I get his complaints but it's disappointing how he and many of us seemingly have internalized the software industry's notion that virtual goods that we paid for aren't really our property. We merely buy the right to use it how they want it for as long as they allow us to. It's a strictly regulated service marketed as a product and we better accept that because...why again? Because the poor publisher might not make enough of a profit? Anyway, it just sounds like we gamers are forced to give up our property rights because the games industry isn't making enough money - as if that's our fault - and that's inherently and completely anti-consumer.
Simple and short answer: GOG Long answer: If you buy a game on GOG, just burn it on CD, save it on a drive or store it in a cloud. No payment for the right to use. Hell, you could technically give a copy to anyone of your friends or seed it. At the same time, no used copies (though right now I see, how this could have more damage, as with a used copy you can give it only to one. But apparently Witcher & Co sold well).
Okay, your points are valid, fair enough. What about console-only games? Let's say I want Okami. I can download the HD version from the PSN right. WRONG. I don't have a PS3? Now what? Buy a PS3 just to get Okami? Fuck that. The only platforms I have that I can play Okami on are a PS2 Slim and a Wii. The only place where I can find Okami for either platform? Used games stores. Otherwise, you're saying "tough titty" when the only thing I can do is buy it used.
Game players that primarily play on consoles like myself will still buy used games for the time being.Why?Do we have deep discounts?NO.Do console games go on sale often?NO.Are the prices on both PC and consoles even remotely comparable when a sale does happen?NO.Even digital console games aren't as cheap as digital PC titles.Also,PC gamers don't have to deal with license fees that Microsoft,Sony,and Nintendo force on us.
TotalBiscuit: I don't know that you'll ever see this, but I have a legitimate question. Don't you think that what YOU and Let's Play streamers do qualifies in the same way that a radio station does? Meaning, don't YOU feel that YOU owe a portion of your revenue to the publisher? After all, Let's Players in particular are streaming an experience. They may modify that experience by offering commentary, but DJs offer commentary before and after a song plays in many instances, and the very same argument could be made that your review or Let's Play is a promotional tool. Do you feel that you owe the video game industry a cut of your profit? If not, I'd like to know precisely why?
maybe people would buy new games if they were not so expensive? i mean seriously im waiting for used copies of watch dogs because its like £55 from what i heard, games are getting more expensive and people are not getting payed more, if the prices keep rising people will stop buying new copies completely.
WTF is......TB on about? What benefits would console players see from no used games? There is no guarantee of the prices going down, having more sales or bad business practices going away, just because they were caused by the used game sales doesn't mean they would go away with it! There is no guarantee of anything good coming our way for giving up used games. No guarantee whatsoever, just because PC's have lower prices doesn't mean you'll see the same on consoles.
The only 'disadvantage' to buying a used game is that it MIGHT not work, but just return it and get a new copy totally free. If anything, used games are steam sales. Point blank facts people..
I really don't understand the whole "support the developers" thing, do i have to feel sorry for the publishers if they don't get paid for the used copy i bought? videogame industry is, well, an industry, a business, their goal is to make money, they're not making charity. In the market everyone is supposed to do whatever they can to get the more profit they can with less expenses possible, the publishers do it and i do it as well.
Pre-owned gaming ruining the gaming industry, the whole myth that pre-owned gaming hurts developers is a beaten up lie by publishers. Why? Because the publishers don't want to admit their game doesn't sell due to be being rushed, pushed and simply not that good. Good games sell, they will ALWAYS sell, mediocre games get shelved. The Logic argument: Retailers make 10% out of their new game, the devs get their salary and 10% too, the publisher gets 80%, so retailers push pre-owned to the masses to get some money back. To purchase a pre-owned copy, someone has had to buy the new copy and then sell it. Right there the publisher makes money, then there is DLC for that too. Good games sell, regardless of the pre-owned market. Why? Because if you're gonna spend 60$ on a game, you want to buy a good one, so good games sell, the mediocre or lesser know tittles get bought pre-owned or never. Just look at GTAV, within a week they got 10x their production cost.. No online passes, no DRM. Just pure reward for a good work. Pre-owned markets exist ANYWHERE, and no, games don't deserve to be exempt because "Oh just the scratches and bad looking box doesn't matter, it either works or doesn't!" That's the exact same thing as a book! Folded pages? ugly cover? But by God I can read the story as intended, even better! I can go to a library or just read them for free in stores that allow that (FNAC, Waterstones [where all they ask is for you to buy it, if you liked it, an honour system]) if I'm really cheap~ but lets face it, if you want a physical copy, unless you can't afford better, you want it new for your collection. My pre-owned ikea furnishings look brand new, has anyone in history ever said I took money from Ikea for buying them pre-owned? NO! Because that's retarded, that's how ownership works. The mathematical argument: but who needs logic when you can have EVIDENCE~ Gamestop holds the monopoly on pre-owned gaming, they do. They make 8 billion a year~ a publisher shares the market with 20-30 others. Nintendo alone makes 9 billion. Alright alright, Nintendo has a console, and tons of IP.... Konami makes 5 billion... Ubisoft? 2 Billion errr... but Gamestop ruins games and shuts down developers how can this be since their total revenue is about 5% of a publishers shared market? "You know, not all publishers are big and fancy!" Yeah you're right, yet vannillaware and Atlus, is profiting, and keeping a float... Could it be that they just have good games and a good manager, so even though they are small, they can still profit? "What about Good devs like THQ!?" In case you didn't know, they had good games but they had tons of disastrous other investments on the background. Most actually merge with bigger publishers such as EA or get bought over and put to work elsewhere. Remember Eidos? The Digital evolution arguement: "No, we will be able to own games and there will be backups and sales, just like Steam! :D Pre-owned game markets are the only reason Xbox and Sony aren't like steam .__.". Get your head out of your ass, people. Go on the microsoft store RIGHT now, you'll find Old games for their full retail price, why? They still get 100% of the profit... Where is the sales? Where is the backups? Last I heard you can no longer access DLC from games of 2009! Let alone Original Xbox Games but, nah, lets trust publishers. A titanfall copy on release is more expensive in digital form than in a physical copy. Don't forget for every Steam, you have 3 Origins. No no, let's blindly follow publishers, the ones that charge a subscription to play online, and then charge you again for an online pass. Forget thousands of years of trading principles and international law, give money to publishers because fuck you gimme money! The Reality: Publishers push games out and take devs that work on good games to work on their bigger titles that sell, like FIFA. After the 100th version or edition, people are getting a bit sick of their next installment of mass murdering terrorist creed, when they realise it wasn't up to par with their last game and decide to get it pre-owned or wait for reviews. Meanwhile Indie devs make tons of money making simple, yet innovative and creative titles. The only logical conclusion is to blame pre-owned games~ yes, yes the ones that have been around since the beginning of gaming yet it's a profiting market..."correlation implies causation fallacy" because what better excuse to guilt trip consumers while promoting DLC and excusing online passes, as a way to shank some more money. You know publishers have meeting on how to combat backlash, right? If anything brings down the gaming industry it will be publishers pushing out games like BF4 and repetitive shit like CoD, or restrictive DRM like on Sims City... Just like it did BEFORE, yeah this has happened before~. Shitty games bring down the market. Come on people, think for yourselves. Don't just take what people say at face value. Go research and come up with your own conclusion, I like TB but he is dead wrong with this topic, blinded by anger of his old employers.
richard5X5 Thanks I appreciate it. I feel like a lot of people like video games, and they want to see them succeed so much that they want almost want to throw money at the industry. It's beyond me why they think this industry is so "unique" that should bypass simple trading principles. Bypassing your consumer rights... some compare it to piracy. I've worked for a major publisher, business-side, apart from the developer team, the actual artists, a generous 75% never played a game. These people don't care about gamers and every goal is oriented on "How to save while making more money without backlash." It's the will of the shareholders. This is why we have online passes, pre-orders, it has nothing to do with pre-owned games, it's an excuse to secure more money. Think about it, why do we even need pre-order incentives on steam? There is no pre-owned market there, what's the incentive for? In time they turned a "counter-activity" into the norm and play it off as if it was always there. It's what the marketing teams are for...
I`ve got a real solution to this problem: Make games that are actually worth buying new at their full price and are worth keeping. Cut out all the bs DLC/pre order false advertising and technical issues that put people off buying them new and focus on making a quality product that is worth paying a premium for!
I fully support people buying used games. Lately, there have been a lot of good games coming out and not everyone has a lot of money to go and buy every single game. Especially if its console based. So, they turn towards used games and are able to buy more used games then new games. Another example is that it promotes different games. Every now and then when I go into game, I specifically go to the used games section. It is there where I find different games that I have never even heard of before. I will look at the case, then the back of the case and read about it. If I like what I see, I look some more to see if there is anything better, if not then I will get the game. I will play it and if I like then I will see if it has sequels or prequels. I will look at the games company and see what other games they've released. All this helps promote games companies and their games. That way, the next time a company announces a game, I will follow it where as before, I would have never been able to do that.
The reasoning you give for why movies (for example) also serves as an argument in favor of allowing used games. Before a copy of a game can be sold used, it has to be sold new first. There is just no way around that. The publisher already made a sum of money off of that copy. But I support the existence of used games for another reason. The accessibility of a game (or any other creative work for that matter) should not end when the publisher decides no longer to support it. I have no problem with the creators making their money. In fact, I want them to do that. But once they have decided they have made all the money they are going to on a project, I want the creative work to continue to be available to the people. Also, anything that stops or inhibits used games also inhibits transfer to a new computer. Not being able to play a game that you have paid to be able to play is both annoying and unfair to the consumer. What you end up with is a case of not buying the game, but only renting it.
For PC games, one tactic that I observed is that the same copy of the game can be installed on multiple PCs but only one of them can be run at any given time. So, it’s still possible to play your game on a new computer if you get one. Back to the used games argument, your argument only holds up if we assume that the developer makes the minimum amount of money off of a game that they need to sustain themselves before used games become a significant factor. Even if we’re talking about a game with no online component and eliminate the cost factor of maintaining online servers, the lost profit from a used game sale still makes an impact. Let’s say for example a developer needs to sell 10,000 new copies of a game to make enough money to develop the next one. What if after the 5000th copy sold, everybody starts buying used copies? Answer, they either can’t make the next game or they need to cut costs to do it and we end up with an objectively worse product than we would’ve had. Comparing used games to used movies doesn’t hold up because of the reasons TB already stated in the video. If you want a more accurate comparison, look at bus passes. Why do bus companies disallow the action of transferring passes? Because of the same reasons TB disagrees with used games. If the product that’s the primary source of revenue for a company becomes transferable, it’s a net negative for the company. A company has a set return in mind when they develop a product and determine the selling price for the market. If it’s not met because it’s being reused amongst the consumer base instead of new units being sold, the company will have no choice but to increase prices and/or downgrade future products.
I'm 28, I've been playing video games basically for all of my life, this is the third video I've watched of this guy and he like totally changed my opinion, twice.
About the non-existing comparison between cars and digital media: a new car lose about 10% of its value the moment you drive it out of the selling agency. Are you telling me that it's ok for the first mircosecond of wear and tear on a car to make a it lose thousands of dollars in value, but it's bad for a used game to go down $10 in value ever?
No, a utilitarian approach does not justify skirting ethical boundaries. The product in question, is no longer the property of devs/pubs once money has been exchanged for it. The individual that bought it has every right to do whatever they wish with it, including sell it, and devs/pubs have no claim to it.
Interesting arguments. As someone who works in the music industry, a few questions and thoughts. Does the video game industry benefit from the blank media levy like record labels do? Second, record labels only benefit from sales of CDs. Most of the alternate revenue streams you mentioned only benefit the bands or songwriters (t-shirts, touring, ASCAP royalties, etc.).
The problem I have with Digital sales is companies such as Capcom who create content for the game, but then lock it off to sell at a later date. Disc locked content if you will. If you get a game digitally and it is gimped from the start even if you get a new copy. With discs you can expose these practices but digitally you just have to assume you are getting the full product.
Advantages of used game sales: 1- Keeps old games on the market 2- Someone purchasing an old, used title in a certain series may take up a liking to it and buy the newest, just released game in the series 3- The person who sold the game now has money, which can and more often than not will be used in buying more games (some of those new). 4- In countries with completely retarded game pricing (like in Brazil, where I live), it can help gamers acquire new titles without selling a kidney (thus keeping them engaged in the hobby, instead of them just outright giving it up for something cheaper or converting to mobile games). This means that, when this person gets a job / better job, s/he will be able to buy new games. 5- Used games means your game will reach more people than it would, increasing free advertising and gathering potential new sales of your game from people who heard about it from someone who bought it used or from a friend playing the used copy that his buddy bought. 6- An incentive for devs to make games with good replay value. Make a shitty game and it will pretty soon be thrown away in the gamestop used game bargain bin by the first wave of consumers. 7- A good way of keeping the price of new games in check. Make your games too expensive and the used game sales will come back to bite your back. Also, no used games by no means would equate cheaper games at all. Depending on the goodwill of these corporations has proven to be a futile expectation. Microsoft could have made their DRM appealing by, for example, saying there would be a price reduction to accompany it and quantify that reduction, as well as mentioning it would be there on day one. Otherwise, of course we will be skeptical - Xbox Live has downloadable titles and that can't be resold and they never had good pricing at all. But them telllng us to wait for the cake to grow before splitting it...? No way. Also, like I mentioned on another comment, uPlay and Origin have terrible prices when compared to Steam, which is really baffling considering on EA and Ubisoft titles they pay 0 royalties or any sort of taxes (yet they can't even make their own games cheaper than on their direct and biggest competitor!).
Counterpoints: 1) The “market” being held up here is a net negative for the game developers as they don’t garner any profit but is still bearing costs for the maintenance of any applicable online features. 2) through 5) Consumers who realize these benefits will be heavily incentivized to continue buying used over new because there’s no reason not to, even if they can afford to buy it new. The percentage of consumers who do buy new copies will not likely offset the losses from those who continue to buy used. 6) and 7) Devs will lose out on bad quality and/or overpriced games regardless of the existence of used games or not. The used game market exists solely to replace the developer with the retailer in the consumer-merchant relationship. If a developer makes a bad and/or overpriced game, fewer people will buy it period; and the earlier point you made about used games being advertising will actually make things worse because that message will be passed around more vividly. There’s no denying that the used game market holds several immediate benefits for consumers (I.e. lower cost and the opportunity to recover funds). But the broader, long term issues are the problem TB is focussed on in this video. The used game market and how retailers operate it is a formula that slowly bleeds game developers. It may not seem to be a big deal when you’re talking about a timespan of a few years. Obviously, the big developers have money to burn and can live through a generation or two with this market. But what happens when we reach a time where they can no longer afford to do that? Games become progressively worse and eventually cease to exist. This is probably why the digital market has become what it is today. Pretty soon, hard copies of games will be phased out completely regardless of what platform it’s on. We probably would have reached this point eventually but I think the used game market pushed it faster than it otherwise would’ve gone.
