It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
HijacK: How are consoles DRM? This gen of consoles didn't require you to be online to play , and with the WIi U , the start of next gen doesn't look to be either.
The fact that you are playing on a closed platform which has an exclusive monopoly on the distribution of it's own games itself could be interpreted as DRM. On PC you can choose what platform you buy on, you don't need to use Windows you can also load up a Linux distro. You can't buy a game for the PS3 or Xbox 360, physically or digitally, without giving a cut to Microsoft or Sony.
avatar
HijacK: That's a very flawed logic. If you had read my post , you would've realised that used sales do not have a direct impact on devs , but they do on publishers.Why? Well , for one your result was bad. It doesn't matter if the same ammount of money is paid for the game(s) , the idea is the second example is the good one , because this way more copies will be in circulation , this leading to third party sellers to order more new copies from the publisher and so they get more money. The third party seller is always in profit anyway , whether there are a handful of people who buy at 50% off even new or not , the first week sales bring them enough profit. But we're not talking about 3rd party seller , but about devs and publishers.
avatar
crazy_dave: my logic is fine, in fact it is pristine. I was using devs and publishers to also account for indie devs who self-publish.

third party seller is always in profit anyway
avatar
crazy_dave: what? no they aren't. If that were true, all the third-party sellers would never have gone under in the 00's. Your contention is (which only works for big box, not digital or even commission) is that we should all buy our own copies so that physical retailers have to over-purchase discs from the publisher so they can make more money on games never sold to a consumer? That's an incredibly odd argument to make that publishers deserve to make more money on unsold games. That's not even ... accurate. Because when a big box retailer puts the 50% off on a game that's because they are clearing inventory. You aren't supporting the game publisher buy buying at retail at 50%+ sale prices, only the retailer in being supported at that point.

For used games, X games are sold and there are only ever X owners. Those people who bought the used games encourage people to buy first-sale games at higher prices and not waiting until the big box retailer clears inventory and puts the 50%+ inventory. That puts more money into the hands of publishers and more copies into circulation than those consumers simply waiting for massive sales at retailers before buying.
I'm going to back now becuase you're trying to twist my arguments in your favour. All your points lead to the fact that used sales do no harm to the industry. Why don't you take this argument to the publishers then? Talking all big and mighty here won't solve this DRM problem. Maybe you can. Bottom line: I think your logic is flawed and needs re-thinking , but that's just me.

BTW: Unsold games? Did you ever hear of "making more"? How do you know they aren't creating more discs? See? You're jsut trying to twist my arguments. This consversation will lead to nowhere , so I'm stopping it now.

EDIT: I'm not actually talking about people who wait for price drops , but for people who buy used in the first month of the release. This kind of people who are greedy over 5 bucks.
Post edited May 27, 2013 by HijacK
avatar
HijacK: I'm going to back now becuase you're trying to twist my arguments in your favour. All your points lead to the fact that used sales do no harm to the industry. Why don't you take this argument to the publishers then? Talking all big and mighty here won't solve this DRM problem. Maybe you can. Bottom line: I think your logic is flawed and needs re-thinking , but that's just me.
Well I disagree and think much the same way about your arguments. :)

Others have taken these arguments to the games industry, but just like trying to tell them that DRM only hurts legitimate customers while leaving pirates relatively unharmed, publishers don't seem to take much heed.
avatar
HijacK: I'm going to back now becuase you're trying to twist my arguments in your favour. All your points lead to the fact that used sales do no harm to the industry. Why don't you take this argument to the publishers then? Talking all big and mighty here won't solve this DRM problem. Maybe you can. Bottom line: I think your logic is flawed and needs re-thinking , but that's just me.
avatar
crazy_dave: Well I disagree and think much the same way about your arguments. :)

Others have taken these arguments to the games industry, but just like trying to tell them that DRM only hurts legitimate customers while leaving pirates relatively unharmed, publishers don't seem to take much heed.
Really? Are we talking about pirates or used sales? Nevermind.
avatar
HijacK: How are consoles DRM? This gen of consoles didn't require you to be online to play , and with the WIi U , the start of next gen doesn't look to be either.
avatar
Crosmando: The fact that you are playing on a closed platform which has an exclusive monopoly on the distribution of it's own games itself could be interpreted as DRM. On PC you can choose what platform you buy on, you don't need to use Windows you can also load up a Linux distro. You can't buy a game for the PS3 or Xbox 360, physically or digitally, without giving a cut to Microsoft or Sony.
While that is true , then we could argue that DRM has existed since the beginnings of gaming , or at least since 5th gen.
Post edited May 27, 2013 by HijacK
avatar
crazy_dave: Well I disagree and think much the same way about your arguments. :)

Others have taken these arguments to the games industry, but just like trying to tell them that DRM only hurts legitimate customers while leaving pirates relatively unharmed, publishers don't seem to take much heed.
avatar
HijacK: Really? Are we talking about pirates or used sales? Nevermind.
Used sales - I was saying neither argument makes any headway with publishers despite both being accurate.


