The Flipside (#1): Piracy vs. Trade-In

[nabokovfan87]

Let me start off by explaining how this all came about. A week (a few by now) or so ago, the Gamespot UK podcast was interviewing someone who had just released a game on console. They proceeded to talk about development, publishing, and eventually the talk lead to the developer’s thoughts on game trade-ins.

As I have hours with earplugs in my ear I listen to many podcasts, this probably wasn’t them, but two podcasts were particularly pissed at pc gamers for hacking Ubisoft’s DRM and causing legitimate customers the unfortunate position of being unable to play. Giantbomb’s Bombcast and most likely Kotaku’s podcast were at the forefront of this. Contrasting those two discussions, here is what happens when you listen to a discussion about how bad piracy is, followed by a discussion from the developer’s perspective about how bad game trade-ins are.

Both piracy and trade-ins end up with the makers of a game losing out on profit. Both piracy and trade-ins allow gamers to play more games. Piracy uses virtual means, and has become highly restrictive thanks to viruses, spyware, ISP blocks, and lawsuits on content providers. Game trade-ins have increased thanks to legality, ease, and are now flourishing online through websites like goozex, amazon, and toysrus. Which results in the real question, besides legality, and virtual vs. physical, what the hell is the difference between piracy and game trade-ins?

One way to look at this is from the perspective of the PC player, whose games are not reviewed or discussed on the scale of console games, is provided with game demos, and whose overall content can extremely limit whether or not someone can enjoy that content. Not to mention the fact that websites once fraught with pirates have now been turned into legitimate businesses thanks to overseas lawsuits and fear of prosecution.

The other way is to think of the console gamer, be it legitimate or pirate, who has the ability to rent games from places like gamefly.com, is provided with a demo of a large majority of their content, and knows exactly what is required to “run” a particular game. This person can also be “ripping off the developer” by solely legal means, while the content providers have done little to stop this, in fact, have began removing content and confusing the purchasing process with things like preorder bonus items, unlock codes, and free content for “new” purchasers (or simply new renters). The largest travesty here is that websites and stores are making money that would have gone to the developer.

Lastly, I would like to take one final glance at the PC owners. Things like steam have developed a more central system for content retrieval, but there is still a drastic lack of pre-sale content. From reviews, demos, videos, and just plain press, it seems like discussion the PC version of a game has become little more than a “yes or no” answer and that is all. What mystifies me, the simple fact that pirates are becoming far and few between while just about everyone who owns a console will eventually trade-in a game. It is a growing market, while on the PC, things are done at the gamers’ desire, and not to fill a certain company’s money pit, and provide said company with enough spare change to sponsor a race car.

http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/images/kotaku/2008/08/COD_20.jpg

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e46/markhill66/2569856714_4f88236d24.jpg

http://www.gojoeylogano.com/images/killzone2-gamestop-paint-scheme.jpg

http://photos.gojoeylogano.com/d/4831-1/Mario+Kart+Wii+GameStop+Car.jpg

I think you get the Idea. Please post your thoughts, and feel free to share your own thoughts and experiences with this issue.

-nabokovfan87

[kyrieee]

Here's how I see things:

Whether or not I choose to buy / pirate a game has nothing to do with the legality of those two actions. I buy games largely because of convenience / easy of use (Steam) but also to support the developer.

Borrowing / renting / pirating games is largely the same to me. Neither supports the developer so I'd just pick the most convenient option. Like I said, the legality isn't a factor in my decision making. The reason I do or don't cross a red light (as a pedestrian) also has nothing to do with the law, it's kind of the same thing

Law != moral

[Adam Blue]

I see renting a little different since it could potential get a customer to purchase a retail copy once the rental period ends, plus physical copies have to be bought for rental. Plus, marketing is a large part of the rental business, which does help a developer.

I've said this many times, but even though the industry is always evolving, this is just a major evolution. With all these factors in place add in Gamestop being a retailer and game companies being developers - two different business practices at play.

We'll see different tactics along the way.

[Dukefrukem]

I haven't pirated a game in a long time. I don't see myself pirating ever again, unless the game somehow becomes unavailable for me to purchase.

Trading I do on a regular basis via goozex. I go through console games too fast to justify paying $60 a pop for them and then never playing them again. Since It's my property, I decide what I want to do with it... i.e. trade it for equal value in goods.

[Khrymsyn]

I view trading in, renting, and pirating as three completely unrelated things, and here's why...

Let's start with Trading In... Frankly, trading in is a practice that goes on in almost every other consumer product on the planet, only then it's not usually a central place you purchase from, but from individuals. DVD players, toasters, televisions, cars, couches, and just about anything that physically exists can be purchased 2nd hand, and I do not see a problem with that practice also existing with Video Games. It's legal, it's common, and for almost any consumer product out there, it's EXPECTED.

Second, renting... again, this is another case where a large number of consumer products can also be rented. Cars, Appliances, Furniture, movies, and yes, video games. It's a shame you really can't rent a PC game, but that's the way it is. As before, it's legal, it's common, and I don't see a problem with it.

Third... now here's sort of one place I actually agree with the publishers. Piracy sucks. It's illegal, and shouldn't really be done. HOWEVER, that's where a lot of my agreement ends. Publishers go on and on about how piracy = lost sales and how DRM has to be stronger, and stronger, and stronger... however, here's a question of mine... if Piracy was nothing but lost sales, how come there are websites out there making money hand over fist with piracy? Stronger and stronger DRM does nothing but potentially hurt the experience of the legitimate customer, as the pirate just gets a copy with it removed, yet at the same time, there IS monetary value to be had there if the publishers could figure out some way of tapping in to that. Yes, piracy does hurt the bottom line, of that I have no doubt, but it doesn't hurt it nearly as bad as publishers would have you believe (in most cases), AND there's still money to be obtained through that channel. (For instance, if a pirate would pay $5 for a game through piracy channels, why wouldn't they through legal channels if it were convinient without possible buggy DRM?)

The piracy problem is definitely a difficult one to solve, and I don't think it ever will be... if there was, you wouldn't be able to head over to chinatown in NYC and get knock off Gucci bags and $2 DVDs. It CAN be made more difficult, but doesn't need to sacrifice the experience of the legitimate customer to do so.
As far as trading in and rentals? A) If you don't like rentals, maybe make rental versions a different price, or maybe release an early "rental version" for more money? B) Trading in is part of consumerism. If a person wants to save $5, they'll save $5... you want to make money off of trade ins? How about offer a trade in program with your own games offering more money back per game, and selling it by undercutting gamestop? You know.. use capitalism to your advantage?

[nabokovfan87]

I haven't pirated a game in a long time. I don't see myself pirating ever again, unless the game somehow becomes unavailable for me to purchase.

Trading I do on a regular basis via goozex. I go through console games too fast to justify paying $60 a pop for them and then never playing them again. Since It's my property, I decide what I want to do with it... i.e. trade it for equal value in goods.

Perhaps another way to look at things, payment (whether to the developer or a third party) makes things seem more legitimate. When someone pirates something they pay nothing, and cannot truly own it.

Let's start with Trading In... Frankly, trading in is a practice that goes on in almost every other consumer product on the planet, only then it's not usually a central place you purchase from, but from individuals. DVD players, toasters, televisions, cars, couches, and just about anything that physically exists can be purchased 2nd hand, and I do not see a problem with that practice also existing with Video Games. It's legal, it's common, and for almost any consumer product out there, it's EXPECTED.

The whole point here is that from the perspective of the developer, a lost sale is a lost sale, no matter what caused it.

Third... now here's sort of one place I actually agree with the publishers. Piracy sucks. It's illegal, and shouldn't really be done. HOWEVER, that's where a lot of my agreement ends. Publishers go on and on about how piracy = lost sales and how DRM has to be stronger, and stronger, and stronger... however, here's a question of mine... if Piracy was nothing but lost sales, how come there are websites out there making money hand over fist with piracy? Stronger and stronger DRM does nothing but potentially hurt the experience of the legitimate customer, as the pirate just gets a copy with it removed, yet at the same time, there IS monetary value to be had there if the publishers could figure out some way of tapping in to that. Yes, piracy does hurt the bottom line, of that I have no doubt, but it doesn't hurt it nearly as bad as publishers would have you believe (in most cases), AND there's still money to be obtained through that channel. (For instance, if a pirate would pay $5 for a game through piracy channels, why wouldn't they through legal channels if it were convinient without possible buggy DRM?)

This is extremely intriguing to me. And of course, we speak of PC piracy and not console/portable piracy (which is on the rise). You mentioned that websites out there are profiting hand over fist from pirating, but is this really true? I don't see a bittorrent branded nascar out there, bittorrent commercials, and similar things. Mind you, a pirate can spend 10-20 hours downloading things, only to find out that the game has had the crack patched, or its a trojan and you lose your entire OS install. When you go to a trade-in store, apart from disc scratches and ylod/rrod, you know it will always work.

[Dukefrukem]

The whole point here is that from the perspective of the developer, a lost sale is a lost sale, no matter what caused it.

.

Capitalism sucks doesn't it....

[Kelegacy]

Games are too expensive and too brief these days. I trade in games when there's a good enough deal for me, but I buy most of mine new. Not $60 new, but cheap clearance or price-drop new. $60 is a fools price.

I think piracy is overblown too. Not every game pirated is a lost sale. I don't think that way though I know some would disagree. It's an easy way for game publishers to say they are losing X amount of dollars, if you multiply the number of times a torrent is downloaded by $50-60. I don't buy it, though I do see that piracy can be a problem. But it's only PART of the problem. Making DRM that inconveniences paying customers isn't the solution.

Neither is getting rid of the resale market. I don't understand why gaming can't survive a secondary market. Books, movies, music, cars, clothing, nearly anything has a market for more frugal people. And yet they still prosper.

The gaming industry needs to do a step back, stop blaming piracy and used games for all their ills, and take a good hard, introspective look at itself. The issues currently facing the industry, I think, are more than they want to admit.

[Khrymsyn]

The whole point here is that from the perspective of the developer, a lost sale is a lost sale, no matter what caused it.

Then in my option, the developer has a skewed perspective. That's like walking in a room with a flavor of soda, wanting to charge $2.00 for it, and expecting everyone in the room to drink it, and then getting mad people are either drinking the water they brought from home or got from the $1.25 per soda vending machine.

Rentals and Trade Ins (which really should just be called "used games") are nothing more than alternative aquisition sources. If you want to be the place something is being purchased from, you need to compete in that market. Not look at the market and blame THAT for not giving you the money you think you deserve. It's almost the same exact problem the movie and record industries are struggling with right now. They aren't looking at the market and attempting to correct their business model, they're trying to reshape the market through non-market means. If they instead looked at the market and attempted to USE the market (For instance, the recent trend of "day one" DLC, or as I said, why not get into the used market themselves?) they could recoup, or at least partially offset the money they are feeling is lost. If there were no available market for rentals or "used games", then Gamestop wouldn't be able to afford their Nascar, plain and simple. This market developers and publishers hate so much, was created specifically by them, due to their current methods of pricing and distribution.


This is extremely intriguing to me. And of course, we speak of PC piracy and not console/portable piracy (which is on the rise). You mentioned that websites out there are profiting hand over fist from pirating, but is this really true? I don't see a bittorrent branded nascar out there, bittorrent commercials, and similar things. Mind you, a pirate can spend 10-20 hours downloading things, only to find out that the game has had the crack patched, or its a trojan and you lose your entire OS install. When you go to a trade-in store, apart from disc scratches and ylod/rrod, you know it will always work.

Perhaps "hand over fist" is a bit of an exaggeration, but there is definitely money to be made there. It's like some of the bittorrent porn sites. They actually make money. Even though they are "free". How? In some cases they share paid for content "illegally" to their users, and serve advertisements in the link pages. This paid for content, basically acts as a huge repository of commercials. Even if a small percentage goes on to buy the original content, it's still more money than the original content providers were reciving from their normal clientele. The original content provider kicks back a dime or two to the torrent site, and the circle continues. Now, obviously for games, and movies and such this does not work the same way, but there ARE pay for torrent sites with that content as well, and the profit is made directly from the site members instead of the "backdoor" advertisement scheme, but there are still advertisement dollars there as well.

Oh, and a side note, console piracy is definitely on the rise, but honestly is a much bigger scene than is normally covered in most piracy articles and has been for quite some time. I do not know why that is.

[Ravenlock]

It may be oversimplifying to claim that "a lost sale is a lost sale," and that therefore trade-ins and piracy are equivalent in the publisher's / developer's eyes. Certainly piracy and trade-ins are both viewed as a negative from their standpoint, but they're working on ways to get around the trade-in problem. Post-release DLC is a huge part of this, and more recently "bonus" content that's only available if you purchased the game at retail (or costs extra money, if you didn't) is another way they're trying to get around it.

Underpinning those efforts, though, is the central theory that there's only one physical copy, and that somebody paid for it. If you buy a game and then trade it in, and then after you trade it in some DLC comes out, you either need to rent it (a disc the rental store paid for) or buy another disc. If you rent a game or purchase a used disc and some of the content is "exclusive" to retail purchasers, you need to shell out $$ to access that content. It isn't perfect - there's still many more people playing their game than paid full retail value for it - but everything's still basically governed by supply and demand; every copy being played, somebody paid the publisher for. And hey, welcome to every media industry ever. Somehow books, music and film have all survived a thriving re-sale market.

