Log in

View Full Version : Volition targets Used buyers like myself.



hamako
02-07-2012, 04:17 AM
Source: http://asia.gamespot.com/news/volition-developer-blasts-used-game-business-6349861

sorry if its already been mentioned. i didn't find it anywhere. and i just found out today.

The used game business is a contentious issue. For companies like GameStop, sales of used games are big business, but those who actually develop games don't see a dime when people purchase their titles secondhand. One developer recently vocalized his take on the used game market, and it paints a less than lovely image of the business.

In a recent entry on game developer blog AltDevBlog titled "I Feel Used," Volition design director Jameson Durall lambasted the used game market and noted that change is needed or the industry will crumble.

"In the end, I fully believe that we have to do something about these issues or our industry is going to fall apart," he said. "People often don't understand the cost that goes into creating these huge experiences that we put on the shelves for only $60. They also don't seem to realize how much they are hurting us when they buy a used game and how pirating a copy is just plain stealing."
Durall, who is currently working on a secret project at Volition, laid out a plan for combating used game sales. He said supporting games with downloadable content will encourage users to hold on to their games longer. However, Durall warned that this tactic only will work if the DLC in question is "compelling and a good enough value" for consumers.

Durall also pledged his support to the online pass schemes being used by publishers like Electronic Arts, THQ, Sony, and others, whereby parts of a game are available only to those with a new copy of a game.

"Some consumers complain about this method because the precedent has always been that it's included in the price and should come with it," he said. "It did for the person who actually bought it first…so was saving that $5 at GameStop worth it for you?"

Looking ahead, Durall said he also embraced Sony's plan to offer digital copies of PlayStation Vita titles--which cannot become used units--at a discounted rate. He said he expects gamers to be enticed to buy digital copies because of their lower price rate and this will in turn lead to fewer used copies in the wild.

Durall also talked about the rumor that the Next Xbox would prevent gamers from playing used titles. Durall said this kind of mechanism would be "a fantastic change for our business," while admitting gamers would not be excited about it at first.

That said, Durall said he believes gamers will "grow to understand why and that it won't kill him."

As for how Microsoft might go about preventing gamers from playing used titles, Durall said the company already has a system in place. He suggests that Microsoft would need to only use a code to tie a copy of a title to an Xbox Live account and make the game playable only on that account.

Durall admits that a system like this would hurt the game rental business and that there are several "faults that would have to be ironed out," but nevertheless, he contends that it is certainly possible.

lonelyhero
02-07-2012, 05:27 AM
wow just wow as a small game shop owner if this guy gets his way my business would cease to exist. small privately owned shops make all or most of their profit from used game sales with dealers selling us new games at 55$were making 5$ a game but on used titles considerably more.

now imagine if he gets his way and the console manufacturers decided they longer wanted us to be able to buy/sell used systems. it would only be a matter of time before we had no rights as a consumer at all.

its a great idea to protect your investments but once you sell your product does it not belong to the buyer to do with as they please? unfortunately more and more companies feel they retain the rights of any hardware we buy . gaming is a huge example of companies controlling what we can and cannot do with our own hardware but what happens if other industries take their example

imagine cars not starting because you dont match the original registered owner, ipod locking or erasing themselves because your fingerprint doesnt match, hell with the right justification of monetary injustice by a company anything could be rendered useless, maybe im old fashioned but i grew up learning how to share WTF happened to that? if it werent for used or borrowed games many of us may not have gotten into gaming when we did.

wow i realise im ranting so ill end it here. What the fuck ever happened to good old fashioned sharing?

DemonBooter
02-07-2012, 05:53 AM
Source: http://asia.gamespot.com/news/volition-developer-blasts-used-game-business-6349861

sorry if its already been mentioned. i didn't find it anywhere. and i just found out today.

The used game business is a contentious issue. For companies like GameStop, sales of used games are big business, but those who actually develop games don't see a dime when people purchase their titles secondhand. One developer recently vocalized his take on the used game market, and it paints a less than lovely image of the business.

In a recent entry on game developer blog AltDevBlog titled "I Feel Used," Volition design director Jameson Durall lambasted the used game market and noted that change is needed or the industry will crumble.

