I'm not supporting the notiong to "kill the used games market". But if it dies because of a favourable development then I'm not really shedding a tear. (It isn't a consumer right in Germany, btw).

What I'm really having hopes for is the whole new set of consumer protection that is coming especially aimed at the current development. Eg. the EU is working on a "law" (the EU actually can't make laws, but it will be binding in its member states. it's complicated) that makes "refunding" of digital media more easy. Pretty much what GG is doing right now will also be in that law (you didn't download it, you can "give it back").

And I agree with Kabuto, why actually bothering with consoles if you make em just another inferior "pre build PC" (or apple, as I like to call them ;-) ).

But it's not dying of a favorable market development. There is nothing stopping a healthy digital used market from developing except that the publishers are deliberately killing it. That's not market forces at work. If a digital used game market developed and then died because no one used it, then that would be market forces killing it. And I would agree that would be fine - unfortunate but fine. (However, I would still have the right to secondhand sale - I just would have trouble finding people willing to buy my copy) This is the publishers attempting to stop the thing from ever being born at all. They don't have the right to do that. Unfortunately, they probably have the power and government influence to - this is the game industry's version of SOPA and PIPA. Such hypocrites. The only person hurt by both is the consumer, but most of the companies who fought against them didn't really care about us despite their statements to the contrary (not that I believed they did but it's still hypocrisy most foul). In the end, since consumers lack the high-priced k-street lobbyists, we will get stuck holding all the cheques from all the industry behemoths - pretty close to literally in this case.

Refunds only take you so far - especially if they're coupled with a "but only if you never downloaded".

Look this guy's arguments could be repeated word for word by the movie and book industry and yet somehow we've produced over a century of movies and several millennia of books. It's pure BS. And the increasing digital aspect of the market has nothing to do with it since they are trying to kill used retail market too. So it's pure BS and pure greed.

I agree with what you are saying in essence. Retailing can be inefficient. But with going digital you are also missing many features that you'd otherwise be getting - i.e. property rights. Having the option to dispose of your property at will. I bought Arcania from Steam and now I'm stuck with it. Had I bought the retail copy, I would have the option of disposing of it (not that I would - too much hassle). And let's not forget that virtually no-one makes demos these days and gameplay footage is extremely restricted.

As far as Indie games go, Steam's been fantastic at promoting them for the reasons that you already mentioned. But that doesn't mean that Steam (or other DDs) should be your only option. I wonder how many people have not bought Indie games because they are with DRM. Yeah it makes little sense to release a single bundle in retail form, but it would make sense to release a number of Indie bundles on DVD for reasonable prices.

Yes, PC gaming is substantially cheaper these days because of DD - you can offer 10+ different deals every week on a single platform, however this is due to the nature of the market. People get on their PCs every day and look for deals (thanks Bansama), but you wouldn't go to your local retailer every day to check for sales. And if you did, you'd realise that many of them offer much, much better deals than DDs (yes, I'm looking at you too, Mr. GOG. Especially GOGs can be found for much, much less in retail.)

Which leads to the foundations of my argument, namely monopoly costs and deadweight loss. A monopoly allows a particular publisher to sell their games for the highest price, leading to the highest possible profit (which they believe) but actually leading to deadweight loss. Ultimately, if the company had sold all of those units that were left unsold for less, they would have made less money (and satisfied far more consumers). The idea is that once you remove options, the company will no longer have an incentive to compete. How many years did it take for Valve to sell their games on a DD platform other than their own? Didn't it finally happen like last week? As competing DD platforms grow stronger and start catching up with Steam, their respective owners (or so to say, "AAA developers") will no longer have an incentive to offer their games on Steam, or other competing platforms. This will obviously allow them to price their games accordingly.

If we remove the retail, DDs can simply make themselves be the new "retail". All of a sudden their competition has been halved. What's their incentive for price competition? It's their way or the highway.

And let's have a look at the pricing of "AAA" titles right now.
Skyrim: 35 pounds. Same as at release (yeah I know it's on sale right now).
MW3: 40 pounds. Same as at release.
Anno 2070: 35 pounds.
SR3: 30 pounds.
These games are rather recent, I believe all of them came out in November.
DX:HR is 30 pounds. 25 Aug 2011.

