't see how this is worse than the other "project 10-dollar" schemes of having players of used games pay for a DLC that unlocks multiplayer or something, especially if the content isn't already on the disc (as the game developers claim).
Perhaps if they provided an online code generator that anyone could use to redeem for a free copy of the DLC, that'd suffice? It's worth noting that the PC version comes with this DLC already included, no code required, although there isn't much market for used PC games.
Give the game developers a break (Score:3)
They are doing their best in a very tough industry.
It's very easy to work really hard, put your heart into a project, and then have it die with NOTHING to show for it.
Even the guy flipping burgers knows he's going to get paid even though not very much. These game devs will sometimes work on projects for years spending profits from old projects or savings on the hope that the new project will be worth the effort.
Great game studios go out of business all the time for lack of sales, poor marketing, or just bad luck.
I'm not commenting on this specific technology they're trying here... I'm just saying... give them a break. They're trying really hard to stay in a business they love and we the gamers enjoy.
One thing which I wish the game companies would try more of is serialized game development. There have been some experiments with this but I really feel this is the solution to a lot of problems. Rather then making the game all in one shot, focus on sorting out the engine, netcode, etc out and then release the game in little packets good for an hour or so of gameplay.
Then the investment isn't as large. If people aren't buying the game then stop development after a couple episodes rather then completing a full season which should be roughly equivalent to a large full release game.
Further, if the game is a success and sales are good you can just keep releasing episodes ultimately making a much larger game then you'd otherwise release. And the game dev gets rewarded for making larger games.
Right now in the current game market you can charge maybe 50-60 dollars for a AAA game title. If you release a game that is twice as big as most games on the market you can't charge 120 dollars even if its' well worth it. Gamers just won't pay it.
However, if you packaged the game into episodes then you could charge 2-5 dollars per episode, release a new episode every month or so, and then keep making them for as long as people bought them.
That gives you all the long lasting profits of an MMO with all the great single player goodness we've been missing from MMO titles.
My only experience with this model so far has been the games from TellTale Games. I preordered the whole Monkey's Island series and was very happy with the process. I think I paid 40 dollars or something for the whole series and they released a new title every two months over the course of a year. I can't speak for everyone but I was very happy with the arrangement and if anything would have been very happy to buy a second season.
In any case... that's my suggestion. Break the games up into bits small enough that you can afford to fail and expandable enough that if you have a hit you can milk it for all it's worth. That's why some TV shows only have two episodes and others go on for 10 years. If it's a flop you're out the cost of a pilot. If people like it you can just keep making them until people get tired of them or you decide to retire you private island.
It's a simple price increase. (Score:3)
Under the old model I could buy the game for $59 and sell it for $19. Net cost is $40. Also, I could share the game on all the consoles or PC's in my household (Family plan). Now the game is $59 and the family plan is over $118 or higher. Now add the inconvenience of the DRM and the effective playability (i.e. value has been decreased). Take all this together and ask: Is this game still worth buying? Some people will still buy at this "higher price" some won't. If they made the right choice they will have higher profits, if the didn't the result will be lower profits. Getting all upset because they "screwed up" the product is like getting all pissed off because the new Ford Mustang only has a 100HP engine and they are charging the same price for it. You probably won't like it, won't buy it, and Ford will have lower earnings.
38 Studios might be b/w a rock and a hard place (Score:5, Informative)
Curt Schilling, the CEO, is an ex-Major League Baseball pitcher who is likely headed for the Hall of Fame (he lead three different teams to 4 World Series). He turned his video game hobby, marketable name and tens of millions in the bank into a post-baseball career as game studio head. In parallel, he has flirted with the idea of entering politics as a conservative Tea Party-type candidate, and wrote occasional political as well as baseball commentary on his 38 pitches blog [wordpress.com].
To nobody's surprise, 38 Studios (38 was Schilling's uniform number with the Red Sox) soon fell well behind schedule on their AAA game, and was hemorrhaging cash. They tried to get Massachusetts (their original home base) to guarantee a loan, but Mass said no. However, a business development board for Rhode Island (a notoriously poorly run state with a longtime corruption problem) agreed to co-sign a $75 million (!) loan, on the conditions that 1) 38 Studios relocate to RI; 2) RI gets a substantial equity stake in the company; and 3) 38 Studios agrees to meet an aggressive schedule of hiring hundreds of RI citizens to good-paying staff positions. The board is hoping that Schilling's company will help spark the emergence of a tech industry in RI. That's a big reason why they have so many employees, and why they have little or no wiggle room in cutting consumers a break. They need the revenues, now!
You may have noticed that they missed the 2011 Christmas season (as well as 2010, etc). Lots of Democrats pointed out that by accepting the government-guaranteed loan, Schilling violated all the "small government, free market" principles he'd been espousing in his blog. I've noticed that since the move, Schilling hasn't blogged about politics, and was amusingly silent when Boston Bruins goaltender Tim Thomas refused to join his teammates for the Stanley Cup victory dinner at Obama's White House (just the kind of news item Schilling used to delight in blogging about).
