Epic's Mike Capps Suggests Making Endings DLC!

[Telefrog]

Epic and EA are experimenting with different ways to curb secondhand sales and rentals of their games. One of the ways they're trying is by offering incentives to original sale retail buyers, like roster updates in sports games and map packs for shooters. Mike Capps, Epic Games President, has a suggestion in a GamesIndustry interview (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/michael-capps-part-two) that some of us warned you about.


Q: How do you see downloadable content evolving over the next few years?

Michael Capps: The secondary market is a huge issue in the United States. Our primary retailer makes the majority of its money off of secondary sales, and so you’re starting to see games taking proactive steps toward that by… if you buy the retail version you get the unlock code.

I’ve talked to some developers who are saying "If you want to fight the final boss you go online and pay USD 20, but if you bought the retail version you got it for free". We don’t make any money when someone rents it, and we don’t make any money when someone buys it used - way more than twice as many people played Gears than bought it.

Q: Do you see an enemy in this equation? Is it the retailer, or the purchaser of second-hand games?

Michael Capps: I'd hate to say my players are my enemies - that doesn't make any sense! But we certainly have a rule at Epic that we don't buy any used games - sure as hell you're not going to be recognised as an Epic artist going in and buying used videogames - because this is how we make our money and how all our friends in the industry make money.

I think a little bit of it is education so people realise that the reason there's no PC market right now is piracy. I mean, Crytek just put out some numbers saying the ratio was 20:1 on Crysis, for pirated to non-pirated use. So guess what? That's why there's no Gears of War 2 on PC, because there's no market, because copying killed it - and that's gruesome to a company like ours that's been in the PC market for so long.
Gears of War 3, now offered with optional ending. :(

[digitalErich]

Meh, isn't the 3rd iteration of a game when Epic typically starts to run the franchise into the ground? :)

Also, this is a perfect way for me to NOT buy your game on day one. Other media outlets have had to deal with the secondary market for decades and they're fine. The game industry needs to grow up. Onto my canned response when someone in gaming complains about the secondary market...

If they can't handle an issue almost every other media industry has weathered, part of me thinks they aren't worth saving. I don't spend my money to prop up idiots. Figure out your shit without impacting the consumer.

[LongStepMantis]

I don't mean to repeatedly jump on the "Fuck DLC!" hate-train...but shit like this is exactly why I have had a bad feeling about DLC since the whole scheme started being used.

DLC for free? great. Pay DLC for things that are actually game additions like bonus weapons/powers/items? Still great, you don't have to buy them if you don't want to.

This kind of crap is like going to a theater to see a movie, and 10 minutes before the ending, they stop the film, send an usher in to collect $5 from every patron, and anyone who doesn't want to pay is kicked out before restarting the film. Sure, he's talking about things like rented or used games...but what the hell?

[Food Nipple]

Epic has a rule that employees can't buy games used? Are they allowed to rent movies? Can they have Netflix and GameFly subscriptions? Can they give a game to a friend if they're done with it? Do they have to buy their cars new? What about their houses?

[digitalErich]

Don't you know Food, gaming is different. Just don't ask anyone at Epic how, exactly :)

[LongStepMantis]

Epic has a rule that employees can't buy games used? Are they allowed to rent movies? Can they have Netflix and GameFly subscriptions? Can they give a game to a friend if they're done with it? Do they have to buy their cars new? What about their houses?

Pffft. You act like people don't always have the money to buy everything at full retail. Like there are people out there who would rather rent or buy used to save some much needed cash. How will they increase their profits while simultaneously screwing the buyer over that way? ;)

[Deadend]

The game companies should have just been selling their games with a no-rental clause and charge Blockbuster $200 a unit, sort of like how Blockbuster pays more for their rental units. Whatever, this thread is going to be full of people who salivate at the idea of giving Gamestop $45 for a $50 game.

Used Cars are priced much lower than new cars, you don't go to a dealership to buy a new car and got sold into buying a used car for 10% less. Movies have not had a much a problem with used sales en masse like games. But they are starting to get trouble... from Gamestop of course. Even then the prices are nowhere near the used games prices.

The hate for used games is because the used games are selling for almost as much as the new games.. so it IS a stolen sale, as if someone is going to pay $55 for a used game , they would probably pay $60 for it new. If the used games were $30 instead.. the anger from the game companies would not be so high.

[DoctorFinger]

I doubt he means a capital 'R' rule prohibiting employees from buying used games, but most developers in my experience feel similarly about that market.

[Telefrog]

This kind of crap is like going to a theater to see a movie, and 10 minutes before the ending, they stop the film, send an usher in to collect $5 from every patron, and anyone who doesn't want to pay is kicked out before restarting the film. Sure, he's talking about things like rented or used games...but what the hell?

Well, the big difference here (and please don't think I'm defending Capps' suggestion) is that the ushers are kicking people out that didn't actually pay the theater for the viewing. They paid someone else.

It's more like in the days of drive in theaters or stadiums when people would sit on nearby rooftops to watch the show for free. The venue owners got savvy to the freeloaders and put up curtain barriers or planted tall trees to obstruct the view.

The hate for used games is because the used games are selling for almost as much as the new games.. so it IS a stolen sale, as if someone is going to pay $55 for a used game , they would probably pay $60 for it new. If the used games were $30 instead.. the anger from the game companies would not be so high.

The hate also comes from the lack of a "long tail" on the sales of most video games. Other used products don't show up on the secondary market until a few weeks have passed, at the least. Used games get sold the same week they premiere.

By the way, to the folks that sell their games that quickly, why not just rent them?

[digitalErich]

Deadend, the problem is that while GS's pricing model might be an issue (and I agree that it is) the implications for some of these proposed actions are more far reaching that one store chain.

I hate GS's practices and I fully understand the secondary market is a problem for content creators, but again, if creators/publishers can't figure out this problem without impacting me, they deserve any shit that gets thrown at them.

[DoctorFinger]

Also, I moved this to news

[LarsenNET]

Going to a full download model like Steam for consoles will solve the problem from a developer standpoint. It's inevitable, just a matter of time.

[LongStepMantis]

Well, the big difference here (and please don't think I'm defending Capps' suggestion) is that the ushers are kicking people out that didn't actually pay the theater for the viewing. They paid someone else.

It's more like in the days of drive in theaters or stadiums when people would sit on nearby rooftops to watch the show for free. The venue owners got savvy to the freeloaders and put up curtain barriers or planted tall trees to obstruct the view.

In retrospect, I agree that my example isn't an exact translation of the issue. It was merely the first thing that came to mind when thinking of having the end of a game removed.

I just don't like the looks of these trends at all. I realize game development costs and team sizes continue to grow as the games become more involved, sophisticated, and run on the shiniest new graphic engines. But at what point will the build-up stop? If 5 years from now every title costs $120 or more (or just the equivalent by charging for half of a game's content as DLC) to cover the immense costs of development, it would mean leaving my favorite hobby in the dust. By shutting out cheaper avenues like renting and buying used as viable options for me, all they're going to do is drive me away.

[Norse]

If "everyone" was connected to the net I could support this idea. I see nothing wrong in trying to take down secondhand sales as long as it's done in a way that doesn't annoy paying costumers. I understand why he's upset when Gamestop are selling their titles a second time and getting all the profit.

[frederec]

Also, this is a perfect way for me to NOT buy your game on day one. Other media outlets have had to deal with the secondary market for decades and they're fine. The game industry needs to grow up. Onto my canned response when someone in gaming complains about the secondary market...

If they can't handle an issue almost every other media industry has weathered, part of me thinks they aren't worth saving. I don't spend my money to prop up idiots. Figure out your shit without impacting the consumer.

My opinion exactly. Almost all my game purchases are for brand new games, and I rarely sell games. However, if you make it so it's not possible for me to transfer ownership at some later time (first sale doctrine, I believe), then I quickly lose interest in giving you my business.

Hell, as far as PC games go I'm the sort of person that by rights should be counted in both the consumer/pirate camp. In other words, I buy a PC game, bring it home, install it, then download and install a nocd crack. Similarly, I buy PSP games, and never run them from UMD, but memory stick. But I just play games I own.

[digitalErich]

Going to a full download model like Steam for consoles will solve the problem from a developer standpoint. It's inevitable, just a matter of time.
A fully download model does not, at least in the US, fully solve this issue. Valve ran into this and they have to provide a way for me to sell my downloaded software to anyone I choose, I believe.

Very few people take advantage of this, admittedly, but as soon as we go to a full download-only model is the moment issues and options like this come to the forefront. Download or physical, in the US you can't prevent most secondary sales between private citizens.

Here's a novel idea, something people at Blizzard and Valve have figured out, make a game I want on day one and want to keep forever. Crazy talk, I know.

[digitalErich]

Or here's an idea Epic is already trying with Gears: instead of taking stuff away from people buying secondary copies, give people buying new copies free shit. (Pleasing your loyal consumers, another novel concept)

As much as ppl complain about the $55-$60 parody, it's a blessing in disguise if you think about it. It should be relatively cheap and easy to overcome that price difference with a small value add for new games. $5 more and I get more MP maps? New copy, please.

Pull some Judo shit on those stores and use their aggressive pricing against them.

[Telefrog]

Very few people take advantage of this, admittedly, but as soon as we go to a full download-only model is the moment issues and options like this come to the forefront. Download or physical, in the US you can't prevent most secondary sales between private citizens.

Here's a novel idea, something people at Blizzard and Valve have figured out, make a game I want on day one and want to keep forever. Crazy talk, I know.

Unless the product in question is a service rather than just software. A contracted service between two parties is very difficult to transfer to a third person.

It's funny you should mention Valve and Blizzard because they're not above it (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17744).

So does Valve ever expect to capitalize on emerging trends like microtransactions, tiered subscriptions and free-to-play?" I think you will definitely see that come online," said Holtman. "We know that's an emerging trend, already very well established in Asia now. We've looked at that, we know we have a base there, and we also know there's a model that people are exploring... where you can play an instance for free with microtransactions [as] another way of lowering the barrier to entry and getting people into that game and into that franchise."

Added Holtman, "You will see partners come on and do it, and you may see functions inside Steam come online. it's something we've always approached... you're going to see it slowly roll out, and we'll see how people react."

Currently, he says, Valve is working with Nexon to experiment with CS Online under those revenue models in Taiwan, Korea, Japan and China, incorporating a microtransactions model.

"Folks will need to make microtransactions to get different items, skins, things like that," Lombardi explains. "We're working with those guys, and using different versions of our backend to administer it, and obviously our IP to headline it."

[Krispy]

I think they should just get competitive with used game prices. Yeah I know it sounds stupid, but a lot of games on Steam are such bargains it wouldn't make sense to buy the used copy. I'm not saying sell it to begin with at a low price but be more flexible with the market and lower the new price sooner or have a direct download service where you can get it $5 or $10 cheaper (c'mon, we all know you save money on direct download anyways).

[DoctorFinger]

Or here's an idea Epic is already trying with Gears: instead of taking stuff away from people buying secondary copies, give people buying new copies free shit. (Pleasing your loyal consumers, another novel concept)

As much as ppl complain about the $55-$60 parody, it's a blessing in disguise if you think about it. It should be relatively cheap and easy to overcome that price difference with a small value add for new games. $5 more and I get more MP maps? New copy, please.

