Sony's new patent supresses used games....

[QUOTE="Microsoft1234"]not confirmed, and there were rumors over summer for this becoming standard. I don't like it at all though. on the other hand (sayonara gamestop, if it ever happened). nintendoboy16

Seriously, why is Gamestop the only target in this mess?

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I just see it as them patenting things to make their investors and make publishers happy. I don't see them utilizing it.

If they do, nothing will really change. People are really overblowing this. If anything you should all be demanding that retailer actually compete for your money. This $60 standard across all retailers is just 100% bullcrap. There is no incentive to shop at one store over another right now.

Rocker6

Retailer exclusive DLC is fairly common among high profile publishers, guess that's the way to provide the incentive...

That's terrible incentive. The best incentive is price. Right now I see $60 across all retailer while online through various DD services I see hundreds of great sales with all of the major distribute rs trying to get me to purchase through them through having great deals.

It's not that games launch at $60 that is the problem, it's that many stay at $60 for far too long. Since there are a few standards that everybody always plays, new games often die out quickly as everybody just goes back to CoD and Halo after playing a new game for awhile. Games just don't last that long. Even on the PC it's rare that a non single-player title lasts for more than 2-3 months before the servers are empty.

Retailer need to get the prices down quicker so that more people will purchase the games. Once the initial R&D for a game is done, continuing to supply distributors is not that expensive. All they have to do is make up their initial development cost and then all sales are pretty much profit, so the more people who buy the game, even at a lower price, the more money you make.

Publishers are insistent of leaving the prices at $60 which hurts overall sales. All of the big publishers got it in their heads that every game has to have a budget like the AAA games and have to sell millions of copies at a high price.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Bruce_Benzing"]

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/384922/sony-patents-pre-owned-games-block/

Sony patents pre-owned games block

Technology 'tags' games that have been used in different consoles

Sony Computer Entertainment has filed a patent for technology designed to suppress pre-owned game sales.

blue_hazy_basic

About time, this is great news for the games industry.

Its actually worse then piracy. Used game sale take money of of the industry and puts it in the hands of supermarkets, piracy does not.

The tough part being a game developer is making good games for the consumer and that has been very hard lately with budgets going over 10 million. It's even harder to sell millions to break even. I would support the developer if they actually make a good game and bug free, but this is ridiculous because that means I'm giving my money to a developer that made a bad game.

I don't care if they have kids to feed, so does everyone else with a hard paying job, that's the reality. I'm tired of gamers telling everyone "it's good for the industry, because it supports developers" NO! Whats good for the industry is when developers listen to the customers, not developers doing what they want.

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

About time, this is great news for the games industry.

Its actually worse then piracy. Used game sale take money of of the industry and puts it in the hands of supermarkets, piracy does not.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"] +1. Its just as bad as piracy. Thank you Sony for looking out for us.Sushiglutton

Its actually worse then piracy. Used game sale take money of of the industry and puts it in the hands of supermarkets, piracy does not.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"] +1. Its just as bad as piracy. Thank you Sony for looking out for us.Sushiglutton

Its actually worse then piracy. Used game sale take money of of the industry and puts it in the hands of supermarkets, piracy does not.

lol idiot, you consider supermarkets to be part of the gaming industry?

I guess fish and chip shops are part of the reporting and newspaper industry as newspapers are used to wrap chips.

Sequels sale better... that will change. Death to word of mouth advertising.

All this is is a move to shrink the market and make it so the big companies can crush the smaller ones.

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Its actually worse then piracy. Used game sale take money of of the industry and puts it in the hands of supermarkets, piracy does not.

tenaka2

lol idiot, you consider supermarkets to be part of the gaming industry?

I guess fish and chip shops are part of the reporting and newspaper industry as newspapers are used to wrap chips.

Some people don't seem to realize that if there is no physical copies availabe, and no used game market, companies will raise the price of digital purchases by a lot. If there's only one option for buying a game from one source, why not charge an arm and a leg for it?

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"] Lol you are such an idiot. Retailers are a part of the industry as they help with the distribution and marketing of games and hardware. That they make extra money from second hand sales means that they need smaller margins on new copies sold. clyde46

lol idiot, you consider supermarkets to be part of the gaming industry?

I guess fish and chip shops are part of the reporting and newspaper industry as newspapers are used to wrap chips.

Yeah my local Asda does it.

But fear not ASDA are an essential part of the gaming industry!

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Its actually worse then piracy. Used game sale take money of of the industry and puts it in the hands of supermarkets, piracy does not.

tenaka2

lol idiot, you consider supermarkets to be part of the gaming industry?

