I hadn’t intended to, but like many things on the Internet, it just sorta happened.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with him David Jaffe is one of the guys behind a number of popular titles on the Playstation consoles including the Twisted Metal series and, most notably, God of War, a game I enjoyed immensely. He also blogs (see link above) and is known for having a big mouth in the industry, which is something I can respect being a blogger blow-hard myself. He’s not, apparently, very good at people disagreeing with him. Which is something I did this evening.
The topic is one he’s ranted on before and it’s a topic I’ve touched on myself: The resale of used games by companies such as GameStop. GameStop makes a shit load of money off used games. Some used titles make them a 50% profit over sales of a new title. That’s caught the attention of several developers and publishers who have gone on to opine, and David Jaffe is one of them, that GameStop is somehow ripping them off and should cut them in on part of the profits from used game sales.
I’m going to repost the back and forth I had with Jaffe in Twitter below the fold in part because it’s lengthy and in part to spare those of you who don’t really give a flying fuck. I’ll also post some of my thoughts on why his argument doesn’t wash with me.
First I’m going to start with Jaffe’s tweets that prompted me to get involved in the first place. This will be a bit lengthy, but here they are:
Eventually someone is gonna have to provoke the wrath of Gstop. They can’t have it both ways. Either cut game makers in on used games and rentals or suck down digital distribution.
As I’ve said often, it’s not the consumers problem/business. But if Gamestop wants games to sell they need to play ball w/game pubs or soon the shoe will be on the other foot. Better to get in bed together now or be pushed out of business sooner than later.
@ArtGreen U are rite. BUT the practice hurts my industry and so my industry is find ways to get around it. Gamers suffer the most n meantime
People like u think this is a legal issue. Of COURSE you can resell your own property. But that is not what is at stake.
Used games hurt devs/publishers. Hurt devs/publishers go out of biz or find ways (dig dist; all content only on first sale) to stay in biz.
Gamer suffers. IF gamestop cut game makers into the deal, Gamestop could stay in biz much longer than they currently will.
It’s a pointless discussion tho. History is on game dev/pub side. Just look at music biz. We’ll laugh it was even an issue in 5 years.
@Joelvamp yes games are too much. And a player has EVERY right to get the best deal, including used. I would as well.
But again-all I can say is: look @the music biz. Games will follow suit. 4me, end of discussion. Stuff to do. 5 years it is all Dig Dist.
The above struck me as something you might hear from Tony Soprano. Say, that’s a nice side bidness yuse got wid the, shall we say, previously handled merchandice. It’dbeashame if something were to, say, happen to it.”
We can already see a couple of assumptions being made here that may not necessarily be true. The most obvious being similar to an assumption made about piracy: That every used game sale represents a lost sale that otherwise would’ve benefited the publisher. That’s not necessarily true. It’s quite possible that many purchasers of used titles may not have bought the game at all if a new copy at full price was the only option. I obviously can’t speak for all gamers, but the only titles I tend to buy used are ones that I’m not sure I’m going to like. If my only option was to buy such a title new at full price then I probably wouldn’t buy it. And, no, the $5 difference between a new and used copy of a popular title wouldn’t be enough to make me choose the used over the new. If there isn’t significant savings over a new copy there’s no point in buying it used. Are there gamers out there who always go with the cheapest copy? Probably, but is that the majority of used games sales? I would doubt it based on my experiences, though I can’t back that up with hard data.
The other assumption Jaffe makes is that the popularity of digital music is a reaction to used CD sales. At least that’s what he appears to be suggesting. I don’t know what planet he’s been on the last decade and a half, but as I recall the music industry had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the digital age. They started putting out digital downloads not because B&M music stores were making a killing on reselling old CDs, but because their customers pretty much decided they were going to get their music in digital form whether the industry liked it or not. And while it’s true that the popularity of digital music sales is growing all the time it still hasn’t surpassed the revenue made by physical media. It’s estimated that’ll finally happen next year in the U.S. and the rest of the world by 2016. The music industry is far from being digital distribution only so using them as an example for his argument is pretty silly. Is it possible that the games industry could go to distributing only via digital downloads in five years? Sure, it’s possible, but I’d be very surprised if it were to come to pass. After all the first legally authorized digital music providers hit the net back in 2001. If digital sales do surpass physical next year that’ll be almost nine years before it comes to pass, and even then it probably won’t mean the end of physical media for many more years.
So that’s what prompted me to dash off a reply. Here are the resulting tweets:
Les: @djaffe What you say is a possibility. If it comes to pass then I may stop being a game consumer.
Les: If enough others do the same then Devs still lose.
Jaffe: if the main reason you game is to own a cd, then you prob should stop gaming, yes?
Les: That’s a helluva assumption to make. There are select few games I’ve bought digital. Only things I know I’ll play continuously.
Les: Most games do not fall into that category, God of War was one of them. I played it once, it was great, I’ve not touched it since.
Les: Luckily, I can sell it. Can’t do that with digital so if that was only format it was in you’d be out a sale.
Jaffe: Ah well, c’est la vie. If not being able to sell games keeps you from playing, don’t let door hit u on way out….
I was quite surprised by that reply. Jaffe basically told me to fuck off, which seems an odd thing to do to your customers. Things went downhill from there:
Les: I’ll be sure to remember that when you announce your next title. Thanks for making my decision easier.
Jaffe: dont buy it- you’d just resell the fucker anyway.
Les: So you think getting no cash at all is better than some cash even if I resell it? It’s your own wrist you’re cutting there. Smart.
Jaffe: I think ur philosophy&unwillingness 2 Cthe bigger picture implies that all games- mine included- can fuck off. It is what it is.
Les: I see the big picture just fine. I see is a dev who wants to limit people’s freedom to resell stuff they no longer have a use for
Jaffe: then u do not see big pic. I am always customer first. Resell all u like, I support it. I am saying stores need to cut in pubs
Here Jaffe repeats something he’s said before. He claims that he’s not against customers reselling their games, but he also wants to either make GameStop cut him in on the action or he’ll try to drive them out of business by going all digital and thus eliminating not only one avenue for customers to resell their games, but the customer’s ability to actually do so altogether. How is that customer first? Answer: It’s not.