Pull some Judo shit on those stores and use their aggressive pricing against them.That's what they are doing. Gears 2 includes a one-time use code to DL 5 multiplayer maps. A lot of companies are doing the same thing nowadays, too. In my mind it's the best (reasonable) solution.

[digitalErich]

Telefrog:
I've read those before and until they implement that, I'll be a loyal customer. If Valve and Blizzard get out of control, I'll be the first to not buy their products, same as any other company. I didn't mean to hold them up as some gold child or savior. I was more referring to their past library and its quality and their extended, free content additions.

[Food Nipple]

I actually think Epic's on the right track with the bonus maps in Gears 2, but they could benefit from a bit more subtlety.

Follow the Rock Band 2 model and don't give up the free goods on Day 1. Make sure customers know that they're getting free goodies a month or so down the line. Also, make the DLC available to second hand customers for a fee. Now all those used copies can make you money, not as much as if they bought a new copy, but it's more than the zero you're currently getting.

There's a crucial amount of time you want your customers to hold onto your game for. I might trade in a game after two weeks for $45, but I'll be much less likely to trade the same game two months later if it's only worth $20. Feed your customers free stuff until the trade value is too low to be worthwhile.

[digitalErich]

That's what they are doing. Gears 2 includes a one-time use code to DL 5 multiplayer maps. A lot of companies are doing the same thing nowadays, too. In my mind it's the best (reasonable) solution.
Yep, it's a great solution. It pleases your loyal customers and doesn't punish people who want to buy a secondary copy.

[c0m3d14n]

i am so annoyed with these tiresome arguments, i dont have the nerve to read even this short paragraph to the end anymore...
all i want to to is scream "shut the fuck up" at the top of my voice and with my angriest face
the games industry is becoming more and more like the music industry, they keep attacking the problem from all the wrong angles repeatetly and blame consumers for their shortcomings

[J Arcane]

OK, for starters, WTF does this story have to do with EA? I see no mention of them in the body of the story or the linked article.

Second, congratulations Epic. You'd manage to scrabble back a tiny modicum of respect from me after UT3, but now you've just tossed that entirely out the window.

I'm glad I pirated UT3. Epic can get fucked from here on out.

[digitalErich]

I've heard more good arguments and strategies for dealing with this here than in 90% of the articles I read from people in the industry. That's a bit scary.

[Telefrog]

That's what they are doing. Gears 2 includes a one-time use code to DL 5 multiplayer maps. A lot of companies are doing the same thing nowadays, too. In my mind it's the best (reasonable) solution.

Well, it's essentially what Capps is talking about in the article. Withold a part of the game and offer it for free to original retail buyers.

You can certainly argue that a game ending is a lot more crucial to the experience, but I think a lot of folks wouldn't argue with the idea that a large part of Gears' appeal is in multiplayer anyway. By witholding those five maps, Epic can phrase the deal in terms that make it sound like an optional golly-gee-whiz freebie for loyal Gearheads, but the truth is that it's an incentive to get people to buy it new rather than hitting Gamestop.

[digitalErich]

There's a crucial amount of time you want your customers to hold onto your game for. I might trade in a game after two weeks for $45, but I'll be much less likely to trade the same game two months later if it's only worth $20. Feed your customers free stuff until the trade value is too low to be worthwhile.
Excellent point, one that you think would be fairly obvious to creators given the success of some companies that have put this practice to good use.

[Telefrog]

OK, for starters, WTF does this story have to do with EA? I see no mention of them in the body of the story or the linked article.

EA is in the intro of this story to frame the fact that Epic's not alone with this type of incentive plan. EA offered "free" roster updates with their recent NBA title for original retail buyers only via in-package DLC code, just like Epic did with the map pack in Gears 2.


I'm glad I pirated UT3. Epic can get fucked from here on out.

Classy.

[Wraith]

A fully download model does not, at least in the US, fully solve this issue. Valve ran into this and they have to provide a way for me to sell my downloaded software to anyone I choose, I believe.

Very few people take advantage of this, admittedly, but as soon as we go to a full download-only model is the moment issues and options like this come to the forefront. Download or physical, in the US you can't prevent most secondary sales between private citizens.Is the answer, then, for game publishers to get in on the Gamestop/eBay used games racket, so that the publisher gets that used price markup rather than a third party?

[LarsenNET]

A fully download model does not, at least in the US, fully solve this issue. Valve ran into this and they have to provide a way for me to sell my downloaded software to anyone I choose, I believe.


Wrong, no way to re-sell downloaded games on Steam just like there is no way to re-sell XBLA content.

[Primus]

I don't mean to repeatedly jump on the "Fuck DLC!" hate-train...but shit like this is exactly why I have had a bad feeling about DLC since the whole scheme started being used.

DLC for free? great. Pay DLC for things that are actually game additions like bonus weapons/powers/items? Still great, you don't have to buy them if you don't want to.

This kind of crap is like going to a theater to see a movie, and 10 minutes before the ending, they stop the film, send an usher in to collect $5 from every patron, and anyone who doesn't want to pay is kicked out before restarting the film. Sure, he's talking about things like rented or used games...but what the hell?

They aren't charging for the DLC ending, this system would simply make it so that if someone bought the game second hand they would not be able to download the ending as the original owner of the game did because the code to activate it would already of been used by the original owner. They actually have already started doing this, as copies of GOW2 have a code for addional maps.

I do not really have anything qualms about this, other than some poor guy who doesn't have any form of internet connection would be screwed.

Anyways, thank GameCrazy and Gamestop along with the thriving PC pirating community for this if you do have a problem. Really as of late, even before this was announced, I was considering not buying used games at all, as the developers deserve the money for the game, not Gamestop.

[rifter]

My opinion exactly. Almost all my game purchases are for brand new games, and I rarely sell games. However, if you make it so it's not possible for me to transfer ownership at some later time (first sale doctrine, I believe), then I quickly lose interest in giving you my business.

I am like you. I almost never sell games back, yet if you remove my ability to... I would be VERY pissed. Just because I don't, doesn't mean I don't want the option.

You know, Epic's shenanigans has put them in the basket of don't buy, except in secondary market. You become anti-consumer, and I see no reason to support you. I may like your game, but I will endeavor to find a way that gives you the LEAST ammount of return on it, as possible.

As for the assertions that the teams get bigger... and cost more, here is my problem. Games SELL a hell of a lot more, than they EVER have. Back when I first started gaming, it was a MAJOR niche market. Now, it seems that just about every kid out there has a portable of some sort, let alone a console at home. This isn't a niche market anymore, and games are selling millions of copies instead of thousands, or hundreds of thousands from just a few years ago. You make your money from volume.

So, piracy is a problem on the PC, and the secondary market is a problem on the consoles. Sounds like one and the same to me. Though, the secondary market can be looked at AS a lost sale, while piracy, should never be looked at that way.

[Norse]

Classy.

Yeah, it's pathetic. Dislike the company? Don't play the game. Grown up people pirating games is probably as low as you can go.

[J Arcane]

Yeah, it's pathetic. Dislike the company? Don't play the game. Grown up people pirating games is probably as low as you can go.
And you know what I think is pathetic? Being sucker enough to throw money sight unseen after a $50 game after their last one had been an utter joke.

We all have our own values, how about you take the judgmental crap and shove it, eh?

[quidmonkey]

Will Epic make these maps DLC for all users who did not purchase a new retail disc?

[digitalErich]

Is the answer, then, for game publishers to get in on the Gamestop/eBay used games racket, so that the publisher gets that used price markup rather than a third party?
I think the answer is to make buying/selling secondary copies less desirable, and that can be done a number of ways.

-Provide "free" incentives on new copies (easiest way IMO).
-Provide on-going content so that I want to keep my copy longer
-Adjust the pricing model such that buying or selling secondary copies becomes trivial. I never buy or sell used DVDs...it's not worth it to me given the small amount of profit/savings.

That last one is tough but unless they start experimenting now, I predict another late 80s US games crash if prices keep going up. Remember when MK2 for the SNES was $70 new? Yeah, no one else does because no one was buying games then.

[LarsenNET]

Will Epic make these maps DLC for all users who did not purchase a new retail disc?

No, you must buy retail to get the maps.

[cppcrusader]

Our primary retailer makes the majority of its money off of secondary sales,

I didn't realize Walmart was selling used games now.

[digitalErich]

Wrong, no way to re-sell downloaded games on Steam just like there is no way to re-sell XBLA content.
You're right, they have to supply a new CD key only when a physical copy is transferred.

[Norse]

And you know what I think is pathetic? Being sucker enough to throw money sight unseen after a $50 game after their last one had been an utter joke.

Couldn't you have tried the demo instead? Or do you have a habit of pirating every game you might buy?

[J Arcane]

Couldn't you have tried the demo instead? Or do you have a habit of pirating every game you might buy?
You mean that buggy beta thing they dumped out?

And yes, actually, I do have a habit of doing exactly that. With demos frequently being huge jokes these days, it tends to be the only way I can get a fair estimation of how good the actual game is.

In some cases, I've even pirated a game I already had on order, just so I could play it early, and then switched keys once my real copy arrives. I did that with Beyond the Sword and Hordes of the Underdark, frex.

[JayVe]

These kind of anti-consumer comments sure do sway me, to make sure I pick up Gears of War 2 used, even if I save 5 bucks.

[TrackZero]

Interesting idea actually, all things considered. Certainly will help profit margins for developers and publishers right now who are having a rough time. Personally, I don't know if I even see an issue with it.

[TrackZero]

Couldn't you have tried the demo instead? Or do you have a habit of pirating every game you might buy?

I assume that's a rhetorical question if you know J's habits. ;)

[JayVe]

And you know what I think is pathetic? Being sucker enough to throw money sight unseen after a $50 game after their last one had been an utter joke.
Couldn't you have tried the demo instead?
That won't work in the case of Epic's titles. There is no demo for Gears of War 2.

[Telefrog]

You mean that buggy beta thing they dumped out?

I am unaware of many changes between the demo and the full game beyond a few minor balance tweaks and a menu overhaul. I'd say the demo was a pretty accurate representation of the full game. I don't think anything in the full game was going to win anyone over that didn't like the demo.

But, hey, justifications can be fun too.

Edit: JayVe, he was talking about UT3 as the game he pirated sans demo.

[paketep]

Whoa, why is it that every day someone from Epic speaks, the only thing we get to hear is BS?. Epic has gone so far from the company we all loved and supported that it breaks my heart. Also, why the fuck are they still part of the PCGA?. They clearly hate the PC, and it shows in every single interview (bread and butter my shiny metal ass).

Piracy is the reason for no GoW2 for PC?. GoW being a generic, shitty, buggy game is the reason GoW didn't sell on the PC. And the fact that STILL doesn't work. Also, UT3 being as consolized as it is also hurt a lot Epic's reputation. And it was finally driven into the ground by CliffyB's stupid comments.

Second hand hurts and you want to avoid it?. OK, if you are going to RENT us your games instead of SELLING them to us, start by lowering the price 50%, at the very least.