MW2 is still 20 pounds (Nov 2009)
Oblivion GOTY is 20 pounds excluding today's deal. The GOTY was released on 16 June 2009 (lol). The game's like 6-7 years old?

Yes we get great deals on Steam but we can also get great deals at retail. The most important thing is price competition. Steam might be great for some (I love it), but it's ultimately a corporation with the goal of maximising its profits. Reduced competition is (almost) an overwhelmingly negative thing for consumers.


edit: oops what I wrote on deadweight loss isn't 100% correct, it's been a while. But the point stays regardless!

Personally, I find it underwhelming how someone always have to reduce all these themes to the price of games increasing or decreasing. This should be about rights first.

As I see it, this is just another of the many situations in which big companies limit how can we use their products and be completely hypocritical about it. First, they equate software either to physical goods or to services depending on what is more profitable in each situation. When you copy a game and share it on the internet is stealing (physical media), but when they force you to use their servers for multiplayer it's a service. And when they bitch about second hand it's as if video games were the single fucking product in the universe where there is second hand and they were helpless victims.

Second, you know what is digital distribution a la Steam good for too? To profit from second hand. Oh!, we don't see no penny from second hand purchases, we so helpless. So why don't you allow for second hand purchases through DD platforms and charge for each purchase done there? You can do it, the infrastructure is there, but (other than that strange thing called Green Man Gaming) you don't, why? Maybe because you want full price from every purchase?

In my opinion, this whole crusade against second hand can only be seen as another showcase of unending greed. They want the maximum benefit of every possible situation, even if some that benefit is incompatible between different situations.

Exactly, retail has to do clear-out sales to make way for new inventory. Digital never does. Great sales are not simply a function of something being digital or physical.
Yeah I agree, I've never understood myself why Steam doesn't try it's hand at secondhand sales ... shakes head at the myopia of the games industry ....

I'm not hitting reply, as I don't know to reply to two posts.

First of, there is a "used digital market" and it's called Green Man Gaming. They are using one of the feasable models of digital "used trading". Do people like it? Well, I don't. If some company comes up with a working model for "digital used games" and the people like, it will be successfull. Do you really think that digital retailers around the globe are able to establish cartell like structures where no one would try an idea that could put him ahead of the competition. I'm no fan of the idea that "the market is going to regulate itself", but in this case, I'm willing to wait and see.

That is also why I don't get the point that there isn't any digital competition. Digital never competed with retail. Distributors competed with other distributors. The only thing that has changed is that some retailers have gone digital (GameStop) while others died (GAME, well soon that is). Competition is still alive and well in the digital market.

And the game listing isn't really helping. I can go into the next electronic consumer store and easily match those prices negatively. They still sell AoE 1 for 10€ here. I think that beats your Oblivion Goty ;-P. Of all the games you have listed, everyone except MW has been on a significant sale since it has been released. And thanks to "isthereanydeal.com" or similar sites you were informed everytime. And you could be there, everytime. You could even be in other countries, circumventing regional pricing and censorship. Retail can't do that. Considering it is a lot easier to put up a digital store than a brick and mortar store, I rather expect more competition.

For example, I have a lot more problems with Amazon selling physical books, because they often "leach" of physical stores. Working in a comic book store I've seen people looking at a book in our store and than buying it of on Amazon of Ebay. Nobody complained about that.

Games are a digital good. They were packed physically because there was no other delivery methog back then. Books are somewhat similar and different at the same time. E-Books will be an interesting development, for better or worse.

That guy is an idiot, not argument there. But don't hate the current development because of idiots like him. For every Jameson Durall there is another [insert Gamersgate founder] or even Notch.

The industry and we as consumers have to accept that development. Because this change is inevetable. But it can be moderated or formed. We are currently at the "all time low" of digital consumer rights. This is the most alien thing lawmakers had to handle since you could buy appartments.

If you actually think new game prices would come down because of lack of printing, shipping, casing, etc., then I have a bridge that you might be interested in buying.

With only one avenue of purchase available to consumers, i.e. only New and digital delivery, the developers have zero impetus to reduce prices. Those prices will remain at $60+ a pop.