EDIT: AHHHHH - I accidentally deleted my previous post, oops, sorry!
Post edited May 27, 2013 by crazy_dave
avatar
jamyskis: We're talking about physical media here. The interest in gaining GOG's help is because they understand the need for DRM-free.
New Xbox games will be installed on the console hard drive. If there are no measures in place to make sure two consoles aren't playing the same copy simultaneously, that's a bootlegging free-for-all. If there are - that's DRM. It might be DRM that allows for used copies (account binding and unbinding, as seen on GMG), but GOG's business practices are not relevant here except perhaps in the broader sense of consumer rights. They aren't even interested in physical media.

Hell, Microsoft is not interested in physical media as DRM, discs are now an infrastructural component.
avatar
HijacK: BTW: Unsold games? Did you ever hear of "making more"? How do you know they aren't creating more discs? See? You're jsut trying to twist my arguments. This consversation will lead to nowhere , so I'm stopping it now.
avatar
crazy_dave: What? I'm not sure you understood what I was saying or I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Big box retailers buy X amount of product if the amount sold gets within epsilon of that X, the retailer orders Y more based on the timing of how quickly they sold X. Retailers tend to slightly overstock in order to give themselves some buffer but try to limit that as much as possible as to have as little unsold inventory as possible that they have to get rid off through massive sales when they need to turnover product.

You said buying at the 50% sales encourages retailers to order more (Y). I was arguing that a) what should be counted is sell-through to consumers and b) buying at 50%+ sales typically means a retailer is clearing inventory and isn't going to buying much or any replacements. So buying a used game is no different than buying a "bargain-bin" game at that point - neither support the publisher, they already got their money and won't be getting more for your sale. Further the total amount of money going to the publisher, which is what they truly care about, can actually increase by having a healthy used games market because it encourages people to buy at a higher prices earlier in the product's life-cycle (which also encourages more Y, though I'll admit Y can decrease depending on how they factor people buying used copies, so that may even out).
Actually , that argument about buying at a 50% discount (for example) can encourage retailers to order more copies. (but not the type of copies you may think of) The more copies are in circulation , the faster can a game reach the status of "Platinum" , "Greatest Hits" & "Essentials". While I don't like this type of reprints and do not buy them , they too come at a profit for the devs.
Bottom line: People who buy an used game for 5 bucks less in the first months (maybe not months , but weeks) of a game's release are hurting the industry.
Post edited May 27, 2013 by HijacK
avatar
Starmaker: New Xbox games will be installed on the console hard drive. If there are no measures in place to make sure two consoles aren't playing the same copy simultaneously, that's a bootlegging free-for-all. If there are - that's DRM. It might be DRM that allows for used copies (account binding and unbinding, as seen on GMG), but GOG's business practices are not relevant here except perhaps in the broader sense of consumer rights. They aren't even interested in physical media.

Hell, Microsoft is not interested in physical media as DRM, discs are now an infrastructural component.
As far as I'm aware, the game is installed on the hard drive, but the disc still needs to be in the drive when playing. Basically you have all the problems of console gaming AND all the significantly worse problems of PC gaming.
avatar
crazy_dave: What? I'm not sure you understood what I was saying or I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Big box retailers buy X amount of product if the amount sold gets within epsilon of that X, the retailer orders Y more based on the timing of how quickly they sold X. Retailers tend to slightly overstock in order to give themselves some buffer but try to limit that as much as possible as to have as little unsold inventory as possible that they have to get rid off through massive sales when they need to turnover product.