The enemy is not the retailer, nor the purchaser. The enemy is Epic's stupidity and greed. Every time I listen to Capps, Cliffy or Mark Rein, they make it harder and harder for me to ever give them another one of my euros.

Seems like GoW2 is better than GoW. It will sell a lot on consoles even if it is a POS. But save us from the BS, please. You get more avoiding the PC?. Fine. But stop badmouthing PC gamers. YOU broke the toys, Epic. Live with it.

[JayVe]

What happens 10 years later when I want to go back and play my game again? Will the servers be online to let me buy the ending?

This approach is so anti-consumer, it boggles the mind.

[digitalErich]

Interesting idea actually, all things considered. Certainly will help profit margins for developers and publishers right now who are having a rough time. Personally, I don't know if I even see an issue with it.
I don't see an issue with giving new purchasers free extra content. In fact, I think it's quite brilliant. But when you start detracting from one type of consumer, who is legally purchasing your product I might add, to the point where they are intentionally getting less than the full experience because you can't solve an internal industry problem, you'll start to lose my business, even if I never buy used games.

[Food Nipple]

Will Epic make these maps DLC for all users who did not purchase a new retail disc?

They've said no, and I think it's a huge mistake. Put the maps up for sale, and at least get some money from used customers, don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

[Norse]

That won't work in the case of Epic's titles. There is no demo for Gears of War 2.

I know, but J Arcane is a PC gamer, so he has no interest in Gears.

I like demos, but if I really need to try the game out (and there's no demo) I would have no problem finding a way that doesn't involve pirating the game. Anyway, releasing a demo is a no-brainer IMHO, and it annoys me if publishers don't release one. It might be good enough reason not to buy the game, but not to pirate it.

[Variable Gear]

I actually think Epic's on the right track with the bonus maps in Gears 2, but they could benefit from a bit more subtlety.

Follow the Rock Band 2 model and don't give up the free goods on Day 1. Make sure customers know that they're getting free goodies a month or so down the line. Also, make the DLC available to second hand customers for a fee. Now all those used copies can make you money, not as much as if they bought a new copy, but it's more than the zero you're currently getting.

There's a crucial amount of time you want your customers to hold onto your game for. I might trade in a game after two weeks for $45, but I'll be much less likely to trade the same game two months later if it's only worth $20. Feed your customers free stuff until the trade value is too low to be worthwhile.
As usual, Food has the right idea. I agree with our colony nipple.

[J Arcane]

I know, but J Arcane is a PC gamer, so he has no interest in Gears.
I did try Gears 1, in that case, I had a friend's copy to play.

To say I was unimpressed would be a colossal understatement.

EDIT: I might also note that my ability to try a game in this fashion is something that companies like Epic would apparently like to prevent.

[JayVe]

I know, but J Arcane is a PC gamer, so he has no interest in Gears.

I like demos, but if I really need to try the game out (and there's no demo) I would have no problem finding a way that doesn't involve pirating the game. Anyway, releasing a demo is a no-brainer IMHO, and it annoys me if publishers don't release one.

Sorry. I hopped in in the middle of things. I'm not condoning the pirating of PC games.

Epic needs to grow up and deal with the realities of the market instead of trying to bully customers into a business model that may not be viable. If Epic can not afford to be making big expensive games, then they need to re-think their approach.

Fact is, you make a 6-10 hour single-player game, and that is exactly what people rent. LOTS of people buy used games. If the materials you are making don't survive in that environment, then I got news for you...

Consumers Rule!

[Norse]

I did try Gears 1, in that case, I had a friend's copy to play.

To say I was unimpressed would be a colossal understatement.

It's originally a 360 title so you're genetically destined to dislike it ;)

[Restlessavenger]

Also, this is a perfect way for me to NOT buy your game on day one. Other media outlets have had to deal with the secondary market for decades and they're fine. The game industry needs to grow up. Onto my canned response when someone in gaming complains about the secondary market...


The difference between what the other media outlets that had to deal with the problem is the Gamestop factor. Most used movie and music sales occur in small mom and pop shops, there isn't really a nationwide retailer that jumped as wholeheartedly into the Used sales market as Gamestop has.

At this point the entire business model of Gamestop revolves around the resale of Video Games. More than half of all Gamestop's sales are Used titles. Gamestop started as a small parasite to the games industry but at this point it is close to overtaking the host.

How many times have you gone to a Gamestop to find that they have only purchased enough copies of the game to fulfill their pre-order needs. If you were one of those people who preordered the game how long did it take to get that call from Aeris reminding you to sell the game back to them (at this point GS is paying substantially less for each copy of the game than they paid the publisher for).

It's surprising to me that Gamestop has pretty much become a gamer pawn shop, yet the developers are hesitant to go to straight digital because Gamestop will throw a hissy fit about it. While I don't like the idea of having to pay for an ending if you want to play a used copy I do support the idea of additional downloadable content to those that purchased the game first hand, (a model that everyone had no problem with when Stardock made it the center of their own DRM solution).

[J Arcane]

It's originally a 360 title so you're genetically destined to dislike it ;)
Yanno, I really liked the original Xbox. Played a lot of games on it, and with the library and such for it, it felt sort of like a mini PC.

I can't say as I've been as impressed with the 360.

[digitalErich]

If Epic can not afford to be making big expensive games, then they need to re-think their approach.

Fact is, you make a 6-10 hour single-player game, and that is exactly what people rent. LOTS of people buy used games. If the materials you are making don't survive in that environment, then I got news for you...

Consumers Rule!
This goes back to my first post in this thread...we are on the same page here. If you can't solve internal industry issues without impacting the consumer, you probably aren't worth saving. Smarter companies with better models will fill the void.

[digitalErich]

*snip*
I fully understand that the game's industry has unique challenges, but that doesn't excuse them from basically putting in no critical thought or analysis and taking the easy way out of putting all the burden on the consumer.

Like I posted before, I don't spend my money to prop up idiots. If you can't make money in a booming industry, you probably don't belong in that industry.

[Rich Richards]

I'm glad I pirated UT3. Epic can get fucked from here on out.

Thanks for helping to kill your PC platform, douche.

[Doctor Setebos]

I'm really torn on this whole debate. When it comes to gaming, I try to consider myself as always being flat-broke. I try to make gaming a zero-sum hobby. Meaning, I only buy games when I have extra cash (birthday, Christmas, work bonus, etc.) or when I can sell some of my old games. If I can't sell old games, I don't have the money to buy new ones.

On the other hand, I can see where devs are coming from with missing out on the profits from second-hand sales. I want to be able to contribute to the success of companies that deserve the money for creating quality products.

I just don't know where I stand. All I can say is that the day gaming goes purely digital, I'm going to buying a lot fewer games. :(

[digitalErich]

Doc, do you feel guilty buying a used car? Then you shouldn't feel guilty buying a used game. It's an industry problem the industry needs to solve.

Any industry that needs to lean on consumers to solve internal problems, that they themselves are capable of solving, is not a healthy one.

As much as I love gaming, if there needs to be a shake out to get over this, then so be it.

[Xerxes]

Epic has a rule that employees can't buy games used? Are they allowed to rent movies? Can they have Netflix and GameFly subscriptions? Can they give a game to a friend if they're done with it? Do they have to buy their cars new? What about their houses?

Maybe it only applies to the industry they are apart of.

Also trade value only goes down after other people have traded their copy in. If no body trades it in high trade value is always there. I say drop game prices to $29.99. Ton more first day adopters, and second hand would shit a brick having to give someone $15 bucks for it then trying to sell it for $25.

[digitalErich]

Maybe it only applies to the industry they are apart of.
Then they are disingenuous hypocrites that don't deserve our attention or respect. I think they'd like to have those last two.

Their games instill these in me, but every time Rein and his ilk open their mouths they start to chip away at the goodwill their game have built up over the years.

[Doctor Setebos]

Doc, do you feel guilty buying a used car? Then you shouldn't feel guilty buying a used game. It's an industry problem the industry needs to solve.I don't feel guilty about buying a used car because I'm not passionate about the automotive industry. I'm passionate about the gaming industry. It's a more integral aspect of my life, and has been for at least a couple of decades. I imagine car aficionados feel the same way about particular car companies as I do about particular game developers.

Also, new cars are like tens of thousands of dollars. We're not talking $50 for a new game versus $30 for a used copy here. :D

Joking aside, I agree with you that it's an industry problem that needs to be resolved by the industry without harming consumers. Unfortunately, I see that ultimate "solution" as being digital download of all content, and I see that as seriously hampering my spending in the future.

[Norse]

Then they are disingenuous hypocrites that don't deserve our attention or respect. I think they'd like to have those last two.

Their games instill these in me, but every time Rein and his ilk open their mouths they start to chip away at the goodwill their game have built up over the years.

So you're saying it's wrong of them to try to claim back some of the profit Gamestop is making on their games? I don't think anyone agree that selling used games should be made illegal or something, but I see no reason why devs/pubs shouldn't try to reduce it.

[Philonious]

I still think devs/publishers should get a piece of the Gamestop/EB pie. Like a resale tax so that they see some profit or require that people purchase a CD-Key to unlock a second hand game for a console.

[Restlessavenger]

I fully understand that the game's industry has unique challenges, but that doesn't excuse them from basically putting in no critical thought or analysis and taking the easy way out of putting all the burden on the consumer.

How would you suggest, considering the drain that GS puts on the industry, the publishers handle it?

I think it is an interesting discussion to have as far as how to fix it rather than just saying they need to deal with it in a way (somehow) that you approve on.

[digitalErich]

I could actually argue that if you look at the relative price differences then there's quite a bit of similarities between the two industries but I know what you mean, Doc.

I don't think full digital dist is the only solution...there are plenty of other options, extra content for new games, ongoing updates, or pricing model changes. It's up to the industry to try these and for us, as consumers, to vote with our dollar on the solutions we like.

[digitalErich]

How would you suggest, considering the drain that GS puts on the industry, the publishers handle it?

I think it is an interesting discussion to have as far as how to fix it rather than just saying they need to deal with it in a way (somehow) that you approve on.
I have a previous post in here with 3 bullet points with potential solutions as I see them.

I did provide ideas...I'm not just shouting "fix it, fix it, fix it" without any critical thought :) Those ideas might suck but I think they're somewhat viable. You read them and decide.

[digitalErich]

So you're saying it's wrong of them to try to claim back some of the profit Gamestop is making on their games? I don't think anyone agree that selling used games should be made illegal or something, but I see no reason why devs/pubs shouldn't try to reduce it.
Nope, it's not wrong and they can and should (speaking as a fictitious share holder) look to maximize their own profits.

However, they should (need to?) do it in a way that doesn't negatively impact either type of consumer; new buyer or used buyer alike.

[LongStepMantis]

What happens 10 years later when I want to go back and play my game again? Will the servers be online to let me buy the ending?

This approach is so anti-consumer, it boggles the mind.

Which is one of the biggest reasons things like DLC and server-side activation and DRM piss me off. I routinely play my NES, SNES, Genesis, and PS1 games. What would I do if half of them required a server-side check to function or were missing large chunks of content?

I'd be SOL that's what.

[agentgray]

I want to brag. I totally called this (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=27865&postcount=6) under a month ago. As did others. (Bill Harris?)

