Print 193 comment(s) - last by gochichi.. on Jun 4 at 1:53 AM

Andrew Oliver (right) says that used games are ruining the video game industry. He suggest an effective ban by switching over almost entirely to a digital distribution scheme.  (Source: Guardian UK)
Arggg, 'dem used game be dee real villains, matie!

Electronic Arts recently announced the controversial decision to make buyers of its pre-owned sports games pay an extra $10 to gain access to online gameplay and other features.  Now another publisher has sounded off about the evils of used games and how the industry has to take drastic action to prevent customers from "taking advantage" of gamemakers.

Blitz Games Studio's co-founder Andrew Oliver stated that used games are slashing the revenue to publishers and developers by 75 percent.  Blitz is best known for producing 
Dead to Rights: RetributionKaraoke Revolution, and a series of SpongeBob SquarePants titles.

When asked about piracy, Oliver responded, "Arguably the bigger problem on consoles now is the trading in of games.  I understand why players do this, games are expensive and after a few weeks of playing you’ve either beaten it, or got bored of it so trading it back in to help pay for the next seems sensible when people are short of cash."

Oliver's estimate of 75 percent losses comes from his assumption that games are traded in on average 4 times (the real figure is likely not this high), which he says would mean that the developer/producers' cut would be cut in four (game retailers typically keep all the proceeds from sales of used titles).

He concludes, "So while retail may be announcing a reasonable season, the money going back up the chain is a fraction of what it was only a few years ago.  This is a much bigger problem than piracy on the main consoles."

Oliver says that a solution is to sell consumers digital copies of games through outlets such as Valve's Steam Client.  In doing so, he said customers can effectively be banned from reselling their games.

Is his statement fair, or illogical?  One thing's for sure, gamers will be sure to chime in on this one.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Andrew Oliver...
By iFX on 5/14/2010 11:05:33 AM , Rating: 5
Fuck you.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By chagrinnin on 5/14/2010 11:09:29 AM , Rating: 5
What he said,...only harder.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By paydirt on 5/14/2010 12:36:08 PM , Rating: 3
To quote DtR:R... "Scrotality!"

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By paydirt on 5/14/2010 12:38:34 PM , Rating: 5
Just wanna add that Blitz's logic doesn't work because used games can be priced at $20 instead of the $60 of a new game. The reason that people play games at $20 a pop is because the game wasn't a $60 game to them. Based on Blitz's lineup, those games aren't a $50 or $60 title to my taste and I DO pay up for new titles.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Suntan on 5/14/2010 1:08:51 PM , Rating: 5
The reason that people play games at $20 a pop is because the game wasn't a $60 game to them.

In addition, they aren't $60 games to some people that buy a game on release day. But they know they will recoup the difference when they go to resell the game.

Therefore, to a lot of players, a game that they can resell may be worth $60. But a game they can not resell (digital download) is not worth $60 and they won't buy it at that price.

Selling used has been a staple of economics from the dawn of modern civalization. Deal with it.


RE: Andrew Oliver...
By phxfreddy on 5/14/2010 1:14:33 PM , Rating: 5
Dear Game Players

I am an old fart and do not play games. Please tell these jackies exactly where to go!

....then do not buy any games from companies who adopt this business model!

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By invidious on 5/14/2010 3:59:14 PM , Rating: 5
The only companies that currently have digital distribution (and make it work) are companies who make great products that the customers is confident are worth the price.

I buy a digital copy when I know I am never going to want to return it. Either I know enough about the game to know I am going to like it. Or it is on sale such that even if I don't like it that much I don't really care because I didn't pay that much.

Underlying theme being that I choose to buy digital when I am comfortable doing it ahead of time. If it was the only option I would simply be buying less games.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By WldAntc on 5/17/2010 9:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
IF Blitz IS angry at the system... why not 'beat the system?" Which, ironically, IS exactly what a gamer does... Anyway, there IS definitely an error in either his logic (I.E. ain'ts no goods at dem economics) OR an error in his statement. (I.E. plainly lied)
So, how does a gamer beat said system... adapt his play.
IF, they loose 75% to used games, it's because people are NOT willing to pay 100% of their price. Thus, adapt your price by 75% AND reach *dramatic fanfare* 4X customers.
*boom goes the mind-bomb*
The benefit of a free market economy IS consumers can determine the products worth. So, the only real question IS, how much of a premium will gamers pay for earlier acquisition and no used hassles. (E.G. craigslist buying, scratches etc.)
Therefore A) go back to school you ole fool OR B) stop trying to manipulate the markets with your jive.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By tedrodai on 5/17/2010 4:58:25 PM , Rating: 3
I'm an avid gamer, but I'd probably be considered a very picky one. I definitely buy games at full price if I'm really looking forward to playing it. However, $50-60 to me is what a GREAT/VERY GOOD game is worth, or at least one that I expect to be so. I've wondered for years how some games sell at all when the 2nd, 3rd, 4th-rate (or worse) games are the same price as the masterpieces.

Sometimes $50 gets you hundreds of hrs worth of entertainment. Sometimes it gets you 10. Sometimes it will make you curse the 30 mins it took to go buy, unwrap, and pop it into the console. So...why buy the ones lower on the food chain? Either you don't, or you find it much much cheaper.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By lamerz4391 on 5/14/2010 1:19:06 PM , Rating: 5
So let's see here. A studio makes crap games, overprices them, then whines about how other forces like used games must be at fault. Nice job. Maybe if you, Mr. Oliver, ran a studio that produced games that were worth a damn, and priced them according to what the market will bear, you'd sell some new games.

Guess I'll never buy any games from this loser and his studio. Rot in hell, Andrew Oliver. I have no sympathy whatsoever for you or your piece of crap studio.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By porkpie on 5/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: Andrew Oliver...
By lamerz4391 on 5/14/2010 2:00:13 PM , Rating: 5
Thanks for completely missing the point. Well done.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Phoque on 5/14/2010 4:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
Guess you're missing your own point too, because even if the studio did sell more new games, they'd still be traded and they'd still lose some of the profit they could make if it wasn't the case. And they'd still be whining about it.


RE: Andrew Oliver...
By theapparition on 5/14/2010 2:25:47 PM , Rating: 5
I'll say this for myself, I don't. And I won't.

Not at retail prices. IMHO, $60 for a new game is ridiculous.

I'm currently playing Bioshock, since I found it on the $10 rack. Kids are also playing games found on the bargin rack.

However, if new games were priced at $20, than I'd probably buy first run titles.

Now keep in mind I'm far from cheap. Fortunately my business has made me quite wealthy, but I don't find value in overpriced commodities.

Same with DVD/BluRay sales.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Solandri on 5/15/10, Rating: -1
RE: Andrew Oliver...
By theapparition on 5/15/2010 9:32:07 AM , Rating: 2
I've heard the hours/enjoyment argument before.

I don't necessisarily disagree with it, but everyone has thier own vices. I personally don't see the value, especially when it takes me six months or more to enjoy a game with my busy schedule. If I was into it more, than perhaps I would be interested at a higher price point.

Some people I know don't think twice about spending $100's of dollars a week in resturants and bars, yet have no interest in a large car payment. One of my employees lives in a cheap apartment but spends thousands on bonzai trees (admittedly, a little strange).

As for myself, a problem buying $60 games, yet didn't flinch once when dropping the coin on my ZR1.

So what do I know.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By abhaxus on 5/17/2010 12:10:02 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know if you really own a ZR1, but if you do, I would have rated you up no matter what you said.

Truly the most bad-ass of 'reasonably' priced automobiles.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By theapparition on 5/17/2010 7:59:20 AM , Rating: 2
Considering that I still own a 800+hp supercharged C6 Z06 and 1000+hp C5 drag car, the ZR1 is one of my more "tame" toys. ECS does some nice work.

The ZR1 has impeccable road manners though. The Paxton Novi systems I have on the other two cars is incredible, but like a turbo it hits real hard with boost. Not the best thing to suddenly lose traction on a road course. The more linear boost of the Eaton on the ZR1 makes it better suited although I still pull better times with the Z06. The C5 will pull 9sec all day long.

Anyway, it's a tough life I live. ;)

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Suntan on 5/18/2010 12:29:03 PM , Rating: 2
This dude undoubtedly gets "smallest penis/largest douche of the year" award for unflinching self-aggrandizement.

Well done.


RE: Andrew Oliver...
By semiconshawn on 5/17/2010 9:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
Name dropping your car on DT? Even if you really have it...dude cmon. You trying to pick up high school boys? Ill call the cops.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Alexstarfire on 5/15/2010 7:10:14 PM , Rating: 3
I've heard all the arguments and all I can say is that they all miss something. Yours misses the quality of the game and most others miss out on the value of the game. You also assume that you'll play the game for 20+ hours. In terms of price:time Super Smash Brothers has probably been the best game for me. I've easily played it more than 1000 hours in my life, probably much more. The reason is because it's a great game. If you buy a game and only play it for 20 minutes then you just paid $180 an hour for the game. Obviously that doesn't make sense since you likely didn't, and wouldn't, pay $180 for the game new. That is the point I'm trying to make though. It seems that games are going to go the way of paid "demos" if the devs/publishers have their way. So unless you love buying games based on speculation of how long you might play it then go ahead, most people won't.

That said, people buy things based on value:price. If value is low, price must be low to compensate.

Also, their argument is dumb, because they assume that used games could be bought new. There are a ton of games that can't be bought new. Why pay them $10 for the ability play online if you couldn't have bought it new in the first place?

Not only that, his other assumption is way off. I'd bet on average a game gets traded twice, if that. For computer games I'd say it's lower than one since we can't sell them to places like Gamestop. I don't know where he pulled the number 4, or for that matter a number like 25%. Used games almost never sell for the same amount as a new one, and it only gets less after each sale. Even if it was traded 4 times I'd bet they'd still have 50% of what is made. Unless they assume you trade it 4 times in a year or something, which I'd bet rarely happens.

Anyway, the original argument holds true. If game companies made better games and/or lower prices then they'd sell far more and wouldn't worry about this. Of course, if they really felt that this was wrong then they should have gone after this market right when places like Rhinogames/Gamestop came up. Unfortunately it's just like companies these days to not worry about things like that until they hit financial troubles, like patent sitters. Tactics like this are dirty and low.

Companies, like people, want their cake and to eat it to. The difference between people and companies is that companies actually get to do it... legally.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Alexstarfire on 5/15/2010 7:17:25 PM , Rating: 5
Ohhh, and I forgot to mention that these people who bought used may or may not have bought it if the price was any higher. It's just like with the whole piracy thing, which it really seems like all these potential "stories" are just trying to have fade away. They assume that any piece of the pie they aren't getting is lost profit. That's just retarded. Many pirates and probably people who buy used games as well, would never buy it new.

These companies don't understand economics at all. They set the price too high for the product and the market doesn't agree with it. Companies need to learn to adjust better. Some things just aren't meant to be around forever. I don't see many cannons being sold these days, yet at one point cannons were extremely widespread.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By JediJeb on 5/17/2010 11:32:45 AM , Rating: 2
Next thing you know GM will be wanting a percentage of every used car sold!