Counterpoints to the Advantages of Used Game Sales: Diminished revenue for developers and publishers: While keeping old games on the market may appeal to nostalgic gamers, it also means that fewer new copies of the game are being sold. This can lead to reduced revenue for developers and publishers, potentially affecting their ability to invest in new and innovative game projects. Potential lost sales for new releases: While some players may discover a series through purchasing an old, used title, others may opt to continue buying used copies of newer releases instead of purchasing new copies at full price. This can result in lost revenue for the developers and may impact their ability to create future installments in the series. Reduced profit for the gaming industry: When a used game is sold, the developer and publisher don't receive any direct revenue from that transaction. Instead, the money goes to the person who sold the used copy, which means less financial support for the gaming industry as a whole. Impact on game developers in countries with higher game pricing: While used games can be a more affordable option for players in regions with high game prices, it can create a vicious cycle. Developers may find it challenging to justify reducing game prices in such regions if they believe that players will rely on the used market instead of buying new copies, potentially leading to fewer localized and tailored gaming experiences for these markets. Negative effect on game sales and revenue: While used games may spread awareness of a game and act as free advertising, this doesn't always translate into significant new sales. If a game's used copies saturate the market, potential customers may choose to buy those cheaper used copies instead of new ones, leading to a drop in revenue for developers and publishers. Potential for discouraging game development risks: While the prospect of games retaining value can incentivize developers to create games with good replay value, it might also discourage them from taking creative risks. Developers may feel compelled to stick to safer, formulaic approaches to ensure their games hold value in the used market, potentially stifling innovation and creativity. Impact on game pricing and quality: While used game sales can indeed put pressure on developers to consider the pricing of new games, it may also have unintended consequences. To compensate for potential lost revenue due to used game sales, developers might resort to adding more microtransactions or other monetization methods, affecting the overall gaming experience and potentially alienating players.
It's not like the money they gained from the first purchase disappears, one person bought the game and one person is still playing the game online - the number of gamers playing is still the same. This argument ONLY applies for things like torrents, where one bought copy can be divided and several gamers are exploiting servers they didn't contribute to. These arguments lack nuance. Online passes are primarily for the purposes of greed. Argue that the consumer is no better, but don't fabricate these ridiculously noble intentions. Corporations don't need white knights.
However at the same time it is money lost on a customer. Yes that £40 spent on that game doesn't go away, that money is taken by the respective companies and redistributed into funding future games, but out of those two people who have owned the game, only one person has purchased the ticket for the ride. That's £40 lost for the company. Of course it is all about money. Let's not delude ourselves that the industry is doing this for the 'creative art'. Just like the music and film industry, the stockholders are in it for the money, while the companies want to present an interesting product while also earning money for that product. A company can want to make a game all they want, however that requires capital which can only be given by certain people and they will not invest if it will not give return, because that is how business works. Online passes are there for greed...yeah...because as TB says they offer a way to make used and new games different entities rather than the same, the used gives you a lesser experience which is justified by the lower price tag. We all want games to be cheaper. I'd love to pay £1 for Bioshock Infinite or the next big title...but if we all did that, Bioshock Infinite would be Irrationals last game. Personally I think your view is very cynical, while it is somewhat accurate it is very cynical to think that the greed motivation is nothing but "We want more money cause we want to be richer." most of the time money gets recycled into future projects which is good for the industry because we get more games. My opinion on both the industry and community is that there is distrust among both. The gamers are very cynical and seem completely resistant to the idea that a game company has the right to earn money for its product or the products they give. If the product is worth that price point is another argument entirely and this is not about that, this is about the idea that if someone wants something...they pay for it and that money should go to the right place. A lot (not all) but a lot of gamers seem very resistant to this idea and see DLC and other expansion content as a means by a company to nickel and diming them without realising that the company may want to give the gamer a great experience....but like all of us it has to pay the bills... At the same time companies have to realise that there will be opposition and there will be very cynical people around who criticise them. They can solve this by being more transparent. For example I bet if Soul Reaver was released today that entire cut segment with Turel and The Priestess would have probably been developed as DLC. The industry is not transparent enough with how it approaches DLC and other extra content you have to pay for, they don't explain how it appears. With Capcom where they simply make the costumes and lock them...yeah...that is wrong because they are blocking content behind a paywall from the start. If there is unfinished content that was shelved because it would take too long, that being reborn as DLC is fine because that was cut content that has been repurposed as DLC, think of it like a directors cut addon to a game. Anyway....that's it from me.
The number of gamers playing is the same? No, how would it be? If one copy is going around, that means only one person is playing. Yeah, the first purchase doesn't disappear... but then no more appear, and anyone playing afterward are essentially getting in for free, this is especially true for traded games. Enough about this corporate greed nonsense, people like you just want something for nothing. Just like people complaining about taxes, you always want more for less, whether it's earning more money and spending less, or spending less and getting more value returned.
Ody -Chan You know you're absolutely right, by someone else using a copy, no new players buy the game. Of course the purchase of the product you're using was made, but it's still being used by a new person. For that matter, why are we allowing games to be borrowed? Friends borrow games they don't pay for - how disgraceful. And what about families? A member of a household buys a game and suddenly everyone in the house thinks they have a right to use it? Did they pay for it? No, so they have no right to use it. Henceforth all games should be systematically limited to only one individual - the person who pays for it. If any other person tries to use it, the disk should not work. In fact, if anyone tries to participate in any of the enjoyment from a game they didn't pay for, the game should explode. Brilliant logic.
Mick drew Straw man on a slippery slope, nice. Families can share an account to play games, so if I wanted to borrow a friend or relative's copy of a game I could just ask them to switch their password to something I know for a bit. Do we need to halve a game group's sales to allow game sharing? No. We just need to share our account and suddenly there's not multiple thriving industries on buying a 50 dollar game for 5 bucks and reselling it for 40.
Sorry, I have to disagree. Your argument fails in that console publishers and developers could give deep discounts on electronic copies of the game too. They would not have to worry about these copies being resold or retailers taking any cut. BUT THEY DON'T! Electronic copies on consoles are extremely expensive, often more expensive than new physical retail copies. They are rarely discounted! They could end the used market if they pushed electronic copies! Until they do I will buy used, I can't afford to buy new all the time.
The thing is, with those other industries, as you mentioned, those avenues that provide them with more revenue still benefit the customer. With movies, you can go see them in theaters, buy the disc/Blu Ray, stream online, buy the soundtrack, so on and so forth. Same with music. You can buy the CD, go to concerts, listen and buy online, etc. The problem with your argument is that taking used games away from the customer is taking an option away from the them, whereas other industries are clever enough to make more money by giving the customer MORE options, not fewer. What the gaming industry needs to do, rather than remove the option of selling used games, is to find a clever way to earn more money. Add on to the options we have, don't take them away.
Most of TB's argument early on seems to be about how the gaming industry is bad at making money as oppose to music and movies that make money through other avenues. I have to ask how does that change the consumer's rights? It doesn't matter if a used car lot is making money or not, the basic rules of the business from a buying and selling standpoint don't just change. Don't get me wrong if someone is doing good work you should support them, but once they sell a copy it's the consumer's copy to do as he pleases. For the resurfacing that makes the game "like new" that is trying to discredit comparisons to other sorts of used sale; that is what you call a repair, and while in used games the people who sale it also repair it you know it's still going into your cost. It's much more convenient but it's essentially the same as repairing any other used goods. As far as the multiplayer server point goes, when you sell an unlimited service sometimes you're screwing yourself. All there is to it is they need to fix the fact that rights to the multiplayer are with the disc. If the industry can't fix it due to consumer backlash it's the industry's own fault for making it the standard and letting it ride for so long. One last thing. I doubt we'll see a full withdraw from physical media on consoles at least because people just like it. It's like vinyl in the sense that right now you can get about the same quality with more range with a FLAC file with a good set of speakers, it would cost about the same, and be more convenient but some just don't move on. The only difference is that it doesn't seem like the gaming industry wowed enough people into conversion to move on anyways. yes I know too long didn't read, but hey someone might and I'm bored.
@Tom Biden I mean that's essentially what they're trying to do in their attempts to dissolve the physical market. Can't say how well that idea would work for discs though. On disc DLC is already a touchy subject for people. To say that the consumer doesn't at least own their copy of the good on the disc they've purchased to access would likely be the tipping point that would invite a lot of litigation in a lot of countries.
Wtf. If you buy something, you already gave money to the producer, and you can do whatever you want with your copy, be it, selling it, trading it, playing it, or taking a fucking dump on it. No one can tell you what to do with what you bought.
niels718 Actually, terms and conditions don't say shit except for the occasional "not for resale", but this also doesn't technically mean you can't "Re-sell it, here I'll explain. Not for resale means that the game can't be put on the shelf separate from it's bundle and sold at full price as if it is a brand new game. Games with 'Not for resale' on them usually come in bundles like certain copies of Ratchet and Uncharted. The game/bundle is initially sold to the retailer (Gamestop). What 'Not for resale' implies is that the bundle cannot be taken apart and sold as individual items by the retailer, which would generate excess revenue for them, but Sony/M$/Nintendo would be cheated out of their income because they issued a bargain package and selling the parts individually would defeat the purpose of the bundle, which is to move systems. 'Not for resale' is just to remind retailers that certain items are to be sold together as packages and that they are the only parties liable if not. What gets done with those items after they are sold to the consumer doesn't matter because the business cycle has been completed...
GarrysDude watch the video again please and pay attention. TB has a point here and there and even though I do not completely agree with him I disagree with you even more. If you buy a physical product that relies on it's physical form then you are allowed to do whatever you want with it and that's fair and that concerns cars, furniture, clothes etc. But you have to reflect that you either sell or buy a used product in order to do so and you have to tell the customer that you are selling a used product. Ever wondered why ikea makes such a shitty but dirt cheap furniture? Because it is merely impossible to resell it, hell it's even impossible to move it from house to house. And we are fine with that because it is the down side of saving some money. Cars? Companies like Mercedes (I can speak from my experience at authorised car reseller) specifically manufacture cars in order to have parts that would need constant maintenance. Ever heard of Bluetec additives? This was two birds with one stone for MB - they have the monopoly on this fuel aditive and by making this 'eco-friendly' engines they also passed EU regulations. And then we go on - the manufacturer also makes money from servicing your car and that's why they force you to go to the authorised garage in order to do even the stupidest maintenance like changing oil filter and oil which you can pretty much do anywhere else. If you think that manufacturers like Mercedes bankrupt on used cars, well then why do they sell used cars themselves (here in Europe at least)? Because they know that every car makes them money and that most people just sell their car for the reason that there is a newer model out which they can afford but they do not need two (pretty much same) cars. This is applicable to pretty much any physical product that sooner or later will need maintenance - consoles, PCs/notebooks, cellphones etc. And the market here is adjusted to this by making authorised resellers, authorised services etc. This however doesn't imply on used games. Devs and even publishers do not get jack from used games. The physical copy itself is just a medium that gives you ability to play the game, but so is digital distribution or piracy or rental etc. The way I see used game market is pretty much as a piracy in smooth and physical form. Why? Well, imagine you are the developer and work your ass off for a game in order to pay for the development and other bare necessities like you know - your survival. You give the game to the publisher because he is the one who backed you up so you wouldn't bankrupt before releasing the title. Publisher set's the price and tells you that if the sales are this and this good then you get your revenue and if not well you are screwed. You have your lifeline there. Now you see that the game goes to the stores with 50$ price tag. You know that when some amount is sold then you get your money and get out of red numbers. And guess what? Day one is quite alright, but you are still slightly in red. Ok, nevermind, it will sort itself out overtime, when enough copies are sold. Nope. Because retailer gets your revenue for your product by forcing customer into buying used one over new one. And trust me - I have a lot of experience from either consumer side and corporate side (I worked at retailer as a part time job to make ours channel real) and the used games even in e-shops are put before new games. It is quite understandable - the retailer makes more money this way and the customer in the end pays half the price because he/she had sold the game back. So everyone get's some cash except the developer who made this whole business possible. So either retailers give the revenue to the devs/publishers or we have to deal with free-to-plays and DLC for the rest of the time. So enjoy the 5$ you've saved.
***** Pretty much everyone that I know of that sells their games do so for 2 reasons: 1- To buy MORE games 2- Because their financial situation took a nosedive and they need money for survival
FeanorBR Steam sales. I am a person who lives by budget as well (700€per month to cover everything including rent) and I buy games only when there is a steam sale. For the consoles - there are things like black friday and sales as well. You really do not need a game on day one, it is pretty much always a bad experience nowadays because day one is pretty much early access (see SimCity, BF4, AC II, even freaking ArmA III or Left4Dead had serious issues immediately after launch). I mean that you can buy game half a year later when there is established community, patches and working content and you can get a bonus content (sometimes for free even) if you do not get overhyped. I've bought/pre-ordered only one game on day one and that was Mass Effect 3 (for sodding 50€ - that is pretty much three days of food for me) because of day one DLC that was free that way and boy do I regret that decision now. The state it was in after release was dreadful and you got pretty much full conclusion after 6 months as a free DLC. This is reason why I bought Skyrim, Fallout New Vegas, ArmA II and III and other games I quite enjoy long after release. And I've never regretted that decision. Skyrim with all DLCs and bonus content for give or take 15€? That is fair price to me and is much cheaper then some used copy. And these events are (at least on steam) on daily basis. Just add a game to wishlist and see if you can be patient to save money. Or add Humble Bundle page to your favourites.
I'm a games development student, as part of my course I study the market and business model associated with this. Retailers are generally the worst when it comes to this. If you are a medium sized game developer and make a game, you want £10 from it, you go to a publisher, they want 50%, so also £10 from it, they than send it to distributors and retailers who want 50% from the sale, which by now is £20, bringing the total price to £40. If you buy a triple A title, chances are the people that actually developed it get 1/4 or even 1/5 of the price you paid.
Sort of ironic that you are using exactly the same arguments to protect the status quo that the Music and Film industries have been using since the first cassette recorders came out. If the games industry is so tied to a single stream of revenue, it is run by incompetent people. If budgets are set that require an insane amount of sales for an uproven product, it is run by incompetents. If the industry is too busy languishing in the present instead of looking at the future, it is run by incompetents. Used games aren't killing the industry. If it were, you'd expect volume to be decreasing. Instead, revenue is skyrocketing. In 2013, the volume of the industry was 93 BILLION dollars. For comparison, the movie industry took in a combined total of 88 billion dollars last year. If games publishers and developers are feeling a squeeze, it is one of their own making and you should stop validating their excuses for their own failings.
As a console gamer, I can't really say that I've experienced the PC market, however I do have a decent library of games on my steam account and I love the steam system. Honestly the biggest reason people buy used games is because they are cheaper than buying a 60 dollar game, which for someone like me who likes to buy multiple games at once kinda hurts your wallet. Now, you can get into the whole argument of "it's a hobby, it's gonna cost you" but I think that if the console market would become more like steam (aka Amazon sales) or at least have retailers have better and more reasonable prices for their console games, then I think the used games issue would disappear.
Game discs don't get wear and tear? Really? I can't even believe you can say that with a straight face. Resurfacing brings the disc back to perfect usability? Maybe, but only until the next time it gets scratched, and don't even try to tell me that you can resurface it again as often as you would like, it doesn't work that way. At all.
Except that his whole commentary about it was the buying and selling of DISC GAMES. I do agree that you should not be able to resell downloaded games, but I also think you shouldn't have to pay the full cost of a downloaded game as you do a game cartridge, of any kind. After all, you don't get the case, you don't get the game manual (for the games that still include that), you don't get anything but the game itself, for the life of your console or computer (and occasionally longer if you have the ability to download it as often as you want as long as you can prove it is you.) However lets be honest, with many console games you only have the downloaded game until the next console cycle. Sixty bucks for a game, you can't resell it and you can only play it as long as your console lasts. I'll be honest, often it is worth the cost, if the game is amazing and it holds my interest for as long as it takes to play it through, even more so if I'll replay it. But I can get a game on steam or origin for far less than that, and those I can play forever... basically.
i am surprised games still cost $59!! prices are going up for almost everything, but games prices hasn't changed in ages...gamers be thankful and buy new.
ya cus not having money is such a blesing when it is an incomplet game that needs patching i rember when it was arond 20 for a new title back on the ps2 60 is a big asking price for a game that ill most likely bore of i agree with total but its just bs to be forced for the most part at a 60 start price becus im on a consel and im on a mac rather then a pc this odacity is why we cant have good games honestly i whud pay 60 for a game that is day one optimised and tested to the point of being at its prime i wish that i can get theas steam sales for my concel and not deal with game stop cus sirusrly fuck thows guys
For retail console games, yeah, but I'm not thankful. $60 is a good chunk a change for those of us who are supporting ourselves (not to imply you are/aren't). I'd much prefer the pc scene where you get get games that have reasonable budgets for reasonable prices; not to mention glorious bundles and sales.
