RUMOR: Microsoft's new XBox Console to not play "Used Games" to open venue further for digital distribution.

[LunarEdge]

Also known as Razor and Blades.

[Aquaslash]

If you wanna contribute to the downfall of the industry thats been going on so be it.

[VO.SUPER]

I'm not about to defend Tyr here, as I have my faults with his agreement, but I'd still like to hear how the video game market is the sole cause of it's downfall. Used games cause a large number of sales to be lost for good games, especially when consumers go by most review standard to date. Remember how the review system works these days, and how they influence a lot of people's decision. A game that gets an 7-8 might as well kiss a new sale goodbye.

I'm not trying to say used games are the only problem, but that they are still a problem, and the fact that someone other than the developer/publisher benefits from it is a problem. It's one thing to reduce the price of a new game and make it a bargain, but to sell a used game and not give a dime to the developer/publisher is not right.

(Since I know people are NOT going to read my last posts, let me say again, that I'm not for this system that Microsoft proposes.)

[Conando]

Oh please, piracy can't even kill the industry so used game sales aren't going to since the 2 don't even compare. I did not know about the fact that game retailers make barely anything off new sales, though. Learn something every day, it's no wonder they try to get you to trade your games in all the time.

[ThatGuyJay]

If a product is bought, isn't it ultimately up to the consumer for what they will with it, even if it's sell it to a store ripping off others buy overpricing used products. It's the same as selling an old watch to a friend, just in the form of a gaming retailer making money. Do the developers really deserve extra money of a product that was already fully payed for? Piracy and buying used things are totally different also. Piracy is literally like stealing while buying a used game is someone who payed for the game decides to sell it. Is it stealing if I buy a used car? I think people are looking at buying used games the wrong way. I for one don't buy used games but because I don't, I end up not buying many games because I can't afford them. I also agree that used games take away from potential sales but that is true for most everything else too.

If Microsoft did go through with this I guess the pro would be no more having to look for rare games since they'll all be in one place. I don't know if the games would be on the console (which would suck if the console broke) or on an account (which I don't have but I hear MS is ban happy) but either way seems bad to me. I wouldn't want to buy games all over again if something happened. But maybe games will be cheaper.

Edited January 28, 2012 by ThatGuyJay

[Tails spin]

Why I doubt this is true.

I buy a game... put it on my console... 1 of two possible things can happen now.

Scenario 1: The game comes with a code thats tied to my console.

Scenario 2: The game comes with a code thats tied to my XBL account.

The following then happens.

Scenario 1: The console breaks down... I buy a new console... all the games I now own do not work.

Scenario 2: For whatever reason I lose access to my account or it gets banned (yay for MS' random bannings)... I get a new account... all the games I now own do not work.

This is why I like to physically own a produce. that or have some legal way to back the info up.

[Tornado]

but I'd still like to hear how the video game market is the sole cause of it's downfall.

• Development budgets inflating to dozens of millions of dollars even for games that are only vaguely big sellers, including publishers jumping headfirst into new IPs before they even know how the industry will react to them (L.A. Noire being a really good example).
  
• Trying to match the movie industry in terms of production values despite the gaming industry being structured completely different in regards to revenue (because game sales are massively front loaded, and movie sales are more-or-less continuous, albeit gradually decreasing), which means only a handful of games can actually get away with it.
  
• Designing consoles with little in regard to developer friendliness and more in regard to dick waving (Sony have been doing this for over a decade now, but the 360 isn't that much better), making the development process much more expensive.
  
• Segmenting the market by branding the PS360 as "real" consoles and the Wii the "fake," not bothering to reach out to the Wii market until the Wii was already dead, greatly (and permanently) limiting the size of the pie publishers can sell to compared to the previous generation.
  
• Putative actions against used game sales, which has a direct negative effect on new game sales because used games are worth less so you get less for them (I know several people who work at several Gamestops who have noticed this. Most of the time when someone sells a game to them, they turn right around and buy a new game with the proceeds. Games with online passes people usually don't even bother selling back, because they don't think they will get anything for them).
  

Basically, for whatever reason most publishers this generation treat most of their games like Sega treated Shenmue, and the industry simply cannot support that for anything but the real AAA titles.

but to sell a used game and not give a dime to the developer/publisher is not right.

Why.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Celestia

[Badnik Mechanic]

It's one thing to reduce the price of a new game and make it a bargain, but to sell a used game and not give a dime to the developer/publisher is not right.

