By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - David Jaffe hates his customers. Does not want used game sales to continue

Gnizmo said:

Avinash_Tyagi said:


Boredom and a lack of replayability are signs of dissatisfaction, you don't get bored of games that are still fun, you can replay games that are still fun, once you no longer want to play it, its clear that you are no longer satisfied, so no, I am not oversimplyfying, also if you love a game you aren't going to sell it just to get another game that is an unknown quantity, you will keep the game that you still enjoy playing and love.  So no, my point is not wrong, your comments indicate that you have failed to comprehend it properly.

 

I still play MoO2, Civ 2 and Starcraft nearly a decade after their release, and have never sold them, why?  Because I still am satisfied with the games, the games have great replayability

I had a long winded response thought out, but then I remembered who I was talking to. So I shall say this and be done with it. Show me any evidence of what you are talking about. Show me evidence that people will never part with something they love. Show me evidence that people are not satisfied with  game purchase when they re-sell it. Back up any one of your assertions, and then I will think of continuing this ridiculous debate. I am not dissatisfied with a meal when I take a dump. I am simply done with it.

First off digestion is a biological process, not an issue of ownership of a game, so your attempt at analogy merely displays your flawed thinking.

Now Mr Khan already answered your question, if a game is $60 new, and I sell it to gamestop for $20 after a month, then it shows that form me its lost at least 66% of its value in that one month, possibly more, if I valued the game more I would not sell at that price, and with some games, that are rarely ever sold used, like Melee last gen,  where used copies went for nearly the same price as new copies, even a year or so after its release, it shows that for most people, the game had lost little if any value, since they were not willing to part with it.

 

The fact that people part with games, even accepting extremely reduced returns, shows that it has lost a lot of value for them



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

Around the Network

David Jaffe is the reason i refuse to buy God of War.

Such a douche.



ssj12 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
MontanaHatchet said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
MontanaHatchet said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
MontanaHatchet said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
MontanaHatchet said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
ssj12 said:

People don't return fantastic products Montana, a product that they love and does everything that they want doesn't get returned.  Greatness is subjective, you may find Mario Galaxy awesome, my mom probably wouldn't, she'd probably think its stupid, also why wasn't the person who didn't like shooters propely exposed to the game before they bought it?  Why weren't they educated on the game fully before buying, if they had been they wouldn't have bought it in the first place, see that's what you seem to be missing the publishers aren't educating people properly, so the argument that they shouldn't be punsihed for people's ignornace is falwed, if they did their job the consumers would not be ignorant.

People return fantastic products all the time. Like you said, quality is subjective. Just because one person doesn't like it, doesn't make it a bad product. A game like Super Mario Galaxy is still amazing no matter what your mom thinks about it. Why should Nintendo be punished because some people don't like it? Nintendo should be punished for releasing a fantastic product? Again, they can't appeal to everyone. They shouldn't lose money because of that. If we all lived in a perfect world and consumers were never ignorant, than we wouldn't have this problem in the first place. Used games wouldn't exist. I know you probably don't know this (since you're a Nintendo fan), but there are these things called downloadable demos. There are demos you can download from online stores, demos you can play in stores, and demos you can buy with other games. Developers and publishers send review copies to be reviewed so you get a general idea of the game's quality. Publishers put brief descriptions of the gameplay and general workings of the game on the back of the box. What more do you what them to do? Your argument is flawed, because you believe developers should be punished no matter what a game is like. Look, if a person buy a games and returns it, the developer has already been punished. That person won't be buying any more of their products (most likely). By putting the game up for used, the developer loses another sale, which is just rubbing salt on the wound. That's what is not fair.

