Playstation 4: Rumors and Speculation, complete with fanboy rage!

[quote name='gettinmoney662']I'm sorry, but this is why I can't take your complaints seriously. Things get cheaper over time. You spend more to get things sooner. You're in here whining about how you think games will not fall down in price if there's no used market and now you're whining that GOTY editions are cheaper than when you bought the vanilla version plus all the DLC.[/QUOTE]

when did i say game prices will never go down in price? i just said you cant expect the corporations to do the best case scenario. also, im saying that if you buy new, a way to combat trading it in as a thank you by giving dlc for free.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Blaster man']United States antitrust

Main article: United States antitrust law
The Sherman Act of 1890 attempted to outlaw the restriction of competition by large companies, who co-operated with rivals to fix outputs, prices and market shares, initially through pools and later through trusts. Trusts first appeared in the US railroads, where the capital requirement of railroad construction precluded competitive services in then scarcely settled territories. This trust allowed railroads to discriminate on rates imposed and services provided to consumers and businesses and to destroy potential competitors. Different trusts could be dominant in different industries. The Standard Oil Company trust in the 1880s controlled a number of markets, including the market in fuel oil, lead and whiskey.[26] Vast numbers of citizens became sufficiently aware and publicly concerned about how the trusts negatively impacted them that the Act became a priority for both major parties. A primary concern of this act is that competitive markets themselves should provide the primary regulation of prices, outputs, interests and profits. Instead, the Act outlawed anticompetitive practices, codifying the common law restraint of trade doctrine.[27] Prof Rudolph Peritz has argued that competition law in the United States has evolved around two sometimes conflicting concepts of competition: first that of individual liberty, free of government intervention, and second a fair competitive environment free of excessive economic power. Since the enactment of the Sherman Act enforcement of competition law has been based on various economic theories adopted by Government.[28]
Section 1 of the Sherman Act declared illegal "every contract, in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations". Section 2 prohibits monopolies, or attempts and conspiracies to monopolize. Following the enactment in 1890 US court applies these principles to business and markets. Courts applied the Act without consistent economic analysis until 1914, when it was complemented the Clayton Act which specifically prohibiting exclusive dealing agreements, particularly tying agreements and interlocking directorates, and mergers achieved by purchasing stock. From 1915 onwards the rule of reason analysis was frequently applied by courts to competition cases. However, the period was characterized by the lack of competition law enforcement. From 1936 to 1972 courts' application of anti-trust law was dominated by the structure-conduct-performance paradigm of the Harvard School. From 1973 to 1991, the enforcement of anti-trust law was based on efficiency explanations as the Chicago School became dominant. Since 1992 game theory has frequently been used in anti-trust cases.[29[/QUOTE]

You obviously don't understand what a trust is or how this will not qualify as an anti-competitive measure. If Sony or Microsoft have a legal obligation to let you play used games, then Dell and Apple would have a legal obligation to let you play used games. It simply does not make sense.
 
[quote name='gettinmoney662']You obviously don't understand what a trust is or how this will not qualify as an anti-competitive measure. If Sony or Microsoft have a legal obligation to let you play used games, then Dell and Apple would have a legal obligation to let you play used games. It simply does not make sense.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand you say? You don't understand. Clearly you think that because it's only video game (entertainment) that different laws apply to it than other industries. This is incorrect.

Airlines have no "legal obligation" to let me fly on their airlines yet they can't all get together and decide that all airline tickets have a minimum price of $3,000.

What they would be doing by locking out your right of first sale is a type of price fixing akin to when the CD came out.

Anyway, I'm tired of this discussion with people that will never see reason and don't think it would harm consumers at all. You seem like you would be fine if Sony killed your first born, "Well, they told me they had to do it and besides, it was in the TOS so it MUST be legal murder right?". Don't worry, if by some miracle they are dumb enough to actually put this into the new consoles, you'll see anti-trust suits hitting them. Then of course you'll come out claiming you knew it would happen all along.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Blaster man']I don't understand you say? You don't understand. Clearly you think that because it's only video game (entertainment) that different laws apply to it than other industries. This is incorrect.

Airlines have no "legal obligation" to let me fly on their airlines yet they can't all get together and decide that all airline tickets have a minimum price of $3,000.

What they would be doing by locking out your right of first sale is a type of price fixing akin to when the CD came out.[/QUOTE]

so how does every digital download work? You can't resell anything thing on Kindle/itune/XLBA/estore
 
[quote name='Blaster man']I don't understand you say? You don't understand. Clearly you think that because it's only video game (entertainment) that different laws apply to it than other industries. This is incorrect.

Airlines have no "legal obligation" to let me fly on their airlines yet they can't all get together and decide that all airline tickets have a minimum price of $3,000.

What they would be doing by locking out your right of first sale is a type of price fixing akin to when the CD came out.

Anyway, I'm tired of this discussion with people that will never see reason and don't think it would harm consumers at all. You seem like you would be fine if Sony killed your first born, "Well, they told me they had to do it and besides, it was in the TOS so it MUST be legal murder right?". Don't worry, if by some miracle they are dumb enough to actually put this into the new consoles, you'll see anti-trust suits hitting them. Then of course you'll come out claiming you knew it would happen all along.[/QUOTE]

What terrible analogies. A better airline analogy would be airlines refusing to let you fly after you bought someone else's ticket off them, which I'm pretty sure isn't allowed since the person's name is on the ticket.
 
