Aielyn said:
spaceguy said:
One word, Darksiders. |
You're going to have to provide more words, because I don't know what you're meant to be arguing against with a reference to Darksiders.
| spaceguy said:
You do have some valid points but I also think I do as well. I like different games. I get sick up the same sh-t all the time. What you are forgetting is the small developer is the one getting destroyed, they have no chance unless big companies pick them up. New companies need to form to form competition. This gen, how many software companies got bought up. So now we got the same massive company dictating whats going on. This charge would allow small developers to continue what they love and invest in the game, so we get stunning games and the developer only has to sell so many rather than what Dead Space 3 needs to sell. 5 F'ing million to break even. thats to much. If they sold a million cars of one model. GM would be shitting breaks of GOLD. Other markets have way higher profit margins.
|
Most small developers seem to be doing just fine. It's the THQs, the Factor 5s, and the Krome Studios. It's rather uncommon for small studios to fold - they're more likely to be bought out by publishers than fold. Many small developers also make use of digital distribution, which provides them with a lot more exposure than they otherwise would have gotten. And most of them sell their games for far less than the big studios do, too. The thing is, those small studios can sell 50k of games at $10 each and make a profit, while the huge studios sell 1.5 million $60 games and still don't break even. Like I said, the problem is in the growth of development costs, not used games.
Arguing that used game sales are the cause of the problem is like arguing that the reason why so many American banks did what they did and caused the GFC was because they weren't making enough profit from their regular activities. And as so many have already pointed out, used game sales actually bolster the industry, by providing early buyers with the money necessary to buy more games. If you were to remove used game sales, in all seriousness, you'd see a massive drop in game sales, as the biggest gamers become a lot more careful with their purchases, find themselves only being able to afford a few games a year, and all the other gamers being restricted to just a single game because they can't afford to pay for a lot of games at full price. The used game buyer is actually subsidising the new game buyer, who then buys more new games.
In fact, the biggest impact of banning used game sales would be to create havok in the industry as only the biggest titles would sell - the rest would end up staying on store shelves, because people can't afford to take risks. CoD would sell more, while games like No More Heroes wouldn't even make a mark.
As for the idea of your "single-use code for any used game", there are multiple problems. One, how do people without internet use the code? Two, why wouldn't pirates just crack the code - I'll tell you right now, a lot more people would be happy to pirate the code than pirate an entire game. Three, why wouldn't this just strengthen gamestop, as private used game sales would become less appealing (due to not having an appropriate code to go with it)? Four, why should the single-use code be the same price irrespective of whether you're buying a $60 or a $20 game? Five, what happens in 5 years time when the codes are no longer being generated? Six, I don't have to "unlock" my car when I buy second-hand by paying the original maker, why should it be any different for a game?
To put it bluntly, it's just not workable. It would be wieldy, and not much different from, for instance, Ubisoft's DRM. It might be a little more streamlined, but it still suffers from the major drawbacks that other DRM suffers from.
On the other hand, if you make games that people want to keep, it benefits you when you sell them, because those games become rare on the used game market. The result is that the price that places like Gamestop charge for the used copy is much closer to that of the new copy, and people just opt for the new copy anyway.
Something to consider - Skyward Sword currently costs US$50 new from Gamestop. It costs US$45 used from Gamestop. Saints Row The Third for 360 currently costs US$45 new from Gamestop. It costs US$35 used from Gamestop. Why did it drop in price, when Skyward Sword is still selling at full price? Why is the used price for Saints Row The Third even lower relatively speaking? Not only do Nintendo titles hold their new prices a lot longer, but their used prices stay up near their new prices, too. Why is this? It's because people who buy Nintendo titles are holding onto them, and so the used game market doesn't get filled with copies. Nintendo doesn't have a problem with used game sales, because their games rarely end up on the used game market, until a long time after release.
|