Its completely fair, the fact that my mom doesn't like it proves that its not a fantastic product, for her, its a fantastic product for you maybe.  Actually Nintendo realizes its their failure when they can't get people to keep games, Iwata already discussed this in an interview, one of the reasons Nintendo is doing so well, while people like Jaffe whine, they get it, its their job to make sure that people know what games they want and that the games continue to satisfy so no one sells it.  Demos are fine, but most people don't know how to get demos, so just having demos deson't educate consumers, you have to get them into the hands of the consumers and let them play, its a failure of the publisher and devs when the people aren't educated on the agmes, its a failure when they don't enjoy their experience or get bored after a time, its perfectly fair that they don't make any extra revenue, if they succeeded in educating the consumers and kept the consumers hooked the used games market would dry up.

How is it a developer or publisher's fault? Even if someone doesn't have the internet to research a game there are game magazines that cover games on all platforms.

It's their fault becuase the game lacked content. People give back games that bore them, not ones that entertain them.

 

Publishers exist to advertise and distribute products

Developers exist to make the products

Media exists to cover and release information on products created by developers and published by publishers

Retailers sell the products made by developers and publishers

Selling = supplying customers with information to better judge their purchases

 

I cannot reiterate this enough. Each part has its onlt specific roles to play. While publishers advertise their games, it is the media's job to take the information released and distribute it to the masses. Customers then can ressearch products online, reading up on products in magazines, or through taking with salesmen about the products. It is retailers, more specifically salesmen's, jobs to be the final informant for the customers. They control what content is bought by customers. We try to prevent M rated games being played by minors, we try to prevent customers from buying games they wil not like, and we try to info customers of as much information on a selected product as we can.

Your looking to much before the sale. The decision to sell back is after. Like I said, if the content in the box isn't pleasing then they just sell it back. Retailers can not prevent it (besides not do it) and the media is not involved in this transaction besides "hype." Developers need to make better games, and truthfully, a lot of the stuff coming out now does not seem that fun. I've avoided buying an Xbox 360 becuase I don't think I'd play the games more then one and blow $300 on the system for nothing.

 



Torillian said:
The assumption that people only sell games that they didn't enjoy is an oversimplification of the issue in order to put blame on the developers. People sell games for all kinds of reasons, and many just sell them as a matter of course because they can and it helps them buy the next one. Every used game is not a failure on the parts of the developer.

Basically, you say people sell games for multiple reasons but do not state a single one. Also, "sell them as a matter of course because they can" is a faulty statement. It assumes people do it becuase they can. People don't do things simply because they can. I can eat dog crap, doesn't mean I will. By your logic, I would because I could.

The reason the claim is "because there is no enjoyment from the product is" is because this is the number 1 reason people sell their games. Basic logic dictates that if people enjoyed their games and wanted to play them again, they would not sell them. If they liked the game, and did want to play it again, they wont sell it. People don't sell games that entertain them? Why would you do that? Your claim is that people sell games back not just for the lost of entertainment, which means your claim also must state that "people sell games back that do entertain them." There is only one scenario where this could be true and that is the person needs money. Beyond that, there is no way your statement is true.

Still don't beleive me? Ask your friends why they sold their games? They will probably say it wasn't fun any more or it sucked.

Also, anyone wonder why used games are a problem NOW despite the fact they have existed before.



Smashchu2 said:
Torillian said:
The assumption that people only sell games that they didn't enjoy is an oversimplification of the issue in order to put blame on the developers. People sell games for all kinds of reasons, and many just sell them as a matter of course because they can and it helps them buy the next one. Every used game is not a failure on the parts of the developer.

Basically, you say people sell games for multiple reasons but do not state a single one. Also, "sell them as a matter of course because they can" is a faulty statement. It assumes people do it becuase they can. People don't do things simply because they can. I can eat dog crap, doesn't mean I will. By your logic, I would because I could.

The reason the claim is "because there is no enjoyment from the product is" is because this is the number 1 reason people sell their games. Basic logic dictates that if people enjoyed their games and wanted to play them again, they would not sell them. If they liked the game, and did want to play it again, they wont sell it. People don't sell games that entertain them? Why would you do that? Your claim is that people sell games back not just for the lost of entertainment, which means your claim also must state that "people sell games back that do entertain them." There is only one scenario where this could be true and that is the person needs money. Beyond that, there is no way your statement is true.

