Silicon Knights "Second-hand games 'threaten the industry'"

[KingOfSentinels]

Originally Posted by darren316

then the same logic should apply to EVERYTHING you sell or buy second hand. cars, books, dvds, clothes, toys etc etc etc ?? have fun enforcing that at the local carboot sale .. you cant have a rule for one and not for all

Actually, you can. If they could enforce it, don't you think they would?

You can't have DVD players or clothes which require a pass to access certain parts of it, and you can't download infinite versions of a car. Stuff like the Kindle, where you download the book, is basically book's digital distribution, and in years and years time maybe we'll all be reading on tablets and Kindles. Same with movies; you can download movies now, but it's not the same since they earn more money with the cinema than DVD if it's good. It's exactly the same. Gaming is just more vocal about the problem, we're not as faceless as other industries, and our Industry can fix it a lot easier too, and so that's why it happens.

And shit, yeah, DD is the embodiment of evil, Satan himself condones it. DOWN WITH DIGITAL!!

Originally Posted by Einhander

This is being done out of sheer arrogance and greed on the belief that the gaming industry is more special than any other industry and because of the myth that used games "destroy" the industry because the developers don't get paid over and over and over again.

Give control over to publishers for pricing everything, with no control over what I pay for? No thanks.

I did agree with you that it's not destroying the Industry, in case you missed that, but it still is a problem, and developers do lose quite the chunk of money from it all. Hence why a lot have come out against used sales, this guy isn't the first and nor will he be the last. Volition, Quantic Dream, Epic, Lionhead, Insomniac, Obsidian; just a few examples of well-known and, imo, respectable devs off the top of my head who have openly opposed used gaming. The bigger guys and publishers stay quiet because they need to keep a good relationship with stores and can't spout their mouths off as much.

But no, again, this is not greed. I don't know why people can't work this out and it's frustrating when people instantly just say a company is greedy when they do anything which makes them money. They are not wanting more money from you, they're wanting the money they're owed. If a developer is greedy there's a billion ways they could squeeze more money out of you; DLC for one. Look at all the Mass Effect 3 DLC.

But just wanting money for sales of their own games is not greed. Big difference. And if it's handled right, how is it a bad thing? A used game, or a brand new, shiny new game which supports the developer for the exact same price.

Originally Posted by Einhander

How many of the developers on GOG are still in business? Maybe 50%?

Obviously, yeah, but the rights are generally still owed to someone. GOG don't keep 100% of the money for themselves, they're not buying the rights to the game and owning it, they're buying the rights to distribute it. Hence why you see lots of problems with them trying to get games on there because whoever owns the rights to the game say no.

They don't just pocket it all.

[darren]

Originally Posted by Einhander

DD is being introduced so consumers do not have the option of buying used at all.

This is being done out of sheer arrogance and greed on the belief that the gaming industry is more special than any other industry and because of the myth that used games "destroy" the industry because the developers don't get paid over and over and over again.

Give control over to publishers for pricing everything, with no control over what I pay for? No thanks.



How many of the developers on GOG are still in business? Maybe 50%? All you're doing is supporting GOG's servers - which is fine, but don't act like it's some altruistric gesture towards the people who made the games, because a good chunk of those people probably aren't seeing that money.

ohh please stop making yourself look stupid again.. half the stuff on GOG you cant buy anymore retail /end/ what would you rather not be able to buy it at all in some lame little protest?

seriously dumb tbh .. its great for picking up old stuff that companies will NEVER make for retail again.

Originally Posted by KingOfSentinels

Actually, you can. If they could enforce it, don't you think they would?

You can't have DVD players or clothes which require a pass to access certain parts of it, and you can't download infinite versions of a car. Stuff like the Kindle, where you download the book, is basically book's digital distribution, and in years and years time maybe we'll all be reading on tablets and Kindles. Same with movies; you can download movies now, but it's not the same since they earn more money with the cinema than DVD if it's good. It's exactly the same. Gaming is just more vocal about the problem, we're not as faceless as other industries, and our Industry can fix it a lot easier too, and so that's why it happens.

as i said have fun enforcing that at the local car boot ..

[KingOfSentinels]

Give me a knife and a shiny gold badge and I'll do it!