[quote name='62t']so how does every digital download work? You can't resell anything thing on Kindle/itune/XLBA/estore[/QUOTE]

Why don't you explain to me why all the oil companies can't get together and refuse to sell gas to anyone with a Toyota? It's their gas.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']Why don't you explain to me why all the oil companies can't get together and refuse to sell gas to anyone with a Toyota? It's their gas.[/QUOTE]

Not only did he ask you first, but his question is directly related to your point while you're coming up with bullshit hypotheticals that aren't even related.
 
[quote name='gettinmoney662']What terrible analogies. A better airline analogy would be airlines refusing to let you fly after you bought someone else's ticket off them, which I'm pretty sure isn't allowed since the person's name is on the ticket.[/QUOTE]

Okay so you think it's perfectly fine and you'll defend your console manufacturer no matter what they do. You could care less if it makes you pay more for games.

I have right of first sale on my products. They are price fixing. You can disagree all you want but if this is true, the justice department will come after them.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']Okay so you think it's perfectly fine and you'll defend your console manufacturer no matter what they do. You could care less if it makes you pay more for games.

I have right of first sale on my products. They are price fixing. You can disagree all you want but if this is true, the justice department will come after them.[/QUOTE]

Why wasn't Sony hit with an anti-trust lawsuit when the PSP Go came out? That system did not allow you to play used games.
 
[quote name='gettinmoney662']Not only did he ask you first, but his question is directly related to your point while you're coming up with bullshit hypotheticals that aren't even related.[/QUOTE]

That's because there is no possible exact comparison. The home game console industry is run by only a small number of manufacturer's while digital downloads are done on a variety of platforms through many different companies. I can't buy a PS3 disk that was manufactured and sold by Apple.
They ARE the industry. Any type of activity that would limit consumers would be looked at closely.
 
[quote name='gettinmoney662']Why wasn't Sony hit with an anti-trust lawsuit when the PSP Go came out? That system did not allow you to play used games.[/QUOTE]

For one thing, no one probably thought it was worth it to file a complaint with the justice department since it was an obvious failure out of the gate. That said, I have no doubt that if consoles moved to digital ONLY and cut all retailers out of the loop, meaning you can only buy PS5 (or whatever number) games through Sony's download that this could become a problem. I have no doubt that if Apple ends up dominating the tablet market that we'll see anti-trust lawsuits against them in a few years that will force them to unwall their garden or at least allow other retailers to sell codes for apps in it.

edit: The problem here is that you guys are asking for explanations why something is done in a certain way when it's still relatively new. You'd be crazy to think that these types of things would have already been decided by the courts. In another 20 years, yes. It's in it's infancy still.
 
Let me just say this, neither of us are anti-trust lawyers, but MS and Sony does have legal department and know what they are doing.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']For one thing, no one probably thought it was worth it to file a complaint with the justice department since it was an obvious failure out of the gate. That said, I have no doubt that if consoles moved to digital ONLY and cut all retailers out of the loop, meaning you can only buy PS5 (or whatever number) games through Sony's download that this could become a problem. I have no doubt that if Apple ends up dominating the tablet market that we'll see anti-trust lawsuits against them in a few years that will force them to unwall their garden or at least allow other retailers to sell codes for apps in it.[/QUOTE]

Hahahah, okay.
 
[quote name='62t']Let me just say this, neither of us are anti-trust lawyers, but MS and Sony does have legal department and know what they are doing.[/QUOTE]

I agree but that doesn't mean that companies with legal departments don't push the envelope and hope for a ruling in their favor, particularly in a situation like this where this is almost certainly no case law. There will be lawsuits when this happens and it will eventually be decided.
 
[quote name='gettinmoney662']Hahahah, okay.[/QUOTE]

Lets put it this way, MS had anti-trust lawsuits about IE and they didn't even charge for that. Give Apple 10 years and if they're 90 percent of the tablet market, there WILL be lawsuits.

So what's next that perfectly fine in your mind? Maybe Microsoft and Sony will put a fingerprint scanner on the console so that the original console purchaser can't resell the console or accessories. Maybe PC makers will do the same, you won't be able to sell your computer's RAM after an upgrade because it will be locked to your iTunes or Windows Live account. Perhaps if you buy a brand new 55" TV, they should force you to log into a user account each time you turn it on and only the actual purchaser will be able to operate it. I'm sure that's okay and perfectly legal in your mind since they're under no obligation to you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='8bitArtist']GOTY editions essentially punish those who bought and supported the game early though. im not a fan of GOTY editions at all. if anyone should get the complete package, its the people who bought your game early on and supported you.

lets take borderlands for example, i buy the game day 1 at $60, then since i like the game, i actually kept it and i buy all 4 dlcs. thats $100 total. what did borderlands GOTY launch at? $40? $30? to me, thats a big FU to the people who bought the game early and proceeded to buy all the DLC after that.[/QUOTE]

Nope, you paid for what you got. The game offered on that date for that price. If you chose to wait you would give up being one of the cool kids playing the latest and greatest but you'd save the money. People place a value on status object. Newly released games fall in that category. Perhaps you've heard it before: patience is a virtue.

