| Cactus said: No offense, but I think you totally misunderstood his stance on the issue. The thread title is false/misleading as well. Read Jaffe's posts in the Neogaf topic to get more of an idea of what he's trying to say. |
Actually, I don't think he did misread it. I've read the NeoGAF thread, so I know full well how Jaffe's trying to cover himself in the mantle of being "pro-consumer" but "anti-corporation." His clarifications make it clear that he's either an idiot (quite possible) or he's lying to make himself look better (equally possible).
If I understand correctly, he's saying that the evil Gamestops of the world shouldn't be able to make such high profits off his work at resale, that they should be satisfied with the $5 margin that they get on new games (with next to zero price protection, mind you), but he's still okay with consumers reselling their games if they want. He obviously hasn't thought this through: if the real problem here is the evil reselling corporations costing him money, does he really think he'd be happier if Gamestop et. al. were cut out of the picture (meaning we consumers would pay less than just five dollars off for a new game)? Does it really strike him as a good thing if Gamestop were to suddenly reduce the price of their new games to more consumer-friendly levels, say, by buying your used game for $30 and reselling it for $35 instead of $55? He'd be okay with not getting a cut of that money, and with the fact that used games sales would increase dramatically?
I call bullshit.
He later says in that thread that he'd be okay if there was a legal moratorium on selling used games for the first one to three months after release. Awesome. What makes him think he has any right whatsoever to control my property (and remember, once I've bought a game, it's my property)? And how is this even remotely pro-consumer? The idea of selling your games is that the game was not good enough, from the consumer's perspective, so they're ditching it for something else. Jaffe would restrict this right, and he's deliberately picked an amount of time that would guarantee that you wouldn't recover much on your game at resale. I'd love to hear how this proposal is even remotely pro-consumer at all!
| Kantor said: Yeah, I think David Jaffe should die because he wants money from every sale of a game he spent loads of time and money developing. What an asshole! |
David Jaffe has made his money when you, the consumer, buy his game. What happens after that is none of his fucking business. DVDs, books, cars, homes, jewelry, and every other consumer good in the world has to obey the simple rule that the manufacturer only gets his money at the first sale, and what happens after that in the used goods market has nothing to do with him. What makes Jaffe and co. so special that they get to reach into other people's pockets twice (or more) for the same product?
That said, wanting the guy to die is probably going overboard.
| dbot said: I agree with Munkeh, I dislike used games as well. Very few publishers/developers are able to make profits this generation and every sale counts. Rentals/used games hurt the industry as a whole. |
For what it's worth, you're right about devs and publishers not making money, and needing to take every sale they can get.
Here's the thing: it's not my problem.
They made a business model in which they are unable to turn a profit despite record revenues. It's not my fault that they're starving in the garden of Eden: I (and hundreds of millions of other consumers worldwide) have already given them money. If they can't make do with what they have, they need to reconsider how they do business, not avariciously search for ways to defy the rules that have been in place for decades! It's not like it's impossible to operate under the modern environment: some companies are doing quite well, even VERY well. Jaffe comes out sounding like a whiner who either can't compete in the business environment, or a greedy SOB who wants more of our money. Either way, he gets no sympathy from me.
