PDA

View Full Version : Publishers plan crackdown on Pre-Owned sales. (Games Radar)


UrbanFuturistic
12-15-2005, 06:00 PM
Pre-owned trading in peril
Publishers plan £100m crackdown on second-hand games sales (http://www.gamesradar.com/features/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=38359&subsectionid=1634)

A number of major software publishers are unhappy that gamers are buying cheaper, pre-owned titles rather than their own brand new products, and are even considering taking legal action to prevent it.

With an estimated £100 million worth of second-hand software being sold on the high street and shops dedicating an increasing amount of shelf space to pre-owned games, the publishers are worried that these sales are affecting their own profits and so are discussing moves to prevent it.

Electronic Arts' UK MD Keith Ramsdale was first to comment publicly, criticising some retailers for the way that they have pushed their pre-owned products, and claiming that the shelf space given to second-hand sales is "making brand new products look worthless".

Because EA obviously doesn't make enough money as it is. Of course, it may be suggested by some (OK, me) that what actually makes the brand new products look worthless is the quality of the brand new products and that rehashing NHL for the 8,000th time is not the way forward.

:wip:

regards, Paul

monovich
12-15-2005, 06:06 PM
they are so greedy. has it ever ocurred to this guy that a second hand game is just as good as a new one, and that's why people buy them?

KingMob
12-15-2005, 06:12 PM
iI buy almost any game I buy second hand, tho I do not play much anymore. if they apss this they will only be alienating the more casual or budget concious gamers.

I do not see how that is legal tho, could you imagine a car manufacturer doing this?

Not to mention just what a waste it is, so should we just throw away our old finished games?

enygma
12-15-2005, 06:15 PM
Damn. I don't want Pre-Owned games to be the next things to be hit. Personally, I love going pre-owned because I'm a penny pincher sometimes. Generally, if a game is coming out, and I'm willing to wait for the price to come down, I'll wait for the price of the pre-owned game to come down (EB Games), provided they have the game in stock. That's just being a smart consumer.

Personally, because I barely play games as much today as I did a year or so ago, I don't feel the need to have the best game today. I'll generally wait till it doesn't hurt my wallet. There are a few exceptions though (Wife wanted Animal Crossing: Wild World and I wanted Mario Kart DS). Cracking down on pre-owned games is just another way to try and get their greedy hands into your wallets even more. Bastards I say... the whole lot of 'em.

talos72
12-15-2005, 06:21 PM
Yet another way for game companies to alienate their own customer base. It is bad enough games costing an arm and a leg, now they have to dictate consumer's buying habits: YOU WILL BUY OUR GAMES AT THE PRICE WE TELL YOU TO BUY AND WHEN TO BUY!

Is it me or are game companies starting to sound like record companies: constant whining about how everyone is screwing them while they try to do whatever they can to screw the consumer first.

jud
12-15-2005, 06:26 PM
Then they should drop the price of their games, the bloody scroungers, anyway they are fighting a loosing battle, there is nothing illegal about selling second hand games just as there is nothing illegal about selling second hand cars, clothes, t.v's, stereos,........you get the point!:deal:

leigh
12-15-2005, 06:27 PM
Wow, that is BS. I buy quite a lot of secondhand games, especially for console. I totally agree that passing this law would alienate a massive part of the market.

Is it me or are game companies starting to sound like record companies: constant whining about how everyone is screwing them while they try to do whatever they can to screw the consumer first.

Totally agreed.

jcorpe
12-15-2005, 06:36 PM
The problem is it essentially boils down to who owns the software. There is already precedence in PC software for making a user agree to the EULA where by you're buying the right to use the software but you don't own it, or may not resell it in some cases. Personally, I think the publishers/developers would be better off letting used sales continue but royalties could be paid by the sellers (cost passed on to you and me). While this would mean increased cost for players, it still would be cheaper than buying new. If used sales are halted, I believe people will be less willing to take a chance on new games and the retailers will see sales drop. So if retailers see used sales go bye bye and new game sales drop because no one wants to buy a 7.5 out of 10 reviewed game new, there's going to be trouble.

Lyr
12-15-2005, 06:40 PM
This is BS. The games industry is NOT hurting it's thriving!. Piss on the customers and then business will really get rough.

ivanisavich
12-15-2005, 06:53 PM
So...uhh....they're going to ban garage sales?

CupOWonton
12-15-2005, 06:58 PM
So...uhh....they're going to ban garage sales?
Dangit, you beat me to the punchline :scream:

Gunnah
12-15-2005, 07:28 PM
to play devils advocate:

think of it this way....

company A spents millions developing a game.
company A sells said game for, say, 50 bucks.
EBgames sells company A's game, and takes a 10% fee (or whatever they get for sales)
(5 bucks or so, for this example)

Joe Dude buys the game, finishes it, then trades/sells his game to EBgames.

EBGames turns around and sells said game for 5 bucks cheaper than the NEW game (45 bucks, and that's about what they resell around here for for newer used games) and keeps *ALL* the profit from that (minus whatever they paid to buy the game back, or traded for). Now, this in itself isnt bad, BUT:

they usually push the *used* ones instead of the new ones when you go in (again, at least, every time I go to buy a new game, they *always* suggest I buy the used one for cheaper)

so, in effect, they're not really selling any more copies of the publishers game anymore (where they only make a 10% profit), AND theyre making a *killing* reselling the games.
The game publisher in this case, only sells maybe a million copies of the game, instead of say, 5 million. that's a HUGE reason not to be happy about the current situation.

So, in the end, just what really is the incentive for these companies to continue blowing huge chunks of cash, for other compnies to make all the profit?

When you think about it, Valve, for example, made a brilliant move with steam (even if execution was a little off) You buy the game online, and there's no reselling... notice ea is starting to do that with bf2?


Dont get me wrong, I'm all for cheaper games, but it totally makes sense why the companies are a little angry with it. I also dont think it has anything to do with greed. I mean.. put yourself in the same position..


and I , btw, dont work for a game company, so I'm not jaded in the least ;)

G

Craiger
12-15-2005, 07:44 PM
to play devils advocate:

think of it this way....

company A spents millions developing a game.
company A sells said game for, say, 50 bucks.
EBgames sells company A's game, and takes a 10% fee (or whatever they get for sales)
(5 bucks or so, for this example)

Joe Dude buys the game, finishes it, then trades/sells his game to EBgames.

EBGames turns around and sells said game for 5 bucks cheaper than the NEW game (45 bucks, and that's about what they resell around here for for newer used games) and keeps *ALL* the profit from that (minus whatever they paid to buy the game back, or traded for). Now, this in itself isnt bad, BUT:

they usually push the *used* ones instead of the new ones when you go in (again, at least, every time I go to buy a new game, they *always* suggest I buy the used one for cheaper)

so, in effect, they're not really selling any more copies of the publishers game anymore (where they only make a 10% profit), AND theyre making a *killing* reselling the games.
The game publisher in this case, only sells maybe a million copies of the game, instead of say, 5 million. that's a HUGE reason not to be happy about the current situation.

So, in the end, just what really is the incentive for these companies to continue blowing huge chunks of cash, for other compnies to make all the profit?

When you think about it, Valve, for example, made a brilliant move with steam (even if execution was a little off) You buy the game online, and there's no reselling... notice ea is starting to do that with bf2?


Dont get me wrong, I'm all for cheaper games, but it totally makes sense why the companies are a little angry with it. I also dont think it has anything to do with greed. I mean.. put yourself in the same position..


and I , btw, dont work for a game company, so I'm not jaded in the least ;)

G

I'm sorry, but when I BUY something, then that means I own it. I don't own the rights to the purchase, but that doesn't mean that the company can have any say in what I do with it. If I want to burn it, so be it. If i want to mash it into tiny bits, its my decision. If i want to give it away for free, deal with it. If i want to sell it to an organization that works in second hand sales,,, to bad.

Guess that puts the Salvation Army or any other thrift stiore out of business...


werd up.

UrbanFuturistic
12-15-2005, 07:46 PM
Well, another angle to look at it from is:

If games companies want to stop people selling their games second hand they could make better games that last longer and have better replay value so people don't want to sell their games second hand.

But I guess that would require effort, and EA don't exactly have a reputation for doing anything but recycling the same old formulas about 99% of the time. With the rare exclusion of Black and White 2, which isn't really an EA game, I can't think of a single game I'd buy from them.

Of course, it's not at all worrying that Sony have a patent on a system that could lock any game to a specific console once played. Not worrying at all.

regards, Paul

KingMob
12-15-2005, 07:53 PM
or they could just drop the prices a bit, Id buy a lot more games if the prices were closer to 30 then 60.

THo I realize that will never happen... in fact the opposite will happen.

Eyemaze
12-15-2005, 07:56 PM
There is already precedence in PC software for making a user agree to the EULA where by you're buying the right to use the software but you don't own it, or may not resell it in some cases.
Those can be easily challenged since in most cases you don't even see the EULA until you have broken the shrinkwrap on the packaging, post purchase.

thedaemon
12-15-2005, 07:58 PM
Welcome to the joys of capitalism. They are out to make a buck, just like any large corporation. And to comment about buying software. When you buy software, you don't have to adhere to any eula, its when you use it. Even then, the eula does not make up laws and cannot force you to break any laws. Eula's are just a way to scare you most of the time, that and to try to cover the crazy capitalist's asses.

CupOWonton
12-15-2005, 08:00 PM
Of course, it's not at all worrying that Sony have a patent on a system that could lock any game to a specific console once played. Not worrying at all.

