Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ban second hand games! says Crytek (kind of)

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Myrddin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    hooradiation wrote: »
    I dunno about greed. Games really don't depreciate, and you get the same experience as the person who actually paid the publishers if you buy second hand. If you buy the game second hand and get the full experience then ought you not be paying the people who created the entertainment as opposed to the jackasses at gamestop?

    I suppose that's really the nub of the matter. And your right, it applies today. But what about in a years time...that game has 'depreciated' because it's outdated as such. There'll be newer & better games out there...so why shouldn't you be able to buy it cheaply?

    Also, I've just bought Contra 3 for the Snes. Love the game to bits, always did. Technically, I'm getting an identical experience playing it, that the original purchaser of the game got 20 years ago. So why should I be able to buy it at a reduced price? Should I send Konami some money in an envelope? I'm not being funny/smart here...it's just these things have long lasting repercussions.

    If the used game market is eliminated, where does that leave old/discontinued systems in the future? Surely big companies can't continue to support generations of used game licences?
    That's kind of like the online pass - which some people loudly hated, I guess there's no pleasing everyone.

    Ok, as on offline gamer I'm not ashamed to hold my hands up & ask whats the online pass you mention & why was it lauded?


  • Options
    #63
    TheGunns
    Registered Users Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭TheGunns


    all I'm saying is that if people look at it from the perspective of the developer/publisher/whoever, if you were in that position are you telling me you would not try to make as much money as possible? Would you be going out letting people sell something that you made for their own profit when you have the power to stop them from doing so and instead have that money go into your own pocket?


  • Options
    #64
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    So what if they make money from it? You don't hear the motor or movie industry bitching about second hand sales. Gamestop found a market niche, exploited it and are reaping the rewards. The games publishers didn't and are unwilling to embrace it like the motor industry do. Screw them. If they can't adapt in the business world then they should lose money being stubborn about it. It's what capitalism is all about.

    I hear what you are saying, but I think games are in a rather unique position as I cannot any other product where an identical quality second hand product is available within 48 hours at the most. The only reason you don't hear movies, music publishers bitching more (and they actually did occasionally until piracy distracted them) is that the second hand games market in these items is far smaller, and not targeted as agressively by major retailers.


  • Options
    #65
    NTMK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,575 ✭✭✭NTMK


    EnterNow wrote: »

    Ok, as on offline gamer I'm not ashamed to hold my hands up & ask whats the online pass you mention & why was it lauded?

    its a code you get when you buy the game new that allows you to access the online features of the game. if you bought the game used you'd have to spend ~$10 to gain access to the features


  • Options
    #66
    Myrddin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    NTMK wrote: »
    its a code you get when you buy the game new that allows you to access the online features of the game. if you bought the game used you'd have to spend ~$10 to gain access to the features

    Ah right. Yeah I suppose it's a similar model to what I mentioned. Still though, the idea of paying to unlock a used game would have no option but to keep used game prices down...otherwise they'd be dearer than their newer counterparts.

    It'll be interesting to see, whatever they do :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    EnterNow wrote: »
    What about a simple system whereby you can buy a used game licence for each game. Imagine you could still go out & buy a used game ok...now, because that game has already been tied to an account, you need to pay €10 to tie it to your account. This means that whoever deserves the profit gets it, & the shops can't charge mad money because everyone knows it's still gonna cost you an extra €10 to unlock it...thereby keeping the initial price of a used game down to reasonable levels.
    I very much agree with this and it's what I've referred to in the past as a "platform-based solution" since it would simply leverage the systems that are already in place on the PC and consoles. I've been somewhat rabid in my dislike of the second hand market but I see this as the fairest way to do it for all concerned.