Les: For the record I should point out that I’ve never sold to Gamestop myself, but I have sold stuff I didn’t need anymore.
Les: [This is in response to his Customer FIrst claim] Except you just stated that you’d rather I fuck off than buy your game if I’m going to sell it. Contradict yourself much?
Jaffe: No I mean YOU should fuck off- not the concept. You simply seem like an asshole.
Les: Why, because I disagreed with you and had the audacity to say so? You don’t even know me. Great way to treat your customers.
Jaffe: No, not that u disagreed. The language you used and the attitude you used
I think this is a first for me. Being directly told to fuck off by a game designer that I actually admire. What I find funny about that is the fact that he’s the one that started in with the asshole-ish comments right from the beginning. I made two statements of a possible outcome of going all digital and his reply was antagonistic right from the start. Somehow that makes me the asshole?
For the record, yeah, I can be an asshole, but that wasn’t my intent in my original tweet. I suppose it takes an asshole to know an asshole, though, so I’ll take it as a compliment.
Les: What cracks em up is I’m a long-time fan of yours. Loved GoW and I even bought Calling all Cars. Still play it too.
Les: Language I used? I believe you were the first to start swearing. Wow, your hypocrisy is amazing.
Jaffe: I took your tone and attitude as rude, yes. If it was not meant to be, then I apologize. hard 2 tell at times on twitter.
Les: I think it’s pretty rude to try and blackmail retailers, which is essentially the argument you’re putting forth. Pay up, or else.
Les: Well, this has been very eye opening. I see you in a different light now. At least it’ll make for a good blog post.
Jaffe: I think it’s pretty rude to resell a game I worked on with 0% degradation between used and new and not cut me in on the deal.
Les: So what’s the difference between Gamestop and, say, eBay or a Garage Sale then? Who’s next for the mafia tactics?
It was at this point that Jaffe decided he’d had enough. Can’t blame him, he was taking it from more than just me during this time as several other folks were also on his ass about it. He tweeted that he was going to do a video blog about it, but appeared to have some trouble getting it to upload to YouTube as the video wouldn’t play and the post has since been removed.
Oddly enough a fellow by the name of Robin Clarke, who appears to be a video game writer of some sort, decided to take up the argument on Jaffe’s behalf at this point answering my last tweet directly:
Clarke: Scale, organisation and a biz model based on of aggressively diverting gamer $$$ from buying new to spending in their system.
Les: So because they’re successful at it they should be punished? WTF?
Clarke: Nobody’s saying that. Just that retail giving pubs a raw deal encourages pubs to cut retail out altogether.
Les: How is it a raw deal? How is it any different than a used car salesman selling a used car for close to retail if it’s not that old?
Clarke: Bad analogy.
Les: How is it a bad analogy? Because it refutes your argument or because one is a game and the other a car?
Clarke: Because they are businesses that work in incomparably different ways. Comparing one aspect in isolation is meaningless.
Les: Do they now? A used car dealer buys used cars and sells them at a profit. A used game dealer does the same. How is that different?
Clarke: Gamestop isn’t a “used game dealer” for one thing… Anyway, we’ll see who’s right one way or the other in five years.
I have to admit this last tweet made no sense to me. GameStop sells used games. That makes them a “used game dealer.” Yes, they also sell new games. Most used car dealers are part of a dealership that also sells new cars and, yes, I’ve had the used car dealer direct me away from buying a new car to one of their used ones. That’s how we ended up with the 2004 Honda Civic.
Les: So, in other words, lacking an effective argument you’re just going to pull the “wait and see” approach. OK, I’m good with that.
Clarke: No, but I can see that you’re convinced that you know better than ppl who’ve worked in games for years, so stepping back. gg
Les: Ah, argument from authority fallacy. That’s an oldie but a goodie. In short, I don’t agree with you and you know better.
Clarke: I don’t presume to, but I’m assuming DJaffe has better data on how well the publisher/retailer relationship is working out.
Les: Perhaps he does, if so he hasn’t shared it, and it’s very presumptuous to assume I have no knowledge of the situation.
And that’s how I managed to piss off two game developers in one evening.
So you may be wondering just what my point is with all of this nonsense. It’s simple really: Video games are subject to the same First-sale doctrine as music, books, and movies. As such I fail to see what it is about a video game that makes it special compared to other forms of media and/or merchandise that can be legally resold as used. Jaffe apparently agrees with me on that point as he claims he’s all for people being able to resell the games they’ve bought, though it appears you should fuck off if you’re just going to resell one of his (or at least I should).
Where we disagree is over whether or not anyone should be able to make a profit in the resale process, which is essentially what GameStop is doing by using the old adage of buy low and sell high. I don’t see what GameStop is doing as being any different than car dealerships selling used cars or used book stores selling used books. The issue Jaffe and other publishers seem to have is that GameStop is making a decent chunk of their revenue from the practice and, quite honestly, it’s got them feeling a little greedy.
The folks over at Gamasutra did three articles on GameStop back in April of this year which attempt to shed some light on just how much the company is making from new versus used game sales. The first looks at GameStop’s revenue and gross profits, the second new and used software sales and the last how much of the market they control. All three are worth a read.
There is no doubt that GameStop is a force to be reckoned with in retail video game sales. As of fiscal year ending 31 January 2009 they had global revenues of $8.8 billion of which $2.3 billion was gross profit. The perception in the game industry seems to be that most of that can be attributed to their used game sales which GameStop aggressively promotes to its customers.
According to the Gamasutra articles it breaks down like this:
Depending on the year, used product accounts for somewhere between 41 and 46 percent of GameStop’s gross profit. In the last fiscal year, gross profit on used product almost reached $1 billion for the first time in the company’s history. (The exact figure was $974.5 million, or 42.9% of the company’s total gross profit.)