I guess fish and chip shops are part of the reporting and newspaper industry as newspapers are used to wrap chips.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"] +1. Its just as bad as piracy. Thank you Sony for looking out for us.Sushiglutton

Its actually worse then piracy. Used game sale take money of of the industry and puts it in the hands of supermarkets, piracy does not.

Your definition of extra money is 100% pure profit..

I would like to see what kind of cash you find between your couch cushions.

Some people don't seem to realize that if there is no physical copies availabe, and no used game market, companies will raise the price of digital purchases by a lot. If there's only one option for buying a game from one source, why not charge an arm and a leg for it?

Zen_Light

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Its actually worse then piracy. Used game sale take money of of the industry and puts it in the hands of supermarkets, piracy does not.

Your definition of extra money is 100% pure profit..

I would like to see what kind of cash you find between your couch cushions.

Some people don't seem to realize that if there is no physical copies availabe, and no used game market, companies will raise the price of digital purchases by a lot. If there's only one option for buying a game from one source, why not charge an arm and a leg for it?

Zen_Light

Because the developers themselves have to compete for the customer's dollar.

The only way your example would exist is if there was one single distributer who controlled everything which is nowhere near happening.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"] Lol you are such an idiot. Retailers are a part of the industry as they help with the distribution and marketing of games and hardware. That they make extra money from second hand sales means that they need smaller margins on new copies sold. Sushiglutton

lol idiot, you consider supermarkets to be part of the gaming industry?

I guess fish and chip shops are part of the reporting and newspaper industry as newspapers are used to wrap chips.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

lol idiot, you consider supermarkets to be part of the gaming industry?

I guess fish and chip shops are part of the reporting and newspaper industry as newspapers are used to wrap chips.

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="Sushiglutton"] *Facepalm* :lol:! They are a link in the chain. There is nothing forcing the game companies to let supermarkets sell their games. They choose to do so because the supermarkets can help them with distribution. That's how market economy works. Read a bit about economy before posting on topics like these again. But I suppose you prefer to get your "facts" from PC-pirate forums.Sushiglutton

[QUOTE="Zen_Light"]

Some people don't seem to realize that if there is no physical copies availabe, and no used game market, companies will raise the price of digital purchases by a lot. If there's only one option for buying a game from one source, why not charge an arm and a leg for it?

clyde46

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"] Lol you are such an idiot. Retailers are a part of the industry as they help with the distribution and marketing of games and hardware. That they make extra money from second hand sales means that they need smaller margins on new copies sold. Sushiglutton

lol idiot, you consider supermarkets to be part of the gaming industry?

I guess fish and chip shops are part of the reporting and newspaper industry as newspapers are used to wrap chips.

A link in the chain? You realise that that includes everything?

Games companies love supermarkets to sell *new* copies of there games, I am not so sure they enjoy supermarkets selling one copy of their game 4 times and taking all the profit for themselves.

For every 10 bucks a supermarket makes on a used game it is -10 bucks for the publisher/devs.

I know you find this confusing, but I cant think of anyway to make it simpler.

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I just see it as them patenting things to make their investors and make publishers happy. I don't see them utilizing it.

If they do, nothing will really change. People are really overblowing this. If anything you should all be demanding that retailer actually compete for your money. This $60 standard across all retailers is just 100% bullcrap. There is no incentive to shop at one store over another right now.

Wasdie

Retailer exclusive DLC is fairly common among high profile publishers, guess that's the way to provide the incentive...

That's terrible incentive. The best incentive is price. Right now I see $60 across all retailer while online through various DD services I see hundreds of great sales with all of the major distribute rs trying to get me to purchase through them through having great deals.

It's not that games launch at $60 that is the problem, it's that many stay at $60 for far too long. Since there are a few standards that everybody always plays, new games often die out quickly as everybody just goes back to CoD and Halo after playing a new game for awhile. Games just don't last that long. Even on the PC it's rare that a non single-player title lasts for more than 2-3 months before the servers are empty.

Retailer need to get the prices down quicker so that more people will purchase the games. Once the initial R&D for a game is done, continuing to supply distributors is not that expensive. All they have to do is make up their initial development cost and then all sales are pretty much profit, so the more people who buy the game, even at a lower price, the more money you make.

Publishers are insistent of leaving the prices at $60 which hurts overall sales. All of the big publishers got it in their heads that every game has to have a budget like the AAA games and have to sell millions of copies at a high price.