    As for some of the other posts in this thread, the one thing that strikes me is the level of disagreement between both individual posters and the rest of the gaming demographic out there. I mean many of the points on the list that mrm posted diametrically opposes the purchasing practices of a staggering number of gamers, probably around the 50m mark all things considered, between those who buy the yearly updates, "fake" sequels, old IPs and actively hunt out pre-order bonuses. Also Kickstarter, as has been pointed out before, has centred on reviving old IPs. Hell, even when we discussed the Street Fighter x Tekken locked content, you had folk come from the Fighting Games forum to support it. So are all of these gamers wrong? Do they not deserve to get these titles and content as well? And even more importantly, if the message being received by developers and publishers alike is this mixed, how can they possibly hope to please everyone or even most of them?


  • Options
    #68
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,446 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    gizmo wrote: »
    I very much agree with this and it's what I've referred to in the past as a "platform-based solution" since it would simply leverage the systems that are already in place on the PC and consoles. I've been somewhat rabid in my dislike of the second hand market but I see this as the fairest way to do it for all concerned.

    I can actually see this being illegal in the states and europe at the very least which is why it probably hasn't been implimented. It totally infringes on the first sale doctrine and the european equivalent. Also I'm totally against this as a consumer. There's a good reason the first sale doctrine exists, to stop this sort of profiteering.

    Charging for extra content when you buy a second hand game or unlocking access to servers for multiplayer would be within the law I believe. I think the publishers know this.
    Untitled Image




  • Options
    #69
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    I can actually see this being illegal in the states and europe at the very least which is why it probably hasn't been implimented. It totally infringes on the first sale doctrine and the european equivalent. Also I'm totally against this as a consumer. There's a good reason the first sale doctrine exists, to stop this sort of profiteering.

    Charging for extra content when you buy a second hand game or unlocking access to servers for multiplayer would be within the law I believe. I think the publishers know this.
    Oh as I said before I have no knowledge of the legal standing of such a move, I just see it as the fairest way of doing it. Publishers/developers get a reasonable cut of second hand sales (which I believe they're entitled to for the reasons expressed above), retailers get to make a few quid by stocking said second hand titles and customers get access to second hand games for cheaper than new.

    One point to note however, this service should never be turned off, which has proven to not be the case with some online content at a publisher level. Basically, if the platform holder chooses to discontinue the service then the necessity to unlock the game on your account should be lifted to ensure people aren't stopped from playing older games in the future.


  • Options
    #70
    Varik
    Registered Users Posts: 12,540 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    I can actually see this being illegal in the states and europe at the very least which is why it probably hasn't been implimented. It totally infringes on the first sale doctrine and the european equivalent. Also I'm totally against this as a consumer. There's a good reason the first sale doctrine exists, to stop this sort of profiteering.

    Charging for extra content when you buy a second hand game or unlocking access to servers for multiplayer would be within the law I believe. I think the publishers know this.

    They change the product to a service and that's that.

    The disc is just a convenience then to save you downloading the game.


  • Options
    #71
    TheGunns
    Registered Users Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭TheGunns


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    I can actually see this being illegal in the states and europe at the very least which is why it probably hasn't been implimented. It totally infringes on the first sale doctrine and the european equivalent. Also I'm totally against this as a consumer. There's a good reason the first sale doctrine exists, to stop this sort of profiteering.

    Charging for extra content when you buy a second hand game or unlocking access to servers for multiplayer would be within the law I believe. I think the publishers know this.

    I don't see how it could be illegal if they already have the same sort of system in place for PC. If I'm misunderstanding please say but I don't see how this is any different.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,446 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    Once you purchase a copyrighted work the copyright holder relinquishes all rights to said copy and the purchaser is free to sell it on as they see fit, the copyright holder has no right to make a profit from the sale. It's a bit of a grey area with software and the fact that it's licenses involved. Publishers will want to keep it this way though since it heavily favours them so won't be doing anything like that any time soon since it could lead to major rewriting of the law.

    It's still a major grey area that really hasn't been challenged in court yet.
    Untitled Image




  • Options
    #73
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,446 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    Varik wrote: »
    They change the product to a service and that's that.