Piracy, however, upsets the supply & demand equation. When tens of thousands of copies are floating around that nobody paid for (and the post-release / "exclusive" content to boot), there's no way for them to recover any of that income.

Of course, one could also argue that on the PC the whole comparison is quickly being rendered moot, as digital distribution and account-linked DRM schemes are making trade-ins a relic of the past on the PC platform. Which sucks for consumers. But then Steam comes along and runs deals all the time that are several times cheaper than any used price would ever be, so I suppose it evens out a bit in that respect.

[Pale Ale]

Wait back up did you end that wall of text essay with complaints about the stock car? One the most effective advertising vehicles of the modern era.

[nabokovfan87]

It may be oversimplifying to claim that "a lost sale is a lost sale," and that therefore trade-ins and piracy are equivalent in the publisher's / developer's eyes. Certainly piracy and trade-ins are both viewed as a negative from their standpoint, but they're working on ways to get around the trade-in problem. Post-release DLC is a huge part of this, and more recently "bonus" content that's only available if you purchased the game at retail (or costs extra money, if you didn't) is another way they're trying to get around it.

Sure bonus content, DLC, and other things help the trade-in sales, and those sales all go towards the dev, but even pirates buy DLC. A lot of people don't care about the cerebus network, simply buy the game, and trade it in one or two weeks after when they have finished it. There is always two sides of the coin, those who do it, and those who don't.

Underpinning those efforts, though, is the central theory that there's only one physical copy, and that somebody paid for it. If you buy a game and then trade it in, and then after you trade it in some DLC comes out, you either need to rent it (a disc the rental store paid for) or buy another disc. If you rent a game or purchase a used disc and some of the content is "exclusive" to retail purchasers, you need to shell out $$ to access that content. It isn't perfect - there's still many more people playing their game than paid full retail value for it - but everything's still basically governed by supply and demand; every copy being played, somebody paid the publisher for. And hey, welcome to every media industry ever. Somehow books, music and film have all survived a thriving re-sale market.

This is what my point is. Even though a game on pc is pirated, we are talking 10-20% of its sales. Someone usually buys a copy, takes it home, and posts it up online. Someone still paid for that copy. It is the exact same thing with trade-ins except for the fact that downloads costs time and energy bills, while trade-ins have a much more up front cost to them. It's easy though, someone buys a game, trades it in, 5 maybe 10 more people buy it used, that's 5-10 lost sales. Perhaps the reason DVD and books have survived is because games cost anywhere from 3x (20 dollar dvd) to 10x (5 dollar book) more.

Piracy, however, upsets the supply & demand equation. When tens of thousands of copies are floating around that nobody paid for (and the post-release / "exclusive" content to boot), there's no way for them to recover any of that income.

Consider 10,000 copies of madden are sold, and 6 months later immediately traded to gamestop. Then, 10,00 more people pick up those same copies because they had just purchased a new console. Quite frankly, that IS how it happens, and isn't this the same thing?

Of course, one could also argue that on the PC the whole comparison is quickly being rendered moot, as digital distribution and account-linked DRM schemes are making trade-ins a relic of the past on the PC platform. Which sucks for consumers. But then Steam comes along and runs deals all the time that are several times cheaper than any used price would ever be, so I suppose it evens out a bit in that respect.

Honestly though, how long were pc gamers ever allowed to go to gamestop and trade-in a copy of doom for store credit? I have never traded a pc game, simply tossed it away because it was so old it wouldn't run or quite frankly lost it. It is a difference of perspectives here. something like goozex (if you were buying only) can make a 60 dollar game down to 30, and lets take a look back, how much does a copy of mass effect fetch on ebay, amazon, or even gamestop (used, of course). These things always come down in price, but your point here is valid, pc games are in general cheaper.

Wait back up did you end that wall of text essay with complaints about the stock car? One the most effective advertising vehicles of the modern era.

Lol, was just a visual representation of money the developers did not receive.

Oh, and a side note, console piracy is definitely on the rise, but honestly is a much bigger scene than is normally covered in most piracy articles and has been for quite some time. I do not know why that is.

Keep in mind, these two are treated VERY differently as well. Something like the following story surfaces, and no one cares, something like MW2, or ubisoft's schemes and people either condemn pc piracy or shout in anger at how this will never help.

take two blames piracy for poor gta chinatown wars sales (http://www.qj.net/qjnet/news/take-two-blames-piracy-for-poor-gta-chinatown-wars-sales.html)

I am very proud of Chinatown Wars. As of February 2010, Chinatown Wars’ unit sales in the US represented nearly 50 per cent of the unit sales of all M-rated DS titles in the history of the platform.

At the same time, the handheld market is currently challenged by weak demand and by piracy. Piracy is a real and present danger for our industry and must be addressed, especially in the handheld market. The commercial performance of Chinatown Wars has certainly suffered at the hands of piracy.

Also this one from kotaku's "Census":

http://kotaku.com/5500495/kotaku-census-2010-the-results-in-full

- 51% of participating readers have pirated a console game

- 40% of participating readers have pirated a handheld game

- 79% of participating readers have pirated a PC game. 79%!

Keep in mind, the questions did not ask "do you pirate", but have you ever.

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/9/2010/03/haveyoupiratedconsole.jpg

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/9/2010/03/haveyoupiratedpc.jpg

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/9/2010/03/haveyoupiratedhandheld.jpg

Lastly, as ravenlock suggested, most people just want digital convenience, but perhaps the true answer is (as they illustrated on their podcast) you can't go out and buy a pc game anymore if you wanted to.

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/9/2010/03/digitalquery.jpg

[Khrymsyn]

Sure bonus content, DLC, and other things help the trade-in sales, and those sales all go towards the dev, but even pirates buy DLC. A lot of people don't care about the cerebus network, simply buy the game, and trade it in one or two weeks after when they have finished it. There is always two sides of the coin, those who do it, and those who don't.
So if pirates buy DLC, and that pirate likely would not have purchased the game, isn't that more revenue to the developers and publisher they may not have had otherwise?

This is what my point is. Even though a game on pc is pirated, we are talking 10-20% of its sales.
Complete guestimation. Nothing backs up that data. It's entirely possible piracy costs 0% of sales as the pirates may not have purchased the software anyway, OR cost 20% of sales as every pirate may have purchased. Reality is, those numbers are likely going to be much lower, because of three common reasons pirates pirate... #1 collection... i.e. want to have everything, but wind up not even playing them more than once or twice, #2 price... do not want to pay, and #3 because they CAN. Assuming that every pirated piece of software is a sale completely ignores WHY the software is pirated.

Someone usually buys a copy, takes it home, and posts it up online. Someone still paid for that copy. It is the exact same thing with trade-ins except for the fact that downloads costs time and energy bills, while trade-ins have a much more up front cost to them.
Definitely not the same thing with Trade-Ins, especially since 1 is illegal, and 1 is legal. ALSO, most pirated software is not uploaded by someone "usually buys a copy". quite a large amount of it is uploaded due to some seriously crazy contacts these piracy groups have with distribution centers. How do you think so many pirated games hit torrent sites either before release, or on day of release with a crack already written and tested?

It's easy though, someone buys a game, trades it in, 5 maybe 10 more people buy it used, that's 5-10 lost sales. Perhaps the reason DVD and books have survived is because games cost anywhere from 3x (20 dollar dvd) to 10x (5 dollar book) more.
But that's a complete mis-perception. Let's take your example 1 step further... Person buys a game, trades it in... they take that trade in money, TO PURCHASE ANOTHER GAME. They trade that game in, and purchase.... you got it.. ANOTHER GAME. Another game that otherwise they likely would NOT have purchased, but can only do so because of the money they earned by trading in their previous one! That means due to trade ins, it actually INCREASES the number of sales, increasing the profits to the developer and publisher. The Consumer gets 3 games for the price of 2 due to trade ins, the developers and publishers sell 3 times as many games to that customer. Guess what will happen if the trade market dies? Those folks who have been following this method will wind up either purchasing less games and being a much more "discerning" customer, or turn to... piracy! Then you've got the "run off" effect... Person buys a used game, and really enjoys it. Sequel comes out and they are so hyped for it due to the previous's enjoyability they buy a new copy. That's yet another sale unaccounted for due to trade in market, but it's one that does exist. You may not think this exsits, but how else do you explain a sequel game selling more than the original (such as... Mass Effect)?

Also, the mention about DVD and Book prices are a great example of Market forces... Movies cost as much, and in many cases MORE than a video game to create. Yet, to get at it first run, it costs me $10, and to buy on DVD/Blue-Ray another $10-15. So my total cost to enjoy that media is $20 for something that cost $100million to create and advertise. Video games cost $60 that cost $10-$20 million to create and advertise. Yes, video game market is smaller than movie market, but it's not THAT much smaller anymore. Plus, there's no such thing as DLC for a movie (that I know of yet).

Keep in mind, these two are treated VERY differently as well. Something like the following story surfaces, and no one cares, something like MW2, or ubisoft's schemes and people either condemn pc piracy or shout in anger at how this will never help.
take two blames piracy for poor gta chinatown wars sales (http://www.qj.net/qjnet/news/take-two-blames-piracy-for-poor-gta-chinatown-wars-sales.html)

Simple question... what do you think is more likely in a situation like this... failure of the game due to piracy, or failure of the game due to an unsustainable market for the product?

[CappinCanuck]

For the past 2 years or so I haven't pirated anything. Not because of some moral change per se, but because my employment would be jeopardized. That said, I have not bought any more games than I would have while pirating. I still bought all the games I would buy; and while that sentence is dense for most, I think gamers will understand what it means.

When I pirated, I pirated games I wanted to try. None were ever games that I would/wanted to buy. I did play more games than I would have otherwise, but they certainly did not hinder my purchasing of games. There really hasn't been a game that I've bought that I wouldn't have before. Perhaps DA:O would be the only one? But as a result of having to purchase it, I bought it used. So, same thing for developers.

One thing I've learned over the years is that I'm probably more similar to most than not despite the clamor to believe in our distinct individuality. I really wish there was some insight into how many people are like myself. If I am right, I'd love to shove it in some developer and publisher's faces and say, "See, if you make good games with good features, people will just buy them."

Piracy and trade-ins are not the same thing. They are for a developer's bottom-line but not for most others. And the last thing in my gaming hobby that I care about is a developer's bottom-line.

[nabokovfan87]

So if pirates buy DLC, and that pirate likely would not have purchased the game, isn't that more revenue to the developers and publisher they may not have had otherwise?

Thats not the point, what I mean by saying that pirates buy DLC too is that you cant justify one thing over the other by using DLC as your supporting argument.

Complete guestimation. Nothing backs up that data. It's entirely possible piracy costs 0% of sales as the pirates may not have purchased the software anyway, OR cost 20% of sales as every pirate may have purchased. Reality is, those numbers are likely going to be much lower, because of three common reasons pirates pirate... #1 collection... i.e. want to have everything, but wind up not even playing them more than once or twice, #2 price... do not want to pay, and #3 because they CAN. Assuming that every pirated piece of software is a sale completely ignores WHY the software is pirated.

There is actually a lot of facts and surveys to back that stat up. Things like developers flat out saying xx percent of people are playing our game pirated, surveys, and just plain download numbers. The 10-20 percent I was touting was from a recent survey on movie and media downloads showing a trend that several years ago it was 18% and is down by 25% to 14%. Here is the story:

http://www.p2p-weblog.com/50226711/illegal_p2p_downloads_down_by_25_percent.php

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/20100301/image002_610x457.png

and another one: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-10116502-62.html

Definitely not the same thing with Trade-Ins, especially since 1 is illegal, and 1 is legal. ALSO, most pirated software is not uploaded by someone "usually buys a copy". quite a large amount of it is uploaded due to some seriously crazy contacts these piracy groups have with distribution centers. How do you think so many pirated games hit torrent sites either before release, or on day of release with a crack already written and tested?

I clearly stated earlier one is legal and one is not. Yes you are correct early copies get out all the time, but like I said before they usually never work properly and are patched out. Someone borrows a disc from a friend or uploads a "better" version and then you get that purchased copy out there repopulating the torrent sites. Take movies, would you rather get the shaky cam theater recording or wait to download the HD version with all the bonus stuff?

But that's a complete mis-perception. Let's take your example 1 step further... Person buys a game, trades it in... they take that trade in money, TO PURCHASE ANOTHER GAME. They trade that game in, and purchase.... you got it.. ANOTHER GAME. Another game that otherwise they likely would NOT have purchased, but can only do so because of the money they earned by trading in their previous one! That means due to trade ins, it actually INCREASES the number of sales, increasing the profits to the developer and publisher. The Consumer gets 3 games for the price of 2 due to trade ins, the developers and publishers sell 3 times as many games to that customer. Guess what will happen if the trade market dies? Those folks who have been following this method will wind up either purchasing less games and being a much more "discerning" customer, or turn to... piracy! Then you've got the "run off" effect... Person buys a used game, and really enjoys it. Sequel comes out and they are so hyped for it due to the previous's enjoyability they buy a new copy. That's yet another sale unaccounted for due to trade in market, but it's one that does exist. You may not think this exsits, but how else do you explain a sequel game selling more than the original (such as... Mass Effect)?

