Top
550°

Microsoft's Attack On Used Game Sales Asks Customers To Sacrifice Their Rights To Save An Industry

As Microsoft stumbles towards the eventual release of the Xbox One (an all-in-one console apparently aimed at replacing all of your entertainment devices with a sleek black box equipped with eyes, ears and a frustrating inability to fire up a secondhand game without tossing some cash Points into the tollbooth), gamers (for the most part) have expressed their irritation and disbelief, even going so far as to call on Sony to not eff up the next Playstation with the same sort of purposefully limited feature set.

But, this intentional limitation does have its supporters within the gaming community. One of them is Ben Kuchera, who penned an editorial in support of the new Xbox over at Penny Arcade. He argues that this combination of account lock-in and elimination of used games will be a net win for most gamers, who will presumably enjoy some sort of trickle down effect from game developers.

Read Full Story >>
techdirt.com
The story is too old to be commented.
DJMarty1938d ago

Good if true.

But as it's Microsoft, they more likely doing it to line ther own pockets.

majiebeast1938d ago (Edited 1938d ago )

The used games market is just a scapegoat. What most of these developers and publishers need to do is properly budget their games and companies. You wanna know why EA has been losing money.

-70-100 million on APB without marketing costs. Then selling it for a fraction of the dev costs.
-Whatever Warhammer online cost.
-Popcap buyout for 750million with potential of 1.3billion if targets are met.
-Playfish buyout at 275million.
-SWTOR development that was probably around 300 million without marketing.
-More buyouts of mobile and social games developers.

These companies use second hand games as a scapegoat for their own dumb decisions especially EA. Cause its easier to say its all the fault of used games, then it is to say i messed up and spend money in the wrong way.

Save a industry my ass.

dedicatedtogamers1938d ago (Edited 1938d ago )

First it was "too many consoles" that was killing gaming (forcing those 3rd parties to either choose or port their stuff to everything). Then it was rental stores that were killing gaming. Then it was piracy. Now, it's used game, and we're already seeing the next scapegoat: gamers are too entitled! Gamers are demanding too much!

You heard it here, folks. Next it will be gamers who are killing gaming!

Why o why1938d ago

Lmao....'gamers are killing gaming'.....nice one

Salooh1938d ago

After that games are too cheap in release date . I can see that happening easily ..

zeal0us1938d ago

In 2011 the video game industry made a revenue 70* billion ( http://www.reuters.com/arti... )

If 70 billion surely means the industry is dying and need to be saved.

*70 billion however doesn't include mobile games on smartphones and tablets, its 78billion when you do include those things

tehpees31938d ago

EXACTLY! Anyone who believes developers and publishers are desperate may as well believe the world is flat. People will believe anything they are told these days.

gaffyh1938d ago

Why not focus on good content instead of blaming the second hand games market? It is easy to put the blame on this market, and even though I don't buy many used games now, I used rent a lot of games (one every couple of weeks) during the PS1 and PS2 generation.

What that means is that I am now purchasing games new because I liked renting certain games at that time. If you kill the used games market, people with initially low incomes (i.e. children), who when they eventually get a job and have money, will no longer care about games because it was too expensive a hobby in the initial stages, so they no longer like it. A LOT of people were/are like this.

Army_of_Darkness1938d ago

What's that Microsoft?? The industry is dying and the only way to save it is by giving more money directly to your company?? It's a good thing I'm brain dead otherwise I would have though you were trying to trick me....

JokesOnYou1938d ago (Edited 1938d ago )

Well its NOT 1 thing, its a combination of things:

piracy, renting, used games= copies of games that people play without paying for them.

It's not illegal and I don't feel bad for the dev/publishers one bit, but I'm guilty myself of "lending" games to my friends, many of which they used to finish the sp campaign and go online a bit. It's just always been a part of the culture of gaming. Of course some, not all but some of those games my friends would probably have purchased themselves if it were not for me....I'm not saying its right or wrong but there is NO DENYING that these habits represent lost profits for the devs/publishers.

There are some industries like for example the furniture business where obviously there is no compensation to the original manufacturer/salesman after the product is sold once. However most software products come with restrictions because of their digital format can be easily be replicated and used by millions potentially without the developer being compensated. Again I'm against DRM as I don't think its necessary in respect to lending to friends, it's just how gaming has always been and even with these lost profits devs are making a killing so I'm not crying for them, just saying I think its just a matter of time as tech advances that they are going use it to get every penny they can.

Christopher1938d ago

The problem with this industry has always been about how publishers spend their money.

Movie exclusive tie-in deals that sell practically nothing. Spending hundreds of millions on advertising a game everyone and their mom knows about instead of advertising new IPs. Creating generic FPS that will never compete with the major annual releases.

