Torillian said: How you can blame publishers for uninformed consumers when the information is all out there for the consumers to find? If publishers were blocking information about their products from the public you might have a point, but when the information is out there and consumers just don't deem fit to educate themselves than that's the fault of the costumer, not the publisher.

But the fact that the consumer was ill informed doesn't mean the developer/publisher should get more money, no, they failed as well in making sure that consumers were well informed, which is why the consumer is selling the game, they got their initial sale, and that's all they earned

i dont understand how anyone can compare video games sales to the sale of films and music or cars. the things are not possible to compare and these are the reasons why:

1) films make money from cinema, pay per view, satelite, terrestial, dvd, BR and cable sales.
2) music makes money from, cd sales, concerts, selling songs to be used as soundtracks and jingles, ringtones sales and apps such as itunes.
3) cars make money when sold, then make more money from car part sales, servicing of their cars and further services such as garages.

video games make income from only one source. the sales of games! if we the consumers really give a shit about video games, how can we start cutting of the one income these devs and publishers have for their work?

david jaffe wasnt saying he is against 2nd hand game sales, he is saying the stores who sale 2nd hand games should give a fraction of the profit to publishers/devs. considering these retailers are making 100% profit on some of the 2nd hand games they sell.

everyone is being greedy, the consumers, the retailers and the devs and publisher. however, it is only the devs, publishers who have put their hard work, effort and time into making the product.

Fei-Hung said: i dont understand how anyone can compare video games sales to the sale of films and music or cars. the things are not possible to compare and these are the reasons why: 1) films make money from cinema, pay per view, satelite, terrestial, dvd, BR and cable sales. 2) music makes money from, cd sales, concerts, selling songs to be used as soundtracks and jingles, ringtones sales and apps such as itunes. 3) cars make money when sold, then make more money from car part sales, servicing of their cars and further services such as garages. video games make income from only one source. the sales of games! if we the consumers really give a shit about video games, how can we start cutting of the one income these devs and publishers have for their work? david jaffe wasnt saying he is against 2nd hand game sales, he is saying the stores who sale 2nd hand games should give a fraction of the profit to publishers/devs. considering these retailers are making 100% profit on some of the 2nd hand games they sell. everyone is being greedy, the consumers, the retailers and the devs and publisher. however, it is only the devs, publishers who have put their hard work, effort and time into making the product.

Make a better product and nothing will be cut off

That video Jaffe posted is awful. Let's go through a few of the logical fallacies.

No one plays games so they can resell them. They play games for fun, or story, or relaxation, or to hang out with friends, etc. They resell games so that they can buy new games to play. If people felt that a game was worth what they paid for it, they would not sell it to try and recoup their investment.

Personally, I think that if a cheaper option wasn't available to play games, we would see the consumer pool shrink.  That would be terrible for the industry.

No one is talking about piracy. We are talking about the legal sale of used games.Yes, you do have a problem with used game sales. Don't try and sugarcoat it. Name me one other industry where the original producer makes money on used sales.

Just one.

True. But the same can be said for used book sales, used movie sales, and used CD sales. Yet those industries are all doing just fine. What about libraries? You can read pretty much any book you want for free!

By the way, Jaffe just took down the video I'm talking about in this post. It seems he doesn't want people to know how anti-consumer he is.

I don't think you can blame a developer for making a game that doesn't last that long. Games, by their nature, aren't meant to last forever. Like movies or music.

That said, developers shouldn't expect cash for everyone who vaguely wants to play their game. Movies have television, music has radio, and games have ebay. Wanting to stomp out used game sales is the equivalent of taking your song off the radio. It makes it less popular, and less profitable.

As far as having DLC only within the next 5 years, I don't see it. Many, many people have trouble downloading a BR sized game over their home connection, and they always will. It'd be a huge hit to games like GTA, if they were only available via download, and I never see that fully happening. Especially as games get bigger.

I cant believe some you don't see a problem with gamestop and other retailers (not individuals) selling used games for $50 and $55 the 2nd day of their release. I suppose it's consumers fault for selling the game for $20 to said retailer.

Adjudicator said: I cant believe some you don't see a problem with gamestop and other retailers (not individuals) selling used games for $50 and $55 the 2nd day of their release. I suppose it's consumers fault for selling the game for $20 to said retailer.

I personally buy all my games new, don't sell them, and don't like Gamestop (for opening "new" games more than anything else).  However, other consumers and I still have the right to be able to buy and sell used games.  Business that facilitate the buying and selling of used property have the right to exist, and publishers and developers have no rights to the profits of those businesses.

theRepublic said: Adjudicator said: I cant believe some you don't see a problem with gamestop and other retailers (not individuals) selling used games for $50 and $55 the 2nd day of their release. I suppose it's consumers fault for selling the game for $20 to said retailer. I personally buy all my games new, don't sell them, and don't like Gamestop (for opening "new" games more than anything else).  However, other consumers and I still have the right to be able to buy and sell used games.  Business that facilitate the buying and selling of used property have the right to exist, and publishers and developers have no rights to the profits of those businesses.

Ebay offers that facility as well as allow me to name my own price and hence increase my margin for recoup. Also I don't agree with giving developers money for used games my problem is the Gamestop's gouging. I agree they have the right to exist but consider the movie business if I'm not mistaken that doesn't happen with DVD's there is some time frame before the movise become officially available.

TheThunder said: noname2200 said: 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. This can't be quoted enough, especially the second part. Bravo sir.

It is your problem, you are just to short-sighted to see it.  Publishers are not in business to lose money.  When a business plan is no longer viable, companies change the rules.  The used/rental markets are eating more and more of the profits from publishers.  They will find a way to stop it, or they will stop making games.  There is little incentive to risk tens of millions of dollars on a AAA title if the current model all but guarantees they will lose money.  

Adjudicator said: theRepublic said: Adjudicator said: I cant believe some you don't see a problem with gamestop and other retailers (not individuals) selling used games for $50 and $55 the 2nd day of their release. I suppose it's consumers fault for selling the game for $20 to said retailer. I personally buy all my games new, don't sell them, and don't like Gamestop (for opening "new" games more than anything else).  However, other consumers and I still have the right to be able to buy and sell used games.  Business that facilitate the buying and selling of used property have the right to exist, and publishers and developers have no rights to the profits of those businesses. Ebay offers that facility as well as allow me to name my own price and hence increase my margin for recoup. Also I don't agree with giving developers money for used games my problem is the Gamestop's gouging. I agree they have the right to exist but consider the movie business if I'm not mistaken that doesn't happen with DVD's there is some time frame before the movise become officially available.

If Jaffe had his way Ebay wouldn't be able to sell used games without giving money to the publishers and developers.

I'm not sure what you mean when you are talking about movies.  There are used DVD sales.