The whole point here is a person trades in one for another right? Who is to say the copy they take home is a new one? It's much easier in stores and sites to get used for much less cheaper (months after release), but you are right some people trade in for new copies. However, saying that the trade market dying weill lead to piracy is just plain wrong, my point here, its the same market. It's two ways of doing the exact same thing if you are the developer. From your and my perspectives things are much different.

To answer your last question, the reason sequels do better, usually is word of mouth. One friend buys the game, a year later the sequel is out and he tells all his friends, some of which have a newly purchased console. Not to mention, a new IP has a lot smaller budget then its sequel. The engine is already made, the infastructure is all there, just needing tweaked. Mostly though, sequels make a bunch more money thanks to a little thing called advertising. Tell me, did you ever see mass effect 1 adds? Compare that with ME2 adds, much more right? From the publisher side, a sequel is an easier sell and they are willing to throw more money at it, thats why it gets more advertising budget, more word of mouth gets out, newcomers to the market, all in all you are selling the game to more people and using more means to tell them to go and buy it.

Also, the mention about DVD and Book prices are a great example of Market forces... Movies cost as much, and in many cases MORE than a video game to create. Yet, to get at it first run, it costs me $10, and to buy on DVD/Blue-Ray another $10-15. So my total cost to enjoy that media is $20 for something that cost $100million to create and advertise. Video games cost $60 that cost $10-$20 million to create and advertise. Yes, video game market is smaller than movie market, but it's not THAT much smaller anymore. Plus, there's no such thing as DLC for a movie (that I know of yet).

Check this out, its the list of the 10 most expensive games, number 1 was GTA IV costing $100,000,000 dollars. I think that beats your movie budget out of the water.

http://blog.knowyourmoney.co.uk/index.php/2008/08/10-most-expensive-video-game-budgets-ever/

contrast that with this budget for 3 films: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_did_Lord_of_the_Rings_cost_to_make

Simple question... what do you think is more likely in a situation like this... failure of the game due to piracy, or failure of the game due to an unsustainable market for the product?

Let me answer the question with a question, why do tony hawk and music games fail? It sure isn't because of ripped discs, its all because the demand isnt there. Something like COD4:MW2 gets pirated to all hell just because IW pissed pirates/pc gamers off, it was more retalitory then anything. Needless to say MW2 broke all kinds of records, despite piracy while paying 250 for DJ Hero and Tony Hawk Ride should have ended a franchise. Take the wii for example, madworld and other m rated games all tanked, not because of piracy, just because no one gives a damn. If you take this and extend it for every game out there, perhaps by genre and platform, you can start to see how demand shapes things much more prevelently then piracy, thus, why in the hell does piracy get such a bum rap if it isn't the cause of things like the PS3 having shit for online play?

Piracy and trade-ins are not the same thing. They are for a developer's bottom-line but not for most others. And the last thing in my gaming hobby that I care about is a developer's bottom-line.

Thanks for posting your story, good to see it from someone elses side. You mentioned you dont care about developers bottom-line and that piracy and trade-ins are not the same thing. Let me make it black and white for you, one of them leads to a nascar sponsership, and the other leads to things being removed from pc versions of games because of it, do you care now?

[muddi900]

You know what that was? Another person working in media crying about the First Sale Doctrine. Well boo fucking hoo. Book publishers, Record companies and Movie studios have been trying to get rid of it since forever, and game devs/publishers are no different. If devs hate trade-ins so much they should just release games exclusive-digitally, where FSD does not apply. Or get into another business.

[Khrymsyn]

Thats not the point, what I mean by saying that pirates buy DLC too is that you cant justify one thing over the other by using DLC as your supporting argument.
I thought the original point was that piracy and trade ins result in lost revenue, and they wish that all of that lost revenue wasn't lost. I pointed to Zero Day release DLC as a counter against at least trade in lost revenue, as well as pointing out your mention of pirates purchasing DLC as another place that developers/publishers can recoup some revenue. How am I completely on a different point?

There is actually a lot of facts and surveys to back that stat up. Things like developers flat out saying xx percent of people are playing our game pirated, surveys, and just plain download numbers. The 10-20 percent I was touting was from a recent survey on movie and media downloads showing a trend that several years ago it was 18% and is down by 25% to 14%.
I think you misunderstood my meaning. I was not debating that there is lost revenue due to piracy, and I was not debating that piracy was widespread. What I AM debating is that 1 pirated copy = 1 lost sale. That is completely and utterly not true. 20% in pirated copies does not = 20% in lost sales. In my past I have as well "aquired" software without going to a store. That was NOT a lost sale. I had no intention of purchasing that software in the first place. Now here's a mind blower... because of my aquisition, I made the decision I like it, I decided to no longer use an "invalid" copy and support those whom created it when I got a few extra coins. So in a strange fashion, "piracy" INCREASED potential sales in this one case (and that's not the only time in my past that happened), and I know for a fact I'm not alone in that.

I clearly stated earlier one is legal and one is not. Yes you are correct early copies get out all the time, but like I said before they usually never work properly and are patched out. Someone borrows a disc from a friend or uploads a "better" version and then you get that purchased copy out there repopulating the torrent sites. Take movies, would you rather get the shaky cam theater recording or wait to download the HD version with all the bonus stuff?
I do not think you are accurately describing the type of software obtained by torrents, nor the "early copies". Pirated copies RARELY come out "never work properly". It's not a practice I do anymore, but when I did fairly commonly? Almost every one I got was virus free, working, no need for online connectivity, loaded faster due to no CD-Checks and most of the time, worked BETTER than the copies some of my friends bought due to incompatibilties with the various DRMs. I agree, consumers prefer to get the HD version with bonus stuff, but when the opportunity exists to get that version cheaper, more conviniently, and with likely less issues, guess what's going to happen? And if you take away the ability to ever get that HD version with bonus stuff, don't be suprised if people attempt to aquire it in a fashion less desired, even if that is the crappy shaky cam version.


The whole point here is a person trades in one for another right? Who is to say the copy they take home is a new one? It's much easier in stores and sites to get used for much less cheaper (months after release), but you are right some people trade in for new copies. However, saying that the trade market dying weill lead to piracy is just plain wrong, my point here, its the same market. It's two ways of doing the exact same thing if you are the developer. From your and my perspectives things are much different.
You and I will continue to disagree then. If the developer sees them as the same thing, then that is a business decision they have to live with, by equating a potential revenue stream (such as DLC) of a legal "used game" with an illegal aquisition. Perhaps this attitude is why more and more pulblishers have started to treat their customers as untrusthworthy criminals?

To answer your last question, the reason sequels do better, usually is word of mouth. One friend buys the game, a year later the sequel is out and he tells all his friends, some of which have a newly purchased console. Not to mention, a new IP has a lot smaller budget then its sequel. The engine is already made, the infastructure is all there, just needing tweaked. Mostly though, sequels make a bunch more money thanks to a little thing called advertising. Tell me, did you ever see mass effect 1 adds? Compare that with ME2 adds, much more right? From the publisher side, a sequel is an easier sell and they are willing to throw more money at it, thats why it gets more advertising budget, more word of mouth gets out, newcomers to the market, all in all you are selling the game to more people and using more means to tell them to go and buy it.
So no purchases were made due to people enjoying their "used" game purchases? Interesting. I don't agree, but I do conceed that marketing has a lot to do with those sequels succeding. I personally feel that you are underestimating the power of "trying it out" does on a sale though.

Check this out, its the list of the 10 most expensive games, number 1 was GTA IV costing $100,000,000 dollars. I think that beats your movie budget out of the water.
Well considering I used 100 mill as the movie budget example, and 100mil = 100mil, I'd hardly consider that "beats your movie budget out of the water".

http://blog.knowyourmoney.co.uk/index.php/2008/08/10-most-expensive-video-game-budgets-ever/
contrast that with this budget for 3 films: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_did_Lord_of_the_Rings_cost_to_make
So you want to compare the highest EVER video game budgets, with a series of movies that were actually incredibly efficient, and STILL cost more per movie? (3 movies costing 450million still = 150million per movie, more than GTA IV.) Not entirely sure how that's supposed to support your argument. Sorry.

Let me answer the question with a question, why do tony hawk and music games fail? It sure isn't because of ripped discs, its all because the demand isnt there. Something like COD4:MW2 gets pirated to all hell just because IW pissed pirates/pc gamers off, it was more retalitory then anything. Needless to say MW2 broke all kinds of records, despite piracy while paying 250 for DJ Hero and Tony Hawk Ride should have ended a franchise. Take the wii for example, madworld and other m rated games all tanked, not because of piracy, just because no one gives a damn. If you take this and extend it for every game out there, perhaps by genre and platform, you can start to see how demand shapes things much more prevelently then piracy, thus, why in the hell does piracy get such a bum rap if it isn't the cause of things like the PS3 having shit for online play?
Actually, you're kind of proving my point. There are many reasons outside trade ins and piracy for revenue loss. My original point stands, instead of trying to eliminiate one by treating legitimiate customers as criminals (piracy), and trying to force the market by not offering something desired and fighting against in it any fashion (trade ins), use the market to your own advantage.

And I can tell you why piracy and trade ins get such a "bum rap". Ease of labelling. When you've got a different reason for each game not living up to expected promise, what's easier to tell the shareholders? X didn't do things because of this, Y because of that, Z because of the other thing... or X, Y, and Z didn't match expectations because of those damn pirates and that bilking Gamestop! It's someone else's fault! KEEP BUYING OUR SHARES!!!

Thanks for posting your story, good to see it from someone elses side. You mentioned you dont care about developers bottom-line and that piracy and trade-ins are not the same thing. Let me make it black and white for you, one of them leads to a nascar sponsership, and the other leads to things being removed from pc versions of games because of it, do you care now?
BTW, what's wrong with Gamestop sponsoring a Nascar? Seriously? At one time Gamestop/EB was FAILING, and struggling to survive, then they found a solution. There is a market for trade in games, and that market WILL NEVER GO AWAY UNLESS GAMES WILL STOP WORKING AFTER BEING INSTALLED ONCE, and Gamestop has used that leverage to make a profit. Supply, and Demand... it's the fundamental tennet of capitalism. There is a demand for games less expensive than $60, and Gamestop is supplying that. Gamestop adjusted and did what they needed to survive, and even prosper. If perhaps.. you know, the developers/publishers offered something like a free, online trade in program and undercut Gamestop's prices... like, for instance through a customer loyalty program such as car companies (and EVGA) do/did, they could tap into that market as well, but they'd rather bitch and complain about the company that's made it convinient to get their product in the hands of the customers in the first place. I don't understand that.


Just as a side note... I swear this thread has more words typed by me than my other 1200 posts combined... since I normally don't post anything but snarky 1 liners. =P

[CappinCanuck]

Thanks for posting your story, good to see it from someone elses side. You mentioned you dont care about developers bottom-line and that piracy and trade-ins are not the same thing. Let me make it black and white for you, one of them leads to a nascar sponsership, and the other leads to things being removed from pc versions of games because of it, do you care now?

Nope, not at all. They can do whatever they want. If you're trying to say that their response to my apathy will be something I should care about, there are plenty of developers that will try and have tried a different and positive response. I buy their products. Responses that affect me and others negatively will be evident in their bottom-line to affect change there. I won't be investing time to help them get better at their business.

[Hawkzombie]

I don't see a bittorrent branded nascar out there, bittorrent commercials, and similar things. Mind you, a pirate can spend 10-20 hours downloading things, only to find out that the game has had the crack patched, or its a trojan and you lose your entire OS install. When you go to a trade-in store, apart from disc scratches and ylod/rrod, you know it will always work.

Two things:

You're forgetting about ad revenue on these sites. What's the one general thing they have in common? Either a section for donations to 'up your ration without having to DL' or a lot of ads. These sites are profitable. There's no arguing that. But do you see columbian drug kings buying ad time for their newest batch of cocaine? Of course not. If you advertise you're doing something illegal, then it's like putting a giant bullseye on yourself.

Second, most 'pirates' are smart enough to DL their stuff from trusted sources, and rarely get trojans and the like in their stuff. You'd have to be a complete moron to not read the comments of a torrent, or 'shop around a bit' before DLing something like that.

[nabokovfan87]

I thought the original point was that piracy and trade ins result in lost revenue, and they wish that all of that lost revenue wasn't lost. I pointed to Zero Day release DLC as a counter against at least trade in lost revenue, as well as pointing out your mention of pirates purchasing DLC as another place that developers/publishers can recoup some revenue. How am I completely on a different point?

I don't know... Lol, I'm working on 20 minutes of sleep last night, and I have been extremely stressed and pissed all week. My apologies, my brain stopped working monday at around 9:30 AM PST last week.