One need only look at the fact that new games that come out that require Steam are the same price regardless of whether or not you buy a boxed copy. Add in Games on Demand on Xbox Live that can be 2-3 times the cost of buying a used copy (or even a brand new hardcopy) and you'll see what publishers & developers want. They want the current price scheme with vastly reduced overhead costs.

Limiting things to digital delivery is NOT in the interests of the consumer. At least not at current prices.


Edit - As for the douche's interview in the OP? Thanks man, you just saved me from EVER buying anything your company publishes/develops. I can use that money for things from developers that actually respect their customers.

My quarrel with retailers (the big ones) are that they stock very few new games and then instead expect costumers to come back with those few copies that they can now resell and hence make all the profit from and the devs and publishers don't see a cent of that money. And we are talking about almost day 1 used copies here where the store can keep reselling the same used game over and over and make all the profti from it. And most store clerks will admit that they are told to offer the used copy to customers rather than a new one because the store doesn't make much profit from selling a new game but will make a ton of profit from selling a used one.

I'm not taklking about a mom & pop store selling a used copy of Dungeon Keeper 2 or something like that - no, I'm talking about almost day 1 sales of used games that may only cost 5 dollars less than a new one but is risk-free from a´consumer standpoint. Remember that when it comes to cars, books, clothes, houses etc. then these items have a depreciation because of wear and tear but used games don't have that - either a game works or it doesn't.

So if a store stocks 1 new game and person A buys it for 60 bucks, plays it and comes back and sell it to the store for 20 and the store can resell it as used for 55 bucks then the store now makes 35 bucks of profit and they can do this many times as they want and the publisher/devs will not see a cent of this. Most games are fairly short so they can do this on day 1 when a new game comes out but that isn't so with cars, houses, books etc.

So what I object to here is NOT that people sell their old games but that it is so organized as it is now. If you want to sell an 8 year old PS2 game then by all means do that but if you care about the industry then don't support the scumbag retailers that exploit the marked for their own gain that doesn't help the gaming industry at all.

I want to just simply state why I disagree with this approach, that is the idea of mandating that used games would not work on consoles. I use a PC game in my personal consumer example, but it distinctly applies to consoles as well.

Carmageddon 2.

I just bought a good used copy of this game at my local Goodwill for $1.99. I have, as of yet, been unable to find it available for purchase online anywhere. And I doubt most services, like Steam, would be willing to carry a game that old and that requires so much effort to get running (i.e. it's locked at 640x480 and requires a Glide wrapper just to run on my rig). Even Good Old Games would probably look to better meat before trying to add a game like that to its selection.

I, like others who have posted, would not be adverse to a "natural death" of the second-hand game market. But if certain games simply aren't available then the second-hand market will be the only way to legally acquire those games.

And at least with a second-hand game, someone likely paid for it once, correct? With piracy, you aren't even that lucky.

But this is excactly were the digital market can provide alternatives. Independent games are only possibly in an enviroment were you don't have "retailing" costs. If you don't like how AAA publishers handle their products, than you can always turn to titles like Minecraft.

Again, I'm not against used games or the used games market. But I'm all for the digital market. But if that means that the used market will be a victim of it, than let it be.

Unless, of course, we get "tradeable licences". Imo, the first person to properly get this right, will be filthy, Gabe style, rich.

Edit: I changed a stupid mistake "production costs" means something different in english than what I actually wanted to say. For the lack of a better word, I will use "retailing costs"

And why should they? They already got paid for that copy of the game. And where does that $20 the customer got for trading in the game go? In the vast majority of cases, into the purchase of a new game, which the devs/publishers profit from - a game sale that may very well not be made if customer A couldn't trade in his game.


As far as this new console that won't play used games goes: I really think it may end up biting them in the ass. Most buyers are probably not going to realize they can't play used games on it. Once they find out, I imagine the shit's going to hit the fan. I hope so, at any rate.

Add in the fact that the store takes on the risk of that product not selling, the cost involved in their business (rent, employees, utilities, etc), and myriad and sundry other costs that the developers in no way contribute to, and the idea that the developers should receive a stipend becomes even more ridiculous.