You make something, you sell it, after that you no longer have any say in it. If you want to keep control of it you rent it not sell it. The two are different by definition, companies need to learn to read a dictionary and market their product appropriately.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By quiksilvr on 5/14/2010 1:37:31 PM , Rating: 5

Hmmm, how do we increase piracy and destroy our new game sales? Oh, I know! BAN USED GAMES! BRILLIANT! I say go for it, so you guys lose more money!

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Adonlude on 5/17/2010 6:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
There are few instances where a simple F you is appropriate but this is definately one of them.

Content creators won't stop until its illegal to loan a friend a book out of my book case.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By themaster08 on 5/14/2010 11:19:18 AM , Rating: 2
I concur.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By mmntech on 5/14/2010 11:21:21 AM , Rating: 5
This. The entertainment industry has finally gone totally insane.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By B3an on 5/14/2010 11:52:50 AM , Rating: 5
It's always been insane. This news is still nothing though compared to other things the entertainment industry has said and done.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Hiawa23 on 5/14/2010 11:35:07 AM , Rating: 5
Most of my games I buy from gamefly, although I do buy retail. Just bought NCAA FB 10 for $10. Last time I checked EA doesn'y pay my mortgage car note, daughter's tuition so they can suck it as far as I am concerned. In these bad economic times most are looking for deals for everything they buy, & I have no sympathy for EA, they get paid on the initial sale. What next, Honda want a cut from my Honda sale when I decide to sell it.

Let met get this straight. I just bought Lost Planet 2 for $60 @ Best Buy this week, so I am worst than someone who illegally copies or steal games If I decide to sell my game to someone else. K, LOL....

I understand EA's issue. The economy is bad, revenue is down, so this is what they have come up with to stamp out used game sales since they haven't found away to get a piece of that pie. K....

I probably wouldn't have an issue with this if new game prices were not $60, which forces alot of gamers to look for deals wherever they find them, or rent them.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Hiawa23 on 5/14/2010 11:46:11 AM , Rating: 4
To backup my earlier statement about Gamefly. Thank God for gamefly as they saved $180 the last two weeks on games that I planned to buy retail but decided to rent instead which they sucked & wasn't worth $60 a pop, so I returned them. Most games, are not even worth $60. I understand the situation, these guys are looking for revenue under every rock possible like most companies right now, but is this the answer, or are we sliding down a slippery slope.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By MrBlastman on 5/14/2010 12:30:28 PM , Rating: 2
They are getting desperate so instead of trying to entice their customers, they are instead beating them with a big stick trying to club them into submission. They forget one thing though... we have a free-market economy.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Suntan on 5/14/2010 1:12:31 PM , Rating: 2
You talk tough, but we all know you will cave in and go wimpering back to the guy as soon as the next “Karaoke Revolution” or “Spongebob Squarepants” smash hit goes golden…


RE: Andrew Oliver...
By MrBlastman on 5/14/2010 2:29:23 PM , Rating: 2
There's something about a square person with a spongy... Oh, wait, this isn't off the record?... :)

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By MadMan007 on 5/15/2010 3:19:51 PM , Rating: 3
The games aren't sponge-worthy so whatever.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By robert5c on 5/14/2010 12:44:17 PM , Rating: 1
Don't let the way this article is written confuse you,
Electronic Arts has no hand in this argument.

This is something the owners of Blitz Games a Developer is saying.

also to correct the article
Now another publisher has sounded off about the evils of used games

they are not publishers, they are developers, Blitz Games do not publish anything, they work with Namco, Konami and the like...and funny enough, NOT EA

lastly my thoughts, i can see why blitz games is arguing this point. Contrary to their slogan "Passionate About Games" the majority of their games are weak knock offs of other games or just horrible games inspired by popular culture

so i can see how they would most be affected because their list of games are the ones most likely to be least desired and thus just make the rotation of used games.

thats not our fault, make good games and stop releasing games off poor ideas, just to make a buck...then maybe you wouldn't have this problem

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Hiawa23 on 5/14/2010 1:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
Electronic Arts has no hand in this argument.

EA does have a hand as they have already said starting with their 2011 sports franchises, if you don't buy the game new, you will not be able to access online multiplayer, without paying $10, & EA has been one of pubs/devs out from of the whole piracy thing with the PC games. They already started this in NCAA FB 10 for the 360. Mine which I bought for $10, Gamefly came with a code that only worked once for the teambuilder slot, if I did not have that code or if someone used the code, I would have had to pay EA for the slots in order to use teambuilder, so they are already doing this.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Ammohunt on 5/14/2010 2:25:03 PM , Rating: 1
I haven't bought a new game in years mainly becasue their hasn't been a game released worth $50+ IMHO. Playablity and originality in games is non-existent; gone are the days of truly great games like TA,Transport Tycoon and Dungeon Keeper.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Chernobyl68 on 5/17/2010 1:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
Civ V, comes out this fall.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By JediJeb on 5/17/2010 11:37:13 AM , Rating: 2
If they want a piece of the used game pie then the publishers need to start offering their own trade in scheme. Of course they would want to offer you $5 for a used $60 game then resell it for $60 lol.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Spuke on 5/14/2010 11:37:25 AM , Rating: 3
I don't care how much this asscrack wants used games to be banned, they will never be.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Phoque on 5/14/2010 4:36:36 PM , Rating: 1
Oh yes they will. Like it or not, but I believe we're slowly moving into the digital era of games, "à la PSP Go", "à la Steam".

Some people will wait that prices drop. Some will buy it right off at launch. Probably most people will be more careful about the game reviews and cherry picked the games they are really willing to shell out 60$ for.

A new balance will be established and, unless the industry does not make as much money, we can't expect game prices to drop in the digital age, even if we can't trade them anymore.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By cerx on 5/14/2010 4:47:22 PM , Rating: 1
I use Steam for most of my game purchases. I just don't buy new, I wait for their weekend deals. Just because it's digital doesn't mean it'll be more expensive.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Jalek on 5/14/2010 7:02:31 PM , Rating: 4
I must say, from the days of Commodore 64 software rental stores in every strip mall up until about 10 years ago, I never bought a new release, period. Everything came from bargain bins or other secondary markets.

I got divorced and suddenly had money I'd never seen before. Since then, I buy what looks interesting, and some of that's still sitting on a shelf in shrinkwrap as I don't have the time I sometimes think I do. I've never resold a game, so I have several moving boxes of games in the garage.

I'm a rube, but this guy should leave me the hell alone for the good of his business.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Drag0nFire on 5/14/2010 11:45:22 AM , Rating: 5
I don't get it. If I finish a book, I can resell it. If I watch a movie, I can resell it. If I want a new car, I can sell my car. If I want a new house, I can sell my house. The list goes on.

When I buy a game, I own it. It is my property. So how does reselling amount to 75% "loses" for him? He's not losing anything!

Greedy bastard.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By william12123 on 5/14/2010 12:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, if you take the time to read the license agreement on ALL games, you'll realise that there is no ownership of the game: it is just something that is "licensed" to us, the consumers. Legally speaking, we dont own a thing, we just "have the permission" to play it.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Aikouka on 5/14/2010 12:52:51 PM , Rating: 5
Your statement is along the lines of the EULA, but it is not entirely correct.

Every EULA that I've seen has a clause in it to protect the intellectual property that is contained on the game medium (optical disc, solid-storage cartridge, etc). The idea is that just because you paid for it does not give you the right to take the actual game data and reproduce it, reuse it, etc.

However, the physical game medium... that's yours. You own that object and can do with the actual object whatever you please. If you want to play frisbee with the latest Spongebob game from this development studio... go right ahead. It's your game disc to potentially ruin.

Given that we own the actual physical medium and we can technically do whatever we want with it as long as we're not affecting the intellectual property contained therein, that means we can sell it or give it away to whoever we want.

In short: No, we own the game medium (disc, cartridge, etc), but we do not own the intellectual property on it. Since we own the physical media, transferral of it is in our rights as a property owner.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By HotFoot on 5/14/2010 1:00:05 PM , Rating: 5
However, not all EULA clauses stand up to fair-use. They are not law.

A book is a similar thing. You could say that when you buy a book you own the medium - covers, paper, ink. But you don't own the words. Given the long standing tradition of selling used books, and the legal existence of used book stores, I think it's going to be hard to say there is a legal standing for blocking someone from buying or selling a used software game.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Alexstarfire on 5/15/2010 7:22:58 PM , Rating: 2
Finally, someone who truly understands. There might be hope in this world after all.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By rdawise on 5/14/2010 10:29:13 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, if you take the time to read the license agreement on ALL games, you'll realise that there is no ownership of the game: it is just something that is "licensed" to us, the consumers. Legally speaking, we dont own a thing, we just "have the permission" to play it.

So then, when I trade in my "game", I am actually trading in my license to some one else. SO what is your point again? Are you saying I shouldn't be able to trade away my license?

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Taft12 on 5/14/2010 12:30:32 PM , Rating: 5
I don't get it. If I finish a book, I can resell it. If I watch a movie, I can resell it...

Oh the industry gets this and they get it very well!

It is why "buying" e-books and movies digitally without a hard copy is a fools game consumers should not participate in.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By MadMan007 on 5/15/2010 3:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I'm not a big 'modern media' consumer but I do love me some music. I buy CDs, usually when I can get a deal and/or used, and rip them. Pure digital downloads that are DRMd are the worst form of distribution for consumers. (At the same time I have bought games on Steam but usually older titles that are heavily discounted. I don't game a lot these days though so *meh*)

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Phoque on 5/14/2010 4:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you, but I would believe they feel that way because it happens at a much greater scale than in the other cases you mentioned. A house or car seldom gets sold 3-4 times within a year.

It's not the same business model either. Once the car or house is sold, the profit has been made by all selling parties involved. For a game to make profit, they can't just sell one. They have to sell many, and the greater the number of games being traded, the more time it takes for them to recoup their investment. Of course for blockbuster titles this is just a question of how much less profit they will make, but I would be curious to have real numbers for the industry in general ( investment vs time to recoup vs used game profit missed ).

Perhaps they should get themselves involved in the trading of used games. Personally, I'd rather see the developers of those games reap the profit of used games reselling than another store.

Your book analogy is a better one though. I can't find any argument in favor of the gaming industry over that one. Indeed, there are some greedy bastards around, and they know we love gaming.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By wrekd on 5/14/2010 11:47:54 AM , Rating: 5
I'd accept it with a few big ifs.

1. If they'd price digital distribution accordingly. $20 new. You can maybe justify $60 for in store purchases with the supply chain and whatnot, but not a digital download.

2. If I buy a game and play by the "rules" then I want that game for life. I don't want to lose my old games due to scratched media, storage failures, or a new generation of technology. Make the providers guarantee that what we buy is licensed to us...for as long as we live.

3. If the let us have Multi-machine use. No matter if I'm signing on from my tablet, phone, or home desktop. Just limit us to one concurrent logon.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By MonkeyPaw on 5/14/2010 1:02:05 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. I would probably not own an Xbox360 at all if it weren't for used games. Why? Because I can't and won't pay $60 for a game. These studios fail at math and economics. People buy things only when the price meets expectations. It speaks volumes that many will pay $60, but many more will pay $20-35. Personally, I am content to buy a game later for less. Maybe studios can figure out a better pricing model?