I wonder why it took them so long.

[Orca]

Capps never suggested the "DLC ending" thing at all. Read the quote: "I’ve talked to some developers who are saying..."

Epic obviously went another route with it, adding the map pack as a bonus to those who buy new. Apparently that didn't stop sites like Kotaku or Destructoid from cherrypicking that singular quote, twisting it, and posting it as if Epic was already doing this.

It's worth talking about, but know what you're talking about first. DLC endings? It's not an idea Epic is tossing around, nor is it even feasible to begin with.

The hate towards Epic in this thread is laughable. Read what he said, then give your head a shake.

[agentgray]

I do think that "ending DLC" or "undo-the-gimping-DLC" will hurt gamers in the long run.

Places like Gamestop will see a drop in used sales. In effect, they'll have to raise new sales prices in order to survive.

Not only are you having to pay for DLC, but you may have to pay a premium for the disc.

However, hopefully publishers will unique-key each disc and there is no pay for the DLC, just a download. Of course, if it's on Xbox you'll need to be a gold subscriber...

Oh gessh, everyone wins but the gamer.

[Norse]

The hate towards Epic in this thread is laughable. Read what he said, then give your head a shake.

Maybe, but is it surprising? Let's look at the facts:

-They've almost abandoned PC gaming
-They're in bed with Microsoft
-They're successful
-Some of the personalities in the company have high self esteem

Why wouldn't people hate them? ;)

[Orca]

It's kind of funny, because he talks about why they abandoned PC gaming and it really casts a great light on J Arcane's posts bragging about pirating all his games.

[Mike Kelehan]

I don't see where the uproar is here. He says it'd be DLC for people who buy it used, but people who buy it new would get it. He is in no way saying that they're going for a bait-and-switch.

[mister slim]

Well, it's essentially what Capps is talking about in the article. Withold a part of the game and offer it for free to original retail buyers.

You can certainly argue that a game ending is a lot more crucial to the experience, but I think a lot of folks wouldn't argue with the idea that a large part of Gears' appeal is in multiplayer anyway. By witholding those five maps, Epic can phrase the deal in terms that make it sound like an optional golly-gee-whiz freebie for loyal Gearheads, but the truth is that it's an incentive to get people to buy it new rather than hitting Gamestop.

Locking the game ending isn't feasible at this point anyway. Even on the 360 about 40% of your potential audience isn't connected to Live.

[Esquilax1138]

Just make the games cheaper to buy like DVD's, problem solved. At the DVD stores it's $6 to rent or $20-$25 to own, if it's something I'm interested in it's not a big deal to buy the copy since you usually get a nicer version with less ads, alternate endings and stuff and I don't have to get off my ass to take it back.

Same with games for cheap on Steam, put things at about $20 and it's hard to resist buying it, but at $60 or $70 for new console games it's just too expensive to buy often.

Cheaper to buy, make special rental versions of games with more ads to offset the lost sales from rentals, and give purchasers extras = Win.

[The Iron Weasel]

Piracy is the reason for no GoW2 for PC?. GoW being a generic, shitty, buggy game is the reason GoW didn't sell on the PC. And the fact that STILL doesn't work. Also, UT3 being as consolized as it is also hurt a lot Epic's reputation. And it was finally driven into the ground by CliffyB's stupid comments.

Hey! You say what you want about Cliff, UT3 and Epic...but I won't have you say those horrible things about my precious Gears. :mad: If you think anything other then the way Marcus Fenix looks is generic in Gears, well...you're simply wrong.

[J Arcane]

Hey! You say what you want about Cliff, UT3 and Epic...but I won't have you say those horrible things about my precious Gears. :mad: If you think anything other then the way Marcus Fenix looks is generic in Gears, well...you're simply wrong.
It's a bland Time Crisis clone sans light gun that despite being less pretty than UT3 doesn't run for shit on machines that can handle UT3 just fine, and on top of the shit pile, you get the diarrhea gravy that is GFW Live.

The game sold like shit on PC, because it was shit.

[johnperkins21]

I don't know why the game industry doesn't get involved with GameFly to reap some of the profits.

You sell a game back to GameFly for a percentage of the value, say 40%. The publisher pays 10% and GameFly pays 30%. Then when it's resold, for say 60% of the value, the publisher gets 15% and GameFly gets 45%. If they want to reap in the profits of used games, they need to be willing to front some of the risk as well. GameStop makes a crap ton of money from used games, but they've got millions of copies of crap games just sitting there that will never be sold. There's a risk as well.

I don't think there's any one perfect solution, but I think the publishers would do well to actually work with the retailers to find a compromise rather than demonize them and their customers.

I don't like the DLC idea too much as it requires an Internet connection and storage space. 2 things that are in short supply for some people.

[Restlessavenger]

I did provide ideas...I'm not just shouting "fix it, fix it, fix it" without any critical thought :) Those ideas might suck but I think they're somewhat viable. You read them and decide.

I didn't mean to suggest that you were just showing "fix it fix it fix it. " I missed that earlier post, and agree with your suggestions.

[rifter]

Here is the #1 problem, I see with video games. They have NO REAL VALUE. How much is 99% of the games out there worth, after 1 year? Most games drop at least 50% of their worth. A year after that? You MAY get at 10% return. I like photography. I have lenses that are 20 years old, that have retained 25% of their worth. Game don't do that. You have a double whammy of spending $50, AND the secondary market is worth what, $15 to sell back? If that. And that is just over a month or so's time.

People look at this from an idealogical standpoint. That won't fix anything. It is purely economical. There are not a lot of past-times out there, where you loose 80% of your investment, over such a short period of time. That is, in my opinion, one of the biggest problems.

[Karmakin]

This is to be expected, I think. You're not going to get away from it.

The one thing that gets me, is the attitude that if you pirate or download something because you don't want to pay for it, then just don't play it. What's kinda being hinted at here with Capps, is the idea that if you don't want to pay full price for something, don't play it. It's the same idea, just a matter of scale.

Just as a note, I don't download new games. I do download OOP stuff. But I think that Arcane has a good point, in that a lot of the time demos are not indicative of the performance of the full version, and are misleading as such.

But I do rent pretty much every new game out there. I don't play them a whole lot, I'm more interested in just experiencing the mechanics (I'm weird), I just don't think I'm better than the guy who downloads them.

[DoctorFinger]

I have no problem with people buying used games. I have a problem when people buy used games for $5 less than the new game, which happens all too often in Gamestop. If the difference between the price of new and used was greater, I would buy used games again. But the difference is so negligible, I'd rather just buy new.

Here's a question I'd like to ask developers. How do you feel about game trading? Does the presence of a trading forum like ours bother you the same way, or since it involves no middleman, is it okay?

[Rich Richards]

Here's a question I'd like to ask developers. How do you feel about game trading? Does the presence of a trading forum like ours bother you the same way, or since it involves no middleman, is it okay?

I'm all for it. I think person to person sales are just peachy. I just can't accept the way EB/Gamestop pushes the used sales so much harder then the new.

And those complaining about the resale value of your games should keep in mind EB/Gamestop giving you $10 to $15 for something that should still get you $40 or so is a HUGE factor in the perceived market value of your property!

Combine that with the overall impression and reputation hit that the industry takes as a whole due to how they run and staff their stores... man, those guys are bringing ALL of us down. How will we ever get the rep we want when the average Mom and Dad have to deal with the fucktards at EB?

[Xerxes]

With a cheaper price for games there would also be a much higher attach rate.

[archon]

I'm OK with the withholding content for people who actually buy the game new idea. This is likely the future of the industry.

[johnperkins21]

With a cheaper price for games there would also be a much higher attach rate.

Not necessarily. How many times have you decided against a game because of $10? They'd have to capture a ton of sales to make up for that difference. Let's say they drop the price and only make $5/unit instead of $15/unit.

At the higher price they sell 100,000 copies and make 1.5 million dollars. At $5/unit profit they'd need to sell 300,000 copies. I doubt they'd sell an additional 200,000 copies based on a $10 price decrease.

However, I do think if the publishers got into the used game business somehow, they could compete with GameStop, and get some of the profit on used game sales. Problem is, there's a lot of risk in selling used games that they're not willing to deal with.

People complain about GameStop's crappy pricing mechanism, but if they buy a game from you for $20 and never sell it, that's a $20 loss. They have a lot of those, so they have to make up for it somewhere by giving you a disproportionate amount of money for your trade-in based on what they'll sell it for.

I try to buy most of my games new, but if I don't buy it until 6 months down the line, why not buy it used for $20-$30 less? I'd never buy used the same month a game comes out new for anything less than $10 off retail.

[Pale Ale]

Why wouldn't people hate them? ;)

42


Love Sweet Love


I'm sure GS's business can evolve model will evolve to include "patch" disk. Maybe unofficially for the 1st quarter or 2, but then officially after after some heated words and lawyer wrangling.


Actually, the way console gaming has been running since the next gen happened, I'm surprised they don't.

[Xerxes]

Not necessarily. How many times have you decided against a game because of $10? They'd have to capture a ton of sales to make up for that difference. Let's say they drop the price and only make $5/unit instead of $15/unit.
How many times have I decided to GET a game cause it's $10 cheaper is a better question. And that's been alot of times.


At the higher price they sell 100,000 copies and make 1.5 million dollars. At $5/unit profit they'd need to sell 300,000 copies. I doubt they'd sell an additional 200,000 copies based on a $10 price decrease.

However, I do think if the publishers got into the used game business somehow, they could compete with GameStop, and get some of the profit on used game sales. Problem is, there's a lot of risk in selling used games that they're not willing to deal with.

People complain about GameStop's crappy pricing mechanism, but if they buy a game from you for $20 and never sell it, that's a $20 loss. They have a lot of those, so they have to make up for it somewhere by giving you a disproportionate amount of money for your trade-in based on what they'll sell it for.

I try to buy most of my games new, but if I don't buy it until 6 months down the line, why not buy it used for $20-$30 less? I'd never buy used the same month a game comes out new for anything less than $10 off retail.

I was talking about drastic. $30 a game. With something like that, I would've bought all of the top shelf titles this month and the last without second thought. GS couldn't give me a valid reason to buy used from them.

[J Arcane]

How many times have I decided to GET a game cause it's $10 cheaper is a better question. And that's been alot of times.




I was talking about drastic. $30 a game. With something like that, I would've bought all of the top shelf titles this month and the last without second thought. GS couldn't give me a valid reason to buy used from them.
I buy the vast majority of my games on discount prices well after release. If games were priced closer to the discount mark from release, I'd probably buy a lot more games, do a lot more impulse buying, and probably even feel less skittish about picking up certain games.

[Deadend]

Games should try and be split. Movies have 2 runs, theater and then DVD. Games have 1 shot at making bank. They used to have 2 with arcade and then console.

What if a publisher released a game at full price, and then later as cheaper DLC, like Burnout Paradise? Or Release a game as rental only with a special deal with blockbuster, then an enhanced edition a few months later for general retail?

Or just start getting those platinum hits out there.

Release your game in fall, watch Gears 2 steamroll it... then re-release it spring at a lower price and with advertising.