This nonsense is like the days on Usenet when somebody who bought a Playstation four months before a price reduction starts screaming bloody murder and claim Sony owes him something. Then I would ask how much they used their Playstation in that four months and what it would have cost them to rent one for that same amount of usage.

Very few items increase in value. Most things get discounted if they fail to sell at full price or in the case of digital electronics their price drops as their cost to produce goes down and they seek a wider audience.
 
[quote name='Golden Idol']Even if they convert ten percent of the used game market, that's a lot of money.[/QUOTE]

No, that has to be combined with less incentive for people to buy at full price, because they can no longer trade it in to offset the full price. See my other example; It could potentially have no difference. Say they get back 10% of the $1.8 billion, but they lose $180 million from people who wait for a price drop before buying. Then they still see no money.

As for the piracy thing, I never said they lost nothing. I only said they wouldn't get 100% of it if there wasn't pirating.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']I don't understand you say? You don't understand. Clearly you think that because it's only video game (entertainment) that different laws apply to it than other industries. This is incorrect.

Airlines have no "legal obligation" to let me fly on their airlines yet they can't all get together and decide that all airline tickets have a minimum price of $3,000.

What they would be doing by locking out your right of first sale is a type of price fixing akin to when the CD came out.

Anyway, I'm tired of this discussion with people that will never see reason and don't think it would harm consumers at all. You seem like you would be fine if Sony killed your first born, "Well, they told me they had to do it and besides, it was in the TOS so it MUST be legal murder right?". Don't worry, if by some miracle they are dumb enough to actually put this into the new consoles, you'll see anti-trust suits hitting them. Then of course you'll come out claiming you knew it would happen all along.[/QUOTE]


Actually, they can all decide to charge $3,00 for a ticket any time they like. They were deregulated in the 80s.

What they cannot do is collude to fix prices across the industry.

If Sony and Microsoft were shown to be in collusion to charge the same prices on games solely available through their platforms, that would be a prosecutable offense. But they don't do that. The XBLA Deal of the Week and the PSN+ equivalent have rarely had any crossover, especially since Sony tries to emphasize items that Microsoft cannot match and vice versa.

A video game console is by its very nature a closed platform and as such the maker is under no legal obligation to bring any intermediary sales channel into it.

The only way consumers would be harmed is if there were no competing game console platforms. There are in fact many such competing platforms. Further, there is the PC, an open platform for which anyone can produce software. You can even treat it like a console with games on a bootable DVD with its own OS on board.

The closest applicable case to this is the nearly fifteen years the Justice Department spent hassling IBM before the Reagan Administration told them to knock it off. The whole business was a huge waste of taxpayer dollars because the free market did more to change how IBM did business that any threat from the government. Other companies, like Digital Equipment Corporation, came along and offered customers a better deal and more open systems.

But that was mainframe and mini computers where the issue was end user ability to create their own software and buy add-on hardware from vendors other than IBM. Trying to apply this to Apple, Sony, or Microsoft wouldn't fly. None of the three can prevent outside vendors from producing unauthorized peripherals and all three companies have programs to assure that vendors looking for approval have a certification they can receive for assuring customers. Likewise, all three companies openly welcome third party software development for their platforms to be sold through their venues.

There might have been a precedent if Atari had tried to kill Activision and Imagic when they started producing VCS games. Atari had no provision for third party software and had designed no security mechanism into the console. Their lawyers quickly told them they didn't have a leg to stand on.

Years later, when Nintendo had revived the industry primarily through their third party publishing model that remains the standard today, companies like EA resisted. They resented paying Nintendo to produce cartridges for them and charging a royalty fee on top of that. But Nintendo's console did have a security system, which EA had to crack to produce non-licensed cartridges. This gave Nintendo (and Sega) the advantage in court. EA spent millions fighting it but eventually noticed that Nintendo's business model was making huge money for everyone involved. EA came around to the idea that a closed platform had its place in the world.

The Nintendo/Sega victory established very well that a platform company can have complete control over what is and what isn't sold on their platform. Precedent allowing a product maker to control its sales channel is also very well established. Ralph Lauren could decide tomorrow that Macy's has cooties and would no longer be offered anything with a Ralph Lauren label. Now, if Macy's obtained the product through a third party that remained in Ralph Lauren's good grace, there wouldn't be anything the company could do about that other than put the third party on the shit list, too.

Put simpler, there are thousands of businesses in the US selling software exclusively through their web sites. Telling Sony that couldn't sell exclusively through their online channel would mean putting all of those companies under the gun as well.

Not going to happen.

Amazon is not going to run to the DoJ and complain if Sony brings out a platform with an equivalent of the iOS App Store. The first question to arise will be, "How is this different from Amazon having exclusive control of the Kindle's sales channel?"

Not going to happen.

Note: You can go to Baen Books and buy a MOBI file from them to use on the Kindle but you must manually add it to the unit via USB. Baen chooses not to sell e-books through Amazon and thus doesn't have access to WhisperNet. This greatly reduces their sales, causing some authors with non-exclusive rights to put their own versions of the books on Amazon. I know about this is some detail because one of my jobs is producing these books. I've done several for Jerry Pournelle and I'm currently doing some Poul Anderson titles.

