15 réponses à ce sujet

[cap and gown]

I am not rich and like to save money. So I have bought all the ME games (and DA:O) used. My guess is BW would prefer I bought them new. I certainly would like BW to stay in business and produce more games, but I can't really see treating a gaming company as a charity. So how do gaming companies view places like Gamestop? Do used game sales still benefit the studio that made the game? If so, how?

[Nole]

Why do you think a lot of new games come with a CD Key to active the game that only works once?

[Maiden Crowe]

I am pretty sure Bioware doing well enough for itself to survive without your charity, as for used games sales I am pretty sure game developers don't see a penny which is kind of why Microsoft wanted to introduce game registration on the Xbone, it is also why many games also come with an online pass or the Cerberus network and stuff to encourage players to buy new.

[wolfsite]

Maiden Crowe wrote...

I am pretty sure Bioware doing well enough for itself to survive without your charity, as for used games sales I am pretty sure game developers don't see a penny which is kind of why Microsoft wanted to introduce game registration on the Xbone, it is also why many games also come with an online pass or the Cerberus network and stuff to encourage players to buy new.

Actually EA discontinued the online pass so you can get that content for free now if you bought the game used.

[Maiden Crowe]

wolfsite wrote...

Maiden Crowe wrote...

I am pretty sure Bioware doing well enough for itself to survive without your charity, as for used games sales I am pretty sure game developers don't see a penny which is kind of why Microsoft wanted to introduce game registration on the Xbone, it is also why many games also come with an online pass or the Cerberus network and stuff to encourage players to buy new.

Actually EA discontinued the online pass so you can get that content for free now if you bought the game used.

Yeah I know, I am guessing they only did it because they thought the new generation of consoles would introduce manditory registration, sucked in EA. 

[wolfsite]

Maiden Crowe wrote...

wolfsite wrote...

Maiden Crowe wrote...

I am pretty sure Bioware doing well enough for itself to survive without your charity, as for used games sales I am pretty sure game developers don't see a penny which is kind of why Microsoft wanted to introduce game registration on the Xbone, it is also why many games also come with an online pass or the Cerberus network and stuff to encourage players to buy new.

Actually EA discontinued the online pass so you can get that content for free now if you bought the game used.

Yeah I know, I am guessing they only did it because they thought the new generation of consoles would introduce manditory registration, sucked in EA. 

Officially the reason was that "They didn't work" and the only next gen console at the time that was going to feature manditory registration was XBox One leaving the PS4 without any new game lock.

[Eurypterid]

I can't speak for BioWare, but it seems that many on the dev/publishing side of the industry consider used game sales as a 'lost sale'. They don't see any revenue from used games sales, so one can understand why they feel that way. I personally don't view it like that, as I know Ford sees no revenue from the resale of their cars, Frigidaire sees no revenue from the resale of their refrigerators, Levis sees no revenue from the resale of used jeans, Paramount see no revenue from the resale of one of their DVDs, etc. Why should the game industry be any different?

The way they're making it different is through the use of activation-limited DRM, on-line passes, account-based DLC/game registrations, and digital distribution that's tied to a single account a la Steam, Origin, etc.

[Maiden Crowe]

wolfsite wrote...

Maiden Crowe wrote...

wolfsite wrote...

Maiden Crowe wrote...

I am pretty sure Bioware doing well enough for itself to survive without your charity, as for used games sales I am pretty sure game developers don't see a penny which is kind of why Microsoft wanted to introduce game registration on the Xbone, it is also why many games also come with an online pass or the Cerberus network and stuff to encourage players to buy new.

Actually EA discontinued the online pass so you can get that content for free now if you bought the game used.

Yeah I know, I am guessing they only did it because they thought the new generation of consoles would introduce manditory registration, sucked in EA. 

Officially the reason was that "They didn't work" and the only next gen console at the time that was going to feature manditory registration was XBox One leaving the PS4 without any new game lock.

Yeah but when it comes to EA who really believes the official story? As for the PS4 not having a game lock I wouldn't be surprised if it was planned at some point and scrapped before reveal, it was definately strongly rumoured that the next gen consoles would feature it and I am not sure Microsoft would have announced a new game lock feature unless they thought Sony would as well, personally I would say it was a great marketing strategy on Sony's part, sucked in Microsoft.

[Fast Jimmy]

Eurypterid wrote...

I can't speak for BioWare, but it seems that many on the dev/publishing side of the industry consider used game sales as a 'lost sale'. They don't see any revenue from used games sales, so one can understand why they feel that way. I personally don't view it like that, as I know Ford sees no revenue from the resale of their cars, Frigidaire sees no revenue from the resale of their refrigerators, Levis sees no revenue from the resale of used jeans, Paramount see no revenue from the resale of one of their DVDs, etc. Why should the game industry be any different?

The way they're making it different is through the use of activation-limited DRM, on-line passes, account-based DLC/game registrations, and digital distribution that's tied to a single account a la Steam, Origin, etc.

If MS was smart, they would have stuck with their digital distribution concept, they would have just tweaked it so it actually made sense. And they would have been smart to make sure that games bought through the digital distribution model would be guaranteed to be cheaper. 

If I knew that if I bought an XB1, I could get games for $45 that would normally cost me $60 due to digitally downloading it, that would be a huge selling point. MS would sell more consoles and developers would sell more of their games (without having to pay to retailers and without losing any Used Game sales). 