The next largest segment of GameStop’s gross profit comes from new software sales, which totaled $768 million in the fiscal year ending 31 January 2009, up from $582 million in the previous year. Gross profit on new software was 33.8 percent of the company’s total gross profit.
Because margins on hardware are razor-thin, the gross profit in that segment is tiny in comparison to the software segments. The gross profit on new hardware was only $113 million in the last fiscal year, or 5 percent of total gross profit.
This shouldn’t be at all surprising. Used products (GameStop lumps software/hardware/everything used in one category) have a much higher profit margin than new for a retailer. The average wholesale price for a new game is just $6 to $10 less than the retail price and hardware is even worse. Used games can have as much as a 50% markup if they are particularly popular or rare. Is it any surprise that GameStop would encourage folks to buy their used games? It’s pretty difficult to make a profit on sales of new games alone as is evidenced by this 2007 Kotaku article about an online retailer dropping game sales because the industry is, in their words, “dumb and greedy”:
Online retailer DVD Empire has announced that they’re getting out of the video game retail business, citing an inability to make a profit selling games under the current business model. In their explanation to current customers, they outline seven reasons why current business practices make it, in their words, “impossible for us to make money selling video games.”
The reasons? High wholesale prices on software—“they set the retail price at just $5 above the product cost (buy it for $54.99, sell it for $59.99)”—and hardware—“take a $400 console; we only make $5 on the sale—that is a .01% gross margin.”
Worst of all? Lack of price protection and rampant price drops on bad or stagnant titles.
The game industry releases many bad games, and word of mouth spreads fast to the consumer. All of those bunk games sit on our shelves. If we do end up selling them, we lose more money, due to the lack of price protection. They won’t let us return the bombs. Of course, if the video game industry produced quality games, we wouldn’t have this issue.
The only good news here is that DVD Empire is clearing out its entire video game stock at 20% off. Enjoy, cheapasses. Michael McWhertor
The fact remains that over the past several years 37% to 42% of GameStop’s revenue comes from sales of new software whereas the used market accounts for 22% to 28%. Yes, they make a good chunk of their profit from used products (41% to 46% versus 33.8% on new software), but that shouldn’t be a reason to threaten to drive them out of business unless they pay protection money. Especially when they’re not doing anything wrong.
OK, I’ve wasted enough electrons and time banging this out. I did it more because of my bemusement at being told to fuck off than anything else, but it was also a good excuse to write up my thoughts on the issue.
Game developers are falling into the trap that the movie industry and the music industry has fallen into: Throw more money at it and you get a better product. If that doesn’t work, throw more money into marketing so that you tell people it’s a good product, as if they’re having trouble figuring it out on their own.
I don’t know why anyone thinks that’s true when it is proved wrong over and over, but like I said: Make a good game, I might buy it, and I won’t resell it. Problem solved. Why is that such a hard concept for people to understand?
That the video game industry will suffer has no relevance to the question of whether or not this practice is sound. That additional parts will be purchased from a given car company or that video games suffer less wear than cars and can thus be sold at close to their original quality are quite nice red herrings but they say little to hurt the comparison. Cars are much larger and more expensive products than video games and require much more consideration than buying the latter. They are also quite a good deal more important to your daily needs, I might add. The central issue in this discussion is whether or not it is acceptable that someone sell their car or their video game to someone else and that they re-sell it without owing the original developer anything; the answer is yes, in both cases, as Les originally pointed out, and all other questions are secondary and the smoke screens and ad hominems of the greedy do not change this.
The developer is the one asking for something for free; he has already sold the game, he no longer owns it or has anything to do with it. If he wants charity for his good efforts, let him show up to Gamestop with a paper cup and a soiled jacket and let him beg for it as a good charity case ought to. He might be able to get some good whiskey for it.
It is however nice to see that we both consider the word “Republican” to be a pejorative. This conversation has been gratifying for that, if for no other reason.
A few things I feel Les and others are missing on this issue.
First, game developers are only asking the huge companies to give publishers a cut, they are not in anyway trying to infringe on the rights of an individual gamer to make a sale to another gamer. This means they basically have one target, Gamestop. This is because Gamestop is large enough and popular enough to seriously effect the game industry. You go into Gamestop 3 or 4 days after a game is released and they probably have it used (for which they paid half or less of the retail value, in store credit!). You ask for a new copy and what will they say? “Hey, you can get it used for $5 less and it has a 7 day gameplay guarantee” At this point a surprising number of people will shrug and say “Ok, ill get the used copy”
This means that Gamestop is able to actively take sales away from game developers on a large scale. The customer went in there to purchase a new game, and walked out with used. It isn’t even good for the consumers, you saved $5 so you could enrich a horrible company with horrible pay, policies, and business practices while not giving the makers of the item anything. This is also why something like eBay or other person to person transactions are not a problem. If someone knows they want a used copy because it is cheaper or whatever then they were never a New Game sale anyway. People do not go onto eBay to get a new game and then get “sold” into a used game.
The used car argument is easy, most people have to have a car. If someone sells one car, especially this years model, it is probably because they are getting a new car, say next years model. The new car helps the car company, the used car the car lot. Additionally, an overwhelming majority of car lots are contracted with the car companies, so the profit and success they make off used cars is helpful to the car companies, rather than being a detriment like in games.
Finally, games are heading all digital in the future, with piracy, used sales, the problems associated with new game retail sales (low profit for retailers) the only way for games to go is all digital. I will not be surprised if some of the next wave of consoles have a very strong digital distro component, or even do away with media completely. One idea I have heard about is to have every game be on a digital marketplace for download, but then to put a kiosk in every game retailer as well. The console would come with a portable storage device large enough to hold any game. People with fast internet could buy the game from home. People without it could go buy the game at the store, load it to their storage device, and then install it to the console. This system completely removes media, solves used game sales, and does not exclude people without fast internet. Expect something like that soon, probably within 5 – 10 years. We are already seeing the groundwork with full game downloads on both PS3 and 360, more is coming.