That also doesn't touch on the fact that if developers want a cut of used sales, they should offer a buyback program and basically "recertify" that game. Replace the case if necessary, remove scratches from the disc, replace the manual, etc. If they were willing to do that, then I could see them getting something for it.

But sitting there with their hands out expecting to profit off of one item without any further work on their part? That's insane and something that virtually no other industry gets. Why do they think they are special enough to warrant that treatment?

But letting a used market die is different from actively killing it - the publishers are actively killing. That a good is physical or digital makes no difference. Especially when it is packaged in a physical form. That's like saying a movie on a DVD isn't really physical either - why couldn't this apply to DVD sales? I'm sure the movie industry would love to claim what the games industry claims! - only this instance they aren't actually as hypocritical as the game industry is.

It is a product. It was sold. You do not have the right to more profit from further resales of that product once it is out of your hands. You do have the right to create a digital store to entice people to use your service to sell used games instead of someone else's.

That Green Man Gaming exists is great ... especially since it somehow hasn't caused the collapse of civilization yet. And if it dies, so be it. But that's different from publishers including technology in their games to actively prevent GMG customers from trading their merchandise in on GMG's store. That's what this and the other publishers want to do. GMG is absolutely a big step in the right direction - a step which could be taken by more (and much more important) digital retailers like say ... Steam - though the existence of a lonely digital retailer who has a trade-in policy does not actually fully protect consumer rights since they are limited by what they can accept as trade-in and you don't actually get money from it. BTW I am not saying that a used service has to offer money rather than in-store credit to be good - I am emphatically not - just that someone somewhere should be allowed to do so and game company should not have the right to stop you from re-selling a game. I do think they would benefit more from adopting the agency model in their used game sales myself. That said, I am glad someone is thinking outside of the box.

Arguing that you yourself would never use the service is fine. I don't either. Arguing that you prefer to buy first-sale on sale is fine. So do I. However, the benefits of going digital has nothing to do with getting rid of previous benefits. One can have both just fine and not only would the games industry be just as industrious as it was before, it would probably be healthier for it to have better consumer protection laws enforced it. It turns out not all laws stipulating that businesses have to engage in good business practices hurt the overall market. :/
Gaaaaaaa!!!! that's what I've been trying to tell YOU in my uber-long posts. :)

Digital market place doesn't mean no digital used game market place. You can have both! Digital only means 'no used sales' if they deliberately try to kill the used game market place. And not only do they not need to kill used sales, deliberately killing used sales goes against consumer protection - it should be illegal, and they could benefit from the digital used market!

If a game retails for 60, the customer who returns it gets what like 50% back? Or more? Sure, retailers are making a profit from this kind of thing - but the way I see them making a profit is because the customer is paying them for a service, namely reselling their property. I can't be bothered to sell my own game, so I will give it back to the store in exchange for 20-30 dollars and they will sell this product on my behalf.

I don't think that it's fair how you take depreciation in quality as a factor as digital and physical media are obviously hugely different. But in the end, a 5 year old car will not sell for the original price. Just like how a 5 year old game will not sell for the original price. There might not be a depreciation in quality, but there is a depreciation in value.

Retail and DD aren't mutually exclusive. They are complementary. Having one doesn't preclude one from using the other, or both.

"People often don't understand the cost that goes into creating these huge experiences that we put on the shelves for only $60. "

LOL! My recipe: more innovation, less fluff (costly voice actors, soundtrack from some high profile rap artist, "movie like experience"...). I think there's a reason why "indie games" have suddenly become mainstream, they seem to get something that Volition doesn't.

Anyway, killing second-hand market is already the reality in PC gaming, so I guess PC gaming market must be a heaven for Volition then. As long as one-sale digital game prices mirror with reduced prices the fact that you can't recoup any money later, I'm 80% fine with it.

The missing 20% comes from that unfortunately killing second-hand market also feeds the idea of making short games with zero replayability. After all, the sucker who preordered it can't get rid of it after the 4 hours it took him to complete his shiny new 80€ console game. But as long as they will pump out new episodes for the game, in a form of paid DLCs...