Woah, what? I missed that part. Is this implementation for the PS3? Youve gotta be kidding me right? That would COMPLETLY NULLIFY the idea that you can return un-enjoyable goods after purchase. Doesnt that violate a consumers rights in most major countrys?

enygma
12-15-2005, 08:03 PM
so, in effect, they're not really selling any more copies of the publishers game anymore (where they only make a 10% profit), AND theyre making a *killing* reselling the games.
The game publisher in this case, only sells maybe a million copies of the game, instead of say, 5 million. that's a HUGE reason not to be happy about the current situation.

So, in the end, just what really is the incentive for these companies to continue blowing huge chunks of cash, for other compnies to make all the profit?
I guess that is the publishers problem. Not mine. If I sell the game, I don't have it any more. If I sell my couch, I don't have it any more. TV... Computer... kitchen utensils... doesn't matter. If I sell it, I no longer have it and someone else owns it. The game publishers just feel like putting up a big stink about it simply because the RIAA and MPAA are doing it. I just hope that couch manufacturers won't follow suit because I used their sofa to enjoy the game and am now licensed to own it (and the license is non-transferrable).

Imagine how much money car manufacturers could rake in if no-one bought used cars any more? Thank god we are allowed to buy used because sometimes, I would just rather own a car for $5000 instead of $25000. Imagine the money sony lost because of all the TVs that people sold to others for cheap because they didn't want it any more. Maybe because they wanted a newer better TV. Hey, maybe some of those people traded their old games they wanted for a newer and better game. There's an idea. Wait, then the publisher would have to complain because the people you sold the game to didn't buy it directly from the publisher.

Game Publisher: "Lets piss all over the consumers right to buy and sell used games because it is an electronic medium and all the other associations are doing it!"
RIAA: "Hey, works for us, now I can insure a new ferrari every year."
MPAA: "Yah, We're getting there. Hopefully soon I'll be able to own Trinidad and make them dance for us."
Game Publisher: "MMMM... dancing Trinidadians. Alright, time to kick up a fuss. Oh butler!"
Butler: "Yes master game publisher sir."
Game Publisher: "Alert the media, here is our plan..."

Gunnah
12-15-2005, 08:08 PM
There's quite a few EULA's that disagree with that ;) Thats why the first sale clause is a hot item.

and you cant really compare salvation army to ebgames (and others) they're non-profit.


and, really, if you think about it, if the trend kept up, eventually game companies will cease to make a profit, then stop producing games, cause why waste the cash if it makes none in return.

I have a feeling you'd think differently if YOU had spent 2 years coding a game, and sold say 10k copies at 10 bucks a pop, and someone resold 50k copies at 7 a pop :) whats the incentive to keep making games?


again, playing devils advocate ;)


G



I'm sorry, but when I BUY something, then that means I own it. I don't own the rights to the purchase, but that doesn't mean that the company can have any say in what I do with it. If I want to burn it, so be it. If i want to mash it into tiny bits, its my decision. If i want to give it away for free, deal with it. If i want to sell it to an organization that works in second hand sales,,, to bad.

Guess that puts the Salvation Army or any other thrift stiore out of business...


werd up.

Geta-Ve
12-15-2005, 08:10 PM
or they could just drop the prices a bit, Id buy a lot more games if the prices were closer to 30 then 60.

THo I realize that will never happen... in fact the opposite will happen.

If only.. but just think, it happened with music cds ;)

Woah, what? I missed that part. Is this implementation for the PS3? Youve gotta be kidding me right? That would COMPLETLY NULLIFY the idea that you can return un-enjoyable goods after purchase. Doesnt that violate a consumers rights in most major countrys?

Not to worry, that's why we have basement hackers and mod chips :)

Stormy151
12-15-2005, 08:15 PM
Not gonna happen. The recording industry tried to stop the sales of "pre-owned" CD's and tapes a few years ago. They failed.

Gunnah
12-15-2005, 08:15 PM
Well, yes, but remember something as well: most of the other stuff you mentioned are *not* entertainment :) they're mostly big ticket items, completely different league of their own.

I was just pointing out the other side of the story :) nothing more. It makes sense both ways, you can't argue that.


G

I guess that is the publishers problem. Not mine. If I sell the game, I don't have it any more. If I sell my couch, I don't have it any more. TV... Computer... kitchen utensils... doesn't matter. If I sell it, I no longer have it and someone else owns it. The game publishers just feel like putting up a big stink about it simply because the RIAA and MPAA are doing it. I just hope that couch manufacturers won't follow suit because I used their sofa to enjoy the game and am now licensed to own it (and the license is non-transferrable).

Imagine how much money car manufacturers could rake in if no-one bought used cars any more? Thank god we are allowed to buy used because sometimes, I would just rather own a car for $5000 instead of $25000. Imagine the money sony lost because of all the TVs that people sold to others for cheap because they didn't want it any more. Maybe because they wanted a newer better TV. Hey, maybe some of those people traded their old games they wanted for a newer and better game. There's an idea. Wait, then the publisher would have to complain because the people you sold the game to didn't buy it directly from the publisher.

Game Publisher: "Lets piss all over the consumers right to buy and sell used games because it is an electronic medium and all the other associations are doing it!"
RIAA: "Hey, works for us, now I can insure a new ferrari every year."
MPAA: "Yah, We're getting there. Hopefully soon I'll be able to own Trinidad and make them dance for us."
Game Publisher: "MMMM... dancing Trinidadians. Alright, time to kick up a fuss. Oh butler!"
Butler: "Yes master game publisher sir."
Game Publisher: "Alert the media, here is our plan..."

enygma
12-15-2005, 08:18 PM
Well, yes, but remember something as well: most of the other stuff you mentioned are *not* entertainment :) they're mostly big ticket items, completely different league of their own.
Ok, then replace couches and stuff with things like TV games, board games, action figures, toys, RC vehicles... (add more forms of entertainment as you see fit).

UrbanFuturistic
12-15-2005, 08:21 PM
Woah, what? I missed that part. Is this implementation for the PS3? Youve gotta be kidding me right? That would COMPLETLY NULLIFY the idea that you can return un-enjoyable goods after purchase. Doesnt that violate a consumers rights in most major countrys?There's no information on whether this would be implemented in the PS3, all that is known at the moment is that a patent has been registered that makes this possible, whether Sony would actually implement this is another matter altogether.I have a feeling you'd think differently if YOU had spent 2 years coding a game, and sold say 10k copies at 10 bucks a pop, and someone resold 50k copies at 7 a pop :) whats the incentive to keep making games?You're right, I'd feel terrible that out of 60,000 people, 50,000 thought it sucked. I'd probably go back to selling shoes or something.

regards, Paul

M.E.L.
12-15-2005, 08:55 PM
I have a feeling you'd think differently if YOU had spent 2 years coding a game, and sold say 10k copies at 10 bucks a pop, and someone resold 50k copies at 7 a pop :) whats the incentive to keep making games?
G

Personally, I wouldn't feel any less of a person if that happened. Unless you're working on some MMO game that is feeding you Royalties such as WoW or something, why would anyone care what the game grosses? I spent 6 months at EA on the NBA Live 06 and Fifa RTWC 06 stuff, frankly I couldn't care if a kid went and bought the game for the $69.99, traded it in for 50 bux and EB sold it for $45... Either way you slice it, EA just made more than the game is actually worth :)

Maybe EA could take a page from other developers and make some worthy titles that people might actually keep on their game rack (not saying all EA titles suck as I quite enjoy the Defjam Fight For NY & Burnout series)... But seriously, in my eyes if you're gonna piss and moan about your games being pawned off and resold for less, maybe you should look a little deeper at the bigger picture and investigate making a worthwhile game.

Make Good Games. Sell Lots of Games. Players Keep Games.

-s

CupOWonton
12-15-2005, 09:08 PM
Here's a simpler breakdown for people who dont get how right now what the company makes off their product is completly fair.

Company A makes a game
Distributer A Sells the game takes their profit, and makes proffit for Company A.

So far.

Company A has made its profit.
Distributer A has also made some profit.

Next.

Consumer Dislikes game after playing it.
Consumer Trades game in at Distributor E.. or B.
Distributor E/B gives less money to the Consumer for what they paid, since it's used.
Distributor E/B then sells the game back for a little more than the trade in cost, thus getting them some profit.

So far.
Company A has its main sales Profit
Distributor A, and Distrubutor E/B both have made -some- profit
Consumer ends up losing money all around. But can at least use his trade in towards getting another game.

The trade in and re-sale trend continues till Distributor E/B either stops allowing the trade in, people dont see it worth being traded in, or someone decides they want to keep it forever and ever.

Ultimately the Trade-in Distributor E/B may make more proffit off of a returned game in some cases. But then, thats their buisness, they offer a place where people can buy new or used games, but still make proffit to sustain themselves. And in many cases, these are games you cant find in a store because they may be outdated. Also, the original company is no longer liable for faulty games or hardware sold USED. Thus cutting them of any extra costs for repair or reimbursement.

In the end:
The Company that produced the game still gets their money.

GarethCS
12-15-2005, 09:11 PM
As a gamer who buys mainly used games, I do this simple because I cannot afford the new ones. I buy certain games when they come out only because they are that good and since they are good I keep them. I've never sold a game I liked. If developers made better games people might buy them when they initially come out and would most likely keep them.
If I could no longer buy used games I would simply be waiting for the price to come down on the original. I might have to wait a while, but at least I could afford it.

On a side note. How did Trinidad get mentioned in here?! I'm from there! I guess I better start dancing!