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By cerx on 5/14/2010 4:58:20 PM , Rating: 2
Not really "many" more, since you can't sell a used game that wasn't first purchased new ...

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Alexstarfire on 5/15/2010 7:28:55 PM , Rating: 3
Ummm, just think about what you said for a bit and then read the article again. The truth will come to you eventually.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By thrust2night on 5/14/2010 11:55:26 AM , Rating: 3
Somebody give this guy a 6.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By alanore on 5/14/2010 12:03:31 PM , Rating: 5
This is as retarded as Ford saying its losing 75% of revenue because people are buying second hand cars rather than new one.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By kmmatney on 5/14/2010 12:31:47 PM , Rating: 2
But Ford can at least make money when someone trades in a car, and they can resell. Maybe EA needs to have their own trade-in program (would suck for GameStop, though).

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By JonnyBlaze on 5/14/2010 1:54:25 PM , Rating: 2
Ford doesn't make a dime on used car trade-ins. Dealerships, the same as the Gamestops do and they are not owned by Ford.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By callmeroy on 5/14/2010 12:33:00 PM , Rating: 4

And btw i can't stand Steam. I'm forced to use it though because of the kinds of games I like the play (this forcing of me using it is one of the reasons I hate the system)...

I dread if the day comes when we are FORCED and have no say in using a system like Steam for all games.

My main gripes are ...I paid $50-60 for a new game AT A STORE....why must I:

-- register the game with an online system like steam in order to play the damn thing?

-- why can't I play my game if steam goes offline?

-- why does the game not always install correctly from the DVD (you know the one I just paid from at the store) and I have to wind up DOWNLOADING several GIGS to play the even though I buy the game at say Game Stop I still can't play it for 4 hours because the stupid Steam system has no easy way to say "Install from disc?"...

-- finally the kicker of Steam better not forget your steam account info..if you do you may need to re-buy all those games tied to it in order to play them again

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By ClownPuncher on 5/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: Andrew Oliver...
By callmeroy on 5/17/2010 9:31:38 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody can teach you how to not be a jackass either...

Though I'll try....

Mr. Smartass... I'm not new to steam (as I said its hard to be when I'm FORCED to use it)...

Some games I've had little issue with Steam (though I still hate the system)....they've played fine no hassles to install from CD or anything...

However, the point I was making but you are too stupid to read between the lines apparently and you need all the gaps in logic and common sense filled out for you is...


You buy a damn game, you bring it home you install it , you play it....that's all that should be involved.

Steam denied me of that easy experience with two games now.

And shove the PEBCAK up your ass....EVEN STEAM SUPPORT couldn't NOT figure out why it wouldn't install from the CD...after following the steps to the letter on their website, emailing them screen shots, etc. They basically ending up saying "well you have a valid license because you bought the game just let the digital version install"...

That's BS....

And right now if I go home and disable my Steam account that game will not all.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Hieyeck on 5/14/2010 1:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
1. Clearly, you're not the unfortunate few without internet. Point moot.

2. You can play games with steam offline.

3. It does install as it should. It just takes bloody forever to decode. But if you're griping about time, steam allows you to pre-load the game typically 1 week in advance, with a small download (usually the exe) going out on release day.

4. Right, as if anyone is likely to forget their email address. People in the office old enough to be my grandparents remember their 5 passwords and logins for work alone. Unless you're old enough to be my great-grandparents, you've got no excuse.

When steam was first released, I hated it because the system was crap and I was forced to tie my games to a broken system. They listened to the users and it's been greatly improved. I like if I feel like playing a game, I tell steam GO and it downloads and installs the game for me while I watch TV or take a nap. My ONLY gripe is that it pauses instead of limits downloads when you play another steam game.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By callmeroy on 5/17/2010 9:44:46 AM , Rating: 1
Hey another Jackass how you doing Jackass?

read on below for my collective ignorant f%ckhead

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Darkefire on 5/14/2010 1:24:28 PM , Rating: 3
You're an idiot.

1. Virtually every new game out there requires some sort of online registration, usually for one of their many online components; registering with Steam is a one-time thing that ensures seamless upgrades and patches can be delivered so they don't run into complaints from dolts like you because you're still working with 1.0 software.

2. It's called "Offline Mode". Look it up.

3. You're griping with Steam because the disc you bought from Game Stop is scratched or deficient in some way, or your computer had some issue that prevented it from reading the disc? That's like complaining to the company that made your TV because your DVD didn't play correctly. Be glad Steam was there to make up for your error to save you the trouble of having to go back to Game Stop or Best Buy so they can make you look like a backwards luddite.

4. Good God, you're stupid. Steam has all the usual backups in case your account is stolen or you forgot your credentials because you spent too much time banging your head against the wall. And they've said repeatedly if for some reason Valve were to go out of business they'd implement a change to the system that would still let you play all your games separate from the Steam servers.

Steam is a wonderful service that has liberated me from the tyranny of having to keep track of a litany of discs in favor of a single box that lets me download new games and re-download old ones at no cost in the event I have some catastrophic system failure (and you can back up those multigig downloads, including all current patches, onto your local hard drive!). It doesn't hover in the background running all the time unless I want it to, it doesn't nag me with any sort of advertisements, it just plain works.

If I have any gripes about the Steam system, it's that occasionally their update system will hit some sort of hiccup that prevents you from playing for a while (usually TF2, which is a moot point since we couldn't play without the updates anyways), unlocking system files for pre-ordered and pre-loaded games can take an ungodly amount of time if everyone's doing it at once (see: Mass Effect 2), and every once in a while I'll get some message akin to "Cannot play game because Steam is unavailable" which goes away after a couple minutes. All a small price to pay for not having to worry about faulty DRM, out-of-date games, or ever losing a game because my disc was destroyed again.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/14/2010 1:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
Heh, looks like several of us were all thinking exactly the same thing, at the same time...

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By callmeroy on 5/17/2010 9:40:04 AM , Rating: 2
Hey jackasses (all of you posting the same)

Do I need to spell it out you dumb morons...





(For offline mode and friggin morons)





Will not work in offline mode or install from the DVD

(I've been playing them because I let them install and I just play it online)

Finally....I've used Steam for YEARS...Not all the games gave me issues..Half life ran fine installed fine from CD, played fine offline , etc....(and so did a few others)....that's not my point though...

My point is the system sucks IMO if even ONE GAME (in my case its been two)...turns into a hassle to run offline or install from CD/ stupid that you need any related online service to install or register a game..period.

And btw....there's little instruction or support for my issues with both of those games.....when their online forums off no solution that works and even their support staff can't figure it out.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/14/2010 1:24:37 PM , Rating: 1
Hating the fact that Steam is forced on you for certain games is understandable, and I once felt the same way. However, all of your other complaints are incorrect.

-- register the game with an online system like steam in order to play the damn thing?

It's better than the other crap we've had to deal with, like SecuRom or Ubisoft's latest DRM turd that really does require you to be online.

-- why can't I play my game if steam goes offline?

You can, actually, using a magical feature called 'offline mode'.

-- why does the game not always install correctly from the DVD (you know the one I just paid from at the store) and I have to wind up DOWNLOADING several GIGS to play the even though I buy the game at say Game Stop I still can't play it for 4 hours because the stupid Steam system has no easy way to say "Install from disc?"...

Even if for some bizarre reason the game does not install correctly, Steam is entirely capable of figuring out which files are missing and downloading only those files. Hell, you can install games on a different computer by just copying the 'steamapps' over, and when you then tell Steam to install the game, it will see the files you copied and report the installation as complete. And even if for some entirely unbelievable reason that doesn't work, four hours to download several GB of data is not all that bad. Just download it overnight -- you'll live.

-- finally the kicker of Steam better not forget your steam account info..if you do you may need to re-buy all those games tied to it in order to play them again

If you provided legit info when you created your account (ie, not a throwaway email address and not a fake name) then this is a non-issue, because not only will you then not forget the info, but Steam can also email you a new password. You can also call Valve directly to resolve it.


The best things about Steam, IMO, are that you don't have to drive to the store, you don't have to deal with game discs, it manages game patches for you, it lets you easily join friends in multiplayer games, and there are frequent and significant discounts.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By cerx on 5/14/2010 4:55:14 PM , Rating: 1
And Steam makes it INCREDIBLY easy to backup games and re-install. In case you need to format your PC, etc. Very Nice.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By callmeroy on 5/17/2010 9:47:45 AM , Rating: 2
Your post is the ONE post of the many that I have no issue with , due to how you wrote it.

That said the problem is the magical "offline mode" doesn't work for two games. I've tried it. I don't know why it doesn't work, but then either does Steam support apparently.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By mattclary on 5/14/2010 1:27:11 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/14/2010 1:27:25 PM , Rating: 2

That man can DIAF.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/14/2010 1:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
Oh lame, it changed my infinity symbol to an eight.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By MadMan007 on 5/15/2010 3:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you should try +Xenu instead.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By sp33dklz on 5/14/2010 2:51:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'm probably the minority and I appologize if I've offended anyone's beliefs on this subject in advance.

For 10 years or more, I have downloaded pirated games. Again, I'm the minority on this I'm sure. If the game is good (usually determined within the first two levels), I will support the creators and employees by purchasing their title. If it's crap, I never finish it and I move on. I have owned many consoles in my days and purchased many titles giving money to those creators who deserve my cash. I have a steam account with 20+ purchased games, and play WoW on a regular basis. I own a PS3, and a 360 and enjoy them for what they are.

I do not make copies of these games for other people for illegal distribution and profit. I usually share my opinions with friends on whether or not the game was worth its salt. Again, if its good, I buy. If not, delete.

When game publishers and developers stop shoving crap games down our throats for $60.00 a pop, I might consider purchasing more. They obviously have a huge failure in their business models as there are more people willing to buy used games because they're not worth their $60 prices, and a lot of piracty is rampant.

Another poster said previously regarding Honda, when they start asking for a piece of my car when I sell it on the open used market, that's a problem. To that I say kudos. When the game and media industry again starts to realize that we are the customers and not the pawns for their profits, they might have an easier road ahead. Until then, I am your customer. I vote with my wallet. When purchasing a game, I won't be fooled by your fluffy advertising and huge media budgets. I'm an educated and finicky consumer. Again, I'm your customer, and you have the privilege of trying to please me.

Andrew Oliver... Welcome to the free-market.


RE: Andrew Oliver...
By Mr Perfect on 5/14/2010 3:52:26 PM , Rating: 2
Somebody 6 this man.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By just4U on 5/14/2010 11:10:56 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, DT your readers are asking for a six, lets see it please!!

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By kroker on 5/15/2010 11:51:57 AM , Rating: 2
I concur, him and every greedy scumbag who thinks like him.

Hearing them whine about piracy is one thing. But when you hear them whine about something that many other industries deal with, you really start to see what kind of persons they are. These people are acting like we're the ones who need them, not the other way around. Who do they think they are? They are lucky people are buying their crap in the first place. 60$ for a game? Sorry but I can have a lot more fun with that money than a game can offer me.