The Used Car comparison is also so horrible. Used Cars have wear and tear, they have damage to the engine. Used Games have maybe a scratch and a missing manual, but odds are they are exactly the same product on the disc as 1 or 2 years ago.

A better comparison would be used DVDs, which is a very small market, at least compared to used games.

[JayVe]

I still think devs/publishers should get a piece of the Gamestop/EB pie. Like a resale tax so that they see some profit or require that people purchase a CD-Key to unlock a second hand game for a console.

Do you honestly think the gaming industry needs regulations like that? What about treating it like a free market economy? If you can't make money on your games, then make something else. Nobody FORCED Epic into this situation, and their attitude isn't helping them.

Epic has an audience. Some of that audience rents games. Some of that audience buys games used. Yet Epic is intent on treating their audience like shit for short-term gains.

Maybe that person who picks up Gears of War can't AFFORD the game new. Maybe they are new to gaming and want to try the game out. Maybe they don't feel like they are getting a fair entertainment value when buying new.

The person who couldn't afford to buy it new TODAY may have money to buy new later on. The newcomer to gaming may never learn of your product. Epic, by taking this anti-consumer attitude is ruining potential future customers as well.

How many people do you think would be HAPPY about reaching the end of a game and being asked to drop $20 to fight the boss? Those people are gonna reach the end of the game, and feel like they've been the victim of a bait-and-switch. Not only will they not become customers, they will be AGAINST Epic.

Not only do they DESPISE gamers, they want to actively take steps to turn people off of their products.

[JayVe]

The Used Car comparison is also so horrible. Used Cars have wear and tear, they have damage to the engine. Used Games have maybe a scratch and a missing manual, but odds are they are exactly the same product on the disc as 1 or 2 years ago.

A better comparison would be used DVDs, which is a very small market, at least compared to used games.

The Used DVD market would be a lot bigger if DVDs were $60 and were made in limited runs the way games are.

Edit: Can you imagine reaching the end of a movie, and the "Buy the climax of this film" appears on your screen? Oh yeah, good times.

[Morangie]

How many people do you think would be HAPPY about reaching the end of a game and being asked to drop $20 to fight the boss? Those people are gonna reach the end of the game, and feel like they've been the victim of a bait-and-switch.

You think thats bad? Imagine how pissed they'll be after paying the $20 and getting the General RAAM fight.

[Xerxes]

I buy the vast majority of my games on discount prices well after release. If games were priced closer to the discount mark from release, I'd probably buy a lot more games, do a lot more impulse buying, and probably even feel less skittish about picking up certain games.
Dude I remember bought the 2k5 series games at $19.99 when Sega tried to put a foot in EA's ass. I was hoping it would become the norm. Games being so cheap that people couldn't help but get premium games for a price that felt like the tyranny was over.

Games should try and be split. Movies have 2 runs, theater and then DVD. Games have 1 shot at making bank. They used to have 2 with arcade and then console.

What if a publisher released a game at full price, and then later as cheaper DLC, like Burnout Paradise? Or Release a game as rental only with a special deal with blockbuster, then an enhanced edition a few months later for general retail?

Kind of like how the makers of Fatal Inertia then Fatal Inertia EX. That was smart. If only it was a better game.

[JayK47]

As much as I know this will get ignored, don't buy the shit Epic is squeezing out. And don't stop with Epic either. Vote with your money. When they go to hell, they will no doubt blame the very people they screwed over in the first place. The consumer. As a consumer, I am getting pretty sick of getting screwed more and mored by these gaming companies. It pains me to think that one day I will passing up on the latest game because of DRM restrictions, or some DLC BS. Huge surprise that once gaming went mainstream, they are pulling this shit. Because they know they can get away with it. No matter how much BS they make you go through to play their games, gamers will put up with it so they can flood forums with discussions on the latest games. If you had to pay per hour of play, you know you would. Admit it.

[Orca]

Again...EPIC ISN'T SUGGESTING THIS. All this "vote with your dollar, don't buy Epic games" stuff is poorly aimed.

I buy the vast majority of my games on discount prices well after release. If games were priced closer to the discount mark from release, I'd probably buy a lot more games, do a lot more impulse buying, and probably even feel less skittish about picking up certain games.

Really? So you'd still do that if you weren't pirating the game and playing it ANYWAY? It's one thing to say you won't pay $50 for a game and wait until it's $20 to play it, it's another to say you won't pay, then play a pirated version until you find it cheap. You're not really 'holding out' in that second example.

[J Arcane]

Again...EPIC ISN'T SUGGESTING THIS. All this "vote with your dollar, don't buy Epic games" stuff is poorly aimed.



Really? So you'd still do that if you weren't pirating the game and playing it ANYWAY? It's one thing to say you won't pay $50 for a game and wait until it's $20 to play it, it's another to say you won't pay, then play a pirated version until you find it cheap. You're not really 'holding out' in that second example.
Seek not the black and white answer, and all will become clear to you.

What I do for any given game varies widely. There are certain general tendencies, but the only confusion or contradiction is if you try and treat everything I have said as some absolute, no-exceptions, corporate purchasing policy or something.

[Orca]

So...what's that, a bullshit way to avoid the question? It's a simple one - do you pirate the games that you later buy cheap? Would you still be able to "hold out" on buying them if you weren't pirating them?

[J Arcane]

So...what's that, a bullshit way to avoid the question? It's a simple one - do you pirate the games that you later buy cheap? Would you still be able to "hold out" on buying them if you weren't pirating them?
It wasn't a question and you know it. It was a lame attempt to "trap" me in your own imagined conundrum based on a misinterpretation of what I've said. I don't respond to lame ploys like that as a rule.

[Orca]

Yet you ignore the 'non-question' yet again.

Kind of says it all, doesn't it? For all your noble "I buy it later" pretense, you probably don't. In any case, even if you do buy every game you pirate, you're still using piracy as a means of avoiding paying for the game when it comes out - yet play it anyway - and think buying it for 1/3 the price months later somehow justifies that.

[J Arcane]

Yet you ignore the 'non-question' yet again.

Kind of says it all, doesn't it? For all your noble "I buy it later" pretense, you probably don't. In any case, even if you do buy every game you pirate, you're still using piracy as a means of avoiding paying for the game when it comes out - yet play it anyway - and think buying it for 1/3 the price months later somehow justifies that.
I do not either purchase or pirate the vast majority of games on release.

My computers generally can't handle them. In almost 20 years of computer gaming, I have almost never been up to date with the current hardware curve.

[Disgustipated]

It's a bland Time Crisis clone sans light gun that despite being less pretty than UT3 doesn't run for shit on machines that can handle UT3 just fine, and on top of the shit pile, you get the diarrhea gravy that is GFW Live.

The game sold like shit on PC, because it was shit.

Speaking of shit, you're full of it. Gears of War came out a year earlier than UT3, and looks comparable. Next, it ran just fine on a PC with decent specs, which would exclude your flaming dog turd of a rig. When you're not trying to run Gears 1 PC on a GeForce 6600 or 7300 LE, you can post about performance issues. Until then, shut the fuck up and go pirate some 5 year old games that won't give your rusting motherlicking PC any trouble.

I do not either purchase or pirate the vast majority of games on release.

My computers generally can't handle them. In almost 20 years of computer gaming, I have almost never been up to date with the current hardware curve.

[LordDon]

Thanks for helping to kill your PC platform, douche.

While I agree that JArcane could use more rainbows and puppies, yet another person saying piracy is killing the PC platform makes me want to drown a bag of kittens.

Digital downloads are doing smashingly on PC's, and will only continue to get stronger. With that I suggest you all go to http://www.gog.com and download a shit ton of stuff.

[Sonic Alpha]

Epic and EA are experimenting with different ways to curb secondhand sales and rentals of their games. ...

Such a very bad idea, and it shows just how greedy the industry is becoming.

Sure there's a big market out there for those that want to trade in their games, and buy traded in games.

But a game belongs to the consumer once they've paid for it. Why on earth should the industry get a further cut if someone wants to trade in the game they spent their hard earned money on?

Yes I know, a lot of work went into the games production, but you had your money from the initial sale of the product. Grrrr....

I can sell my old videos, CDs, and even my DVDs if I want to. I don't see the film and music industries trying to stop me. Why stop me trading in games with drm restricted DLC (and codes I can only use once)?

If I've paid for the full game, I should be able to sell the full game if I chose to. If I sell an album, all the tracks are still there! If I sell a DVD, better believe the ending is there too!

Greed, pure and simple greed.

If they can't handle an issue almost every other media industry has weathered, part of me thinks they aren't worth saving. I don't spend my money to prop up idiots. Figure out your shit without impacting the consumer.

I agree completely.

Almost all my game purchases are for brand new games, and I rarely sell games. However, if you make it so it's not possible for me to transfer ownership at some later time (first sale doctrine, I believe), then I quickly lose interest in giving you my business.

I'm the same, I think I've only ever purchased two used games, and I haven't traded in a title since my GB days. The option definitely needs to be there though, or the industry will quickly begin to fail, imo, as people like you and I will take our hard earned money elsewhere.

[Kelegacy]

I'd buy more games at retail if:

A) They were cheaper. $60 is a lot for one standard unit in almost any hobby. Especially since I'm going to be buying MANY units as an enthusiast.
B) More great games. A quality title with a lengthy campaign or with lots of replayability will get my purchase. Fallout 3 has been the best deal for my dollar all year.
C) Cheaper games. Yes, it bears repeating. I now only buy a few $60 a year, if that, and will trade or buy used off other people. I never shop at Gamestop, or rarely anyway.

[Widgetcraft]

The solution I see many consumers persuing when Capp's suggested behavior becomes commonplace:

ZLsJyfN0ICU

I wouldn't feel too bad for them. I mean really, when someone says, "We're going to rip the endings out of games so that we can hinder used games sales," what I hear is: "Free games, lulz!" I depend on used games from Gamestop to buy shit that I can't get around to when they're brand-fucking-new. They've turned me onto franchises that I may have never given a chance otherwise, and motivated me to buy future games in the series when they come out.

Not sure what this guy is bitching about anyway. People buy their games for the multi.

[rein]

I wish they would hurry up and fuck it all up so I can find a new hobby.

[J Arcane]

While I agree that JArcane could use more rainbows and puppies, yet another person saying piracy is killing the PC platform makes me want to drown a bag of kittens.

Digital downloads are doing smashingly on PC's, and will only continue to get stronger. With that I suggest you all go to http://www.gog.com and download a shit ton of stuff.
Yanno if most of their stuff weren't already on Gametap, that site would be more tempting on an "impulse buy" level than iTunes and Steam put together.

[JayVe]

I wish they would hurry up and fuck it all up so I can find a new hobby.

For serious. They are well on their way. From the ashes, a new gaming will arrive.

[Orca]

But a game belongs to the consumer once they've paid for it. Why on earth should the industry get a further cut if someone wants to trade in the game they spent their hard earned money on?


You know the whole idea is to encourage people to buy new games, not used ones - not necessarily to kill off the used game market.

And again - MIKE CAPPS NEVER SAID TO START MAKING ENDINGS DLC!

Read the quote. The idea came from "some developers" - not him. The entire issue is only lightly touched on, brought up by the way Epic used the map pack as a bonus to buyers of new copies.