I am sure a few customers will be lost with the move to digital distribution, but far more will be gained by eliminating used sales, piracy, etc.
All Jaffe is saying is that if Gamestop starts working with the game devs and publishers now it will work out better for them later. If Gamestop plays hard ball now, then sooner rather than later the game devs will have the upper hand and they are less likely to work with Gamestop if Gamestop never worked with them.
Excuse me? The dev/pubs have no legal right to ask for a cut, Jaffe at least frames it as “cut us in or we’ll move to a distribution model that will drive you out of business”—a distribution model that technically doesn’t infringe on a consumer’s right to resell a game, but makes it impossible to exercise.
As for the rest: tl;dr.
I got no problem with them asking. They can ASK whatever they want. They can ask stores like Gamestop to give them 100% of the sale of their used games. I’m all for it.
If they EXPECT anyone to agree or if they feel it is their right to have any of that money, then they’re wrong.
Stupid Evil ASSHOLE SRSLY YOU’RE A FUCKING FAT FUCK, AND I HOPE U CHOKE ON UR OWN FAT BITCH. IVE TALKED TO JAFFE BEFORE AND HES A NICE GUY, BUT UR A CUT AND JUST THREW ROCKS AT HIM…
EVEN IF HES A GAME DEV HES STILL A HUMAN BEING AND AS ONE I GUESS HE WONT TOLERATE PPL BEING TROLLS.
Well, THAT’s sure going to change a lot of minds.
Did you go to a special school to learn that or did it just come naturally?
And if they ask and Gamestop ignores them, then in 5 years when Gamestop is asking them for help, they might repay them in kind by ignoring them. That is all Jaffe is saying.
No. What he was saying is that Gamestop should give developers a cut of their resale profits, and if they didn’t he hinted that he and the other developers could run them out of business.
I don’t really give a ticks butt hair how this turns out. Jaffe is free to try to make whatever deal he wants to with the resellers, or go digital if they won’t deal. I don’t give a crap.
But don’t tell me that Jaffe was just innocently commenting on the state of affairs. He was ticked that he wasn’t getting any money from the reseller, he was suggesting that maybe he was entitled to it, and hinting that maybe he could intimidate the resellers (or at least Gamestop) into cutting them in on the deal.
He my not BE a thug, but he sure acted like one.
You make it sound all thuggish, but all he is really doing is saying: “Hey Gamestop, the industry is going digital, and you guys are a game media seller, so if you don’t help us now and spread the money then later we will not help you”.
It is not a threat, it is a fact of the world. When everything is digital Gamestop is going to be in a fix, and they are going to need developers to work with them to remain in business. If they do nothing but hurt and ignore developers then chances are those same people are not going to want to help them in a few years.
Plus, devs are not asking for huge amounts of money for used sales, I am sure most devs would be excited for 10% of even less of the profit made on a used game. $3-5 per sale doesn’t seem like it will really hurt Gamestop, considering they make $30+ on most used games.
Bottom line is, Gamestop can be greedy today and gone tomorrow. Or they can work with devs now and live on into the future.
How would you feel if some business told you they needed 10% of your take home pay to keep their industry going? You know, instead of doing business differently on their end and making up that 10% by telling people like Jaffe to clean out their cubicles and start flipping burgers? I’ve got a client that works in programming, and while he retains an office in the US the majority of his temp employees are in Eastern Europe. Instant cost savings.
Well if your sure, then what we worried about. As for what Jaffe meant, he’s made it abundantly clear that he thinks the devs deserve the money. Most of the gamers that have sounded off on the topic don’t. I don’t. That is pretty much the end of the story as far as I’m concerned.
I don’t see Gamestop as the greedy ones. It’s not greedy to HAVE money or to MAKE money…. even a lot of money, only to want more.
Excuse me, but exactly how does he propose to help Gamestop if the industry had gone DD? Share the profits with them?
Of course it’s a threat. Cut us in or we’ll put you out of business sooner rather than later.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but in a DD-only world Gamestop has no business left.
I’m sure they would be excited to get 10% they have no legal right to. And you have three guesses who would foot the bill for these 10%.
Funny, I was about to say the same thing about developers and publishers. Greed and products that consumers want to hang on to for days only are not a viable long-term strategy.
Jaffe has a point, you know. I don’t care about the big picture or the little picture or any size picture for that matter.
They make you something, you buy it. You deem you no longer want it, so then companies like GameStop and the like buy it off you for basically nothing and sell it on for a couple of quid less than full retail price. Consumers walk in, buy the cheaper version, and Gamestop just made a tonne of profit that the developers will never see.
I only buy new games because of the fact that I can’t stand the fact that developers and publishers are losing millions of pounds every year thanks to the used game industry. From their point of view, remember, you don’t actually pay them for their work if you buy used. You pay Gamestop, or GAME, or whoever you bought it off of.
What people seem to be missing…
- Cars are designed in a couple of months, then manufactured at large by machines.
- Music is recorded in a matter of weeks following a little time to write said music, then sold at large in stores and on iTunes (and the like).
- Films are planned for a year, then filmed for a year before letting the cinemas and DVD production take over.
- Videogames are developed over the course of three to five years and sometimes even longer. A group of people (usually around 60) spend three to five years carefully creating something.
You can’t tell the difference between those? The effort involved in videogames far outshines the effort involved in other forms of media (and cars). So I’d like to think developers like Jaffe have a right to demand a bit more consideration since there are companies and people out there selling their games that just took up the last three to five years of their life and the developers don’t even get a “kiss my arse” for it.
But hey, nobody cares about that, right?
So why would anyone care about the rest of your post?
From where I’m sitting, the devs aren’t putting a lot of effort into their games. Money? Sure, but effort?
Look… It’s real simple. You’re not guaranteed a profit. You’re not guaranteed the ability to stay in business just because you want to sell something. The sympathy I have for the people that will be put out of work if a game company goes under is far outweighed by the contempt I feel for the idiot who ran the company into the ground because he couldn’t make a quality product. In my book, he’s the one responsible for putting those employees out on the street, not Gamestop for grabbing up the games that people sell because they consider them useless.