While I get the complaint that people can sell products they own, that is really the difference between digitial media and a physical good. I can sell a CD. I can't sell a video I streamed from a paid site. Why? I paid the money and downloaded the information - I should own that information, right? Except that's increasingly not the way things work. Which is a whole can of legality and consumer rights worms, but it still is the current state of things. The gaming industry is one of the few industries that can actively work to prevent the re-sale of their products, so they are. I don't begrudge them that, but the sales they gain by preventign resale as well as the overhead reduced from removing the retailer should be passed onto the consumer (either in terms of reduced price, improved quality or some other form of incentive on the consumer's part to sacrifice their ownership rights) instead of just being padded into the corporate balance sheet.

[mybudgee]

Lol

[TheBlackBaron]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If MS was smart, they would have stuck with their digital distribution concept, they would have just tweaked it so it actually made sense. And they would have been smart to make sure that games bought through the digital distribution model would be guaranteed to be cheaper. 

If I knew that if I bought an XB1, I could get games for $45 that would normally cost me $60 due to digitally downloading it, that would be a huge selling point. MS would sell more consoles and developers would sell more of their games (without having to pay to retailers and without losing any Used Game sales). 

I read an article in Polygon the other day about the complicated dance manufacturers and publishers have to go through to keep retail happy in the face of digitial distribution becoming increasingly popular. Gamestop has been allowed to break street dates and release games days early, ahead of it becoming available online, without consequences simply because of the need to ensure that they'll still carry a given company's games or console, on top of other stuff that seems quite unethical from a business stance (I'll see if I can dig it up). The same goes for the other giants like Wal-mart and Best Buy. 

That's the real story behind the X1's system as it was originally pitched and announced - a way to try and bring digiital distribution to consoles en masse while keeping the Gamestops and Best Buys of the world happy (to Gamestop, right now every game sold digitially is lost money - it's a game you aren't buying from them, it's a game they can't convince you to sell back to buy more games from them, it's a game that they can't then resell to somebody else).

Basically, Microsoft was guilty of bulding a console for, say, 2020 instead of a console for 2013/14. Too many people still buy their games as physical copies - myself included, on the console front at least - and too many parents only know how to go to the big box store and look on the shelf for the console Timmy wants, which might even have a neat exclusive bundle. 

Who knows, though. If Google Fiber becomes a widespread thing and Amazon can start delivering the Xbox360NoScope420BlazeIt via drone, then the console makers and developers might finally be able to flip Gamestop the bird and start selling more boxes and games at lower prices. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 04 février 2014 - 04:14 .

[Fast Jimmy]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If MS was smart, they would have stuck with their digital distribution concept, they would have just tweaked it so it actually made sense. And they would have been smart to make sure that games bought through the digital distribution model would be guaranteed to be cheaper. 

If I knew that if I bought an XB1, I could get games for $45 that would normally cost me $60 due to digitally downloading it, that would be a huge selling point. MS would sell more consoles and developers would sell more of their games (without having to pay to retailers and without losing any Used Game sales). 

I read an article in Polygon the other day about the complicated dance manufacturers and publishers have to go through to keep retail happy in the face of digitial distribution becoming increasingly popular. Gamestop has been allowed to break street dates and release games days early, ahead of it becoming available online, without consequences simply because of the need to ensure that they'll still carry a given company's games or console, on top of other stuff that seems quite unethical from a business stance (I'll see if I can dig it up). The same goes for the other giants like Wal-mart and Best Buy. 

That's the real story behind the X1's system as it was originally pitched and announced - a way to try and bring digiital distribution to consoles en masse while keeping the Gamestops and Best Buys of the world happy (to Gamestop, right now every game sold digitially is lost money - it's a game you aren't buying from them, it's a game they can't convince you to sell back to buy more games from them, it's a game that they can't then resell to somebody else).

Basically, Microsoft was guilty of bulding a console for, say, 2020 instead of a console for 2013/14. Too many people still buy their games as physical copies - myself included, on the console front at least - and too many parents only know how to go to the big box store and look on the shelf for the console Timmy wants, which might even have a neat exclusive bundle. 

Who knows, though. If Google Fiber becomes a widespread thing and Amazon can start delivering the Xbox360NoScope420BlazeIt via drone, then the console makers and developers might finally be able to flip Gamestop the bird and start selling more boxes and games at lower prices. 

The very fact that Gamestop's stock dropped roughly 20% in value the day the MS rumors about no Used Game sales for the XB1 hit is proof that the retailers are mostly a parasite on the back of the overall industry.I agree that this generation of consoles was poorly designed in terms of online functionality, though. They need to compete with the PC's high level of connectivity and service, yet large swaths of the world don't have online access, so they would lose huge market segments.

Then again, if the PS came out with discs only and the XB1 came out with digital distribution and cheaper games because of it, I think that would be a way to service all markets. The assumption that because one console does it that all must (and, inherently, leave those without internet in the cold) is a bit of a silly one and a big cause in the console herd mentality.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 04 février 2014 - 04:21 .

[Ghost Lightning]

They don't make sh!t off them.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

mybudgee wrote...

Lol

YOLOL

No. I think it's Okay Op. If they were smart they would lower their online sale prices and also several months after release the price of the games should be low enough to attract poor people too.