The thing is, though, the publishers who complain the most see a major profit every year. Hundreds of millions if not billions every year of profit. Senior Management that take home more than $1m a year. And, yet, it's never enough. If half their games fail, it's our fault, not theirs.

This is akin to gas companies continuing to pass costs onto the consumer when they have to pay for their own mistakes in order to keep their profit margins. It's always something the consumer is going to be blamed for and have to pay for in the end.

inveni01938d ago

They used to say that music pirating was ruining the industry, but I don't see Kanye living in a cardboard box. What happened was the industry said, "Hey...maybe we can capitalize on this digital stuff." All they needed was a vehicle. iTunes was born. Then Pandora. And now music is dandy.

Video games need the same process. Let the people lead the way...not the other way around.

JokesOnYou1938d ago (Edited 1938d ago )

@cgoodno, I agree with everything you said but they are greedy and there is still money left on the table from used games, rentals, piracy...no way they are going to just continue to say:
"OK we can restrict it with these new DRM measures but nah its OK we got enough money."

rainslacker1938d ago

I find it ironic that it is only now that people are starting to really dig deep into how used games are affecting the market.

First you have the publishers, who suddenly this gen started calling out the used game market. Implementing things like online passes and using it to further support the inclusion of DLC/MT, whereas in the past it was never mentioned. Not once before 4 years ago did I ever hear mention of the 2nd hand market, it was always piracy this, piracy that.

So when they start saying it, many people start a rallying cry of "Think of the developers", despite the fact there is not one single report saying that 2nd hand sales are actually detrimental to the industry that is not from some corporate mouthpiece spewing nothing but hyperbole. No, we have to think of the developers, and start a which hunt on game stores that buy and resell used games, all while making the used buyer look like nothing more than a common pirate.

Now that it's finally come down to the consumer level, everyone is like WTF. We're finally calling out the BS that's been said, and started calling out the BS that is trying to be pushed on us.

So now I find it ironic that after all these years, these publishers are finally being put to task to prove that 2nd hand sales are the evil they make them out to be. What I don't find ironic is the fact that they aren't able to make one single valid claim on why that's the case, or as this article points out, why it is our responsibility to bail them out of their current "predicament".

The industry was long overdue for a shake-up. Unfortunately in the end it's going to have to be all of us that have to deal with it, instead of the publishers having the damn foresight to realize that there are ways to make a profit, while doing the right thing by the consumers.

Sh0ckWav31938d ago

all that and the greedy ceo, whya re they making $$miilions a year? take activisions ceo, he makes 66mil a year, but he turns around and layoff 40 some programmers..

DragonKnight1938d ago

The problem is as follows.

Publishers create poor business models that cause them to spend more money than necessary.

Game is developed and released to retail stores who pay a discounted price due to buying in bulk.

Retail stores sell games at the bloated $60 price tag and receive, by some estimations, $2 profit per copy, with the rest going to the publisher.

Retail store can't survive on $2 a copy, so retail store tries to make their own profit by initiating a trade in system to buy and sell used games similar to the Pawn Shop system.

Retailer makes money to survive another day to sell the new copies of the games they make next to nothing from.

Publisher makes sales expectations based on Metacritic and pre-order numbers. Sales don't meet expectations normally, and publisher gets upset that they didn't make as much money as they thought.

Publisher looks at retail store gaining significant profit from game resale, gets upset that they aren't making that ADDITIONAL profit off of each disc sold, targets retail used game business model.

Publisher invents, or pressures for the invention of, varying forms of DRM to limit, or profit from, the sales of used games despite having done nothing to earn extra profit and creating infeasible business models that cause revenue drain.

In doing so, publishers harm consumers more than retail stores and consumers get upset. The short-minded thinking of the Publishers makes them forget that retailers require their own profits to survive, compete, and sell the new games; as well as forgetting that there is no infrastructure in existence for a pure digital distribution only service, and that without retail stores distribution would take a massive hit.

Retail stores get cocky, try to force publishers to use pre-order bonuses to drive business their way, but considering that retail stores make so little off the sale of new games they can't really be blamed for trying to survive.

In the end, all hell breaks loose over the internet between the gamers who don't like paying too much, can't afford to, and want to maintain their rights; against the publishers who don't know how to properly manage their businesses or budgets and blaming everyone but themselves for the problems they created.

And off to the side are the PC gamers who have accepted all of this in favour of Steam sales coming from a site that employs the same terrible DRM that they would be fighting against if sales didn't exist as a condition of accepting it.

Publishers will be the death of gaming. Not piracy, not used games, not too many consoles, not gamers. Just publishers.