    The disc is just a convenience then to save you downloading the game.
    TheGunns wrote: »
    I don't see how it could be illegal if they already have the same sort of system in place for PC. If I'm misunderstanding please say but I don't see how this is any different.

    Again it's not been challenged in court and publishers will want to keep it that way. As for turning the product into a service, why do you think there's a big push in integrating online more and more into games? If it was purely single player no judge is going to consider it a service.
    Untitled Image




  • Options
    #74
    TheGunns
    Registered Users Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭TheGunns


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Once you purchase a copyrighted work the copyright holder relinquishes all rights to said copy and the purchaser is free to sell it on as they see fit, the copyright holder has no right to make a profit from the sale. It's a bit of a grey area with software and the fact that it's licenses involved. Publishers will want to keep it this way though since it heavily favours them so won't be doing anything like that any time soon since it could lead to major rewriting of the law.

    It's still a major grey area that really hasn't been challenged in court yet.

    The law I think seems to be a bit behind the internet explosion and I think the whole thing seems to be a grey area and it will take someone challenging to get more clarity. It doesnt particularly bother me as I prefer buying games new rather than second hand but what I am more afraid of is the turn to digital or at least away from boxed copies which seems pretty inevitable right now.

    The law though in places seems to lend itself to the discretion of each case as can be seen with fair use. I imagine any laws that would come in place would more than likely fall under the same sort of unclear wordings.


  • Options
    #75
    Myrddin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    I can actually see this being illegal in the states and europe at the very least which is why it probably hasn't been implimented. It totally infringes on the first sale doctrine and the european equivalent. Also I'm totally against this as a consumer. There's a good reason the first sale doctrine exists, to stop this sort of profiteering.

    Charging for extra content when you buy a second hand game or unlocking access to servers for multiplayer would be within the law I believe. I think the publishers know this.

    To echo Gizmo there, it's simply a more preferable option to having no used game market at all. Obviously I'd rather have an option to buy used, but it that has to change...I'd rather a system like I mentioned as an in-between compromise.


  • Options
    #76
    stevenmu
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,689 Mod ✭✭✭✭stevenmu


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    It's a bit of a grey area with software and the fact that it's licenses involved.
    Actually Microsoft tried this approach years back to prevent people selling copies of Windows 2nd hand. THey claimed that the software was licensed to the original purchaser only. IIRC they were slapped down in both the US and EU, and told that as long as they sell physical media to consumer that consumer have to have the right to sell it on second hand.


  • Options
    #77
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Once you purchase a copyrighted work the copyright holder relinquishes all rights to said copy and the purchaser is free to sell it on as they see fit, the copyright holder has no right to make a profit from the sale. It's a bit of a grey area with software and the fact that it's licenses involved. Publishers will want to keep it this way though since it heavily favours them so won't be doing anything like that any time soon since it could lead to major rewriting of the law.

    It's still a major grey area that really hasn't been challenged in court yet.

    Not sure it is such a grey area anymore, Adobe have secured a number of judgements in the States against OEM resellers in the past few years, that appear to have firmly established that first sale doctrine does not apply to a licensed piece of software.

    EDIT:

    Here is the latest one from last month.

    http://iplaw.hllaw.com/2012/03/articles/copyright/court-rejects-first-sale-defense-relying-on-vernor-v-autodesk-test/


  • Options
    #78
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,446 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Not sure it is such a grey area anymore, Adobe have secured a number of judgements in the States against OEM resellers in the past few years, that appear to have firmly established that first sale doctrine does not apply to a licensed piece of software.

    EDIT:

    Here is the latest one from last month.

    http://iplaw.hllaw.com/2012/03/articles/copyright/court-rejects-first-sale-defense-relying-on-vernor-v-autodesk-test/

    Yeah I noticed that since 2010. Kind of scary because before that those cases were getting thrown out of court. They won a case on appeal and have since gone on a rampage now. I'm pretty sure it was industry pressure in the US that won them the case. Pure speculation but there's some crazy decisions lately being passed in the US due to industry lobbying like the pizza as a vegetable thing.