Yeah, I agree, providing the consumers with the described pricing model is one of the main reasons why Steam is so succesful. Though I'd still like to see some flexibility in release prices, honestly, many games simply aren't ever worth the $60 price, and should be priced more appropriately right from the start. Take Red Faction Armageddon, for example. It's a decent shooter to kill a boring afternoon, but selling it at $60 price is a recipe for the disaster. The game simply doesn't pack anywhere near enough content to justify such a price, has no replay value whatsoever, and it obviously flopped at sales. Even the discounts couldn't save it, as gamers simply moved on. But if it was priced lower, for like, $30, it might've stood a chance...

-----

True, retailer exclusive DLC is a bad way to provide incentive, and to make things worse, some people like me don't even have any of those retailers nearby, which means we miss out on it completely. Still, publishers insist on it, which is why I brought it up. A bad thing, but it's there, and I sadly don't see it going away anytime soon...

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"][QUOTE="clyde46"] You also have to know that these supermarkets have huge buying power, they can drive down the price of things they buy from the distributor and then jack up the price of said item to the consumer. clyde46

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="Zen_Light"]

Some people don't seem to realize that if there is no physical copies availabe, and no used game market, companies will raise the price of digital purchases by a lot. If there's only one option for buying a game from one source, why not charge an arm and a leg for it?

Zen_Light

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="Bruce_Benzing"] So renting a game is a bad thing now?

Wasdie

No it's not. Rental copies cost far more to purchase and keep licensed. They get their money from rentals. You don't rent out retail copies, you get into agreements with the publisher on how the rental contracts will work.

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="Sushiglutton"] So what?Sushiglutton

A link in the chain? You realise that that includes everything?

Games companies love supermarkets to sell *new* copies of there games, I am not so sure they enjoy supermarkets selling one copy of their game 4 times and taking all the profit for themselves.

For every 10 bucks a supermarket makes on a used game it is -10 bucks for the publisher/devs.

I know you find this confusing, but I cant think of anyway to make it simpler.

tenaka2

Ofc the game company prefers if the supermarket sells a new copy instead. However you were wrong when you said that the money disappears from the industry. The profit from used game sales is part of the equation when retailers negotiate with the game companies. Since they can make extra money on the side they will, all other things equal, demand less margin on the new copies sold.

For every 10 bucks a supermarket makes on a used game it is -10 bucks for the publisher/devs.tenaka2

[QUOTE="Zen_Light"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"] I'm not saying what these publishers are doing is right but its the direction they want to steer the industry in. Of course they would love a monopoly on games where they could charge what they like for games. clyde46

if true then fvck you Sony.

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="Zen_Light"]I'm more for consumer rights than big business profitability. If these companies think they can get away with it, it's their right to do as they please, but then again it's also the consumers' right to vote with their wallets and not support such practices. If Sony actually tries such a douche move, I can easily see them becoming a totally niche gaming company.

Zen_Light

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

A link in the chain? You realise that that includes everything?

Games companies love supermarkets to sell *new* copies of there games, I am not so sure they enjoy supermarkets selling one copy of their game 4 times and taking all the profit for themselves.

For every 10 bucks a supermarket makes on a used game it is -10 bucks for the publisher/devs.

I know you find this confusing, but I cant think of anyway to make it simpler.

Sushiglutton

Ofc the game company prefers if the supermarket sells a new copy instead. However you were wrong when you said that the money disappears from the industry. The profit from used game sales is part of the equation when retailers negotiate with the game companies. Since they can make extra money on the side they will, all other things equal, demand less margin on the new copies sold.

That's a good point, it should work in theory, but I wonder, does it apply to reality?

Out of curiosity, I'd really like to see some proof of successful used-game retailers decreasing these margins for new copies...

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"][QUOTE="clyde46"] So what? Is that your counter?clyde46

[QUOTE="Zen_Light"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"] Unfortunately, this is the cross roads where consumer rights run head long into profitability. There has been massive lobbying by the entertainment industry to add massive price levies on blank media to try and gouge more money from consumers who want to back up their purchased media. Hell I remember where the industry tried to get the law changed to stop people from backing up movies they rightly purchased. clyde46

Where do you guys get the idea that if there was only digital distribution that game prices would never go down, and would actually increase in price?

Basic economics tells you otherwise.

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="Zen_Light"]I guess as long as there are people who believe anything corporations tell them, there will always be profit in screwing people over. I can't help but scowl when I see these PC gamers saying that no used games are "good for the industry", when they really know it's just good for PC gaming only and it will virtually put consoles out of business.

Ly_the_Fairy

Where do you guys get the idea that if there was only digital distribution that game prices would never go down, and would actually increase in price?

Basic economics tells you otherwise.

