Xbox One

[DingoEnderZOE2]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Should I sell my old textbooks on Ebay, do I need to pay a portion of my profits to the original publisher?

And if you think I have to, why do you think that?

No but the publisher should still a small cut of whatever you paid if not from you at least from the person who SOLD the product to you in the first place. Why should an item's only sales value to the companies only be determined by whether or not it was purchased brand new or not???

Like I said having two type of game sales for Companies, developers,publishers, etc to look at would be a great way for otherwise under-appreciated games to thrive.

However once again...figuring out a way for this to be done while keeping the consumers satisfied with the method is the killer part.

[Child_of_Sierra]

In Microsoft's world they want you to pay the manufacturer the moment you lend your car to your friend.

I assume that getting the game back on your account would require a similar fee which they take a cut too...

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by DingoEnderZOE2

I'm asking as far as VIDEO GAMES are concerned

Video games are not a special snowflake, you don't get a special permit to trample over consumer rights.

shouldn't a company that brings a person joy still be entitled to get a profit even from used games?

No. Children's books bring kids joy too, should there be a used book fee for used children's book?

You know how many games could have been more successful if companies not only have just the new game sales but also used game sales as well to look at?

No amount of used game sales would save terrible design and management problems.

The idea itself isn't bad, figuring out a way for it to be done while still keeping consumers happy is the tough part.

No, it is intrinsically bad, the bad is literally a fundamental part of the idea.

Originally Posted by DingoEnderZOE2

No but the publisher should still a small cut of whatever you paid if not from you at least from the person who SOLD the product to you in the first place.

Again, no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

Why should an item's only sales value to the companies only be determined by whether or not it was purchased brand new or not???

BECAUSE IT ISN'T THEIRS ANYMORE!

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by DingoEnderZOE2

No but the publisher should still a small cut of whatever you paid if not from you at least from the person who SOLD the product to you in the first place. Why should an item's only sales value to the companies only be determined by whether or not it was purchased brand new or not???

Like I said having two type of game sales for Companies, developers,publishers, etc to look at would be a great way for otherwise under-appreciated games to thrive.

However once again...figuring out a way for this to be done while keeping the consumers satisfied with the method is the killer part.

The publisher gets a cut ALREADY. That was their profit. That was what their goods were worth.

If you are greedy enough to want more, then charge more. Taking a cut from 2nd hand sales is unacceptable because you can't sell what you don't own.

If you WANT to charge for 2nd hand sales, then you are effectively adding to the cost of the item. Your so-called "under-appreciated games" would become more expensive and no one would buy them. If people aren't willing to buy them new, why would they want to buy them used at a high price either?

Why do you think it isn't greedy to demand more money for NOTHING? Let me repeat; if you want more money, raise your prices. If you can't sell them at a higher price, then your product suck and you deserve the lost sales.

[DingoEnderZOE2]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Because they GOT PAID ALREADY.

You can't get paid for something that isn't yours. Is that an alien concept to you?

Yes once you buy something it's yours. if you sell it to any place or anyone it's no longer yours. The person or place who purchased it from you should then give a small percentage like say 10 or 15% to the company..As I mentioned before this idea sounds like it would work better for video game stores where they would be more likely to follow suit with this idea.

Game companies that can't figure out how to stay in business by selling their game once, don't have the right to stay in business. No, consumers are not happy that you want them to pay extra after they already paid you full price. You don't deserve any more money. If you want more money, raise your prices. And see how many people are willing to buy your products.

Goddamnnit people we are letting our comfort with our usual routine cloud our minds to the point that we refuse to consider different ideas. There are plenty of deserving games out there that has failed because of low new game sales, but you can bet your ass a lot of those "failed but deserving games" constantly get bought used so much that the used game sales would make up for their lack of new games sales. The only thing that's causing us to be scared of this idea is the possible price we might have to pay, but what if the pay is manageable then would it still be a problem?