Google chose to run android as a semi-open platform, allowing for the existence of the Amazon App Store. But this had nothing to do with any threat of government intervention. It's just part of their platform strategy and they can do what they want with it.

Every major retailer in the nation has product lines touted as exclusive to their stores. But their going to try to tell a judge that a console maker cannot do the same?

Not going to happen.

The Apple App Store has been around a few years now and there is no interest at the DoJ in forcing Apple to allow other companies to sell and distribute iOS software.

All of those retailers sell Apple iOS devices. They sell Kindles and Nooks. You can be sure they sell Microsoft and Sony game consoles even if they no longer get to sell the software. The accessory business will still be there and without the software they can change the shelf space to other stuff. It's just another change in a long history of retail and they're used to it. Their CD and DVD sections shrink a little every couple of years as the market shift to other delivery methods. So they bring in more stuff that cannot be sold by that means. Slowly but surely their store starts to look a lot more like stores did before physical media sales became a big business.

The smart ones roll with the changes. The not so smart ones fade away and make room for new ones to take a shot.
 
[quote name='elessar123']No, that has to be combined with less incentive for people to buy at full price, because they can no longer trade it in to offset the full price. See my other example; It could potentially have no difference. Say they get back 10% of the $1.8 billion, but they lose $180 million from people who wait for a price drop before buying. Then they still see no money.

As for the piracy thing, I never said they lost nothing. I only said they wouldn't get 100% of it if there wasn't pirating.[/QUOTE]

Prices have to drop, full stop. The precedent of the successful game platforms that have no resell of purchased games is far lower prices than the traditional video game market is accustomed to charging.

A 99 cent Cut The Rope on your Android phone may not seem like a worthy comparison to a $60 Skyrim but how many 'event' games like Skyrim appear in any year? The market can support a certain number of premium titles but far too many premiere at $60 that simply don't merit that price. They aren't doing themselves any favor by delaying the inevitable of being a good game at $40 but no higher.

If Cut The Rope had been a DS cartridge selling for $30 in 2005, it probably would have done pretty good business and kept it up as the price crept down with lower ROM costs. Back then, the DS would have been the only platform suited to the game and a cartridge the only option. Modern phones and cheap flash memory have opened up a lot of opportunity for a small developer to offer good little games at very low prices. Meanwhile, something more ambitious like Infinity Blade can do well at $5.99, even though it would have been a full priced hit on the PS2 generation of consoles.

To gain the benefit of eliminating used game sales, the publishers have to offer the consumer something to make them no longer care about the loss. Price is the one thing that will have the most effect. Given a good server infrastructure with lot of regional nodes, a new high demand title can meet a vast amount of demand on the day of release. and if the price is right more people will buy at that time instead of waiting. (Not me but I'm a freak on that issue.)

It has been shown time and again that a lower price point can ultimately produce greater profit. The industry has an opportunity here to do that.
 
[quote name='epobirs']Nope, you paid for what you got. The game offered on that date for that price. If you chose to wait you would give up being one of the cool kids playing the latest and greatest but you'd save the money. People place a value on status object. Newly released games fall in that category. Perhaps you've heard it before: patience is a virtue.

This nonsense is like the days on Usenet when somebody who bought a Playstation four months before a price reduction starts screaming bloody murder and claim Sony owes him something. Then I would ask how much they used their Playstation in that four months and what it would have cost them to rent one for that same amount of usage.

Very few items increase in value. Most things get discounted if they fail to sell at full price or in the case of digital electronics their price drops as their cost to produce goes down and they seek a wider audience.[/QUOTE]

you guys really arent getting what im talking about with my goty comment. this thread is partly about how to combat used game sales and the like. a way i suggested to do that was to get a season pass type deal to get all the dlc for free if you bought new. pre order exclusives might help a little on you pre ordering the game, but there is really little to no incentive to actually keep the game once completed.
 
You guys are insane.

You don't want an anti-used game console? Don't buy it. Convince your family not to buy it. Convince your friends not to buy it. Convince EVERYONE on facebook not to buy it. Get everyone you know to hold out and make the thing BOMB hard. When it does - make it be known why the console bombed hard. Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo will unlock their systems inside two years.

All these lengthy speeches on CAG are a waste of your time. Don't you have backlogs to run through? This is the plan. Stick to it. If not, it's your own damn fault.
 
[quote name='epobirs']It has been shown time and again that a lower price point can ultimately produce greater profit. The industry has an opportunity here to do that.[/QUOTE]

I know, but don't put greed pass them.

The game companies could already use this strategy. How often do you see games launch at a price other than $60 on PS3/360, other than remakes?

How often do you see digital only games on those systems be cheaper than their counter-part?

Now you see my worry?

Obviously, they're doing it out of greed, because they want part of Gamestop's $1.8 billion.

1) They can raise prices, cause they're greedy, and have a monopoly. This is of course, the least likely, but worst case scenario.

2) They can keep prices the same, and less people end up buying, leaving the game companies with the same amount. Gamestop goes under; everyone lose their jobs.

3) They lower prices (I'll believe it when I see it). They sell more, end up with a tiny but significant increase (10%). Gamestop goes out of business; everyone loses their jobs.

