I'll just leave this here and prepare some pop corn. I don't know how much this guy is paid for saying this, but it better worths him to start fresh in some other place.

Sheesh this guy has rabies.

I actually agree with him. Sure it hurts customers but it's gonna hurt retailers like BestBuy, EBGames, Wallmart etc. even more and that's the point. Once we get rid of these retailer-scumbags who profit from work that isn't their own then maybe we can make a good system again where game devs/publishers are payed for used games aswell as new ones. The system we have now only hurts the gaming industry and that also hurts us gamers. As long as these retailers offer their customers used games rather than new ones then it is a faulty system that must change and hence I agree with him.

This sickens me. It shouldn't even be an issue. There ought to be laws in place to protect consumers from this kind of corporate greed.

Not that this is generally the case today but when I purchase something I feel that I should have ownership of that purchase and be free to do with that purchase whatever I see fit, including resell it after using it, give it away if I feel like it or lend it to a friend or family member should I choose to. This is how it used to be with books and record albums, etc.

Can you imagine buying a book at retail and it coming with a EULA featuring all the restrictions imposed on your use of the book you just bought? I guess maybe we can imagine this pretty easily as we move to digital ebooks and audio books.

The way these guys view things, Public Libraries should not exist because of all the lost sales and profits they cause.

As the anonymous Internet has often brought out the worst in people so too has the age of digital media brought out the worst in corporate greed. They don't want you to own anything you buy. They want to retain full rights and simply allow you to use your purchases on their terms.

Realistically, the market overall is going to accept this crap and not stop buying games. Yes, there will be public outcry which will be ignored and when the dust settles, the corporations will win.

The only way I see the consumer prevailing here is if legal action is taken around the world but frankly, what are the odds at this point? Who is going to do that and who is going to pay for it? Justice has to be purchased one way or another as usual.

I think they are going to make the second hand market go away and I think they are going to get away with it. People have been complaining about copy protection and DRM since PC gaming began for example but we still have it and of late it just gets worse in terms of how intrusive and inconvenient it is for paying consumers. There ought to be laws protecting us there too but again, what are the odds?

I guess one can argue that nobody is forcing us to accept these terms. We do not have to purchase and play video games under these circumstances if do not want to. The thing is, we do want to play and enjoy them. We just hate being screwed over this way.

For the time being they have us by the balls basically. Most people with busy lives simply do not have the time, energy or interest in taking up a crusade to right wrongs like this. Corporations know this of course and will act accordingly.

I guess if I was a shareholder of any of these companies I might like all of this. Unfortunately for me though, I am among the 98% who are tired of being screwed over to the point where some of us are literally taking it to the streets.

Considering that the next generation is going to be 80% digital anyway this was to be expected. This is going to be like the uproar that Steam has brought to PC gaming ten years ago. In the end, I am happy as a consumer. Without "account based" games services like GOG or Steam wouldn't be possible.

BUT this means they need to drastically drop their prices.

It's not like GOG allows you to sell your games (in fact, their business model is based upon people not acquiring used copies of the games they sell).

If I look at the abandonment of used games sales on PC, I see only something that was good for the consumer. Incredible sales on games are commonplace and they sell for far less than any used game on console does. If you can get those prices on consoles, you won't see many people complaining.

Like the article said, this will also shut down the rental industry. There's a lot more collateral here than just on consumers. What's his proposed alternative? "GIVE MICROSOFT ANOTHER MONOPOLY LOL!"

And what's your quarrel with retailers? Used games sales? I agree with that, but look at how he expressed his fucking entitlement: "People often don't understand the cost that goes into creating these huge experiences that we put on the shelves for only $60." Judging by this mindset, his obvious goal is to increase the price.

Not to mention that the gaming industry is hugely profitable anyway, especially during the time when a lot of companies are simply happy to stay solvent.

Rentals usually run on a whole different licence than retail games, so putting "special rental editions" out for those shouldn't be a problem.

What actually urks me more is the fact that the "school yard trading" is going to die out because of this. When I was in school, lending games was quite common amongst us youngsters. It actually decided which console to get, as you would automatically have a bigger source of games available "for free". Piracy is probably going to fill that niche (and will prombtly be complained about).

And yes, his tone is that of a condescending asshole. But taking everything into account, I think this is a positive development. As it means "going digital" and that increases the chances of independance developers and unique titles.

And lets be honest, most people buy used games because they want to save money. It's not like this is a culture to cherish. And for all the bad you can say about Steam and its brothers, it made gaming incredibly inexpensive for the end consumer (and less risky for the developer/publisher).