As I’ve said before; You want my support, make games people don’t want to sell after a few weeks. Make games that are worth the $30-$50 the distros are charging for them. Then we can talk about what Gamestop may or may not be doing to the industry.
They need to stop using the Microsoft playbook and think “What do my customers want?” instead of “What can we get our customers to buy?”
That’s the kind of ignorant attitude that gets developers and publishers so annoyed, you know. I would say that you should read my post and come up with counter arguments. But I’d assume, from your ignorance and frankly lame response, that you can’t actually think of any counter argument and that you’re merely trying to divert attention.
Nice try, though. Maybe next time you’ll learn to care more about the person and their motivation than how the subject affects your wallet.
My previous comment was aimed at the guy with the nonsensical jibberish for a username, by the way, not you Swordsbane – who I’m about to reply to now.
The problem is, your “solution” doesn’t work. There are half a million people every month who consider games like WiiFit and the latest Madden game worth $30-$50 and guess what? The developers of that thing haven’t used any effort whatsoever in its development in comparison to the likes of the Resident Evil games, or the Final Fantasy games or the Devil May Cry games.
So the developers who make great games, the games well worth the asking price, are getting shafted by used game sales because people are buying the same game for $28 instead of $30. That two dollars is a big difference for the developers and publishers because it means the difference between pay and no pay.
Except that’s what this is all about, isn’t it: my wallet. I’m a customer. I buy a $30 game. If it’s crap, or I lose interest in playing it, I sell it.
THAT’s the problem. What Gamestop does with it after they (or another reseller) gets hold of it is incidental to the actual issue: That gamers don’t hold onto their games.
You want to talk about that, I’m all ears. You want to reiterate that Gamestop is ruining the gaming industry, then the burden of proof is on you, and so far the only thing I’ve heard is that Gamestop is making a lot of money, game designers are struggling, so Gamestop should give the designers money…. and that’s a load of crap. That doesn’t require ‘evidence’ for me to say that it’s a load of crap because it doesn’t make any kind of logical sense.
That’s not the point of the discussion, however. The point is the effect used games sales have on developers, publishers and ultimately the consumers.
It’s obvious that you either don’t understand or don’t care about the concept that when someone puts effort into something, they feel they deserve payment of somekind in return. But that’s the point and it stands. I’d hate to spend five years of my life making something, only to find out that someone else is basically conning me out of money I feel I deserve by selling a preowned copy of it for a couple of pounds less than the full retail price.
If you buy a game for $30 and don’t like it, it’s your fault for being stupid enough to buy a game that you didn’t like. There are enough media outlets these days to enable you to find out whether a game is your kind of thing before you drop the cash for it and there’s even the choice to rent a game if you don’t like it. That doesn’t mean you can basically give the game away to a store and let them sell it to someone else who’ll enjoy it, effectively robbing the developers of the game from a sale.
The point is… You’re the kind of person that keeps a game for a month or so before getting rid of it? Then use Gamefly. That way you can’t complain if the game isn’t what you thought it would be (something that isn’t the developer’s fault at all I should add), you don’t need to buy and sell anything since you can just send the game back when you’re finished with it, Gamestop don’t get to con both consumer and developer by buying low and selling high and cutting the developers out of the loop entirely AND the developers still get their pay. If those weren’t enough benefits, it’s also A LOT cheaper than buying the games individually. See? Everyone wins.
Maybe buying games should be reserved for people who actually keep them, I dunno.
That’s funny. You start out by clearly stating that you don’t care about the issues, so to repeat: Why would I care about the rest of your post?
As far as the first sale doctrine is concerned, it doesn’t matter how much time, effort, and money was sunk in bringing a product to market. The only thing that matters is that games don’t hold the consumer’s interest long enough to prevent resales from competing with new stock.
The answer? Build a better product or change jobs.
Your point makes no sense. Make a better game? That’s your answer? To simply make a better game. And what would that accomplish, exactly? They make better games, Gamestop still sells preowned versions for slightly less than the retail price and nobody is any better off than they were in the first place.
In fact, you’re effectively giving out the exact opposite message. Instead of putting more effort into making a better game, according to you, developers should put less effort and money into making a WORSE game. Why? Because Gamestop are still going to sell preowned versions cheaper anyway.
So I reiterate my closing point…
If you don’t keep your games, as I’ve noticed neither of the two people I’ve conversed with do, then don’t bother buying any more games and just sign up to Gamefly or something since you’re only going to sell whatever you DO buy onto Gamestop eventually anyway. Don’t blame the developers for not making a good enough game when even the best games released each year are sold and resold at a remarkable rate. It’s evidently not a fault of the developers.
No it’s not. The effect used game sales have on developers is irrelevant unless you can link it with something unreasonable that the resellers are doing. Gamers sell their games, and that has nothing to do with Gamestop or any other reseller. Address that issue.
That’s what initial sales are for. If you make a product and sell it, you are entitled to the money from the sale. If the person you sold it to then turns around and sells it to someone else, then you aren’t entitled to that money unless you can prove you deserve it. You’re telling me they deserve it using nothing more than the fact that they created it. If your argument works, then it will work for cars, for houses, for paintings, for books, for anything that someone creates and then sells. And if you can make an argument for getting money from Gamestop when they sell the game, then the same argument applies if you want to come after me when I sell it to Gamestop, and that’s a load of crap too.
No. I’m the kind of guy who doesn’t usually buy games because they’re crap. When I do buy a game, I plan to keep it, but half the games I buy that all the media hype has convinced me I’m going to like have some problem with them that the media didn’t warn me about… some feature that irritates me, or the game doesn’t work on my system or has an endless patch and play scheme I didn’t know about… so I sell it. A lot of other people out there aren’t as picky as me and are looking for the game, so they pick up the game from a reseller for a slightly cheaper price. You think the developers should be REWARDED for that?