Dee_911938d ago

Whats next. IP locked consoles? I cant take my console to my friend house anymore?Because its hampering the sales of the console?
This is pure BS!
Nothing is wrong with the industry.If you didnt see people pirating your games you wouldnt even notice.You just see a way to make more money.
Thanks MS for sealing my option of passing on your console.
Haha trying to make it seem like piracy and used games are the reason games are $60, if they some how miraculously get rid of piracy and used games the price drop will be minimal because it would barely cover the cost of actually making the game.
PURE.BS.

GrandTheftZamboni1938d ago

"... you can suddenly profit from every copy of your game sold, and as profit margins rise it's possible we'll see prices drop."

Yeah right. We get two more middlemen and "gamers profit" and "profit margins rise".

It is clear which audience this BS is intended for.

SilentNegotiator1937d ago (Edited 1937d ago )

@JOY

Oh shocker. You think that borrowing games to friends is bad for the industry now. Microsoft could announce that clown shoes were "in" and certain people would be shopping at Bozo's Shoe Emporium by tomorrow.

Getting sucked in to publisher lies....tsk, tsk, tsk.

liquidhalos1937d ago

@majiebeast

Very well said!!

Pro Racer1937d ago

The only trickle down effect gamers will experience is more fees for anything publishers think we'll buy into. Used games are only the first step.

+ Show (16) more repliesLast reply 1937d ago
dedicatedtogamers1938d ago

I say let the market crash. 3rd parties have gotten far too bloated and influential. I'm comfortable hitting the "reset" button and seeing what comes out of it. The golden age of PC gaming came about after the Crash. The golden age of console gaming came about after the Crash. Handheld gaming was brought into popularity after the Crash.

History lesson: it was third parties (not Atari or E.T.) that led to the crash in '83.

LoveOfTheGame1938d ago

I wish more people thought like this, every day I see an article or comment that talks about what we need to do to save the industry. But, I'm with you and say we just watch it go down in a spiral.

When this industry crashes, the only people that will stay in the market will be the people who don't care as much about profit as they do about quality.

kneon1938d ago

There are just far too many developers releasing far too many mediocre games. Just look at a monthly release schedule and there are way more games than the market can support.

Unfortunately I think the reaction to a crash by most publishers will be to play it safe even more than they do now, if that's even possible.

dedicatedtogamers1938d ago

Ever hear of Data East? Acclaim? Midway? Tradewest? Jaleco? Milton Bradley?

These companies thrived during the NES/Genesis era, yet they're all buy forgotten now. It's a do-or-die industry. The giants of industry can fall. Look at what happened to Atari and SEGA.

rainslacker1938d ago (Edited 1938d ago )

The thing about a crash is that it doesn't mean that games will not be made at all during that time. No doubt many game devs will go out of business as their support dries up, but the big companies are the ones that have the means to actually weather through it. The smaller companies may or may not bear the decreased sales of a crash however.

Gaming has gotten so big now, that a crash today would have a much different effect than it did in 83.

I don't personally want to see a crash, just a shake-up of the current development models being employed to produce games. Rectifying those issues will be much better than an entire industry crash. We alrady see this with publishers pushing new revenue models, but the idea is backwards, as it doesn't focus on improving the actual core game from the outset.

All this pointing fingers crap needs to stop, and these big publishers need to really look at what they're doing and what it means for the long term instead of looking at the quickest way to cash in. SE is a prime example with tomb raider. They set their expectations so high that it was just doomed to be considered a flop. A flop at 3+ million copies sold is the same kind of crap you'd expect to see by a common internet fan boy.

adorie1937d ago

Yeah. Market crash would probably do more good than harm. It would force foolish business practices to rethink their gouging and hopefully force better quality of those who are left, emerging from such a harsh event.

But there are some who will remain because they have done things that have worked well, without extreme profit driven mindset, exaggerated advertising budgets and anti-consumer mentalities.

kabala1937d ago

It's Funcolands fault!

KumquatGOATBEEF1937d ago

I can't even begin to count the number of games I had for the PSone and PS2. Those were the glory days where the games you purchased remained unchanged and unaffected by DLC and corporate greed. We saw many great games come out of those generations (counting the N64 and Xbox, as well).

Now we have planned DLC, DLC that is actually ON the disc (Resident Evil 6) and is only unlocked when you pay for it, used game prohibition, online passes, etc. Even early in the PS3 days I purchased around 6 or 7 games a year but now I purchase maybe 1 or 2 PS3 games a year because companies keep milking us and trying to buy more content for a "complete game experience."

Game companies will never learn if gamers keep turning a blind eye. Unfortunately, that will probably happen regardless of Microsoft's tyranny. I, however, do not have a problem switching to PC gaming if consoles continue to slip deeper into hell.

