CliffyB Thinks Used Games Are Bad, Sony is "Playing Us

buhahahahaha what an idiot

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/124957-CliffyB-Thinks-Used-Games-Are-Bad-Sony-is-Playing-Us

So does Yakuza developer Toshihiro Nagoshi.

Yakuza series developer Toshihiro Nagoshi was among the crowds at E3 2013 and witnessed most of the same things we did, but his opinions about the two big consoles have proven to be quite the opposite of the public opinion. He thinks Sony is making it tougher on the used games market, while Microsoft is making it easier for developers dealing with pirating issues.

Toshihiro Nagoshi has a point. He stated, To be honest, with the rising cost of making games, Microsofts strategy is something that developers will be happy about.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/700535/xbox-one-playstation-4-yakuza-developer-offers-his-opinion/#fc1XzmqCCI1ZlBRf.99 

Those idiots...MS moneyhatted all of them.

So does Yakuza developer Toshihiro Nagoshi.

Yakuza series developer Toshihiro Nagoshi was among the crowds at E3 2013 and witnessed most of the same things we did, but his opinions about the two big consoles have proven to be quite the opposite of the public opinion. He thinks Sony is making it tougher on the used games market, while Microsoft is making it easier for developers dealing with pirating issues.

Toshihiro Nagoshi has a point. He stated, To be honest, with the rising cost of making games, Microsofts strategy is something that developers will be happy about.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/700535/xbox-one-playstation-4-yakuza-developer-offers-his-opinion/#fc1XzmqCCI1ZlBRf.99 alexwatchtower

In a way, Cliffy is right. The used market is tough on publishers who produce these really expensive games, as production costs have gone up.

I don't necessarily understand why the costs have to be that high, however. To me, it mostly seems like greed. Now, I could be wrong of course and I'm sure there's some inside technicality I'm unaware of but it seems like mostly BS to me.

If I look at Dead Space, which was a very successful game that was also of high quality, and then see that Dead Space 3 needs to sell at least 5 million copies to reach production costs, well... why did Dead Space 3 cost so much more to make when DS1 was arguably better, and made for less? Why did the production cost increase? Couldn't they have made DS3 with the same funds? It didn't have to have a bigger budget, just a talented team.

Developers and publishers are mis managing their funds. Its that simple. The over spending is at an all time high.

Developers and publishers are mis managing their funds. Its that simple. The over spending is at an all time high.

Pedro

I remember those kind of arguments from Nintendo fans when Nintendo decided to go cartridge and developers didn't think it was viable anymore and too expensive compared to CD's. What happened when Nintendo went cartridge and Sony went CD? Sony dominated the industry as a new comer and allowed for games like FF7 which otherwise wouldn't have been possible which was really cheap for developers because they chose to go the route of "the medium of the future".

I wonder what the medium of the future for video games is now...sure as heck ain't Blu-Ray. That's the past and present.

Please developers. They please your gamers.

DUH!

well, i kind of agree with him that blockbuster games are going to have issues dealing with both increasing design/marketing budgets and used games. i don't think the whole package deal of "buy in, get a game" for blockbusters is going anywhere. however, it seems like we can support fewer and fewer of them and we may end up with only a couple each year that are increasingly homogenized.

still, i don't think the solution is to take it out on gamers and crush any passion we might have for the medium. publishers have to be smarter with their budgets. they have to be a lot more careful before deciding that they think they have a top of the year seller on their hands. there's nothing wrong with saying that a project will probably "only" be among the top 20-30 games of the year and adjusting the budget accordingly.

on top of that, i don't see the microtransaction model as inherently bad. it can definitely be misused, but it works for some games and it can make them more viable.

[QUOTE="Pedro"]

Developers and publishers are mis managing their funds. Its that simple. The over spending is at an all time high.

alexwatchtower

I remember those kind of arguments from Nintendo fans when Nintendo decided to go cartridge and developers didn't think it was viable anymore and too expensive compared to CD's. What happened when Nintendo went cartridge and Sony went CD? Sony dominated the industry as a new comer and allowed for games like FF7 which otherwise wouldn't have been possible which was really cheap for developers because they chose to go the route of "the medium of the future".