Maybe making games should be reserved for those that know how?
I don’t care how professional game developers get compensated. If they draw a fixed salary, then they already receive all the payment they deserve. If they have some kind of profit-sharing arrangement with the publishers, then they have to accept the risk that these profits may not materialize for whatever reasons.
By the way, the games that have held my interest in the last ten years are open-source games (you know, the kind that’s free as in beer) and these newfangled flash thingies.
You’re not licensed to make copies, nor to show this DVD in a theater.
Ditto.
Next time i buy a DVD in Sri Lanka i’ll remember this screen.
According to actual copyright law, there’s nothing wrong with showing the DVD to a neighbor, there is something wrong with having the neighborhood over to watch the DVD.
But seriously, try enforcing it next time i have a backyard viewing party of Condorman.
They make better games and gamers might hang onto them until the designers have moved onto a new game before selling it. Who knows… they might hold onto it forever. That is the definition of a good product: One that customers WANT.
Yes, that’s my answer. I’ll even tell you again what it would accomplish: deprive Gamestop of games to resell.
How is it a developer’s fault if you’re a picky or generally uninformed consumer? You mentioned “some feature that irritates [you], or the game doesn’t work on [your] system or has an endless patch and play scheme [you] didn’t know about”. All of those point to an uninformed and/or needlessly picky consumer to me.
Swordsbane, can I ask why you’re even discussing this if you think games are crap? It’s obviously not concerning you since you’re not a gamer, which is pretty evident given your remarkable lack of empathy for the developers, your remarkable lack of interest in the vast difference of effort put into games compared to cars and the generally feel that you’re only arguing for the sake of defending the guy who made the blog post in the first place. Why else would you basically ask if a developer deserves to be paid for making a game? Or ask me to address pointless issues like “it doesn’t adversely affect the developer”? I’d be hardpressed to believe you even play videogames or even pay any attention to the industry by the things you’re coming out with.
Seriously, services like Gamesfly were MADE for people like you. You should just sign up to that and not bother buying games any more, since at least then developers get paid for their work.
I’ll wait until you’ve caught up to the current posts before responding to that asinine, insulting, irrelevant remark…
No I won’t. I’ll state what should be obvious: I’m discussing this BECAUSE games are crap. I’d love to buy games that aren’t crap. If the developers would make games that aren’t crap, I will give them my money. Everyone wins. Got it?
And how is it MY FAULT that I want my games to work, to be reliable, to be as advertised and to hold my attention for longer than a few months?
You do realise that the pair of you have just proven how uninformed and unqualified you are for this discussion, right? There’s not even much point in carrying this on when both of your arguments boil down to the same thing – just to make better games. But I’ll humour you one last time before I go to bed. You managed to keep me up ‘til gone 4am, so there’s an achievement in itself.
As an example, how could Resident Evil 4/Halo 3 have been made better games? Both had glowing reviews to the point where they were considered the best games of their generations by many, everyone basically loved them, yet any trip to your local store would yield plenty of preowned copies (sometimes moreso than other games). Batman Arkham Asylum only came out on Friday over here yet there are plenty of preowned copies floating about already. Is there anything explicitly wrong with the game? Not from the reviews and definitely not from the gaming populace.
In the end, neither of you are helping anyone. You simply blame the developers, saying they’re not making good enough games, and leave it at that. Then, to appease people such as yourselves, we have the DLC model that has been a parasite upon gamers ever since its introduction – the model that has developers withholding elements of their games so they can sell them to us later on at a premium to lengthen the play experience and discourage reselling.
Either way, the real gamers lose. Not that you’d care, since you can always go back to your freeware.
*yawn*
The real gamers can go fuck the true scotsmen while they’re at it.
Wintrale. Now you’re not even reading my comments. I’m reasonably certain I’m using English. If I’m not, please let me know.
Otherwise, please confine the responses you direct at me to things I actually said.
Okay, final remark on the matter.
You said, “And how is it MY FAULT that I want my games to work, to be reliable, to be as advertised and to hold my attention for longer than a few months?”.
My response…
And how is it the developer’s fault that you don’t check for system compatibility, that you’re obviously doing something wrong if you can’t get a PS3 game working reliably in a PS3, that you expect adverts to do more than entice purchases and that you obviously expect games to last you months when most gamers are happy with their games lasting a week or two?
The point is. You’re pointing the finger in the wrong direction. Games are more than good enough. Evidently, the only thing that isn’t good enough is the desire for people such as yourself to do a bit of research before you put cash down for a purchase. All your problems are easily solved with a little application of grey matter.
Sadly, however, developers can’t solve their problems so easily. It won’t matter how well they make games, since quality isn’t the only factor involved in people selling their games to stores and Gamestop will always sell the used copies for slightly less than the full retail price. Maximum profit, minimal effort.
And now, I bid you goodnight. Have a good one.
That neatly avoids answering my question, and then asks me questions about things I didn’t say… again.
I said “media” not adverts. I said “working” not “compatible” and if most gamers are happy with their games lasting a week or two (something I emphatically disagree with), then most gamers are idiots.
Not even close.
Actually, have you seen the amount of development cars go through from concept to production? How many thousands of parts need to be designed? Physically assembled? And even when they’re assembled by machines (how do you think a DVD is pressed?) There’ve been dozens upon dozens of engineers working on that car for years.
Nevermind the years of blood sweat and tears learning how to play/sing, managing to catch a break, and the personal nature of the art they’re creating (I’m selling a song about the time i lost the one that got away, you’re programming an ORC to swing a hammer) [And by the way, aren’t games sold in stores and (more and more) DD? isn’t that the same as itunes?) If it were so easy, there’d be a shit ton more rock stars than there are.
Actually, many films go through years of development (if you have a writer-director on a passion project it’s not unheard of for them to work on it for three years before filming) There are 150-300 people that work on a film (more if it’s FX heavy) Try watching the credits after the next movie you see. I’m sorry that you don’t consider the work these people do as godlike as you do the game programmers (who aren’t going to see a dime of any of this money you’re trying to get out of Gamestop).