[Variable Gear]

So, were using giant text to combat misinformation? That didn't work when the plague ran rampant...

[Sonic Alpha]

Read the quote. The idea came from "some developers" - not him.

Doesn't matter who said it, the idea was still mentioned. I bet the fat cats are rubbing their hands together right now at the thought of it.

[JayVe]

Doesn't matter who said it, the idea was still mentioned. I bet the fat cats are rubbing their hands together right now at the thought of it.

What's more important is that Epic thinks of gamers as their enemy. They've lost.

[Orca]

So, were using giant text to combat misinformation? That didn't work when the plague ran rampant...

Well it's SIX PAGES in and nobody's bothered to actually read what he said?

[JayVe]

Well it's SIX PAGES in and nobody's bothered to actually read what he said?

We read what he said, and understood he suggested it may be a solution to his current situation. It does not matter if he originally came up with the idea or not, he floated it as a possible solution. We also read and understood his contempt for the gamer who wants to rent games, or who buys a game someone else has owned. That, my friend, is a LARGE number of gamers.

Gaming extends a LONG way beyond Mr. Capps' narrow and short-sighted vision.

[Mike Kelehan]

We read what he said, and understood he suggested it may be a solution to his current situation. It does not matter if he originally came up with the idea or not, he floated it as a possible solution. We also read and understood his contempt for the gamer who wants to rent games, or who buys a game someone else has owned. That, my friend, is a LARGE number of gamers.

Gaming extends a LONG way beyond Mr. Capps' narrow and short-sighted vision.
And that's the problem, you see. The LONG way beyond new purchases doesn't give them a cent. Once we move to digital distribution, though, these concerns will go away.

[Orca]

He never once said it might be a solution, and Epic clearly went another direction given the release of Gears of War 2 has multiplayer maps as a retail-purchase incentive. They're smart enough to know that what - maybe, at the outside - 50% of their potential userbase has access to Live and could unlock something that way? So they restrict it to multiplayer items, and they make it a bonus - not a punishment.

Of course Capps dislikes gamers who pick up the game used, then make demands on what needs to be fixed - those people didn't support the company at all. They supported GameStop, a company they probably also spend a lot of time complaining about.

People are always complaining that [GAME X] didn't get a sequel - Stranger's Wrath is one example. A friend of mine was really looking forward to it, but was on course (he's in the military) the week it came out. So two weeks after launch he hits EB or GameStop to see if he can find it and sees it used and buys that one - saves $10.

Then the game doesn't sell well enough to justify a sequel. He complained about 'stupid people not buying a good game' but he's part of the problem. Every person that was looking forward to it, but decided to save $10, didn't support that game they wanted so badly.

If a series you liked tanked because of poor sales despite being a quality game, YOU should have contempt for people who bought it used to save a few bucks. They helped the game store, not the game developer, and certainly not the consumer.

[Xerxes]

Orca, I think by now people are just fucking with you. :)

[JayVe]

And that's the problem, you see. The LONG way beyond new purchases doesn't give them a cent. Once we move to digital distribution, though, these concerns will go away.

No, it does not give them a cent directly, but it still feeds the industry. Those people still buy systems, and influence their friends... who MAY buy new games. Or they play with people who have purchased the full-price version and keep the online community alive!

Capps can't simply poo-poo solutions that work for a HUGE number of people. Instead, he needs to compete on VALUE. Epic needs to make games for which people WANT to spend $60. Like I said before, his narrow approach is bad for gaming overall. Those people who bought a used game are STILL contributing to the online community of Gears and Unreal, keeping them popular. If they enjoy the experience, they are more likely to buy the sequel on day one, at full price.

Punishing used game sales or rentals is killing the goose that laid the golden egg... you destroy an affordable and easy GATEWAY for people to get attached to your products and franchises.

On a side note, I find it funny that people are quick to point to a digital distribution for near-term solutions to gaming's woes, but some of the same people believe the promise of digital distribution to be in the far-flung future when movies are concerned.

Off to watch some streaming Netflix!

[rein]

And that's the problem, you see. The LONG way beyond new purchases doesn't give them a cent. Once we move to digital distribution, though, these concerns will go away.

Well, those concerns will go away but then they may have to contend with a shrinking market.

[Orca]

Orca, I think by now people are just fucking with you. :)

*shrug*

I've seen it reported incorrectly all day long, and it's getting on my nerves. It should be embarrassing to people putting up news on reputable sites that KOTAKU (http://kotaku.com/5082290/howd-you-like-your-game-ending-to-be-dlc) is one of the few sites to report the story accurately.

Joystiq got it so wrong that they even had the source listed incorrectly as Game Informer.

People hear this and get all wound up about it and angry at Epic, putting that anger in entirely the wrong direction. I wish people would care more about the stuff that actually matters - aka things actually happening.

[slhunter]

I'm all for these guys (not just Epic, but all the good developers out there) doing what it takes so they can make their well-earned money. If they can get this under control, perhaps they'll lower the price for those of us that actually buy new games for full price.

[Xerxes]

*shrug*

I've seen it reported incorrectly all day long, and it's getting on my nerves. It should be embarrassing to people putting up news on reputable sites that KOTAKU (http://kotaku.com/5082290/howd-you-like-your-game-ending-to-be-dlc) is one of the few sites to report the story accurately.

Joystiq got it so wrong that they even had the source listed incorrectly as Game Informer.

People hear this and get all wound up about it and angry at Epic, putting that anger in entirely the wrong direction. I wish people would care more about the stuff that actually matters - aka things actually happening.

Well Mark Rein needs to leave EvAv and come correct us. :D

Ummm actually a mod or admin should just go on and fix that.

[Inspector Fowler]

Is there another market that has been so vocal about eliminating used sales? I'm sure Ford would like to ensure that you could only buy a brand new Ford, but they don't go around bitching about it. I'm sure most industries feel the same fucking way, but they don't go around bitching about it. Maybe the movie/music ones do, I dunno.

But it seems to me that most other industries have figured out that you can't beat down the used market for their products, and they either ignore it or develop a harmony with it.

Why should these guys get to be any different?

[J Arcane]

I'm sure Ford would like to ensure that you could only buy a brand new Ford, but they don't go around bitching about it. I'm sure most industries feel the same fucking way, but they don't go around bitching about it.

Well, in the case of motor companies, that's what the whole "certified used car" program concept is for. They buy back the used cars, run 'em through a standard repair process, and then turn around and sell them. They get to cash in on used sales, and as an added perk, since there's been some marginal amount of quality assurance through the certification process, it improves brand perception that would otherwise potentially be damaged by jackass dealers selling busted cars.

[Orca]

Well, in the case of motor companies, that's what the whole "certified used car" program concept is for. They buy back the used cars, run 'em through a standard repair process, and then turn around and sell them. They get to cash in on used sales, and as an added perk, since there's been some marginal amount of quality assurance through the certification process, it improves brand perception that would otherwise potentially be damaged by jackass dealers selling busted cars.

Bingo - that was one thing that companies brought in, on the surface to help repair the image of the used car business, but mostly to get a piece of the action.

[rein]

I'm all for these guys (not just Epic, but all the good developers out there) doing what it takes so they can make their well-earned money.

GMAC is going broke, I guess they should cancel all car rentals and used car sales so these guys can make their well-earned money.

* I just read the comments about the certified used program for cars. That is fine and good, but when you resale a car, you are not forced to use that option. I can go out and sell a car a week after I buy to whom ever I want and they do not get penalized for buying it. In fact, they usually get to keep my warranty.

Gaming today is becoming a sham, Mega Corporations buying up small talented developers only to force them into releasing the same title over and over, having to download patches to fix or add features that were supposed to be available at launch, nickel-and-diming us to death, collectors editions or pre-order bonus's for almost every game released, DRM, and the list goes on...

I've been playing both pc and video games for a very long time, actually for as long as they have been around, and I do not remember developers being such whiny bitches. I remember when they actually liked people playing their game. The bottom line is, this is a hobby and they should appreciate it when I give them my money instead of feeling like they are entitled to it. It's one thing to explore new revenue streams to earn more money while offering a substantial upgrade or content to an existing game, but to seek out ways to force a customer to spend more money on a game is just plain bull.

I'm seriously considering sitting the next generation out and going hand held/retro gaming only. The only problem with retro gaming is that this generation will be a wash because they will close down the online services such as Live and PSN for these consoles once the new ones saturate the market.

I miss the days of buying a game and that being the end of the transaction.

[MosBen]

Yeah, a company that looks to punish people for not buying new is looking for a boycott from me. On the other hand, a company that looks to reward people that buy their games new is looking for me to support them for a good long time.

When will companies learn that being dicks pisses people off?

[KingGorilla]

Epic and EA are experimenting with different ways to curb secondhand sales and rentals of their games. One of the ways they're trying is by offering incentives to original sale retail buyers, like roster updates in sports games and map packs for shooters. Mike Capps, Epic Games President, has a suggestion in a GamesIndustry interview (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/michael-capps-part-two) that some of us warned you about.


I know that I am 7 pages too late. But here goes.

Work out a Motherfucking Deal with the used games retailers and rental stores. Here is an odd bit, give Gamefly games at wholesale price, say 20 percent or 30 percent off of sticker, and then ask for 10 percent. Nip the used games in the bud, recertify games like the auto industry. Or since game Stop is actually DOING THE INDUSTRY A FAVOR, instead of buybacks, let them, keep the product, you buy back half, and they crack the seal to sell a new game.

None of this shit is rocket science. Because you know what? If you fuck a customer, they will not come back, ever. Be that ganking used customers with these inane "bonus" codes, or something worse. Just because someone is not in the position to shell out 60 bucks for your game on day one, strange damn concept with the depression going on right now, does not give you a reason to treat your customers like scum.

Don;t get me started on DRM right now either, I may have an aneurysm.

[MagGnome]

The stage is really being set for an all out war between developers and fans. The war was already fought on the PC, and some might say that the fans lost. Of course some great companies continue to support the PC, but the platforms' heyday in the 90s is most likely never coming back. The consoles could follow that path if things head in the direction that Epic and other major developers are talking about.

[Quinefer]

Who controls the price?

Is Epic actually able to decide that they want to sell Gears of War 2 for $20 ?

I suspect retailers would just refuse to stock the game.

Why do so when the profit margin will be lower, especially if you can sell a substitute random Game AAA whose Developer/Publisher is still pricing at $60 instead. Especially if dropping the price like that also cuts into the margins of the retailer's used games market.

Physical distribution still accounts for a large number of sales. Losing 50% of your potential profit to the secondary markets is still a better option than losing 90% of your realised profit. What choice do you have?

Hell, publishers and developers don't even have enough clout to digitally distribute games for a much cheaper price than the retail copy because the retailers would just refuse to stock their product, what makes you think they got the power to lower prices when it suits the middlemen just fine to keep it high?

On a side rant, I think anyone who rents or buy games used should be in no position to criticize people "forced" (I use the word here to illustrate a lack of a cheaper alternative. Nobody is actually forced to ripoff developers of their hard earned money) to pirate because the secondary markets in their country are underdeveloped and/or nonexistent

[J Arcane]

Who controls the price?