I wonder what the medium of the future for video games is now...sure as heck ain't Blu-Ray. That's the past and present.

Please developers. They please your gamers.

DUH!

I know somewhere within that carefully constructed sequence of text, there is a point being made but I just don't see it. :(

[QUOTE="alexwatchtower"]

[QUOTE="Pedro"]

Developers and publishers are mis managing their funds. Its that simple. The over spending is at an all time high.

Pedro

I remember those kind of arguments from Nintendo fans when Nintendo decided to go cartridge and developers didn't think it was viable anymore and too expensive compared to CD's. What happened when Nintendo went cartridge and Sony went CD? Sony dominated the industry as a new comer and allowed for games like FF7 which otherwise wouldn't have been possible which was really cheap for developers because they chose to go the route of "the medium of the future".

I wonder what the medium of the future for video games is now...sure as heck ain't Blu-Ray. That's the past and present.

Please developers. They please your gamers.

DUH!

I know somewhere within that carefully constructed sequence of text, there is a point being made but I just don't see it. :(

Well that's nothing new when it comes to you Pedro. When do you ever see it? :D

Well that's nothing new when it comes to you Pedro. When do you ever see it? :D

alexwatchtower

Don't blame me for your generally incoherent babble. :D But I honestly don't get the point you are trying to make and I know you are trying to make one.

The problem is that gamers have higher standers while refusing to pay more. Given that the number of games sold is not raise to match the increase in cost. I do not think that getting rid of use game sales will increase the sales numbers as much as something it would.

cliffy b is the same person who could not see the difference between EA's "pay to get items to help beat the game (deadspace 2) program" and valve's user created items that you can sell and also make money off of as well.

[QUOTE="Pedro"]

Developers and publishers are mis managing their funds. Its that simple. The over spending is at an all time high.

alexwatchtower

I remember those kind of arguments from Nintendo fans when Nintendo decided to go cartridge and developers didn't think it was viable anymore and too expensive compared to CD's. What happened when Nintendo went cartridge and Sony went CD? Sony dominated the industry as a new comer and allowed for games like FF7 which otherwise wouldn't have been possible which was really cheap for developers because they chose to go the route of "the medium of the future".

I wonder what the medium of the future for video games is now...sure as heck ain't Blu-Ray. That's the past and present.

Please developers. They please your gamers.

DUH!

Let's say you are one of those publishers looking toward the future, and you want to publish only through digitial distribution. Well according to one dev "Microsoft requires you to have a publisher. They have no digital distribution strategy and they require you to pay $10,000, or whatever it is, for updates... Sony lets you self-publish and they don't make you pay for updates" We've also heard from Lorne Lanning and the possibility of his Odd World remake becoming exclusive to PS4 because of X1's shoddy digital strategy. ... So my question to you is what are you trying to get at here? Sony seems to be pleasing those devs out there that want "the medium of the future."

Sony's policy on hard copy is decidely consumer friendly, but I haven't seen anything from Sony stopping devs from making their games for digital release only, and it certainly sounds like their policy on doing so is more friendly than MS's.

And you can please developers all you want. But piss off your consumers so nobody buys your console and those developers are just gonna LOL all the way to bankruptcy. It really is a two way street.

[QUOTE="alexwatchtower"]

[QUOTE="Pedro"]

Developers and publishers are mis managing their funds. Its that simple. The over spending is at an all time high.

Ish_basic

I remember those kind of arguments from Nintendo fans when Nintendo decided to go cartridge and developers didn't think it was viable anymore and too expensive compared to CD's. What happened when Nintendo went cartridge and Sony went CD? Sony dominated the industry as a new comer and allowed for games like FF7 which otherwise wouldn't have been possible which was really cheap for developers because they chose to go the route of "the medium of the future".

I wonder what the medium of the future for video games is now...sure as heck ain't Blu-Ray. That's the past and present.

Please developers. They please your gamers.

DUH!