CrossingEden1937d ago

yes yes, let's just all sit on our computer desks and hope for hundreds of talented animators, designers, modelers, engineers, illustrators, etc lose their jobs, WE ARE THAT ENTITLED AS GAMERZ

cell9891937d ago

yes we are that entitled, we are the ones that come up with the money to pay for the very existence of publishers like EA and Activision, Im the one with the money, I shouldnt be begging for publishers to change their greedy ways.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1937d ago
ABizzel11938d ago

I don't mind helping support developers, but how M$ is going about it is all wrong.

They need to focus on converting gamers to a digital only library like Steam.

Give people a reason to buy digital over retail, and that will cut out a good portion of used games sales (or at least hurt GameStop and similar stores that make a killing off of used games). Digital versions of new games should be 10% off instantly. There's case, no disc, no manual, less artwork, etc... and the price should reflect that ($54 vs. $60). Then being a PS+ or XBL Gold member drops the price another 10% off the original price ($48 vs. $60).

If gamers can save $12 on every retail game they buy, by going digital then it'll shift the mindshare of gamers towards going digital only if they have a good 1TB HDD and decent connection (which by the end of this generation internet speeds should be approaching 1GB nation-wide in the US, and more countries should have today's broadband speeds).

But that alone isn't enough. Steam deals are constant and newer games can drop down to as low as $5 - $10. Sony is getting good with this late in the PS3's lifecycle. They have a February sale, Spring sale, Summer sale, and Holiday sale and for gamers with PS+ the deals can be almost as good as steam.

Going digital is the better option than charging fees for used games and trying to flat out cancel them IMO.

xDHAV0K24x1938d ago

U hit on some great points. As much as i am against digital only, theres no denying its the next logical step for the industry. Shit I just bought Alan Wake for $5 in the marketplace! Its the same logic when consumers buy physical cd for music. They upload to itunes and toss the cd away.

rainslacker1938d ago (Edited 1938d ago )

Exactly. As much as I am against a digital only console due to me being a collector, the fact remains that in order to push towards an all digital future you have to make it more appealing than the retail market. The best way to do that is to make the price more appealing than retail, and make what you lose in ownership in DD not that big of a deal. This is something that the music industry did right, and they reaped the benefits of it. We are now seeing digital sales overtake retail sales, and I'd imagine in another 10 years or so the retail market will be niche like vinyl is now.

It seems to me that the currently proposed models are more of a way to push the digital future without giving any of the benefits of the digital future.

The eventuality of an all digital future sucks as a collector, and I believe there are many issues which need to be resolved before it goes 100% digital(ownership being one), there are ways to make it much more appealing to the consumer. Shifts in consumer markets aren't always made in a day. It usually takes years, sometimes decades for everything to change. Even the mobile market took a decade to really start encroaching on the PC market.

MoonConquistador1937d ago

@ABizzel - I made similar points in another post in this thread but with prices more like Steam. A digital only copy should be £10 versus the physical copy. For only a 10 or 20% discount, I would rather pay the full price so I could lend my game to friends or sell it later.

At £10, more people would impulse buy it, and if any good, word of mouth and internet buzz about good games will roll into further sales. Speculate to accumulate and all that

Psn8001938d ago

Save an industry that's the way it has always worked in the used games market or otherwise they stay on gamers shelves gathering dust !
Ms want's more money in there pockets not happy with ripping gamers off with there XBL but want a slice the of the biggest piece of all the cake why because there greed drives them .

Ausbo1937d ago

Isn't there a way they can force places like gamestop to give them a cut of used game sales??? Is it not possible? That would greatly help publishers and developers. I think we can all agree that keeping more developers alive is in all our best interests.

The_Con-Sept1937d ago

@DJMarty: Agreed. We have seen a lot of franchises disappear already because not enough people are interested in the genres they created. Imposing a so called "used game tax" will only kill said games faster. Charge us once, shame on us, charge us twice, shame on you.

DigitallyAfflicted1937d ago

Its all about getting games in to digital download only and thats for they need second hand games to day first. Digital games would bring so much more profit in savings on making dvd.s or blue rays, printing covers, making boxes and shipping.

I cant imagine my self paying full price for EA games anyway :)

CEOSteveBallmer1937d ago

Gamers should sacrifice in my opinion. This is business not charity

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1937d ago
dotwithshoes1938d ago

Has MS officially confirmed their used game policy yet?

Ilovetheps41938d ago

This is from Phil Harrison (MS Exec):

Kotaku: If I’m playing a single player game, do I have to be online at least once per hour or something like that? Or can I go weeks and weeks?

Harrison: I believe it’s 24 hours.

Kotaku: I’d have to connect online once every day.

Harrison: Correct.