4) They lower the prices, and they end up with less money than if they hadn't changed a thing. They lose money, developers and Gamestop lose their jobs. The more likely worst case scenario.

Obviously there are a ton more scenarios, but 3) seems unlikely, given their track record. Just see the Vita's discounts on digital only. What happens instead is that they kill everything to do with the used game model, and cut even more jobs, all for a cookie out of the cookie jar. If you want to support that, be my guest.
 
I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong and they will be able to get together and have an industry wide used game exclusion. I for one will not buy such a console. At that point I may as well just have a PC with an Xbox controller attached in my living room. I like to buy games, play them, then sell them to recover some of my costs. Most people that don't care here are OCD hoarders that keep everything and also don't rent or buy used. That's a very small vocal minority.

I doubt Nintendo will be participating in this scheme anyway so most likely that would be the only console I would get.
 
Damn, epobirs killed it.

And Blaster Man is going to refuse to buy a console that doesn't play used games and just play games on his PC, a platform that doesn't play used games. Makes total sense.
 
[quote name='gettinmoney662']Damn, epobirs killed it.

And Blaster Man is going to refuse to buy a console that doesn't play used games and just play games on his PC, a platform that doesn't play used games. Makes total sense.[/QUOTE]

Are you really that dense? The PC is a platform that has many many many different companies that sell games for it. That's why Steam and Amazon have such low prices. If you can't understand that the only way you can get a game on the PS3 is through Sony's channels then there's really not a lot of discussion that can be had with you.:applause:
 
[quote name='Blaster man']Are you really that dense? The PC is a platform that has many many many different companies that sell games for it. That's why Steam and Amazon have such low prices. If you can't understand that the only way you can get a game on the PS3 is through Sony's channels then there's really not a lot of discussion that can be had with you.:applause:[/QUOTE]

You have been whining about consoles not allowing used games.

Your solution is to go to a platform that does not allow used games.
 
[quote name='gettinmoney662']You have been whining about consoles not allowing used games.

Your solution is to go to a platform that does not allow used games.[/QUOTE]

You don't see the difference between the platforms? As soon as that particular platform (PC) requires all downloaded games and applications to be done through Windows Live and all applications/games on disks to be pressed by Microsoft with MS getting a $10 cut of every single piece of software THEN I'll bitch about it as well.:wall:

Do you think that having many different places that sell software independently of each other and with no ties to the hardware or OS is the same as buying a disk for the PS3 or Xbox 360? I'm sure you understand there is a HUGE difference between the two. The day that MS and Sony let someone, let say - ME, make a game for their console, burn it to a DVD or Blu Ray (as appropriate) on my own burner and sell it out of my house on Ebay without involving them at all THEN they can stop allowing used games. So yes, assuming that no next gen console allows used games, I would change to the PC completely. I can buy from any source I want and the huge number of competing sources lowers the price. Shit, I can't buy a playstation game from Amazon and download it FROM Amazon without ever connecting the Sony's network like I can PC games.

I'm just curious, do you think it's a GOOD thing if they stop people from selling their games on Ebay when they're done with them?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You can buy PC games from Steam, Amazon, Origin, etc.

You can buy PS3 games from Target, Amazon, Wal Mart, Best Buy, etc.

Your logic is terrible.
 
[quote name='gettinmoney662']You can buy PC games from Steam, Amazon, Origin, etc.

You can buy PS3 games from Target, Amazon, Wal Mart, Best Buy, etc.

Your logic is terrible.[/QUOTE]

Are you just trolling now or did you not read/understand what I wrote?
 
popcorn.gif
 
[quote name='gettinmoney662']First off, people need to stop comparing the video game industry to other industries on a 1:1 scale. They're not the same. But anyways:[/QUOTE]

That seems to me like a cop out. There are ways the industry is the same and there are valid discussions to the like. Might as well say close all the forums because people see things differently so there is no point in discussing. Then to post an answer to my question runs contradictory to what you're saying.

1. But don't car manufacturers run/license these dealers? Every Honda dealership I see has a large used car lot right next to the new cars. Mercedes and other luxury brands runs ads on TV specifically for their used cars. They obviously benefit from the used car market in a way that Capcom/Sony/Activision/EA/etc. don't.
Click to expand...

Nope, not the way it works. Honda licenses car dealers to sell new cars. Lots of used car dealers have no affiliation to a manufacturer. Honda needs a network to sell its new cars, thus they license new car dealers. In an effort to increase profits, car dealers also buy/sell used cars. This has nothing to do with Honda at all and is much the same used game sales work. Sony needs a retailer network so they give Gamestop a fee to sell their products. Gamestop in an attempt to make more money buys/sells used games. It's actually the exact same model exact that cars are clearly more valuable.

Capcom/Sony/Activision/EA do benefit from the used game market. You get back into that grey area. Do they benefit more than it hurts them? Maybe not but there are no specific facts to determine.

1. Most gamers have limited amount of resources. Thus, selling used games gets them additional monies that "surprise" sometimes they do use on "new" games.

2. Sometimes gamers don't have much interest in a game until they can get it for $5 used. Then they become hooked and want to purchase the sequels at launch. Thus, expanding a market they wouldn't have.