If they bothered to actually create better games, then maybe more people would buy them new and keep playing them for longer. Also, they seem to miss the fact that if an original buyer sells a used game, then now he has more money to buy new games. I think this is actually a very important point. There are people who would pay money for a new game, and people who wouldn't. Stop trying to make customers out of people who don't want to be your customers (even if they want to play your game)! You are only causing frustration for people who actually want to be your customers!

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By dtm4trix on 5/16/2010 3:52:34 PM , Rating: 2
Word up my brutha!!

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By JCheng on 5/16/2010 10:38:36 PM , Rating: 2
The commentary added by Jason Mick seems to be way more provocative than Andrew Oliver's actual quotes from the linked article.

RE: Andrew Oliver...
By semiconshawn on 5/17/2010 9:01:29 PM , Rating: 2
I wish I could vote this to a billion.

Replay Value
By Spivonious on 5/14/2010 11:24:23 AM , Rating: 1
The real problem is that today's games have zero replay value. You beat the single player campaign and there's nothing else to do. There are no more high scores, no more bonuses to unlock, no extra modes of play. You can't blame people for not wanting to pay $60 for a game that will give them 15 hours of entertainment.

RE: Replay Value
By iFX on 5/14/2010 11:31:18 AM , Rating: 2
And yesteryear's games had unlimited replay value? Please. We just expect more now. I do agree $60 is waaayyy to much for a game, which is why I didn't buy Modern Warfare 2 (and because there was no DS support, bastages).

Just like modern games, Commander Keen can only be played so many times before you've had enough.

RE: Replay Value
By Proxes on 5/14/2010 11:47:07 AM , Rating: 2
I'm 37 and I clearly remember my dad paying $50 to $60 for Atari 2600 games, if not more. The complexities and depth of those games are no where near what we have now, but then they were still awesome.

RE: Replay Value
By Connoisseur on 5/14/2010 12:38:00 PM , Rating: 2
It's often the simplest games that have the most replay value. I don't think it's just higher expectations. I think game design plays a big role in it as well. I think a lot games have tried to become very "epic" in scope. That is, you play for many many hours and the real payoff is only at the end.

Older games on the other hand (by virtue of necessity), focused more on the action component with many short sprint levels rather than a few HUGE levels. They allowed the player to jump in in these levels to get high score or a faster time.

It's sort of comparing a show like LOST to something more like the X-Files. With lost, you HAVE to sit through the ENTIRE series for the big payoff/answers with little to no return in the middle. With X-Files in the other hand, while there is an overarching story, it was much more episodic. You could watch any one random ep and there'd be some satisfying conclusion. Now some would argue LOST is a BETTER show, but how many people would go back and watch a random episode on a whim after they've finished the season?

RE: Replay Value
By ShammGod126 on 5/14/2010 12:00:26 PM , Rating: 2
Chrono Trigger. Enough said.

RE: Replay Value
By iFX on 5/14/2010 12:09:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yup. One game out of how many? Enough said.

RE: Replay Value
By Alexstarfire on 5/15/2010 7:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
The original Super Smash Brothers and Super Mario Brothers 3. Hell, counter-strike, starcraft, Diablo 2. Why limit this to only consoles?

RE: Replay Value
By wempa on 5/14/2010 12:57:31 PM , Rating: 2
I have to disagree with this. I think games nowadays have FAR more replay value than older games. Usually after you beat it, you can go through it again with a different character, different options or different skill level. There are also a lot of "sandbox" type games that you could spend forever doing whatever you want. Did you ever play GTA San Andreas ? There is so much content in that game that you have to play it for an insane amount of time to get 100%.

RE: Replay Value
By Spivonious on 5/14/2010 3:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
GTA 3 and newer are the most boring games of all time. I had much more fun with GTA2, running around with the top down view and stealing cars.

I can pick up Carmageddon, Sonic the Hedgehog, Duke Nukem 3D, Super Mario, play for an hour and still have fun even though I've beaten those games countless times.

I think the problem is that back in the day you could play a game from start to finish in 3-4 hours, so it wasn't a big thing to start over from the beginning. Nowadays we get these huge 40+ hour games and once they're finished there is no motivation to go back and start over.

RE: Replay Value
By brandonicus on 5/14/2010 7:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
Either you have never played a good RPG or you just do not enjoy RPG style games. It sounds like you are more of an arcade style game fan. Short and sweet games with lots of numbers telling you how awesome you are. There is nothing wrong with that, but I think you are totally wrong about today's game's replay value. I usually play an RPG that is 100+ hours multiple times, and each time the story changes slightly, the ending changes, and my character is radically different. I'm playing The Witcher right now, and I plan on replaying it. You should check it out, Steam always has it on sale. If you're into SciFi I'd recommend the Mass Effect games.

RE: Replay Value
By Spivonious on 5/16/2010 1:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
You got it. I've given RPGs a chance, but I just don't have the time to put in. I have maybe 3-4 hours a week that I play video games. Housework, yardwork, wifework, regular work, all are more important than playing some 100+ hour game.

RE: Replay Value
By wempa on 5/17/2010 12:41:39 PM , Rating: 2
Good post. This is the point I was trying to make in mine. You bring up a good point that it seems to apply more to RPG type games. One great example of replayability is Diablo 2. There were 5 character classes (7 if you count the expansion) and a skill system that allowed for dozens of different viable character builds. Rarely did a Diablo fan just play through the game once. If you were into the game, you wanted to experience each of the characters and sometimes multiple builds of each.

By djcameron on 5/14/2010 11:29:15 AM , Rating: 3
As the price of a single game has risen from $20-30 to $50-70 I've found that I buy less and less games per year. Whereas I used to buy at least 25 games per year, now I find myself buying 2 or 3 per year. At $20 per title, I would buy a game just for the heckuvit, if it sucked, then oh well. At $60 per game, it has to be a really well-reviewed, highly friend-recommended game before I plunk down my cash.

I'll betcha that if they dropped the price of all new games to $25, they'd sell far more games, and they'd get less resistance to the idea of killing the used game industry.

RE: Price
By eskimospy on 5/14/2010 11:41:26 AM , Rating: 2
The price of a new game now, adjusting for inflation, is lower than it has ever been.

This doesn't mean that I think used games should be banned, but what you said isn't accurate.

RE: Price
By Proxes on 5/14/2010 11:58:11 AM , Rating: 2
Don't know where you're getting your prices from but I've been buying computer games since the late 80's and I worked at a Babbage's in the mid 90's. Games have always been $40 to $60, and Nintendo games would hit $70.

Prices haven't come down they've been about the same really.

RE: Price
By iFX on 5/14/2010 12:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
I paid I think $74.99 for Mario RPG for SNES in the mid 1990s. Yikes!

RE: Price
By Taft12 on 5/14/2010 12:28:30 PM , Rating: 2
Expensive, yes. Worth the $75? Also a yes!

RE: Price
By iFX on 5/14/2010 12:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, awesome game indeed! I still have it!

RE: Price
By just4U on 5/14/2010 11:14:13 PM , Rating: 2
I paid $89 for Final Fantasy2. Wish I had kept it with the box/manuals. Damn thing is a collectors item now going for well over $200.

RE: Price
By jeff834 on 5/14/2010 1:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
I believe I paid $65 or more for Final Fantasy 3 (read FF6 for the Japanese) for the SNES and that was also well worth it. As a matter of fact if I had the choice between FF3 for $65 or FF13 for $60 I'd take 3 to this day. Personally I think Gamestop sucks, you get as much as twice the money selling on Ebay/ in CASH not arbitrary trade in credit. I buy my used games online and my new games at Target or Walmart with no preorder BS required.

The big downfall of the PC game era coming to an end is the idea that anyone can make a good game and make a bit of cash from it. No need for huge producers like Activision and EA. While things like the indie section on XBL exist, it's a lot harder for independent developers to make and market console games.

RE: Price
By djcameron on 5/14/2010 4:38:13 PM , Rating: 2
Back in the 80's, I was able to pick up most C-64 computer games for $20-30 at Toys R Us or Software Etc.

Retail sales rejuvinated...
By McGixxer on 5/14/2010 11:14:20 AM , Rating: 2
Okay, all of us on here know that software chains during the past decade have come and gone like mad. All of them failed sooner or later (most sooner)

Then finally, we end up with Gamestop, a company with a great system to keep gamers coming back with, I think, a great system for buying new games, and trading them back in to buy more games...

And its working, they are making money and doing great, if they put an end to it, in the end, they WILL make less money! If they want to put some small resale fee in there, fine, (as much as I dont like the idea, whatever...) but if they make the games one sale/one person, they will end up making less money in the end.

Its like the dumba$$ logic that pirated software is lost income!

RE: Retail sales rejuvinated...
By cknobman on 5/14/2010 11:32:08 AM , Rating: 3
No offense but FUCK GAMESTOP!!!!!

Im all for buying/selling/trading used games because if you purchase a game its yours to do with as you please.

Supporting an @ss raping system like gamestop on the other hand sucks!!! They charge $5 dollars less for a used game than a new one when the used sale is almost 100% pure profit for them. To pour salt in the consumers would GameStop goes on to give you jack sh!t for your trade-ins too.

I hope GameStop dies, soon too.

RE: Retail sales rejuvinated...
By ShammGod126 on 5/14/2010 11:48:00 AM , Rating: 2
That argument is only valid if GameStop sold every copy of every game traded in. But they don't, they take an inherent risk with every game they take in. The high mark up is to cover the thousands of used games they buy back and never sell. The premium is also for the convenience, it's much easier to walk into a GameStop and un-load all your used games. If you're unhappy with how much they are giving you, don't trade it in. Sell it on eBay or something.

RE: Retail sales rejuvinated...
By The Raven on 5/14/2010 11:49:26 AM , Rating: 2
Look Bro, I think it is lame for GS to charge only -5$ for used games, but here's my solution... I don't buy it.

If there are enough idiots out there (IMHO) then GS can do this. Conclusion: there are enough idiots out there. And I am not opposed to a stupid tax.

RE: Retail sales rejuvinated...
By cknobman on 5/14/2010 12:56:40 PM , Rating: 2
LOL true, true.

I personally go for the trading with friends directly method or even selling on ebay. Often Ive found that I can buy a game of Ebay for dirt cheap and if I finish playing it quick enough I can re sell it on ebay for little to no loss.

Guess it pays not to be a lazy and stupid SOB.

RE: Retail sales rejuvinated...
By 325hhee on 5/14/2010 8:02:11 PM , Rating: 2
I also can't stand GameStop/EB Games, they'll buy a new game from you for like $10-$15 and resell it for like the other poster said, $5 less. I used to have business dealings with a GameStop Manager, and he even tells me, the corporate offices encourages all employees to sell used games, as it's their highest profit selling items. And during the Holidays, you will find a lot of moms falling for it, because they see only the lower price.

Also as a gamer, I for the most part stopped buying new games, for one, I've been burned too many times on buying new releases with lots of hype only to find it was predictable game play. Another reason is, you can no longer believe a lot of reviewers out there as they've been bought out by company makers of the game, a few dollars goes a long way for reviews.