Source: http://kotaku.com/xbox-one-...

d0nT wOrrY1938d ago

"Update: Sounds like things are a mess over at Microsoft. Now they're telling Polygon that Harrison's comments illustrate a "potential scenario."

They need to be more clear.

Imalwaysright1938d ago

3 disagrees already. Only on N4g are statements made by MS representatives considered rumours. If MS comes with a different tune at E3 is because of the well deserved backlash they got from gamers.

Garbanjo0011937d ago

Dude that is bullshit (not you the article). I can't believe what they are basically saying... "to play an Xbox you HAVE to have XBL. If you don't, you can't play Elder Scrolls." It makes no sense for a system to have to be required to connect to the internet once daily, and for that it would most likely be connected to XBL as well. So now the subscription status we keep hearing "$299.99 plus 15 dollar subscription for two years" is making a lot of sense to me. What the hell are they thinking?

I'm glad I'm switching to PS4. All this just seems like Milk Chocolaty Cluster F**ks. And who wants that right?

Arai1938d ago (Edited 1938d ago )

That's one way to spin it or the industry can be less greedy and try the other alternative.

Like lowering the price of games, the studios themselves choose to go with Hollywood writers, actors and other unnecessary things.

Used games have existed for as long as I can remember, I don't re-call it being a big issue back then for the industry.
My point being that if all console makers/publishers lower the price of games then perhaps more people will buy new games instead of used ones.

wishingW3L1938d ago (Edited 1938d ago )

the problem is not used games but Gamestop itself because their entire business revolves around selling used games. Used games weren't an issue before because we didn't have companies like Gamestop pushing used games sales so much that it opaques the sales of the new ones. This happens because they make more money off a used game than a new one.

Gamestop probably buy new games for like $50 to only make $10 of profit compared to buying a $20 used game from a customer and then re-sell it for $55 ($35 of profit). The issue is that the buy/sell used games model became too profitable for its own good, so unless you're a lucky dev that made a smash hit then prepare for poor sales.

But blocking used games doesn't mean that they will sell more either... I think the main problem here is that games are too expensive. People want to buy/play 3-4 games in a month but at $60 each they just can't so they rent, buy and sell used games. In my opinion blocking used games would only lead to worse sales unless they drop the prices dramatically.

dotwithshoes1938d ago

GameStop selling pre-owned games and supposedly getting that $35 profit, you do need to take into account that it's NOT a straight up profit of $35 in your scenario. There's a lot of other costs associated with it. It's ignorant to think that it's a straight up profit for them. Let me ask you this, what happens if they give a customer $20 for a game, it sits on the shelf for a year with(i've seen it happen), and gets a price drop to $19.99 or $17.99, again seen it happen.

A used game can only be a used game if it was purchased new at one point. The dev/publisher has already seen the money for that copy of the game, why should they get paid twice for one product?

Preowned games cannot honestly be that big a deal if one of the largest publishers, and the publisher of probably the largest game to come out in 2013 has publicly stated they have no problem with them.

DragonKnight1938d ago

Gamestop isn't the problem. Yes they push used games, but the profit they get from selling new games is pitiful. It's to the point where there isn't any incentive in selling new games for them because they make so little off the new games. Gamestop are guilty of many things, but they are in the position they are in because of publishers. If Gamestop didn't sell used games, there'd be no Gamestop at all.

MikeMyers1938d ago (Edited 1938d ago )

@DragonKnight

"Gamestop isn't the problem. Yes they push used games, but the profit they get from selling new games is pitiful. It's to the point where there isn't any incentive in selling new games for them because they make so little off the new games. Gamestop are guilty of many things, but they are in the position they are in because of publishers. If Gamestop didn't sell used games, there'd be no Gamestop at all."

So if Gamespot complains they can't make any money unless they sell used games you blame publishers but if publishers blame used games you think it's because they are not very good at doing business?

The problem with Gamestop is they will tell the consumer for $5 less they can have a perfectly used game that is just like the new copy without telling the customer that none of those process go to the actual developer unless they buy it new.

DragonKnight1938d ago

@Mike: Why would you make a reply that's a whole lot of nothing? But, let me address you anyway.

"So if Gamespot complains they can't make any money unless they sell used games you blame publishers but if publishers blame used games you think it's because they are not very good at doing business?"

Precisely correct. Without retail stores, and because there is NO way that a DD only option will work right now, games will not be sold in the numbers that the business models these publishers use demand they sell in. Because stores like Gamestop make so little (and yeah, it really is anywhere from $2 to $4 a copy) on new games, they would not be able to sustain the business of selling games for these publishers if they didn't come up with a supplementary revenue source. That's fact. It's indisputable. You will not be able to prove that Gamestop can survive on selling games at a profit of $4 a copy.