3. Much like used cars, used games have a residual value. So I don't feel bad about spending $60 on a game because if it's atrocious, I'll get some sort of refund via selling the game used. Take away residual value and number of people willing to spend $60 on a game will drop. Now if they drop the price of games, this becomes less of a point.

4. It fuels the addictive gamer which drives more revenue in the future. Most gamers pick up the habit in high school or earlier when they don't have alot of money. Thus, used games are their only option for gaming. If they don't have that outlet they spend their time doing other things and then they never truly become addicted to gaming. Then they aren't going to spend $600 for the PS4 when they get better cash flows. Then they aren't willing to spend $60 and wait outside a store on release night.

2. You downloading songs and giving them to your friends isn't the same as stores selling used products,
Click to expand...
Never said they were the same, and I don't do that. My point was that someone said the digital distribution model shown by the music industry would be ideal for video games. My point was that this could still result in a bunch of people playing games they didn't pay for.

3. That's another good point as to why the video game industry is much different. They are able to affect the used game market because there are only three video game system providers.
Click to expand...
If that's your point, then this definitely opens them up to litigation. They can't say there are only 3 of us, let's push things on the market.

The bottom line in this whole debate is if the market supports it, it will continue to happen. Everyone was up in arms over $15 DLC map packs for COD, yet they ended up being the biggest selling DLC items. If people support a console that doesn't use used games, then it will happen. If not, then it'll go back to the way it was.
Click to expand...
That is true, and I do believe that they will find a way eventually to lock out used game sales. But they should be careful what they wish for. PC gaming has been on life support since DRM came out. So they shouldn't just simply equate every used game as a sale at the price they want.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the lack of bc isnt that surprising though it costs money to do that and why bother with it when they can just sell you all those games again on psn. about that too i think its shit you have to pay again for games you own in psp disk form if you want them on your vita and why the fuck cant you gift things from the psn store the way people can on xbox live? i dont think well ever see any significant improvements on psn this console generation but that damn thing needs an overhaul for next gen.
 
[quote name='htz']
popcorn.gif
[/QUOTE]
I love it. This is what I have been doing after reading the last couple pages to catch up on this argument. I am almost ready to put gettinmoney in the same category as IATCG and confoosious. Everytime those guys comment on something I love watching the ensuing argument/bitching.
 
[quote name='wrencrest']I love it. This is what I have been doing after reading the last couple pages to catch up on this argument. I am almost ready to put gettinmoney in the same category as IATCG and confoosious. Everytime those guys comment on something I love watching the ensuing argument/bitching.[/QUOTE]

I've decided he's a Sony employee paid to troll social media and forums. Game companies do this to try to keep down the negative commentary towards their products. After his last two replies to me, I looked at his previous posts. Many of them are flaming people complaining about Sony products such as the Vita. I've decided to stop responding to him.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']I've decided he's a Sony employee paid to troll social media and forums. Game companies do this to try to keep down the negative commentary towards their products. After his last two replies to me, I looked at his previous posts. Many of them are flaming people complaining about Sony products such as the Vita. I've decided to stop responding to him.[/QUOTE]

And this is why you lose. If you really look at my posts, many of them are flaming people for being idiots. Calling me a paid Sony employee makes me think you're 12 years old.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='smallsharkbigbite']That seems to me like a cop out. There are ways the industry is the same and there are valid discussions to the like. Might as well say close all the forums because people see things differently so there is no point in discussing. Then to post an answer to my question runs contradictory to what you're saying.



Nope, not the way it works. Honda licenses car dealers to sell new cars. Lots of used car dealers have no affiliation to a manufacturer. Honda needs a network to sell its new cars, thus they license new car dealers. In an effort to increase profits, car dealers also buy/sell used cars. This has nothing to do with Honda at all and is much the same used game sales work. Sony needs a retailer network so they give Gamestop a fee to sell their products. Gamestop in an attempt to make more money buys/sells used games. It's actually the exact same model exact that cars are clearly more valuable.

Capcom/Sony/Activision/EA do benefit from the used game market. You get back into that grey area. Do they benefit more than it hurts them? Maybe not but there are no specific facts to determine.

1. Most gamers have limited amount of resources. Thus, selling used games gets them additional monies that "surprise" sometimes they do use on "new" games.

2. Sometimes gamers don't have much interest in a game until they can get it for $5 used. Then they become hooked and want to purchase the sequels at launch. Thus, expanding a market they wouldn't have.

3. Much like used cars, used games have a residual value. So I don't feel bad about spending $60 on a game because if it's atrocious, I'll get some sort of refund via selling the game used. Take away residual value and number of people willing to spend $60 on a game will drop. Now if they drop the price of games, this becomes less of a point.

4. It fuels the addictive gamer which drives more revenue in the future. Most gamers pick up the habit in high school or earlier when they don't have alot of money. Thus, used games are their only option for gaming. If they don't have that outlet they spend their time doing other things and then they never truly become addicted to gaming. Then they aren't going to spend $600 for the PS4 when they get better cash flows. Then they aren't willing to spend $60 and wait outside a store on release night.

Never said they were the same, and I don't do that. My point was that someone said the digital distribution model shown by the music industry would be ideal for video games. My point was that this could still result in a bunch of people playing games they didn't pay for.

If that's your point, then this definitely opens them up to litigation. They can't say there are only 3 of us, let's push things on the market.