Let's say you are one of those publishers looking toward the future, and you want to publish only through digitial distribution. Well according to one dev "Microsoft requires you to have a publisher. They have no digital distribution strategy and they require you to pay $10,000, or whatever it is, for updates... Sony lets you self-publish and they don't make you pay for updates" We've also heard from Lorne Lanning and the possibility of his Odd World remake becoming exclusive to PS4 because of X1's shoddy digital strategy. ... So my question to you is what are you trying to get at here? Sony seems to be pleasing those devs out there that want "the medium of the future."

Sony's policy on hard copy is decidely consumer friendly, but I haven't seen anything from Sony stopping devs from making their games for digital release only, and it certainly sounds like their policy on doing so is more friendly than MS's.

And you can please developers all you want. But piss off your consumers so nobody buys your console and those developers are just gonna LOL all the way to bankruptcy. It really is a two way street.

MS said they are open to self pusblishing. 

And that's where you will have the problem. Developers WILL want to go all digital. What's Sony's plan for that? For their consumers I mean. Nothing set in stone yet or any time soon.

Well Microsoft dropped some pretty sweet news for Xbox One customers regarding online game sharing which pretty much alieviates all my issues with not being able to rent or get cheap games. They're giving that and more, digitally, without any of the hassle of physical discs.

[QUOTE="Ish_basic"]

[QUOTE="alexwatchtower"]

 

I remember those kind of arguments from Nintendo fans when Nintendo decided to go cartridge and developers didn't think it was viable anymore and too expensive compared to CD's. What happened when Nintendo went cartridge and Sony went CD? Sony dominated the industry as a new comer and allowed for games like FF7 which otherwise wouldn't have been possible which was really cheap for developers because they chose to go the route of "the medium of the future".

I wonder what the medium of the future for video games is now...sure as heck ain't Blu-Ray. That's the past and present.

Please developers. They please your gamers.

DUH!

alexwatchtower

Let's say you are one of those publishers looking toward the future, and you want to publish only through digitial distribution. Well according to one dev "Microsoft requires you to have a publisher. They have no digital distribution strategy and they require you to pay $10,000, or whatever it is, for updates... Sony lets you self-publish and they don't make you pay for updates" We've also heard from Lorne Lanning and the possibility of his Odd World remake becoming exclusive to PS4 because of X1's shoddy digital strategy. ... So my question to you is what are you trying to get at here? Sony seems to be pleasing those devs out there that want "the medium of the future."

Sony's policy on hard copy is decidely consumer friendly, but I haven't seen anything from Sony stopping devs from making their games for digital release only, and it certainly sounds like their policy on doing so is more friendly than MS's.

And you can please developers all you want. But piss off your consumers so nobody buys your console and those developers are just gonna LOL all the way to bankruptcy. It really is a two way street.

MS said they are open to self pusblishing. 

And that's where you will have the problem. Developers WILL want to go all digital. What's Sony's plan for that? For their consumers I mean. Nothing set in stone yet or any time soon.

Well Microsoft dropped some pretty sweet news for Xbox One customers regarding online game sharing which pretty much alieviates all my issues with not being able to rent or get cheap games. They're giving that and more, digitally, without any of the hassle of physical discs.

MS said they are open to self pusblishing.

And that's where you will have the problem. Developers WILL want to go all digital. What's Sony's plan for that? For their consumers I mean. Nothing set in stone yet or any time soon.

Well Microsoft dropped some pretty sweet news for Xbox One customers regarding online game sharing which pretty much alieviates all my issues with not being able to rent or get cheap games. They're giving that and more, digitally, without any of the hassle of physical discs.

alexwatchtower

According to some of these devs talking at E3, MS is the one without the digital distribution plan.

But I don't know how you can be sure of anything with MS, considering all the backpeddling and spinning they've been doing the past couple days.

PSN has already seen game sharing, and Sony no doubt would be prepared to implement it if they're not already. What is baffling people about MS talking about sharing is that it doesn't seem to jive well with their DRM policy, not that such a sharing policy exists.

Still has some good points. Remember the Tomb Raider reboot? Financially that game flopped hard. Probably wasn't because of used games though but it is true that developers are amping up production costs and value and as such need bigger sales. Getting rid of used games entirely is not the way to go but used games aren't as black and white as we would like them to be.