So say I buy a rugby ball... I play with it for a while... then decide to sell it on... thats not right either? Only the maker of the rugby ball isn't getting anything.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Hogfather

[VO.SUPER]

• Development budgets inflating to dozens of millions of dollars even for games that are only vaguely sellers, including publishers jumping headfirst into new IPs before they even know how the industry will react to them (L.A. Noire being a really good example).

• Trying to match the movie industry in terms of production values despite the gaming industry being structured completely different in regards to revenue (because game sales are massively front loaded, and movie sales are more-or-less continuous, albeit it gradually decreasing).

• Designing consoles with little in regard to developer friendliness and more in regard to dick waving (Sony have been doing this for over a decade now, but the 360 isn't that much better), making the development process much more expensive.

• Segmenting the market by branding the PS360 as "real" consoles and the Wii the "fake," not bothering to reach out to the Wii market until the Wii was already dead, greatly (and permanently) limiting the size of the pie publishers can sell to compared to the previous generation.

• Putative actions against used game sales, which has a direct negative effect on new game sales because used games are worth less so you get less for them (I know several people who work at several Gamestops. Most of the time when someone sells a game to them, they turn right around and buy a new game with the proceeds).

Basically, every publisher treats most of their games like Sega treated Shenmue, and the industry simply cannot support that for anything but the real AAA titles.

Edited January 28, 2012 by VisionaryBlur

[Luigi]

I won't buy the new XBOX if this happens.

[LunarEdge]

If developers really wanted to bank on used games, they could keep adding those online passes to them. That's $15 right there for a game they wouldn't have profited on. Not to mention they can have paid DLC available for the game such as more stages, different skins, music, there's so much they could do thus given it more replay value and more opportunities to make a profit off a used product

[VO.SUPER]

If developers really wanted to bank on used games, they could keep adding those online passes to them. That's $15 right there for a game they wouldn't have profited on. Not to mention they can have paid DLC available for the game such as more stages, different skins, music, there's so much they could do thus given it more replay value and more opportunities to make a profit off a used product

You think they would have kept doing that. Of course, then gamers would be pissed again for having to actually pay extra. It's a lose lose situation isn't it?

[LunarEdge]

You think they would have kept doing that. Of course, then gamers would be pissed again for having to actually pay extra. It's a lose lose situation isn't it?

as long as it's spaced out enough and keeps the game alive, I don't mind paying personally. If they release $5 DLC everyday for a month, I can understand the frustration, but to have a racer for example and adding a few DLC tracks (lets say 3) for $8-$15 about once a year (maybe once every 6months even) I personally wouldn't mind. Same goes for FPS's/Third-Person shooters with extra characters, levels and etc. Fighters too with extra characters and Alt. Costumes

People who tend to complain about paid DLC are those whom play games where the content is already on the Disc and the paid DLC is literally an unlock for the content. Given, developers have been doing that more often as of late, but if developers were to release ACTUAL paid DLC this "we don't get money for used games," would be a piss-ass excuse in the future.

[VO.SUPER]

as long as it's spaced out enough and keeps the game alive, I don't mind paying personally. If they release $5 DLC everyday for a month, I can understand the frustration, but to have a racer for example and adding a few DLC tracks (lets say 3) for $8-$15 about once a year (maybe once every 6months even) I personally wouldn't mind. Same goes for FPS's/Third-Person shooters with extra characters, levels and etc. Fighters too with extra characters and Alt. Costumes

People who tend to complain about paid DLC are those whom play games where the content is already on the Disc and the paid DLC is literally an unlock for the content. Given, developers have been doing that more often as of late, but if developers were to release ACTUAL paid DLC this "we don't get money for used games," would be a piss-ass excuse in the future.

Oh no, it's not the DLC I'm worried about. (Well, I'm against certain DLC, like if the game was unfinished for the sake of DLC.) It's the online pass thing. That would certainly make it so both sides (retailers & devs) happy in a way. But gamers would be passing very cold glances towards the developers.

Edited January 28, 2012 by VisionaryBlur

[LunarEdge]

Oh no, it's not the DLC I'm worried about. (Well, I'm against certain DLC, like if the game was unfinished for the sake of DLC.) It's the online pass thing. That would certainly make it so both sides (retailers & devs) happy in a way. But gamers would be passing very cold glances towards the developers.

I personally don't mind the online pass. Given, all the games I had to use an online for I bought new so it was never a concern for me. I can see online passes becoming a staple of the gaming world.