Now, on to publishers blaming used games. Publishers have been blaming everything they can think of to take the blame off themselves and their inability to budget properly. They've blamed the number of consoles on the market because of too many options. They've blamed rentals for giving people a chance without paying full price and thus having the potential to turn them away on paying full. They've blamed and still blame piracy. They've blamed demos for the same reason they've blamed rentals. Now they're on to used games. Used games aren't new. They've been around for decades and they were never blamed to the degree they are now.

When Publishers base potential success of a game off metacritic and pre-orders, and then have the audacity to call sales of 3+ million a failure, it doesn't take much to see how retarded they are. It's the publishers. It's very clearly the publishers. If used games were removed completely, they'll shift their focus on gamers expectations. It's quite obvious.

"The problem with Gamestop is they will tell the consumer for $5 less they can have a perfectly used game that is just like the new copy without telling the customer that none of those process go to the actual developer unless they buy it new."

It wouldn't matter if they told the customer that because most people wouldn't care. Publishers are also ripping developers off too. Plus, explain why anyone should be getting extra profit off the sale of ONE copy? Especially when that literally doesn't happen anywhere else.

MikeMyers1938d ago (Edited 1938d ago )

The best way to actually have this work for everybody is to have the game DRM protected for a certain time (30 days or 3 months, or ?), then after that the game is DRM free.

That way they can control the release (no more early sales that some stores break the release date). It is protected from piracy for that duration as the DRM is locked to your account. You can then sell it after that time limit so no used copies until that date is over.

So if a street date for that game is June 4th and the DRM free date is say Sept. 4th it is DRM protected. If you wait until August 4th to buy it you will have a DRM free game on Sept. 4th like everyone else.

I think even in this situation not everyone would like it. Some people don't want any form of DRM but that way they can try and control the front end of the sales, when most sales occur. They will know exactly how well the game is selling for that duration.

I doubt anybody here actually knows about the inner details of how the business works. They just see it from a consumers point of view but this is a business to make money.

DragonKnight1938d ago

"The best way to actually have this work for everybody is to have the game DRM protected for a certain time (30 days or 3 months, or ?), then after that the game is DRM free."

Not really. A)They'll never let go of the DRM. The amount of publishers that have overturned their DRM practices is so small you may almost be able to count the number on one hand. B)They'd have to admit that there's a point where they won't care about making extra profit, and that also will not ever happen, except maybe with the rare few that share Take Two's attitude. C)DRM will turn people away, that's a given. And finally D)It does nothing to make publishers change their anti-consumer business practices, or get them to look at their own shortcomings.

"That way they can control the release (no more early sales that some stores break the release date). It is protected from piracy for that duration as the DRM is locked to your account. You can then sell it after that time limit so no used copies until that date is over."

Until it's cracked. This solution can only work with additional forced network connections. Meaning 2 forms of DRM just to prevent used game sales. A market that's not nearly as big a problem as publishers make you think.

"So if a street date for that game is June 4th and the DRM free date is say Sept. 4th it is DRM protected. If you wait until August 4th to buy it you will have a DRM free game on Sept. 4th like everyone else."

It won't stop street dates being broken because then the DRM will have to be for new games as well and there's no justification for that. Broken street dates is harder to deal with than used games because in order to stop them beyond blacklisting the store, you have to make those customers who buy new games pay the price for the store's action and that's not right. The other option is pulling a FromSoftware and making some aspect of the game unbeatable until the street date.

There is always going to be a scapegoat with these publishers. There will always be a reason for them to say they aren't making enough money. The end result will remain the same. Publishers will come up with all kinds of reasons to give consumers the shaft because they can't admit to their own mistakes. It even goes beyond game sales to game quality. I.E. Capcom blaming Ninja Theory for the poor reception of DmC when everyone and their grandmother was telling them that that was going to be the case with that game. Publishers are the problem. Not Gamestop, not pirates, not gamers in general, publishers.

MikeMyers1937d ago

@DragonKnight,

So basically you will argue until the cows come home strictly from a consumers point of view while acting you know how the business should be run. If they could control the game through DRM and make it so that only your account has access during a set time period that could be the answer while still pleasing consumers because after that date it's a free market. The publishers would get revenues during that period and gamers can still have a choice to wait or buy it right away and still have all the benefits later on.

So stop with the hypothetical of breaking release dates or it being cracked because my option was purely hypothetical in the first place. How do you break release dates if you have to authenticate the game first? How do you pirate the game if it's attached to your account? You act like day one the Xbox One will be cracked, so if that's the case why worry?

The thing is you are not willing to give an inch which is why it's pointless debating with certain people. They have their opinions set in stone and have an agenda to make sure nobody else can think differently.