In a way, Cliffy is right. The used market is tough on publishers who produce these really expensive games, as production costs have gone up.

I don't necessarily understand why the costs have to be that high, however. To me, it mostly seems like greed. Now, I could be wrong of course and I'm sure there's some inside technicality I'm unaware of but it seems like mostly BS to me.

If I look at Dead Space, which was a very successful game that was also of high quality, and then see that Dead Space 3 needs to sell at least 5 million copies to reach production costs, well... why did Dead Space 3 cost so much more to make when DS1 was arguably better, and made for less? Why did the production cost increase? Couldn't they have made DS3 with the same funds? It didn't have to have a bigger budget, just a talented team.

IndianaPwns39

[QUOTE="alexwatchtower"]

 

MS said they are open to self pusblishing.

And that's where you will have the problem. Developers WILL want to go all digital. What's Sony's plan for that? For their consumers I mean. Nothing set in stone yet or any time soon.

Well Microsoft dropped some pretty sweet news for Xbox One customers regarding online game sharing which pretty much alieviates all my issues with not being able to rent or get cheap games. They're giving that and more, digitally, without any of the hassle of physical discs.

Ish_basic

According to some of these devs talking at E3, MS is the one without the digital distribution plan.

But I don't know how you can be sure of anything with MS, considering all the backpeddling and spinning they've been doing the past couple days.

PSN has already seen game sharing, and Sony no doubt would be prepared to implement it if they're not already. What is baffling people about MS talking about sharing is that it doesn't seem to jive well with their DRM policy, not that such a sharing policy exists.

Because now different heads are no longer saying different things. They seem to be on the same page. Three different sources, Mehdi, Phil Harrison and Xbox support ALL confirmed these sharing plan policies.

So then the obvious question becomes, how can Sony allow digital distribution and digital game sharing without DRM features? Without requiring gamers to go online?:D

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

In a way, Cliffy is right. The used market is tough on publishers who produce these really expensive games, as production costs have gone up.

I don't necessarily understand why the costs have to be that high, however. To me, it mostly seems like greed. Now, I could be wrong of course and I'm sure there's some inside technicality I'm unaware of but it seems like mostly BS to me.

If I look at Dead Space, which was a very successful game that was also of high quality, and then see that Dead Space 3 needs to sell at least 5 million copies to reach production costs, well... why did Dead Space 3 cost so much more to make when DS1 was arguably better, and made for less? Why did the production cost increase? Couldn't they have made DS3 with the same funds? It didn't have to have a bigger budget, just a talented team.

Hakumen21

It's a curiosity.

I'm not defending these publishers that make weird decisions, I simply want to know why it happens. 

But to say "who the f*ck cares about the publishers if you are not a publisher yourself" isn't the best outlook. There are many reasons to care. First, as a gamer, I care because I like to know if franchises I personally care about are doing well or not. I love Darksiders, for example, and when THQ went under I was very concerned with where the game is going. The franchise belongs to an unkown developer now, and that worries me. Yes, I still have Darksiders 1 and 2 to enjoy forever and I certainly will, but the future of the series is in question and it has everything to do with the publisher's demise.

Secondly, as someone who recently started to buy stocks I like to follow the financials of various companies to help make investment decisions. 

The enjoyment of gaming is my main priority, but there are plenty of reasons to care about publishers.

Because now different heads are no longer saying different things. They seem to be on the same page. Three different sources, Mehdi, Phil Harrison and Xbox support ALL confirmed these sharing plan policies.

So then the obvious question becomes, how can Sony allow digital distribution and digital game sharing without DRM features? Without requiring gamers to go online?:D

alexwatchtower

They already have this feature. It has been mention so many times in multiple threads. Sony has allowed and facilitated game sharing. You are also conveniently missing the fact that folks are pissed at MS for having DRM for PHYSICAL DISCs. Your physical purchase of a game is LITERALLY USELESS on XboxOne because of DRM,the same does not apply for the PS4 and this huge difference is the reason for the uproar. Digital only content generally have DRM and all of your purchase on PSN has always been account locked. Again Sony has been doing this for quite sometime and would continue to just like MS with the major exception to disc purchases.