"In the end, I fully believe that we have to do something about these issues or our industry is going to fall apart," he said. "People often don't understand the cost that goes into creating these huge experiences that we put on the shelves for only $60. They also don't seem to realize how much they are hurting us when they buy a used game and how pirating a copy is just plain stealing."
Durall, who is currently working on a secret project at Volition, laid out a plan for combating used game sales. He said supporting games with downloadable content will encourage users to hold on to their games longer. However, Durall warned that this tactic only will work if the DLC in question is "compelling and a good enough value" for consumers.

Durall also pledged his support to the online pass schemes being used by publishers like Electronic Arts, THQ, Sony, and others, whereby parts of a game are available only to those with a new copy of a game.

"Some consumers complain about this method because the precedent has always been that it's included in the price and should come with it," he said. "It did for the person who actually bought it first…so was saving that $5 at GameStop worth it for you?"

Looking ahead, Durall said he also embraced Sony's plan to offer digital copies of PlayStation Vita titles--which cannot become used units--at a discounted rate. He said he expects gamers to be enticed to buy digital copies because of their lower price rate and this will in turn lead to fewer used copies in the wild.

Durall also talked about the rumor that the Next Xbox would prevent gamers from playing used titles. Durall said this kind of mechanism would be "a fantastic change for our business," while admitting gamers would not be excited about it at first.

That said, Durall said he believes gamers will "grow to understand why and that it won't kill him."

As for how Microsoft might go about preventing gamers from playing used titles, Durall said the company already has a system in place. He suggests that Microsoft would need to only use a code to tie a copy of a title to an Xbox Live account and make the game playable only on that account.

Durall admits that a system like this would hurt the game rental business and that there are several "faults that would have to be ironed out," but nevertheless, he contends that it is certainly possible.

Do that relize that those "60 Dollar games" amass them huge revenue....this is just another example of big again little...and I don't think the Amer will let it happen like he thinks....he just wants a deeper pocket....

CloudStrife7x
02-07-2012, 06:07 AM
wow just wow as a small game shop owner if this guy gets his way my business would cease to exist. small privately owned shops make all or most of their profit from used game sales with dealers selling us new games at 55$were making 5$ a game but on used titles considerably more.

now imagine if he gets his way and the console manufacturers decided they longer wanted us to be able to buy/sell used systems. it would only be a matter of time before we had no rights as a consumer at all.

its a great idea to protect your investments but once you sell your product does it not belong to the buyer to do with as they please? unfortunately more and more companies feel they retain the rights of any hardware we buy . gaming is a huge example of companies controlling what we can and cannot do with our own hardware but what happens if other industries take their example

imagine cars not starting because you dont match the original registered owner, ipod locking or erasing themselves because your fingerprint doesnt match, hell with the right justification of monetary injustice by a company anything could be rendered useless, maybe im old fashioned but i grew up learning how to share WTF happened to that? if it werent for used or borrowed games many of us may not have gotten into gaming when we did.

wow i realise im ranting so ill end it here. What the fuck ever happened to good old fashioned sharing?

couldnt have said it better myself XD, i agree 100% with you :)

DemonBooter
02-07-2012, 08:17 AM
They sold 6 million copies of the saints row series and at an even 60 with no tax they made about $360,000,000 without dlc added on ether....and correct me if im wrong but didn't they make a dlc homie for the third based off cheapyD from cheapassgamer.com which sells used games lol sorry that I keep talking about this but it bothers me more then I thought lol

Paprika
02-07-2012, 08:52 AM
"Some consumers complain about this method because the precedent has always been that it's included in the price and should come with it," he said. "It did for the person who actually bought it first…so was saving that $5 at GameStop worth it for you?"

