Corporate greed won't lower prices of new games even if they get a cut of used game sales.
We have to practice tough love here. DRM infused games just don't get the love.
If they don't like that,....tough.
Dogs are great judges of character, and if your dog doesn't like somebody being around, you shouldn't trust them.
I * wish you good luck.
This all makes sense if one remembers that the term «terrorist» is here to be understood as anyone who does anything of which the MPAA, the RIAA, assorted patent lawyers, and in this particular case, a subset of game developers happen to disapprove. I just hope the above named, who seem to have no conception of the intellectual commons or prior art, are paying the proper royalties to the descendents of the Chinese inventors of toalet paper som 1900-odd years ago every time they wipe htemselves....
GJ in this work
Do not worry you can always sell your used games on www.ListingBarn.com
OK, to the publishers:
If you buy a new game from the big publishers, the terrorists win!
That, according to the "pie" in which publishers get the full profit, while the developers get little or nothing.
Wow! Why don't the publishers start selling used games themselves? Problem solved.
To not support the terrorists: Only buy games from the indies. Otherwise, I will just go back to my PS1.
It's important to remember in all this that we actually live in a Golden Age of single-player gaming. I doubt Browne can see it, but between the coming of age of indie game development, Steam and other digitial distribution services, and a massive back catalog of top-notch game experiences, it's a great time to be a PC gamer. It's a lousy time to be EA, Activision, or one of their overpaid and overrated development studios (not a description that applies to all of them, but to far too many), but that's not a problem for the game consumer.
They always said intellectual property is like any other. You can't steal it, and you CAN resell it.
I understand their woes, and I actually agree with them on the fact that used games ARE killing single player games. However, I think the fault is theirs. If they made a game that was actually fun, original, and had high replayability then nobody would return the game. Example; KOTR 1, that game was freaking amazing! You could play the game over and over again and still have a different experience each time. I had my copy stolen because the game was just THAT good. Another Example; Fable 3, It was meh the game-play was similar if not the same as the last one. The story was stagnant and they wanted to make another one. I beat it in two days, tons of people had complaints about it because of similar reasons.
TLDR -- good games not only make good sales, they make good customers.
I don't remember buying Minecraft at Gamestop. Or any of the games from the Indie Humble Bundle. Or Fez, for that matter.
The simple answer is - stop buying games at retail stores, overproduced crap from publishers that don't care about you, or creativity, or the meaning of "fun". Stop buying games on the first day they're released, overhyped and over priced.
Pick a Kickstarter campaign that interests you, or an indie developer asking for a few bucks on their website, or wait until a Digital Distribution service has offers the games you want at the price you're willing to pay. That's the real free market, there.
(PC man only but still...)
Missing from the articles nice pro-business pie charts are;
1) How many titles produced in each years (2007 to 2011)?
2) How many of those in each year garnered the 'turkey' label?
3) How many 're-sales' per year?
4) How many of those 're-sales' accounted for buying new titles?
I guess my point is that the market has a quality threshold below which it is less inclined to buy a 'new' title but it might try that same game at the lower 're-sold' price.
LOL. "corporate greed."
It's not a charity. They'll keep selling at $60 as long as people keep buying.
Rick, did you read the article, or are you commenting based on a quick impression? My "pro-business" charts are used to demonstrate the following:
1) Despite the comments of developers who hate the used game market, game sales have grown steadily.
2) Returning *all* of Gamestop's revenue from used titles and equipment directly to the publishers would not be sufficient to blunt the impact of spiraling development costs.
3) Publishers already take nearly 50% of the $60 a game sells for new. Between publishers and royalties, 56% of a game's price goes out the door.
4) Despite emphatically disliking Gamestop, blaming them for the current situation (or claiming they don't have a right to sell used products) is detrimental to both consumers and the market as a whole. It destroys what's traditionally been protected as a consumer right -- the right of first sale.
I am pro consumer rights. It so happens that in this case, that makes me pro-Gamestop. Politics, as they say, makes for strange bedfellows.
NEWS TIPS |
This site is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. The contents are the views and opinion of the author and/or hisassociates. All products and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All content and graphical elements areCopyright © 1999 - 2014 David Altavilla and HotHardware.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy and Terms