.Black_Knight_00

The used market is not to blame, phones, androids, pads hell even pc have more games than ever and are giving console games a run for their money. Used games are not the freaking threatThe_Last_Ride

Those have one thing in common. They're all digital.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"].El_Zo1212o

Cliff Bleszinski drives a Lambo.GalvatronType_R

What does the kind of car he drives have to do with anything?

I used to like CliffyB but I'm starting to think he is a dumbass. He says that production and marketing costs are too high...well, who's fault is that? It sure as hell isn't the customer's fault. He says that it took a thousand people to make the last Assassin's Creed game, well why did it take that many people?

Resident Evil 6 had a staff of 600 people and didn't turn a profit even though it sold 6 million copies, it shouldn't take that many people to make a game when CD Projekt RED makes incredible games with a staff off 112 people.

Square didn't turn a profit on Tomb Raider even though it sold like 3.5 million copies it's first month, they were expecting 6 million. The new Tomb Raider sold more in it's first month then any other game in the series, so how in the hell could Square spend enough on it to need 6 million copies sold? How is it anyone else's fault except devs and pubs that costs are so high?

They say it's because we demand better and better graphics, which is bull because just about every generation since the NES the weakest system has sold the most, and I'm about as hardcore a gamer as someone can get and I play SNES games more often than today's games.

Cliffy pays himself a million dollars on all his games, how about taking some of that money and hiring better writers so someone gives a fvck about at least one  of the characters in his games. If not, Cliffy can go to fvcking hell.

[QUOTE="GalvatronType_R"]Cliff Bleszinski drives a Lambo.Goyoshi12

What does the kind of car he drives have to do with anything?

It's a little hard to sympathize with someone claiming poverty when they drive a car that costs more than some people's houses.

I'm not saying successful developers (and their employees) should not make lots of money. But don't complain about budgets if you can afford to pay your staff millions. Developers need to regulate themselves better.

[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]

[QUOTE="GalvatronType_R"]Cliff Bleszinski drives a Lambo.Grieverr

What does the kind of car he drives have to do with anything?

It's a little hard to sympathize with someone claiming poverty when they drive a car that costs more than some people's houses.

I'm not saying successful developers (and their employees) should not make lots of money. But don't complain about budgets if you can afford to pay your staff millions. Developers need to regulate themselves better.

I think it's due for a waxing, Cliffy boy.  Sony is playing you?  Cry me a f*cking river, build a bridge, and get over it.

[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]

[QUOTE="GalvatronType_R"]Cliff Bleszinski drives a Lambo.Grieverr

What does the kind of car he drives have to do with anything?

It's a little hard to sympathize with someone claiming poverty when they drive a car that costs more than some people's houses.

I'm not saying successful developers (and their employees) should not make lots of money. But don't complain about budgets if you can afford to pay your staff millions. Developers need to regulate themselves better.

Well, fine, he's not the person who has to worry over it; doesn't mean he can't express it, does it?

I used to like CliffyB but I'm starting to think he is a dumbass. He says that production and marketing costs are too high...well, who's fault is that? It sure as hell isn't the customer's fault. He says that it took a thousand people to make the last Assassin's Creed game, well why did it take that many people?

Resident Evil 6 had a staff of 600 people and didn't turn a profit even though it sold 6 million copies, it shouldn't take that many people to make a game when CD Projekt RED makes incredible games with a staff off 112 people.

Square didn't turn a profit on Tomb Raider even though it sold like 3.5 million copies it's first month, they were expecting 6 million. The new Tomb Raider sold more in it's first month then any other game in the series, so how in the hell could Square spend enough on it to need 6 million copies sold? How is it anyone else's fault except devs and pubs that costs are so high?

They say it's because we demand better and better graphics, which is bull because just about every generation since the NES the weakest system has sold the most, and I'm about as hardcore a gamer as someone can get and I play SNES games more often than today's games.

Cliffy pays himself a million dollars on all his games, how about taking some of that money and hiring better writers so someone gives a fvck about at least one  of the characters in his games. If not, Cliffy can go to fvcking hell.