I think you misunderstood my meaning. I was not debating that there is lost revenue due to piracy, and I was not debating that piracy was widespread. What I AM debating is that 1 pirated copy = 1 lost sale. That is completely and utterly not true. 20% in pirated copies does not = 20% in lost sales. In my past I have as well "aquired" software without going to a store. That was NOT a lost sale. I had no intention of purchasing that software in the first place. Now here's a mind blower... because of my aquisition, I made the decision I like it, I decided to no longer use an "invalid" copy and support those whom created it when I got a few extra coins. So in a strange fashion, "piracy" INCREASED potential sales in this one case (and that's not the only time in my past that happened), and I know for a fact I'm not alone in that.

I think your last few lines is the real matter of my point here. Just trying to get the bad connotation of the guy running outside the store and yelling at the kid from home along "stop him he's a theif". I remember several years ago I found a website howevilareyou.com following my friend playing a game demo for evil genius. Needless to say I downloaded the demo, changed the population file and all this kind of stuff in order to get more out of it and eventually downloaded the game. It worked, but my pc was shit and things just didn't work well (highly cpu based, kind of like physx is now). One day I was in a store and instantly grabbed the single copy of evil genius from a gamestop (PC, in that store... amazing isn't it!), now in addition I own the steam copy, bought the steam copy for someone else, and have been spreading the word on how damn awesome the game is by uploading youtube vids and emailing podcasts and what not. Probably at least 10 copies more like 50 or so from one pirate version. The vid has 10,000 views nearly, with 4 pages of comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbvNqzSn8io

I do not think you are accurately describing the type of software obtained by torrents, nor the "early copies". Pirated copies RARELY come out "never work properly". It's not a practice I do anymore, but when I did fairly commonly? Almost every one I got was virus free, working, no need for online connectivity, loaded faster due to no CD-Checks and most of the time, worked BETTER than the copies some of my friends bought due to incompatibilties with the various DRMs. I agree, consumers prefer to get the HD version with bonus stuff, but when the opportunity exists to get that version cheaper, more conviniently, and with likely less issues, guess what's going to happen? And if you take away the ability to ever get that HD version with bonus stuff, don't be suprised if people attempt to aquire it in a fashion less desired, even if that is the crappy shaky cam version.

This is the one thing I read that I just have to ask about. What timeframe are we talking for when you used to (or perhaps you still do) download things. If you are talking prior to steam then things have changed DRAMATICALLY. Like I said, tons of lawsuits have survaced, and what started it all was when piratebay got taken out. Then some swedish places got stormed (might be piratebay actually), which resulted in a breakdown of the legality of hosting sites, and essential places making business deals with movie studios to start selling movies or just flat out blocking US IP addresses. Perhaps there is context here that needs to be clarified.

You and I will continue to disagree then. If the developer sees them as the same thing, then that is a business decision they have to live with, by equating a potential revenue stream (such as DLC) of a legal "used game" with an illegal aquisition. Perhaps this attitude is why more and more pulblishers have started to treat their customers as untrusthworthy criminals?

I don't think we disagree, all I am saying is that when someone trades-in a game to buy one there is an extremely high chance that it will just be for another used one, which to the dev, is doing nothing but spreading the games story and such.

So no purchases were made due to people enjoying their "used" game purchases? Interesting. I don't agree, but I do conceed that marketing has a lot to do with those sequels succeding. I personally feel that you are underestimating the power of "trying it out" does on a sale though.

To be fair, I heard this from elsewhere, but if you step back and take a look at something like MW2, halo 3, all of these were huge sellers, and all of them had massive advertising. It seems like the two links connect, but what is far more interesting is just the simple aspect that more consoles are out there has on sales. Someone asks the clerk whats good and he says "mass effect", well, what happens is he checks him out a used/new copy of mass effect 2. What do you mean by trying it out? I'm not sure I follow.

Well considering I used 100 mill as the movie budget example, and 100mil = 100mil, I'd hardly consider that "beats your movie budget out of the water".

Yes, I know, but that was something like the most epic thing ever. Not nearly a normal "big budget" movie budget. Dude practically rented New Zealand for crying out loud. What I meant to say was that the 10-20 million you mentioned is dwarfed by GTA's budget.

Actually, you're kind of proving my point. There are many reasons outside trade ins and piracy for revenue loss. My original point stands, instead of trying to eliminiate one by treating legitimiate customers as criminals (piracy), and trying to force the market by not offering something desired and fighting against in it any fashion (trade ins), use the market to your own advantage.

And I can tell you why piracy and trade ins get such a "bum rap". Ease of labelling. When you've got a different reason for each game not living up to expected promise, what's easier to tell the shareholders? X didn't do things because of this, Y because of that, Z because of the other thing... or X, Y, and Z didn't match expectations because of those damn pirates and that bilking Gamestop! It's someone else's fault! KEEP BUYING OUR SHARES!!!

Perhaps you are correct. I just thing that piracy isn't the reall issue, like I mention with wii games and such, if you have the adience and those sales, piracy wont matter. I just with the publishers, devs, and press would say this more often.

BTW, what's wrong with Gamestop sponsoring a Nascar? Seriously? At one time Gamestop/EB was FAILING, and struggling to survive, then they found a solution. There is a market for trade in games, and that market WILL NEVER GO AWAY UNLESS GAMES WILL STOP WORKING AFTER BEING INSTALLED ONCE, and Gamestop has used that leverage to make a profit. Supply, and Demand... it's the fundamental tennet of capitalism. Lol, 1, NHRA is better, and 2 gamestop is just a bunch of assholes.

Just as a side note... I swear this thread has more words typed by me than my other 1200 posts combined... since I normally don't post anything but snarky 1 liners. =P

Lol, well, I'm glad I can bring the discussion out of ya. I don't want to get to the "NO YOUR WRONG" level of things, but it was damn intriguing to me to hear a dev talk about one thing and say x, y, and z, and then hear gb.com and kotaku say the exact same thing about it.

Second, most 'pirates' are smart enough to DL their stuff from trusted sources, and rarely get trojans and the like in their stuff. You'd have to be a complete moron to not read the comments of a torrent, or 'shop around a bit' before DLing something like that.

There was a story, probably 6 months back, that demonoid.com had a whole bunch of files filled with viruses and stuff. Essentially they were hacked. Since then (they are/were as big as piratebay) a lot of "trusted sites" have changed. I don't know how familiar you are with pirating things, but you have the tracker which keeps track of who is sending and what they are sending, searching Server lists and what not for person x sending file y and person z trying to receive file y. A lot of places nowadays have a very bad rate of shit/not shit files. Kind of like when limewire started getting spyware and stuff. Essentially you read the comments and wait for someone to tell you whether or not the file is good, used to be anywhere from 20-50 different file sources, now its down to around 1 to 3, and if one of those gets crapped on, then you are down by a large chunck of your file sources.

[SilentScreams]

Thing is, if developers want me to buy their games from them brand new and make them some money, then they should sell them at a fair price.

For example, let's look at Mass Effect 2 and compare it to God of War 3. Both are top games and a lot of fun. However, Mass Effect 2 is a pretty long game with plenty to do. By comparison, GoW 3 is fairly short and only really good for one play through. To me, ME2 is worth it's original retail price. God of War 3 is not. GoW 3 should be cheaper, but it isn't, so I'm probably going to rent it or trade for it. If they wanted to get my money for God of War 3, then its price should have reflected its content.

[Ravenlock]

Out of curiosity, do you apply the same logic to movies? It costs the same to go see a 90 minute Disney movie as it does to see a 3+ hour Lord of the Rings film. And, with minor differences over "special editions" and so forth, the DVD's / BluRay's / etc cost about the same as well.

How about books? Should longer books automatically cost more than shorter books based on page count? Is a Stephen King novel worth more than a Michael Crichton one because it's longer?

I see where you're coming from, but pricing entertainment based on amount of content isn't something people typically demand from any other medium, so it would be a bit strange to see it applied to games.

[SilentScreams]

You're right, Ravenlock. It's not something I expect to happen, but I generally set a price in my head that I think something is worth, and then I'll wait until I can get it for that price by whatever means before I make the purchase.

Of course, quantity is not everything. Quality is the most important thing. I applied the game length argument to ME2 vs GoW3 because I can't really seperate them on quality. They are both great games.
To use your movie example, I don't think I've ever managed to sit through a Lord of the Rings movie. They are good movies I guess, but in my opinion there's a lot of time during the movies where not a lot is actually happening. In short, I don't consider them to be worth as much as a 90 minute movie that is entertaining all the way through.

[AversionFX]

I'm not entirely sure why anyone in the gaming community feels that publishers and developers are entitled the money from trade-ins. Toyota won't get any money when I sell my car. EVGA won't get money when I sell my video card. IKEA won't get money when I sell my table.

So, why do game publishers/developers deserve that money?

[Hawkzombie]

I'm not entirely sure why anyone in the gaming community feels that publishers and developers are entitled the money from trade-ins. Toyota won't get any money when I sell my car. EVGA won't get money when I sell my video card. IKEA won't get money when I sell my table.

So, why do game publishers/developers deserve that money?

Greed. Plain and simple.

[nabokovfan87]

For example, let's look at Mass Effect 2 and compare it to God of War 3. Both are top games and a lot of fun. However, Mass Effect 2 is a pretty long game with plenty to do. By comparison, GoW 3 is fairly short and only really good for one play through. To me, ME2 is worth it's original retail price. God of War 3 is not. GoW 3 should be cheaper, but it isn't, so I'm probably going to rent it or trade for it. If they wanted to get my money for God of War 3, then its price should have reflected its content.

I see where you're coming from, but pricing entertainment based on amount of content isn't something people typically demand from any other medium, so it would be a bit strange to see it applied to games.

Honestly, this thinking is completely wrong, not you raven I agree for once! Lets take metal slug for instance. The game is maybe 2 or so hours long, yet it has story, characters and all that jazz. Fallout 3 can be as long as you make it, same with GTA IV, but you can be them both in 10 or so hours. What does that mean for the extra hours you would have spent otherwise? Nothing, it simply means the game is 10 hours long.

Just because mass effect 2 is 40+ hours and F.E.A.R. is 10 doesn't mean a damn thing about quality. Quite honestly, having just played mass effect 1 without doing any side missions I thought the game still had extra crap that should have been taken out. Maybe it's just me, but I don't enjoy spending hours running from point a to point b only to be told to go back to a and get a new mission to do the same thing to point c. FPS games are short because they get to the point, something like mass effect beats the hell out of the bush and treats you as if you need your hand held in order to enjoy something. That, is something I will never pay more for, and something I don't think should matter at all, except when reviewing take into account the hours of wasted time.

I'm not entirely sure why anyone in the gaming community feels that publishers and developers are entitled the money from trade-ins. Toyota won't get any money when I sell my car. EVGA won't get money when I sell my video card. IKEA won't get money when I sell my table.

So, why do game publishers/developers deserve that money?

I get that, but the whole point of me writing wasn't to say publishers deserve trade-in money or money from piracy, just to point out how eerily similar the two are and yet they get treated so very differently.

[Khrymsyn]

I get that, but the whole point of me writing wasn't to say publishers deserve trade-in money or money from piracy, just to point out how eerily similar the two are and yet they get treated so very differently.

I'm still struggling to see how there is any similarity between the two from any angle other than developers/publishers saying "MOAR MONIEZ!"

Piracy : Illegal method to aquire something such as video, music, or software. Two primary methods are either electronic distribution (i.e. Bittorrents or Peer-to-Peer), or physically going to someone's house and copying. In the case of each media, the underlying digital code is likely altered (such as converting to mp3/mp4, or cracking CD-Checks). Money is generally not a part of this equation, and this does not help fund any economy.

Trade-ins : Legal method to aquire something such as video, music, or software. Primary (and really, only) method is to go into a store (or a website) and purchase from said location. In each case, the media is completely unedited from original and therefore is in its intended form. Money is transferred for original purchase, helping Publishers/Developers, money is transferred to original customer helping their ability to purchase, money is transferred to third party "enabler" helping that 3rd party market, and money is saved by 2nd cusomter by not paying full retail price. Monetarily, this is EXCELLENT for an economic system as it causes much more money overall to flow between many more recipients. I.e. Economic Liquidity.

So, no offense intended, but I just don't see how A is anywhere close to similar to B.

[nabokovfan87]

I'm still struggling to see how there is any similarity between the two from any angle other than developers/publishers saying "MOAR MONIEZ!"

Piracy : Illegal method to aquire something such as video, music, or software. Two primary methods are either electronic distribution (i.e. Bittorrents or Peer-to-Peer), or physically going to someone's house and copying. In the case of each media, the underlying digital code is likely altered (such as converting to mp3/mp4, or cracking CD-Checks). Money is generally not a part of this equation, and this does not help fund any economy.

Trade-ins : Legal method to aquire something such as video, music, or software. Primary (and really, only) method is to go into a store (or a website) and purchase from said location. In each case, the media is completely unedited from original and therefore is in its intended form. Money is transferred for original purchase, helping Publishers/Developers, money is transferred to original customer helping their ability to purchase, money is transferred to third party "enabler" helping that 3rd party market, and money is saved by 2nd cusomter by not paying full retail price. Monetarily, this is EXCELLENT for an economic system as it causes much more money overall to flow between many more recipients. I.e. Economic Liquidity.
So, no offense intended, but I just don't see how A is anywhere close to similar to B.