Frank Lake
12-15-2005, 09:15 PM
They can't even begin to think about trying to pull this. Their is just FAR too much presdent(spl) to go against it. It also doesn't help that they have given implied(& flat-out written/verbal) consent on resales.

It'll float about as much as POO does.

ntmonkey
12-15-2005, 09:28 PM
Think about it if they applied this idea to prostitution. :D

peace,

Lu

Lyr
12-15-2005, 09:33 PM
and, really, if you think about it, if the trend kept up, eventually game companies will cease to make a profit, then stop producing games, cause why waste the cash if it makes none in return.

I have a feeling you'd think differently if YOU had spent 2 years coding a game, and sold say 10k copies at 10 bucks a pop, and someone resold 50k copies at 7 a pop :) whats the incentive to keep making games?


again, playing devils advocate ;)


G

I have to disagree with you. We are talking about RE-SELL. Meaning it was sold once at the NEW game price. If you sell only 10k, there will only be a potential 10k copies on the used market. If it's a good game it may be impossible to find the game used and it will have to be bought new to be enjoyed. The used game market is a much more supply limited market than the new games market.

pluMmet
12-15-2005, 09:39 PM
Didn't Bill Gate$ say that not too long from now No One will buy software. They want us to download it when we need it and when we turn off the computer it goes away. The push for broadband everywhere should start in a couple of years and computers that store programs will be illegal to build/sell. They will controll it with Trusted Computing (http://www.againsttcpa.com/tcpa-faq-en.html)

Quote from the Trusted Computing site:
"TC will also make it easier for people to rent software rather than buy it; and if you stop paying the rent, then not only does the software stop working but so may the files it created."

Craiger
12-15-2005, 09:40 PM
There's quite a few EULA's that disagree with that ;) Thats why the first sale clause is a hot item.

and you cant really compare salvation army to ebgames (and others) they're non-profit.


and, really, if you think about it, if the trend kept up, eventually game companies will cease to make a profit, then stop producing games, cause why waste the cash if it makes none in return.

I have a feeling you'd think differently if YOU had spent 2 years coding a game, and sold say 10k copies at 10 bucks a pop, and someone resold 50k copies at 7 a pop :) whats the incentive to keep making games?


again, playing devils advocate ;)


G

Alright, ( Since I picked a couple of stores off the top of my head) how bout a used car lot, used cd store, used computer store, used sports equiptment store, used electronics store, etc.

If the trend keeps up, the game industry would still exist, and would keep pumping out the games. This may reduce the number of companies making games,,, but after all, Its business.

I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't care one way or the other what happens to a game after I've finished working on it. Working on a game is a job. Once my day is done,,, work is done.


werd up.

jcorpe
12-15-2005, 10:27 PM
Maybe its time for the Best Buys and Gamestops of the world to buy out all the publishers and developers. That way, they can make a so so game, sell it and make a profit, it would be traded in because it was so so and finally resell it over and over again. It's win win for everyone right? Gamer 1: "Hey have you played Best Buy's Resident Evil 6 yet?", Gamer 2 "Nah, I'm finishing up Gamestop's God of War 3."

No used games! Are they fricken crazy?

talos72
12-15-2005, 11:06 PM
For a while Microsoft has been talking about renting Windows licenses to consumers, ie. you no longer really own that copy (or instance) of the software. Now, some may say when you buy a software license you are merely renting it already...not quiet. Currently, you do not actually own the software code when you buy a piece of software but when you buy a license you own an instance of the software code and are allowed to use it. You pay a one time license fee and if you don't pay a cent again, you can continue to use that instance of the software (no upgrades).

What Bill Gates wants to do is to ensure people will pay on regular basis and ensure you continue to pay for the software by "renting" you the copy of the software. That is, even if you pay an initial fee for a license and decide to never upgrade you only have a limited period to use your instance of the software. So, with MS's potential model the consumer is locked into making regular payments if they even want to use the software-- nevermind upgrades. These "rental" fees would ensure a regular flow of cash into MS bank accounts. You as the consumer of the software are obliged to make regular payments: no more "I'll stick to my current version till later". When your "rental" period is up, you either pay more or you are no longer able to use your instance of the software.

I assume game companies too would like to create a system that ensures regular cash flow from users (many online games which require monthly fees already do). So this whole notion about "consumers not really owning the software" may be true in that the company owns the actual code. But to what extent does the company have to right to dictate the methode of consumption to their customers? That's where "fair use" comes in. With digital media, things have simply become less obvious and more confusing.

If you are to follow Game companies' logic, then no one should be allowed to re-sell books or movies unless the original authors get a cut of every sale. Or how about re-selling CDs or albums? That's where the logic of game compnies becomes questionable.

Flog
12-15-2005, 11:07 PM
have a feeling you'd think differently if YOU had spent 2 years coding a game, and sold say 10k copies at 10 bucks a pop, and someone resold 50k copies at 7 a pop :) whats the incentive to keep making games?




ummm, you'd have to sell 50k to have someone turn around and sell 50K of the same game. How can there be 50 k out there if only 10k were sold? Just a thought.

why should new rules apply to games and software?

You can buy almost anything used, cars, clothes, etc.

Just because it is electric media does not mean it should have differant rules. I bought the game and I can resell the game.

For that matter I could use that concept in the opposite direction. It is electronic media so I guess it is okay to download it for free, it's electronic so not really stealing. It's not the same as stealing a car or other physical device from someone.

Yeah I'm sure it bothers them on 2nd hand sells but they are a product liek everyone else, who should be sellable 2nd hand.

Lyr
12-15-2005, 11:17 PM
ummm, you'd have to sell 50k to have someone turn around and sell 50K of the same game. How can there be 50 k out there if only 10k were sold? Just a thought.



In theory each game could be resold five times. I would love to see a disc based medium survive that many owners.

UrbanFuturistic
12-15-2005, 11:31 PM
ummm, you'd have to sell 50k to have someone turn around and sell 50K of the same game. How can there be 50 k out there if only 10k were sold? Just a thought.If each copy was taken back and resold 5 times, or half the copies were taken back and resold 10 times.

regards, Paul

Andyman
12-15-2005, 11:57 PM
I don't doubt that games have been bought and sold used for the past twenty years. Why is this suddently becoming an issue?

The game publishing suits just don't know what it's like to not have $50 to spend on games every other day. Good business is finding problems and offering solutions that benefit you financially. It is not creating a problem and then offering a solution that will benefit you. You can only shoot yourself in the foot so much before you bleed. If they want to follow in the steps of the RIAA and Co., then fine... then everyone will hate them too.

urgaffel
12-16-2005, 12:05 AM
One thing that I really like about second hand gaming stores is that you can find old gems that aren't avaliable anymore. I recently bought Tales of Symphonia for the GC for half of what it cost when it came out and I doubt I'd be able to find it anywhere in Stockholm new now.

thomaspecht
12-16-2005, 12:24 AM
talos72: that's all fine and dandy but it won't work in the real world, it will only make way for new independent development efforts, that do not follow this business strategy. looking forward to the day when the big corps have successfully locked themselves in all their licensing, online-registration, DRM and whatever cr*p, desperatly trying to pull out and be "nice" again. seen from that perspective, it might be a good thing; bring it on, gates!

if sony really manages to bind game copies to the console/user, then good night, PS3 :) there's a reason i chose to purchase a PS2 over the black/green heater from redmond - lot's of games, big 2nd-hand market, affordable prices yet acceptable resale-value.

seeing how games become shorter and shorter, often offering no replay value and suffering from incredibly fast "aging", there's no way i'd accept even higher prices than what's already established for console titles. video games are currently not a form of entertainment i'd be willing to pay full price 50 - 60 euro for. too limited, too short, to focused on delivering graphics over gameplay. i can get how many books for the price of a game...? no framedrops - they don't crash, too. and the handling doesn't suck either. beat that...

Grim Beefer
12-16-2005, 12:32 AM
Back in college I used to work at EB, and I don't doubt that a lot of games are resold five to ten times easy. As beforementioned, the problem seems to be that the existing model actually gives the consumer a break, and that just can't be tolerated.

I believe that the entertainment and software industry have a dream. A dream where the restrictive laws of possesion do not apply to them, because they do not sell property. A dream world where their products can be reproduced infinately at no cost to them, but that every consumer will pay dearly for an individual license. A world where the most stringent law enforcement policies are available to persecute those that do not want to live in this dream. The goal of capatilism is to exploit people just beneath their breaking point, kind of like holding a pack of ferocious dogs in someone's face - but barely keeping them restrained enough so that you don't get totally mangled. Everytime you inch back to get some breathing room, you can bet that the man with the dogs is going to let them have just a little more slack. Everything that can possibly be done to get your money will be attempted regardless of wheter it hurts you or not, as long as they can get away with it. No souls.

JeroenDStout
12-16-2005, 12:35 AM
Ye gods, why is it that the moment that something, be it a country, indistry, company or person, gets too much money or power just has to turns decadent and just has to get all childish?

"Boohoo, people are paying us nothing whilst we make Fifa 2005b and patch it up a month after PC release!"

Grow up, silly mulitinationals, countries and people, just be fair here. And EA is just an example, Ubisoft is flying around with every-month new sequels to games as well and is turning childish now too. Oh, and Microsoft has the same policy. Don't screw us, they cry, and then make every efford to screw every other product that draws from their money into the ground. And Amer-... ok, ok, won't go there.

Seriously :) people with money are like babies with toys.
Only I don't get to 'accidently loose' the toys when they annoy me.