[darren]

you vs 100s pikeys with some bargains ..

i'd pay to see that

[Einhander]

Originally Posted by darren316

ohh please stop making yourself look stupid again.. half the stuff on GOG you cant buy anymore retail /end/ what would you rather not be able to buy it at all in some lame little protest?

seriously dumb tbh .. its great for picking up old stuff that companies will NEVER make for retail again.

My point was that just because a game is made available doesn't mean the original developers are getting the money.

Hell, some of this stuff would be abandonware if GOG hadn't grabbed the rights to it.

[Escaflowne2001]

It's funny how it's mostly the average developers speak out against used-games because they make games that people aren't willing to play full price for. None the big publishers ever say anything you don't even here rumblings unoffically.

[Einhander]

Originally Posted by KingOfSentinels

I did agree with you that it's not destroying the Industry, in case you missed that, but it still is a problem, and developers do lose quite the chunk of money from it all.

They don't lose money or sales from it. They have already gotten a full sale from it.

[eastx]

Originally Posted by Escaflowne2001

It's funny how it's mostly the average developers speak out against used-games because they make games that people aren't willing to play full price for.

Damn Einhander, you say some dumb... Wait, I'm quoting Escaflying? *Shakes head disappointedly.*

[KingOfSentinels]

Originally Posted by Einhander

They don't lose money or sales from it. They have already gotten a full sale from it.

And lose an additional one...

Originally Posted by Escaflowne2011

It's funny how it's mostly the average developers speak out against used-games because they make games that people aren't willing to play full price for. None the big publishers ever say anything you don't even here rumblings unoffically.

I said that they need to keep a relationship with the stores and so can't afford to rock the boat, that's why you would never hear any big publisher be quite out-spoken about anything. They need to be good friends with the stores and so would never insult them, it's just business. But I'd hardly call developers like Obsidian, Quantic Dream, Insomniac, Codemasters, Lionhead, and Epic 'average developers', who are some of the bigger names to openly hate on used games.

And just because they don't say it, doesn't mean they aren't against it. Look at Capcom implementing the lack of save file erasing in Mercenaries; a clear attempt at trying to stop used games. EA doing the online passes is exactly the same, and you can see DLC and stuff like COD Elite as ways to still earn money from used games too. So yeah, they all feel the same way as well, they just can't afford to say it. People need to realise that this is a problem and shouldn't cry so much when a problem is getting fixed.

[Northeastmonk]

It could be repeating history all over again. Back in the 80s/early 90s it seemed like games were small in scale, some at $40 a pop and rental stores were buzzing with gamers.

For instance, the same thing is happening with digital downloads, we see more people flock to the internet and smaller games are becoming even more popular. I have a feeling that these smaller games will become bigger and eventually the business will see a complete industry but self contained. Because we all know the internet likes to can everything with just a click of a button.

I wonder if gamers are sick of paying $6o on hit or miss titles? or our developers getting sick of loss profits from used games? Either way the industry has uncovered many unanswered possible outcomes for itself. This could be the so called "enlightenment" era of gaming.

I also highly doubt we go all digital considering lower class cost are terrible; who wants to own a console that's 100% online when you have an intelligent PC?

[Einhander]

Originally Posted by KingOfSentinels

And lose an additional one...

That flat out doesn't make sense. They've already made their money. Why should be rewarded twice for the same sale? Seriously, developers come across as a big bunch of babies. No other industry demands to be treated like princesses like the game industry does.

And the only problem in this situation is the greed of the publishers.

[KingOfSentinels]

How doesn't it make sense? If you couldn't buy it used, you'd buy it new. Instead of offering the used game for £20, offer a brand new game for £20; no difference for you, you'd spend the same amount and get the same game, and instead of all that money going to the store, the developer gets a cut that they deserve for having made the game you just bought. I don't know how you can't figure that one out. People buy used because it's cheaper and/or a new copy isn't available; erase both of those and there's no need to buy a used game. A win for all parties.

And as I said before, it's not greed. If you think this is greed then you've got fuck all idea what 'greed' actually is.

[Einhander]

All you have to do is look at what's happened this gen to see the definition of greed.

And if there's no used games, how does that help anyone other than the publisher?