DragonKnight1937d ago

@Mike: "So basically you will argue until the cows come home strictly from a consumers point of view while acting you know how the business should be run."

-Nope. I'll argue from a common sense "it's right in front of your face" point of view. History speaks volumes about publishers. They don't know how to run things. Look at Sega, look at THQ, look at Square-Enix. The writing is on the walls.

"If they could control the game through DRM and make it so that only your account has access during a set time period that could be the answer while still pleasing consumers because after that date it's a free market."

-Nope. Because that doesn't address what happens when people find out they don't like the game and want to be rid of it. In that scenario 3 things would happen. A)You'd have to pay to have the license ended, such as what happens with cellphone contracts. B)You won't have to have it ended, but the game will not be able to be played by anyone else until the time period is up, making for a useless game that Gamestop won't want nor will anyone else. And C) A&B won't happen, instead a new user will have to pay to have the license transferred to their account which won't make them happy. It's been proven that DRM doesn't work and all it does is piss people off.

"So stop with the hypothetical of breaking release dates or it being cracked because my option was purely hypothetical in the first place."

Which is why I brought up the hypothetical counter to your option. It exists. Don't get mad at me, get mad at the publishers and their greed.

"How do you break release dates if you have to authenticate the game first?"

Umm, simple, the store doesn't care if you have to authenticate it. And in order to do that, the DRM can't be used for just the playing/buying/selling of used games, it has to exist for NEW games, for which there is no justification. Publishers won't risk affecting new game sales. That's why there hasn't been any drastic action taken against broken street dates already (also because it's not commonplace to begin with).

"How do you pirate the game if it's attached to your account? You act like day one the Xbox One will be cracked, so if that's the case why worry?"

You haven't paid much attention to what hackers can do have you? Think the SimCity offline hacks. All that is necessary is to come up with a crack that makes a game work offline, that simple. But consoles are different. The Xbox One will require a check in every 24 hours and that's not something easily worked around. If you don't check in, you don't get to use your console. And that violates consumer rights because you're not paying a license to use the console, you paid for it in full and it's yours to use as to the fullest functional ability that is advertised.

"The thing is you are not willing to give an inch which is why it's pointless debating with certain people. They have their opinions set in stone and have an agenda to make sure nobody else can think differently."

Why should anyone accept any DRM that infringes on basic consumer rights? Why should the video game industry reward publishers multiple times for the sale of one item? That literally doesn't happen ANYWHERE else, including other software industries. So why?

JOHN_DOH1937d ago

"So basically you will argue until the cows come home strictly from a consumers point of view"

Do you work for microsoft?
Gamers=consumers
If gamers don't stand up to anti-consumer practices than who will, the publishers? They have the consumers best interests in mind right?

MikeMyers1937d ago (Edited 1937d ago )

DragonKnight,

"I'll argue from a common sense "it's right in front of your face" point of view."

Good. Then you can see from a common sense point of view it's already happening. Why do you think single player games are getting outnumbered by multiplayer games now? Why do you think what used to be single player only games now have DLC and/or an online component attached to it? Why do you think they brought in online passes? Why do you think there's such a push for Xbox Live or Playstation Plus? It's all a ploy to get you connected.

The number one franchise on both the PS3 and Xbox 360 was Call of Duty. A game bought mainly for it's online. A game people have no issue playing online with or paying $60 for. So that online adoption is already here. Next will be controlling the games like we see proposed by Microsoft. This is all no doubt being pushed by publishers such as EA. They will do this regardless of you repeating yourself 10 times a day that's it's anti-consumer. We'll also see more and more publishers make smaller games for Playstation Network or Xbox Live that is already DRM protected. Again the consumer has already supported this. The last will be those AAA games like The Last of Us but even that has an online pass, another form of DRM because again they are using part of the development to attach a form of online play. So yes, you can play the single player no strings attached but to get the full $60 value part of it has DRM attached to it.

When you have a company like EA saying half of their sales come from digital then you know people like the convenience of it. Why do you think they sell games on demand on Xbox Live or new games on the Playstation store that are also on physical medium? It's to give consumers a choice but eventually that choice will be more limited. It's inevitable and this upcoming generation is probably the last that will have physical discs.

"Think the SimCity offline hacks. All that is necessary is to come up with a crack that makes a game work offline, that simple."

And guess what, you can't save your game. So is it really worth it just because you don't want to support DRM? Diablo III is another game that hasn't been properly cracked and it sold well over 10 million copies on a platform plagued by piracy. Normally it's only MMO type games that do those types of numbers. Common sense tells me people will pay if they have to.