Zulu Cthulu if next gen goes all digital, then maybe you'll get cheap prices like steam, maybe xbox will go all digital, I doubt Sony will go digital though.
Maybe, but you're at their mercy. And considering many new console games now include micro transactions, despite being full priced games, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Games can also be made far more cheaply now. Many Devs simply spend too much money these days. They do ridiculous things like focus their efforts on high poly counts or hiring hollywood voice actors. When they have an overblown budget I don't feel bad if the lose out.
A used game was once bought new, the person whom traded it in is no longer playing it using server space, the person whom bought the used takes the spot of the original buyer. The claiming it is like a used car, movie and so on is kinda stupid but I think the reason game publishers and developers lose money is due to bad business. EA, they like to screw over their customers, IE mass effect 3, battlefield 4 and dragon age 2. They rush things just to get them out the door and poor products make for poor return customers. Killing the used game market is just greed on the larger publishers and developers to keep the share holders happy.
It's a tough argument either way. On one hand, you have the first sale doctrine in which someone should be able to sell their initially-bought key and their access to the game in which case someone else takes their place on the server and potentially buys DLC over again. There'd be two ways to handle something like that. One is the traditional method of selling to Gamestop or a different shop. However, none of that money is going back to the developer like TotalBiscuit re-iterated a lot and screws over pretty much everyone. The other would be for Valve to implement a system to trade/sell your keys in a marketplace. However, the issue with that is that because there is no difference between a used digital copy and a new digital copy, either people would sell them for cheaper than they bought it for or charge the same price as on the steam store. In the latter case, there is no point whatsoever to selling your keys because people can just buy their own copy. In the former case what point is there to buying games on the steam store? And in both cases while the developers would rightfully get their cut of the sale, Valve is certainly going to get a lot less of a cut of the sale no matter how you slice it. Again, with digital sales becoming more prevalent in the console market and making up the entire PC gaming market, it's a tough argument when the video game in question doesn't hold much intrinsic value on a physical medium nowadays like they used to back when cartridges or proprietary disks (with no alternatives, mind) were used.
Make more of these videos. Not a request but a suggestion. going over these topics is an EXCELLENT way of not only getting the word out, but also for getting out your specific opinion and thoughts.
I got a used copy of Dark Souls BECAUSE IT WAS THE ONLY COPY IN THE STORE. That is how used games should be sold, when there are no new copies of the game to buy. The steam summer sales and daily sales essentially replace a used games market because digital copies are infinite.
The problem is that without used game sales, places like Game and Game Stop wouldn't make enough money to support their stores. When you only make a five dollar profit by selling a brand new PS3, you need something that gets you enough profit to pay for your store and your employees.
i think if gamestop/eb games & the like need to become more social to survive the internet taking over. basically pubs/internet cafes where they make deals w/ publishers to let customers play games at a small fee, before they purchase them.
qonf Making profit of someone else's creative work and convincing someone to buy your already bought copy rather than actually give the creator his fair share is being a bit of a dick. You have the right to sell your stuff, but this isn't the case of a cupboard which the manufacturer makes every day, this is a game, something that is created once by the developer, and expected to return a profit through enough copies sold. By supporting used games, you are essentially supporting the bankruptcy of game developing. But you're right, maybe dick is the wrong term. How about "you have the right to be an unsupportive leech"?
Again, I don't think there is anything wrong, or dickish, about selling your stuff. It does not matter if the creator of that stuff is having trouble turning a profit. If i bought a book, and then sold that book to a friend, or a used book store, there would be nothing dickish about that, completely irregardless of the ability of the author, publisher, or book industry to make a profit. The fact that other entertainment industries have other streams of revenue does not change that.
And it hurts book writers and publishers when you resell their books, but no one would argue that its somehow a dick move. And why would they? Why does it suddenly change when it comes to games? Even if you can point to some additional stream of revenue that book publishers have, I don't actually see how that changes anything, like TB seems to think without actually presenting an augment for it.
But that's the thing. It's a matter of how much harm it does. If they have other streams of revenue, they can at the very least survive. But game retailers are literally starving developers and publishers.
Thank you so much TB. I always come to your channel hungry for some perspective, and you never fail to provide; never for a definitive opinion or viewpoint, but for reasonable and logical arguments that I can use to shake my own paradigms and form a stronger opinion.
Here's the problem with your theory. In America there is something called right to first sale. Once you buy a product it is yours. A company has NO right to tell you what you can and can't do with the product. It would be no different from having the car company you buy from tell you when and where you can drive it or what you can do to it. I understand your argument however you should take into account what could have been used to allow companies to sell the right to play there game which could then be taken away after you've paid your money.
Yes, you have the right to do as you wish it. But there is a difference between "can do" and "should do". If you really care about the developer, you won't participate in used game sales. If you want to support the making of more games like the one you want, you'll buy it so the developer's are able to.
Lucid, well thought out, compelling and comprehensive arguments. However I disagree. A broken revenue stream in an industry should never be the responsibility of the consumer. And preventing a consumer from selling what they've purchased defies basic economic principles.
So, Is it okay to buy a used game outside of a games production time, (For example GTA 4) because gamestop won't be buying any new copys of that game, and a new copy would be hard to find. Personally that's my argument against there being NO used game sales, As if a game suddenly becomes a cult classic or something of the sort, it will be nearly impossible to play legally, due to there being no more copies available
I don't shop at gamestop I go to this little game store near me they don't push used games, but I buy them because. 'you tell me where OI can find a working copy of Mario bros 3 for NES, or Windwaker for gamecube. You can argue against used games, but you must acknowledge that used games keep the past console gens alive and are needed to survive.
As a pc gamer I have no use for used games and it is not an issue for me whatsoever, with things like steam game prices are very reasonable. I do however own a console and this is where i have an issue. Games are far too expensive on consoles, $80-100 is very rarely a fair price for a game with shitty graphics and a poor framerate. They are more often than not more expensive than their pc counterparts. How ludicrous is that? an inferior version that costs more? If prices were more reasonable they would get far better launch sales. I personally see no problem with used games. Someone should be quite entitled to sell something they have brought if they buy it and do not like it or do not use it anymore, it's not like you can just go back to the store and say "hey I want a refund because I've clocked this game already".
RuthlessFiend38 I'm talking NZD mate. $80-100 is about what we pay here [sometimes more]. And 360 graphics are terrible, jagged edges muddy looking textures poor view distance. I find it hard to pick up a console game and play after using pc, it's just such an unrefined experience. The framerate is horrible when you're used to 60+. Try playing a game on a pc sometime, you'll see what I mean.
Compared to PC games however, console games are obviously jsut not as good. Skyrim on my XBox looks like crap compared to when ever I go to my friends house and see his pc running it
RuthlessFiend38 He's exaggerating to show his point. XBox and PS aren't horrible graphics, but they ARE worse... so paying more for something worse applies, which is his point.
KuroroSama42 Yeah you do have a fair point, I've just played pc for so long i've become used to a certain standard of graphics. It's not that ps3/xbox360 graphics are bad, it's just that PC graphics are better. Even at the lower end the overall clarity is quite a bit better. I really think the pricing for games on the console market is terrible. I don't buy new games on console, console gamers are getting royally screwed with the current pricing. Look at the price of ps4/xbox one games, they are mostly over $100nzd a piece. The number of games on pc over $100 would be very very small. Most are under $50 NZ within a month of release on steam. I mean by the time you buy a console and 4 games there goes well over 1k, I personally would rather put that money toward a PC and save money on software. The new consoles look great but I just think the consumer is getting fucked over by ridiculous game prices yet again. Just my opinion anyhow people :) i don't mean to seem hateful toward anyone and I apologize if i have come across that way.
The thing is that Xbox and Playstation actually sell their consoles at a loss and make money back from exclusives, software and royalties. So when an exclusive game comes out on console it has to cover the cost of physical copies, shipping, make a profit for the retailer, developers and publishers. That and the market retail price for a game is just standard now. A year ago I wouldn't have been convinced that the console market was in trouble but now it's really easy to see the problems.
Well thats not entirely true. You can trade games on steam, yes. But you only are able to trade with other users which have to have bought those games in the first place and stored them in their inventory to be able to trade them. The items you mentioned, which are used as a sort of exchange are also most likely generated by playing a game, wich in return has to be bought. May it be game cards, discount vouchers or other items, they all are generated within a game. Only exception is the fact that you might get a "3 game card bonus set" for a random game you own once in a while but then again you have to own the game. That being said steam merely is a exchange platform but in no way a platform that offers any sort of used game exchange. Games are bound to your account once you have pruchase them for yourself and unless you get a refund, which isnt an easy tastk to beginn with, they stay on your account without any ability to remove or resell them. The only difference is the inventory where ou might store games you dont want to be bound to your accout for what ever reason. Still those games are not used because if they where you wont be able to trade them anymore.
I have a question for you TB: which one is better - buy a used game at a lower price or download a cracked version of that game and not pay a nickle for it? Let's forget the promotions on this and that publishing platform since you have to hunt those down and at the end of the day it is quite possible you'll miss one especially if you are not an avid gamer. Let's talk about the distribution strategy many game (and not only) publishers have. Very, very few are smart enough to consider where exactly their games are going to be offered on the market. Even if you look at Europe only there is a HUGE difference in income between West and East Europe. Instead of making special regional releases (not talking about the PG-rating or such other nonsense) that are limited to the region they are sold in (various methods are at the disposal of publishers here from regional lockout to filtering server access based on the region the game is coming from and the server it is trying to access), publisher offer a game for the same price everywhere. Now imagine that a game costs 50-60 EUR in Europe. A guy from the UK (such as yourself) will probalby be able to afford to buy a couple of games per month where a guy from some East European country where the minimal wage is less than 200 EUR will most certainly not be able to do that. The excuse "Well then he/she shouldn't buy those!" is valid indeed and yet it a sort of a pathetic excuse of not being able to manage the market (those fatties behind desks that earn millions a year for doing nothing but attending various parties, charities and congresses). This applies of course not only to video games. Books, films, music (although nowadays 99Centes for a track is as low as it can get I guess) etc. are all in. If I see a cool book on the bookshelf in the bookstore, I would like to buy it. Yet when I look into my wallet and see only spiderwebs in there there are 2 options for me (the third - not have it - is not an option :D) - steal it or look somewhere else - in a different bookstore OR a used copy. Even companies such as Amazon are smart enough to realize that and that's why most paper books in their store are also offered as second-hand that is - used copies. This allows a greater amount of people to enjoy a certain work of art or science. However I do agree that putting a used copy next to new one in a store is bad. Some stores have a used-section where you can buy those at a lower price and it depends how well preserved the product is. Last but not least - imagine you don't want a game anymore or the game you bought is something totally diffirent from what you were expecting AND there is no refund - why not resell it at a lower price and with those money buy something else?
Hi, I'm Jack Ryder, and You Are Wrong™! Still though, you presented your argument quite well, and you are right that people shouldn't just be here to be pandered to. But enough about where you're right, lets get to your wrongness! The fundamental issue here is property rights and whether people have a right to sell something they own. This discussion is therefore primarily a legal battle, and this is where the focus must be. The revenue of game producers might be a good argument as to why you think people should choose purchasing one over another, but whether people have a RIGHT to do this thing is an entirely separate question. The used car comparison is legitimate because it is LEGALLY equivalent. You are selling something that you had previously purchased. What price these things are bought and resold at is irrelevant. The same is true for the differences in durability. Your right to resell something comes from it being your property. Whether that property is durable or not doesn't matter. It's yours, and if you want to give that away to someone else, that is your right. Your second argument centers around the revenue that these people have access to. While this is another good point about differences in the industries, and possibly even an argument as to why people should buy new instead of used, whether a person has a right to sell their own property or not is an entirely different question. Property rights are not just there to give you a revenue stream. The argument that we should set up laws so that one group in society can gain at the expense of another group isn't particularly convincing. The third argument that retail stores might push something is, again, irrelevant to the question of property rights. Property rights are, again, not contingent upon what product retail sellers would prefer to promote. They have freedom of speech and may suggest whatever product they wish. I find it ironic that you begin this argument commenting on defending free speech and your right to your own opinion, but think other people using free speech is somehow proof that they need to be violently threatened away from doing such things. It can also be noted that people can advertise on servers, so your point there is wrong, but even if it was right, again it would be irrelevant. If those companies want to maintain those servers, that is, again, their right to do what they want with their own property. If they want to sell those servers away to someone else, that is legal too. The same property rights basis lies at both of these sides here, and as I pointed out before, supporting property rights only when it benefits you is hypocritical. You taking on a cost does not entitle you to my money. Besides, worst case scenario they can make things subscription based. Now for your argument against Gamestop. I can (and do) agree that they're gigantic dicks, especially for holding back steam, and I can't wait to see their empire collapse. But there's a difference between pointing out something as a vice and saying something should be criminalized. In one instance, you're just chastising someone. In another, you're threatening them with legal violence if they don't conform to your code of conduct, which is only an acceptable thing to do when the criminal are themselves using violence. So people are perfectly justified in making murder, theft, assault, rape, etc. all illegal. Someone asking that someone else give them pre-order exclusive is an ENTIRELY different category. This all being said, I think it's also entirely consistent with property rights if they want to add online passes and shit to try and exclude other games. That's all cool and hopefully will fix a lot of the legitimate issues you've pointed out the industry is facing. However, that is, again, a different issue from whether people have a right to sell their own property. Should used games fade from the market, that is totally fine with me. However, when we're talking legal policy here and whether the government should make something illegal or not, saying that "I really really want money" and "look at these other people making money, why don't you give me special legal privileges so that I can make that money too" are not good arguments. If used gaming will die a natural death, let it do so.
The reason why publishers are pushing away from used copies is because people who buy new versus used are just as likely IF NOT MORE LIKELY to purchase DLC since they are willing to pay more/full price for a game. Used copies do NOT sell more DLC or anything like that, I'd almost argue that new copies sell more DLC.
I can’t believe I used to hold this opinion. Total biscuit seems to trust corporate entities more than the modern consumer in a landscape where allowing corporate control erases games from existence. The idea of not allowing games to exist as physical goods is inherently absurd.
i only buy used for older consoles like my super nindeto or the ps2 because buying new for older consoles mostly mean unopen cases but i do agree for newer machines and pc always buy new because you have things like DLC and all that fancy stuff that i don't understand much of because i dont have the lastest console other then the PC and i mostly buy steam games on it that are ok i guess and agree about the car thing
For the longest time I've just been listening to people in my school, including friends, argue about game developers and publishers being greedy (ex: Xbox One can't have used games) and I've just been soaking in the the shit they've been saying without an opinion of my own, but after watching this video I can go to school and declare them all a bunch of fucking idiot. Thank you TB for enlightening me on the current situation that gaming is in right now, I will now happily watch used games die during this new generation of consoles. Of course I do think the future will lead to there being no more consoles, and instead all games being on affordable, gaming driven computers that support an array of (optional) controllers to fit the needs of gamers. But I can only hope for this to be our future.
buy a new one each time? each time what? wtf do you mean, i've had the same computer for 5 years and im still playing newer games. And just because someone refuses to let go of hard copies doesnt mean their kid will, eventually people won't care about hard copies anymore.