I'm not talking about BOOST the prices of used games to high prices to make up for the cut the companies get, just make them reasonably cheap while leaving some cash left over to give to the companies too. Here's an example how about when you purchase a used game from a store whatever amount you paid to that store will have to pay that amount to the company? You paid 15 bucks for a game at gamestop? Okay cool now gamestop has to pay that price to <Insert game company> here.

Originally Posted by kyp275

No amount of used game sales would save terrible design and management problems.

Oh really? Okay let me name off a few of these failed but deserving games for you. So you're saying Okami, Godhand, Skies of Arcadia, Shenmue(still stuck at that cliffhanger in part 2 and This was the BIG one), Hotel Dusk(In the U.S.), Yakuza(fans are all still praying we get yakuza 5),Alpha Protocol, Bayonetta(It's a miracle we got that on the Wii U) all have terrible design that they couldn't have been saved by the extra boost in used game sales????

[Chaos2Frozen]

Your argument reminds me alot like the people who blames the fans for DmC's failure.

Why are the consumers expected to bail a business out when things doesn't work out for them?

[DingoEnderZOE2]

Originally Posted by Chaos2Frozen

Your argument reminds me alot like the people who blames the fans for DmC's failure.

Why are the consumers expected to bail a business out when things doesn't work out for them?

-_- You had to bring up that crappy DmC game......Ugh it's true with this practice I'm describing that game could have succeeded....and many other undeserving games would probably succeed because of it as well......

-Sigh- I don't know I guess years of seeing really good games get axed over "poor" sales in developers eyes tends to cause you to want to have hope for other ways those games can be properly recognized more by companies.

[Triple_R]

Video game companies need to start bringing down their production costs. It's as simple as that. If and when they do so, they'll be making enough money that they won't need to worry about used game sales.

Syn is very right in saying that these Hollywood movie-sized production costs is a big factor in all of this nonsense, and also in how it really is threatening the long-term viability of the video game industry. Video games are popular, but they're not as popular as blockbuster Hollywood movies, and so its sheer insanity to have movie-sized production costs for them.

Not every video game needs to be an interactive movie with all the Hollywood bells and whistles. There are other ways to make perfectly good/fun games.

[Drake]

I've had the suspicion that used game DRM was coming to both PS4 and Xbox1 the day EA (being the saints that they are - sarcasm) announced they where doing away with online passes through the kindness of their own hearts.

Console gaming is now to an exercise is compromising.

[defki]

Originally Posted by DingoEnderZOE2

Oh really? Okay let me name off a few of these failed but deserving games for you. So you're saying Okami, Godhand, Skies of Arcadia, Shenmue(still stuck at that cliffhanger in part 2 and This was the BIG one), Hotel Dusk(In the U.S.), Yakuza(fans are all still praying we get yakuza 5),Alpha Protocol, Bayonetta(It's a miracle we got that on the Wii U) all have terrible design that they couldn't have been saved by the extra boost in used game sales????

Used games sales wouldn't have saved them. Some of them are niche among niche. Even if they asked full price for the used games it would not save them.

This games were doomed by lack of marketing, high budget and just plain ridiculous expectations.

[sona-nyl]

I understand why Microsoft wants these restrictions but I can't for fucks sake understand why they're implementing them this way right now. In 10 years the digital game market will probably have taken over completely and nobody seems to mind not being able to buy used games there.

Instead of creating restrictions for physical games they should have focused on having a good digital games store, which if successful would have led to the same results anyway but with a lot less hurt feelings.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Usami_Haru

I understand why Microsoft wants these restrictions but I can't for fucks sake understand why they're implementing them this way right now. In 10 years the digital game market will probably have taken over completely and nobody seems to mind not being able to buy used games there.

Instead of creating restrictions for physical games they should have focused on having a good digital games store, which if successful would have led to the same results anyway but with a lot less hurt feelings.