Tlock
12-16-2005, 12:45 AM
There is no other word for this other than stupid. I usually get introduced to lines of games by purchasing prevousily played games. I will buy an old game and then if i enjoy it i will wait for the next installment of the game. I will just end up buying less and being very very picky about what i do buy.

talos72
12-16-2005, 12:48 AM
GIJoe, I agree. My point was MS' model would not work as it is right now. This whole notion of "renting" of digital content is shaky. Unless, in the future most games become pretty much online-based where people do not go to stores to buy boxed versions of the games and instead everything is done digitally: no actual physical version of the game exchanges hands. I think that will be a very likely methode future games are consumed. Most digital content will remain that: digital, or virtual (unless on rare cases for the transportation of information where you can't go online).

In that case, I see game companies charging people every month (like your local cable or satelite service) to log onto various game sites and play or download the latest games. Again, this is how I see the future of gaming: not as many, if any, trips to stores or buying boxes of discs.

aaron111
12-16-2005, 12:49 AM
This is totally outrageous. So if you have an old game you don't want anymore instead of passing it on to the next guy at a nice price you should just throw it away. Are they also going to stop people from selling used games on ebay? EA and crew can go to hell.

JeroenDStout
12-16-2005, 12:52 AM
This is totally outrageous. So if you have an old game you don't want anymore instead of passing it on to the next guy at a nice price you should just throw it away. Are they also going to stop people from selling used games on ebay? EA and crew can go to hell.
Two words: Steam Powered. You can't sell HL². Not that I would want to, bound to play it again some day. But you can't.

noisewar
12-16-2005, 01:06 AM
You people do realize that when you sell back a CAR or a HOUSE you no longer own a usable version of it, right?

EBgames is OBVIOUSLY abusing the system, and taking advantage of high mark-ups, for which developers will suffer for in the end. Imagine I am selling your games, and half of them are returned. I tell you your games suck, don't make any more copies, then resell the copies we got back at 80% the original profit and share none of it with you. Customers love it because they run a crack and get some money back. Heck I'll resell them again.

In fact, I tend to start liking games that are just pure hype since I get them back and can turn them back out, keeping all the cash. In fact, I'll just stock my whole store with stuff I know will get sold back and resold. In fact just give me one copy and call be Blockbuster, except instead of a $3 rental how about a $30 rental.

Accountability can suck mine.

M.E.L.
12-16-2005, 01:18 AM
You people do realize that when you sell back a CAR or a HOUSE you no longer own a usable version of it, right?

EBgames is OBVIOUSLY abusing the system, and taking advantage of high mark-ups, for which developers will suffer for in the end. Imagine I am selling your games, and half of them are returned. I tell you your games suck, don't make any more copies, then resell the copies we got back at 80% the original profit and share none of it with you. Customers love it because they run a crack and get some money back. Heck I'll resell them again.

Eh, crack what? You can't resell PC Games or PC Software to places like EB... I fail to see how it is abusing the system as well, EB pays their share of the cost in getting the games and stocking them, which the game developer makes a pretty penny off of (average price of a game for a development company: about $17). EB sells the games, people don't like it, they return it and get something better... next kid walks in, looks at the new copy at $70, knows the game is shit and sees a copy for $50, score.

If anything, this is GOOD customer service in my eyes because if you think I'm going to fork out $70 + tax for a copy of GUN... think again.


In fact, I tend to start liking games that are just pure hype since I get them back and can turn them back out, keeping all the cash. In fact, I'll just stock my whole store with stuff I know will get sold back and resold. In fact just give me one copy and call be Blockbuster, except instead of a $3 rental how about a $30 rental.
Accountability can suck mine.

Won't make much cash considering that if you're not stocking the hard to get titles which are quality games you're probably not going to see much business first-hand.

Kind of a flawed argument you're proposing on the Blockbuster bit as well.. :shrug: Regardless what you stock you're still paying upfront for the games to stock them and thereby having shelves full of copies YOU paid for which probably aren't going to sell brand new off the shelf.

-s

-Vormav-
12-16-2005, 01:32 AM
It seems to me that entertainment industries need to be a little bit more careful with how they treat their consumers. Ending second-hand sales of games would hurt their consumers more than it would hurt companies like EB. I thought it was common knowledge that you shouldn't bite the hand that's feeding you.
But whatever. Somehow, I can't see much actually coming from this. They'll start a few lawsuits and make a little fuss, and then figure out that they can't do whatever they want. Hopefully.


That being said, I'm still not a fan of any resellers The amounts that they charge for used games has gone far beyond the point of ridiculousness. I don't think I'd lose any sleep if they were to be hit by a massive lawsuit.

switchblade327
12-16-2005, 01:58 AM
How dare the games company gets upset about a parasitic industry that is thriving off of reselling their products! Would you like it if someone copied your CG art and resold it for cheaper? This not only is someone profiting from your work but someone stealing your business with it! What EB/gamestop is doing is not just riding the wave of game sales; they are inflicting direct losses on the games industry, underselling them with their own product. You guys think that's totally ok? After the console royalty thing (publishers pay ~$10 per copy to sony, MS or Nintendo), the wholesale cost (another ~$10 less then the $50 the consumer pays. We're down to $30 for the publisher and developer and there isn'ta single line of code written yet!), development costs, marketing and licensing, the profits off of most games aren't actually that massive.

EB incurs none of those expenses when they resell a used game two days after it's release so they can wind up making as much if not more then the pub/dev on a product they have nothing to do with the creation of!

When you buy software, you are not paying $50 for a dvd that you now own. You're paying $.20 for the DVD and $49.79 for someone's software/IP. This is not like selling your used car. Your car is an item that depreciates on fair market value based on it's age, make, model and condition. Cars wear out. Paying less for a used car means you're also getting less; less reliability, less if no warranty, no tasty new car smell. It's a different product when you resell it and it's value is less as a result. While games also don't age gracefully, the time it takes to be outdated is significant versus the time it takes for the first consumer to make full use of it.

Music is a bad example because music is meant for repeat listening. Garage sales are a bad example because they operate on an entirely different scale as a national chain. Besides, game companies don't care about individuals selling games. No individuals are going to get sued like the RIAA is doing. Individuals/garage sales/whatever are small fries but EB/Gamestop's game reselling is BIG business and the publishers have every right to a cut.

Games are in essense, a disposable media. You can't return a pack of cigarettes after you've smoked them and you can't return a movie ticket after you've seen it. You're paying for the experience of playing that game.

Games are also *software* which is a whole different ballgame then a car or a couch. You can't legally sell windows xp or 3ds Max because you didn't buy books and a disk; you bought a license for the software, that you own forever (and both of those programs cost a helluva lot more then $50). Games are the only software that can be legally resold and yet just like every other application in existance, the price you pay for it is to cover the cost of development. So why should game software, if made the same way as other software, be the exception in how they can be resold?

You can't blame developers for 'not making a game good enough'. There's a ton of games that are awesome with next to no replayablity (Max Payne 2 was 8 hours tops, but 8 hours of AWESOME; THAT is what my $49.99 bought). Not every game genre lends itself to endless replayablity, nor should it.

Eb/Gamestop is doing killer, game rentals are skyrocking while new game sales in general are slumping (Sales down 44% from last year http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=7509). There are studio closures every week, every little guy is getting bought out or shut down by the big guys the only independants are rushing to consolidate or be sold so they can keep their doors open. The industry is not exactly thriving; it's pretty f'd up actually.

You realize the LESS money a big game corporation makes, the more sequels and rehashes you're going to see because they can still cut a profit at a low development cost. Only when a company is thriving are you going to see a publically held company have the chutzpah to actually do something *innovate* because they have capital they can risk at that point.

There are better solutions then flat out banning used games. Pubs could get a cut from a used sale and rentals had to wait a month or two after the sale date or Blockbuster/Gamefly could pay more for a multi-use license for rental copies. There are solutions that can still benefit the consumer, but the current model *is* hurting the industry more then you might think.

JeroenDStout
12-16-2005, 02:03 AM
The guy has a point :)

Lyr
12-16-2005, 02:11 AM
Eb/Gamestop is doing killer, game rentals are skyrocking while new game sales in general are slumping (Sales down 44% from last year http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=7509).


From the article you linked:


Overall console hardware sales were down a massive 44 percent from the same time last year

Console sales! not game sales!

From the same article:



The newly confirmed results are down a disappointing 18 percent compared to November 2004, with the launch of the Xbox 360 failing to compensate for the lack of major releases such as Halo 2 and Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas at the same time last year. Overall these new results make for a less serious three percent fall year-over-year.



So 18% lower for the month of November and only 3% for the year for software sales. Nowhere near the 44% number you imagined for software sales.

noisewar
12-16-2005, 02:11 AM
Eh, crack what? You can't resell PC Games or PC Software to places like EB... I fail to see how it is abusing the system as well, EB pays their share of the cost in getting the games and stocking them, which the game developer makes a pretty penny off of (average price of a game for a development company: about $17). EB sells the games, people don't like it, they return it and get something better... next kid walks in, looks at the new copy at $70, knows the game is shit and sees a copy for $50, score.


Actually, until recently you COULD buy used PC games at EB. Additionally, good third of XBox/PS2 owners I've met have a bucket of burnt ISOs for their modded CONSOLE systems.

EB paying their share for stocking a game is paid for on the first sale. They pay for the shelf space and the labor, as well as the risk that the game doesn't sell. On the RESELL, there isn't really a stocking or labor cost other than throwing them into a big bin. The part you're missing is that it's "score" for the kid, but nothing for the developers.