***** you have to upgrade to new consoles eventually to play newer games, and it takes around the same amount of time for a computer to become out dated, so what your saying makes no sense
Well, TB said something that made me think, and that it was that the fact that there is used games, that devs are more open to releasing their games on sale, on digital platforms, because they're more comfortable with that approach because they're still making money, more than they would will used games. Now when used games become obsolete, will there still be a point for these devs and publishers to make sales, since there wouldn't be a difference anyways?
Total biscuit I like you but your argument is totally wrong for used games. Who's paying for the servers? The servers have been paid for by the original buyer. The price of games factors in servers, used games, games rentals, etc. THEY WILL SHUTDOWN SERVERS EVENTUALLY ANYWAY. You think if everyone bought new, they wouldn't eventually shut that shit down? PLEASE don't be naive. DLC is abhorrent, it generally gives the developers an excuse to charge extra for what was originally in the game (10+ years ago), now cut for the purpose of monetisation. If a game is shit, then a person SHOULD be allowed to trade in that game for a % of their original investment, or else, what? Be stuck with it forever as it devalues? In order for trade-ins to function, to be bought from the consumer, people MUST then buy the used game from them. Also, in an industry that makes millions, if not billions from a game and charges extortionate prices, particularly for AAA titles, some copies of used games that eat into those profits is NOT hurting them. You are essentially defending rich people's rights to be richer. No one is losing their jobs at activision over used call of duty games, whilst they make over half a billion a game are they? Also I've been to game and gamestation, and bought many new and used games over my time there, not ONCE have I ever been asked if I would like a used copy instead of a new game there. Once I was offered a new game in a USED GAME'S PLACE as it had "shiny" DLC to sweeten the deal for a mere £5 extra, so that is complete rubbish. Also they transition to free to play models because it's more pay to win. They can make more money from it, because they are greedy, they will milk that udder dry. (Again refer to profit margins). Bearing in mind many SUPERMARKETS sell games, only new, many people go there to buy their games, due to the savings that tie in with the groceries offer, so that they can even buy the new game for less than a used game costs in Game (maybe that's why Game are going bankrupt). I should be allowed to trade in what I like and save money if I so wish. I should be allowed to buy a game new if I want to support the publisher, which I do when it's a game that deserves being bought new. (Elder Scrolls comes to mind) THAT acts as an INCENTIVE for the developers and publishers to not make shit games whilst charging 60 bucks for it. The day they don't make 600 million a game is the day I stop buying used games.
i am looking at steams featured list right now, there is not a single game older than a week, or over $30, most are under $10 how fucking awesome is that, can you imagine a world where gamestop didnt exist? because thats what it would look like
Um... Steam sales exist because Valve wants to substitute PC Piracy by good service and support. Consoles don't have piracy issues, which means monopolizing up the ass.
Piracy on consoles is really really miniscule compared to the 90% piracy rate on PC even WITH Steam. Check "Game Dev Tycoon" Devs first hand numbers on this topic for confirmation.
I'm interested in the place you got that number from. There is a reason why a lot of games didn't get a PC releases until Steam happened. And A LOT of people have gaming PCs, actually according to Destructoid's article "PC vs Console Gaming infographic" the PC is the dominating Gaming machine in terms of install base.
I recently switched over to PC from console,and the first thing I noticed was the quality and quantity of my games increased dramatically. Locked at low resolution and low frame rate with outdated hardware for years at a time,and a lack of an ability to fix bugs I encounted myself are a few of the things I can't answer why I put up with it and I don't understand why people still do.
CaitSeith I know that, but it is much less prevolent than within PC gaming. Most likely because most console players aren't all that tech savy, despite pirated media just being a google search away...
Quacktics are Go More like first-world console players. Half of the third-world console players buy pirated games and own modded consoles for that purpose.
I have no sympathy for any major publisher companies like capcom and EA already had too much money and thats why they behave the way they do and I couldn't care less if they are losing out on anything.
I could support this point of view if there was any evidence that used games are damaging the industry. I'm yet to see that evidence. I've been hearing this thing for years about the film industry in terms of pirating films. Yet we see no sign of that slowing down with both big blockbusters and independent films.
I bought a Playstation 3 just this year. I wanted to get games to go with the system and I remembered Heavy Rain had good reviews. So I bought it used. This game is currently not in the Playstation store or on Steam. I can't find it anywhere but used. This also the case for some older titles I also looked into after viewing these comments. This seems like a good reason for used games as it allows for someone to find them that would otherwise be non·existent. BTW I usually buy/prefer new games
Yes but books, CDs and ( most) dvds don't cost $60+ a pop for a first hand copy that (as TB himself said is the case for most new/used games) is little to no better quality
says that dude that lives off gameplays and doesn't pay the developers for it. I don't support used games either. but you don't practice what you preach in some way.
I'm not sure if you're trolling. Most every city (assuming you're in the States like I am, otherwise I apologize for generalizing) has a GameStop. To sum up GameStop, though, they're a video game retailer with a rather... shifty reputation, due to bullying game publishers and other competing retailers to maximize their products, while also passing blame to other publishers or developers whenever there's some nasty PR going around about something going on in the game industry. They're not great, but I can get Dynasty Warriors from them when I can't find it anywhere else, so I can't really complain about them too much.
Resurfacing a DVD or video game disk? This is the first time in my 27 years of life that I have EVER heard of that. I didn't know it was possible. Wtf????
I agree with this 100%. I, too, worked at a game store and saw the way that they were ripping off consumers and the game industry at the same time. I want to see the people that make my favorite game succeed and create more games. If the only way for us consumers to show our appreciation is through our dollars, then how much appreciation is actually shown if our dollars never make it to them? I'll spend the extra $5 just to make sure that they get the message. Great job, TotalBiscuit!
i cannot believe this stuff, really now go watch the jimquistion on used games, this is the only way we can get back at bad games this is the last vestige of control we have, and of all people TB is the one that advocates the removal of used games. because it's not "fair" because they dont degrade. well guess what, will steam refund my games? no. so if steam wont do it why do you have the slightest ikling that microsoft would? this is bad very bad. no other medium has this crap, if i were to buy a comic it is mine! i own it, and last i checked i have the right for property, which is(I'm quating my country's definition) every man has the right to use his own property as he see's fit, or prevent people from using his property, physical or intelectuall, and has the RIGHT TO STOP PEOPLE FROM HURTING SAID PROPERTY. this is illegal and should stop. now!
and then comes the pirated games ah. but u know people who pirate games have their own reasons its not like arr i will pirate this ! no most people who pirate are like this ok so i bought this and now i really want to play this game but man i payed a lot for these games maybe when its price goes down i will buy them but for the meantime i will pirate this game and enjoy the single player and when the price goes down i will buy and play multiplayer. well im not saying im a pirate(go ahead say that im a pirate see if i give a shit) it's just people have there own reasons weather good or bad.
Here in Canada, at my two gamestops, they don't push anything on us. The most that they say is "Do you want to get a $2 warranty? or "Do you want to get an Edge card for $2 to save money on used games?". The only game I can remember that was fairly new that I bought used was Halo 4, and Skyrim. I support the developers more than the publishers, as they're the ones getting the industry wide layoffs, and I fear for my future as an aspiring game designer. Please support developers.
Console gamers are a fucking disgrace. They pirate more then PC gamers. Hence. Used copies. Does the dev/publisher make money via pirates? Nope. How about used games? Does the dev/publisher make money? Nope. There you go.
Also, don't forget about actions like Humble Bundle. You can get 6-7 games for 1$. Paying around 7$ unlocks you additional content like DLC's, soundtracks or dev diaries - so pretty much collector's edition these days. That's just crazy!
Actually, there is one more argument for Used, at least from the retailer's standpoint: On any New sale, the retailer's markup is a dollar or two tops. On a Used copy the margin is anywhere up to 2000%. GameStop makes all of its money on those used games. I will buy new as often as possible, and PC games from anywhere *but* GS. Console games, I'm pretty much stuck. Microsoft and the XBone controversy was out of line.
I thoroughly agree with you on most points, but I see one flaw with what you said. Once a game goes to the retailer, even if the game doesn't sell one copy, if the retailer buys as many copies as they would for a game that has excellent sales, the company still gets the same amount of money. The company gets money from selling to retailers, not retailers selling to consumers. By buying a game, you're just reimbursing the retailer, not the developer. However, if you buy the game, then the retailer may buy more new copies of said game from the developer. So, after the "cycle" of retailers buying more and more new games from the developer, it really doesn't matter anymore.
More than anything I just worry that steam and other online companies will get out of control and put pressure on us. If they start requiring us to do monthly subscriptions to play the games we bought or start trying to charge us to go online. This is truly a grave thought to me. It is hard to get new copies of games and especially for the prices gamestop has. If possible i would buy straight from the publisher but it still has to be the right price. Not the absurd 60 dollars for a new call of duty that is the exact same as the last except new modes or just increased graphics.
I feel like you make a lot of good points on this video that I never really thought about. I usually buy used games because they are cheaper, and/or they're games I can't buy a new copy for without scouring the internet for one person who is selling it for five times the original price. Another reason for that is I can trade in games I already had to get the funds to buy the new game. The only real problem I had with this system was I would get gouged for the cost of the game. It would take five or six games to get one cheap game that I wanted. I'd be paid maybe three or four dollars for each game I traded in (depending on if it was cash or credit [Which keeps the money in their store, so they'd give you a little more]), and then they'd resell it for fifteen to twenty, essentially three to five times the price they paid for it, and all of that goes in the retailer's pockets, not the developer's. I actually stopped going to a place for that very reason. I felt like I was getting cheated on the value of my games. I would trade in a game and see the exact same game on their shelves for five times what they gave me for it. I understand they need to make a profit, but cutting the trade-in value that much is silly. Recently, I've been doing tons more downloads now that I have a PC that can handle games in a decent manner, and yes, I'm paying full price for games, but I feel much better about that now that I know the money's not going to a retailer's pocket and not supporting the devs.
You know what, I used to truly believe in what Gamestop was doing was good, but now that I see your opinion: yea, used games are bad for market. But doesn't mean I will let go of my opinion, I like buying my games used and cheap. But what Gamestop is doing is setting a bad name. Thank you TotalBiscuit for bringing this to my eyes, and I respect your opinion. I don't know why people hate you, your just showing your honest opinion, and I guess people hate you for that. Great job to be able to change my stubborn mind man! Disclaimer: This is not joking at all, this is my honest comment on this video.
TB isnt saying it is illegal. The question is whether Pirating and Used games are morally the same. Especially if you are againist systems like 10 dollar project or online passess
This is a pretty strong argument. Although the practical side would say that you have the right to give or sell something you own to someone else, the fact that this practice hurts game developers makes sense. On the other hand, buying a used copy of a game that's three or four years old hurts no one. Although I can see how the point of buying a use game hurts developers, the real problem falls in the hands of developers putting their games in the right hands. If all these games are being purchased, than returned to Gamestop, it means that those players are upset with the game and do not want to play it. And if this happened years later after the game was released, I hardly think it has any effect on that game developer who has already moved on to working on a new title. But if the game is a newer game like Battlefield or Call of Duty, and people are returning the game to the store for trade in (because usually games have no return policy) then the game developer should have to eat the cost of that. It's not that I don't agree with your point TB, but outside of gamestop or used game stores, there is no way for consumers to fight back against developers who game the market to sell games that are in poor quality. Consumers can't simply return games to Best Buy because they won't accept a return for refund. Same as with Target or any other big name US retailer (though other countries might handle this differently?) I think the sad part is that however which way this conversation goes, there's going to be someone who gets screwed over. Whether it's gamestop, game developers, large retailers, or the consumer, someone should have to eat the price of a game that was developed poorly. If a developer still expects to make money off of a title that was released 4 or 6 years ago without having any extra content for it, then I think they're crazy. The thing is, Gamestop in the US is failing terribly because it can't keep up its business model of just selling games. So eventually they're going to have to make a deal with game developers or else they're going to switch to being a straight cell phone store. But we'll see what happens. I'm a PC gamer too, but I recently purchased PS4 so I could enjoy Watchdogs, and I have no intention of returning it unless the game is horribly broken.
"Because it was bought in the first instance, it shouldn't matter, it doesn't create additional copies of the game, that 1 copy is just circulating to different people, so it's the same thing, no, no it's not." Yes, yes it is. 3 people playing the game for 2 months each is no different than 1 person who plays it for 6 months. With that business model, they should be planning into their budget and the cost of the product, ongoing support for every copy of the game sold. If that model isn't
He mentioned specifically games with recurring costs, like maintaining servers for multiplayer. His argument is that if multiple people own the same copy, they will play more, thus costing the developer more money, when in reality they should be budgeting the game for lifetimes use, and finding innovative ways to keep money coming in, like DLC. I don't feel sorry for companies that lose money because they spend more on lawyers than they do coming up with better ways to generate revenue.
Personally, my only issue with embracing the digital future is that it's basically a death knell for all of the brick-and-mortar structures that rely on physical sales, not only stuff like GameStop, but also companies like Barnes & Noble and, hell, we've seen Blockbuster die out to Netflix in our lifetime. Not only that, but if e-books really do become as prevalent as some people think they will, we might just see libraries phase out of existence in all but the biggest cities who can afford to spend money financing what would become, and let's be honest here, a rather archaic system. No matter if we continue to support physical copies or fully embrace digital copies, someone is gonna get the short end of the stick in the end.
I get his complaints but it's disappointing how he and many of us seemingly have internalized the software industry's notion that virtual goods that we paid for aren't really our property.
We merely buy the right to use it how they want it for as long as they allow us to. It's a strictly regulated service marketed as a product and we better accept that because...why again? Because the poor publisher might not make enough of a profit?
Anyway, it just sounds like we gamers are forced to give up our property rights because the games industry isn't making enough money - as if that's our fault - and that's inherently and completely anti-consumer.
Simple and short answer: GOG
Long answer: If you buy a game on GOG, just burn it on CD, save it on a drive or store it in a cloud. No payment for the right to use. Hell, you could technically give a copy to anyone of your friends or seed it. At the same time, no used copies (though right now I see, how this could have more damage, as with a used copy you can give it only to one. But apparently Witcher & Co sold well).
Okay, your points are valid, fair enough. What about console-only games? Let's say I want Okami. I can download the HD version from the PSN right. WRONG. I don't have a PS3? Now what? Buy a PS3 just to get Okami? Fuck that. The only platforms I have that I can play Okami on are a PS2 Slim and a Wii. The only place where I can find Okami for either platform? Used games stores. Otherwise, you're saying "tough titty" when the only thing I can do is buy it used.
Game players that primarily play on consoles like myself will still buy used games for the time being.Why?Do we have deep discounts?NO.Do console games go on sale often?NO.Are the prices on both PC and consoles even remotely comparable when a sale does happen?NO.Even digital console games aren't as cheap as digital PC titles.Also,PC gamers don't have to deal with license fees that Microsoft,Sony,and Nintendo force on us.
TotalBiscuit: I don't know that you'll ever see this, but I have a legitimate question. Don't you think that what YOU and Let's Play streamers do qualifies in the same way that a radio station does? Meaning, don't YOU feel that YOU owe a portion of your revenue to the publisher? After all, Let's Players in particular are streaming an experience. They may modify that experience by offering commentary, but DJs offer commentary before and after a song plays in many instances, and the very same argument could be made that your review or Let's Play is a promotional tool.
Do you feel that you owe the video game industry a cut of your profit? If not, I'd like to know precisely why?
maybe people would buy new games if they were not so expensive? i mean seriously im waiting for used copies of watch dogs because its like £55 from what i heard, games are getting more expensive and people are not getting payed more, if the prices keep rising people will stop buying new copies completely.
WTF is......TB on about? What benefits would console players see from no used games? There is no guarantee of the prices going down, having more sales or bad business practices going away, just because they were caused by the used game sales doesn't mean they would go away with it! There is no guarantee of anything good coming our way for giving up used games. No guarantee whatsoever, just because PC's have lower prices doesn't mean you'll see the same on consoles.