They set all the prices, they control what's available when.

Sony pulling Motorstorm and Hot Shots Golf for the Vita is a perfect example.

[Escaflowne2001]

Originally Posted by KingOfSentinels

I said that they need to keep a relationship with the stores and so can't afford to rock the boat, that's why you would never hear any big publisher be quite out-spoken about anything. They need to be good friends with the stores and so would never insult them, it's just business. But I'd hardly call developers like Obsidian, Quantic Dream, Insomniac, Codemasters, Lionhead, and Epic 'average developers', who are some of the bigger names to openly hate on used games.

And just because they don't say it, doesn't mean they aren't against it. Look at Capcom implementing the lack of save file erasing in Mercenaries; a clear attempt at trying to stop used games. EA doing the online passes is exactly the same, and you can see DLC and stuff like COD Elite as ways to still earn money from used games too. So yeah, they all feel the same way as well, they just can't afford to say it. People need to realise that this is a problem and shouldn't cry so much when a problem is getting fixed.

Yeah but surely if it was that bad it'll be worth speaking out about it. It's not like any store would suddenly stop stocking EA games or something because they spoke out about used games that would make more problems for themselves then anyone. Yeah Obsidian, Quantic Dream, Codemasters, Lionhead, Insomniac are all pretty average to me anyway add to that Silicon Knights.

As for DLC and bits like that it's partly to get money from used sells but also to get money for anyone that's brought the game new aswell isn't it. I honestly don't know how many online passes they sell but I'm guessing if the gamer is interested in the online side of things they would have brought the games at release anyway and people that get the games used aon average are most likely only interested in the offline content anyway.

Originally Posted by KingOfSentinels

How doesn't it make sense? If you couldn't buy it used, you'd buy it new. Instead of offering the used game for £20, offer a brand new game for £20; no difference for you, you'd spend the same amount and get the same game, and instead of all that money going to the store, the developer gets a cut that they deserve for having made the game you just bought. I don't know how you can't figure that one out. People buy used because it's cheaper and/or a new copy isn't available; erase both of those and there's no need to buy a used game. A win for all parties.

...but they wouldn't sell it for £20 would they. Have you seen the price of games on PSN Network, XBLive? For example this weeks Games On Demand was Two Worlds 2 for £39.99 LOL it was only £24.99 when it was released at retail new.

[KingOfSentinels]

Originally Posted by Einhander

All you have to do is look at what's happened this gen to see the definition of greed.

And if there's no used games, how does that help anyone other than the publisher?

They set all the prices, they control what's available when.

Sony pulling Motorstorm and Hot Shots Golf for the Vita is a perfect example.

Yes, there is greed this generation, never said there wasn't any. But this isn't greed. Wanting money for a sale of a game they made is not greedy. If there's no more risk of losing a lot of money from used sales, games could be offered for less Day 1.

Look at Alan Wake; Remedy self-published it over Steam, and offered the game Day 1 for just over half a Day 1 title is usually offered at, because with digital distribution you get a lot more returns. More money to you, less costs to get out there, and no risk of used sales. Right now it's rare for that to happen, but when it becomes widely adopted, that will happen a lot more. There's a lot of potential positives, and few potential negatives.

And I have no idea what the Motorstorm and Hot Shots argument is a perfect example of. No idea what went on with them.

Originally Posted by Escaflowne2001

Yeah but surely if it was that bad it'll be worth speaking out about it. It's not like any store would suddenly stop stocking EA games or something because they spoke out about used games that would make more problems for themselves then anyone. Yeah Obsidian, Quantic Dream, Codemasters, Lionhead, Insomniac are all pretty average to me anyway add to that Silicon Knights.

I see you missed out Epic in that list of 'average' developers. But you might see them as average but they're definitely not small time, and you can't just brush off their opinions like they're nothing.

And it's bad, but not industry crushingly bad like this guy made out, which I've said I disagree with. But it's bad business to speak out against others, the big guys will never do that. Like when EA stopped stocking in GAME, they were very respectful and said they 'regretted' it, even though they probably didn't and couldn't jump ship fast enough; but they'd never say that. The devs who don't talk with the stores or have interaction with them can say what they like without fear of repercussions.