Speaking of common sense. Does it make any sense to keep repeating yourself and telling everyone how anti-consumer Steam, online passes and the what the Xbox One is going to do (even though we don't even know the full details)? Does it make sense to disrupt the discussion with those that may not have a problem with it?

I think you're afraid, which is why you speak out about it so much. You're afraid it's going to happen eventually and you're just fighting a lost cause. Steam has tens of millions of satisfied customers, millions buy Xbox Live and Playstation store content. We are already at a time where most people are always connected online and make purchases online. Those don't even support used games, the Xbox One will.

If publishers feel they are losing sales due to the used market or piracy they will take appropriate action. It is their content they invested in, not you. Why do you think Sony said it's up tot he publisher?

You're just a hopeful candidate to buy it after it's out. Until then no rights have been broken because you haven't purchased anything yet. Common sense dictates they will continue to push to that holy grail of linking all content to your profile. Isn't that how Playstation Plus works? A service many love.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 1937d ago
lonesoul651938d ago (Edited 1938d ago )

Why would they lower their price points? You actually pay way less today than you did 15 years ago if you think about it.

NES games were 39.99 and 49.99 and you got like a 2-3 hour game. Production costs were pennies compared to todays games but look what you got.

The expectation in some genres of games is to keep pushing the limits. Yes some companies go overboard with "Hollywood talent" but even some voice actors are becoming obsolete with the new facial and mo-cap used in some of todays games. You HAVE to be able to act to pull it off realistically.

IF they lower the price then the price of used would go down and the people who want to spend 5 bucks less will still opt for that. So that argument is kinda null.

There are just too many games being made today. Way more AAA titles than ever before and it spreads the money thin. You have smartphones, tabs, consoles and PC's all competing for the "gaming" market. They all have their place to be sure...but there is a finite amount of money to be spent.

frelyler1938d ago

I get what you are saying, but you failed to acknowledge that the user base back in the NES days was much smaller compared to that of today. There is a much larger pool to draw from and if the prices keep going up for games with more restrictions and less quality (patches post launch, Bethesda games on consoles) then the market will crash and it can't sustain the user base of today. Companies like to look at their user base and determine the best way to nickel and dime you. They come out with some excuse that is false and watch how many lemmings walk off the cliff. The problem with the gaming crowd is that a lot of us are tech savvy, intelligent for the most and read often. Basically we know a thing or two and with the internet we are able to clearly show that.

lonesoul651937d ago

Great point on the install base and you are correct that there has to be a ceiling on the price of games.
There have been a lot of attempts at different marketing strategies and ways to make a bigger dime on games as is true with any industry.

It has been painful to go through but at least over the last several years we have gone through a lot of models that have failed horribly and some that are on the way out.

I think the crowd funded/founder model is also going to dump after a year or two. Firefall is a perfect example of how things can go haywire and the totally wrong direction. They had an amazing idea IMO and I invested 100 bucks in their founder program only for them to totally strip the game apart and put it back together in a upside down broken way. I, for the first time in a while, am suffering from buyers remorse on that one.

I won't pretend that I have the solution, but I do like my blockbuster titles along with my smaller developer games(I hate the word indie)and I know it costs a lot of $$$ to make these games. So I just hope they find a model that works for all of us and if stopping the sale of used games helps, then I'm willing to give it a go.

Been that way for years in the PC space and I've had no issue with it...so lets just wait and see.

You can't prove an idea that is only on paper. Worst thing that can happen for me as a gamer on this deal...is that I continue to favor my PC over consoles...and with the close relationship the console hardware has with PC's....this should be a bonus for all platform.

Thanks for the positive and well thought out reply Frelyler****tips hat 2 u****

DA_PRGamer1938d ago

That its true, Im a gamer and I rarely buy games day one with some exceptions... my last day one buy was Bioshock Infinite Songbird Edition, cause when I spend my hard earned $$$ I want it to be for something really good, also I have gamefly which have stopped me from buying a lot of games day one. Now days when I spend $60 I usually get 3-4 games on amazon or gamefly but If they were to lock used games and retail prices went down I could see me buying more games day one.

TheOneYouHate1938d ago

Then give us $10 games. Simple.

HyperBear1938d ago

I believe that is why the Indie Development scene has grown substantially in the past few years, and why most gamers are now heavily interested and invested into Indie games.

SpinalRemains1938d ago (Edited 1938d ago )

Ha!

Goebbels would be proud!

Hell, Magda and the kids are smiling from the beyond. Save the industry. Lol stop.

If you're gonna be greedy then the least you can do is not hide behind a veil of necessity or a hero complex.

"We have to charge you more, everyone. Its necessary in order to ensure that videogames stay here."

That takes some nerve; wanting to be thanked for ass rape. Seriously.