The only 'disadvantage' to buying a used game is that it MIGHT not work, but just return it and get a new copy totally free. If anything, used games are steam sales. Point blank facts people..
I really don't understand the whole "support the developers" thing, do i have to feel sorry for the publishers if they don't get paid for the used copy i bought? videogame industry is, well, an industry, a business, their goal is to make money, they're not making charity. In the market everyone is supposed to do whatever they can to get the more profit they can with less expenses possible, the publishers do it and i do it as well.
No it isn't great for the industry, but someone who purchases a game has every right to do whatever they wish with it, in my opinion.
Property rights ftw!
Pre-owned gaming ruining the gaming industry, the whole myth that pre-owned gaming hurts developers is a beaten up lie by publishers. Why? Because the publishers don't want to admit their game doesn't sell due to be being rushed, pushed and simply not that good. Good games sell, they will ALWAYS sell, mediocre games get shelved.
The Logic argument: Retailers make 10% out of their new game, the devs get their salary and 10% too, the publisher gets 80%, so retailers push pre-owned to the masses to get some money back. To purchase a pre-owned copy, someone has had to buy the new copy and then sell it. Right there the publisher makes money, then there is DLC for that too.
Good games sell, regardless of the pre-owned market. Why? Because if you're gonna spend 60$ on a game, you want to buy a good one, so good games sell, the mediocre or lesser know tittles get bought pre-owned or never. Just look at GTAV, within a week they got 10x their production cost.. No online passes, no DRM. Just pure reward for a good work.
Pre-owned markets exist ANYWHERE, and no, games don't deserve to be exempt because "Oh just the scratches and bad looking box doesn't matter, it either works or doesn't!" That's the exact same thing as a book! Folded pages? ugly cover? But by God I can read the story as intended, even better! I can go to a library or just read them for free in stores that allow that (FNAC, Waterstones [where all they ask is for you to buy it, if you liked it, an honour system]) if I'm really cheap~ but lets face it, if you want a physical copy, unless you can't afford better, you want it new for your collection. My pre-owned ikea furnishings look brand new, has anyone in history ever said I took money from Ikea for buying them pre-owned? NO! Because that's retarded, that's how ownership works.
The mathematical argument: but who needs logic when you can have EVIDENCE~ Gamestop holds the monopoly on pre-owned gaming, they do. They make 8 billion a year~ a publisher shares the market with 20-30 others. Nintendo alone makes 9 billion. Alright alright, Nintendo has a console, and tons of IP.... Konami makes 5 billion... Ubisoft? 2 Billion errr... but Gamestop ruins games and shuts down developers how can this be since their total revenue is about 5% of a publishers shared market? "You know, not all publishers are big and fancy!" Yeah you're right, yet vannillaware and Atlus, is profiting, and keeping a float... Could it be that they just have good games and a good manager, so even though they are small, they can still profit? "What about Good devs like THQ!?" In case you didn't know, they had good games but they had tons of disastrous other investments on the background. Most actually merge with bigger publishers such as EA or get bought over and put to work elsewhere. Remember Eidos?
The Digital evolution arguement: "No, we will be able to own games and there will be backups and sales, just like Steam! :D Pre-owned game markets are the only reason Xbox and Sony aren't like steam .__.". Get your head out of your ass, people. Go on the microsoft store RIGHT now, you'll find Old games for their full retail price, why? They still get 100% of the profit... Where is the sales? Where is the backups? Last I heard you can no longer access DLC from games of 2009! Let alone Original Xbox Games but, nah, lets trust publishers. A titanfall copy on release is more expensive in digital form than in a physical copy. Don't forget for every Steam, you have 3 Origins. No no, let's blindly follow publishers, the ones that charge a subscription to play online, and then charge you again for an online pass. Forget thousands of years of trading principles and international law, give money to publishers because fuck you gimme money!
The Reality: Publishers push games out and take devs that work on good games to work on their bigger titles that sell, like FIFA. After the 100th version or edition, people are getting a bit sick of their next installment of mass murdering terrorist creed, when they realise it wasn't up to par with their last game and decide to get it pre-owned or wait for reviews. Meanwhile Indie devs make tons of money making simple, yet innovative and creative titles. The only logical conclusion is to blame pre-owned games~ yes, yes the ones that have been around since the beginning of gaming yet it's a profiting market..."correlation implies causation fallacy" because what better excuse to guilt trip consumers while promoting DLC and excusing online passes, as a way to shank some more money. You know publishers have meeting on how to combat backlash, right? If anything brings down the gaming industry it will be publishers pushing out games like BF4 and repetitive shit like CoD, or restrictive DRM like on Sims City... Just like it did BEFORE, yeah this has happened before~. Shitty games bring down the market.
Come on people, think for yourselves. Don't just take what people say at face value. Go research and come up with your own conclusion, I like TB but he is dead wrong with this topic, blinded by anger of his old employers.
A well written argument, I especially like how you include the correlation causation fallacy in there.
richard5X5
Thanks I appreciate it. I feel like a lot of people like video games, and they want to see them succeed so much that they want almost want to throw money at the industry. It's beyond me why they think this industry is so "unique" that should bypass simple trading principles. Bypassing your consumer rights... some compare it to piracy.
I've worked for a major publisher, business-side, apart from the developer team, the actual artists, a generous 75% never played a game. These people don't care about gamers and every goal is oriented on "How to save while making more money without backlash." It's the will of the shareholders. This is why we have online passes, pre-orders, it has nothing to do with pre-owned games, it's an excuse to secure more money. Think about it, why do we even need pre-order incentives on steam? There is no pre-owned market there, what's the incentive for? In time they turned a "counter-activity" into the norm and play it off as if it was always there. It's what the marketing teams are for...
Late response but I love your post.
I`ve got a real solution to this problem: Make games that are actually worth buying new at their full price and are worth keeping. Cut out all the bs DLC/pre order false advertising and technical issues that put people off buying them new and focus on making a quality product that is worth paying a premium for!
And now games cost $10 more new for nothing :)
Glad these videos are still up, the industry needs more people like TB speaking for consumers and devs.
You are missed
I fully support people buying used games. Lately, there have been a lot of good games coming out and not everyone has a lot of money to go and buy every single game. Especially if its console based. So, they turn towards used games and are able to buy more used games then new games. Another example is that it promotes different games. Every now and then when I go into game, I specifically go to the used games section. It is there where I find different games that I have never even heard of before. I will look at the case, then the back of the case and read about it. If I like what I see, I look some more to see if there is anything better, if not then I will get the game. I will play it and if I like then I will see if it has sequels or prequels. I will look at the games company and see what other games they've released. All this helps promote games companies and their games. That way, the next time a company announces a game, I will follow it where as before, I would have never been able to do that.
The reasoning you give for why movies (for example) also serves as an argument in favor of allowing used games. Before a copy of a game can be sold used, it has to be sold new first. There is just no way around that. The publisher already made a sum of money off of that copy.
But I support the existence of used games for another reason. The accessibility of a game (or any other creative work for that matter) should not end when the publisher decides no longer to support it. I have no problem with the creators making their money. In fact, I want them to do that. But once they have decided they have made all the money they are going to on a project, I want the creative work to continue to be available to the people.
Also, anything that stops or inhibits used games also inhibits transfer to a new computer. Not being able to play a game that you have paid to be able to play is both annoying and unfair to the consumer. What you end up with is a case of not buying the game, but only renting it.
For PC games, one tactic that I observed is that the same copy of the game can be installed on multiple PCs but only one of them can be run at any given time. So, it’s still possible to play your game on a new computer if you get one.
Back to the used games argument, your argument only holds up if we assume that the developer makes the minimum amount of money off of a game that they need to sustain themselves before used games become a significant factor. Even if we’re talking about a game with no online component and eliminate the cost factor of maintaining online servers, the lost profit from a used game sale still makes an impact. Let’s say for example a developer needs to sell 10,000 new copies of a game to make enough money to develop the next one. What if after the 5000th copy sold, everybody starts buying used copies? Answer, they either can’t make the next game or they need to cut costs to do it and we end up with an objectively worse product than we would’ve had.
Comparing used games to used movies doesn’t hold up because of the reasons TB already stated in the video. If you want a more accurate comparison, look at bus passes. Why do bus companies disallow the action of transferring passes? Because of the same reasons TB disagrees with used games. If the product that’s the primary source of revenue for a company becomes transferable, it’s a net negative for the company. A company has a set return in mind when they develop a product and determine the selling price for the market. If it’s not met because it’s being reused amongst the consumer base instead of new units being sold, the company will have no choice but to increase prices and/or downgrade future products.
I'm 28, I've been playing video games basically for all of my life, this is the third video I've watched of this guy and he like totally changed my opinion, twice.
Agreed. A very persuasive, intelligent, logical speaker.
hey tb, do you know there is a thing called console gamers? and we don't wan to pay 50 dollars for a 7 month old game
SlayerOfGames what about stuff like gta thats around 60
you could get a used copy, or wait till' the price drops
About the non-existing comparison between cars and digital media: a new car lose about 10% of its value the moment you drive it out of the selling agency. Are you telling me that it's ok for the first mircosecond of wear and tear on a car to make a it lose thousands of dollars in value, but it's bad for a used game to go down $10 in value ever?
No, a utilitarian approach does not justify skirting ethical boundaries. The product in question, is no longer the property of devs/pubs once money has been exchanged for it. The individual that bought it has every right to do whatever they wish with it, including sell it, and devs/pubs have no claim to it.
Interesting arguments. As someone who works in the music industry, a few questions and thoughts. Does the video game industry benefit from the blank media levy like record labels do? Second, record labels only benefit from sales of CDs. Most of the alternate revenue streams you mentioned only benefit the bands or songwriters (t-shirts, touring, ASCAP royalties, etc.).
The problem I have with Digital sales is companies such as Capcom who create content for the game, but then lock it off to sell at a later date. Disc locked content if you will. If you get a game digitally and it is gimped from the start even if you get a new copy. With discs you can expose these practices but digitally you just have to assume you are getting the full product.
Advantages of used game sales:
1- Keeps old games on the market
2- Someone purchasing an old, used title in a certain series may take up a liking to it and buy the newest, just released game in the series
3- The person who sold the game now has money, which can and more often than not will be used in buying more games (some of those new).
4- In countries with completely retarded game pricing (like in Brazil, where I live), it can help gamers acquire new titles without selling a kidney (thus keeping them engaged in the hobby, instead of them just outright giving it up for something cheaper or converting to mobile games). This means that, when this person gets a job / better job, s/he will be able to buy new games.
5- Used games means your game will reach more people than it would, increasing free advertising and gathering potential new sales of your game from people who heard about it from someone who bought it used or from a friend playing the used copy that his buddy bought.
6- An incentive for devs to make games with good replay value. Make a shitty game and it will pretty soon be thrown away in the gamestop used game bargain bin by the first wave of consumers.
7- A good way of keeping the price of new games in check. Make your games too expensive and the used game sales will come back to bite your back.
Also, no used games by no means would equate cheaper games at all. Depending on the goodwill of these corporations has proven to be a futile expectation. Microsoft could have made their DRM appealing by, for example, saying there would be a price reduction to accompany it and quantify that reduction, as well as mentioning it would be there on day one. Otherwise, of course we will be skeptical - Xbox Live has downloadable titles and that can't be resold and they never had good pricing at all. But them telllng us to wait for the cake to grow before splitting it...? No way. Also, like I mentioned on another comment, uPlay and Origin have terrible prices when compared to Steam, which is really baffling considering on EA and Ubisoft titles they pay 0 royalties or any sort of taxes (yet they can't even make their own games cheaper than on their direct and biggest competitor!).
Counterpoints:
1) The “market” being held up here is a net negative for the game developers as they don’t garner any profit but is still bearing costs for the maintenance of any applicable online features.
2) through 5) Consumers who realize these benefits will be heavily incentivized to continue buying used over new because there’s no reason not to, even if they can afford to buy it new. The percentage of consumers who do buy new copies will not likely offset the losses from those who continue to buy used.
6) and 7) Devs will lose out on bad quality and/or overpriced games regardless of the existence of used games or not. The used game market exists solely to replace the developer with the retailer in the consumer-merchant relationship. If a developer makes a bad and/or overpriced game, fewer people will buy it period; and the earlier point you made about used games being advertising will actually make things worse because that message will be passed around more vividly.
There’s no denying that the used game market holds several immediate benefits for consumers (I.e. lower cost and the opportunity to recover funds). But the broader, long term issues are the problem TB is focussed on in this video. The used game market and how retailers operate it is a formula that slowly bleeds game developers. It may not seem to be a big deal when you’re talking about a timespan of a few years. Obviously, the big developers have money to burn and can live through a generation or two with this market. But what happens when we reach a time where they can no longer afford to do that? Games become progressively worse and eventually cease to exist.
This is probably why the digital market has become what it is today. Pretty soon, hard copies of games will be phased out completely regardless of what platform it’s on. We probably would have reached this point eventually but I think the used game market pushed it faster than it otherwise would’ve gone.
Counterpoints to the Advantages of Used Game Sales:
Diminished revenue for developers and publishers: While keeping old games on the market may appeal to nostalgic gamers, it also means that fewer new copies of the game are being sold. This can lead to reduced revenue for developers and publishers, potentially affecting their ability to invest in new and innovative game projects.
Potential lost sales for new releases: While some players may discover a series through purchasing an old, used title, others may opt to continue buying used copies of newer releases instead of purchasing new copies at full price. This can result in lost revenue for the developers and may impact their ability to create future installments in the series.
Reduced profit for the gaming industry: When a used game is sold, the developer and publisher don't receive any direct revenue from that transaction. Instead, the money goes to the person who sold the used copy, which means less financial support for the gaming industry as a whole.
Impact on game developers in countries with higher game pricing: While used games can be a more affordable option for players in regions with high game prices, it can create a vicious cycle. Developers may find it challenging to justify reducing game prices in such regions if they believe that players will rely on the used market instead of buying new copies, potentially leading to fewer localized and tailored gaming experiences for these markets.
Negative effect on game sales and revenue: While used games may spread awareness of a game and act as free advertising, this doesn't always translate into significant new sales. If a game's used copies saturate the market, potential customers may choose to buy those cheaper used copies instead of new ones, leading to a drop in revenue for developers and publishers.
Potential for discouraging game development risks: While the prospect of games retaining value can incentivize developers to create games with good replay value, it might also discourage them from taking creative risks. Developers may feel compelled to stick to safer, formulaic approaches to ensure their games hold value in the used market, potentially stifling innovation and creativity.
Impact on game pricing and quality: While used game sales can indeed put pressure on developers to consider the pricing of new games, it may also have unintended consequences. To compensate for potential lost revenue due to used game sales, developers might resort to adding more microtransactions or other monetization methods, affecting the overall gaming experience and potentially alienating players.
It's not like the money they gained from the first purchase disappears, one person bought the game and one person is still playing the game online - the number of gamers playing is still the same. This argument ONLY applies for things like torrents, where one bought copy can be divided and several gamers are exploiting servers they didn't contribute to.
These arguments lack nuance. Online passes are primarily for the purposes of greed. Argue that the consumer is no better, but don't fabricate these ridiculously noble intentions. Corporations don't need white knights.
However at the same time it is money lost on a customer. Yes that £40 spent on that game doesn't go away, that money is taken by the respective companies and redistributed into funding future games, but out of those two people who have owned the game, only one person has purchased the ticket for the ride. That's £40 lost for the company.
Of course it is all about money. Let's not delude ourselves that the industry is doing this for the 'creative art'. Just like the music and film industry, the stockholders are in it for the money, while the companies want to present an interesting product while also earning money for that product. A company can want to make a game all they want, however that requires capital which can only be given by certain people and they will not invest if it will not give return, because that is how business works.