I am NOT saying EB shouldn't resell games, but reselling it at $50 and keeping all that as profit is, frankly, ridiculous. Either charge less, or kickback to the publisher/developer. People are paying for near retail price, instead of the cost of providing a used games service.




Won't make much cash considering that if you're not stocking the hard to get titles which are quality games you're probably not going to see much business first-hand.

Kind of a flawed argument you're proposing on the Blockbuster bit as well.. :shrug: Regardless what you stock you're still paying upfront for the games to stock them and thereby having shelves full of copies YOU paid for which probably aren't going to sell brand new off the shelf.

-s

Let's see....

Cost of AwesomeGameTM = -$30
Markup first time = $60
Profit first time = $30
Buyback = -$15
Resell = $50
Profit second time = $35

Profit from just one round of resells = $65
Profit for developer = $6-$9

And that's assuming the developer gets credit from his publisher for a title that was returned. Contracts can vary, and not hitting gross sales of X amount might mean you get less than even the standard 15%. It starts to sound just like the record companies' fleecing tricks.

Won't make much cash? Read you last paragraph. Your logic has skipped the step where you've already recouped the cost otherwise it wouldn't be "used." It does NOT cost the original retail of the game to throw them in a wire bin, please.

noisewar
12-16-2005, 02:14 AM
thank you switchblade, a more eloquent voice of reason you are. :bounce:

M.E.L.
12-16-2005, 02:20 AM
Let's see....

Cost of AwesomeGameTM = -$30
Markup first time = $60
Profit first time = $30
Buyback = -$15
Resell = $50
Profit second time = $35

Profit from just one round of resells = $65
Profit for developer = $6-$9

And that's assuming the developer gets credit from his publisher for a title that was returned. Contracts can vary, and not hitting gross sales of X amount might mean you get less than even the standard 15%. It starts to sound just like the record companies' fleecing tricks.

Won't make much cash? Read you last paragraph. Your logic has skipped the step where you've already recouped the cost otherwise it wouldn't be used.

I believe you missed my point in the simple fact that it costs a game developer roughly $17 to make that game (materials etc, not talking payouts for licensing, marketing etc as that is budgeted well beforehand), say your copy of GUN. Company retails that game at $70, that's a $53 profit PER copy sold.

Now you tell me who is screwing the other around in this situation :)

Again, why as an artist are people so worried about the "resale" or "profits" of their games? Like I said earlier here, unless you're making royalties of these titles who gives a shit?

Go look up companies like EA, Rockstar or SCEA's average income per annum... as far as I'm concerned, you shouldn't be bitching about a couple used games being sold if you're raking in BILLIONS of dollars a year. Seems petty if you ask me. But hey, the world is filled with lots of greedy people who just want more more more.

In regards to my last paragraph, where have you recouped the cost? If you're buying mediocre titles to begin with and say your bulk order of 100 copies arrives, you sell 40 of these, you still have 60 copies of absolutely useless product sitting on your shelf and at $70 a pop, that's quite a big wad of cash to swallow as a 'small business'. Unless you're clearing out your entire inventory of your mediocre games with each shipment, your system you have described is utterly flawed in that you are left with useless merchandise.


-s

GarethCS
12-16-2005, 02:23 AM
So based on some of these arguments, if i were to sell a painting I made and it then went ont to be resold numerous times because people wanted it, then it's my right to get some part of that profit? Even though I've already been paid what I considered fair? Sounds wrong to me.
One other point to make is that notice only bad games can really suffer from resales. Good games tend to sell well regardless are are harder to find used.

noisewar
12-16-2005, 02:54 AM
I believe you missed my point in the simple fact that it costs a game developer roughly $17 to make that game (materials etc, not talking payouts for licensing, marketing etc as that is budgeted well beforehand), say your copy of GUN. Company retails that game at $70, that's a $53 profit PER copy sold.

Now you tell me who is screwing the other around in this situation :)

First of all, I'd like to see where you get $17 a game. Secondly, I'd like to see where we can deduce that $17 is, as a percentage of total costs and risks, unfair to the retailer! You are telling me that EBgames's stake in adding a title to its in-store library of 300 titles is in jeopardy if their $11/hr uninsured laborers take less than $53 per game? This isn't produce, they have a much longer shelf-life, and ripen with a cardboard cut-out and some low wattage lights, my friend.

Do you work for EB? Are you seriously telling EB is being gypped by the frequently consolidated/bankrupt/vanished developers out there?


[QUOTE=M.E.L.]
Again, why as an artist are people so worried about the "resale" or "profits" of their games? Like I said earlier here, unless you're making royalties of these titles who gives a shit?

Um, can I get a show of hands on how many developers don't depend on either sales numbers or royalties to stay afloat?



Go look up companies like EA, Rockstar or SCEA's average income per annum... as far as I'm concerned, you shouldn't be bitching about a couple used games being sold if you're raking in BILLIONS of dollars a year. Seems petty if you ask me. But hey, the world is filled with lots of greedy people who just want more more more.

Ah, so here's the source of your bitterness. You are right, they make bank. But! In the following paragraph you state:


In regards to my last paragraph, where have you recouped the cost? If you're buying mediocre titles to begin with and say your bulk order of 100 copies arrives, you sell 40 of these, you still have 60 copies of absolutely useless product sitting on your shelf and at $70 a pop, that's quite a big wad of cash to swallow as a 'small business'. Unless you're clearing out your entire inventory of your mediocre games with each shipment, your system you have described is utterly flawed in that you are left with useless merchandise.

-s

So suddenly, EBgames is a "small business" and it's bullies like EA and SCEA who are raping us all. Funny, but I don't recall being ok with "buying mediocre titles to begin with," which happens to be a direct symptom of the relationship where EA gets to put out crap, and EB is happy to sell and resell it away. Where in this business model are we moving towards the encouragement of BETTER products? Where risk-taking developers and publishers are rewarded?

Secondly, EB does NOT buy 100 copies of a game and risk it all at $70 a pop (in fact they risk much less than that, forgetting markup?). They buy 10-20, see how fast they're sold, then decide whether or not to ask for more, which ultimately determines the fate of the creators. When those 10-20 sell like they were 20-40 with no overhead and no hassle, you can see what EB is going to do unless you are blind.

noisewar
12-16-2005, 02:59 AM
So based on some of these arguments, if i were to sell a painting I made and it then went ont to be resold numerous times because people wanted it, then it's my right to get some part of that profit? Even though I've already been paid what I considered fair? Sounds wrong to me.


If the experience that your paintings can give your buyer can expire after being admired, you'd have a case. A better analogy is if you wrote a mystery novel and sold that. The "interactivity" of it expires after reading it once or twice. Note the price of used mystery novels.

dogyears
12-16-2005, 03:47 AM
So suddenly, EBgames is a "small business" and it's bullies like EA and SCEA who are raping us all. Funny, but I don't recall being ok with "buying mediocre titles to begin with," which happens to be a direct symptom of the relationship where EA gets to put out crap, and EB is happy to sell and resell it away. Where in this business model are we moving towards the encouragement of BETTER products? Where risk-taking developers and publishers are rewarded?

Secondly, EB does NOT buy 100 copies of a game and risk it all at $70 a pop (in fact they risk much less than that, forgetting markup?). They buy 10-20, see how fast they're sold, then decide whether or not to ask for more, which ultimately determines the fate of the creators. When those 10-20 sell like they were 20-40 with no overhead and no hassle, you can see what EB is going to do unless you are blind.

Well said !

Frankly, however, I'm not cheering EA on, not because EA is greedy, or a bully, they have every right to resale royalties (games, like movies, should be able to bring in a large stream of income long after it's release date) - but because of their sheer bluntness in dealing with the situation. Simply making it "illegal" doesn't solve any problems at all, it is only a testiment to the heavy handed leadership of the cooperation.

More creative solutions can be brought onto the table, for instance, they could start their own retail outlets, and offer to buy back existing games at competitive prices based on demand and supply. Since this way most games would be resold to the developers themselves, all the lost gains from trade are captured and everybody's happier.

I'm certain many other solutions exists without resorting to expensive lawsuits which makes everybody unhappy (except the laywers).

M.E.L.
12-16-2005, 03:50 AM
Um, can I get a show of hands on how many developers don't depend on either sales numbers or royalties to stay afloat?

You're kidding on that point right? What was quoted was the word "artist" who is generally a person who does the job, makes the art for the sake of that game and their own content of doing a good job. If Artist X so happens to make royalties, then hey.. bonus! Nine times out of 10, the artist gets a credit, the benefit of having a shipped game and either sticks with the company or moves onto the next gig. Why an artist would ever even enravel themselves in the sales end of things is beyond me.


Ah, so here's the source of your bitterness. You are right, they make bank. But! In the following paragraph you state:


Bitterness? I'm throwing out a point from having worked with game developers and simply stating that if you have a company that is making profit CONSIDERABLY per each annum, why must you find it necessary to piss and moan over a $50 resold game? Seems like a bullshit argument to me that you think the developers are 'hurting' in this regard. When was the last time you saw a game exec CEO scroungin for a couple bucks to buy his Vente Latte over at Starbucks?

Welcome to the real world.



So suddenly, EBgames is a "small business" and it's bullies like EA and SCEA who are raping us all. Funny, but I don't recall being ok with "buying mediocre titles to begin with," which happens to be a direct symptom of the relationship where EA gets to put out crap, and EB is happy to sell and resell it away. Where in this business model are we moving towards the encouragement of BETTER products? Where risk-taking developers and publishers are rewarded?