    Still it's not been tried in Europe where I hope the court system will be a bit more sensible.
    Untitled Image




  • Options
    #79
    Myrddin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Yeah I noticed that since 2010. Kind of scary because before that those cases were getting thrown out of court. They won a case on appeal and have since gone on a rampage now. I'm pretty sure it was industry pressure in the US that won them the case. Pure speculation but there's some crazy decisions lately being passed in the US due to industry lobbying like the pizza as a vegetable thing.

    Still it's not been tried in Europe where I hope the court system will be a bit more sensible.

    Ah ye$, US courts.


  • Options
    #80
    Varik
    Registered Users Posts: 12,540 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Again it's not been challenged in court and publishers will want to keep it that way. As for turning the product into a service, why do you think there's a big push in integrating online more and more into games? If it was purely single player no judge is going to consider it a service.

    If it's a services it's a service, if i rent something i can't just say nope not a service i now own this.


  • Options
    #81
    Myrddin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    Varik wrote: »
    If it's a services it's a service, if i rent something i can't just say nope not a service i now own this.

    But wouldn't you have to prove video games were always a service? You can't just decide to change the product tag to suit your needs.

    Example - Are all my Snes carts just rented? Or do I own them? Current gen isn't a different entity & hasn't got the monopoly on video games.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,446 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    It's really annoying seeing publishers abusing EULA's like this to circumvent the law. The licensing system was put in place because software was different to other copyright material in that a copy has to be made in the RAM. It was never made to circumvent first sale doctrine which was put in place to stop copyright holders from doing stuff like charging again if something is sold on. It's why I think it needs major rewrite and why it's archaic.
    Varik wrote: »
    If it's a services it's a service, if i rent something i can't just say nope not a service i now own this.

    You've got your definitions mixed up. There's a big legal difference between a service and renting. If you've got a physical copy of a copyrighted work in your hand there's no real way to call it a service. However if you've got online servers up that are required to play the game then providing access and use of those servers is a service.
    Untitled Image




  • Options
    #83
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Yeah I noticed that since 2010. Kind of scary because before that those cases were getting thrown out of court. They won a case on appeal and have since gone on a rampage now. I'm pretty sure it was industry pressure in the US that won them the case. Pure speculation but there's some crazy decisions lately being passed in the US due to industry lobbying like the pizza as a vegetable thing.

    Still it's not been tried in Europe where I hope the court system will be a bit more sensible.
    Actually in that particular case I think the court was quite right in upholding Adobe's claims. OEM software is different from retail software and should be treated as such.
    EnterNow wrote: »
    Example - Are all my Snes carts just rented? Or do I own them? Current gen isn't a different entity & hasn't got the monopoly on video games.
    Personal opinion? You own the physical cartridge, not the contents. That, you have a bought a licence to use. You should have the right to sell that licence on. You should not, as a commercial entity, have the right to resell that licence in bulk however.

    To be honest I don't even like making that distinction but as I've said previously, retailers have just brought the issue to such obscene levels that something had to be done.


  • Options
    #84
    Varik
    Registered Users Posts: 12,540 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    EnterNow wrote: »
    But wouldn't you have to prove video games were always a service? You can't just decide to change the product tag to suit your needs.

    Why would it apply to current old games that have already been bought, if it did change it would be future releases.

    EnterNow wrote: »
    Example - Are all my Snes carts just rented? Or do I own them? Current gen isn't a different entity & hasn't got the monopoly on video games.

    That's like that old Simpson episode with homer charging for rides on the elephant and retroactively changing the price.


  • Options
    #85
    Myrddin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    gizmo wrote: »
    Personal opinion? You own the physical cartridge, not the contents. That, you have a bought a licence to use. You should have the right to sell that licence on. You should not, as a commercial entity, have the right to resell that licence in bulk however.

    To be honest I don't even like making that distinction but as I've said previously, retailers have just brought the issue to such obscene levels that something had to be done.