Online passes are there for greed...yeah...because as TB says they offer a way to make used and new games different entities rather than the same, the used gives you a lesser experience which is justified by the lower price tag.
We all want games to be cheaper. I'd love to pay £1 for Bioshock Infinite or the next big title...but if we all did that, Bioshock Infinite would be Irrationals last game.
Personally I think your view is very cynical, while it is somewhat accurate it is very cynical to think that the greed motivation is nothing but "We want more money cause we want to be richer." most of the time money gets recycled into future projects which is good for the industry because we get more games.
My opinion on both the industry and community is that there is distrust among both. The gamers are very cynical and seem completely resistant to the idea that a game company has the right to earn money for its product or the products they give. If the product is worth that price point is another argument entirely and this is not about that, this is about the idea that if someone wants something...they pay for it and that money should go to the right place.
A lot (not all) but a lot of gamers seem very resistant to this idea and see DLC and other expansion content as a means by a company to nickel and diming them without realising that the company may want to give the gamer a great experience....but like all of us it has to pay the bills...
At the same time companies have to realise that there will be opposition and there will be very cynical people around who criticise them. They can solve this by being more transparent. For example I bet if Soul Reaver was released today that entire cut segment with Turel and The Priestess would have probably been developed as DLC. The industry is not transparent enough with how it approaches DLC and other extra content you have to pay for, they don't explain how it appears. With Capcom where they simply make the costumes and lock them...yeah...that is wrong because they are blocking content behind a paywall from the start. If there is unfinished content that was shelved because it would take too long, that being reborn as DLC is fine because that was cut content that has been repurposed as DLC, think of it like a directors cut addon to a game.
Anyway....that's it from me.
The number of gamers playing is the same? No, how would it be? If one copy is going around, that means only one person is playing. Yeah, the first purchase doesn't disappear... but then no more appear, and anyone playing afterward are essentially getting in for free, this is especially true for traded games.
Enough about this corporate greed nonsense, people like you just want something for nothing. Just like people complaining about taxes, you always want more for less, whether it's earning more money and spending less, or spending less and getting more value returned.
Ody -Chan You know you're absolutely right, by someone else using a copy, no new players buy the game. Of course the purchase of the product you're using was made, but it's still being used by a new person.
For that matter, why are we allowing games to be borrowed? Friends borrow games they don't pay for - how disgraceful. And what about families? A member of a household buys a game and suddenly everyone in the house thinks they have a right to use it? Did they pay for it? No, so they have no right to use it.
Henceforth all games should be systematically limited to only one individual - the person who pays for it. If any other person tries to use it, the disk should not work. In fact, if anyone tries to participate in any of the enjoyment from a game they didn't pay for, the game should explode.
Brilliant logic.
Mick drew
Awesome
Mick drew Straw man on a slippery slope, nice. Families can share an account to play games, so if I wanted to borrow a friend or relative's copy of a game I could just ask them to switch their password to something I know for a bit. Do we need to halve a game group's sales to allow game sharing? No. We just need to share our account and suddenly there's not multiple thriving industries on buying a 50 dollar game for 5 bucks and reselling it for 40.
Sorry, I have to disagree. Your argument fails in that console publishers and developers could give deep discounts on electronic copies of the game too. They would not have to worry about these copies being resold or retailers taking any cut. BUT THEY DON'T! Electronic copies on consoles are extremely expensive, often more expensive than new physical retail copies. They are rarely discounted! They could end the used market if they pushed electronic copies! Until they do I will buy used, I can't afford to buy new all the time.
The thing is, with those other industries, as you mentioned, those avenues that provide them with more revenue still benefit the customer. With movies, you can go see them in theaters, buy the disc/Blu Ray, stream online, buy the soundtrack, so on and so forth. Same with music. You can buy the CD, go to concerts, listen and buy online, etc. The problem with your argument is that taking used games away from the customer is taking an option away from the them, whereas other industries are clever enough to make more money by giving the customer MORE options, not fewer. What the gaming industry needs to do, rather than remove the option of selling used games, is to find a clever way to earn more money. Add on to the options we have, don't take them away.
Most of TB's argument early on seems to be about how the gaming industry is bad at making money as oppose to music and movies that make money through other avenues. I have to ask how does that change the consumer's rights? It doesn't matter if a used car lot is making money or not, the basic rules of the business from a buying and selling standpoint don't just change. Don't get me wrong if someone is doing good work you should support them, but once they sell a copy it's the consumer's copy to do as he pleases.
For the resurfacing that makes the game "like new" that is trying to discredit comparisons to other sorts of used sale; that is what you call a repair, and while in used games the people who sale it also repair it you know it's still going into your cost. It's much more convenient but it's essentially the same as repairing any other used goods.
As far as the multiplayer server point goes, when you sell an unlimited service sometimes you're screwing yourself. All there is to it is they need to fix the fact that rights to the multiplayer are with the disc. If the industry can't fix it due to consumer backlash it's the industry's own fault for making it the standard and letting it ride for so long.
One last thing. I doubt we'll see a full withdraw from physical media on consoles at least because people just like it. It's like vinyl in the sense that right now you can get about the same quality with more range with a FLAC file with a good set of speakers, it would cost about the same, and be more convenient but some just don't move on. The only difference is that it doesn't seem like the gaming industry wowed enough people into conversion to move on anyways.
yes I know too long didn't read, but hey someone might and I'm bored.
@Tom Biden I mean that's essentially what they're trying to do in their attempts to dissolve the physical market. Can't say how well that idea would work for discs though. On disc DLC is already a touchy subject for people. To say that the consumer doesn't at least own their copy of the good on the disc they've purchased to access would likely be the tipping point that would invite a lot of litigation in a lot of countries.
Wtf. If you buy something, you already gave money to the producer, and you can do whatever you want with your copy, be it, selling it, trading it, playing it, or taking a fucking dump on it. No one can tell you what to do with what you bought.
ehm no you cant there is a thing called terms of conditions.....
niels718 Actually, terms and conditions don't say shit except for the occasional "not for resale", but this also doesn't technically mean you can't "Re-sell it, here I'll explain. Not for resale means that the game can't be put on the shelf separate from it's bundle and sold at full price as if it is a brand new game. Games with 'Not for resale' on them usually come in bundles like certain copies of Ratchet and Uncharted.
The game/bundle is initially sold to the retailer (Gamestop). What 'Not for resale' implies is that the bundle cannot be taken apart and sold as individual items by the retailer, which would generate excess revenue for them, but Sony/M$/Nintendo would be cheated out of their income because they issued a bargain package and selling the parts individually would defeat the purpose of the bundle, which is to move systems.
'Not for resale' is just to remind retailers that certain items are to be sold together as packages and that they are the only parties liable if not. What gets done with those items after they are sold to the consumer doesn't matter because the business cycle has been completed...
GarrysDude watch the video again please and pay attention. TB has a point here and there and even though I do not completely agree with him I disagree with you even more. If you buy a physical product that relies on it's physical form then you are allowed to do whatever you want with it and that's fair and that concerns cars, furniture, clothes etc. But you have to reflect that you either sell or buy a used product in order to do so and you have to tell the customer that you are selling a used product. Ever wondered why ikea makes such a shitty but dirt cheap furniture? Because it is merely impossible to resell it, hell it's even impossible to move it from house to house. And we are fine with that because it is the down side of saving some money.
Cars? Companies like Mercedes (I can speak from my experience at authorised car reseller) specifically manufacture cars in order to have parts that would need constant maintenance. Ever heard of Bluetec additives? This was two birds with one stone for MB - they have the monopoly on this fuel aditive and by making this 'eco-friendly' engines they also passed EU regulations. And then we go on - the manufacturer also makes money from servicing your car and that's why they force you to go to the authorised garage in order to do even the stupidest maintenance like changing oil filter and oil which you can pretty much do anywhere else. If you think that manufacturers like Mercedes bankrupt on used cars, well then why do they sell used cars themselves (here in Europe at least)? Because they know that every car makes them money and that most people just sell their car for the reason that there is a newer model out which they can afford but they do not need two (pretty much same) cars. This is applicable to pretty much any physical product that sooner or later will need maintenance - consoles, PCs/notebooks, cellphones etc. And the market here is adjusted to this by making authorised resellers, authorised services etc.
This however doesn't imply on used games. Devs and even publishers do not get jack from used games.
The physical copy itself is just a medium that gives you ability to play the game, but so is digital distribution or piracy or rental etc. The way I see used game market is pretty much as a piracy in smooth and physical form. Why? Well, imagine you are the developer and work your ass off for a game in order to pay for the development and other bare necessities like you know - your survival. You give the game to the publisher because he is the one who backed you up so you wouldn't bankrupt before releasing the title. Publisher set's the price and tells you that if the sales are this and this good then you get your revenue and if not well you are screwed. You have your lifeline there. Now you see that the game goes to the stores with 50$ price tag. You know that when some amount is sold then you get your money and get out of red numbers. And guess what? Day one is quite alright, but you are still slightly in red. Ok, nevermind, it will sort itself out overtime, when enough copies are sold. Nope. Because retailer gets your revenue for your product by forcing customer into buying used one over new one. And trust me - I have a lot of experience from either consumer side and corporate side (I worked at retailer as a part time job to make ours channel real) and the used games even in e-shops are put before new games. It is quite understandable - the retailer makes more money this way and the customer in the end pays half the price because he/she had sold the game back. So everyone get's some cash except the developer who made this whole business possible. So either retailers give the revenue to the devs/publishers or we have to deal with free-to-plays and DLC for the rest of the time. So enjoy the 5$ you've saved.
*****
Pretty much everyone that I know of that sells their games do so for 2 reasons:
1- To buy MORE games
2- Because their financial situation took a nosedive and they need money for survival
FeanorBR Steam sales. I am a person who lives by budget as well (700€per month to cover everything including rent) and I buy games only when there is a steam sale. For the consoles - there are things like black friday and sales as well. You really do not need a game on day one, it is pretty much always a bad experience nowadays because day one is pretty much early access (see SimCity, BF4, AC II, even freaking ArmA III or Left4Dead had serious issues immediately after launch). I mean that you can buy game half a year later when there is established community, patches and working content and you can get a bonus content (sometimes for free even) if you do not get overhyped. I've bought/pre-ordered only one game on day one and that was Mass Effect 3 (for sodding 50€ - that is pretty much three days of food for me) because of day one DLC that was free that way and boy do I regret that decision now. The state it was in after release was dreadful and you got pretty much full conclusion after 6 months as a free DLC. This is reason why I bought Skyrim, Fallout New Vegas, ArmA II and III and other games I quite enjoy long after release. And I've never regretted that decision. Skyrim with all DLCs and bonus content for give or take 15€? That is fair price to me and is much cheaper then some used copy. And these events are (at least on steam) on daily basis. Just add a game to wishlist and see if you can be patient to save money. Or add Humble Bundle page to your favourites.
Totalbiscuit has really changed my point of view. At first I was like WTF is he talking about, now I really understand why he has that opinion.
I'm a games development student, as part of my course I study the market and business model associated with this. Retailers are generally the worst when it comes to this. If you are a medium sized game developer and make a game, you want £10 from it, you go to a publisher, they want 50%, so also £10 from it, they than send it to distributors and retailers who want 50% from the sale, which by now is £20, bringing the total price to £40.
If you buy a triple A title, chances are the people that actually developed it get 1/4 or even 1/5 of the price you paid.
Sort of ironic that you are using exactly the same arguments to protect the status quo that the Music and Film industries have been using since the first cassette recorders came out. If the games industry is so tied to a single stream of revenue, it is run by incompetent people. If budgets are set that require an insane amount of sales for an uproven product, it is run by incompetents. If the industry is too busy languishing in the present instead of looking at the future, it is run by incompetents. Used games aren't killing the industry. If it were, you'd expect volume to be decreasing. Instead, revenue is skyrocketing. In 2013, the volume of the industry was 93 BILLION dollars. For comparison, the movie industry took in a combined total of 88 billion dollars last year. If games publishers and developers are feeling a squeeze, it is one of their own making and you should stop validating their excuses for their own failings.
As a console gamer, I can't really say that I've experienced the PC market, however I do have a decent library of games on my steam account and I love the steam system. Honestly the biggest reason people buy used games is because they are cheaper than buying a 60 dollar game, which for someone like me who likes to buy multiple games at once kinda hurts your wallet. Now, you can get into the whole argument of "it's a hobby, it's gonna cost you" but I think that if the console market would become more like steam (aka Amazon sales) or at least have retailers have better and more reasonable prices for their console games, then I think the used games issue would disappear.
agree, now you can pay 60 pounds and get 20-30 games...
Game discs don't get wear and tear? Really? I can't even believe you can say that with a straight face. Resurfacing brings the disc back to perfect usability? Maybe, but only until the next time it gets scratched, and don't even try to tell me that you can resurface it again as often as you would like, it doesn't work that way. At all.
I don't think that really matters. As he said, people don't us games on disk very much any more.
Except that his whole commentary about it was the buying and selling of DISC GAMES. I do agree that you should not be able to resell downloaded games, but I also think you shouldn't have to pay the full cost of a downloaded game as you do a game cartridge, of any kind. After all, you don't get the case, you don't get the game manual (for the games that still include that), you don't get anything but the game itself, for the life of your console or computer (and occasionally longer if you have the ability to download it as often as you want as long as you can prove it is you.) However lets be honest, with many console games you only have the downloaded game until the next console cycle. Sixty bucks for a game, you can't resell it and you can only play it as long as your console lasts. I'll be honest, often it is worth the cost, if the game is amazing and it holds my interest for as long as it takes to play it through, even more so if I'll replay it. But I can get a game on steam or origin for far less than that, and those I can play forever... basically.
Alex Wellbelove every game I get is a disc.. just because some use digital now doesn't mean everyone does
After watching the "Should you Preorder games" and this, I'm not sure if TB can keep track of his own opinion.
i am surprised games still cost $59!! prices are going up for almost everything, but games prices hasn't changed in ages...gamers be thankful and buy new.
ya cus not having money is such a blesing when it is an incomplet game that needs patching i rember when it was arond 20 for a new title back on the ps2 60 is a big asking price for a game that ill most likely bore of i agree with total but its just bs to be forced for the most part at a 60 start price becus im on a consel and im on a mac rather then a pc this odacity is why we cant have good games honestly i whud pay 60 for a game that is day one optimised and tested to the point of being at its prime i wish that i can get theas steam sales for my concel and not deal with game stop cus sirusrly fuck thows guys
For retail console games, yeah, but I'm not thankful. $60 is a good chunk a change for those of us who are supporting ourselves (not to imply you are/aren't). I'd much prefer the pc scene where you get get games that have reasonable budgets for reasonable prices; not to mention glorious bundles and sales.
Zulu Cthulu if next gen goes all digital, then maybe you'll get cheap prices like steam, maybe xbox will go all digital, I doubt Sony will go digital though.
Maybe, but you're at their mercy. And considering many new console games now include micro transactions, despite being full priced games, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Games can also be made far more cheaply now. Many Devs simply spend too much money these days. They do ridiculous things like focus their efforts on high poly counts or hiring hollywood voice actors. When they have an overblown budget I don't feel bad if the lose out.
A used game was once bought new, the person whom traded it in is no longer playing it using server space, the person whom bought the used takes the spot of the original buyer. The claiming it is like a used car, movie and so on is kinda stupid but I think the reason game publishers and developers lose money is due to bad business. EA, they like to screw over their customers, IE mass effect 3, battlefield 4 and dragon age 2. They rush things just to get them out the door and poor products make for poor return customers. Killing the used game market is just greed on the larger publishers and developers to keep the share holders happy.
Yes, but they're still buying a copy, and none of the money is going to the developer, or publisher. Server costs aren't a one time only cost.