Granted, several titles take a lot of work, but even you admit that many don’t. Frankly, i find 20 yr old games much more enjoyable than these behemoths that you’re touting as the “norm”
Of course there are differences between the media, but they’re all creative mediums. If they want to make a “quicker, easier buck” then maybe they should make movies or write books. I frankly disregard your thesis that “The effort involved in videogames far outshines the effort involved in other forms of media” That’s just utter bullshit.
I think it’s pretty sad and laughable when someone cries about someone else’s business model and asks for a cut. It’s especially pathetic to see so many people defending Jaffe. I would of thought the used market benefits him as Les said, buying that game you are unsure of is less risky knowing you can always sell or trade it if you don’t like it. Not all of us have an unlimited account to purchase games from that would be required in Jaffe’s world.
But if Jaffe would prefer that I spend less money on games and be more picky, sure I can do that. For starters I will stop buying his games…
Why should I even continue to read your nonsense when your very first statement is so off-the-fucking wall wrong? Developing a car takes years, used to take a decade in the 80s and early 90s, in fact (I believe they now have the dev cycle down to more like half a decade) and is literally billions of dollars of investment into R&D and setting up production lines. Plus, it involves huge amounts of manpower even today.
Yeah, I actually DID stop reading your comments after that example. You are just making shit up to suit your argument.
Wow, so many inane comments, so little time.
1) Devs (or actually, their companies) make money on EVERY used game already—the first time it was sold!
It doesn’t matter how many used copies are sold—every single copy of every single game sold was sold new. The Devs got paid for their work. If they couldn’t figure out how to make a compelling game, price it right and keep people engaged, then boo-friggin-hoo.
2) People have the right to sell their own possessions (e.g., a game) to whomever they wish: a friend, a stranger, or even a company like Gamestop.
3) Devs DO NOT have the right to “get a cut” of any sale beyond the first. If I sell GoW 2 to my bud, the Dev can go pound sand if s/he thinks there will be money sent their way. Just because the entity selling the game is a company makes no difference, sorry.
4) As has been stated previously, if Devs want more money, they have three basic choices to encourage more people to purchase their games new:
a) by lowering the price,
b) by making more, better games that people will WANT to buy as soon as it is released, or
c) by locking customers into a DD/online account required/rootkit installed ‘solution’ that prevents used sales.
(Note for the logic-impaired: c) is the “FAIL” option)
5) Yes, the Devs are human, have families to feed, work hard, yadda yadda. So what? My Sis busted her ass for 4 years to bring a story to the silver screen (which did quite well), and 2 years later it was selling in the Walmart 3 for $5 bin. That’s called life. Boo hoo.
6) Jaffe sounds like an out-of-touch whining ass who is sad that someone else is making bank on his failure. Yet, he can’t be bothered to do something about it, except mumble something about digital downloads, blah blah. Please tell me how Devs will ‘help out Gamestop later’ when everything goes DD if GS gives them $$$ now? I’m not going to hold my breath.
xxxooo
By the way, the reason why it is important to spell and punctuate correctly (not to mention use proper grammar) is so that others will take one seriously. If one cannot tell the difference between you’re and your, there and they’re, or u and you, then why bother reading the comment—the logic will probably be equally abominable.
So … any chance of an inFamous review one of these days Les?
You know, if the ‘car analogy’ is a bad one. How about the film industry?
You buy your DVD, watch it a good few times and now in the UK you can trade it in to Blockbuster Video or CeX. Rare occasions you’re paid cash, usually people are trading it in against the cost of a new video.
Doesn’t sound too different to computer games there, to me at least, and yet the Movie industry isn’t onto their ass about it (to my knowledge).
There also appears to be a few aspects totally forgotten about here.
Basically, it sounds like, the games industry is struggling for cash so they’re trying to find ways of gleaming it from everyone and milking the game after it’s had it’s ‘half life’.
Also, usually when a person trades in a game, they buy a new game with the ‘trade in’ credit they get.
Plus I’m assuming the computer games company’s business model is set up for the INITIAL sale of the game for projected earnings, not, as I say, the earnings from the half-life of the game.
It’s basically going “Okay guys, we’ve predicted we’ll sell 3 million copies, and with that we’ll break even with profit….” … “but if we manage to cash in on these trade-ins we will make even MORE profit” … “if we stick to digital distribution we’ll only make profit from our initial sale”
They also need to realise that a re-sale in second hand terms may be going to someone who
1. could never afford the initial release, ever
2. wanted it to drop in price to check the reputability of the firm, and so may BUY the next game brand new.
The only question I have is this:
How is Gamestop’s business model, which derives a significant portion of its revenue and a majority of its profits from used stock, sustainable in the long term?
Used games are fine. A used game sales system that retailers are massively disproportionately incentivised to exploit might not be in the best interest of consumers or the health of the industry. Those used game sales might not represent lost new game sales directly (as you say), but they do mean that the shelf space and pool of disposable income that new games must fight over gets ever smaller as retailers stock fewer (and safer) titles. Publishers are driven to increasingly obscure lengths to try to ameliorate this: online activation, first-sale bonus content, pushing standard features into paid DLC, increasingly ludicrous “collector’s edition” packages of feelies, and ultimately moving all but the most mainstream titles to purely mail order and digital distribution.
Now, I would say that publishers should share some of the blame for getting into this mess (while I disagree that the used car analogy is applicable, the car manufacturers have clearly done a far better job of managing prices and ensuring used sales don’t cannibalise new), but really I just want to get across the fact that it *is* a problem, and the market isn’t necessarily going to right itself. Stores that look like flea markets and games being packaged with several kilos of plastic novelties are not the signs of a distribution channel in rude health.
