| richardhutnik said: Reality check: |
Reality checks are for poor peasants.
(@mods, yes I will stop now)
20happyballs said:
I have no disagreements with what you just said. I just hope that your opinion does not become widespread. However, I don't think that people are fighting for their right to sale their games, they just want to be able to buy used games. |
If they want to buy used games, they have to want somebody to be able to re-sell theirs.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
I'm not sure that I get these posts that suggest the industry is going to crash if the used market continues. First of all, the industry is much broader now. Even if the $100 million blockbuster market crashed, there would still be an avalanche of games being made. Second, I don't really see Microsoft's scheme bringing in a substantial amount of money. At least not enough to go from "industry crash" to willing to take risks on massive AAA games.
Last year Gamestop sold $2.43 billion in pre-owned merchandise. This is not just xbox games, but also consoles, accessories, handhelds, and Nintendo software. Even if Sony followed suit, how much money would we be talking about? The US is 70% of Gamestop's overall revenue. Let's say PS4/One software might eventually be half of that pre-owned figure. We're already down to $851 million. How much will the publishers take, 25%? Now it's down to $213 million. This in a market that was down $3.74 billion at retail last year.
Now obviously Gamestop isn't the only used game market in the US, but it is the most significant one. Their used sales were down last year as well, so it's not like you can blame the decline on that. Also about $760 million in trade ins went towards the purchase of new products. So even if killing used had no adverse effects, we'd only be looking at a 6.7% increase, in territories where they operate, from cannibalizing Gamestop. This also assumes the plan will work (or even be legal) in places like Japan, Europe, and developing countries.
| Yakuzaice said: I'm not sure that I get these posts that suggest the industry is going to crash if the used market continues. First of all, the industry is much broader now. Even if the $100 million blockbuster market crashed, there would still be an avalanche of games being made. Second, I don't really see Microsoft's scheme bringing in a substantial amount of money. At least not enough to go from "industry crash" to willing to take risks on massive AAA games. Last year Gamestop sold $2.43 billion in pre-owned merchandise. This is not just xbox games, but also consoles, accessories, handhelds, and Nintendo software. Even if Sony followed suit, how much money would we be talking about? The US is 70% of Gamestop's overall revenue. Let's say PS4/One software might eventually be half of that pre-owned figure. We're already down to $851 million. How much will the publishers take, 25%? Now it's down to $213 million. This in a market that was down $3.74 billion at retail last year. Now obviously Gamestop isn't the only used game market in the US, but it is the most significant one. Their used sales were down last year as well, so it's not like you can blame the decline on that. Also about $760 million in trade ins went towards the purchase of new products. So even if killing used had no adverse effects, we'd only be looking at a 6.7% increase, in territories where they operate, from cannibalizing Gamestop. This also assumes the plan will work (or even be legal) in places like Japan, Europe, and developing countries. |
What you need to do is realie what happened with the crash in the 1980s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983
The market dropped over 90% in a few years. When talking crash, see that. The fact that the industry got flooded with low quality games, and provided the customer NO WAY to be able to sniff out the garbage, hurt it. And if the industry does the same, look for this to continue. The industry can't afford do a bunch of FUSE type products. Heck, it can't even afford to do Alan Wakes. And if it goes blockbuster DLC, there is problems.
What about all the other industries that buy and sell used goods perfectly fine. Infact the used and second hand market of the car and housing industry is the very backbone of their respective industries. I'm sure lots of the cash obtained from selling used games is used to BUY NEW games .
| Carl2291 said: Maybe if videogame developers didnt think they were working on the next big fucking Hollywood blockbuster, they wouldnt need mediocre games with small fanbases to sell 10 Million units. The best way to increase profit, would be to actually start making videogames that people want to buy. Gaining consumer trust would be a start. Stop cloning Call of Duty. Stop putting out unconvincing videogames. Stop developing games for 4-5 Years at a time. Stop putting out overpriced, shitty DLC. Stop putting DLC on the fucking disc. Stop advertising your product as something that it quite clearly isnt. Make a compelling product. These companies need to stop blaming the consumer and look closer to home for the problems. There is a reason why the Indie scene is doing so well right now. Its because they release new, good videogames, that dont cost a lot to make... And are worth the price you actually pay. Its controlled development and the likes of EA and Square Enix could learn a thing or two. |
i don't really think its that simple a game could be awesome and still not sell well
and this leads back to the whole thing of making new and original ips verses just going with game types that you know are popular
how can you be sure that consumers will find your ideas for a new ip compelling enough to make it a success? why not then just rely on game models that you know work?
honestly you seem to contradict yourself when you say they should stop cloning popular games yet make complelling products
Mr Khan said:
If they want to buy used games, they have to want somebody to be able to re-sell theirs. |
Yup, same thing flip-flopped also applies. If you want to sell your used game, you would also want someone to be buying the used game.