If they want to fuck us over like the music industry did with the introduction of the CD however, and retain their saves without making the products cheaper. Then I'm all for pitchforks and torches!

I don't think lower prices on older PC games digitally distributed is the result of the second hand market going away. It's all about supply and demand. In the digital world, the issue of precious retail shelf space goes away largely and the number of available titles rises exponentially. As a result with such a glut of games to choose from there is downward pricing pressure. The newer and blockbuster titles still command $60. and the prices fall according to demand for them. Nothing new is happening under the sun here.

The thing is - once you introduce the option of exclusivity, the option of going non-exclusive becomes a lot less attractive. As a publisher, your options are "Hey I can make this game rentable, or I can... simply not do it." Given that the vast majority of the decisions in the industry are made by people like Durall, I don't see many publishers making the former decision. Their minds have pretty much been made up already.

I agree with the "school yard trading" thing. I used to do it quite a bit back in the day and the whole idea then was that once I give my game away, I no longer had it. I successfully disposed of my property. Of course back then I didn't have a CD-R nor enough disk space to save games.

I don't see how going digital would increase the independence of developers and making of unique titles? Currently there's an option on the PC: either you release your game independently (pleasing a certain type of crowd) or tied to a specific platform (pleasing another type of crowd) or releasing it with both means (pleasing both crowds but publishers not so much). You can never please everyone, but more choice is universally the best option.

I love Steam, I don't think it's a bad thing at all (overall for me, that is). Lack of choice is a bad thing. I can appreciate that some people might not like it and neglecting a significant part of the consumer base is not the correct thing to do. And ultimately, reducing options WILL mean a significantly higher price for consumers. If we could eliminate piracy and the retail and 2nd hand market altogether, I don't think we'd be seeing the kinds of deals on Steam that we get nowadays.

And what's wrong with saving money? Ultimately maybe we should get rid of the 2nd hand market overall? Starting with those chumps selling books in the middle of the street and finishing with the 2nd hand car sales market.

If I could then buy a new car 33% three month after being released, I would be for it ;-).

In all seriousness, the point is digital game can become cheap because you don't have any "retailing costs". So if you sell a game digitally on your own for 10 bucks you get 9,5 bucks as "profit" (I'm deliberately excluding development costs for this example, stay with me). So selling 10 games for $50 is basically the same as selling 50 copies for 10$. And you will reach those numbers (as the Steam deals have shown) quite fast. That means instead of an expensive game passing through a row of customers, more copies will be sold to the same costumers, at the same time. If done right, nobody loses (except gamestop and ebay).

You can easily make a digital copy competative to the prices of Gamestop. I really don't see this "gloryfication" of the second hand market in gaming. "Going digital" worked for PC gaming. I've said it many times: Gaming on PC has never been cheaper or more diverse.

Because you basically no longer need a publisher, even indie and small time developers can bring their game to the customer. Take a look at Minecraft e.g., its success story wouldn't have been possibly ten years ago. Of course PR is still the King, but good indie games going "viral" isn't unusal (SPAZ, Terraria...).

Steams dominating position on all of this might be a problem in the future. But their competitiors are finally getting in position. Take Origin, it still needs to establish itself properly but already has features that Steam lacks (basically adding every EA game, even if bought on Steam or retail.). This will hopefully continue in the future with maybe the next big publisher going "digital" (Ubisoft is shaping up at the moment, so is Amazon).

And I wasn't complaining about "saving money". Quite the contrary. This development might just make "saving money" easier in the long run. I am just baffeled why people prefer used games when it comes to saving money.

Is he forgetting what the whole point of console gaming was supposed to be in the first place? One console where you could pop a game in and play. Have friends over and swap discs etc. Not patches, firmware updates, online verification/tying games to accounts, downloads and releasing two million console sku's. Ugh.

Because it is a consumer right. And the arguments that secondhand sales damage the industry are dead wrong. This is an industry that from pretty much its inception has tried to block consumer rights. It's wrong and in the end, harmful to themselves as well as to consumers.

Oh and I don't buy used, I prefer sales on new. But eliminating the used market is bad for business, bad for gaming archival, and bad for consumers. There is no upside to removing the secondhand sale market. We've discussed this before, you know my arguments.

And why would it be a good system ? basically it just means that it will be others who will get money from something that isn't theirs. Devs and publisher already got paid for their works with the first sales, they don't "deserve" a single cents for second/third/whatever sales.