Worse rebuttal ever for the used game topic. Using his logic (which is my opinion on the matter anyway) The particular title is already purchased therefore the sale on the publishers side is already complete. Therefore the continued sale after the original purchase is none of their business as their say in the transaction ends after the original sale

I worded that extremely badly but thats the jist of what I'm trying to get at

DemonBooter
02-07-2012, 09:10 AM
Worse rebuttal ever for the used game topic. Using his logic (which is my opinion on the matter anyway) The particular title is already purchased therefore the sale on the publishers side is already complete. Therefore the continued sale after the original purchase is none of their business as their say in the transaction ends after the original sale

I worded that extremely badly but thats the jist of what I'm trying to get at

Made complete sense to me lol

Vincent Valentine
02-07-2012, 09:33 AM
Worse rebuttal ever for the used game topic. Using his logic (which is my opinion on the matter anyway) The particular title is already purchased therefore the sale on the publishers side is already complete. Therefore the continued sale after the original purchase is none of their business as their say in the transaction ends after the original sale

I worded that extremely badly but thats the jist of what I'm trying to get at
In simple words are you saying that basically once a new copy is sold and if its returned thus becoming a used copy, the game company gets less money than the company who sold it?

Ex: say a saints row the third is new for $60 plus tax, someone buys it from gamestop and take it back thus becoming a used copy, game stop gets a minimum amount of the money that was from that one game and if it's used does GameStop get more of the money from the game that was used and was bought than the actual game company?

Not really simple explanation so sorry if that's confusing lol

Emerald Lance
02-07-2012, 10:39 AM
Hmmm. On one hand, I completely agree, companies like Gamestop are really hurting the industry, not just in the pocket, but also in the "ideas" department: they only keep track of the new copies sold, not the used ones, so millions of people could have played say Halo (for argument's sake) but as far as 343 is concerned only 10,000 people bought it, meaning they'll consider Halo a flop and focus on something else (again, only argument's sake). I do believe something definitely needs to be done to give the companies a little more green for their work.

On the other hand, making it so that a console only recognizes a new copy of a game is waaaay past overboard. It's like my views on the late SOPA: yeah, there is a problem and something needs to be done about it, but SOPA is just taking it too far. That's basically how I see this whole shebang about the anti-used-games feature on the new Xbox. To my understanding, it will work by recording the IDs of the disk to your profile, but what about other people that use your Xbox with a different profile? Maybe if they also add the IDs to the console database (like how the 360 currently handles downloadable games with both profile AND console IDs) then it might be a reasonable system. But as it is now, it's totally a step in the wrong direction.

So here's my idea. Corporations that sell used video games should give a cut to the company that made the game. Using Gamestop as the example, they could sell a used copy of (again) Halo. I say Gamestop should give 343 10%. So if the game sold for $60 used (work with me here) then Gamestop would keep $54 and send $6 off to 343 for each used copy of Halo they sell. Gamestop would be required to keep record of each used game they sell and the company that developed the game, and then the computers would automatically deduct the debt from Gamestop's electronic accounts and wire the funds to said companies. Since Gamestop has a 7-day return policy for a full refund, there can be a 7-day delay in the process for each wire transfer, and any game that isn't returned in that grace period is automatically disqualified for a refund anyway, so Gamestop can safely send the amount owed after those seven days (obviously other stores would have to make other arrangements). This will negate the need for pesky online passes, and will in fact earn the companies even more money than the passes would in the first place. Gamestop might make ever-so-slightly less at first, but developers will start getting more comfortable with Gamestop (since they won't see Gamestop as stealing money from their pockets) and endorsements will be through the roof! It's a triple-win scenario (the developers win, the used game companies win, and the consumers win).

I should be a financial consultant for these guys! ^-^

hamako
02-07-2012, 12:20 PM
if this happens then ill just stop playing games entirely. not all games are worth it. besides i only manage to buy games when i have a spare dime. reality takes my money most of the time so yes it sucks. and now this ugh.

MadeGuy
02-07-2012, 04:50 PM
You guys are all making some very good points. This makes me feel even better in my investment towards NES, SNES, Sega Genesis, and N64 cartridges over the years. At least those games belong to me and I don't have to worry about them being 'patched' or any other bullshit that might otherwise ruin the experieces I had with these classics as a child. I know this post may seem a little off topic, but it's just the way a developer's continued grasp on their software after it's release makes me feel.