Still don't beleive me? Ask your friends why they sold their games? They will probably say it wasn't fun any more or it sucked.

Also, anyone wonder why used games are a problem NOW despite the fact they have existed before.

If I asked my friends most would state the reasons they needed the money instead of a dissatisfaction with the product.  Just having a desire for extra money is a huge reason to sell something, doesn't mean you didn't enjoy the game in the first place.

Here are some reasons people might sell a game even if they really liked it:

Money for a new release coming out

They just bought the sequel to the game that was better in every way (which is why I sold skate even though I loved it)

The game is a one shot thing that doesn't have tons of replay value (JRPGs in general)

 



...

Around the Network

What a stupid thread...



Torillian said:
Smashchu2 said:
Torillian said:

If I asked my friends most would state the reasons they needed the money instead of a dissatisfaction with the product.  Just having a desire for extra money is a huge reason to sell something, doesn't mean you didn't enjoy the game in the first place.

Here are some reasons people might sell a game even if they really liked it:

Money for a new release coming out

They just bought the sequel to the game that was better in every way (which is why I sold skate even though I loved it)

The game is a one shot thing that doesn't have tons of replay value (JRPGs in general)

 

Your reasons prove the point that the game is no longer enjoyable, here it is in reply to your points

Means you don't value the game as much anymore, the enjoyment is gone

You would only sell your old game for a new release when you lost interest in the one you already had, and wanted something new, if the game you had was still entertaining you, you wouldn't sell it

The sequel is better, just shows that the first game was not as good, if it was perfect, it could not be improved upon, the fact that the new one is viewed as better shows that the first game doesn't give as much enjoyment anymore, since there is a new and better one which gives more

Lack of replay value shows that the game has lost value with you, that the enjoyment is gone



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

You're going to blame the developer for not making a perfect game and therefore it's their fault for improving with a sequel? Why do you hate developers so much?

y'know what, screw it, I think I'm going to have to give up on this argument because I'm just tired of hearing you blame evrything on the guys trying to make games for you.  How you can't have more respect and empathy for them is beyond me. 



...

Torillian said:
You're going to blame the developer for not making a perfect game and therefore it's their fault for improving with a sequel? Why do you hate developers so much?

never said I hate developers, I just don't believe they deserve to be rewarded for failure, I don't believe they deserve a slice of the used games market, which exists because gamers no longer enjoy/value the games they own.

If the sequel is so mcuh better that the first one is no longer needed, then its clear that the first game no longer has value to the consumer, the developer doesn't deserve any more revenue when the consumer sells the original



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

Mr Khan said:

Though i don't presume to speak for Avinash, i would say that there is a simple cost/benefit analysis regarding this sort of thing. Say a game is worth $15 trade-in value. If you feel that the value of the game to you is greater than what you could get in resale, you won't sell it.

It only shows that the current value of the game for them is simply $15 or less. This reflects nothing on the satisfaction with the purchase however. The reason I used my food analogy is because people would not argue that someone should be less satisfied with their purchase once the food has been consumed. Video games do not offer endless replayability. Not one in existence offers this. As such, it is natural for people to be fully satisfied so long as he/she got his/her money's worth out of the game. The notion that somehow every video game you purchase should be played forever is possibly the most ridiculous one put forth on the board. A line of games that could never be topped would kill the industry faster than anything.

Lemme put it like this. If someone offered me 2 bucks after I saw a movie at the theater for my ticket then I would gladly part with it. I have seen the movie, and consumed the goods so to speak. This is not to say I didn't enjoy the movie, or that I was close to less than satisfied. I could love the movie, but just not care to watch it again. Same with many books in fact. Why should video game be the only medium that should offer no diminishing satisfaction over time?



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229