It's a tough argument either way. On one hand, you have the first sale doctrine in which someone should be able to sell their initially-bought key and their access to the game in which case someone else takes their place on the server and potentially buys DLC over again. There'd be two ways to handle something like that.
One is the traditional method of selling to Gamestop or a different shop. However, none of that money is going back to the developer like TotalBiscuit re-iterated a lot and screws over pretty much everyone.
The other would be for Valve to implement a system to trade/sell your keys in a marketplace. However, the issue with that is that because there is no difference between a used digital copy and a new digital copy, either people would sell them for cheaper than they bought it for or charge the same price as on the steam store. In the latter case, there is no point whatsoever to selling your keys because people can just buy their own copy. In the former case what point is there to buying games on the steam store? And in both cases while the developers would rightfully get their cut of the sale, Valve is certainly going to get a lot less of a cut of the sale no matter how you slice it.
Again, with digital sales becoming more prevalent in the console market and making up the entire PC gaming market, it's a tough argument when the video game in question doesn't hold much intrinsic value on a physical medium nowadays like they used to back when cartridges or proprietary disks (with no alternatives, mind) were used.
Plus single player games, doc and microtransactions making 99.9999999% of the money anyways
Fuck that retail and used games have saved me hundreds during the years
Make more of these videos. Not a request but a suggestion. going over these topics is an EXCELLENT way of not only getting the word out, but also for getting out your specific opinion and thoughts.
only good thing about used games is that you can get games that are out of production.
I disagree, occasionally I save a little bit of money by buying a second hand copy. I see no reason to be ashamed of that.
I will stop buying Movies and Books when i have to go full digital. art of the joy is having the physical copy to look at and view, to display.
I got a used copy of Dark Souls BECAUSE IT WAS THE ONLY COPY IN THE STORE.
That is how used games should be sold, when there are no new copies of the game to buy. The steam summer sales and daily sales essentially replace a used games market because digital copies are infinite.
The problem is that without used game sales, places like Game and Game Stop wouldn't make enough money to support their stores. When you only make a five dollar profit by selling a brand new PS3, you need something that gets you enough profit to pay for your store and your employees.
game retailers need to die
Great, so no one sells them then. Good luck playing games you can't buy!
I ment gamestop and every other store dedicated to games
*****
. . . . . that's too simple-minded.
i think if gamestop/eb games & the like need to become more social to survive the internet taking over. basically pubs/internet cafes where they make deals w/ publishers to let customers play games at a small fee, before they purchase them.
I don't think the artists ability to get revenue has much impact on my right to sell my property to other individuals.
qonf Making profit of someone else's creative work and convincing someone to buy your already bought copy rather than actually give the creator his fair share is being a bit of a dick. You have the right to sell your stuff, but this isn't the case of a cupboard which the manufacturer makes every day, this is a game, something that is created once by the developer, and expected to return a profit through enough copies sold. By supporting used games, you are essentially supporting the bankruptcy of game developing.
But you're right, maybe dick is the wrong term. How about "you have the right to be an unsupportive leech"?
Again, I don't think there is anything wrong, or dickish, about selling your stuff. It does not matter if the creator of that stuff is having trouble turning a profit.
If i bought a book, and then sold that book to a friend, or a used book store, there would be nothing dickish about that, completely irregardless of the ability of the author, publisher, or book industry to make a profit.
The fact that other entertainment industries have other streams of revenue does not change that.
And while it is in your rights, your taking profits from the creator, which no matter how you see it hurts them and prevent them from making games.
And it hurts book writers and publishers when you resell their books, but no one would argue that its somehow a dick move. And why would they? Why does it suddenly change when it comes to games? Even if you can point to some additional stream of revenue that book publishers have, I don't actually see how that changes anything, like TB seems to think without actually presenting an augment for it.
But that's the thing. It's a matter of how much harm it does. If they have other streams of revenue, they can at the very least survive. But game retailers are literally starving developers and publishers.
The only time I ever bought used was when I couldn't find a new copy anywhere.
Especially the Orange Box could only find two copies in several gamestop
stores for Xbox
*cough* people would buy new games if games were f**** full games
Thank you so much TB. I always come to your channel hungry for some perspective, and you never fail to provide; never for a definitive opinion or viewpoint, but for reasonable and logical arguments that I can use to shake my own paradigms and form a stronger opinion.
Here's the problem with your theory. In America there is something called right to first sale. Once you buy a product it is yours. A company has NO right to tell you what you can and can't do with the product. It would be no different from having the car company you buy from tell you when and where you can drive it or what you can do to it. I understand your argument however you should take into account what could have been used to allow companies to sell the right to play there game which could then be taken away after you've paid your money.
Yes, you have the right to do as you wish it. But there is a difference between "can do" and "should do". If you really care about the developer, you won't participate in used game sales. If you want to support the making of more games like the one you want, you'll buy it so the developer's are able to.
Lucid, well thought out, compelling and comprehensive arguments. However I disagree. A broken revenue stream in an industry should never be the responsibility of the consumer. And preventing a consumer from selling what they've purchased defies basic economic principles.
Games should be free now anyways with dlc and microtransactions
I agree with this, but only for current console generations. Most used games I buy are from the past console generations.
Many older consoles will become obsolete if they go digital and drop off the company support radar.
I agree with you and totalbiscuit because the last used game I got was for a PS2 last year
How exactly do devs and Publishers gain profit when someone stops playing their games?
So, Is it okay to buy a used game outside of a games production time, (For example GTA 4) because gamestop won't be buying any new copys of that game, and a new copy would be hard to find.
Personally that's my argument against there being NO used game sales, As if a game suddenly becomes a cult classic or something of the sort, it will be nearly impossible to play legally, due to there being no more copies available
Or even newer games
why do used game sell well?
because shitty games are fucking overpriced to begin with. period.
I don't shop at gamestop I go to this little game store near me they don't push used games, but I buy them because. 'you tell me where OI can find a working copy of Mario bros 3 for NES, or Windwaker for gamecube. You can argue against used games, but you must acknowledge that used games keep the past console gens alive and are needed to survive.
"No glaring bugs or technical issues." I think I just heard glass shatter in my head.
The only way game stop will clean their act is if we stop buying from them
Wdym what act
@@pongchannel. profiting off of and heavily pushing used games to people who would otherwise buy new
As a pc gamer I have no use for used games and it is not an issue for me whatsoever, with things like steam game prices are very reasonable. I do however own a console and this is where i have an issue. Games are far too expensive on consoles, $80-100 is very rarely a fair price for a game with shitty graphics and a poor framerate. They are more often than not more expensive than their pc counterparts. How ludicrous is that? an inferior version that costs more? If prices were more reasonable they would get far better launch sales. I personally see no problem with used games. Someone should be quite entitled to sell something they have brought if they buy it and do not like it or do not use it anymore, it's not like you can just go back to the store and say "hey I want a refund because I've clocked this game already".
RuthlessFiend38 I'm talking NZD mate. $80-100 is about what we pay here [sometimes more]. And 360 graphics are terrible, jagged edges muddy looking textures poor view distance. I find it hard to pick up a console game and play after using pc, it's just such an unrefined experience. The framerate is horrible when you're used to 60+. Try playing a game on a pc sometime, you'll see what I mean.
Compared to PC games however, console games are obviously jsut not as good. Skyrim on my XBox looks like crap compared to when ever I go to my friends house and see his pc running it
RuthlessFiend38
He's exaggerating to show his point. XBox and PS aren't horrible graphics, but they ARE worse... so paying more for something worse applies, which is his point.
KuroroSama42 Yeah you do have a fair point, I've just played pc for so long i've become used to a certain standard of graphics. It's not that ps3/xbox360 graphics are bad, it's just that PC graphics are better. Even at the lower end the overall clarity is quite a bit better. I really think the pricing for games on the console market is terrible. I don't buy new games on console, console gamers are getting royally screwed with the current pricing. Look at the price of ps4/xbox one games, they are mostly over $100nzd a piece. The number of games on pc over $100 would be very very small. Most are under $50 NZ within a month of release on steam. I mean by the time you buy a console and 4 games there goes well over 1k, I personally would rather put that money toward a PC and save money on software. The new consoles look great but I just think the consumer is getting fucked over by ridiculous game prices yet again. Just my opinion anyhow people :) i don't mean to seem hateful toward anyone and I apologize if i have come across that way.
The thing is that Xbox and Playstation actually sell their consoles at a loss and make money back from exclusives, software and royalties. So when an exclusive game comes out on console it has to cover the cost of physical copies, shipping, make a profit for the retailer, developers and publishers. That and the market retail price for a game is just standard now.
A year ago I wouldn't have been convinced that the console market was in trouble but now it's really easy to see the problems.
quite an eye opener, you actually have a good point in favour of online passes and that, kudos.
You failed to mention on steam, you can trade for games using items. It's not technically "used" but it's still a point worthy of bringing up.
Well thats not entirely true. You can trade games on steam, yes. But you only are able to trade with other users which have to have bought those games in the first place and stored them in their inventory to be able to trade them. The items you mentioned, which are used as a sort of exchange are also most likely generated by playing a game, wich in return has to be bought. May it be game cards, discount vouchers or other items, they all are generated within a game. Only exception is the fact that you might get a "3 game card bonus set" for a random game you own once in a while but then again you have to own the game.
That being said steam merely is a exchange platform but in no way a platform that offers any sort of used game exchange. Games are bound to your account once you have pruchase them for yourself and unless you get a refund, which isnt an easy tastk to beginn with, they stay on your account without any ability to remove or resell them.
The only difference is the inventory where ou might store games you dont want to be bound to your accout for what ever reason. Still those games are not used because if they where you wont be able to trade them anymore.
Good Guy Steam:
Discounts for the consumers, same money for the devs!
Yep (even than some games are full price)
I have a question for you TB: which one is better - buy a used game at a lower price or download a cracked version of that game and not pay a nickle for it? Let's forget the promotions on this and that publishing platform since you have to hunt those down and at the end of the day it is quite possible you'll miss one especially if you are not an avid gamer. Let's talk about the distribution strategy many game (and not only) publishers have. Very, very few are smart enough to consider where exactly their games are going to be offered on the market. Even if you look at Europe only there is a HUGE difference in income between West and East Europe. Instead of making special regional releases (not talking about the PG-rating or such other nonsense) that are limited to the region they are sold in (various methods are at the disposal of publishers here from regional lockout to filtering server access based on the region the game is coming from and the server it is trying to access), publisher offer a game for the same price everywhere. Now imagine that a game costs 50-60 EUR in Europe. A guy from the UK (such as yourself) will probalby be able to afford to buy a couple of games per month where a guy from some East European country where the minimal wage is less than 200 EUR will most certainly not be able to do that. The excuse "Well then he/she shouldn't buy those!" is valid indeed and yet it a sort of a pathetic excuse of not being able to manage the market (those fatties behind desks that earn millions a year for doing nothing but attending various parties, charities and congresses). This applies of course not only to video games. Books, films, music (although nowadays 99Centes for a track is as low as it can get I guess) etc. are all in. If I see a cool book on the bookshelf in the bookstore, I would like to buy it. Yet when I look into my wallet and see only spiderwebs in there there are 2 options for me (the third - not have it - is not an option :D) - steal it or look somewhere else - in a different bookstore OR a used copy. Even companies such as Amazon are smart enough to realize that and that's why most paper books in their store are also offered as second-hand that is - used copies. This allows a greater amount of people to enjoy a certain work of art or science. However I do agree that putting a used copy next to new one in a store is bad. Some stores have a used-section where you can buy those at a lower price and it depends how well preserved the product is.
Last but not least - imagine you don't want a game anymore or the game you bought is something totally diffirent from what you were expecting AND there is no refund - why not resell it at a lower price and with those money buy something else?
because you can just get a crack for a ps3 game...
vyor2 And you can, indeed do so.
Ian McCarley not easily... and it prevent getting any updates or going online for anything....
Hi, I'm Jack Ryder, and You Are Wrong™! Still though, you presented your argument quite well, and you are right that people shouldn't just be here to be pandered to. But enough about where you're right, lets get to your wrongness!
The fundamental issue here is property rights and whether people have a right to sell something they own. This discussion is therefore primarily a legal battle, and this is where the focus must be. The revenue of game producers might be a good argument as to why you think people should choose purchasing one over another, but whether people have a RIGHT to do this thing is an entirely separate question.
The used car comparison is legitimate because it is LEGALLY equivalent. You are selling something that you had previously purchased. What price these things are bought and resold at is irrelevant. The same is true for the differences in durability. Your right to resell something comes from it being your property. Whether that property is durable or not doesn't matter. It's yours, and if you want to give that away to someone else, that is your right.
Your second argument centers around the revenue that these people have access to. While this is another good point about differences in the industries, and possibly even an argument as to why people should buy new instead of used, whether a person has a right to sell their own property or not is an entirely different question. Property rights are not just there to give you a revenue stream. The argument that we should set up laws so that one group in society can gain at the expense of another group isn't particularly convincing.
The third argument that retail stores might push something is, again, irrelevant to the question of property rights. Property rights are, again, not contingent upon what product retail sellers would prefer to promote. They have freedom of speech and may suggest whatever product they wish. I find it ironic that you begin this argument commenting on defending free speech and your right to your own opinion, but think other people using free speech is somehow proof that they need to be violently threatened away from doing such things.
It can also be noted that people can advertise on servers, so your point there is wrong, but even if it was right, again it would be irrelevant. If those companies want to maintain those servers, that is, again, their right to do what they want with their own property. If they want to sell those servers away to someone else, that is legal too. The same property rights basis lies at both of these sides here, and as I pointed out before, supporting property rights only when it benefits you is hypocritical. You taking on a cost does not entitle you to my money. Besides, worst case scenario they can make things subscription based.
Now for your argument against Gamestop. I can (and do) agree that they're gigantic dicks, especially for holding back steam, and I can't wait to see their empire collapse. But there's a difference between pointing out something as a vice and saying something should be criminalized. In one instance, you're just chastising someone. In another, you're threatening them with legal violence if they don't conform to your code of conduct, which is only an acceptable thing to do when the criminal are themselves using violence. So people are perfectly justified in making murder, theft, assault, rape, etc. all illegal. Someone asking that someone else give them pre-order exclusive is an ENTIRELY different category.
This all being said, I think it's also entirely consistent with property rights if they want to add online passes and shit to try and exclude other games. That's all cool and hopefully will fix a lot of the legitimate issues you've pointed out the industry is facing. However, that is, again, a different issue from whether people have a right to sell their own property.
Should used games fade from the market, that is totally fine with me. However, when we're talking legal policy here and whether the government should make something illegal or not, saying that "I really really want money" and "look at these other people making money, why don't you give me special legal privileges so that I can make that money too" are not good arguments. If used gaming will die a natural death, let it do so.
The reason why publishers are pushing away from used copies is because people who buy new versus used are just as likely IF NOT MORE LIKELY to purchase DLC since they are willing to pay more/full price for a game. Used copies do NOT sell more DLC or anything like that, I'd almost argue that new copies sell more DLC.
I can’t believe I used to hold this opinion. Total biscuit seems to trust corporate entities more than the modern consumer in a landscape where allowing corporate control erases games from existence. The idea of not allowing games to exist as physical goods is inherently absurd.
The worst argument is the server argument once its paid for the server is already paid for even if its moved
i only buy used for older consoles like my super nindeto or the ps2 because buying new for older consoles mostly mean unopen cases but i do agree for newer machines and pc always buy new because you have things like DLC and all that fancy stuff that i don't understand much of because i dont have the lastest console other then the PC and i mostly buy steam games on it that are ok i guess and agree about the car thing
For the longest time I've just been listening to people in my school, including friends, argue about game developers and publishers being greedy (ex: Xbox One can't have used games) and I've just been soaking in the the shit they've been saying without an opinion of my own, but after watching this video I can go to school and declare them all a bunch of fucking idiot. Thank you TB for enlightening me on the current situation that gaming is in right now, I will now happily watch used games die during this new generation of consoles. Of course I do think the future will lead to there being no more consoles, and instead all games being on affordable, gaming driven computers that support an array of (optional) controllers to fit the needs of gamers. But I can only hope for this to be our future.