That is true, and I do believe that they will find a way eventually to lock out used game sales. But they should be careful what they wish for. PC gaming has been on life support since DRM came out. So they shouldn't just simply equate every used game as a sale at the price they want.[/QUOTE]

1. You're right about the car industry working in the same way that the current video game market does, so I can't really say much about that, except that not only are cars priced on a much, much higher scale, but there are significant quality differences between a used and a new car, while a new and used game are exactly the same product. I still don't think it's a good example of an industry to compare to and say, hey, they do it, why can't video games?

2. There is no hard evidence that says how much developers may benefit from used sales as most of your examples are heresay and there is no hard evidence that developers would benefit more or less from no used market. I could also point out that people buy used games simply because it's the cheaper option, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't pay more for the new copy if that was the only option. I personally think most games are worth $60, but I don't pay that much for games because I know I can get them for cheaper if I just wait a bit. Developers seem to believe that they would benefit more from no used market than if there was a used market and Sony and Microsoft seem willing to take that gamble.

3. As for the music industry comparison, Sony and Microsoft have already limited people playing games they haven't paid for. I don't think that's much of a concern.

4. I think PC gaming has been hurt more by the ease of consoles and how people always feel the need to upgrade their computer to play the latest games (that's how I feel anyways, whether it's true or not, it's just easier to pop in a game to my PS3).

And just for Jodou: tl;dr, you're wrong, I'm right.
 
[quote name='8bitArtist']you guys really arent getting what im talking about with my goty comment. this thread is partly about how to combat used game sales and the like. a way i suggested to do that was to get a season pass type deal to get all the dlc for free if you bought new. pre order exclusives might help a little on you pre ordering the game, but there is really little to no incentive to actually keep the game once completed.[/QUOTE]

I understand what you're saying. It just happens to be wrong. You want the exact opposite approach to selling games as the major publishers have found to be greatly preferable to their needs.

As I already mentioned, buy at release has status value. A lot of businesses depend on this for early high margin sales. The later sales with increased value and lower price are to reach those consumers who are immune to status concerns and place value for money above all.

If you don't like the answer is quite simple: Don't buy games at the launch MSRP. It's really that easy. I haven't bought a game at launch MSRP more than two dozen times in 30 years of game buying. And I've owned well over a thousand games. Everything game I've ever wanted eventually turned up for the price I was willing to pay.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']You don't see the difference between the platforms? As soon as that particular platform (PC) requires all downloaded games and applications to be done through Windows Live and all applications/games on disks to be pressed by Microsoft with MS getting a $10 cut of every single piece of software THEN I'll bitch about it as well.:wall:

Do you think that having many different places that sell software independently of each other and with no ties to the hardware or OS is the same as buying a disk for the PS3 or Xbox 360? I'm sure you understand there is a HUGE difference between the two. The day that MS and Sony let someone, let say - ME, make a game for their console, burn it to a DVD or Blu Ray (as appropriate) on my own burner and sell it out of my house on Ebay without involving them at all THEN they can stop allowing used games. So yes, assuming that no next gen console allows used games, I would change to the PC completely. I can buy from any source I want and the huge number of competing sources lowers the price. Shit, I can't buy a playstation game from Amazon and download it FROM Amazon without ever connecting the Sony's network like I can PC games.

I'm just curious, do you think it's a GOOD thing if they stop people from selling their games on Ebay when they're done with them?[/QUOTE]

You haven't been paying attention to the way MacOS and Windows are developing, have you? You might want to check out the Windows 8 Consumer Preview if you have a suitable spare machine or extra hardd rive to use. It's free.

Apple has already introduced their App Store for Mac and is actively encouraging software companies to use it as the exclusive distribution channel for Mac software. Windows 8 introduces its own App Store. Traditional desktop apps will continue to be available through other routes but software using the Metro GUI is going to be exclusively sold the Windows Store.

No software publisher will be forced to work through Apple or Microsoft's app stores but most of them will view as highly advantageous and go that way willingly.

It is neither good or bad. It is evolution. There is gain and there is loss. Used game sales will end but game prices in general will drop. Possibly quite a lot.
 
[quote name='elessar123']I know, but don't put greed pass them.

The game companies could already use this strategy. How often do you see games launch at a price other than $60 on PS3/360, other than remakes?

How often do you see digital only games on those systems be cheaper than their counter-part?

Now you see my worry?

Obviously, they're doing it out of greed, because they want part of Gamestop's $1.8 billion.

1) They can raise prices, cause they're greedy, and have a monopoly. This is of course, the least likely, but worst case scenario.

2) They can keep prices the same, and less people end up buying, leaving the game companies with the same amount. Gamestop goes under; everyone lose their jobs.

3) They lower prices (I'll believe it when I see it). They sell more, end up with a tiny but significant increase (10%). Gamestop goes out of business; everyone loses their jobs.

4) They lower the prices, and they end up with less money than if they hadn't changed a thing. They lose money, developers and Gamestop lose their jobs. The more likely worst case scenario.