I struggle to agree with your analysis here. Yes legal vs. illegal is the relevant thing here, but my whole premise was developers say x, y, and z about trade-ins and the press/developers say x, y, and z about piracy, and yet they have the very same effect. Piracy effecting pc (at least in terms of press discussion) and trade-in being my equivalent of physically pirating a console game while piracy is all digital.

You bring up economies, and how you are againt giving the developer money, but the flipside of that is you are pro giving gamestop all of your money? It isn't the case for everyone, but I don't see how "creating an economy" based on getting ripped off is good for anyone other then gamestop and their nascar relationship.

Lastly, where in the world do I trade in music and "software"?

[SilentScreams]

There's a shop in my town that will take literally anything electonic entertainment based. From music CDs and DVDs to motherboards, graphics cards and MP3 players.
I assume most towns have something similar.

[Khrymsyn]

I struggle to agree with your analysis here. Yes legal vs. illegal is the relevant thing here, but my whole premise was developers say x, y, and z about trade-ins and the press/developers say x, y, and z about piracy, and yet they have the very same effect. Piracy effecting pc (at least in terms of press discussion) and trade-in being my equivalent of physically pirating a console game while piracy is all digital.
Well, Developers and Publishers say that both trade-in and piracy hurts their bottom line, in that they do not get profit off of them. Which is correct (though can be debated ad nauseum as to the extent). They also do not get profit off of the sales of new cars, television sales, or roofing repair. Does that mean that those three things are also equal to piracy and trade-ins in the eyes of developers and publishers? Yes, it's a stupid example, but there is validity to it. Piracy and Trade-ins are NOT the same action. Not in practice, not in function, not legally, and not morally. The only place they can be equated; money that developers/publishers are not receiving; puts them in the same category as my 3 silly examples, which means I think it's not a fair or valid argument. I lose money every day to taxes, but that's not the same as someone stealing from my bank account.

You bring up economies, and how you are againt giving the developer money, but the flipside of that is you are pro giving gamestop all of your money? It isn't the case for everyone, but I don't see how "creating an economy" based on getting ripped off is good for anyone other then gamestop and their nascar relationship.
I never stated that I am against giving developers my money, nor am I for giving gamestop my money. What I AM for is "market value" driving the economy, and consumer desire/needs fueling innovation. Gamestop saw an audience that was not being serviced, decided to service them with a service model that has existed for almost every "non-consumable" item in existance previously except this one, and publishers and developers cried foul. I have no problems with publishers and developers ALSO trying to service their customers, but if they are losing perceived profits, who's to fault? The company(ies?) who is attempting to service a perceived consumer need/desire, or the companies that are trying to stop that service with no attempt to offer their own service for the customer's needs/desires?

If a company has created themselves an unsustainable business model, they need to either adjust their model, or die. That's the way it generally works. Gamestop adjusted their model, and they can afford advertising on a Nascar with it. Perhaps the publishers and developers need to look at their own models and determine if it is meeting their needs, and if not, adjust them as well. Some have, otherwise we likely would not have seen things such as Steam, Impulse, or 0-Day DLC. Others would rather point the fingers elsewhere instead of analising their own deficiencies. BTW, where do you think Gamestop would be if Publishers/Developers would pull out of their deals with them?

Lastly, where in the world do I trade in music and "software"?
Ebay, Craigslist, Gamestop, Mom and Pop music stores, Mom and Pop game/electronics stores, many places.

[nabokovfan87]

Well, Developers and Publishers say that both trade-in and piracy hurts their bottom line, in that they do not get profit off of them. Which is correct (though can be debated ad nauseum as to the extent). They also do not get profit off of the sales of new cars, television sales, or roofing repair. Does that mean that those three things are also equal to piracy and trade-ins in the eyes of developers and publishers? Yes, it's a stupid example, but there is validity to it. Piracy and Trade-ins are NOT the same action. Not in practice, not in function, not legally, and not morally. The only place they can be equated; money that developers/publishers are not receiving; puts them in the same category as my 3 silly examples, which means I think it's not a fair or valid argument. I lose money every day to taxes, but that's not the same as someone stealing from my bank account.

BTW, where do you think Gamestop would be if Publishers/Developers would pull out of their deals with them?

To answer your last question, it wouldn't do a damn thing. What would have hurt, and you could tell by its announcement, when ps3/blu-ray announced it was planning to be a 1 system disc. As I mentioned before, someone who buys mass effect 2 used doesn't give a shit about the cerberus network, just plays the game, gets the story, and trades it back in for gow3 or something else that came out around then, just cause 2 perhaps. It's just like how ubisoft did the uber DRM which only hurt legitimate customers, they split the content and the only people who talk about it or give an opinion are those who don't trade-in everything and buy all used.

As far as the market, what I am saying is it isn't an actual proper market, it is just a gamestop market. It only helps them, it doesn't boost US economy, CA economy, local economy, nothing, just lines scrooges gold vault with gold paint and adds gold buckets to transfer the gold from golden tub to golden tub.

I want to talk about your example, in bold, where you mentioned that trade-in/piracy argument is the same as saying TV and such don't effect the developer so everything is a mute point. What we are talking about (or at least I am) is a venue where you buy something new or used or you pirate, not something where you do the previous or get new carpet. Saying 1 + 2 doesn't equal infinity doesn't mean a thing, because you weren't asked what it doesn't equal. So, I ask again (because you flat out said it), if you look at the things regarding pc piracy in the press and from the developer (essential the most basic sentiment about piracy) and the conversation that I listened to about trade-in from a developer releasing the game who said the exact same thing, if you throw out legality, what is the difference?

[Khrymsyn]

To answer your last question, it wouldn't do a damn thing. What would have hurt, and you could tell by its announcement, when ps3/blu-ray announced it was planning to be a 1 system disc. As I mentioned before, someone who buys mass effect 2 used doesn't give a shit about the cerberus network, just plays the game, gets the story, and trades it back in for gow3 or something else that came out around then, just cause 2 perhaps. It's just like how ubisoft did the uber DRM which only hurt legitimate customers, they split the content and the only people who talk about it or give an opinion are those who don't trade-in everything and buy all used.
I think you're missing the fact that gamestop DOES in fact get profit from new game sales... in fact according to this article (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3178585), new software sales accout for 41% of all sales (used = 26%). You can try to argue from the profit front (new 21%, used 47%) that used sales are a much bigger boon to Gamestop, but you cannot dismiss the fact that 41% of all customer activity is for NEW games, and I'd hypothesize that if you remove that 41% of customer activity, it would absolutely hurt the used game activity. It is not unusual for a new game purchase to be completed at the same time as a trade in purchase or sale. Removing that 41% of customer activity (and 21% of profit OVERALL) would SEVERELY damage Gamestop.

As far as the market, what I am saying is it isn't an actual proper market, it is just a gamestop market. It only helps them, it doesn't boost US economy, CA economy, local economy, nothing, just lines scrooges gold vault with gold paint and adds gold buckets to transfer the gold from golden tub to golden tub.
That is only if you look at the distribution channel in a vacuum, which the economy is NOT in a vacuum. Everything affects everything else. Gamestop employs people, does it not? Those people spend the money they earn on other products, INCLUDING SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE, fueling those economies even further. Their taxes go towards paying for things like our military and new healthcare plans. The 5-10 dollars saved by the customer can go into another game, either used or new, or piece of hardware, or towards more food, or clothing.
How many jobs would be lost if Gamestop ceased to exist? How much money per year would be taken out of our economy via employees and taxes? How would those same developers/publishers be affected if their "one stop shop" to hock their wares no longer existed? To say that this process does not affect the economy is just blatantly... well, wrong.

want to talk about your example, in bold, where you mentioned that trade-in/piracy argument is the same as saying TV and such don't effect the developer so everything is a mute point. What we are talking about (or at least I am) is a venue where you buy something new or used or you pirate, not something where you do the previous or get new carpet. Saying 1 + 2 doesn't equal infinity doesn't mean a thing, because you weren't asked what it doesn't equal. So, I ask again (because you flat out said it), if you look at the things regarding pc piracy in the press and from the developer (essential the most basic sentiment about piracy) and the conversation that I listened to about trade-in from a developer releasing the game who said the exact same thing, if you throw out legality, what is the difference?

I think you and I are going to go round and round on this, mainly because, any argument that does not agree with the exact point the developer/publisher is trying to make, gets thrown out because that's not the point the developer/publisher is trying to make.
Here's what I mean...
You asked the question
I ask again..., if you look at the things regarding pc piracy in the press and from the developer... and the conversation that I listened to about trade-in from a developer releasing the game who said the exact same thing, if you throw out legality, what is the difference?
I've given differences in many different aspects, but they are all thrown out. You've thrown out moral difference, economic difference, method of aquisition, business accumen, AND legality (without, in my opinion, proven any reason WHY those should be thrown out). If you throw out EVERY DISSENTING POINT about trade-ins vs. piracy, then no, there is no difference whatsoever.

So my question to you is... what, other than a perceived profit lost to the developer/publisher, is the same amongst trade-ins and piracy? If you're so sure they are the same, where are they the same other than potential profit lost?

[nabokovfan87]

I think you're missing the fact that gamestop DOES in fact get profit from new game sales... in fact according to this article (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3178585), new software sales accout for 41% of all sales (used = 26%). You can try to argue from the profit front (new 21%, used 47%) that used sales are a much bigger boon to Gamestop, but you cannot dismiss the fact that 41% of all customer activity is for NEW games, and I'd hypothesize that if you remove that 41% of customer activity, it would absolutely hurt the used game activity. It is not unusual for a new game purchase to be completed at the same time as a trade in purchase or sale. Removing that 41% of customer activity (and 21% of profit OVERALL) would SEVERELY damage Gamestop.


If you look at the article, its stats are sales, not profit. The two are very different.

So my question to you is... what, other than a perceived profit lost to the developer/publisher, is the same amongst trade-ins and piracy? If you're so sure they are the same, where are they the same other than potential profit lost?

This weekend I'll find those two podcast, strip out the audio from them so you can hear what I heard, but what I'm getting at is:

BOTH

Lead to source outside dev making profit (which, we both agree).
Expose game to audience that would not have purchased or tried game due to monetary or just plain (don't like that genre) attitude.
May lead to sales due to word of mouth.
Results in legitimate customers having to go through hoops in order to get content that was once on the disc no questions asked (DL codes, First day DLC, Ubisoft DRM, etc.)



PIRACY/PC

Illegal.
Digital.
Reviews are typically of console version without mention of pc version.
Has little to no demos and video content of games.
Resulted in steam, gog, and other digital services as well as legitimatizing torrent sites into movie rental and other digital media sales. Which does send profits to developers.
Some studios games are not seen as worthwile (only worth pirating) because quality is not high, results in bad games, and eventually a closed studio (cyclical issue)


TRADE-IN/Console Gaming

Legal.
Physical.
Has reviews.
Has demos and video content of gameplay for most games.
Results in rich corporation and not developer while developers are struggling and closing down.


Writing this at work, will give it another look when I get home as well as add audio.

Just found this: http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/kit-eaton/technomix/did-sinking-pirate-bay-cause-more-piracy-and-does-it-matter-anyway

And this was posted on the frontpage of one of the most popular torrent sites, isohunt.com:

Announcements:
April 5, 2010 - US users, welcome to the lighter and lightning fast isoHunt! Although we bring this new search engine to you with a burden from the lawsuit brought by the MPAA, we hope you understand the reason why we are making this change. It is to address concerns Judge Wilson has over inducing copyright infringement in the US. Though inducement is never our intention and we have evidence to support it, with isoHunt Lite we want to affirm publicly that isoHunt's function is nothing more than a search engine with all the net neutrality it affords and should be afforded.

Despite rumors that we are ordered to keyword filter for US, there's only a proposed order, no actual order. Freedom of speech, non-infringing use and technical implementability issues are still being debated in further court briefs. We have not done any keyword filtering and is fighting all we can not to, because we believe search terms are ambiguous by nature, and any requirement to keyword filter is a violation of freedom of speech and amounts to no less than censorship. There is much non-infringing uses of BitTorrent technology and we hope you will be able to continue to use isoHunt for these uses, free of constraints by large holes in the english dictionary because your search triggered a keyword in a title of one of the million movies that have been produced.

Why would you still use isoHunt you ask now that it's just like Google and Yahoo and you can search for torrents with those? While we won't dispute there's fundamental difference, on isoHunt Lite you get ranking by seeds/leechers and ratings besides search relevancy and age. A general search engine also do not group as one for identical torrents spread on multiple websites on the Web. Your continued use of isoHunt will also support our upcoming appeal against the MPAA, and we thank you in advance.

To protest the possibility we may be required by US law in upcoming injunction to keyword filter for US users, we have redirected isohunt.com to isohunt.hk to demonstrate the similarity to certain other popular search engine also required to censor in China. Requiring any internet search engine to filter broad keyword searches is absurd. The DMCA mandates with reason that copyright notice and takedown requested by copyright holders be done under penalty of perjury with accurate identifcation, with standard practice of URLs, not broad mucking with the dictionary. If you want to join us in protest, share this by tweet, facebook, etc. and write to Congress. Donation to organizations like the EFF will also help.