Is Epic actually able to decide that they want to sell Gears of War 2 for $20 ?

I suspect retailers would just refuse to stock the game.

Why do so when the profit margin will be lower, especially if you can sell a substitute random Game AAA whose Developer/Publisher is still pricing at $60 instead.
It didn't happen to 2K when they dropped the price of their sports games to $20. They're still charging dirt cheap prices for their sports games in fact.

Especially if dropping the price like that also cuts into the margins of the retailer's used games market.

And yet they still sell sports games in general, which pretty much become completely worthless about 6 months after release.

[Xerxes]

Who controls the price?

Is Epic actually able to decide that they want to sell Gears of War 2 for $20 ?

I suspect retailers would just refuse to stock the game.

Why do so when the profit margin will be lower, especially if you can sell a substitute random Game AAA whose Developer/Publisher is still pricing at $60 instead. Especially if dropping the price like that also cuts into the margins of the retailer's used games market.

Physical distribution still accounts for a large number of sales. Losing 50% of your potential profit to the secondary markets is still a better option than losing 90% of your realised profit. What choice do you have?

Hell, publishers and developers don't even have enough clout to digitally distribute games for a much cheaper price than the retail copy because the retailers would just refuse to stock their product, what makes you think they got the power to lower prices when it suits the middlemen just fine to keep it high?

On a side rant, I think anyone who rents or buy games used should be in no position to criticize people "forced" (I use the word here to illustrate a lack of a cheaper alternative. Nobody is actually forced to ripoff developers of their hard earned money) to pirate because the secondary markets in their country are underdeveloped and/or nonexistent
Profit margin will be lower, but you are selling far more units. Also I would buy from Epic directly if it was far cheaper. All these folks with these pre-orders. It's the same thing paying for something and waiting. Retailers can go suck a dick. GS more so with there opened new copies.

[Orca]

GS more so with there opened new copies.

I can't stand that practice. It doesn't help that I recieved a "new" copy of a game once that had obviously been opened. There were crumbs in the case and the instruction manual had a phone number written on the back. Since I was picking it up on release day at noon, I have a hard time believing that was an early return...and even if that was the case, it still wouldn't be "new" at all.

[Quinefer]

It didn't happen to 2K when they dropped the price of their sports games to $20. They're still charging dirt cheap prices for their sports games in fact.

And yet they still sell sports games in general, which pretty much become completely worthless about 6 months after release.

I must admit that I don't know much about the sports segment of gaming to really give an insightful comment. What I would suspect is that because there are only two big players in the sports genre (EA Sports and 2K) that 2K would have more clout in doing whatever it wants.

Additionally, sports games are still the #1 selling genre if I'm not mistaken, so the rules which it has to play by would differ for than for those in the traditional genres.

PS: I did a quick search for NBA 2K9 and only the PC and PS2 versions sell for $19.99. The PS3 and 360 still sells for $59.99.

[Xerxes]

I can't stand that practice. It doesn't help that I recieved a "new" copy of a game once that had obviously been opened. There were crumbs in the case and the instruction manual had a phone number written on the back. Since I was picking it up on release day at noon, I have a hard time believing that was an early return...and even if that was the case, it still wouldn't be "new" at all.

And the finger prints and oily smudges. :D

[Quinefer]

Profit margin will be lower, but you are selling far more units. Also I would buy from Epic directly if it was far cheaper. All these folks with these pre-orders. It's the same thing paying for something and waiting. Retailers can go suck a dick. GS more so with there opened new copies.

They would sell far more units ... which would further hurt a retailers chances of making profit off the secondary market.

You would buy from Epic directly if it was far cheaper, but you didn't state the circumstances. Did you mean Epic should not sell their game via retailers? Retail still accounts for a massive amount of the money Epic get, else they would just switch to pure digital distribution and screw the middlemen.

It's a simple equation, until pure digital distribution brings in more $ than retail, retailers will always have the upper hand in negotiating.

[Xerxes]

They would sell far more units ... which would further hurt a retailers chances of making profit off the secondary market.

You would buy from Epic directly if it was far cheaper, but you didn't state the circumstances. Did you mean Epic should not sell their game via retailers? Retail still accounts for a massive amount of the money Epic get, else they would just switch to pure digital distribution and screw the middlemen.

It's a simple equation, until pure digital distribution brings in more $ than retail, retailers will always have the upper hand in negotiating.

You have to do that shit cold turkey. It has to start somewhere. Steam is holding back. We have to get our games from somewhere right. DD is easiest option. I'd still like to be able to order games in packages though.

Music example, Prince(was) and NIN are doing just fine without stores. They had both order cd and down loadable versions.

[Quinefer]

You have to do that shit cold turkey. It has to start somewhere. Steam is holding back. We have to get our games from somewhere right. DD is easiest option. I'd still like to be able to order games in packages though.


Sure, it has happened already for certain classes of games (e.g. Stardock, XBox Live Arcade, etc) but it won't be happening anytime soon for AAA games just due to the amount of money it takes to make one. Nobody really wants to bet the $60 million development cost that would instantly make or break your company putting all your workers out of a job just to do that shit cold turkey.

The irony is that AAA games recoup their money by depending on a wider range of audience, whom the majority of which would probably be alienated by having to "download" something instead of walking into a store and buying it. Which means that for the time being, those kind of games and companies who make those kinds of games are pretty much at the mercy of retailers.


Music example, Prince(was) and NIN are doing just fine without stores. They had both order cd and down loadable versions.

Unfortunately comparing music to video games are like comparing apples to oranges. The analogy just doesn't hold up.

1. An Xbox 360 game is 10 times larger, which is actually a concern for those of us not living in the US and have to live by download quotas put by their ISPs.

2. Music artists have a loyal fanbase which to draw their sales from. Neither Prince nor NiN could be considered could truly be considered dependent on the whims of the masses to be successful.

3. Musicians get a really really low share of CD record sales and mostly from T-Shirts and concerts and whatnot. So they really have nothing to lose by trying to go without the record stores.

4. Every Joe Blow and his brother knows how to download music from the Internet. The barriers to doing so are no longer there thanks to Napster, iTunes, etc etc. (Does that mean in some twisted way that instead of fighting pirates, developers should actually be embracing them and spreading knowledge on how to download games to the general public?)

[Orca]

My download cap every month is 30GB. That'd mean what - four 360 games, if I don't watch any VOD movies?

[MagGnome]

I forgot to add in my earlier post that I hate Gamestop as much as the rest of you guys, but I sort of understand why they've embraced used games in a big way. Brand new retail copies make stores next to no money, so they have to sell other things to make up for the lack of profit in game sales. Gamestop chose to focus on used titles.

[Kelegacy]

I'm all for these guys (not just Epic, but all the good developers out there) doing what it takes so they can make their well-earned money. If they can get this under control, perhaps they'll lower the price for those of us that actually buy new games for full price.

I seriously doubt that.

[Mike Kelehan]

Well, those concerns will go away but then they may have to contend with a shrinking market.

A smaller market, but it's only growing. I fully believe every game that's offered on disc will also be available as a download in the next generation (Sony is already doing that this gen on the PSP), and in the generation following that, I think more games will be available online-only than on both.

[JayVe]

A smaller market, but it's only growing. I fully believe every game that's offered on disc will also be available as a download in the next generation (Sony is already doing that this gen on the PSP), and in the generation following that, I think more games will be available online-only than on both.

The next generation isn't far away, and I believe your vision is fairly close to what we'll be seeing unfold, especially with handhelds. The DSi is another step in that direction, and Sony's foray into making full releases available as downloads on the PS3 is like dipping a toe into the waters. Hell, even Metal Gear Solid was broken up into installed 'chapters' that could have been chunked up and offered as downloadable 'episodes'.

[araczynski]

the concept is valid, from their perspective at least. but i don't see this as being even remotely legal.

[Mike Kelehan]

The next generation isn't far away, and I believe your vision is fairly close to what we'll be seeing unfold, especially with handhelds. The DSi is another step in that direction, and Sony's foray into making full releases available as downloads on the PS3 is like dipping a toe into the waters. Hell, even Metal Gear Solid was broken up into installed 'chapters' that could have been chunked up and offered as downloadable 'episodes'.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they do that with MGS4 in a year or two. If Sony can get background downloading in-game to work, you'd only have to download part 1 to start playing, and by the time you're done with that, the assets for part 2 would likely be finished, and so on.

[JayVe]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they do that with MGS4 in a year or two. If Sony can get background downloading in-game to work, you'd only have to download part 1 to start playing, and by the time you're done with that, the assets for part 2 would likely be finished, and so on.

That would make a lot of sense... but what about the argument that Bluray is NECESSARY for HD gaming?

“PS3 offers an experience for both gamers and developers no other console can match. Metal Gear Solid is not only exclusive on PS3, it’s only possible on PS3, thanks in part to Blu-ray.” - Jack Tretton

[Mike Kelehan]

That would make a lot of sense... but what about the argument that Bluray is NECESSARY for HD gaming?

“PS3 offers an experience for both gamers and developers no other console can match. Metal Gear Solid is not only exclusive on PS3, it’s only possible on PS3, thanks in part to Blu-ray.” - Jack Tretton

Well, they've proven that wrong themselves with Warhawk, SOCOM, and Siren. :-)

[JayVe]

Well, they've proven that wrong themselves with Warhawk, SOCOM, and Siren. :-)

Looks like they painted themselves into a corner. ;)

[Mike Kelehan]

the concept is valid, from their perspective at least. but i don't see this as being even remotely legal.

Not only is it legal, but I wouldn't even call it amoral. Let's use an example that's happening right now: On the back of the box of Rock Band 2, it says that there are over 100 songs on the Rock Band 2 soundtrack. Under that, it says that 84 songs are on the disc, plus 20 free songs to download. It says that an internet connection is required to download those songs. That's all true. If you don't have Live, you're getting 84 songs. That's what it says, that's what you sign up for. However, those who get is used will only get 84 songs no matter what. It's GAMESTOP's responsibility to disclose that information. Harmonix/MTV/EA are giving everyone who purchases the game the ability to download the 20 free songs.

Let's say Epic does go with this extremely hypothetical ending-as-DLC option for Gears 3. On the back of the box, it would have to say, "Internet connection required for complete single player story." That's all. If it didn't say that, they'd be in trouble, but if they did, neither I nor the law would bat an eye.

[JayVe]

Offering additional content is more than a LITTLE different than cutting the last chapter out of a story. If Epic starts offering ADDITIONAL endings to those who purchased the game, then they will give people an incentive to buy retail. But by cutting features, story and boss battles, the line is crossed.

[Xerxes]

I wouldn't mind buying episodes. DLC has far more potential than Microsoft's thuggish/bullying cash grab techniques.

[Voodoo]

The stage is really being set for an all out war between developers and fans. The war was already fought on the PC, and some might say that the fans lost. Of course some great companies continue to support the PC, but the platforms' heyday in the 90s is most likely never coming back. The consoles could follow that path if things head in the direction that Epic and other major developers are talking about.

This isn't aimed at you MagGnome, you just brought up a point that I'd like to reference.

The PC Platform's heydey being in the 90s is a total myth. Let me reference you this list...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games#PC

...in that list, you will notice that the majority of the best selling titles came after 1998. Also, it is of particular interest that Epic only has two titles on that list - Unreal 1 and Unreal Tournament 1999.