Gamefan1986

[QUOTE="Gamefan1986"]

I used to like CliffyB but I'm starting to think he is a dumbass. He says that production and marketing costs are too high...well, who's fault is that? It sure as hell isn't the customer's fault. He says that it took a thousand people to make the last Assassin's Creed game, well why did it take that many people?

Resident Evil 6 had a staff of 600 people and didn't turn a profit even though it sold 6 million copies, it shouldn't take that many people to make a game when CD Projekt RED makes incredible games with a staff off 112 people.

Square didn't turn a profit on Tomb Raider even though it sold like 3.5 million copies it's first month, they were expecting 6 million. The new Tomb Raider sold more in it's first month then any other game in the series, so how in the hell could Square spend enough on it to need 6 million copies sold? How is it anyone else's fault except devs and pubs that costs are so high?

They say it's because we demand better and better graphics, which is bull because just about every generation since the NES the weakest system has sold the most, and I'm about as hardcore a gamer as someone can get and I play SNES games more often than today's games.

Cliffy pays himself a million dollars on all his games, how about taking some of that money and hiring better writers so someone gives a fvck about at least one  of the characters in his games. If not, Cliffy can go to fvcking hell.

Enfamous_Mr_BHC

If you say so.

Its because they jack up production values to make it prettier, when realiscally its not needed. Some companies can afford it, ecspcially on bigger games. But if some games that didnt sell enough had good graphics instead of OMFGWTFBBQREALISTIC graphics it would be a lot cheaper. Pick an easier art style to make look good, or just pick a happy medium, not every game needs to break the bank.

I used to like CliffyB but I'm starting to think he is a dumbass. He says that production and marketing costs are too high...well, who's fault is that? It sure as hell isn't the customer's fault. He says that it took a thousand people to make the last Assassin's Creed game, well why did it take that many people?

Resident Evil 6 had a staff of 600 people and didn't turn a profit even though it sold 6 million copies, it shouldn't take that many people to make a game when CD Projekt RED makes incredible games with a staff off 112 people.

Square didn't turn a profit on Tomb Raider even though it sold like 3.5 million copies it's first month, they were expecting 6 million. The new Tomb Raider sold more in it's first month then any other game in the series, so how in the hell could Square spend enough on it to need 6 million copies sold? How is it anyone else's fault except devs and pubs that costs are so high?

They say it's because we demand better and better graphics, which is bull because just about every generation since the NES the weakest system has sold the most, and I'm about as hardcore a gamer as someone can get and I play SNES games more often than today's games.

Cliffy pays himself a million dollars on all his games, how about taking some of that money and hiring better writers so someone gives a fvck about at least one  of the characters in his games. If not, Cliffy can go to fvcking hell.

Gamefan1986

Jim Sterling perfectly summed up my opinion about it. Adapt or die, AAA games be damned if that's the consequence. 

Jim Sterling perfectly summed up my opinion about it. Adapt or die, AAA games be damned if that's the consequence. 

Vari3ty

This logic is funny. You want to be able to resell your games and buy used games because you think you save money that way. And you're ok if the overall effort put into games (thus, general quality) goes down in the process.

Basically, you don't care if developers make money as long as they keep making games, and you get the lowest prices possible. If that means worse games in general, so be it!

And I can't help but laugh at Jim Sterling's arguments on the matter. Publishers are an evil monopoly acting as a single entity to steal your hard-earned money. And they're evil.

What other industries are immune from used markets?

Further, what has Cliffy had to say about drawn out life cycles and bloated price points for hardware that prevent entire markets from buying consoles?

Or how about console makers including features that draw focus away from playing games? Where was Cliffy when consoles started focusing on movies, music, and all manner of other things that compete for the same time games do?

His statement seems extremely myopic.

What other industries are immune from used markets?

Shame-usBlackley

I can't think of a single store in my area that sells used movies. If I walk into a movie-selling store and go to the cashier with 4 new copies of movies, the clerk doesn't tell me "hey, you'd save $20 if you bought them all used!". 