[Neon]

Saints Row Dev: Xbox 720 Used Game Ban 'Fantastic':

http://uk.xbox360.ig.../1218051p1.html

Durall concludes by commenting that used game sales hurt the industry more than most people realize, and that "we have to do something about these issues or our industry is going to fall apart."

How about taxing retailers that are making a shit ton of money selling used games? Used games aren't the problem, it's the short sighted BS tactics that publishers are using to combat them.

[Patticus]

People wouldn't buy used games so much if the prices of new ones were set to go down every few months to a minimum determined by what range of sales they fall into by that point. Or something. Increased affordability of new games would mitigate used sales.

[Tornado]

Cutting the knees off of used game sales won't magically make new game sales increase, and it shows a fundamental bit of foolishness to think that it will.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Gilda

[VO.SUPER]

Here's an idea I got from Extra Creditz. With the coming of DLC and the usage of that horrendous practice to hold out content from the game, why not use it to an advantage? What say developers start charging less for physical copies of games, and once you own it you need to pay for DLC to get the full game? Say a developer charge 35 dollars for a new copy at launch and then you have to buy some full package DLC that would cost twenty dollars, effectively getting your full 50 something dollar game. That way the developer gets their money regardless, used sales don't have to go away, and the consumer is stuck in pretty much the same situation they were before.

People wouldn't buy used games so much if the prices of new ones were set to go down every few months to a minimum determined by what range of sales they fall into by that point. Or something. Increased affordability of new games would mitigate used sales.

That would do little to curb used game sales unless the pattern was made predictable, and considering how game marketing goes, that would actually be pretty hard. The problem is that all that would do is lose more money for developers and publishers, especially considering how game prices haven't increased to match inflation at all so decreasing the price would be a very dangerous risk that only so few developers can go. (Mario Bros 3 was $70 dollars once upon a time, and we're talking 90s money here.)

[Tornado]

Here's an idea I got from Extra Creditz. With the coming of DLC and the usage of that horrendous practice to hold out content from the game, why not use it to an advantage? What say developers start charging less for physical copies of games, and once you own it you need to pay for DLC to get the full game? Say a developer charge 35 dollars for a new copy at launch and then you have to buy some full package DLC that would cost twenty dollars, effectively getting your full 50 something dollar game. That way the developer gets their money regardless, used sales don't have to go away, and the consumer is stuck in pretty much the same situation they were before.

Because that would cut into the lovely practice some publishers (Activision, Capcom, and sometimes EA) like to do of doing the same thing, only charging $60 instead of $35.

[VO.SUPER]

Because that would cut into the lovely practice some publishers (Activision, Capcom, and sometimes EA) like to do of doing the same thing, only charging $60 instead of $35.

They're still charging full price. Only this time, they're getting an entire cut of 20 whole dollars per copy no matter whether used or new. They don't have to pay a cent to retailers.

[LunarEdge]

Because that would cut into the lovely practice some publishers (Activision, Capcom, and sometimes EA) like to do of doing the same thing, only charging $60 instead of $35.

I think the idea behind the concept is to sell the games for cheaper (let's say 30, $35) and offer the "DLC" content already on the disc (something, as you noted, developers are already doing) and have the cost of the dlc + the game equal out to what games already cost today.

I personally don't know how well that will work out mainly due to the fact that developers may take more and more out of the game and make us pay for something that we shouldn't have to (be it on the disc already and whatnot)

I personally feel the same way I did before, just offer actual DLC for the game and try to make any lost money on used games that way. More maps for shooters, for characters for fighters, more tracks for racers, etc.

Or do what Halo 3 did by making new maps mandatory for purchase to play certain aspects of online (I believe after a certain amount of time, the new maps were made free, but I forget.)

Edited February 9, 2012 by LunarEdge

[Dwapook]

Eh.. adding DLC to everything overcomplicates it.. Steam and mobile devices have already proven how successful a purely digital market can be, something similiar on consoles seems inevitable..

Edited February 9, 2012 by Dwapook

[Skyward Sword]

That's just morally wrong.

[Tornado]

Eh.. adding DLC to everything overcomplicates it.. Steam and mobile devices have already proven how successful a purely digital market can be, something similiar on consoles seems inevitable..

The PC gaming market was never like the console gaming market. Not in terms of structure, distribution or in secondhand. PC gaming needed Steam purely out of necessity, else it would have died entirely years ago.

And mobile devices? Not even remotely comparable.