    That'd be more or less exactly how I see it also. You've bought a license to use/play the software on the media...but you don't actually personally own it. The media, you do own.
    Varik wrote: »
    Why would it apply to current old games that have already been bought, if it did change it would be future releases.

    If I was standing up in a court, I'd be asking a judge why should video games from the 80's/90's be considered any different than todays regards digital rights. Why would it not apply to older games??
    That's like that old Simpson episode with homer charging for rides on the elephant and retroactively changing the price.

    You've lost me there :confused:


  • Options
    #86
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,446 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    You can't just call a commodity a service and expect it to fly legally. You might as well tell me that the milk I'm buying down the shop is a service and charge me per hour to use it. It just doesn't work that way.
    Untitled Image




  • Options
    #87
    Varik
    Registered Users Posts: 12,540 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    It's really annoying seeing publishers abusing EULA's like this to circumvent the law. The licensing system was put in place because software was different to other copyright material in that a copy has to be made in the RAM. It was never made to circumvent first sale doctrine which was put in place to stop copyright holders from doing stuff like charging again if something is sold on. It's why I think it needs major rewrite and why it's archaic.

    You've got your definitions mixed up. There's a big legal difference between a service and renting. If you've got a physical copy of a copyrighted work in your hand there's no real way to call it a service. However if you've got online servers up that are required to play the game then providing access and use of those servers is a service.
    EnterNow wrote: »
    If I was standing up in a court, I'd be asking a judge why should video games from the 80's/90's be considered any different than todays regards digital rights. Why would it not apply to older games??


    I'm using service as obtaining the use of something but not exclusive ownership of it, which includes renting.

    I'm not talking about retroactively changing the purchase to renting or arguing that you were renting to begin with as you are only licencing a copyrighted work anyway.

    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    You can't just call a commodity a service and expect it to fly legally. You might as well tell me that the milk I'm buying down the shop is a service and charge me per hour to use it. It just doesn't work that way.

    They aren't discrete categories.

    Utilities are defined as a service but you're hardly giving those back.

    You just can't retroactively call it a service, if you buy a car at full price then later the salesman can't just show up to your house saying he has changed his mind and the few thousand you spent was now just for the last week that were now renting it for. It can be sold one to begin with.


  • Options
    #88
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    EnterNow wrote: »
    I suppose that's really the nub of the matter. And your right, it applies today. But what about in a years time...that game has 'depreciated' because it's outdated as such. There'll be newer & better games out there...so why shouldn't you be able to buy it cheaply?

    I knew i should have added a caveat of "Within a hardware generation" there.
    Anyway, the idea of a year producing newer games is true, better... not so much. As a rule, I buy my games new. If i missed something at launch, I'll pick up the new copy when I get the chance.

    As for old games - can't say I have an opinion, i've no real interest in 'retro' gaming.
    EnterNow wrote: »
    Ok, as on offline gamer I'm not ashamed to hold my hands up & ask whats the online pass you mention & why was it lauded?

    The online pass was this idea that if you bought a game new you get access to all the online content, for example Mass Effect 2 and the cerberus network, but if you bought it second hand then the online pass would already be used by whomeever had it before you. If you wanted access the the online stuff, then EA would sell it to you for a tenner.

    See here for more.
    Lauded isn't the word i'd use to describe it though.


  • Options
    #89
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,482 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    So what if they make money from it? You don't hear the motor or movie industry bitching about second hand sales.

    Sorry, but just need to point out that the movie industry is not an accurate comparison here, for a variety of reasons.

    Firstly, film's (well, Hollywood's) primary money-maker is theatrical display, which by its very nature is a one time only deal. You buy your ticket, no-one else can enjoy it, everyone - distributor, cinema, sometimes talent - gets their share. Obviously the business model is much more complex than that in terms of who gets what money when (if you're a producer, you'll be waiting a while) but basically that's how film makes the bulk of its money. And we can't forget that the money is being poured into stopping piracy by the movie industry as they try to protect their primary revenue stream.