Happy April Fool's Month, and Happy Easter.

UPDATE: for users hating not able to sort, this is one you shouldn't care about. isoHunt Lite obviously has stripped a lot of features, sorting however uses the same "isoHunt Rank" method that's default on regular isoHunt, and is the best sorting method as it combines multiple factors, not just by seeds or leechers. Consider the better, default ranking a feature you don't get on other websites. Also note the Cached links at last lines of search results for a cached .torrent in case the original site is down or changed.

[Khrymsyn]

I'm sorry nabokovfan87, but I think at this point, you've completely and utterly lost me, because I just still cannot find out how you can equate piracy and trade-ins, and you've only confused me further by pointing out there are more differences between the two than similarities... What also exhaserbates the issue is the fact that you not only equate piracy and trading in (but somehow agree with me when laying it out point by point there are differences), is that you list Piracy as a PC thing and Trade ins as a Console thing. While it's pretty true that you can't really do the trade in thing on PC games anymore (for the most part), there absolutely IS piracy on consoles, including the PS3 and 360, so it's not even a PC vs. Console thing. Throwing Steam and GoG (valid, legal, and developer/publisher authorized methods of obtaining software) into the piracy category just really makes me scratch my head.

Also, the article I linked actually had graphs for both sales (first one) AND profit (second one), and I truly have no clue what the quote from isohunt has anything to do with this discussion.

Sorry man, I don't think I have anything more to offer here. =)

[muddi900]

but if they are losing perceived profits, who's to fault?

The first ale doctrine, which nabokovfan has nevere heard of apparently. If game devs have a problem with used sales, they should start lobbying to abolish the FSD or stop whining. The consumer is not supposed to give up his rights because you can't deal with the system.

[Khrymsyn]

The first Sale doctrine,

Just thought I'd fix that for you. =) Though, I like the sound of first ale..

mmmmmmmmm.... aaaaaale.......

[nabokovfan87]

Just thought I'd fix that for you. =) Though, I like the sound of first ale..

mmmmmmmmm.... aaaaaale.......

Lol, Like I said, let me grab the audio, maybe you will see what I am pointing at. The differences I mentioned were hardly differences, they are different per say, but they don't actually mean anything relevant.

I'm sorry nabokovfan87, but I think at this point, you've completely and utterly lost me, because I just still cannot find out how you can equate piracy and trade-ins, and you've only confused me further by pointing out there are more differences between the two than similarities... What also exhaserbates the issue is the fact that you not only equate piracy and trading in (but somehow agree with me when laying it out point by point there are differences), is that you list Piracy as a PC thing and Trade ins as a Console thing. While it's pretty true that you can't really do the trade in thing on PC games anymore (for the most part), there absolutely IS piracy on consoles, including the PS3 and 360, so it's not even a PC vs. Console thing. Throwing Steam and GoG (valid, legal, and developer/publisher authorized methods of obtaining software) into the piracy category just really makes me scratch my head.

Also, the article I linked actually had graphs for both sales (first one) AND profit (second one), and I truly have no clue what the quote from isohunt has anything to do with this discussion.

Sorry man, I don't think I have anything more to offer here. =)

The isohunt thing was just showing you that to this day still, piracy sites are getting shut down by fear of prosecution.

as far as piracy on consoles, yes it happens, but it does not get touched at by the media at all, they just want to report "another pc dev steps to console due to piracy" or "another game wont be released on pc due to piracy" or "rediculous drm announced due to piracy" or something else along the lines of "xxxx due to piracy". I completely think that piracy on psp/ds/360 is 100x worse then anything on pc, but the fact is only pc gets a bum rap for it.

[muddi900]

Just thought I'd fix that for you. =) Though, I like the sound of first ale..

mmmmmmmmm.... aaaaaale.......

"From here on, first ale shall be free for all!



Also, no last-calls!"

[Karak]

When I sell my computer the companies don't get anything.
When I sell my motorbike Honda won't get anything.
The car company won't get anything will I sell my car.
So used and trade ins and developers problems with it have no argument at all. They should just shut up about it and move on.

A great deal of those I know who pirate would NOT in any way shape or form buy the game ever. Maybe rent it, but never buy it.
If a pirate is a member of a private tracker they will get what they want and move on. But to think that is a purchase missed seems to miss much of the others issues involved. It's not an ends justify the means discussion, there are many issues involved in piracy that won't be solved with that kind of shallow thought.

Oh and ya piracy on the consoles especially the 360 and Wii, (PS3 I don't think is fully working yet) is horrid. Most likely due to the incredible ease of doing it.

[Deadend]

Games are too expensive and too brief these days. I trade in games when there's a good enough deal for me, but I buy most of mine new. Not $60 new, but cheap clearance or price-drop new. $60 is a fools price.

I think piracy is overblown too. Not every game pirated is a lost sale. I don't think that way though I know some would disagree. It's an easy way for game publishers to say they are losing X amount of dollars, if you multiply the number of times a torrent is downloaded by $50-60. I don't buy it, though I do see that piracy can be a problem. But it's only PART of the problem. Making DRM that inconveniences paying customers isn't the solution.

Neither is getting rid of the resale market. I don't understand why gaming can't survive a secondary market. Books, movies, music, cars, clothing, nearly anything has a market for more frugal people. And yet they still prosper.

The gaming industry needs to do a step back, stop blaming piracy and used games for all their ills, and take a good hard, introspective look at itself. The issues currently facing the industry, I think, are more than they want to admit.

I gotta say I think I agree with you here.
The game industry has the problem of being too good at hyping games. So games in fact try and play all the games they can, but they aren't going to buy every game. They could wait.. but they gotta play the games NOW! So they pirate, or buy them for slightly less at Gamestop used.

Then the games sit on the shelf unsold forever more.

Games are unlike Movies, Music or Books, which for the most part hold up over time. Games are still too based in the tech/software world of latest/greatest, they need to move out of that, or be cursed to never have a long-sails tail.

I also think the game industry may want to make games coincide with movies/tv shows in terms of content and pricing. $40 for 13 hours of quality entertainment would be great. Or maybe $25 for a 5 hour AAA quality campaign (Modern Warfare 2) and the Multiplayer can go stand on it's own and release as it's ready.

I also just realized something odd about games. I hardly ever go back and replay an old game, but yet I go back and reread books quite often, and rewatch movies. Games apparently have no replay value if they are linear, but yet.. why do many people like rewatching movies? As you can't get any more linear and repeating the same way over again than a movie, can you?

[Ravenlock]

I also just realized something odd about games. I hardly ever go back and replay an old game, but yet I go back and reread books quite often, and rewatch movies. Games apparently have no replay value if they are linear, but yet.. why do many people like rewatching movies? As you can't get any more linear and repeating the same way over again than a movie, can you?

That may be true for you, but certainly isn't true for everyone or even most gamers. I have replayed - partially or in full - Nintendo classics like SMB3 or Link to the Past, Sierra and LucasArts adventure games, Bioware RPG's, shooters, RTS's... hell, in every episode our podcast looks back at a retro title, usually with a specific eye towards whether it still holds up to be worth playing again today.

Some games do and some don't, but to claim that "games apparently have no replay value if they are linear" is wildly inconsistent with the behavior of a lot of people. I know folks who have done 10 or more playthroughs of some of the Final Fantasy games, or Chrono Trigger, which could easily be more times than they've watched any movie.

[Karmakin]

I gotta say I think I agree with you here.
The game industry has the problem of being too good at hyping games. So games in fact try and play all the games they can, but they aren't going to buy every game. They could wait.. but they gotta play the games NOW! So they pirate, or buy them for slightly less at Gamestop used.

Then the games sit on the shelf unsold forever more.

Or rented at their local Blockbuster.

I think that, by and large is the fly in the ointment. Content creators work VERY DAMN HARD to turn their content into culture. And why not? It increases interest and demand for the titles, and it makes them money. But what it also does, is that it increases dramatically the social "punishment" for those who for one reason or another are unable to partake in the culture.

It's fairly simple. Someone who wants to discuss the latest game, or play it with their friends but is unable to rent it/find it cheap, may very well pirate it, so they don't get left out. The same thing happens for movies, music, books, whatever. It's a side-effect of being more than just a widget, of becoming actual culture. People by and large feel entitled to culture. It is what it is.

On that note, much of gaming's common culture at this point has been preserved through a long (and while diminishing, it's still there) dark period by piracy. Things such as rom sites and emulation have maintained the past, have maintained the culture for new generations of gamers. There's a few publishers that kept their older games alive, Nintendo, Square, Capcom..but for the most part most publishers were happy enough to dump the older stuff into the dust bin of history.

Now we have things like the Wii VC and Steam that helps a bit with this stuff, although IMO it's not enough, not nearly fast enough.

This is the real issue behind the real harmful piracy (I'd estimate that much of the piracy that's visible is basically hording which for the most part is pretty much harmless..you're not losing a sale or anything close to it.), and it's something that can be fixed not through legal ramifications, but through changing the way they price and market their cultural content.

[AversionFX]

TRADE-IN/Console Gaming

1: Has reviews.
2: Has demos and video content of gameplay for most games.
3: Results in rich corporation and not developer while developers are struggling and closing down.



Your understanding of piracy versus trade-in is rather poor.

1. Every piece of content that gets released in the US market has a review or preview, regardless of its platform. Either before it is available, or immediately thereafter. I have never once downloaded a game or application, not knowing what I was getting into. Most software pirates are actually very thorough, and do their homework on a piece of software they intend to acquire.

2. Every video game that has any sort of following has gameplay videos well before the game is released, regardless of its platform. And most "big-name" titles have demos in close proximity to a retail release.

3. This is the worst one. Gamestop isn't getting rich because it's cheating publishers and developers out of money. Gamestop is getting rich because games have a very high turn-over rate. Developers have shot themselves in the foot by spending millions of dollars producing video games with lots of tech, and long development cycles, but short play times.

There is no reason to hang on to most video games anymore. There is no replay value, and thus there is no reason to keep the game. So you take it to Gamestop, they give you some money for it, and you get a new game, and the circle continues.

The "$60 for a short game" trend of game development drove me to subscribe to Gamefly. For $23 a month, I can play as many games as I can, as they get to me, for a third the cost of buying one new game. The last game I bought was Mass Effect 2. I don't know when I'll actually be buying another one.

Renting is clearly the best value when it comes to gaming. Sure, it hurts developers, but that's not really my problem. If they wanted my money, they'd give me an incentive to do so.

[nabokovfan87]

1. Every piece of content that gets released in the US market has a review or preview, regardless of its platform. Either before it is available, or immediately thereafter. I have never once downloaded a game or application, not knowing what I was getting into. Most software pirates are actually very thorough, and do their homework on a piece of software they intend to acquire.

2. Every video game that has any sort of following has gameplay videos well before the game is released, regardless of its platform. And most "big-name" titles have demos in close proximity to a retail release.

Go and find me a review of zombie driver (gamespot page here (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/driving/zombiedriver/index.html?tag=result%3Btitle%3B0), just a page no review). Go check out F.E.A.R. 2 review, it is essentially a copy and paste of the console version. Something like control mapping and mods should be integrated, while something like online means nothing because PC gamers aren't going to have lag issues, or let alone be stuck with the basic online for weeks after launch. I directly stated this is a PC vs. console scenario, and most PC games get little to no press, covereage, or treatment unless it is on a console, in which case all you will see is the console version. Now, go find me a demo of pc games, need for speed perhaps, there is a demo on the console, nothing on pc. That is my point.

3. This is the worst one. Gamestop isn't getting rich because it's cheating publishers and developers out of money. Gamestop is getting rich because games have a very high turn-over rate. Developers have shot themselves in the foot by spending millions of dollars producing video games with lots of tech, and long development cycles, but short play times.

Yes they have, but that doesn't change the fact that how many studios have shut down due to trade-in/2nd hand sales?

There is no reason to hang on to most video games anymore. There is no replay value, and thus there is no reason to keep the game. So you take it to Gamestop, they give you some money for it, and you get a new game, and the circle continues.

Some people would argue you dont trade in MGS4 because it is one of the best games ever made. For instance, I won't trade in my copy of lair, mvc2, blitz: the league 2, and motorstorm just because I want to play those again later on, or will play them on holiday at a gathering or something. Just because you trade in all your games does not mean everyone trades them in, will, or should.

The "$60 for a short game" trend of game development drove me to subscribe to Gamefly. For $23 a month, I can play as many games as I can, as they get to me, for a third the cost of buying one new game. The last game I bought was Mass Effect 2. I don't know when I'll actually be buying another one.

Renting is clearly the best value when it comes to gaming. Sure, it hurts developers, but that's not really my problem. If they wanted my money, they'd give me an incentive to do so.

Yes, that is a nice option, but will you be willing to bay 200 bucks for fallout 3 because it is a "long" game? No, you rent games to get around high prices, some people trade in games, some people pirate, I personally just don't buy every game at release just the ones I must have. Perhaps renting is as bad as trade-in, but not to many people rent games in brick and mortar places, and besides that in no way can I go and rent a copy of counter-strike: source and test it out, can I? What you discuss is a console thing, and I am trying to point out the similarity between piracy on the pc and trade-ins on the console.