Face it, there are thousands of crap products every year yet irregardless of how shitty they are be it a new car, a new video card, a new tv... stores will continue to sell them no matter what because there is always someone willing to buy these items. It's EA's decision to put out crap and if EB decides to play into this and purchase copies for the sake of making a couple bucks in their own pocket, well hey, welcome to being a smart business. You want to encourage better products, go tell Joe Blow CEO to stop looking at his bottom line or whether he's in the black with his company and tell him to start looking for better Art Direction or Writers. The quality of art these days seems to get lost somewhere between what the budget of a project is and what the profit is going to be. Complete and utter bullshit. Cutting out EB isn't going to bring quality games forth, nor is dicing sales on refurb games.



Secondly, EB does NOT buy 100 copies of a game and risk it all at $70 a pop (in fact they risk much less than that, forgetting markup?). They buy 10-20, see how fast they're sold, then decide whether or not to ask for more, which ultimately determines the fate of the creators. When those 10-20 sell like they were 20-40 with no overhead and no hassle, you can see what EB is going to do unless you are blind.

Again, depends entirely on the title at hand. What I see EB doing is simply playing a decent business card and being consciencious of the consumer. If they recommend used games, so be it; that is their discretion to help advise the customer, if it saves that kid or that parent an extra $15 on a game well hey, all the better in my books. I sure didn't bitch when I went to go look at buying my Audi and the salesman talked me out of a 06 model and into an 03/04 at a fraction of the cost. Businesses want to re-incur sales and build a trust in their customers, save the customer a couple bucks here and there and show some compassion, you'll get return customers.

Either way you cut this debate, both sides are simply looking at that nice little $ figure and whether they are keeping their profit margins up.

-s

Grim Beefer
12-16-2005, 04:22 AM
Publishers don't deserve a cut from a resold game, and video games are not a disposable media. It's also debatable as to whether or not you can legally resell software, the courts have gone both ways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale). If you're trying to convince me that Final Fantasy 7 is disposable, than so is my copy of "1984". Are you trying to say that we shouldn't be able to resell books either? Should the eighty year old used book store down the street either be boarded up or forced to only sell used books originally penned after Mickey Mouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension) was invented? The same logic applies; I mean how many of you buy your books new?

Nothing makes software "special". It should not get privileges that other mediums are denied, and I stress this point. Such grievances could be made by anyone that produces anything with a resell market. Unless, of course, you tell me that we LICENSE software, not possess it like all that other junk; quite a brutal piece of lawyerly guile wouldn't you agree? By saying "we don't actually sell you an item, we just rent you ideas", you cleverly sidestep all of the property law that has evolved over hundreds of years to protect the consumer from such greedy puppeteers. Some even propose, more cataclysmically, that everything creatively made is forevermore "rented" to people by just such exploitive rules. Quite a wretched trick either way, and I'm sure that if game publishers are as successful as they hope, watch all the other publishing firms follow suit. "No, honestly kids you're just "renting" this copy of Alice in Wonderland, no you can't show it to anyone else, you certainly can't sell it, and no you can't read it aloud, fair use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use) be damned! (oldie but goodie (http://web.archive.org/web/20010128085000/www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2000/ebook.html))". What a nightmare.

I personally tire of more excuses to enrich the already mega-wealthy. This justification that game companies need more money to prevent them from making bad games is just ludicrous. If publishers are unwilling to take developmental risks and adhere to such "safe" business strategies then they deserve to fail in my opinion. There is no justifiable excuse to ever excrete some bland title just to make some solid sales, and that goes for movies as well. Let us not forget that Square/Enix took a chance back in 1987 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy), and look at them now. Maybe the game companies, and no one else, should be accountable for their lack of quality or sales.

pgp_protector
12-16-2005, 05:01 AM
Actually, until recently you COULD buy used PC games at EB. Additionally, good third of XBox/PS2 owners I've met have a bucket of burnt ISOs for their modded CONSOLE systems.

EB paying their share for stocking a game is paid for on the first sale. They pay for the shelf space and the labor, as well as the risk that the game doesn't sell. On the RESELL, there isn't really a stocking or labor cost other than throwing them into a big bin. The part you're missing is that it's "score" for the kid, but nothing for the developers.

I am NOT saying EB shouldn't resell games, but reselling it at $50 and keeping all that as profit is, frankly, ridiculous. Either charge less, or kickback to the publisher/developer. People are paying for near retail price, instead of the cost of providing a used games service.





Let's see....

Cost of AwesomeGameTM = -$30
Markup first time = $60
Profit first time = $30
Buyback = -$15
Resell = $50
Profit second time = $35

Profit from just one round of resells = $65
Profit for developer = $6-$9

And that's assuming the developer gets credit from his publisher for a title that was returned. Contracts can vary, and not hitting gross sales of X amount might mean you get less than even the standard 15%. It starts to sound just like the record companies' fleecing tricks.

Won't make much cash? Read you last paragraph. Your logic has skipped the step where you've already recouped the cost otherwise it wouldn't be "used." It does NOT cost the original retail of the game to throw them in a wire bin, please.

You forgot
-$500 to $2000 Per month Rent
-$100 to $200 Power
-$3000 to $4000 for Employees
And you still have Taxes, Insurance, Advertisment, ect...

noisewar
12-16-2005, 06:57 AM
You're kidding on that point right? What was quoted was the word "artist" who is generally a person who does the job, makes the art for the sake of that game and their own content of doing a good job. If Artist X so happens to make royalties, then hey.. bonus! Nine times out of 10, the artist gets a credit, the benefit of having a shipped game and either sticks with the company or moves onto the next gig. Why an artist would ever even enravel themselves in the sales end of things is beyond me.

Having worked with game development, or film, or any major entertainment form factor, you should know then that it's a strawman to even point out that the lowly artist on a personal level has nothing major to gain from royalties. You also must know that since it's a moot point, we're obviously talking about "creators" not artists, and that collectively refers to studios who have strive to put out a better product and take pride in taking in more than a line on their resume.



Bitterness? I'm throwing out a point from having worked with game developers and simply stating that if you have a company that is making profit CONSIDERABLY per each annum, why must you find it necessary to piss and moan over a $50 resold game?

Welcome to the real world.


Yet another strawman. Who ever said it was EA & Co we were concerned about? That represent that "pure hype" category that I said earlier. Don't you want to *better* the "real world?"



It's EA's decision to put out crap and if EB decides to play into this and purchase copies for the sake of making a couple bucks in their own pocket, well hey, welcome to being a smart business. You want to encourage better products, go tell Joe Blow CEO to stop looking at his bottom line or whether he's in the black with his company and tell him to start looking for better Art Direction or Writers. The quality of art these days seems to get lost somewhere between what the budget of a project is and what the profit is going to be. Complete and utter bullshit. Cutting out EB isn't going to bring quality games forth, nor is dicing sales on refurb games.

Businesses want to re-incur sales and build a trust in their customers, save the customer a couple bucks here and there and show some compassion, you'll get return customers.


Holy contradictions! It apparently bothers you, this soul-stealing bottom-line. Therefore, we should not be ignoring such an obvious and abusive relationship between retailer and publisher to its customers. You think Joe Blow will listen when he's making money? Especially when people like you call it "smart business?" So how can you call the profiteering "complete and utter bullshit" but put the blame on the lack of better "Art Direction and Writers" in companies who see no reason to hire such anyways? You want me to hit Joe Blow where he's obviously hurting the least? Laugh.

In the name of showing the customer "compassion," I am saying in the "real world" you need to fulfill the bottom-line of Joe Blow, CEO of the studio CREATING games, not the CEO of the usurpers like EA and EB. Otherwise, you'll find they'll meet their own harsh realities, yielding more and more sterile ground to these giants. What that does to games not even better writers can save.

E_Moelzer
12-16-2005, 01:11 PM
Well one thing I would like everyone to consider in this discussion:
If there was no way to resell a used game, do you think many of the people that are buying the latest EA- sports- title every year would still do so?
I mean by reselling the title from last year, the gamer gets some of the money back and can use that to buy the new version. If he cant do so, he might have less money to spend on new games and that would of course lower sales. In the end it might turn out the same for the publisher, but with the twist that things just got more difficult and complicated and unentertaining for everyone involved and that might lower profits even more.
Personally I think that the entertainment industry- companies are as usually seeking ways to find excuses for their stock- holder on why their less and less creative products produce crappy sales.
Sorry EA, but the current version of (insert sports- title here) is not enough of an improvement over the past version and thats the reason why people dont buy it or rather resell the old version to "upgrade" to the new version.
Which gives me an idea:
With all the remakes and slightly improved versions of games, why not have an upgrade- system like other software has (e.g. 3d. software). If you could upgrade your last years version of NHL to this years version for say 15 USD instead of having to spend the full 50USD on it, more people might actually keep the product and not resell it.
This system is common for about any other software other than games, so why shouldnt it apply to games too?
Just some thoughts...
CU
Elmar

parallax
12-16-2005, 01:14 PM
luckily, i live in The Netherlands, so i can do whatever the hell i want with those games, because i OWN it. I might not own the Rights, but i do own the physical product. So they can put their rules there where the sun don't shine.

And EULA's are hardly ANY basis for legal action in most of Europe, except in the most blatant cases. EULA's don't overrule European Law. Maybe some US companies should start realising they can't tell other countries what to do.
Ideas like this makes my blood boil. It's in line with people patenting organisms, or Bolivian rainwater, enough is enough.

And people still wonder what this world is coming to...

parallax
12-16-2005, 01:19 PM
You forgot
-$500 to $2000 Per month Rent
-$100 to $200 Power
-$3000 to $4000 for Employees
And you still have Taxes, Insurance, Advertisment, ect...