    Secondly, the used DVD market is far less significant than the used games market for a number of reasons. Not least of which is the low cost of DVDs compared to game - the margins are so slim there's barely any reason to buy used. Even with that taken into account, the vast majority of retailers do not stock second hand DVDs. If you go into HMV, you see a rack of used games, but not of used films. The used DVD market is largely relegated to Ebay and other trading sites: a tiny dent in the overall market share, largely confined to out of print titles and other rarities. We could compare to this to the healthy but enthusiast second hand market for retro games.

    Finally, a situation has developed where arthouse and mainstream cinema co-exist comfortably, despite the comparative non-profitability of the latter. It's getting there with games - digital distribution helps - but second-hand sales hurt the smaller likes of Atlus, Rising Star etc... more than it hurts EA, more than likely: you know, the publishers where pretty much every sale counts. It's consistently proven that new IPs struggle compared to established brands: luckily, there seems to be a shift, but originality and niche gaming certainly struggle in a predominantly second-hand market. Especially, god forbid, if they have the ill-manners to be both short and lacking in multiplayer features. The thoughtless bastards.

    What was the point in this post? Well, I think more to illustrate that film distributors have shown themselves well able to adapt, and that over a long period of time they have learned to adapt and create a comfortable market for themselves. The threat of online piracy is rife (especially for the home market, even if most have adapted to digital business models with varying levels of success), but cinema attendance at the same time is as high as ever (3D, that aesthetic menace, has helped). They have protected themselves against threats in the same way game publishers try to, and with more success. If gaming companies can create a model as efficient and 'fair' as film enjoys, then everyone will be relatively happy. But what is clear that the immediacy of the second hand market isn't helping that to develop. And you sure as hell can imagine a film distributor would stop at nothing to stop Joe Bloggs from reselling his cinema ticket as soon as they got down to the foyer.


  • Options
    #90
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,446 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    johnny_ultimate wrote: »
    Finally, a situation has developed where arthouse and mainstream cinema co-exist comfortably, despite the comparative non-profitability of the latter. It's getting there with games - digital distribution helps - but second-hand sales hurt the smaller likes of Atlus, Rising Star etc... more than it hurts EA, more than likely: you know, the publishers where pretty much every sale counts.

    Then why is it only the big developers that complain about second hand sales? Atlus and Rising Star only release enough copies to meet demand and maybe do a reprint if there's demand. You hardly ever see Atlus or Rising Star games in second hand bins, well when it comes to atlus thats what my friend from new jersey tells me and from the podcasts I listen to. It's a big difference to the likes of EA who flood the market with stock and end with excess stock selling at 10-15 euros less than 6 months down the line taking a credit hit in the process. Perhaps publishers should look at their marketing and be a lot more savvy like the niche publishers.
    Untitled Image




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,482 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Then why is it only the big developers that complain about second hand sales? Atlus and Rising Star only release enough copies to meet demand and maybe do a reprint if there's demand. You hardly ever see Atlus or Rising Star games in second hand bins, well when it comes to atlus thats what my friend from new jersey tells me and from the podcasts I listen to. It's a big difference to the likes of EA who flood the market with stock and end with excess stock selling at 10-15 euros less than 6 months down the line taking a credit hit in the process. Perhaps publishers should look at their marketing and be a lot more savvy like the niche publishers.

    I'd mostly say it's down to the fact that they're too small to ruffle any feathers :)

    But yes, a viable niche market has emerged strongly in recent times, mostly down to the savvy business practices of these publishers who know their niche and play the game accordingly. I'll retract that point and actually correct it to something else: It's actually more the big-budget but nicher and more experimental titles that suffer most: the likes of Mirror's Edge that can't quite be summed up by a screenshot. These are the games that really struggle. Many such titles are mediocre, true, but a new IP is a big risk for a big publisher, alas.


Advertisement