The issue here is that MS genuinely believe they would somehow get rich by taking over used game sales. Hint; they can't. Steam games are cheaper because people already put the inability to re-sell into account when they consider Steam prices. Used game market exists because of how expensive a full price game was, that is all. The customers are not getting richer; the only way to survive is to stop wasting too much money on making games and causing them to have unrealistic sales expectations in order to break even.

I am still shocked at SE being unhappy at the Tomb Raider sales figures. In the end it is the company's responsibility to not spend more money than they could make back. The Videogames market is not going to grow any further.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by DingoEnderZOE2

Why should an item's only sales value to the companies only be determined by whether or not it was purchased brand new or not???

Because it was already purchased. They were paid for that item. Again, used car example. Video games are the only business trying this, yet there are MANY used retail businesses. Why are video games unique?

Like I said having two type of game sales for Companies, developers,publishers, etc to look at would be a great way for otherwise under-appreciated games to thrive.

No, because it'd just drive up the used prices of those under-appreciated games, thus making it so no one who didn't already want them would be able to pick them up on a whim. Gee, I've never heard of this game, but it's only $10. Maybe I'll give it a shot. But now it'd be $54, and there's no way I'm giving it a shot.

Originally Posted by kyp275

Again, no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

Also this. If they want to pretend they're just leasing the game to me for a one-time fee, fine. Lower the price. But they're "selling" the game, thus it is mine.

Originally Posted by DingoEnderZOE2

Yes once you buy something it's yours. if you sell it to any place or anyone it's no longer yours. The person or place who purchased it from you should then give a small percentage like say 10 or 15% to the company..As I mentioned before this idea sounds like it would work better for video game stores where they would be more likely to follow suit with this idea.

Once I sell it, it would belong to the person who purchased it. Where does the developer or publisher fit into this? I did not sell it to them who then sold it to the other person. In current world terms, this would be Gamestop, who does act as a middle man. But you don't have to use Gamestop.

If we want to extend this further, should a cut of everything you sell on eBay go to the original developer or publisher? Not just games, but absolutely everything? So then eBay gets a cut, Paypal gets a cut, the original developer gets a cut... and you're left with maybe 70% of the selling price. It's asinine to the Nth degree.

Originally Posted by DingoEnderZOE2

The only thing that's causing us to be scared of this idea is the possible price we might have to pay, but what if the pay is manageable then would it still be a problem?

I'm not talking about BOOST the prices of used games to high prices to make up for the cut the companies get, just make them reasonably cheap while leaving some cash left over to give to the companies too.

What if you paid attention to how things really are instead of twisted them to not seem completely awful? Used games would only be 10% cheaper than a new game. Thus, a $60 new game would only be $54 used. No one will pay that for something they'd only consider on a whim.

[Duo Maxwell]

Originally Posted by DingoEnderZOE2

I'm asking as far as VIDEO GAMES are concerned, shouldn't a company that brings a person joy still be entitled to get a profit even from used games? You know how many games could have been more successful if companies not only have just the new game sales but also used game sales as well to look at?

Result in a lot of lost sales. Many people won't bother to buy a game if they know they can't sell it back after completing it.

Those games you mentioned aren't victim of used game selling, you know?

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by DingoEnderZOE2

Oh really? Okay let me name off a few of these failed but deserving games for you. So you're saying Okami, Godhand, Skies of Arcadia, Shenmue(still stuck at that cliffhanger in part 2 and This was the BIG one), Hotel Dusk(In the U.S.), Yakuza(fans are all still praying we get yakuza 5),Alpha Protocol, Bayonetta(It's a miracle we got that on the Wii U) all have terrible design that they couldn't have been saved by the extra boost in used game sales????

Skies of Arcadia: Awesome game, in fact, it's literally my favorite game of all time.
- lack of advertisement, got stuck first with the dreamcast then the gamecube, a combination of poor management choice and bad luck.

Shenmue - Decent game, but again, not much in way of advertisement, esp. the second one. Got the same dreamcast curse, and really is a niche game. Bad luck, small market, doomed to fail.