Deatho0ne
02-07-2012, 07:02 PM
You know this issue sort of came up with a whole thing several years ago about MJ and Nirvana. Nirvana did not really hit main stream until kids told their parents after christmas that they wanted the MJ CD and not the Nirvana CD.

I like the one concept of 10% of profit on used games. My issue is there is ways now to track games now besides being new and that is Unique Users. I know UUs do not always work since that only counts currently online. Xbox can currently track the the games I have played in order of most recent time played, with a bit more of coding you could see how long they were played, what was the general thing they were doing, and have this for all plays of a game.
10%, UUs, and a bit more coding would solve most of the issues that he and this board are talking about.

Emerald Lance
02-08-2012, 06:13 AM
You guys are all making some very good points. This makes me feel even better in my investment towards NES, SNES, Sega Genesis, and N64 cartridges over the years. At least those games belong to me and I don't have to worry about them being 'patched' or any other bullshit that might otherwise ruin the experieces I had with these classics as a child. I know this post may seem a little off topic, but it's just the way a developer's continued grasp on their software after it's release makes me feel.
No man, I feel you. I remember OoT for the 64. I had V1.2 for years! Then I finally ran into a friend who had a golden copy of V1.0, and he had no idea what it was worth. So I conned him out of it with Shadows of the Empire and $20. So many beautiful glitches!

hamako
02-08-2012, 03:22 PM
link: http://asia.gamespot.com/news/witcher-dev-blocking-used-sales-can-be-a-bad-thing-6349908

the dev of the game who made witcher is on our side of why banning used game is a bad idea.

The Witcher developer CD Projekt Red has been vocal about its distaste for digital rights management (DRM). Now the studio is taking another populist gamer stance, saying that rumored plans for the Next Xbox to block the playing of used games "can be a bad thing."

Speaking with Eurogamer, CD Projekt Red managing director Adam Badowski said the studio loses money not due to piracy or used game sales but simply because people decide not to buy its games.
"We should invest more power to upgrade and polish our products and convince players to keep our products, to be with us, to understand our needs," Badowski said. "Because we are an independent developer, we have to prevent layoffs; we need to grow up and have the power to create new games."

As with the DRM issue, CD Projekt Red's attitude toward used game sales may not be widely shared. The design director of Saints Row studio Volition came under fire from numerous gamers earlier this month for saying that a Next Xbox locking out used games would be "fantastic" and cautioning that the industry could "fall apart" if used sales aren't somehow curbed.

Noctis Caelum
02-08-2012, 04:18 PM
damn i read every last post and i knew none of this which may i add is nuts...great share everyone time to google some things on this

CloudStrife7x
02-08-2012, 06:46 PM
damn i read every last post and i knew none of this which may i add is nuts...great share everyone time to google some things on this

yes google is your friend lol

player8410
02-08-2012, 08:24 PM
Here's the way I see it. The original developer sets a price. If consumers think it is worth it then they buy it. If its a great game more people buy it and the developers make more money. If that price is not high enough for the developer they can always try selling it for more in which case the market will decide whether or not its worth it. The rationale here is nothing more than greed...consumers don't realize how much we need the money. Sounds really familar to the speech coming out of other aspects of the entertainment industry such as the Movie/Music industry, who would would also love to do this. How about it...if you buy a used CD then it will not play unless you pay the musician more money. Their argument citing EA's online pass isn't pertinent since you can still play the original game. With online pass, in essence they are selling the use of the servers. You want to play online with a used game , then call it a server fee and be done with it. Games that are bad have always done badly and games that are great do exceptionally well. All a developer has to do to make more money is to make a better game. It's a competitive market and the developers are not competing with consumers but with other developers. What they never seem to realize in their greed, is that if you buy a used game title, and like it, then you're much more likely to buy similar titles or sequels than otherwise.

Paprika
02-09-2012, 04:00 AM
In simple words are you saying that basically once a new copy is sold and if its returned thus becoming a used copy, the game company gets less money than the company who sold it?

Sort of, He's arguing that someone shouldn't have full access to a full game because its secondhand, I'm arguing using the same logic, They shouldn't be asking for another paycheck for something that they have already sold.

Thats the best way I can put it (not distracted at the moment either so it makes more sense hehe)