You can't force change, it just makes you greedy....
buy a new one each time? each time what? wtf do you mean, i've had the same computer for 5 years and im still playing newer games. And just because someone refuses to let go of hard copies doesnt mean their kid will, eventually people won't care about hard copies anymore.
DantheMan12905 about 10 years for me with some minor upgrades.
***** you have to upgrade to new consoles eventually to play newer games, and it takes around the same amount of time for a computer to become out dated, so what your saying makes no sense
***** That's because some people are stupid and can't read or understand basic instructions...
Well, TB said something that made me think, and that it was that the fact that there is used games, that devs are more open to releasing their games on sale, on digital platforms, because they're more comfortable with that approach because they're still making money, more than they would will used games. Now when used games become obsolete, will there still be a point for these devs and publishers to make sales, since there wouldn't be a difference anyways?
Total biscuit I like you but your argument is totally wrong for used games. Who's paying for the servers? The servers have been paid for by the original buyer. The price of games factors in servers, used games, games rentals, etc. THEY WILL SHUTDOWN SERVERS EVENTUALLY ANYWAY. You think if everyone bought new, they wouldn't eventually shut that shit down? PLEASE don't be naive.
DLC is abhorrent, it generally gives the developers an excuse to charge extra for what was originally in the game (10+ years ago), now cut for the purpose of monetisation.
If a game is shit, then a person SHOULD be allowed to trade in that game for a % of their original investment, or else, what? Be stuck with it forever as it devalues? In order for trade-ins to function, to be bought from the consumer, people MUST then buy the used game from them.
Also, in an industry that makes millions, if not billions from a game and charges extortionate prices, particularly for AAA titles, some copies of used games that eat into those profits is NOT hurting them. You are essentially defending rich people's rights to be richer. No one is losing their jobs at activision over used call of duty games, whilst they make over half a billion a game are they? Also I've been to game and gamestation, and bought many new and used games over my time there, not ONCE have I ever been asked if I would like a used copy instead of a new game there. Once I was offered a new game in a USED GAME'S PLACE as it had "shiny" DLC to sweeten the deal for a mere £5 extra, so that is complete rubbish.
Also they transition to free to play models because it's more pay to win. They can make more money from it, because they are greedy, they will milk that udder dry. (Again refer to profit margins).
Bearing in mind many SUPERMARKETS sell games, only new, many people go there to buy their games, due to the savings that tie in with the groceries offer, so that they can even buy the new game for less than a used game costs in Game (maybe that's why Game are going bankrupt). I should be allowed to trade in what I like and save money if I so wish. I should be allowed to buy a game new if I want to support the publisher, which I do when it's a game that deserves being bought new. (Elder Scrolls comes to mind) THAT acts as an INCENTIVE for the developers and publishers to not make shit games whilst charging 60 bucks for it. The day they don't make 600 million a game is the day I stop buying used games.
i am looking at steams featured list right now, there is not a single game older than a week, or over $30, most are under $10
how fucking awesome is that, can you imagine a world where gamestop didnt exist? because thats what it would look like
Um... Steam sales exist because Valve wants to substitute PC Piracy by good service and support.
Consoles don't have piracy issues, which means monopolizing up the ass.
Astroprogs "Consoles don't have piracy issues" what?
Piracy on consoles is really really miniscule compared to the 90% piracy rate on PC even WITH Steam.
Check "Game Dev Tycoon" Devs first hand numbers on this topic for confirmation.
console piracy is about %30
now how many more people have a console vs a gaming pc
I'm interested in the place you got that number from.
There is a reason why a lot of games didn't get a PC releases until Steam happened.
And A LOT of people have gaming PCs, actually according to Destructoid's article "PC vs Console Gaming infographic" the PC is the dominating Gaming machine in terms of install base.
Personal opinion: Game companies should be able to "tax" used game sales.
nope
I recently switched over to PC from console,and the first thing I noticed was the quality and quantity of my games increased dramatically. Locked at low resolution and low frame rate with outdated hardware for years at a time,and a lack of an ability to fix bugs I encounted myself are a few of the things I can't answer why I put up with it and
I don't understand why people still do.
Dear Sir or Madam,
We of the PC Master Race cordially welcome you with open arms. :-)
Used games is in many ways the console equivalent of Piracy.
Silly duckling. Console games can be actually pirated.
CaitSeith
I know that, but it is much less prevolent than within PC gaming. Most likely because most console players aren't all that tech savy, despite pirated media just being a google search away...
Quacktics are Go
More like first-world console players. Half of the third-world console players buy pirated games and own modded consoles for that purpose.
CaitSeith
I was referring to the first world in my comment, since that's what the topic of the video was revolving around.
Quacktics are Go
Fair enough. But at least we can agree that piracy (duplicating) and used games (recycling) are two separate things.
I have no sympathy for any major publisher companies like capcom and EA already had too much money and thats why they behave the way they do and I couldn't care less if they are losing out on anything.
Capcom is not a major publisher, at least not anymore. They are about to go bankrupt pretty soon
*****
Well unless of course they get their heads out of their ass and actually make good decisions.
i think its set in stone that they are going to go under
I could support this point of view if there was any evidence that used games are damaging the industry. I'm yet to see that evidence. I've been hearing this thing for years about the film industry in terms of pirating films. Yet we see no sign of that slowing down with both big blockbusters and independent films.
I bought a Playstation 3 just this year. I wanted to get games to go with the system and I remembered Heavy Rain had good reviews. So I bought it used. This game is currently not in the Playstation store or on Steam. I can't find it anywhere but used. This also the case for some older titles I also looked into after viewing these comments. This seems like a good reason for used games as it allows for someone to find them that would otherwise be non·existent. BTW I usually buy/prefer new games
Yes but books, CDs and ( most) dvds don't cost $60+ a pop for a first hand copy that (as TB himself said is the case for most new/used games) is little to no better quality
says that dude that lives off gameplays and doesn't pay the developers for it. I don't support used games either. but you don't practice what you preach in some way.
Wtf is GameStop? Is it like eb games?
I'm not sure if you're trolling. Most every city (assuming you're in the States like I am, otherwise I apologize for generalizing) has a GameStop.
To sum up GameStop, though, they're a video game retailer with a rather... shifty reputation, due to bullying game publishers and other competing retailers to maximize their products, while also passing blame to other publishers or developers whenever there's some nasty PR going around about something going on in the game industry.
They're not great, but I can get Dynasty Warriors from them when I can't find it anywhere else, so I can't really complain about them too much.
Nathaniel Swider EB Games is up north in the US. Gamestop in the south and west
Alex Fennell No, both are up north. EB is Canadian though
GameStop owns EB Games but yes they are essentially the same thing.
We dont have Gamestop in New Zealand. We do have EB games though
Resurfacing a DVD or video game disk?
This is the first time in my 27 years of life that I have EVER heard of that.
I didn't know it was possible.
Wtf????
It's called Capitalism. Just saying.
Seemed to be a lot of oversights in his argument here.
What are they?
so how much did steam pay you for this
I agree with this 100%. I, too, worked at a game store and saw the way that they were ripping off consumers and the game industry at the same time. I want to see the people that make my favorite game succeed and create more games. If the only way for us consumers to show our appreciation is through our dollars, then how much appreciation is actually shown if our dollars never make it to them? I'll spend the extra $5 just to make sure that they get the message. Great job, TotalBiscuit!
i cannot believe this stuff, really now go watch the jimquistion on used games, this is the only way we can get back at bad games this is the last vestige of control we have, and of all people TB is the one that advocates the removal of used games. because it's not "fair" because they dont degrade. well guess what, will steam refund my games? no. so if steam wont do it why do you have the slightest ikling that microsoft would? this is bad very bad. no other medium has this crap, if i were to buy a comic it is mine! i own it, and last i checked i have the right for property, which is(I'm quating my country's definition) every man has the right to use his own property as he see's fit, or prevent people from using his property, physical or intelectuall, and has the RIGHT TO STOP PEOPLE FROM HURTING SAID PROPERTY. this is illegal and should stop. now!
and then comes the pirated games ah. but u know people who pirate games have their own reasons its not like arr i will pirate this ! no most people who pirate are like this ok so i bought this and now i really want to play this game but man i payed a lot for these games maybe when its price goes down i will buy them but for the meantime i will pirate this game and enjoy the single player and when the price goes down i will buy and play multiplayer. well im not saying im a pirate(go ahead say that im a pirate see if i give a shit) it's just people have there own reasons weather good or bad.
The Pretentious Brit
Here in Canada, at my two gamestops, they don't push anything on us. The most that they say is "Do you want to get a $2 warranty? or "Do you want to get an Edge card for $2 to save money on used games?". The only game I can remember that was fairly new that I bought used was Halo 4, and Skyrim. I support the developers more than the publishers, as they're the ones getting the industry wide layoffs, and I fear for my future as an aspiring game designer. Please support developers.
Biased opinion is biased, just sayin.
Console gamers are a fucking disgrace. They pirate more then PC gamers. Hence. Used copies. Does the dev/publisher make money via pirates? Nope. How about used games? Does the dev/publisher make money? Nope. There you go.
I'm a fan of consumer rights, however I'll say you are allowed your opinion.
Before this video I thought used games were good for gamers...but now I realise what is wrong with used games
Also, don't forget about actions like Humble Bundle. You can get 6-7 games for 1$. Paying around 7$ unlocks you additional content like DLC's, soundtracks or dev diaries - so pretty much collector's edition these days.
That's just crazy!
Actually, there is one more argument for Used, at least from the retailer's standpoint: On any New sale, the retailer's markup is a dollar or two tops. On a Used copy the margin is anywhere up to 2000%. GameStop makes all of its money on those used games.
I will buy new as often as possible, and PC games from anywhere *but* GS. Console games, I'm pretty much stuck.
Microsoft and the XBone controversy was out of line.
I thoroughly agree with you on most points, but I see one flaw with what you said. Once a game goes to the retailer, even if the game doesn't sell one copy, if the retailer buys as many copies as they would for a game that has excellent sales, the company still gets the same amount of money. The company gets money from selling to retailers, not retailers selling to consumers. By buying a game, you're just reimbursing the retailer, not the developer. However, if you buy the game, then the retailer may buy more new copies of said game from the developer. So, after the "cycle" of retailers buying more and more new games from the developer, it really doesn't matter anymore.
More than anything I just worry that steam and other online companies will get out of control and put pressure on us. If they start requiring us to do monthly subscriptions to play the games we bought or start trying to charge us to go online. This is truly a grave thought to me. It is hard to get new copies of games and especially for the prices gamestop has. If possible i would buy straight from the publisher but it still has to be the right price. Not the absurd 60 dollars for a new call of duty that is the exact same as the last except new modes or just increased graphics.
Wow this video changed the whole way I thought about used games. I never realized I'm not supporting the artists
I feel like you make a lot of good points on this video that I never really thought about.
I usually buy used games because they are cheaper, and/or they're games I can't buy a new copy for without scouring the internet for one person who is selling it for five times the original price. Another reason for that is I can trade in games I already had to get the funds to buy the new game.
The only real problem I had with this system was I would get gouged for the cost of the game. It would take five or six games to get one cheap game that I wanted. I'd be paid maybe three or four dollars for each game I traded in (depending on if it was cash or credit [Which keeps the money in their store, so they'd give you a little more]), and then they'd resell it for fifteen to twenty, essentially three to five times the price they paid for it, and all of that goes in the retailer's pockets, not the developer's. I actually stopped going to a place for that very reason. I felt like I was getting cheated on the value of my games. I would trade in a game and see the exact same game on their shelves for five times what they gave me for it. I understand they need to make a profit, but cutting the trade-in value that much is silly.
Recently, I've been doing tons more downloads now that I have a PC that can handle games in a decent manner, and yes, I'm paying full price for games, but I feel much better about that now that I know the money's not going to a retailer's pocket and not supporting the devs.
You know what, I used to truly believe in what Gamestop was doing was good, but now that I see your opinion: yea, used games are bad for market. But doesn't mean I will let go of my opinion, I like buying my games used and cheap. But what Gamestop is doing is setting a bad name. Thank you TotalBiscuit for bringing this to my eyes, and I respect your opinion. I don't know why people hate you, your just showing your honest opinion, and I guess people hate you for that. Great job to be able to change my stubborn mind man! Disclaimer: This is not joking at all, this is my honest comment on this video.
TB isnt saying it is illegal. The question is whether Pirating and Used games are morally the same. Especially if you are againist systems like 10 dollar project or online passess
This is a pretty strong argument. Although the practical side would say that you have the right to give or sell something you own to someone else, the fact that this practice hurts game developers makes sense. On the other hand, buying a used copy of a game that's three or four years old hurts no one. Although I can see how the point of buying a use game hurts developers, the real problem falls in the hands of developers putting their games in the right hands. If all these games are being purchased, than returned to Gamestop, it means that those players are upset with the game and do not want to play it. And if this happened years later after the game was released, I hardly think it has any effect on that game developer who has already moved on to working on a new title. But if the game is a newer game like Battlefield or Call of Duty, and people are returning the game to the store for trade in (because usually games have no return policy) then the game developer should have to eat the cost of that. It's not that I don't agree with your point TB, but outside of gamestop or used game stores, there is no way for consumers to fight back against developers who game the market to sell games that are in poor quality. Consumers can't simply return games to Best Buy because they won't accept a return for refund. Same as with Target or any other big name US retailer (though other countries might handle this differently?) I think the sad part is that however which way this conversation goes, there's going to be someone who gets screwed over. Whether it's gamestop, game developers, large retailers, or the consumer, someone should have to eat the price of a game that was developed poorly. If a developer still expects to make money off of a title that was released 4 or 6 years ago without having any extra content for it, then I think they're crazy. The thing is, Gamestop in the US is failing terribly because it can't keep up its business model of just selling games. So eventually they're going to have to make a deal with game developers or else they're going to switch to being a straight cell phone store. But we'll see what happens. I'm a PC gamer too, but I recently purchased PS4 so I could enjoy Watchdogs, and I have no intention of returning it unless the game is horribly broken.
"Because it was bought in the first instance, it shouldn't matter, it doesn't create additional copies of the game, that 1 copy is just circulating to different people, so it's the same thing, no, no it's not."
Yes, yes it is. 3 people playing the game for 2 months each is no different than 1 person who plays it for 6 months. With that business model, they should be planning into their budget and the cost of the product, ongoing support for every copy of the game sold. If that model isn't
He mentioned specifically games with recurring costs, like maintaining servers for multiplayer. His argument is that if multiple people own the same copy, they will play more, thus costing the developer more money, when in reality they should be budgeting the game for lifetimes use, and finding innovative ways to keep money coming in, like DLC. I don't feel sorry for companies that lose money because they spend more on lawyers than they do coming up with better ways to generate revenue.
Personally, my only issue with embracing the digital future is that it's basically a death knell for all of the brick-and-mortar structures that rely on physical sales, not only stuff like GameStop, but also companies like Barnes & Noble and, hell, we've seen Blockbuster die out to Netflix in our lifetime.
Not only that, but if e-books really do become as prevalent as some people think they will, we might just see libraries phase out of existence in all but the biggest cities who can afford to spend money financing what would become, and let's be honest here, a rather archaic system.
No matter if we continue to support physical copies or fully embrace digital copies, someone is gonna get the short end of the stick in the end.