No used games is bad for the industry. The problem we have here is that the publishers want to try and control that revenue stream, they want to tap into that market where they currently get nothing from. A game could be sold 6-7 times over after the original point of sale, meaning the publisher has missed out on 7 lots of sales. This pisses them off. As for PC gamers, we need used game sales for consoles. If they're not used games then we will lose these fantastic prices we currently enjoy as publishers will start to control the price points of games.clyde46

Where do you guys get the idea that if there was only digital distribution that game prices would never go down, and would actually increase in price?

Basic economics tells you otherwise.

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"] No used games is bad for the industry. The problem we have here is that the publishers want to try and control that revenue stream, they want to tap into that market where they currently get nothing from. A game could be sold 6-7 times over after the original point of sale, meaning the publisher has missed out on 7 lots of sales. This pisses them off. As for PC gamers, we need used game sales for consoles. If they're not used games then we will lose these fantastic prices we currently enjoy as publishers will start to control the price points of games.clyde46

Where do you guys get the idea that if there was only digital distribution that game prices would never go down, and would actually increase in price?

Basic economics tells you otherwise.

And that means what?

All the publishers are competing with each other.

If Activision wants to charge $60 for CoD then EA will charge less for Battlefield. If Battlefield starts selling a lot more copies than CoD then Activision would drop the price of CoD.

It has no bearing on how a game is distributed. Supply and demand rules over all pricing.

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"] No used games is bad for the industry. The problem we have here is that the publishers want to try and control that revenue stream, they want to tap into that market where they currently get nothing from. A game could be sold 6-7 times over after the original point of sale, meaning the publisher has missed out on 7 lots of sales. This pisses them off. As for PC gamers, we need used game sales for consoles. If they're not used games then we will lose these fantastic prices we currently enjoy as publishers will start to control the price points of games.clyde46

Where do you guys get the idea that if there was only digital distribution that game prices would never go down, and would actually increase in price?

Basic economics tells you otherwise.

Hm, yeah, guess it's always possible for them to play the "server maintenance" card, or something of a kind. After all, they wish to maximize their profits, but the problem is, they often go in the wrong direction.

The current "AAA game" model of huge development and advertisment costs that needs millions of copies sold just to break even is unsustainable, for example...

It begins...

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

A link in the chain? You realise that that includes everything?

Games companies love supermarkets to sell *new* copies of there games, I am not so sure they enjoy supermarkets selling one copy of their game 4 times and taking all the profit for themselves.

For every 10 bucks a supermarket makes on a used game it is -10 bucks for the publisher/devs.

I know you find this confusing, but I cant think of anyway to make it simpler.

Ofc the game company prefers if the supermarket sells a new copy instead. However you were wrong when you said that the money disappears from the industry. The profit from used game sales is part of the equation when retailers negotiate with the game companies. Since they can make extra money on the side they will, all other things equal, demand less margin on the new copies sold.

That's a good point, it should work in theory, but I wonder, does it apply to reality?

Out of curiosity, I'd really like to see some proof of successful used-game retailers decreasing these margins for new copies...

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"] Lol you are such an idiot. Retailers are a part of the industry as they help with the distribution and marketing of games and hardware. That they make extra money from second hand sales means that they need smaller margins on new copies sold. clyde46

lol idiot, you consider supermarkets to be part of the gaming industry?

I guess fish and chip shops are part of the reporting and newspaper industry as newspapers are used to wrap chips.

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

Where do you guys get the idea that if there was only digital distribution that game prices would never go down, and would actually increase in price?

Basic economics tells you otherwise.

Ly_the_Fairy

And that means what?

All the publishers are competing with each other.

If Activision wants to charge $60 for CoD then EA will charge less for Battlefield. If Battlefield starts selling a lot more copies than CoD then Activision would drop the price of CoD.

It has no bearing on how a game is distributed. Supply and demand rules over all pricing.

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

lol idiot, you consider supermarkets to be part of the gaming industry?

I guess fish and chip shops are part of the reporting and newspaper industry as newspapers are used to wrap chips.

nintendoboy16

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="nintendoboy16"]Makes sense considering Wal-Mart in the US was doing the same for quite sometime.nintendoboy16

Ofc the game company prefers if the supermarket sells a new copy instead. However you were wrong when you said that the money disappears from the industry. The profit from used game sales is part of the equation when retailers negotiate with the game companies. Since they can make extra money on the side they will, all other things equal, demand less margin on the new copies sold.

Sushiglutton

Except of course that you just made this up.

Unless you actually think that retailers that dont deal in sloppy seconds get the games cheaper then those that do? lol moron.

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

That's a good point, it should work in theory, but I wonder, does it apply to reality?

Out of curiosity, I'd really like to see some proof of successful used-game retailers decreasing these margins for new copies...

Sushiglutton

You have me at a disadvantage here! :P