I never trust gamer reviewers that gives 1 out of 5 star ratings, but I normally tend to read what fellow gamers write about a game. And I can wait for a year or two to buy a game, unless it's an MMoRPG I'm playing with a new expansion out, that's not WoW related. Hopefully a game that's been out in the market after a year or two would hit the $20 or less category.

Though admittedly yes, there are some new games that I would buy right away, I've bought Supreme Commander and Forged Alliance on release date, and still playing it with friends. I put the ban hammer on CoD4 MW2, but I bought Battle Field Bad Company 2 on release date, and enjoyed it for the most part, I still hate the fact they nerfed the Prone feature, and will never put it in. So it's a 4 star game for me. Most other games like Dragon Age Origin, I'll wait for the $20 or lower bin, because I do not have time for a game like that, since I'm usually raiding on an MMoRPG, or I'm fraging someone on BF2, BFBC2, or I'm trying to beat my friends on SupCom/FA.

I hate buying used games, it's like touching a used condom, you have no idea who used it, or what they've done with it. I don't need to buy every new game out there, despite all the hype, which I never really understood. And if a game is good, you'll still find people playing it after a year or more, plus now and days it's almost expected every new game is a beta release and have bugs in them, even MMoRPGs suffers that. So I can wait for a revision to come out. And Steam, I love it when they have super sales, I bought the Eidos library for $50 which had Arkham Asylum and 15 other games. That's a DEAL!!!!

By Alexstarfire on 5/15/2010 8:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
Falling for it? You make it sound like paying less hurts them, being the person who bought it. That just makes no sense.

RE: Retail sales rejuvinated...
By cmdrdredd on 5/16/2010 1:38:53 AM , Rating: 2
I hate buying used games, it's like touching a used condom, you have no idea who used it, or what they've done with it.

If it works and it's a game you're happy with what is the problem? Your analogy is very out of place.

Look, I worked for 4 years at Gamestop as a manager so I know how the system works. There's always some kid or mom who thinks saving $5 or $10 is a big deal. Especially if they have the edge card or whatever they call it these days that gives an extra 10% off. It's like getting the game tax free and then some. Plus, most of the used games that are priced only a couple dollars less than the new copy don't sell. After a while the price slowly drops as the game is no longer a new release. Then the sales of that title pick up. $20 for a game you neglected to pickup a couple months ago and now have the time and want to play it through is not a bad deal for most people. The new copy of the game is still $60 at most stores, but a used one can be had for $25 or something. That's a big difference. Why does it get cheaper? Well, the longer the game has been out the more copies they get traded in. That decreases the price due to having a large stockpile of the same title. The trade in value goes down as does the selling price of the used game on the shelf.Think of it like a pawn shop. They don't ever give you what it's worth to sell, they'll never make any money that way. A business is in business to make a profit. That's why gamestop operates as it does. It's a profit model.

RE: Retail sales rejuvinated...
By cmdrdredd on 5/16/2010 1:47:16 AM , Rating: 1
As for the whole digital distribution thing, it'll never replace having a physical copy. Same for movies. To download a movie, in 1080p with uncompressed audio and hours of dpecial features also in HD would be an ungodly amount of HDD space. Also, it leaves your purchased goods open to them to manipulate on a whim. Think of what Apple does with some iPhone apps. Rips them off the store and they disappear from your phone because they don't want it there. Really now, imagine if a studio went belly up and all the sudden you try to play the movie or game back and blammo, the DRM check fails to find the server and you're left with an unplayable game or movie. Why does this matter? Well, lets think for a moment. Lets say a game like Quake or Unreal, with a revolutionary game engine is released. A couple years after it's release people are still doing home brew mods and making them available on the internet. Lets say one day you decide to see what's out there just for fun and find something you'd like to check out. You download and install it but you can't run the game anymore. That's pure bullshit. Yes it can happen if the software companies had their way. Now, if you own a physical disk. Nobody can tell you ever that you can't play it as long as you have the system or player capable of reading the disk. People still play PSOne games to this day. Having the disk makes it possible to play the classics forever, as long as you still own the right hardware to go with it.

Suk My Jagon!
By Blood1 on 5/14/2010 11:01:27 AM , Rating: 5
These two need to pull out of each others jagons(sp reference) and get a life.
People these days are broke, jobless and any break they can get by buying a game cheaply improves their lives.

RE: Suk My Jagon!
By Desslok on 5/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: Suk My Jagon!
By HotFoot on 5/14/2010 11:10:14 AM , Rating: 5
Pretty much everyone can use a little entertainment and distraction from time to time.

You could say that if anyone thinks a vacation will improve their life they must have serious problems.

"Improves" is not equal to "solves all your problems for you".


RE: Suk My Jagon!
By omnicronx on 5/14/2010 11:14:38 AM , Rating: 3
What about say a lower income family? Buying used games for their kids because they can't afford to pay 50-60 dollars for a game.

For all intents and purposes, one could make the case that used games could help the industry. For many people, paying 50-60 dollars for a new game is not worth it, which is one of the reasons the used game market is so big.

There is no guarentee that cutting out used games would make these people buy new games. On the other hand its feasible that cutting out used games will lower the incentive for many people to buy the gaming system in the first place.

I for one would never buy a gaming system for my kids if all the games cost that much. (especially when you consider how fast some kids lose interest)

RE: Suk My Jagon!
By Breathless on 5/14/2010 11:48:45 AM , Rating: 2
Good point!

This would likely hurt console sales as well!

RE: Suk My Jagon!
By cmdrdredd on 5/16/2010 1:51:42 AM , Rating: 2
There is no guarentee that cutting out used games would make these people buy new games. On the other hand its feasible that cutting out used games will lower the incentive for many people to buy the gaming system in the first place. I for one would never buy a gaming system for my kids if all the games cost that much. (especially when you consider how fast some kids lose interest)

You must not remember the SNES...some new release titles cost $90. These days with DVD and Blu-Ray based titles, the mdeia is a lot cheaper so the games are cheaper. Do I think $60 is too much sometimes, yes. However I don't buy everything and thanks to demos that are freely available on consoles, I can usually try the game out and see what it's like before I commit.

Point is, gaming is cheaper now than it used to be but people still complain it's too expensive. What does that say about the gaming industry these days? To me it says it's dying out. Games used to be worth $80 or $90 but these days few games are worth $60.

I say...
By amanojaku on 5/14/2010 11:18:07 AM , Rating: 5
Disinterested consumers are worse than piracy. We should ban people who don't play games. In fact, it should be ILLEGAL for you to NOT buy games. Because you're hurting the developers.

/rolls eyes

RE: I say...
By rdawise on 5/14/2010 10:36:32 PM , Rating: 2
^This times a million!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You basically summarized what the douche wanted to say....

By Creig on 5/14/2010 11:28:21 AM , Rating: 5
Okay Mr Oliver. Since you feel so strongly about this, why don't we look into your financial records and see if you've ever purchased or sold a used car or house. Because if you have, then you're personally responsible for the decline of the housing and automobile industries in the same manner that people selling used video games are supposedly responsible for any perceived decline in video gaming industry revenues.


By Breathless on 5/14/2010 12:01:12 PM , Rating: 2
Now, now.... you know that it is not nice to ridicule people that obviously have a mental disability. Mr. Oliver is clearly retarded - so try to be nice.

Steam Client != non piratable
By davebeneteau on 5/14/2010 11:13:03 AM , Rating: 2
Just for the sake of saying, ive got multiple friends with steam accounts with lots of games. Often we dont buy the same games unless they have excellent multiplayer capabilities. For the non multiplayer games, we just trade our account information between us and play whatever game we want on the other guys account. Works great especially for the games that only have 6-10 hours of real gameplay (ie. the HL Episodes)

RE: Steam Client != non piratable
By nafhan on 5/14/2010 12:07:22 PM , Rating: 2
So, only person can play the game at a time, and it was paid for at some point? That may be against the TOS, but it doesn't sound like you guys are doing anything wrong. Definitely doesn't sound like any pirating has happened.

RE: Steam Client != non piratable
By orgy08 on 5/14/2010 1:38:44 PM , Rating: 2
Steam games have been cracked already. I'm sure trading accounts is against the TOS, but then again, the only way they can know if by the different IP address. Its not something they will probably catch and I'm sure a lot of people do this. Especially within a household.

all these years?
By HostileEffect on 5/14/2010 11:05:04 AM , Rating: 4
So... if its killing the market why didn't developers go out of business 12 years ago? Two neighbors should be allowed to swap games.

Next up...
By HotFoot on 5/14/2010 11:08:44 AM , Rating: 4
Selling used books and music albums becomes illegal.

Libraries everywhere closed for allowing more than one person to read a book.

What about used computers? Can I not sell a computer along with it's operating system, and maybe some other software I had loaded onto it? I've always sold old Windows machines without the hard drive but I give the buyer the Windows installation CD. I never felt a twinge of guilt doing so.

By AnnihilatorX on 5/14/2010 11:42:33 AM , Rating: 2
If you price your games right, like dropping the game price over time in a reasonable manner, the used game market will go away naturally. Stop complaining

RE: Pricing
By Pirks on 5/14/2010 1:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. I don't understand all this brick pooping just because retail is dying and getting replaced by Steam. This is good, not bad! Steam games are real cheapo, I buy $20 older titles there all the time, COD4 for example and stuff like that, they do weekend sales, all sort of sales, you guys are cheapskates. Nobody is forcing you to pay for brand new flashy $60 game. They all are gonna fall down in price quickly, while PC hardware will fall down in price as well so instead of paying $500 for a new GPU and $60 for a brand new game you'll pay $200 and $20 a year later. Everybody wins, so please stop pooping bricks.

By p05esto on 5/14/2010 12:13:49 PM , Rating: 2
I will NEVER buy another game from the companies mentioned in this article. What total dipshits.

RE: Never
By Kubicide on 5/14/2010 12:37:14 PM , Rating: 2

I will ONLY buy USED games from the companies mentioned in this article. What total dipshits.


This is ludicrious...
By Wolfpup on 5/14/2010 2:03:42 PM , Rating: 2
for two reasons I can think of off the top of my head:

1) Have these idiots stopped to consider that a lot of us only buy as many new games as we do BECAUSE WE CAN SELL THEM if it's not something we like, or like well enough to want to play through again? I can promise them I'd buy 1/10th the new games if I couldn't sell it is, I probably end up keeping maybe 1/3 of the games I buy-and of course I trade them in well past when they'd have earned most of their sales anyway, and I'm using them to buy MORE new games I wouldn't be buying anyway.

They're GAINING way more new sales from me because I can trade stuff in. Otherwise, I have to be incredibly cautious before buying anything.

The second issue is of course just that they don't have the right to decide, "hey, we want even more money". That's not how things have ever worked before. I mean what's next, you make it mandatory to buy a certain number of games per month?

If you don't want people trading in your game, charge a reasonable price for it, hire good writers for it, make it fun to the point where I want to play it again later, and don't make it so freaking hard that I can't finish it-I'm almost certainly not keeping your game if I can't finish it, with very, very, very few exceptions.

