good ol cliff

.Cliffy is looking for a job at Ms ,

This is not about understanding of the industry. Its simple marketing with offer and demand. They have to abide by it, like every market does. There just is no avoiding it. If the consumer doesnt want your product then you go make a different product that he wants. Its that simple, and its what cliffy and microsoft cant understand. They bend this rule to: we will force the consumer to buy our product by any means necessary. The problem isnt the product, the problem is the consumer.

Sorry, it just doesnt stick. Inside knowledge of the industry has nothing on this basic premise.

Says the Xbox guy really,lol....

Cliff is just another corporate puppet trying to push the busted notion that rentals and second games will ruin the video game industry. He is just as credible as all the randoms stating their opinion as fact. There is absolutely no evidence to prove his "FACT" that the video game industry would die out as a result of second hand games or rentals. In the past there has been little or no adverse impact of second hand and rental games on new games.

At a simple epistemological level, a FACT cannot be something that didn't occur or that might have occurred. A fact is either something that IS, or HAS BEEN. You can define a fact negatively as an instance of something that we know DID NOT occur, but not as something that WOULD have occurred. You might have good reason for believing your speculations, but they cannot be claimed to be facts, however strongly you believe them. The exception, arguably, would be in an entirely closed system

This guy really isn't qualified to be making statements about the economics of the games industry. Yes, he is a member of the industry, but he is foremost a game developer. History tells a different story than what he is saying. The music industry tried DRM on iTunes, and it worked okay. Got rid of the DRM and iTunes had explosive growth. Conventional wisdom is purely that: conventional. There are innovative business models that can be developed to create an enviroment where content providers and consumers all get a fair deal. Why not put some balance into the equation:

Publishers: Provide good content at a fair price. Make content that has replay value and revolves around gameplay mechanics, not gimmicks that wear quickly. People hold onto games they still play. I bought Black Ops 2 off a friend for $30. Activision made no money off of this. I then downloaded $30 worth of DLC. My friend got $30 for a game he no longer plays, I'm happy with the DLC, and Activsion made $30 (minus PSN's cut). Quite frankly, I don't see $60 of value in most new releases. I'll wait a few weeks or months and pick it up for $30 or $40 instead. After I'm done with it I sell it on Amazon for $15-20 and recoup some of the expense. This is the way it is for me. period. If publishers want to reach consumers like me, who legally purchase both new and used games, capture me with good DLC. 

Consumers: If you like a game, support them. DLC is likely the most benefitial route. 

Cliffy B: If you somehow read this: Stop hating on consumers for doing what makes sense for them. If you want to change the way we think about this topic offer something more than criticism. The problem for publishers is managing income and expenses, not comsumers. I manage my finances just fine. The numbers work. If your publisher is having problems with finances, I suggest they figure out a way to make it work for them without attacking their consumer base. Take Two, Nintendo, and plenty of high quality indies are with me on this. Stop making gimmicky games and give us compelling new gameplay that keeps ou interest for more than a month or so. If you do that I will keep your game in my collection. I will purchase DLC. I will help fund what you and I both want: great games

BTW: Stay clear of GameStop's unfair commisions. Amazon is way better. I sell used games on there all the time and get paid 30-75% more than GameStop offers for trade-ins. I would recommend the same if you are looking to buy games new or used as well. 

And before anyone points out the obvious, no, I am not in the games industry. I am merely pointing out the obvious:

1. Used games are a reality for the near future (5-10 years). 

2. Consumers of any business should be treated with respect as we can leave for a competitor at anytime

3. It's unprofessional to whine about the difficulties of being at the head of a major studio. Be more like Take Two's CEO, Nintendo, Guerilla Games, Sony, Indies, and everyone else managing to make it work for themselves and for consumers.

If Sony allows game publishers to provide anti-used games restrictions on their titles, then the games publishers *will* make use of it. For the PS4 owner, it is quite irrelevant who is putting the restriction there.

I agree with Cliff that this is currently being used as a cheap marketing ploy. Sony is not particularly shy to U-turn on their promises (anyone remember the 'Other OS' on PS3?). I think Sony supporters are naive to think that the PS4 won't effectively contain the same DRM as the XBone. Sony is just a bit more devious in how they communicate this to the players.

Then budgets need to be reduced.

It's easy to defend greed when you own 2 Ferrari's.

Seriously. There are only a small amount of developers in his financial position and though he's cool he reeks of being a corporate yes man. Some people have such a presence that eventually it comes down to whether you're for the people or the status quo of corporate wealth. Capitalism is a hell of a thing.