You said buying at the 50% sales encourages retailers to order more (Y). I was arguing that a) what should be counted is sell-through to consumers and b) buying at 50%+ sales typically means a retailer is clearing inventory and isn't going to buying much or any replacements. So buying a used game is no different than buying a "bargain-bin" game at that point - neither support the publisher, they already got their money and won't be getting more for your sale. Further the total amount of money going to the publisher, which is what they truly care about, can actually increase by having a healthy used games market because it encourages people to buy at a higher prices earlier in the product's life-cycle (which also encourages more Y, though I'll admit Y can decrease depending on how they factor people buying used copies, so that may even out).
avatar
HijacK: Actually , that argument about buying at a 50% discount (for example) can encourage retailers to order more copies. (but not the type of copies you may think of) The more copies are in circulation , the faster can a game reach the status of "Platinum" , "Greatest Hits" & "Essentials". While I don't like this type of reprints and do not buy them , they too come at a profit for the devs.
Bottom line: People who buy an used game for 5 bucks less in the first months (maybe not months , but let's say weeks) of a game's release are hurting the industry.
You managed to save my post, thanks! :) (I accidentally deleted it)

Except that they had to buy from people who bought the game at full price. Those people who resold the game may not have bought the game at those prices if they didn't have right to resale. I'm not arguing Gamestop are saints, in fact they're a practical monopoly on the used games market because of dearth of retail stores who do used games (they're the last big ones left standing). I'd love to see a healthier/peer-to-peer used games market, but that won't happen if publishers keep trying to kill it. We'll continue to get the worst of all worlds.

Retailers tend to do the big sales when they aren't buying much or any more inventory, so buying then doesn't encourage the creation of more copies. That's retailers getting rid of stock they don't want anymore and don't want to buy any more of. When they come out with new versions for the game ("GotY" or "Enhanced Edition"), that is of course a new version that someone may choose to buy if they didn't buy the original. But that's a difference process because often it involves the bundling of expansions and otherwise new content. And in fact, who buys that content before it becomes bundled? Whoever holds the current copy of the game. That encourages people to hold on to their copies if they want the new content right away and if they do resell before that and want the new content, they have to re-buy the game.

Again, even beyond this about how much damage or benefit or neutral equilibrium the used game market does to publishers, right of resale is an important consumer right to balance out the power differential between companies and consumers, especially when dealing with copyrighted material for which the company has exclusive rights to (first-)sale.
Post edited May 27, 2013 by crazy_dave
avatar
crazy_dave: Except that they had to buy from people who bought the game at full price. Those people who resold the game may not have bought the game at those prices if they didn't have right to resale.
An issue known as the "Steam sale" problem in the industry nowadays. Instead of 200,000 buying a game for €50, you now have 400,000 buying the same game for €10.
avatar
HijacK: Gaming was OK with used sales when games didn't cost so much money and effort to be created. The wheels have turned. Games now have budgets of hundreds of millions of dollars ,and publishers and devs have something against used sales.
Hmm, just the other day I read some gaming article (from 2012) about the biggest fallacies about the gaming market. They specifically mentioned also "used games market destroys the profits of gaming companies" and "game development costs have skyrocketed".

I personally am not really craving back to second-hand market to PC gaming, mainly because that is very incompatible with DRM/copy protection-free gaming. I rather have DRM-free gaming than the ability to sell/buy used games (with DRM and/or copy protection). And PC game prices have eroded so heavily anyway for various reasons that I wouldn't even see the point of trying to sell my older games away, or hunt for second-hand copies.

But for the development costs, the article mainly pointed out that while some costs of game development have risen, some have plummeted, e.g. regarding development tools. They gave as an example that e,g, the development costs of Shenmue (the original 1999 Dreamcast title) were quite a bit higher than most AAA-titles made today, especially considering it wasn't a multi-platform release, but only for one console.

Googling for some data, Shenmue apparently costs $70 million to make (for just the Dreamcast version), while e.g. GTA IV, which is touted as one of the most expensive games ever made (as of at least 2012), cost $100 million (and I presume that means all the platforms it was made for, at least initially).

And also it was pointed out that the development costs fluctuate a lot anyway, e.g. when a new gaming engine is introduced, the costs are much higher than subsequent games using the same engine.