There are no dedicated music stores in my area. The stores that do sell music only sell new, and don't take trade-ins.

Major book stores here don't take trade-ins. I don't know about smaller ones because I don't frequent them. I was never told in my life "trade in 2 books and get a significant rebate on a new one!"

Video games and cars are the only industries I can think of that have stores dedicated to selling used products. And cars depreciate, while video games don't. My problem with used games isn't that they exist, it's that retailers make it their primary business. It is very similar to how retailers mostly sell pirated games in less developed countries.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

What other industries are immune from used markets?

ReddestSkies

I can't think of a single store in my area that sells used movies. If I walk into a movie-selling store and go to the cashier with 4 new copies of movies, the clerk doesn't tell me "hey, you'd save $20 if you bought them all used!". 

There are no dedicated music stores in my area. The stores that do sell music only sell new, and don't take trade-ins.

Major book stores here don't take trade-ins. I don't know about smaller ones because I don't frequent them. I was never told in my life "trade in 2 books and get a significant rebate on a new one!"

Video games and cars are the only industries I can think of that have stores dedicated to selling used products. And cars depreciate, while video games don't. My problem with used games isn't that they exist, it's that retailers make it their primary business. It is very similar to how retailers mostly sell pirated games in less developed countries.

Netflix sells used movies. They have a keep it option, just like Gamefly. Hell, Gamestop sold movies as well, at one point. And then there's always Ebay and Amazon.

There are book resellers everywhere. In fact, I buy most of my scholastic texts used. And yes, my school's book store PROMOTES buying used. 

We have a used music chain here in Arizona that sells MOSTLY used music. It's called Zia Records. Then there are entertainment resellers like Bookman's or Stinkweed's. 

Further, all the items you mentioned above can be borrowed for free from most any public library, including games. 

Netflix sells movies. Hell, Gamestop sold movies as well, last I checked. And then there's always Ebay and Amazon.

There are book resellers everywhere. In fact, I buy most of my scholastic texts used. 

We have a used music chain here in Arizona that sells ONLY used music. It's called Zia Records. 

Further, all the items you mentioned above can be borrowed for free from most any public library, including games. 

Shame-usBlackley

Like I said, I know that they're there. Books might be in worse shape than games, I'm not sure. Being an author seems to be particularly awful from an economic standpoint.

But there is such a thing as a library chain that only sells new books. Or a music chain that only sells new copies. I've never seen or heard of a video game store that doesn't literally live off used games. The retailers interests are in direct competition with the game makers interests, and that is the case for every single game retailer. That can't be healthy.

I wonder if a lot of these additional costs aren't coming directly from the forced addition of online mutiplayer to every single game.  Something I personally despise.  Be ironic if the gaming industry put itself out of business because of something I didn't even want.  I dunno, they do as much market analysis and focus group testing as any other industry on the planet, yet they still make one financially disappointing game after another.  Maybe it's time to actually give developers creative control of the games they make, instead of having everything dictated by the non-gaming Masters of Business Administration in the corporate main office.

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

Jim Sterling perfectly summed up my opinion about it. Adapt or die, AAA games be damned if that's the consequence. 

ReddestSkies

This logic is funny. You want to be able to resell your games and buy used games because you think you save money that way. And you're ok if the overall effort put into games (thus, general quality) goes down in the process.

Basically, you don't care if developers make money as long as they keep making games, and you get the lowest prices possible. If that means worse games in general, so be it!

And I can't help but laugh at Jim Sterling's arguments on the matter. Publishers are an evil monopoly acting as a single entity to steal your hard-earned money. And they're evil.

The idea that money=quality is nonsense and precisely the argument Sterling is making.

Metro: Last Light looks and plays just as good, if not better than other shooters on the market and it was made with a tiny fraction of the typical AAA budget.

Tomb Raider sold 3.8 million in a month and failed to meet expectations. Resident Evil 6 sold 6 million and also failed. This is ridiculous, and these companies simply fail to adapt. It isn't that they're evil, it's that they're stupid. Why did RE6 have so many people working on it when RE5 had less than half and it was wildly better? 

These overblown budgets are the results of poor management. Nothing more, nothing less.