PC Gaming has never been as popular as it is right now. The 8800GT, when released last year, sold out. I would presume that people weren't buying this card to make their p0rn faster. PC Games also have never sold at the level we see presently, save for a few titles as seen on the linked list. PC Gaming piracy is also at a level not previously seen. But, there is still plenty of money to be made on the platform in-spite of the rabid pirates...

As Stardock has said, because someone pirates a game it doesn't necessarily mean that they ever had an intention to buy or or could buy it. Some places in the world it is extremely costly to purchase a new PC Game or they are even outright unavailable while their pirated counterparts are sold quite freely on the street market.

Current successful PC Gaming developers (which Epic hadn't been since Unreal 1 and UT1999) realize that they must market to the customer that purchases their games. Many of them have also realized that the PC Gaming platform isn't kind to the use of DRM. This is especially evident with Spore, many people pirated it out of spite due to its DRM. One has to wonder how many more sales Spore would have had if it was completely DRM free or had an non intrusive DRM scheme...

Intrusive DRM will never work on the PC. Steam, while a version of DRM, works quite well and I'd say is a near perfect execution. The difference between Steam and SecureROM is that Steam works well for the customer while SecureROM does not benefit the customer at all.

[Karmakin]

The big difference with Steam is that it provides tangible benefits for the consumer. Friends lists, achievements, automatic updates, etc. It hasn't always been this way, but I think Valve was able to work towards this point because they had no small amount of goodwill from the public.

The other point that I always have to bring up, is a bit of a forward from the piracy/PC argument...it's not even that just because someone pirated your game that they would pay for it....it's if they ever bother to play it in the first place.

I strongly believe the effects of piracy are way overstated due to the presence of warez collectors.

[MagGnome]

I agree with some of what you guys are saying. I don't believe that piracy is the problem that publishers say it is, but I do think that the PC platform was stronger in the 90s than it is today. Of course my evidence for this is mostly anecdotal. It seems like there were a lot more major releases on a yearly basis back then than there is today. The coverage and excitement for PC titles also seems a lot lower than it used to be. I remember when EvAv was a primarily PC-based site, and look at it and COG now - the consoles have definitely taken over.

I'm still a big PC fan, and I think there are great titles on the platform, but I also think that the glory days are gone. Hopefully I'm wrong though!

[Voodoo]

I would say that it is more accurate to say that consoles have gained more popularity than ever whilst at the same time PC Gaming popularity has grown but at a level not parallel yet definitely more than before. Regarding titles, yes there were many more releases back then because there wasn't a viable alternative. Now on the PC we may have less titles released over time but their quality is definitely making up for it. This is not to say consoles are less quality (they are not), it is simply that we have far less trash and throw away titles on the PC Gaming platform now.

[Ondo]

People are always complaining that [GAME X] didn't get a sequel - Stranger's Wrath is one example. A friend of mine was really looking forward to it, but was on course (he's in the military) the week it came out. So two weeks after launch he hits EB or GameStop to see if he can find it and sees it used and buys that one - saves $10.

Then the game doesn't sell well enough to justify a sequel. He complained about 'stupid people not buying a good game' but he's part of the problem. Every person that was looking forward to it, but decided to save $10, didn't support that game they wanted so badly.
Yeah, but for every person who liked a game but bought used rather than supporting the game, there's another person who did support the game and then decided it wasn't worth keeping.

[Xerxes]

Yeah, but for every person who liked a game but bought used rather than supporting the game, there's another person who did support the game and then decided it wasn't worth keeping.

That's just a question of re-playability.

[Orca]

Yeah, but for every person who liked a game but bought used rather than supporting the game, there's another person who did support the game and then decided it wasn't worth keeping.

Some people don't keep any of their games. A friend is like that. He'll buy a game and beat it in a week, then trade it off on whatever came out that week. There are maybe two or three games that he still has in his library at the end of a console generation.

[MagGnome]

I would say that it is more accurate to say that consoles have gained more popularity than ever whilst at the same time PC Gaming popularity has grown but at a level not parallel yet definitely more than before. Regarding titles, yes there were many more releases back then because there wasn't a viable alternative. Now on the PC we may have less titles released over time but their quality is definitely making up for it. This is not to say consoles are less quality (they are not), it is simply that we have far less trash and throw away titles on the PC Gaming platform now.


I can agree with you there. I'm definitely not in the camp that thinks that PC gaming is dead - not by a long shot. The quantity has definitely gone down, but there are still a few really high quality games coming out every year, and many of them have a high replayability factor. There are a lot of PC games I have yet to play or even pick up, and I'm having a great time with the games I'm playing now. I'd like to see more releases, especially RPGs, but I guess I can't really complain when I can't keep up as it is. ;)

I really wish that there were still good "God" games being made. That was always one of my favorite genres, and it is all but dead. I'm really looking forward to Kingdom for Keflings on XBLA because it looks to incorporate some of that gameplay style.

[KingGorilla]

Let me put it this way, if GSC can sell 800k copies of STALKER in the Ukraine alone, everyone in North America is just doing it wrong.

[MagGnome]

Let me put it this way, if GSC can sell 800k copies of STALKER in the Ukraine alone, everyone in North America is just doing it wrong.

Haha, that's a very good point.

Some of the big publishers complaining about PC strike me as being very whiny, greedy, and just ungrateful of their fans. Several publishers seem to be doing just dandy on the PC, including Stardock, Valve, EA, Atari, and a number of smaller publishers.

Really, Epic has been leading the "PC gaming is dead" cry more than anyone else. I guess Microsoft has in a way as well, by not supporting the platform much for the last few years.

[bean]

I haven't read all 167 posts, so these are my initial impressions:

1. The only reason people spend $60 on a new title is if they are extremely into that game due to the perceived quality of the game (actual quality in a title helps the perceived quality be higher, of course). Overall, games are far too expensive for most people to buy more than a few each year at the full retail price.

2. For games with great marketing and thus high perceived quality but low actual quality, they will not sell games after the marketing wears off, so the resell market does not really hurt them.

3. A title with true quality will continue to sell to people over time as it goes down in price, but the game industry isn't willing to lower these prices as rapidly as game resellers. This is because many people already wait six months to a year for the $30 platinum addition of the best (or best-selling) titles and if they dropped the price more quickly, even more people would wait and only shop reduced price games. However, while some potential sells are lost to these customers, they are also getting people to buy their new titles only because they can get some of their $60 investment on other titles back in order to afford this title. So this is probably a wash.

4. High quality titles like Epic's Gears of War 2 sell incredibly well. GoW 2 will probably sell over 5 million copies and at $60/each that is a gross of $300 million dollars. Even if Epic only sees $40 off of each of those ($10 to Microsoft and $10 to retailers) then they make $200 million. Subtract the cost of development, publishing, and marketing (probably around $30-40 million for a AAA next-gen game with tons of marketing), and they still show a profit of $160 million on a $30-40 million dollar risk venture that takes 2-4 years to see a return. That's a fantastic return on an investment that is making the owners of companies making quality games fantastically wealthy.

Of course, not every developer sells 5 million copies of a title. That is a huge exception, and a AAA title is considered a huge success when it sells over a million copies. For smaller AAA titles, the costs of development, publishing, and marketing is usually closer to $20 million on next-gen games. By selling one million copies at $40 to the company, that is $40 million and is still an amazing return on investment for only 2-4 years. Even if a AAA game flops and only sells 500K, the company has it's investment returned, so it is also not terribly high risk. . . and one of the things mitigating that risk is the fact that any AAA game is going to tens to hundreds of thousands of titles to companies that rent games.

5. Finally, on a personal note, I would not be able to support my gaming hobby if I had to buy all titles I was interested in for $60. As a result, I would only play those games that I know to be sure things AND are extremely meaty games that offer gameplay that intrigues me over and over or that are very lengthy. As a result, I would have probably dismissed the Gears of War 2 demo because I would not like the writing and would assume that the gameplay is repetitive and eventually very shallow. Because I have access to the full game and I appreciate the online portions of the game so much, I'm going to turn my current rental into a purchase.

6. The idea of selling endings is ludicrously mercenary, so I have to wonder if he was just attempting to be provocative or had simply not thought this statement through. Perhaps he is an executive that has never studied organizational communication and thus doesn't know what such a mercenary tactic would do for public perception of the company. Also, obviously not everyone has online, so they'd be throwing away KNOWN customers to service potential customers. I doubt Microsoft would even allow something THAT mercenary to be sold on Live. . . well, after they hear the public outcry. Microsoft seems to have it's decisions made by people who don't understand organizational communication, but they do let the PR folks change the sheets after they shit the bed.

[JayVe]

I would say that it is more accurate to say that consoles have gained more popularity than ever whilst at the same time PC Gaming popularity has grown but at a level not parallel yet definitely more than before. Regarding titles, yes there were many more releases back then because there wasn't a viable alternative. Now on the PC we may have less titles released over time but their quality is definitely making up for it. This is not to say consoles are less quality (they are not), it is simply that we have far less trash and throw away titles on the PC Gaming platform now.
You know, this is the best explanation for the console/PC divide I've heard yet.

PC gaming isn't dead, and is better than it ever has been, BUT console gaming is more popular now than PC gaming, which BY COMPARISON makes PC gaming APPEAR like it is sagging. :cool:

Simply a matter of perspective. If you look at PC gaming today compared to PC gaming in the 90's, you see an increase in PC gaming. If you look at the gap between console games and PC games today compared to the gap between PC games and console games of the 90's, you see that console's popularity has skyrocketed.

The PC isn't doing poorly, but is not doing as well as consoles.

[JayVe]

Pure Awesome
Yes. The used market allows people to take chances on games they would not normally pay full price on. This helps them get 'into the game' and potentially pick up a sequel. Also, the perceived quality of an online multiplayer title is driven by the online community. Used sales help keep the community active and fresh.

Nintendo's president Iwata had a great speech once about game prices and how some games should simply come out at a lower price, and stay on shelves longer. If there was more variation in prices, with AAA titles being $60 and smaller titles coming out at $30 with a range in between, prices wouldn't have to fall as quickly, and more people would buy new.

[Banacek]

Sorry I'm late:

I just talked to my friend on the inside. Apparently developers are trying to get Gamestop to go for a profit sharing plan for new releases, which would be a win-win for everyone. Gamestop, probably seeing that the future is going to be digital distribution, refuses to do anything other than push used games. So Gamestop can go to hell. Looks like my only solution is to support Steam and others options like it for now. I just wish that developers didn't feel the need to punish the users in all this.

[JayVe]

I just wish that developers didn't feel the need to punish the users in all this.

It saddens me that Epic hates the very people who enjoy their games.

I'm not a big gears fan. I sold my copy. That person who purchased my copy of gears may like it more than I did, and may have purchased Gears 2... cause I sure as hell didn't.

The very fact that Epic can't see this is very disturbing, and speaks volumes on them as a company. Epic likes me cause I purchased their game new, but I felt like $60 was a ripoff. Now I don't like Epic, and they don't like the guy who picked up Gears new.

Fucking lose/lose relationship you got there. :(