[nabokovfan87]

I gotta say I think I agree with you here.
The game industry has the problem of being too good at hyping games. So games in fact try and play all the games they can, but they aren't going to buy every game. They could wait.. but they gotta play the games NOW! So they pirate, or buy them for slightly less at Gamestop used.

Then the games sit on the shelf unsold forever more.

Games are unlike Movies, Music or Books, which for the most part hold up over time. Games are still too based in the tech/software world of latest/greatest, they need to move out of that, or be cursed to never have a long-sails tail.

I also think the game industry may want to make games coincide with movies/tv shows in terms of content and pricing. $40 for 13 hours of quality entertainment would be great. Or maybe $25 for a 5 hour AAA quality campaign (Modern Warfare 2) and the Multiplayer can go stand on it's own and release as it's ready.

I also just realized something odd about games. I hardly ever go back and replay an old game, but yet I go back and reread books quite often, and rewatch movies. Games apparently have no replay value if they are linear, but yet.. why do many people like rewatching movies? As you can't get any more linear and repeating the same way over again than a movie, can you?

That may be true for you, but certainly isn't true for everyone or even most gamers. I have replayed - partially or in full - Nintendo classics like SMB3 or Link to the Past, Sierra and LucasArts adventure games, Bioware RPG's, shooters, RTS's... hell, in every episode our podcast looks back at a retro title, usually with a specific eye towards whether it still holds up to be worth playing again today.

Some games do and some don't, but to claim that "games apparently have no replay value if they are linear" is wildly inconsistent with the behavior of a lot of people. I know folks who have done 10 or more playthroughs of some of the Final Fantasy games, or Chrono Trigger, which could easily be more times than they've watched any movie.

Now I don't know this for sure, but raven plays on pc, and deadend I'm guessing plays some or is a console gamer. Isn't it funny how the two of you have such contrasting ideas? Perhaps the mental programming of being told that tony hawk 1 and 2 must be worse then 3 and 4 has seeped in somewhere, where as raven and I sit in a scenario where cs is directly competing with cs:s. For me, I dabble in both, played the snes all the way up to the ps3, but I still enjoy my pc games over anything. Maybe that is why I am playing through pokemon fire red right now instead of mass effect 2 on pc. I played earthbound right before that as well. Needless to say, to me, I see no difference between enjoying an hour of CS:S and playing mass effect 2. Sure timing is nice, but it means nothing unless you have been told over and over by media that you have to play this right now.

I remeber a year or so ago, I was with a forum and listening to a podcast where the host demanded that if you liked xxxx then you have to go out right now and buy the sequel to keep the developer making games. Needless to say I bought it, and couldn't play it because the controls were shit (was rs:v on the ps3, my first fps game on the console since ghost recon/max payne 2 on the ps2) and I never played the game again, only to trade it in 6 months later for 10 bucks.

It's fairly simple. Someone who wants to discuss the latest game, or play it with their friends but is unable to rent it/find it cheap, may very well pirate it, so they don't get left out. The same thing happens for movies, music, books, whatever. It's a side-effect of being more than just a widget, of becoming actual culture. People by and large feel entitled to culture. It is what it is.

This is the real issue behind the real harmful piracy (I'd estimate that much of the piracy that's visible is basically hording which for the most part is pretty much harmless..you're not losing a sale or anything close to it.), and it's something that can be fixed not through legal ramifications, but through changing the way they price and market their cultural content.

I cut out some of your paragraphs in the quote, but let me say something about the above stuff. This mentality is a console phenomenon (having to talk about the latest and greatest) and is mostly due to the fact that pc gamers have little to no outlets to discuss things on. Essentially you pick up the game you want, ask your friends if they have it, try to tell them about it and ask em to "try it out" which means buy it, but quite honestly that is it. The pc podcasts I listen to I can name right here, it is only 4, 2 of which are tech related and don't/barely talk about games at all. While the console podcasts I listen to, perhaps 15-20 of them, all of which tell me the game that just got released is the greatest thing ever made, followed by next week the same thing about the newest release.

What is interesting here, and I would like you to comment, is you follow that mentality with "that is why piracy happens". Perhaps that is why console piracy is on the rise and becoming more and more prevelent while pc piracy is falling. You close with price, and I have seen this above mentioned and in several other places. To you bioshock on sale is $40 right, but I picked it up a month or so ago for 5 bucks brand spanking new. If you had the choice between $40 new and $5 new you would pick the smaller one, but the fact is sales on consoles games are controlled by dlc releases, goty rehashes, and "platinum" or "greatest" hits boxes. Your thoughts?

[Khrymsyn]

Go and find me a review of zombie driver (gamespot page here (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/driving/zombiedriver/index.html?tag=result%3Btitle%3B0), just a page no review).

Sorry nabokovfan, but just because I'm a complete wiseass:
Zombie Driver review from somewhere very, very familiar... (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?t=14331)

I'm sorry... I totally couldn't resist. =)

[nabokovfan87]

Sorry nabokovfan, but just because I'm a complete wiseass:
Zombie Driver review from somewhere very, very familiar... (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?t=14331)

I'm sorry... I totally couldn't resist. =)

Lol. Nice, but I wrote a review for a bunch of shit too (http://nabokovfan87.wordpress.com), doesn't make it or me press at all, just some dude who wrote on a blog. Notice how that review has 16 replies, not hundreds or thousands, thats the difference.

Something I just realized, the new steam client is integrated with kotaku, which, if you listen to their podcast is the biggest bunch of "fuck pc" assholes out there. I really need to write flipside #2, I have a feeling it is coming this weekend... oh steam, stupid, stupid steam....

[Khrymsyn]

Lol. Nice, but I wrote a review for a bunch of shit too (http://nabokovfan87.wordpress.com), doesn't make it or me press at all, just some dude who wrote on a blog.

So, putting aside a dismissal of the website you are currently posting on, what IS considered a worthwhile review site in your opinion?

1Up? (http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3177343&p=1)
Worthplaying? (http://worthplaying.com/article/2009/12/8/reviews/70778/)
Games Radar? (http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/zombie-driver/review/zombie-driver/a-2010011316723618043/g-2010011315582154094)
Or perhaps you are more the Magazine style type? Check PC gamer from... I believe April?


Just because Gamespot and IGN are too lazy to do separate reviews for the 3 different platforms, doesn't mean no one out there doesn't.

[AversionFX]

Yes they have, but that doesn't change the fact that how many studios have shut down due to trade-in/2nd hand sales?

This argument just does not hold up at all. Either provide some real evidence, or you're just blowing smoke out of your ass. The argument that publishers/developers deserve any money beyond the first sale is total bullshit. Name one type of consumer good where a second-hand sale benefits the original producer/manufacturer.

You are attempting to fabricate a link where none exists.


As has been said a million times. If I sell my car, Toyota doesn't get any money. If I sell my computer, none of the manufacturers of any of my components get any money. Why do game developers or publishers deserve any money beyond the first sale of said product?

Some people would argue you dont trade in MGS4 because it is one of the best games ever made. For instance, I won't trade in my copy of lair, mvc2, blitz: the league 2, and motorstorm just because I want to play those again later on, or will play them on holiday at a gathering or something. Just because you trade in all your games does not mean everyone trades them in, will, or should.

What the fuck is your point on any of this? People sell their stuff. People trade their stuff. It is how commerce has been done for thousands of years. For every Metal Gear Solid 4 there are thirty Aliens vs Predators. When developers stop doing a bad job of making video games, people will actually want to hold on to them.

Yes, that is a nice option, but will you be willing to bay 200 bucks for fallout 3 because it is a "long" game? No, you rent games to get around high prices, some people trade in games, some people pirate, I personally just don't buy every game at release just the ones I must have. Perhaps renting is as bad as trade-in, but not to many people rent games in brick and mortar places, and besides that in no way can I go and rent a copy of counter-strike: source and test it out, can I? What you discuss is a console thing, and I am trying to point out the similarity between piracy on the pc and trade-ins on the console.

I rent games to avoid the feeling that I wasted my money. If I had actually bought Assassin's Creed 2, I'd have blown a blood vessel, likewise with a number of games I've played through recently. Especially because of the return policy on video games. You blow $60, find out the game sucks a bag of dicks through a coffee straw, and then you're pretty much boned unless you take the hit in value on your trade.

There is absolutely no justification for the price points of the majority of video games on the market. Because not everyone who bought Battlefield: Bad Company 2, or Modern Warfare 2 did so for the multiplayer. And those people still paid $60 for either of them. And that is fucking criminal.


Fuck that system, so damn hard.

[Ravenlock]

To address a potential misconception, I co-host a PC gaming podcast, but I game on basically everything. Pretty much the only system I don't own is a PS3 (have Wii, 360, DS, PSP, iPhone), and I tend to write about whatever's striking my fancy over at ErraticGamer (http://www.erraticgamer.com). I was weaned on PC gaming and it's arguably still my favorite, but I'm not a PC gamer exclusively by any means.

To your idea of a PC vs. console focus influencing a person's perception of replay value, nab, that doesn't track too well against most gamers I know. As I said in my post, some of the most rabid re-play fanatics are the ones playing old console RPG's.

[txshurricane]

I don't see why trading in games is still considered a "loss" for the developer. If I throw my copy of Gears of War in the garbage and my friends buys a brand-new copy from GameStop, guess how much money Epic made from that transaction? The same amount that they would have if my friend had bought my copy used after I traded it in.

When you purchase a game from the store shelf, it's already paid for by the distributor, and then the retailer. The only possible value a brand-new sale would be to Epic is when GameStop has to replenish its supply from its distributor. What, did you think that Amazon.com and Wal-Mart get their video games straight from Activision and EA?

If anything, renting games hurts more than trading in. At least, I tend to think so. Because the same copy goes passes through more hands than copies that are re-sold.

[nabokovfan87]

I like how the more this goes on the angrier and angrier posts become. I will get home and give this a 2nd look and reply, gotta go take a test. Like I said raven, I was assuming, and from all I have heard about you it is all PC centric stuff. Either way, a lot of what I said is still justified (I think), while some arcade games and classics like mario and what not can handily be replayed, the concept of going back to tiger woods or madden 10 years ago instead of getting the new one doesn't jive with most. Then you have those who will play blitz or NBA Jam or something along those lines. To each their own, but in a general sense, pc gamers have less of an issue with playing older stuff while on the console the mentality of being told that you must own the newest best thing is always there.

Think back to how many people told you to go buy uncharted 2 that weren't tv commercials, just about every site out there did so despite whether or not you liked the first one, had a ps3, or many other things, you were told to go buy a ps3 and that game because it was something you could not miss.

So, putting aside a dismissal of the website you are currently posting on, what IS considered a worthwhile review site in your opinion?

1Up? (http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3177343&p=1)
Worthplaying? (http://worthplaying.com/article/2009/12/8/reviews/70778/)
Games Radar? (http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/zombie-driver/review/zombie-driver/a-2010011316723618043/g-2010011315582154094)
Or perhaps you are more the Magazine style type? Check PC gamer from... I believe April?


Just because Gamespot and IGN are too lazy to do separate reviews for the 3 different platforms, doesn't mean no one out there doesn't.

Ok fine, there are reviews for zombie master, but lets try something like gunbound. In most cases you have something like far cry 2, rs:v2, BF:BC2 or metro 2033 where the pc version is not seperate from the console but just a copy paste. There might be sites like you mentioned that do cater to pc gamers, but the ones I frequent couldn't give a damn to do more then copy and paste the console version even if there are major differences.

Then you have something like COD4:MW2 where there is a big fuss about the pc version, after the whole killing civilians thing came out, did you hear anything about the pc version besides... "yep they hacked it, damn pirates!"?

I feel the same way about ps3 and 360 games, look at orange box, huge difference, along with dozen others where the ps3 version is shit. All you see on the site is here is the xbox review followed by (if you are lucky to see it) oh yeah the ps3 version is shit. And that is if there is a big difference between the two. Usually, assassin's creed for instance, the consoles were new and video comparisons were abound, turns out it was a shit hdmi setting that made em look the same along with shit crashes on ps3, and yet they both get the same score. There is a double standard in there somewhere about me giving the pc version more importance, but being a pc/ps3 owner and never having touched the xbox it feels like when I look for a review I have to pay attention to what version of the game is being played a hell of a lot more then if I had a 360.

[Karmakin]

What is interesting here, and I would like you to comment, is you follow that mentality with "that is why piracy happens". Perhaps that is why console piracy is on the rise and becoming more and more prevelent while pc piracy is falling. You close with price, and I have seen this above mentioned and in several other places. To you bioshock on sale is $40 right, but I picked it up a month or so ago for 5 bucks brand spanking new. If you had the choice between $40 new and $5 new you would pick the smaller one, but the fact is sales on consoles games are controlled by dlc releases, goty rehashes, and "platinum" or "greatest" hits boxes. Your thoughts?

My viewpoint is somewhat out of date, of course, as Valve came along and changed EVERYTHING.

Two years ago, Bioshock on sale would have been 40. If not 45.The prices for PC gaming were horribly inelastic, for the biggest releases.