I mean I buy tons of different types of games new because I like to try new things. I end up keeping most of them since I enjoy most games I buy. But every now and then I end up buying a game that I just don't like. In that case I just sell that game on ebay for about 70% the price I bought it for. If no one was buying used games then that wouldn't be possible. The fact that Xbone blocks all private sales pretty much cuts off this possible sale.
So it now leads me to the point where I have to be a lot more careful about the games I buy and try out new types of games a lot less because I know that if I buy a game that I won't end up liking, I am stuck with that game for good since there aren't really any major game retailers near me. On top of that I wouldn't be getting the same return on the game if I were to trade it in as compared to privately selling it to a friend or online. There really is nothing good for the consumer about this whole DRM that they are setting up.
| 20happyballs said: I'm tired of everyone getting all worked up about Microsoft's used game policy. It's for the developers. It's not like it's greedy for developers to ask of this. Developers are not selling discs, they are selling entertainment experiences. It's only right that they be able to charge per experience given, not the physical discs sold. No one seems to have a problem with app store games not being sharable. In all actuality, an anti-used game policy is what is needed to keep the gaming industry alive. We all know that with improved graphic fidelity, the cost to develop a game will also increase. Consequently, game developers will need to find a way to be able to continue making a profit. The most obvious way to address this increase in development costs would be to increase the selling price of games. However, many of us would respond badly, myself included. Sure people will still buy games brand new when they are first released, but it is likely that more and more people will start to wait for these games to become cheaper and buy it used. Which means that any increase in revenue brought on by the increased sales price would be offset by gamers waiting to buy games used. In the end, it is not only the developers who are going to lose out, but also gamers. The increased difficulty for a developer to turn a profit will means less AAA quality games, less new IPs, and developers taking less risks overall. We're already seeing the affects of increased development costs in the current generation. Why do you think so many developers are making first person shooters? Why do you think that many developers are making sequels instead of new IPs?
|
HAHAHAHAHAHA comparing app prices with 60 dollar games.
o_O.Q said:
i don't really think its that simple a game could be awesome and still not sell well and this leads back to the whole thing of making new and original ips verses just going with game types that you know are popular how can you be sure that consumers will find your ideas for a new ip compelling enough to make it a success? why not then just rely on game models that you know work? honestly you seem to contradict yourself when you say they should stop cloning popular games yet make complelling products |
A pretty nasty side to profitability and viability in the entertainment arena is novelty. You need to do something new to be able to engage. Too much following of an old format ends up wearing it out and people get sick of it. You see what happened with Tony Hawk and the guitar games. Milk it to death, and you run into problems by overdoing something. So, you are faced with a challenge of coming up with something new that is compelling, partly because it is different.
Midway went broke trying to copy everyone else, and doing a poor job of it. Example of Midway copying poorly? Well they release a World War 2 FPS right as Call of Duty went modern. Way too late to the game. And they were filled doing this over and over.
richardhutnik said:
A pretty nasty side to profitability and viability in the entertainment arena is novelty. You need to do something new to be able to engage. Too much following of an old format ends up wearing it out and people get sick of it. You see what happened with Tony Hawk and the guitar games. Milk it to death, and you run into problems by overdoing something. So, you are faced with a challenge of coming up with something new that is compelling, partly because it is different. Midway went broke trying to copy everyone else, and doing a poor job of it. Example of Midway copying poorly? Well they release a World War 2 FPS right as Call of Duty went modern. Way too late to the game. And they were filled doing this over and over. |
yes understood but then all i'm saying is that you run the risk of not creating a compelling product when you attempt to create something original
since you're not following a model that you know people find appealing
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