Who cares, that's not my problem. Either you ban ALL second hand goods, or you ban NONE.

I couldn't care less about the costs of a developer/publisher/etc. I care about buying a product, thus owning, playing it, selling it, and not owning it anymore.

parallax
12-16-2005, 01:20 PM
Publishers don't deserve a cut from a resold game, and video games are not a disposable media. It's also debatable as to whether or not you can legally resell software, the courts have gone both ways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale). If you're trying to convince me that Final Fantasy 7 is disposable, than so is my copy of "1984". Are you trying to say that we shouldn't be able to resell books either? Should the eighty year old used book store down the street needs to either be boarded up or forced to only sell used books originally penned after Mickey Mouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension) was invented? The same logic applies; I mean how many of you buy your books new?

Nothing makes software "special". It should not get privileges that other mediums are denied, and I stress this point. Such grievances could be made by anyone that produces anything with a resell market. Unless, of course, you tell me that we LICENSE software, not possess it like all that other junk; quite a brutal piece of lawyerly guile wouldn't you agree? By saying "we don't actually sell you an item, we just rent you ideas", you cleverly sidestep all of the property law that has evolved over hundreds of years to protect the consumer from such greedy puppeteers. Some even propose, more cataclysmically, that everything creatively made is forevermore "rented" to people by just such exploitive rules. Quite a wretched trick either way, and I'm sure that if game publishers are as successful as they hope, watch all the other publishing firms follow suit. "No, honestly kids you're just "renting" this copy of Alice in Wonderland, no you can't show it to anyone else, you certainly can't sell it, and no you can't read it aloud, fair use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use) be damned! (oldie but goodie (http://web.archive.org/web/20010128085000/www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2000/ebook.html))". What a nightmare.

I personally tire of more excuses to enrich the already mega-wealthy. This justification that game companies need more money to prevent them from making bad games is just ludicrous. If publishers are unwilling to take developmental risks and adhere to such "safe" business strategies then they deserve to fail in my opinion. There is no justifiable excuse to ever excrete some bland title just to make some solid sales, and that goes for movies as well. Let us not forget that Square/Enix took a chance back in 1987 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy), and look at them now. Maybe the game companies, and no one else, should be accountable for their lack of quality or sales.

I applaud you.

barbapapa
12-16-2005, 01:34 PM
parallax, im with you, and i dont quote Grim Beefer because you just did in the last post. this is getting really sick and greedy. nasty times ahead if things keep going like this (specialy for people on the US, Law is getting crazy over there)

mynewcat
12-16-2005, 01:35 PM
Well one thing I would like everyone to consider in this discussion:
If there was no way to resell a used game, do you think many of the people that are buying the latest EA- sports- title every year would still do so?



Fair point - the resale value of a car is one of the defining purchasing factors when making a purchase.

Game manufacturers have to accept that in many ways gaming is often a solitary and finite experience - unlike the cost of a DVD or album, which is often enjoyed by a group of people (family, friends watching a movie) or enjoyed again and again (favorite album), gamers have no way to spread or recoup the cost of a game.
Reselling is definetely a fair way to do that.


Referring to what someone said earlier on about the "real world" of captalism; Firstly, let me state that capitalism doesn't have to be synonymous with greed (indeed selling on an item you longer need - surplus to requirements - is the ultimate expression of capitalism); Secondly there's nothing more "real" than the fact anyone can copy or distribute whatever they like when they like.
It may happen to be breaking a law, but then that law may have been unfairly made due to the lobbying power of big business - so the laws of "right and wrong" are blurred.

Make no mistake about it - games manufacturers (like all big business) are a bunch of greedy chancers who'll do whatever they can to make sure they get more than their fair share..


Lastly let me remind everyone that people were making games for a long time before big business came in and started throwing it's weight around... and it's a double edged sword frankly, because they've starved out the inovation and tend to produce nothing but slight variations on what was done before.
If companies like that start making less money - well then they aren't going to have to go bust, they're going to have to stop paying for licences and maybe make something original.

There's plenty of money to be made in games and the bottom line is: it doesn't have to be on the terms of greedy coprorations like EA.

M.E.L.
12-16-2005, 06:27 PM
simply beating a dead horse. post removed.

pluMmet
12-16-2005, 06:41 PM
I have a question for those who say that reselling games is bad:

If I buy a print of your work do you think that if I have a party that I need to charge everyone who looks at the print and send you the money?

M.E.L.
12-16-2005, 06:42 PM
In light of no longer dragging this thread through the mud we will simply resort back to letting others throw their opinions into the pot.

Lorenzo if there's anything else you would prefer to continue to discuss, feel free to PM me.

We're beating a dead horse here bantering back and forth.

-s

switchblade327
12-16-2005, 08:28 PM
Lastly let me remind everyone that people were making games for a long time before big business came in and started throwing it's weight around... and it's a double edged sword frankly, because they've starved out the inovation and tend to produce nothing but slight variations on what was done before.
If companies like that start making less money - well then they aren't going to have to go bust, they're going to have to stop paying for licences and maybe make something original.

I'm sorry but you're dead wrong, here. Originality is more expensive then a lisence because originality is RISK. And risk is the ultimate 4 letter word in big business, especially in times of trouble.

So 18% lower for the month of November and only 3% for the year for software sales. Nowhere near the 44% number you imagined for software sales.

Ok, I was wrong there but nitpicking my details doesn't change the fact that that almost every small studio is getting bought up or shut down, nor does it change the point. I'm going to try to keep this short since it seems most of you ignored my last point; especially the part about the real cost of development ($53 dollars of publisher *profit* per copy of Gun!? You couldn't be more wrong.)

You guys are making some pretty crazy arguments honestly and seem to think that developers and publishers crank out shitty sequel after shitty sequel while sitting upon golden thrones. The truth is, like ANY industry, the CEOs in games make too much money. But at least the games industry is *making a product*. EB/Gamestop has filthy rich execs too and all they're doing is turning around someone else's product and making far more money off a single resell then a publisher pulls in from the initial sale. A lion's share of their income is purely parasitical and that increased profit potential puts them in competition with publishers for game sales.

On top of all that, the used games are usually only ~$5 cheaper then new! It's not the publishers who are screwing the consumer...

The health of the games industry IS tied to its growth and profits and the most prolific retail game chain in the United States pushing used products at pure profit DOES hurt it. And I guarantee you that the innovation and creativity in games that we love, which is expensive, will be shut down long before the ridiculous corporate salaries are.

And THAT is why I as an artist in the games industry, give a damn.

pluMmet
12-16-2005, 08:43 PM
The health of the games industry IS tied to its growth and profits

I think it's tied to the quality of games they make.

Don't let your feelings about the poor video game people make you have un rationale ideas about not being able to sell something after your done with it.

If they make good games they will sell... That's the bottom line!

switchblade327
12-16-2005, 08:49 PM
I think it's tied to the quality of games they make.

Don't let your feelings about the poor video game people make you have un rationale ideas about not being able to sell something after your done with it.

If they make good games they will sell... That's the bottom line!

To which I reply with:

Beyond Good and Evil
Fallout 1
Grim Fandango
Clive Barker's Undying
No One Lives Forever 1 & 2
Ico

I could continue to list games that average 90%+ on gamerankings.com and had mediocre to bad sales but I'd just be badgering the point.

bale
12-16-2005, 08:59 PM
why not just rent the game? at blockbuster there's no late fee's, and most people finish or get sick of games in two weeks. Then you can save 50-70 bucks.

pluMmet
12-16-2005, 09:09 PM
I could continue to list games that average 90%+ on gamerankings.com and had mediocre to bad sales

That's brilliant! So if 90% of people like your art then you automatically should be a millionaire hell why not a billionaire!

I could start a web site and whatever my reviewers say is great should be agreed on by the rest of the world and I'll have this money thing in the bag :p

On a more serious note: It doesn't matter if gamerankings.com gives everyone 100% the consumer will decide what they like.

And BTW where do you stand on used anything else and how can you say there is a difference?

switchblade327
12-16-2005, 10:11 PM
That's brilliant! So if 90% of people like your art then you automatically should be a millionaire hell why not a billionaire!

I could start a web site and whatever my reviewers say is great should be agreed on by the rest of the world and I'll have this money thing in the bag :p

On a more serious note: It doesn't matter if gamerankings.com gives everyone 100% the consumer will decide what they like.

And BTW where do you stand on used anything else and how can you say there is a difference?

You know how gamerankings.com works, right? It's a calculated average of all review sites, often times 40-50 of them. So it's a pretty fair meter to judge a games' quality. H "The Iron Giant" flopped at the theaters and probably half the animators I know list it as their favorite animated feature. The consumer can't decide what they like without exposure. Marketing or lack thereof frequently trumps quality in all media.

As for used everything else, go back to my first post where I gave my opinion on why games are different rather thoroughly.

pluMmet
12-16-2005, 10:34 PM
As for used everything else, go back to my first post where I gave my opinion on why games are different rather thoroughly.

Good idea!



Would you like it if someone copied your CG art and resold it for cheaper?

Your operating off a wrong premise. No one is talking about copying the game. That's a different issue.


Music is a bad example

Your wrong! Music is a great example. When CDs came out Garth Brooks got on his podium and said that he would not allow his CDs to be sold at stores that sold used CDs. Same reasons...

Garage sales are a bad example because they operate on an entirely different scale as a national chain.

What about a thrift store?