Sales on console games are again, because your long-term sales are competing with the used market. There's a few games that are very inelastic, but they tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Competition is the key. And it's not even really competition between different titles, although every once in a while that's the case, the competition between the different channels of getting the content. Be it a rental or a used copy or a shrinkwrap.

Much of it really is the "fault" of EB/GameStop/Blockbuster. (I think people really miss how much the selling of their old rental titles drives down prices) Again, as they don't deal that much in PC titles, the PC market doesn't have the same competitive forces, so prices used to stay higher.

Now, the competition re:prices on the PC market are so vast that it really does make a difference. I could get the latest and greatest shooter for 60 or get a really really good older developed shooter for 10-15. That's a big enough difference to really drive the market. Especially when we get into games that are basically at a coffee price level.

Like I said. Valve really changed the entire face of the PC gaming marketplace, and I really do credit them with the drop in piracy, although I have my doubts how good it really is for publishers. (Although at the end of the day really, fuck 'em. All that matters is how good it is for consumers).

Edit:I just wanna go back to the Blockbuster thing. Even before they started their current run with trade-ins and the like, I bought most of my games that I had in the PS2/GC generation that were basically used rentals, and usually at a price that I paid about 10-15 a piece. Either buy 2 get 1 free or buy 2 get 2 free.

This really drops the market value for games.

[Ravenlock]

Again, nabokov, that just doesn't track. I'm not upset or angry about it, I assume you were referring to other peoples' posts, but the entire Virtual Console stands as a counter-argument to the idea that console players don't go back and replay old games. All of Virtual Console and half of XBLA / PSN would be dismal failures if there wasn't a thriving community of console players who love revisiting old classics. The entire Retronauts community over at 1Up (and most of the Gamespite periodical Jeremy Parish self-publishes) is centered entirely around keeping old console games alive and playing.

Is there a substantial advertising push to buy the newest and greatest? Of course, that's what advertisers do. Is it bigger on console than on PC? Yes, because (1) consoles exist in generations and PC's don't, and (2) PC games generally don't advertise in the same space as console games anyhow. But I don't think you're right at all in saying that one "type" of gamer (at least in terms of PC vs console) is more or less willing to replay old content vs. always buying the new thing. Just ain't true.

[Karmakin]

I don't see why trading in games is still considered a "loss" for the developer. If I throw my copy of Gears of War in the garbage and my friends buys a brand-new copy from GameStop, guess how much money Epic made from that transaction? The same amount that they would have if my friend had bought my copy used after I traded it in.

When you purchase a game from the store shelf, it's already paid for by the distributor, and then the retailer. The only possible value a brand-new sale would be to Epic is when GameStop has to replenish its supply from its distributor. What, did you think that Amazon.com and Wal-Mart get their video games straight from Activision and EA?

If anything, renting games hurts more than trading in. At least, I tend to think so. Because the same copy goes passes through more hands than copies that are re-sold.

Er wut?

That first paragraph makes no sense. In the first case, Epic sells two copies, and in the second case Epic sells one copy. There's a big difference there in terms of how fast the distributor needs to restock.

Although I agree with your last paragraph. Content creators have this idea that they deserve one sale per person who 'enjoys' (Dunno a better word for this) the content. A used sale might go through 2, maybe 3 "views" in its life cycle. A rental probably goes through at least 10-12, probably a lot more.

Casual piracy probably means that it goes through the same 2-5 views or something like that. While warez probably gets to thousands of views for that one sale.

Which is why, for what it's worth I think it's stupid for publishers to take steps to block casual piracy on the PC, as it's a hell of a lot better than outright warez.

[txshurricane]

Er wut?

That first paragraph makes no sense. In the first case, Epic sells two copies, and in the second case Epic sells one copy.
No, Epic already sold both copies to the distributor. Any unsold copies get credited to GameStop by the distributor, but Epic keeps all of the sales revenue that the distributor bought the games for.
There's a big difference there in terms of how fast the distributor needs to restock.
That's a point of contention, I believe. With digital distribution and rentals in high swing, I doubt that the difference is significant at all.

Although I agree with your last paragraph. Content creators have this idea that they deserve one sale per person who 'enjoys' (Dunno a better word for this) the content. A used sale might go through 2, maybe 3 "views" in its life cycle. A rental probably goes through at least 10-12, probably a lot more.
Yep.

Casual piracy probably means that it goes through the same 2-5 views or something like that. While warez probably gets to thousands of views for that one sale.

Which is why, for what it's worth I think it's stupid for publishers to take steps to block casual piracy on the PC, as it's a hell of a lot better than outright warez.
I wasn't addressing piracy in this case. I have a beef with piracy that's completely separate from used games, one that I don't want to get rolling on at this particular moment.

[nabokovfan87]

Again, nabokov, that just doesn't track. I'm not upset or angry about it, I assume you were referring to other peoples' posts, but the entire Virtual Console stands as a counter-argument to the idea that console players don't go back and replay old games. All of Virtual Console and half of XBLA / PSN would be dismal failures if there wasn't a thriving community of console players who love revisiting old classics. The entire Retronauts community over at 1Up (and most of the Gamespite periodical Jeremy Parish self-publishes) is centered entirely around keeping old console games alive and playing.

Is there a substantial advertising push to buy the newest and greatest? Of course, that's what advertisers do. Is it bigger on console than on PC? Yes, because (1) consoles exist in generations and PC's don't, and (2) PC games generally don't advertise in the same space as console games anyhow. But I don't think you're right at all in saying that one "type" of gamer (at least in terms of PC vs console) is more or less willing to replay old content vs. always buying the new thing. Just ain't true.

I'm not saying one plays old stuff and one doesn't, and things like halo 1/2 vs. 3 counter my point, but on the whole it works like this. You get halo 1, then 2, then 3, then 4, then 5, then 6, etc. Specifically in terms on online play, not to throw single player games out, a large majority of counter-strike players simply play CS and not CS:S. Think back to when TF2 came out, or L4D2, how much resistance was there by people to simply not play the new version because "it wasn't as good"? Something like DOD:S, a patch killed the community and forced them to other/older games (like CS:S or DOD).

I don't hear the sentiment of BF:BC2 came out, but I'd rather keep playing BF:BC, motorstorm 2 came out, but I think I will stick with the first one, or uncharted 2 came out, its fine I will play the old one instead. The sentiment is for the most part go buy new games.

Raven, perhaps the reason you feel that I am wrong is because you are a part of, and closely tied to, the community of people who play older console games. And I am speaking of old school play the old version, not something like SSF2T:HD Remix where it is a new version of an old game. It is always nice to relive older titles and relive the past, but is that the same size or large community then those who just buy the latest and greatest? Now take that percent and contrast it to the percent of PC gamers in the same scenario, which one is larger?

I don't see why trading in games is still considered a "loss" for the developer. If I throw my copy of Gears of War in the garbage and my friends buys a brand-new copy from GameStop, guess how much money Epic made from that transaction? The same amount that they would have if my friend had bought my copy used after I traded it in.

When you purchase a game from the store shelf, it's already paid for by the distributor, and then the retailer. The only possible value a brand-new sale would be to Epic is when GameStop has to replenish its supply from its distributor. What, did you think that Amazon.com and Wal-Mart get their video games straight from Activision and EA?

If anything, renting games hurts more than trading in. At least, I tend to think so. Because the same copy goes passes through more hands than copies that are re-sold.

Ok, take this scenario, Piracy and trade-in are both outlawed, and illegal, and you must have a legit version to play a game. Your friend wants to buy a game, he must go get it new, and the stores would have to stock more often and the developer would sell more copies. That is assuming your friend wants to buy the game (because he is going to the store to buy it in your example and not taking it directly from you). Now I ask, which is more of a bigger deal, to the customer and then to the developer, blocking PC piracy, blocking console piracy, and then blocking trade-ins/rentals?

[Ravenlock]

*Shrug* Alright, spun that way I suppose I don't have a serious argument against what you're saying, though I think your examples are cherry-picked a bit. CS:S was almost literally just a re-skin of Counter-Strike (as opposed to a sequel), and even so has garnered a pretty huge and ongoing following, and TF2 has gone on to be probably the most popular online FPS on the PC, even if it didn't start out that way on day one.

And again, consoles go in generations - you don't just go get Halo 3 because Halo 2 is old and the new hotness is out, you get Halo 3 because it's the one made for your new XBox 360. (Or so I'm assuming, having not purchased Halo 2 or Halo 3.) ;)

There's also, I think, still a pretty significant difference in the way online gaming communities on the PC and consoles work, primarily because of the PC's preference for dedicated servers and very tight "clan" gameplay, vs the console's preference for pick-up-and-play random matches. Building a strong community around a game provides a strong incentive for people not to move away from it, but that sort of thing (with a few notable exceptions) doesn't often happen with console multiplayer games to the degree it does on the PC.

[nabokovfan87]

*Shrug* Alright, spun that way I suppose I don't have a serious argument against what you're saying, though I think your examples are cherry-picked a bit. CS:S was almost literally just a re-skin of Counter-Strike (as opposed to a sequel), and even so has garnered a pretty huge and ongoing following, and TF2 has gone on to be probably the most popular online FPS on the PC, even if it didn't start out that way on day one.

And again, consoles go in generations - you don't just go get Halo 3 because Halo 2 is old and the new hotness is out, you get Halo 3 because it's the one made for your new XBox 360. (Or so I'm assuming, having not purchased Halo 2 or Halo 3.) ;)

There's also, I think, still a pretty significant difference in the way online gaming communities on the PC and consoles work, primarily because of the PC's preference for dedicated servers and very tight "clan" gameplay, vs the console's preference for pick-up-and-play random matches. Building a strong community around a game provides a strong incentive for people not to move away from it, but that sort of thing (with a few notable exceptions) doesn't often happen with console multiplayer games to the degree it does on the PC.

TF2 is the most popular????

from the steam stats today:


Now..........Max..........Game
19,355.......94,997.......Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer
14,675.......82,273.......Counter-Strike: Source
13,594.......19,175.......Team Fortress 2
11,859.......69,495.......Counter-Strike
8,847.........14,135.......Battlefield: Bad Company 2

The only other 2 notables are L4D2 with peak 11,480 and football manager 2010 with 22,134 the latter of which is higher then TF2.

[Ravenlock]

I clearly should have tossed a "one of the most popular" in there, my apologies.

Though seriously, averaged over time it would only be beaten by Counter-Strike. Modern Warfare 2 probably doesn't belong on that list at all, because popularity right now for a game that's been out a couple of months does not equate to popularity over time. TF2 has been out for two and a half years, and is still in third.

Also, have you considered what MW2's current (if temporary) top spot on that list does to your argument that PC gamers aren't as wowed by the new and shiny? I don't happen to think it's a terribly solid point anyway, since as I said in the beginning I don't believe there is much of a distinction between the groups, but you don't seem to be thinking this through.

And it's worth noting that CS:S has a considerably higher "max" than CS 1.6, which would seem to at least question your assertion that CS 1.6 remained more popular.

[nabokovfan87]

Did I mistype and say more popular? I swear I meant to say popular and not more or most popular. As far as MW2 goes, it is a relatively new addition to the list. I'm not sure if it was just pc patch issues or something, but the game was never on top for quite a while. CS:S and CSS typically had 90k each with CS:S just barely edging the other out, TF2 has been at most 60k since launch, with a lot of the DOD:S audience converting over because of the patch that killed off DOD:S for 90% of the community.

Either way, CS was released way back when and Still is in the top 5.

Either way moreso, just symantics, but still fun to argue for the sake of arguing some times.

[txshurricane]

Ok, take this scenario, Piracy and trade-in are both outlawed, and illegal, and you must have a legit version to play a game. Your friend wants to buy a game, he must go get it new, and the stores would have to stock more often and the developer would sell more copies. That is assuming your friend wants to buy the game (because he is going to the store to buy it in your example and not taking it directly from you). Now I ask, which is more of a bigger deal, to the customer and then to the developer, blocking PC piracy, blocking console piracy, and then blocking trade-ins/rentals?
Not to dodge your question, but in that scenario I believe that developers would not use middlemen, because each unit would have higher value. (See: EA Store (http://eastore.ea.com/)). The way it is now, bulk units have the highest value to developers - retailers are willing to take the hit in potentially lost revenue per unsold unit because they have the right to re-sell the trade-ins.

[nabokovfan87]

Agreed, it will never happen, but just as a thought experiment, take what I said and rate those.

[txshurricane]

Agreed, it will never happen, but just as a thought experiment, take what I said and rate those.

Given your scenario, I would say:

Consumer:
1. Blocking trade-ins/rentals
2. Blocking PC piracy
3. Blocking console piracy

Developers:
1. Blocking PC piracy
2. Blocking console piracy
3. Blocking trade-ins/rentals

[nabokovfan87]

Given your scenario, I would say:

Consumer:
1. Blocking trade-ins/rentals
2. Blocking PC piracy
3. Blocking console piracy

Developers:
1. Blocking PC piracy
2. Blocking console piracy
3. Blocking trade-ins/rentals

Any justification?

Mine would be, for either case:

Consumer/Dev: Trade-in, Console Piracy, PC Piracy.