Good luck, Curt.
Not about bargin bin (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about games being picked out of bargain bin for $5 two or three years after release.
It's about the practice of game stores selling new $60 games, then a couple weeks later buying them back for $8 (or more typically store credit) and re-selling them for $55. It's a practice that sees almost as much money leave consumer pockets but half as much reach the people who actually made the games and is very wide spread. The stores deliberately under-stock new games in order to push people towards the used copies. It's typical to go in a week after release and be told they don't have any new copies, but there are a half dozen used for a couple dollars off.
It's a practice that's bad for the developers, the publishers and fairly bad for the consumers as a whole. Basically bad for everyone but the pawn shops in the middle. It siphons enormous amounts of money out of the industry and is one of the reasons that basically every studio smaller than EA or Ubisoft is forced to sell out or close, regardless of how well liked their games are.
Yes, measures taken to combat this have some nasty collateral damage. No such thing as perfect system in real life.
Re:Not about bargin bin (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand the pressure that publishers are under, and I can understand that they see profit made by GameStop and want a piece - the simple truth is that they just haven't earned a dime of it.
IT'S YOUR BUSINESS MODEL, STUPID! GameStop can only abuse the industry on such a massive scale because of the prices YOU set. And if you offered an online service for users to trade used licenses, not only could you make a bit off the second hand market but you would put GameStop out of business overnight.
Exploiting your customer base and breaking games is NOT acceptable collateral damage.
Shrinking market (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is greater than they imagine and you will start to see it every where.
Just google the word plutonomy for the big picture.
The dilemma has always been to provide a customer with a product for a price that works for all. The problem is the price no longer works for the producer so they want to jack it. The blow-back is that customers, who do not think themselves thieves, but savvy consumers are being told they are no longer viable and not wanted.
As the majority of Americans continue to make less while a small part of them continue to make more you will see more and more "big companies" have this same fight. They don't see that the problem isn't that fact that as time goes on only fewer folks will have the ability to afford their goods, they will instead see that they need to lash out against the "unworthy" customers who just don't want to shell out the cash they know in their hearts their product is worth.
One should remember that Price is one of the 4 P's of marketing. We tend to think that it means that charging 5 to 10 times the true value of Chanel No. 5 is all that it is about but it also works on the lower spectrum. If your target market is spending 0.025% of their monthly income to purchase your product you need to remember that has to scale. I don't buy my DVDs at best buy. I buy them low cost from the WalMart bin or secondhand in pawn shops. It's not that I don't want to buy DVDs but that source meets my budget.
By continuing to start a war of words and technologies against folks who perceive they are your customer to you are basically telling me I am not your customer. I am not worthy of your product. Fair enough. If they keep this up their customers will find new products to fill that same niche in their income bracket, as they should.
I don't dream of Lamborghini's or Chanel No. 5. My heart no longer goes pitter pat to see the latest Spielberg flick on the big screen at today's movie prices. Although game design studio's may think their products are gold, and they may very well be, they will find by shrinking their own market, rather than finding ways to price appropriately that they also will have no market.
Looks like they want to get to their destination fast rather than slow. Screw 'em. I like board and card games better. If I need story I will pick a good pick up a god book or short story they may or may not have paid the rights to themselves (actually I will lend it from the library cuzz I can't afford to buy it.)
This lesson was learned by me again just the other day. The local coffee roaster that I have loved for years and seen them grow decided that a free cup of coffee could no longer be given if you bought a half pound of whole bean coffee instead of a full pound. The owner actually got the employees together to "discuss this" and then expounded on his personal view that it was too expensive. They never thought to offer a cup of coffee for 50-75 cents with the purchase of the half pound, instead the owner basically made the moral judgement that folks who can only afford half a pound of coffee (6 bucks by the way) are no longer their customer. So I am no longer their customer.
Re: (Score:3)
I see their point however the methods are still misplaced. If I buy a used car, It's not like I can't use Gears 4 and up.
Maybe you can't if you don't renew your OnStar service. Did you read your contract?
Re:Don't buy (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it diminishes the value of the product to the original buyer. I don't buy many secondhand games and never sell them back, so I'll use an example for something I would buy: a decent mac laptop. They're not exactly cheap compared to the Wintel ones, but they have great resale value. I may not want to spend $1k on a laptop, but if I can buy it use it for a year and sell it for $800+, I'm no longer asking myself "Do you want to spend $1k?" It's become "Do you want to spend $200 to have this for a year?" The fact that I can sell the thing easily makes me a willing primary buyer.
ObCarAnalogy: It's as if when you buy the car, you can never sell it. You can blow it up, you can park it in your garage, you can cut the top off and plant plants in it, but you can never sell it. Suddenly cars have become very, very expensive for people who only keep them for a year or two. Those people will start buying fewer cars.