Games are in essense, a disposable media. You can't return a pack of cigarettes after you've smoked them and you can't return a movie ticket after you've seen it. You're paying for the experience of playing that game.

No you don't pay for the experiance. I play on my computer in my house with my electricity any time I want with the game I payed for. If it's dispossible then I'm at an arcade paying 50 cents until I fail.


Your building false ideas on top of one another....It's just no so!

JeroenDStout
12-17-2005, 02:02 AM
To which I reply with:

Beyond Good and Evil
Fallout 1
Grim Fandango
Clive Barker's Undying
No One Lives Forever 1 & 2
Ico

I could continue to list games that average 90%+ on gamerankings.com and had mediocre to bad sales but I'd just be badgering the point.
I have to come believe the bad saled of many such games lie for a very large scale on marketing and who-knows-who. Few people actually have heard of the games and the others are dedicated fans or self-acclaimed quality gamers.. I seriously doubt it's because 'nobody wants quality games'.

Sagii
12-17-2005, 09:49 AM
bleh.... GREEDY companies will do anything for more money...

When I spend my money to buy something it is mine to do whatever I want. I can play with it, use it as a frisbee, throw it in the microwave to see sparks fly... use it as wall decoration or resell it. They wont win this battle, its like saying you can wear used clothes, or buy a used car. :rolleyes:

switchblade327
12-17-2005, 10:57 AM
Greedy companies want to get paid for the product they make. How dare they.

Music: Most games are meant to played once. Most music is meant to be played repeatedly. Cars, clothes, whatever wear out and are not the same product as when sold new. While graphics don't age so well, the actual game does not degrade with time. And as I've said before, used games would be way under the radar if it wasn't for EB/Gamestop. I highly doubt the publishers have any interest in suing an individual for selling his copy of Quake 4 on ebay. But when thousands of retail outlets are selling hundreds of copies, it's a little different.

I'm certainly not going to get into the 'disecting an out of context sentence to argue on the internet' game. You guys clearly have your mind made up on this and anything further I say will be repeating myself. I'd just like to reiterate one more time that it blows my mind that some of you have the audacity to call game publishers *greedy* for wanting return on their own investment (I guess I'm greedy too for actually wanting to get paid more then minimum wage for my 40-70 hour work weeks) but the suits at EB/Gamestop are all aces because they save you a whole $5 while laughing all the way to the bank.

Used games are legal to buy for now and if that $5 is that important to you, then go for it. But please stop trying to convince yourselves that you're encouraging an upturn in creativity in games by not paying the developer and publisher; you're not. You're helping to kill it.

pluMmet
12-17-2005, 11:32 AM
trying to convince yourselves that you're encouraging an upturn in creativity in games by not paying the developer and publisher

It's an outrage to think that people like you are out there. You think that everytime a product changes hands the person who originally made it deserves a cut!

Your trying to make the comsumer market akin to government taxes.

You dance around very real ideas by saying that they aren't important and don't "count" in the discussion when clearly they do. Case in point: Video games don't really depreciate and people only play them once. Not true at all on both points. When was the last time you spent any amout of time playing Donkey Kong or Pac Man? And when those games were out they were played repeatidly even after beating them. I can't tell you how many times I beat Dragon's Lair! I've played Marrowind thru over and over with and without mods...but guess what, when elder scrolls VII comes out marrow wind WILL be dated it WILL be worth less and if someone has never played it they will not and should not pay what I payed for it. It's old, it's dated and it my copy to give or sell. And if it goes on ebay for $20,000 it's my $20,000 because it's my license!

You guys clearly have your mind made up on this
I guess that means your the open minded one with all the real ideas LMAO

Boone
12-17-2005, 12:03 PM
I have come across a method where retailers do something like write a copy of a game off( returned & unwanted ) and they still put the copy back on the shelves to be sold - the shop makes 100% profit and the other parties get nothing.

I sort see why publishers might get miffed at that - but selling second hand goods is pretty much fair game. And like some else mentioned - you can't see them banning carboot sales.

rakmaya
12-17-2005, 08:21 PM
That is BS. If the games are good people love to own the games. Also, doing that goes against the rights. I buy the game. I don't license it. I have the right to sell anything I own inside US without any trade restriction. Hence all move against that would go into garbage. If EA wants to make games that are worth keeping, they should spend more money there than on a law suit.

rakmaya
12-17-2005, 08:34 PM
To which I reply with:

Beyond Good and Evil
Fallout 1
Grim Fandango
Clive Barker's Undying
No One Lives Forever 1 & 2
Ico

I could continue to list games that average 90%+ on gamerankings.com and had mediocre to bad sales but I'd just be badgering the point.

Ya, that is BS. Just because 10 or 100 or a Million people like it doesn't mean I have to like it, nor dies it mean another 10 million people have to like it. Man... there was a huge discussion about how people rate movies bad and many like it. You can't justify your point with rating. Just look at it that once I own a game it is my property and I can smash it, bash it, cook it or sell it. If a game is only worth playing once, you rent it. If it is worth keeping, you buy it. Just simple as that. Oh! if you feel pity that the poor game companies are loosing money, then you should start donating money to the poor and hungry and not play the games when millions are in poverty.

If the companies started licensing the game to the public instead of selling it, they know it will be counter productive and people will start renting most of it. That is why they are going through this ugly road.

switchblade327
12-18-2005, 12:25 AM
It's an outrage to think that people like you are out there.

I guess that means your the open minded one with all the real ideas LMAO

Okay, I think I'm done with you. We're past professionalism now, if not maturity altogether.

As I've said before, the problem is about the *scale*. You selling your used copy of a game is not the same as 1000+ retail outlets encouraging you to buy it over new. Publishers aren't pulling an RIAA here and 13 year old girls aren't going to get sued. It's CEO who's company makes something going after CEO who's company is a middleman freeloader.

Ya, that is BS. Just because 10 or 100 or a Million people like it doesn't mean I have to like it, nor dies it mean another 10 million people have to like it. Man... there was a huge discussion about how people rate movies bad and many like it. You can't justify your point with rating.

I don't know how you can say this. There is a whole science to averages used in everything from medicine to politics to sales. They *are* representative, within a usually pretty small margin of error, depending on how they're gathered. Now of course, not everyone is going to share the same opinion of everything but what it does mean is that by averages, a lot more people are going to enjoy playing a 90% game then a 60% one.

One or two reviews can be flukes but 40-50 starts to give a pretty good impression. Look on IGN or gamespot and you'll find reader averages rarely deviate more then 2 points then the reviewer's score and on gamerankings they have about the same 2 point variation between the various magazines and review sites. And this is coming from someone who thinks a good number of so-called game 'journalists' are no better then message board trolls.

Besides, how could people know they didn't like these games if they didn't buy them? Think about how much sense that makes. Now, rentals, demos and used games allow to try before you buy these days.

But in the mid 90s (the days of Grim Fandango and Fallout) you bought a game based on word of mouth, box art or advertising. Demos were even less prevelant then, outside of the shareware games.

Word of mouth comes from quality but box art and advetising are *marketing*. If people don't even know about a game (Ico), the commercial/print ad fails to grab them (Grim Fandango), or timing is wrong (BG&E was an excellently rated game that made the mistake of coming out amidst a season of blockbuster sequels) a good game can fall off the radar through no fault of it's quality.

Otherwise there would be some major correlation between average reviews and sales numbers and past the top 20-30 best selling games ever, there isn't.

rakmaya
12-18-2005, 01:01 AM
I don't know how you can say this. There is a whole science to averages used in everything from medicine to politics to sales. They *are* representative, within a usually pretty small margin of error, depending on how they're gathered. Now of course, not everyone is going to share the same opinion of everything but what it does mean is that by averages, a lot more people are going to enjoy playing a 90% game then a 60% one.

One or two reviews can be flukes but 40-50 starts to give a pretty good impression. Look on IGN or gamespot and you'll find reader averages rarely deviate more then 2 points then the reviewer's score and on gamerankings they have about the same 2 point variation between the various magazines and review sites. And this is coming from someone who thinks a good number of so-called game 'journalists' are no better then message board trolls.

Besides, how could people know they didn't like these games if they didn't buy them? Think about how much sense that makes. Now, rentals, demos and used games allow to try before you buy these days.



I didn't say I disagree with the ratings 100%. I don't take word for anything utill I can see it with my own eyes. I can name a 100 games (including a lot of sports title, Adventure, RPG and many) that have gotten a 80+ ratings which I don't like. I don't like playing GTA game (not because of anything wrong with their philosphy, because I only like certain kinds of game).

The rating is done by many considerations. But just because a game got 100 doesn't mean it is going to out sell a game that got rated 85. The largest margin of all is who is the target audience.

It doesn't really concern with the actual topic of the post. We are getting off the topic here. I don't care what anyone else say, if I own a product, it is because I liked it in the first place and I bought it. I sell it because I don't want it anymore.

pluMmet
12-18-2005, 03:02 AM
Okay, I think I'm done with you. We're past professionalism now, if not maturity altogether.

You're right. It was too much. It also generated the response I was hoping for. So maybe you understand then when people use examples of why this is a bad idea and one by one you say that those ideas are invalid you are past professionalism and maturity. When some one is building an argument it's like building a house. Every brick that people were using to explain their position however you invalidated there by allowing yourself the ability to not see anyone else’s point.

You need to respect people’s ideas and counter them. Not invalidate them so that yours look better.

It can not be considered right to make someone less in order to gain an advantage.
The only option you have is to make yourself better.

Good luck to you sir.

CGTalk Moderation
12-18-2005, 03:02 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.