Obviously there are a ton more scenarios, but 3) seems unlikely, given their track record. Just see the Vita's discounts on digital only. What happens instead is that they kill everything to do with the used game model, and cut even more jobs, all for a cookie out of the cookie jar. If you want to support that, be my guest.[/QUOTE]

The existing console makers are welcome to commit suicide through bungled policy. It wouldn't be the first time. Atari, Coleco, Mattel, etc. were making it up as they went along. The very concept of software as a purchasable item was still very new tot he general public when the first wave of console makers crashed.

A few years later a company with a better model for structuring the business came along and was hugely successful. That was Nintendo, whose approach addressed the primary problems leading to the crash. If the current companies are steered into a wall by shortsighted policy, there will be plenty of newcomers and veterans around to raise capital to do it differently and perhaps get it right in relation to what the technology of the era supports.

But no matter what, Gamestop goes out of business. They'll drag it out for as long as they can. But by 2020 Gamestop will be a quaintly remembered former titan that couldn't adapt while the rest of the world moved on. Remember Hollywood Video? It was just a few years ago they had over 2000 stores nationally. Now they are but a memory. Blockbuster is following them quickly. These were major retail chains for close to two decades but when the change took hold they simply had no reason to exist any longer. There just wasn't enough money in their business model to sustain it.

Gamestop is no different. It won't be long before a teenager watching 'Clerks' will be baffled as to what exactly Randall's job is supposed to be. A store full of video tapes or DVDs that people rented? This was real, and a big business? Move a few year year further along and the same bafflement will be applicable to a movie set in a store like Gamestop.

I was in a Gamestop today for the first time in a month or so and saw a harbinger of their future decline. A major amount of shelf space was given over to the sale of download codes for games and add-on content. Think about it. Gamestop, trying to remain relevant, has given over a portion of their display area to products that will never be part of their resale engine that drives the bulk of their profits.

Gamestop days are numbered. Someday soon Redbox or a new company will have a machine in supermarkets that sells download codes. If the next generation machines are designed to be always on in a very low power state, the download will commence without waiting for you to get home as long as the site can make contact. Much like buying an Android app on the web and having it pushed to your phone.

Even that will be shortlived. As telecommunications improve there will be less and less reason to do any transaction relating to a digital product outside your home. The idea of a physical store for software of any sort will be a quaint anachronism.
 
If publishers were really so hurt by the used games market then they'd play hardball and stop selling games to retailers which participate in it.

Unless and until then it's just publishers fucking consumers under the bullshit guise of protecting themselves.

"Places like Gamestop are destroying this industry!...Now please pre-order our next game from Gamestop for an exclusive in-game shiny bauble and ignore the fact that we don't care enough to not sell them games in the first place when we can just suck $10 more dollars out of you for an online pass."

I've long since stopped participating in the used games market as I've become far more adept at getting good deals on new games but come on...publishers are so full of shit on this subject that their eyes are brown.
 
[quote name='Fell Open Ian']If publishers were really so hurt by the used games market then they'd play hardball and stop selling games to retailers which participate in it.

Unless and until then it's just publishers fucking consumers under the bullshit guise of protecting themselves.

"Places like Gamestop are destroying this industry!...Now please pre-order our next game from Gamestop for an exclusive in-game shiny bauble and ignore the fact that we don't care enough to not sell them games in the first place when we can just suck $10 more dollars out of you for an online pass."

I've long since stopped participating in the used games market as I've become far more adept at getting good deals on new games but come on...publishers are so full of shit on this subject that their eyes are brown.[/QUOTE]

Well, Gamestop is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, retailer for both new and used games. Publishers still need Gamestop to sell new games for them. But anyways, not allowing used games is the same thing as playing hardball with Gamestop so I don't really understand this post.
 
for those of you who seem so anti used games why the hell even join a site like cheapass gamer? wouldnt you be more comfortable at a site like retail gamer? or full priced gamer?
 
I'm just tired of hearing publishers piss and moan about the used games market hurting them while they continue to feed the very beasts which are supposedly bringing about their financial demise.
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']When I can't sell my games, I don't have money to buy more of their products. Pretty smart move.[/QUOTE]

Well no one is forcing you to buy on release day which obviously will be at MSRP of $60.

Wait
Save
Profit from lower price
 
Thread is tl;dr. All I have to say is that it's a stupid idea being pushed by desperate developers that will ultimately harm the video game industry instead of helping it. If these developers TRULY want to save the industry, they need to stop pushing 15 rehashed pieces of shit every year and instead use their resources for only a few solid games. Boring sports games, shitty movie licensed games, and rehashed Halo/God of War clones are flooding the market and are not in demand; developers are only hurting themselves by creating such high overhead costs for games nobody wants to play.
 
[quote name='lokizz']for those of you who seem so anti used games why the hell even join a site like cheapass gamer? wouldnt you be more comfortable at a site like retail gamer? or full priced gamer?[/QUOTE]

Literally one of the dumbest things said in this thread, and that includes blaster man's posts.
 
Simple: If publishers and console manufacturers try and stop used games from being sold by making their products useless used, then less people will pay for that product at a high price. Demand goes down, price goes down. UNLESS publishers add more incentive to buy their products such as with improved and/or more content. The publishers and console manufacturers, if they decide to try and "kill used", will be betting that they can keep more customers than they lose.

I dont know why so many people have to bitch and moan when the market will determine the correct equilibrium. If you are on the "wrong" side of the fence when that time comes. Deal with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top