RE: This is ludicrious...
By Wolfpup on 5/14/2010 2:19:16 PM , Rating: 2
Just some examples from the past year of games I only bought because I could sell them, but ended up keeping:
Ghostbusters, Bionic Commando, Gears of War 2, Uncharted 2, Alien Syndrome, Dead Space, Boing! Dokomokake, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed (actually I did sell buy the even more expensive rerelease, I liked it so well), Wolverine, Wolfenstein...and those are just off the top of my head. I payed full price for most of those, and am keeping them, and YOU WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN ONE CENT FROM ME IF I DIDN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO SELL THEM.

Then there's a ton more games that I am going to sell, but wouldn't have bought had I not been able to sell them-Stuff like Assassin's Creed 2, Little Big Planet, etc. Their choice was, make no money from me at all, or earn the full profit from me, have me keep the game out of circulation past when most people are buying it, and then losing out on a lower amount of money because someone's buying my copy. They're still earning something from me, versus nothing. And they're having more people play the game, who may buy a sequel, etc. They're not losing anything.

The only time they “lose” is in the situations where I would buy a game even if I couldn't sell it, thinking I'll love it, but then I end up hating it. Basically they only lose out in situations where they've tricked me into buying a game. That doesn't happen a whole lot...and is that how they want to earn extra money from me?

By RealTheXev on 5/16/2010 4:46:50 AM , Rating: 2
“For its North American release in 1985, the NES was released in two different configurations, or "bundles". The console deck itself was identical, but each bundle was packaged with different game paks and accessories. The first of these sets, the Control Deck, retailed from US$199.99 (equivalent to US$406 today), and included the console itself, two game controllers, and a Super Mario Bros. game cartridge. The second bundle, the Deluxe Set, retailed for US$249.99 (equivalent to US$508 today), and consisted of the console, a R.O.B. accessory, an NES Zapper (electronic gun), and two game paks: Duck Hunt and Gyromite.”

Prices are still pretty accurate to inflation now in 2010. I clearly remember paying $49.99 for games back in 1995, which would be $71.39 today. $60 for a game seem like a lot now? You people need to realize the real issues besides a huge number of crap games, is the damn near worthlessness of the USD! Time to develop a games and production values are also much higher than they used to be! These people need paid, and people are ONLY willing to pay $60 for a new game in most cases? The choices they have are: A) rise prices, which in theory due to the rate of inflation should be much higher around $70 a game (people won’t pay more for a game anymore because the USD is just THAT worthless), or B) move to online distribution, which makes the game companies more money not only because you can’t resell the games, but because the effective product per game sold is much higher because you don’t have to sell crap like the media (CD/DVD), or the manual.

I am well in favor of online distribution… mostly because I lose game disc and friends damaged said disc!? It’s much easier to redownload a game then to pay for it again (I have 5 legit copies of StarCraft because of this lol). It would be lovely to be able to download games like Valkyrie Profile and God Hand, since finding them used can cost a rather large premium due to the limited number of times these games were printed (I clearly remember buying Valkyrie Profile 3 times used for $20 each, and reselling them on ebay for $50+ each depending on the condition).

Want to fix the high prices? Then support a gold/silver backed currency and stop supporting the FIAT we use.

By RealTheXev on 5/16/2010 4:50:39 AM , Rating: 2
effective product per game sold is much higher because you don’t have to sell crap like the media (CD/DVD), or the manual.

Sorry, should read "effective profit"

only part of the equation
By slawless on 5/14/2010 12:38:55 PM , Rating: 3
These guys forget why people trade in games. they trade them in to buy another game. If they can't trade them in, they will buy less, on line or retail. Also many games are not worth buying full price. but are worth a few bucks.

By zmatt on 5/14/2010 11:09:55 AM , Rating: 2
This is a joke. No other industry can do this to their customers. People sell their old cars, appliances, computers, consoles and even movies and cds without the OEM claiming a cut of the profit. Everybody knows this wont float legally, and if EA tries to take royalties from used game sales you can bet it will end up in the courts very quickly and they will loose.

By MrBlastman on 5/14/2010 11:09:59 AM , Rating: 2
Gamers have been buying games used for as long as games have been around... and the gaming industry has not died from it yet! Back in 1984 I believe, I scored big, I bought 20 Atari 2600 games from my babysitter for 20.00. That is a dollar a game! Sure, I got them second hand, but they played great. Around that same time I also scored a copy of River Raid for two dollars for the 2600. I played the daylights out of that game and still have fond memories to this day.

River Raid was developed by Activision--guess what, Activision is now a 4.3 billion dollar corporation. I think they have done okay despite my purchase of used games. Perhaps this guy needs to be given a lollypop.

In order to have used games, you have to have new games traded in first. The only way for new games to exist is for people to "buy" them first. So, the inventory of used games is proportional to the number of new games in the wild. If not enough of the new games are sold, then the amount of used games suffer, become rare and get sold on Ebay eventually for 16,000.00. The company would have gone out of business either way because enough of the new game was never sold due to either poor distribution channels or it was just plain terrible (crappy games DO sell, just look at ET for the 2600, 1.5 million units sold but, whoops, they overproduced 2.5 to 3.5 million more than they needed).

Games sell badly due to them being bad games or mismanagement of the company. They should stop trying to blame used games and look at what they are doing wrong themselves. If they are _really_ that concerned about it, then perhaps they should only offer their games online and see how well that works out for them.

Personally, I'd prefer to have a hardcopy of a game, but, these days people try to make excuses for everything so it looks like this option might go away.

Wont Be Buying Their Games
By metaltoiletry on 5/14/2010 11:21:39 AM , Rating: 2
Oh wait... they haven't made anything worth buying in the first place.

Who is this guy?
By Lanister on 5/14/2010 11:26:52 AM , Rating: 2
So I read the title and thought to myself ok fine then I wont support this company anymore by buying their games. I prepared myself to realize I would have to give up on some games that I really enjoy, then I read who the publisher was and what "games" they produced and realized I would never have bought one of their games anyways.

Maybe whats killing your company is the fact that you dont put out any titles people are willing to pay full retail for?

piracy? no, stop 2nd hand games
By mackx on 5/14/2010 11:27:09 AM , Rating: 2
all this crap about piracy and that being the reason tptb put DRM into games is crap. it's obviously down to trying to stop the 2nd hand games market.

i use steam but since i can't resell any games i don't buy games unless they are very cheap, and i mean a max of £9.99. any more than that is too much

i'm half tempted to create a new account for each game from now on just to sell the account afterwards to get some money back. i know people that do.

What's the problem here?
By OUits on 5/14/2010 11:27:32 AM , Rating: 2
Blitz is best known for producing Dead to Rights: Retribution, Karaoke Revolution, and a series of SpongeBob SquarePants titles.

Oh I see....

"Arguably the bigger problem on consoles now is the trading in of games. I understand why players do this, games are expensive and after a few weeks of playing you’ve either beaten it, or got bored of it so trading it back in to help pay for the next seems sensible when people are short of cash."


By jvillaro on 5/14/2010 11:29:48 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that your making games that aren´t even worth buying used or even pirated!
Less games of better quality! And then I'll buy them full price!

Good thing for us that...
By blckgrffn on 5/14/2010 11:30:19 AM , Rating: 2
It's illegal in this country to do this because of copyright/patent law that explicitly states that the artist only gets the right mandate the terms and price of the first sale.

Steam etc. suck at this, but if you've ever had your steam account hacked (many have) you should be happy that Valve locked the games in, otherwise all your software would just be gone. I am little torn about that.

New World Order
By wiz220 on 5/14/2010 11:35:53 AM , Rating: 2
Can games be run on XBOX's and Playstations from the hard drive only? Or do you still need the disc and the drives are just for save-game data? I'm a PC gamer and not very familiar with consoles these days :) I suppose that would be the only concern because then it's like PC software where you could install the game and then trade in the disc.

Sometimes I worry that we're moving to a new system where you don't ever own ANYTHING ("Sorry, you can't sell that microwave, you just purchased the right to USE it. Didn't you read your EULA?").

Instead of the primary concerns that have existed over the centuries of private property vs. government control, now it's private property vs corporate control...great.

By Xarthos on 5/14/2010 11:39:59 AM , Rating: 2
First- steam only covers pc games. When was the last time you bought a used pc game? I think it is more likely that most purchases of games where it is a resell is going to be console games. When I say most I don't know the exact percentage but honestly what game is he even talking about? This imagined revenue loss is just another example of some suit bean counter trying to justify bad software design and development. Good try.

What an Idiot!
By Dirkmaster on 5/14/2010 11:43:03 AM , Rating: 2
If your business model doesn't take into account existing conditions, you are an idiot, pure and simple. No sympathy. Go out of business, you aren't qualified to be in business.

It's not as if the used game market exploded onto the scene this year. It has expanded, but probably at exactly the same rate as the increase in the price of games. Blockbuster has rented games for YEARS. If every rental or used game sale is a lost sales for them, then you need to go after Blockbuster as well. (Of course, good luck squeezing any blood from that turnip).


Used Games
By mgilbert on 5/14/2010 11:45:07 AM , Rating: 2
What I do with a game I've purchased is none of anybody's G** D***** business! If I want to chock a wheel on my car with it, that's my choice. If I want to trade it in, or pass it on, it's MINE. I bought and paid for it.

How much is enough for these greedy bastards???

Duh Pros and Cons
By bupkus on 5/14/2010 11:46:43 AM , Rating: 2
There's several good arguments pro and con.

Games don't wear out like cars and appliances especially if you make backup copies for yourself keeping the original pristine. Then when you sell it you're selling a still new item. This could resell until it just goes out-of-date or its popularity drops.

However, if I know I can resell a game and recover some of my investment I'll be inclined to jump on it the first week it becomes available.

This perception could account for a higher level of sales that otherwise just wouldn't happen. So the winers are just proposing how they're losing without admitting that they just may be gaining as well.

How can a ban be imposed? Is this a suggestion that government intervention could be attempted should the Steam approach not be effective enough? Hmmm, be careful what you wish for; successful banning of used games may result in pricing their product out of our reach.

Effectively cutting their own throats these people would probably just look for jobs in banking and investment consulting, f***ing up something else.

Asinine Statement
By transamdude95 on 5/14/2010 11:47:35 AM , Rating: 2
What an asinine statement to make. The same statement can be made for ANY good. Houses, furniture, cars, lawnmowers, trading cards. It's completely unintelligible and illogical. I'm sure he doesn't only buy new cars, houses, etc. He should smack himself.

By chromal on 5/14/2010 11:54:07 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately for him, we've an established (and it's pretty assertively established, legally) right of "first sale," which means, basically, once we buy the game, the publisher cannot bar us from reselling it.

Valve, you listening? sooner or later steam will face a legal challenge, and I trust, be required to provide a marketplace for the buying and selling of 'used' titles purchased previously via steam.

*#** this idiot
By CptTripps on 5/14/2010 12:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
I cannot believe he is actually complaining that they don't get paid everytime their product changes hands. When I sell my car I can guarantee the dealership won't be mad they didn't get a cut.

While we're at it ....
By wempa on 5/14/2010 12:47:14 PM , Rating: 2
let's also ban selling used books. Afterall, if the book is re-sold to 3 other people, then the book publisher could be getting 4 times as much money. Heck, while we're at it, let's pass a law that the original manufacturer is entitled to a cut from ALL resells. Morons. If you want to get more people to buy new games, then (1) Put out a great game that people WANT to buy when it first comes out and (2) Offer some incentive to the buyer of a new game. That would be better use of your time that complaining about used game sales. It's going to happen anyway, so get used to it.