Alpha Protocal - crappy game, deserved to die in a fire.

These are the 3 from your list I've played, not one of them would've been helped by profits from used game sales.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I am still shocked at SE being unhappy at the Tomb Raider sales figures. In the end it is the company's responsibility to not spend more money than they could make back. The Videogames market is not going to grow any further.

It's what happens when you spend near $100mil on what is ultimately an old B-rated franchise that has never sold above 3mil copies in its heyday.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Alpha Protocol - crappy game, deserved to die in a fire.

The game had an interesting concept, but the guns are repeated, the scenarios are repeated, and the storyline sucks.

Spoiler for game spoilers:

And I didn't actually like how in the game, actual soldiers (US Marines) are being made to work for a PMIA, and in fact, shot in their line of work for doing so. Can't they at least use mercs?

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I am still shocked at SE being unhappy at the Tomb Raider sales figures. In the end it is the company's responsibility to not spend more money than they could make back. The Videogames market is not going to grow any further.

I had a joke with my friend yesterday about this. He went, "What? Lara Croft got a masectomy and they still expect us to pay for the game?"

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by kyp275

It's what happens when you spend near $100mil on what is ultimately an old B-rated franchise that has never sold above 3mil copies in its heyday.

I seriously believe that anyone who wanted to be a hard core gamers, has already became one. Thus any further money spent would not increase sales any more, unless you somehow grabbed new markets in other countries. This means there is a finite amount of sales possible even for the very best game in the world. If only they now realise it is time to shrink the money spent and just give us quality, more financially conservative, games.

Of course, that might be why MS is selling Xbox1 for its TV ability. But as I say, that's misguided. Casual gamers cannot be relied upon for repeated sales. You might get a burst from them if you catch the popular trend, but it aren't repeating itself in a sequel.

[Urzu 7]

I don't think the used game restrictions is the worst part of XBO. What I really don't like is the whole thing about Kinect having to always be connected and always be on. I don't like that. I wouldn't be surprised if MS monitors their consumers in some form for marketing data. Plus, the HDD can't be replaced/upgraded and installs are mandatory. Once you run outta room, you'll have to delete games or go with an external HDD.

If PS4 has the same used game restrictions as XBO, here is what I think about that:

If Sony goes with a fee for used games, I'd probably still get a PS4, but it'd be bad if Sony went that route. If both Sony and MS block used games, that will be harmful for the console segment of the industry. First of all, second hand sales of games doesn't always equate lost sales. Publishers just wanna think that. But how this can be harmful to console gaming is this: If new games are $60 and used games are only %10 cheaper, most gamers aren't going to buy games unless it is something they really want and/or something that is a AAA game. If an XBO or PS4 game is something they don't really want, most gamers aren't going to take a chance on a lot of games. Thus, a lot of games will get weak sales and only things like CoD and Madden and Halo and MGS and FF will get good or decent sales. If MS and Sony both do the same thing with used game sales, they are gonna screw things up big time.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Yeah, I find it crazy for MS to think used games is some untapped cash cow. The gamers end up using that money to buy more games anyway; making used games more expensive would not inject any wealth into the system. People aren't going to suddenly become richer.

[Shadow5YA]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Of course, that might be why MS is selling Xbox1 for its TV ability. But as I say, that's misguided. Casual gamers cannot be relied upon for repeated sales. You might get a burst from them if you catch the popular trend, but it aren't repeating itself in a sequel.

Nintendo managed to pull it off with Wii Sports and Wii Sports Resort.

I think there is nothing intrinsically wrong with trying to reach out to a wider audience, but there is a problem when it alienates your established fanbase. Then it becomes a zero-sum game where no extra profit is actually made.

Specifically, I have no problem with the social networking apps. Sure, I personally don't care for it like I didn't care for Wii Sports, but it doesn't harm me in any way. The used game fees and "always on" Kinect functions do harm, however.