I really should try to find that article, I ended up there from some gaming link in these GOG forum discussions, which had a link to that... I didn't fully agree with that article though, but I felt there were some good points there, and some data to support it too.
Post edited May 27, 2013 by timppu
avatar
timppu: I personally am not really craving back to second-hand market to PC gaming, mainly because that is very incompatible with DRM/copy protection-free gaming. I rather have DRM-free gaming than the ability to sell/buy used games (with DRM and/or copy protection). And PC game prices have eroded so heavily anyway for various reasons that I wouldn't even see the point of trying to sell my older games away, or hunt for second-hand copies.
You and I are not that far apart :) I would like to see a market where DRM/copy-protection gives clear right of resale, while if DRM-free digital gaming does not, I'd be okay with that. :) (mostly because I can't figure out how to do the latter in a way that protects companies' rights too - someone would need to create a copy-protection scheme for digital games that doesn't involve DRM, which I'm not sure is possible and would still be copy-protection - which isn't as bad as full-on DRM)
Post edited May 27, 2013 by crazy_dave
avatar
HijacK: Not going to take part in this nonsense, but I"m here to ask: How do people want gaming to evolve if they constantly buy used games out of their pure greed? They're just like EA , greedy over 5 bucks , and then they complain they have to pay 10 extra bucks for an online pass.
For games that require an online pass, I'd agree, but otherwise: why so judgemental? If people buy used games, they indirectly support the game by playing it, spreading the word and giving the original buyer some funds to buy more games. Not everyone has the funds to buy games new, and most of the people who don't (and also the people who do) don't have paypal accounts with which they can buy cheap games online. If they can get a game on sale, all the better, as the money goes partially to its creators rather than all of it going to a fellow consumer, but many gamers, especially PC and Wii gamers, only get their games from the store downtown or down the road, and checking for sales there requires a lot more effort than checking for sales on Steam, GOG or elsewhere.
avatar
MorphysLaw: For games that require an online pass, I'd agree, but otherwise: why so judgemental? If people buy used games, they indirectly support the game by playing it, spreading the word and giving the original buyer some funds to buy more games. Not everyone has the funds to buy games new, and most of the people who don't (and also the people who do) don't have paypal accounts with which they can buy cheap games online. If they can get a game on sale, all the better, as the money goes partially to its creators rather than all of it going to a fellow consumer, but many gamers, especially PC and Wii gamers, only get their games from the store downtown or down the road, and checking for sales there requires a lot more effort than checking for sales on Steam, GOG or elsewhere.
Not forgetting that the used game market is the only place many of us can get out-of-print titles.
avatar
HijacK: Actually , that argument about buying at a 50% discount (for example) can encourage retailers to order more copies. (but not the type of copies you may think of) The more copies are in circulation , the faster can a game reach the status of "Platinum" , "Greatest Hits" & "Essentials". While I don't like this type of reprints and do not buy them , they too come at a profit for the devs.
Bottom line: People who buy an used game for 5 bucks less in the first months (maybe not months , but let's say weeks) of a game's release are hurting the industry.
avatar
crazy_dave: You managed to save my post, thanks! :) (I accidentally deleted it)

Except that they had to buy from people who bought the game at full price. Those people who resold the game may not have bought the game at those prices if they didn't have right to resale. I'm not arguing Gamestop are saints, in fact they're a practical monopoly on the used games market because of dearth of retail stores who do used games (they're the last big ones left standing). I'd love to see a healthier/peer-to-peer used games market, but that won't happen if publishers keep trying to kill it. We'll continue to get the worst of all worlds.

Retailers tend to do the big sales when they aren't buying much or any more inventory, so buying then doesn't encourage the creation of more copies. That's retailers getting rid of stock they don't want anymore and don't want to buy any more of. When they come out with new versions for the game ("GotY" or "Enhanced Edition"), that is of course a new version that someone may choose to buy if they didn't buy the original. But that's a difference process because often it involves the bundling of expansions and otherwise new content. And in fact, who buys that content before it becomes bundled? Whoever holds the current copy of the game. That encourages people to hold on to their copies if they want the new content right away and if they do resell before that and want the new content, they have to re-buy the game.

Again, even beyond this about how much damage or benefit or neutral equilibrium the used game market does to publishers, right of resale is an important consumer right to balance out the power differential between companies and consumers, especially when dealing with copyrighted material for which the company has exclusive rights to (first-)sale.
How do you delete posts? O.o

I know a lot of people who buy games brand new ,but after they hit the 30$ mark. This may seem odd to some , but there are cases where a game's sales grow a lot bigger when it hits 50% or less mark than when it's priced at full price. So this is why I said that even buying a brand new game at 50% off helps.(it doesn't help as much as buying a game new when it's released , but it's something)
Ugh , don't even get me started on GameStop. Their "return the game in one week ,if you don't like it or you completed it" policy is pretty annoying.
Post edited May 27, 2013 by HijacK