Used games benefit the industry
By Mystickal on 5/14/2010 12:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'd argue that used games actually benefit the industry.

If I pay $60 for a new game, then turn around and sell it for $40, then I'm only out of pocket $20 for a new game. So now I'm more likely to buy a new game. The studios benefit because now I've paid full price for 2 games, but without that $40 from selling the old game I probably wouldn't buy as many new games.

If I buy a used game for $40, and it's a pretty cool game, I'm more likely to buy the sequel new, or buy other games that have been put out by that studio, because now I know they put out decent work and I'm not risking $60 to gamble ending up with a POS game.

By adiposity on 5/14/2010 12:56:49 PM , Rating: 2
Once again, they assume that every used game bought would be bought @ MSRP ($60). Obviously this isn't true; people would just buy fewer games if they couldn't resell.

I rarely buy used games, I just have a club of PS3 games where we each buy a couple every six months and then trade. End result, we pay about $10/game on average.

I'm pretty sure none of us would buy all those games @ $60.

Case law.
By fishman on 5/14/2010 1:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
The gaming companies cannot keep you from reselling your games. The First Sale Doctrine, decided by the US supreme court allows for reselling of copyrighted works. Vernor vs Autodesk in 2008, where Vernor was selling legit copies of Autodesk, reaffirmed this for software. Note - IANAL.

Can the game companies charge someone to access the online content when they are using a used game that they bought? That might take a court decision. But it would depress the value of used games. Which lowers the the resale value, which may end up reducing the number of new games someone buys if selling their old games for less means they have less money to buy new games.

And if studio A charges a fee for online access with a used game, and studio B doesn't, studio B games may be viewed as a better value.

75%....i don't think so!!!
By ncage on 5/14/2010 1:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
Probably because either this guy doesn't understand economics, which i find hard to believe at his level, or he just wants to bloat the figure so that its newsworthy and something is done about it. Ok the article talks about 1 in 4 people are the only ones that actually purchase the game. 75% is assuming that everyone who bought the game used or traded it will actually buy the game new. Which is WAY WAY WAY overstated. When you purchase a game you should be buying the right to play it. You should be able to sell that right away. That's like Ford saying you can't sell your car used because we want to sell that person that buys your car a new one. Maybe that can follow the model of dropping prices on games so people don't have to bother and in the process they will get more sales and more revenue (like app model on iphones). Of course they won't be able drop the price to .99, they have to make money, but $20-$30 would seem more reasonable.

Evolve or die.

How about other goods?
By MastermindX on 5/14/2010 1:19:51 PM , Rating: 2
That has me wondering... Did these guys bought their car new? They wouldn't want to steal car-makers their fair share of money, wouldn't they? How about their house?

To game developers : If your game gets boring within a month, you deserve to go bankrupt. I still give a shot at Legend of Zelda and Contra (NES) once in a while (after what, 20 years?). Or even Dungeon Master(released in 1987).

Overprice Games
By 2bdetermine on 5/14/2010 1:20:55 PM , Rating: 2
Someone shut these jokers up from whining and speculating.

If the price were more down to earth more people will buy.

Title is broken...
By Motoman on 5/14/2010 1:22:02 PM , Rating: 2
Should be:

"Consumers say game, music, and movie publishers are worse than piracy, urge ban"

There, that's better.

Blitz who?
By Iaiken on 5/14/2010 1:32:06 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a long time gamer and I had never actually heard of these guys.

After looking them up, it turns out that Philip and Andrew Oliver are just a pair of nobodies when it comes to the industry at large. All of their titles are essentially licensed Detritus that managed to drift past other credible studios unmolested (and for good reason).

This will only be newsworthy when one of John Carmack (ID), Gabe Newell(Valve), Michael Morhaime (Activision Blizzard) or Sid Meier (Firaxis) speak up in this vein. All of these designers have long and successful track records of best selling games and game technologies. Andy Oliver & bro have yet to produce a single actual hit game and are such small players in the market that their opinions really don't matter in the grand scheme of things.

So the solution is...
By jeff834 on 5/14/2010 1:55:43 PM , Rating: 2
pirate games instead of buying them used. We're apparently already screwing the developer, why not screw Gamestop as well? If this guy thinks used games are worse than piracy then from now on every time I think of buying a used game I'm just going to pirate it instead to make him happy.

By morphologia on 5/14/2010 2:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds to me like a couple of asshats going the path of least resistance; why bother fighting crime when you can punish the few remaining paying customers you have??

Corporate asshattery drives piracy more than anything else.

They neglected to mention...
By masamasa on 5/14/2010 3:22:43 PM , Rating: 2
The vast majority of games are crap. I can't count how many titles I've forked out $50-60+ only to be dumbfounded by the fact that it actually got to release. I have no problem paying for quality product, but let's get realistic on the problem here. Developer's are equally to blame for taking advantage of consumers with bug-ridden junk that they release that is clearly garbage, evidenced by countless online user ratings. Trading only offsets the losses we gamers incur when we are stung with product that should never have been released to retail. Doubt they have any intention of lowering those prices or acknowledging the truth about quality product, so until then keep on trading.

good games vs bad games
By invidious on 5/14/2010 3:50:45 PM , Rating: 2
If they want people to stop selling games back to the retail store after 2 weeks then maybe they should make games that are worth holding onto for more than 2 weeks.

I would imagine the sell back rate on good games is significantly less than the bulk of the pack. If a game is only interesting enough to play through once (or less) then it is not worth my $60. If the makers of bad games can't accept that they are more than welcome to stop making their bad games, I won't shed a tear.

First sale
By MegaHustler on 5/14/2010 3:51:17 PM , Rating: 2
We need a universal right of first sale law. Then companies cannot sell consumers a non-transferable license to music, movies or software, no matter what form of distribution they choose.

mentally challenged??
By dgingeri on 5/14/2010 4:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'll put this a bluntly as I can: is this guy retarded??

(note: retarded is this sense is not meant as an insult to the intellectually challenged. Those people usually use the brains they have to the best of their ability. "Retarded" is meant as an insult to those who have the capacity to think and yet refuse to use it, like many drivers these days who somehow think it is a good idea to text and drive, or those who think it is a good idea to take the kids out for dinner and wind up ordering meals for 7-8 people in the drive through, or people who go through the express lane with $500 worth of groceries. These people are truly retarded.)

By BSMonitor on 5/14/2010 4:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
Well its the whole music piracy argument, again...

These clowns assume that whoever buys the game used, would have bought the game at full price.. Given no other option.

WRONG. Most people I know that download music off limewire, buy used games/movies, would NEVER have bought the item at full price, EVER, for any reason!!

What these morons in marketing do NOT get.. The same person who buys a used game/downloads music/etc. might just go out and buy the next CD or game at full price. Perhaps, they liked the one they got used or pirated and this time decided to actually make the purchase... A purchase they would NEVER have made without the "advertising" done by the used game/downloaded song...

AGAIN, people who download music free, buy used games/pirated games, etc.. Almost certainly would NEVER pay full price for those items anyway!!!

The morons in these industries are CAUSING their own financial problems.. The explosion of the music industry in the 90s was an effect of music sharing.. It did not happen in spite of sharing music!!!!

By shutting down pirate music sites, they are killing the best free advertising they ever had...

Lars you moron! Metallica SUCKS!

LMAO at music/video game execs who beat this drum and are going our of business...

By drycrust3 on 5/14/2010 5:40:46 PM , Rating: 2
The problem I see here is these software companies are changing from being a manufacturer to being more like a utility, in the same way as a phone company or subscription TV or electricity or gas companies run, where the large expenses are distributed amongst many users.
At one time the cost of manufacturing a game was relatively low because the time taken from design to manufacture was small and the number of staff required was low, so new games came out fast enough to cover the cost of manufacturing. However, as demand for complexity grew, so did the time delay between design and production and the number of staff.
Now the complexity is heading towards the stage where a game has gone from being a cheap item, like a bicylce, past a moderately expensive item, like a car, to a really large capitol expense, much like an aeroplane. People could buy a bicycle and cycle almost anywhere, but they prefer to drive around their city in a car, but if you want to go a long distance then you need to go on a plane. Most of us cannot afford our own plane, so we share a seat on one.

While it is quite understandable that people don't like the idea of paying to play games on line, the simple fact is manufacturers will have little choice because to keep staff employed then games need to be addictive, just like smoking (yep, and wait for the law suits in 50 years time), so that users "need" to come back for "more". The end result is that not only will most users not be able to afford to pay for the whole of the game, but can pay for a small portion of it that they can play along with a million or so other people, but manufacturers won't be able to afford to make games that aren't so addictive that users "must" come back for more.

bad idea
By gorehound on 5/14/2010 6:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
Screw You !!!!
What a lamer this guy is.Go ahead and do your digital files because for me I personally will never ever buy a digital movie,music,or game.
I support stores where folks like me have to work and I do not look forward to a day where all of us are out of work because of digital file buying and not walking into a real store like one in your town.

More imaginary numbers..
By Jalek on 5/14/2010 6:24:13 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously. When talking piracy, they make numbers up, and apparently here too.

This comes down to IP and who owns property that's purchased. Is this a private property system or not?

I have a few games I purchased on ebay, mostly PS1 games and most were still shrink-wrapped. Maybe they need to also ban liquidation markets for when retailers can't move the crap they bought from these publishers too?

Game Value or Lack Thereof
By budious on 5/14/2010 6:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
Many of these game manufacturers should turn the table on themselves and ask questions about their own quality to revenue ratios.

I like to sort through the value bins at big retailers or find specials online. The sad fact is often the games that I pick up for $10-20 for a NEW copy are far more entertaining than some of the $60 titles purchased at released. Some of these new release games suffer from performance and reliability flaws that need patching, or were overhyped by reviewing media and online communities, or the title itself is a big let down.

Purchasing a new game at $20 may still generate revenue for the company and I'm less likely to part with it due the lower upfront investment and reduced resale value. However, when I spend $60 for a new game that turns out to be complete garbage, I want to recoup some of my loss while providing a potential buyer the title as a USED copy to offset the cost of disappointment they will likely incur.

Now this process may not provide revenue to the game developer but under this scenario, more often than not, it was the consumer that screwed first anyways.

More games
By HostileEffect on 5/14/2010 8:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
$60USD/game is a little ridiculous and even though there are 10-20 games I would like to play every year, money is too tight and the price is too damn high. Even when I get a job, the price is still too damn high.

$20-40USD is that magic price range for me. I was considering the STALKER trilogy on steam but I opted for Age of Conan instead. Stalker is still on my wish list and I'll probably get it in the future, I played the first game and its very good.

I like to think I would pick up more games if the price was 30-40 dollars, even if it cost was slightly higher at the end.
Back in the old days I would go into CompUSA, browse games, and walk out with 2-4. Back then we got a BIG box, if it looked FUN , the the price was fair, it went into the basket. That is how I stumbled onto half-life, system shock 2, Deus Ex, Populous: The Beginning, and all the classic games, they looked fun on the box and the price was good.
Good being $19.99 - $39.99, occasionally $49.99 if it was /that good/.