(And to reiterate what was already covered in the video) Jaffe isn’t threatening anyone or earnestly asking for a cut (although this isn’t that crazy an idea – I assume game/video rental places do something of this nature, and the music biz has even crazier rackets regarding performance rights), he’s pointing out that the current situation isn’t sustainable, and makes it harder to make games that don’t conform to a very narrow commercial pattern (i.e. megahits that sell a lot of copies at full price within a few days of launch).
Anyway, I hope that’s made it clearer. It’s hard to debate a complex, multifaceted issue via twitter without being blunt.
SillyBod, I agree with all of what you say, but this:
I’m not convinced that DD is an automatic FAIL. If implemented in this fashion, then yes. But keep in mind that Steam is still running strong after many years of being around and a system like it keeps rootkits and DRM from being necessary. That’s not to say that asshats like Jaffe will not push for DRM and such, they prolly will, but if done right we could have a very useful DD system for gaming.
It’s funny, reading through this the thing gnawing at the back of my mind is. Where are these Gamestops that get on you about buying used copies over new ones? Every time I’ve bought new games at a Gamestop… I’ve never had that experience.
In fact, the amusing thing is when I brought up bringing in some of my old games to sell back to Gamestop the guys at the counter actually recommended AGAINST selling them my games. They said I should sell it on my own and I’d get more money out of it. Maybe Gamestop employees are just more honest out in Washington State… hmmn…
Either way, that stuff about developers needing a cut of used sales is stupid. They’re developing a physical product to be sold. Once it’s sold there’s no reason why someone shouldn’t be able to turn around and resell their legally purchased game. If places like Gamestop has worked out ways to profit over that, then so be it.
I don’t see how turning to digital distribution will really every be a viable solution for game developers either. Some people may be alright with just having a downloaded copy of something… but for MOST consumers I’d say owning a physical product is very important.
It’s the same reason why you’ll often find people who download something digitally for free and it motivates them to go out and purchase a physical version of the product. There’s been more than a few albums that I’ve purchased in that way… first downloading and then ordering a real copy of it when I had the money to do so. Nothing beats holding a fresh copy of a new possession in one’s hands!
@Z:
That screen happens to be from that region, but the same screen appears on european copies. The copyright law is international, and no you are NOT allowed to show it to your neighbour. If your neighboor wants to see it, legally, he will have to buy it. It’s very much related to the whole download thing. You are NOT allowed to share the footage you have in any way, not on the internet and not to your neighbour, because sharing Games, Programs, Movies or whatever is ILLEGAL.
http://www.mpaa.org/Public_Performance.asp
Suck it:
The Federal Copyright Act (Title 17 of the U.S. Code) governs how copyrighted materials, such as movies, may be used. Neither the rental nor the purchase of a movie carries with it the right to show the movie outside the home.
Aside from that, as said before, you haven’t even damaged my argument.
Used game sales damage the income and profits of game-developers and publishers significantly. I still agree with them when they ask Gamestop and other resellers for a cut of their profits on used game sales.
My only disagreement with you from reading the twitter replies is that technically you cursed first in response to him brushing off by him saying “Ah well, c’est la vie. If not being able to sell games keeps you from playing, don’t let door hit u on way out….”
He didn’t curse at you and you provoked him to curse by saying he told you to fuck off essentially.
Beyond that their argument is pretty silly. There is no way they can get a profit off used games because other industries deal with the same and very few see a dime off a resell.
@Jack:
In the link you give as evidence, not even the MPAA is willing to call a guest watching a DVD while visiting your home as a violation of U.S. copyright law. I’m sure they have wet dreams about thought-control chips that automatically collect a fee for such a viewing.
So what? They don’t have a legal or moral right to do business without competition, even and particularly if that that competition is the resale market of their own products.
Agree all you want, Jaffe is still wrong.
@Sonvar: The letting the door hit you remark was from Jaffe, not Les. Throughout this whole exchange, Jaffe is the blowhard potty-mouth, while Les was courteous.
@Webs:
If it’s DRM-free, significantly cheaper than physical copies, and doesn’t cost an arm and a leg in ISP fees, fine. If resales in general are such a threat to the viability of the publishers current business strategy, then I don’t see how DD-only can help them unless they charge a fraction of the current MSRP.
I like GOG: DRM-free downloads of old games, priced at $5 to $10 per game. I bought a few, have played only one of them occasionally, but at this price I don’t care if it’s a turkey or not. As far as DD-only is concerned, DRM is a deal breaker for me and the price has to reflect the inability to resell a game—in other words, a DD-only game can’t cost more than the current price difference between MSRP and expected resale value.
@elwedriddsche
Yes but Jaffe didn’t curse in that line which is my point. Les took it as a fuck off which yes I agree it was but he did not use those words. Jaffe didn’t curse until Les said he told him to fuck off.
Jack:
Sharing it with your neighbor isn’t really a violation of that law. That thing you linked to even mentioned that at the start. It’s more concerned with you playing it to large gatherings of people outside the home (like a movie club or some other gathering).
If it’s illegal to loan movies to other people, then what’s going on with all those movies on the rack at your local public library, eh?
Sounds like the game industry needs to realize that if they can’t beat them, then join them.
Why don’t game companies provide a competitive buy back and resell program for their games?
I buy a game for $50, Gamestop will buy it off of me for $12, why not ship the game with a return envelope located inside the packaging with a guaranteed buy-back amount (which you can check online for the current value), OR, add a 50% bonus, or even double the amount, if the customer wants credit toward a new game from the SAME company. $18-24 toward a future release. Customer loyalty rewarded.
Then, start reselling these used copies either online or find a new method of resell.
Oh, but wait.. game companies don’t have the capital and store front to handle this kind of thing… So, BAND TOGETHER and work something out. Other industries manage to do it. Or, work with these ‘hated’ stores to resell your games.
EVGA has a trade-in program for video cards (a reason why many people will only buy EVGA). You buy a car, you can trade it in for another used car or a new car (often at a new car lot, where they then resell that used car for huge profits).
If the game industry doesn’t like how things are, rethink and come at it from your competitions angle.
Of course, whining has always been easier than innovation.
- Matt