In present day, games cost more, they offer less physical material, and the boxes also have plenty of CG and cherry picked screenshots that don't really represent what you play. The system requirements are generally what it requires to get to the menu screen. The prices have gone up, I get less software, and now I spend weeks looking into the game to make sure its a good buy, rather than simply pick it up and find out.

When it comes down to $60USD for a game or $60USD for gas or food, the game takes the cut. Lower the price and you will probably make more money in the end and used or old games will become less attractive.

Dear Andrew Oliver,
By pwnsweet on 5/14/2010 9:49:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'll start buying NEW games when they cost AU$40.

Screw them
By eddieroolz on 5/14/2010 10:35:25 PM , Rating: 2
If they think buy/selling used games is worse than piracy, I suppose they won't complain when I pirate their games.

....but wait, none of their titles are even worth the bandwidth.

By geekman1024 on 5/14/2010 10:44:13 PM , Rating: 2
Mr. Oliver, I have to clarify something a bit, I'm not reselling your game, but the disc and the plastic case, which I am sure I have the full right to deal with whichever way I want, after paying the price to the shop. Sadly, there is no way I could remove your game from the disc before I sell off the disc (which is the reason I wanna get rid of the disc, anyway, you know, your game.)

Oh and by the way, if you hate people for reselling your game as used so much, you should not be making and selling games. Remember, if the buying stops, the reselling can, too.

By Yojimbo on 5/14/2010 11:15:39 PM , Rating: 2
...when consumers don't buy any games to begin with. Industry analysts estimate that 20 quadrillion dollars in revenue are lost each second due to non-purchasing of console games. Currently, a bill has been proposed in the House which would ban the non-purchasing of games, though it is expected to face stiff opposition there. A similar bill has already made it through the Senate subcomittee on intellectual property and is awaiting approval by the Senate as a whole.

ban reselling of cars
By Murloc on 5/15/2010 4:28:46 AM , Rating: 2
people should resell used cars!!11
automakers lose money this way

same for your table, you kill the wood industry if you sell it because you need a bigger one.

Whats next
By raphd on 5/15/2010 11:54:54 AM , Rating: 2
Can't wait for them to ban movies on TV (even though they get revenue from it, just not enough.)

By HoosierEngineer5 on 5/15/2010 7:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
For some reason, Steam will not work on my comuter. The Bozos at Steam have no clue (after lots of email back in forth, and lots of 'let's try this'). I bought Half-Life 2 when it first came out (I think it was $50 or $60). I returned it because of the need to be hooked up to the internet to play. Last year I bought it for $10, thinking that even if I only could play it through once, that was about right. Unfortunately, there is not off-line option with this game. I have a $10 coaster. I am glad I dont have hundereds of dollars invested with them.
I can't affort to have the phone line tied up playing a game, and I refuse to add a second line so I can play with my son. The game vendors are shooting themselves in the foot, and can't figure out why revenue is down. Duh.

By xstylus on 5/15/2010 7:56:04 PM , Rating: 2
Banning the sale of used games to help the game industry is like banning the sale of used cars to help the auto industry.

Price Point
By Nick5324 on 5/16/2010 10:12:27 AM , Rating: 2
I have a Xbox360. I like it fine, but the idea of paying $60 for a game just seems over the top for me. While I could afford to pay this for games, I choose not to, I just don't see games worth that price. The most I've paid for a X360 game is $15. Admittedly, this means not having the newest games, but again, they just aren't worth $60 to me.

The only "current" game I have is NCAA 10 which I won in a Wendy's promotion. In this game, they limit or remove features and then try to sell them to you for MS points. Disgusting, I would have been really put off had I paid for the game.

Some customers want the latest games and are willing to drop $60. Other customers, like me, are not, and we either buy used games or wait for game to drop in price. This idea of forcing a price point would only make customers like me look elsewhere for entertainment, not convert to paying the higher price.

How to lie with statistics
By Landiepete on 5/17/2010 6:41:58 AM , Rating: 2
All these 'missed revenue' numbers everyone including gamesmakers, the RIAA, the software companies and anyone else always comes up with seems to rely on the premise that everyone using alleged 'illegal' or second hand software would buy 'original' if the alternatives were not available.
Or, in this case, the software company tries to imply that their sales would increase threefold.

I would suggest that revenue would actually drop if they got their way. I contend that, since companies actually charge for the priviledge of using the game online, they stand to loose a lot more if second hand games were not available.

I also contend, for example, that if 'illegal' music would not exist (this also means you ripping the CD's you own to mp3's and putting them on your music device), the point of owning something like a 160GB iPod would become very moot, and all the manufacturers would be severely hit.

This, of course, does not make for spectacular slogans in the eyes of the respective industries.

Quit Crying
By DarthKaos on 5/18/2010 1:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
The game has already been sold once. Money was made from that first sale.

I buy games new and used. I buy the game new if I know I will play it all year long (Madden) or if the game is something I wanted for a while and got great reviews. However I love games and therefore want more than I have money to buy. Therefore I buy other games used. If I could not get the game used I would wait for it to get cheap, rent it, or not buy it at all.

The used video game market is what has sustained the growth of the game industry. There are many game series that I would not care about if I had not purchased the first in the series used. Many times these purchases have led me to buy the sequel new because I enjoyed the first game so much.

By Mojo the Monkey on 5/19/2010 3:30:38 PM , Rating: 2
THIS from the company that won the "Golden Clio Award for Burger King games" ?!

Love that place
By BillyBatson on 5/19/2010 11:52:57 PM , Rating: 2
The picture is of a place 10 mins from my house, I've been buying and selling there since I was a kid! I sold my first nintendo there and used the money to buy a super nintendo and used games. I haven't purchased everything there but sometimes I go in for used controllers or games for older systems.

By Thelookingglass on 5/20/2010 1:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
Its funny pirates think they are smart for knowing how to download intellectual properties illegaly. You are not smart. Nor are you cool or tech savvy. Piracy is easy.

Now that thats out of the way...

I wonder if when piracy is banned by law and enforced by ISPs, and used game sales are banned by distribution models and laws...if maybe we won't have to pay $60 for a 20 hour game?

That is one huge advantage of programs like steam. Far less production costs, almost guaranteed return for every product...Hopefully they can pass something poisitive back to the customers.

Fully digital distribution is certainly the future. Only question is when.

Go figure
By YashBudini on 5/22/2010 7:56:24 PM , Rating: 2
Americans that sat still and accepted the PATRIOT Act but get all bent out of shape about this b/s firm.

I see dumb people.

Greed knows no limits.
By derricker on 5/22/2010 10:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
But of course, the have to blame it on everything but the kind of crap they make, how the heck can they say that "the developer/producers' cut would be cut in four" when they produce a "series of SpongeBob SquarePants titles"???

Greed knows no limits and this: "the industry has to take drastic action to prevent customers from "taking advantage" of gamemakers.", pretty much wraps up everthing that has been going on with "the industry" lately.

They want to move to a valve like distribution model?? Suits me fine, I "buy" games on valve only when they are 66+% off.

By gochichi on 6/4/2010 1:53:55 AM , Rating: 2
... before it's too late!

New home sales affect the gross domestic product far more than used home sales. To contractors... only new home sales are relevant. But let's say you make a disposable house that only last 5 years... good luck selling it for $300,000.00.

The value of something used, affects the value of what it is new. Apple truly understands this like no other... is a MacBook Pro worth $2000.00? Well, as a past Mac owner, I can tell you that they hold their value SO WELL that I basically pay next to no money (I recently made $450.00 by eBaying my MacBook Pro over what I purchased it new!) In any case, you don't see Apple getting all upset that used Mac sales are ruining their business. No... instead they continue to do things that ensure that resale value remains absurdly high.

This is all 100% on topic. When you trade 5 games, for which Gamestop gives you $40.00 for, and use that $40.00 to get close to the one new game you wanted... there you go... more NEW games sold. Similarly, when you buy something (like a house, a car, an iPod, a computer, a game, a tool) some people always think about the residual value.

Example: I want to build a fence, I can rent a tool... or I can buy a new tool and sell it when I'm done. (Have done this, it's great... a win-win-win for EVERYBODY). I would not have bought the tool AT ALL if not for being able to sell it used.

Prices of games are WAY HIGH, always have been... but you've always been able to trade them, to lend them, to borrow them and in that context the price seemed more reasonable. The thing about STEAM on the PC that this jerk is failing to acknowledge is that I trade my box of disks for STEAM because I can run one copy of the game on many computers... MANY ... 3 at the very least if not more. I can lend games out to people I trust by simply giving them my account. It's in no way an overly restrictive thing. If you add making steam accounts with only one game into the mix... the possibilities are endless... but either way, when you offer more VALUE you can command the same HIGH PRICE.

It's all about value, it really is. You start taking value away here and there and it's going to completely erode your sales. If I'm used to buying games for $60.00 and selling them for $35.00 when I'm done... I'm used to paying $25.00/game. If the game requires a $10.00 download, the used game buyer will only be willing to pay $25.00 for it used... and as such the game went up in price to the new game buyer.

It's nuanced but obvious, and mathematically it makes no sense to attack one thing without seeing the whole impact.

Who ever bought a scooter or a motorcycle without thinking of the residual value? If Honda or Vespa made them disposable all of a sudden... they wouldn't sell more new scooters... they'd go out of business.

Did this guy ever realize that the trade/borrow/buy-used mentality is exactly what keeps piracy at bay?

By wvh on 5/14/2010 7:41:02 PM , Rating: 1
Once again we notice that content providers – record studios, movie studios, game studios – have gotten a wee bit too arrogant these days. If you do art for the sake of art (and make some money on the side), fine. If you are a 'good' company, accept that the customer is king and really go for customer satisfaction, fine. But if you want to turn all gestapo and dictator and stuff, you're soon going to find out that unlike food and housing, your potential customers don't really *need* your product as such and you can actually show up empty-handed at the next fat-cat shareholder meeting.

Who the fuck are you that you think you have a right to limit what people do with the music, movies and games they bought with their hard-earned cash? At least you should be grateful that people actually went out and bought your product in the first place!

Every time one of these industries lash out against their customers instead of siding with them, they just create more antipathy towards themselves and dig themselves a deeper grave.

Andrew Oliver
By wardww on 5/15/2010 3:06:25 PM , Rating: 1
Andrew Oliver and those of his ilk all need a severe ass fuck with a broom handle covered in barbed wire.
What rude sons of bitches. I'd like to see how their argument holds up in court. Find another way to increase your revenue stream you greedy greedy little shits.

food for thought
By StuckMojo on 5/17/2010 7:03:09 PM , Rating: 1
I don't think there should be a ban, however, I just bought COD:MW2 for ps3 used at gamestop as a present for a friend, it was $55. I saved all of $5 and the publishers/creators got $0 of that. I don't think that's right either. Next time, when it's only a $5 difference, I think I'll spring for a new game. Fuck gamestop and their $5 discount.

I'd say rather than banning used games, large retailers ought to have to share some of that profit with the game creators.

"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki