God of War creator and Youtube video poster David Jaffe has posted his latest diatribe, this time tackling the thorny issue of used games. You already know our stance by now -- that publishers need to stop whining and accept that some parts of capitlism aren't as kind to them as others. Jaffe, however, believes we should keep our sticky beaks out.
According to Jaffe, it's none of our business. We, the consumer, should have no part of the ongoing used game debate, and it should be a matter for publishers and retailers only.
"I don't mean this in a mean way, like it's none of the consumers business," explains Jaffe. "But literally, it's none of the consumer's business. It should not affect the consumer at all. All the consumer should worry about is, can I get the best deal possible?"
Right, and a part of getting the best deal possible is worrying about the future of secondhand games. I don't agree with Jaffe that consumers, those people whom publishers seem to believe are a right and not a privilege, shouldn't have an opinion on the matter. I understand that he's on our side, and he brings up some great points, but it's good that we know what's going on. It's our money, and we all know that eventually publishers will exploit digital distribution and choke the secondhand market out of existence. What happens then? What happens when publishers can price-fix with extreme prejudice? Is that not our business either?
The debate between secondhand retailers and publishers IS our business, especially due to the fact that it keeps happening in a public arena. If publishers don't want us getting involved, then maybe they should stop airing their dirty laundry for all to see.
Contest:
9:00 AM on 03.04.2009
| 
Jaffe was defending consumers in this post. He respects the need and right of the consumer to get the best deal possible, including buying/selling used games. He stated that very clearly. SEVERAL TIMES! He said that the battle of used games should be between retailers and publishers and that consumers shouldnt be held hostage by either side.
It's almost as if they WANT me to stop gaming. The second they stop selling physical media and the second they take away the ability to hock what I've rightfully purchased is the second I throw in the towel on video games.
Did you read Jim's post or even comprehend what Jaffe was saying?
could you rephrase the question by somehow proving you have the ability to think?
If there were a way wherein we aren't going to be affected regardless of the outcome, then yes, we should step aside. But however this turns out, we're the ones who get it in the face, and thus it is in our best interest to be involved, stay aware, and make sure we're heard. Jaffe's basically patting us on the head and telling us to butt out of the grown-up's business, it doesn't or shouldn't concern us so long as we get the product at what is deemed a reasonable price.
he's right, we as consumers are always right. Don't buy games at full price. Wait until you can get it at a bargain or used. Who in this equation is mad because they can't afford Louis Vuitton garbage bags? It's definitely not the person who waits a few months to get a game at a better price.
Did you watch the entire video, or did you just watch half of it before you decided to review it?
OH SNAP I WENT THERE!
"All the consumer should worry about is, can I get the best deal possible?"
When taken literally, he's absolutely right. I don't care whether used games exist or not, I only care that I can get a game for a price I'm willing to pay. Unfortunately that's where the spirit of his statement is faulty. If there is no used game market there's no incentive for publishers and game producers to keep prices reasonable.
As for digital distribution, CDs are still selling years after a decent digital distribution network for music has come into being. Yes, they are selling at reduced levels, but is that because of digital distribution, piracy (as the RIAA would have us believe), or just a lousy product (as most consumers would claim)? There are still a significant number of households that do not have broadband access. Until that is ubiquitous the (gaming) industry cannto switch completely to a digital distribution model. And that's going to take more than a few years.
Greedy assholes? If Jaffe's right about anything it's that games cost a ton of money to make, and a good percentage of them are losing money or just breaking even.
They could change the current business model, however, but that's a risk that few publishers are willing to take.
Assume a game takes $20 million to make and as a company you'd like to make a 50% profit. Selling the game at a $60 price point means that you have to sell at least half a million copies. Now, if you change your price point to $30 you have to sell twice as many games or cut your budget in half.
The industry has discovered that you are more likely to profit by producing a) terrible games that are dirt cheap (think Wii shovelware) or b) AAA games that cost $60 (Halo, Gears of War, etc.).
When I purchase a product, no matter what the hell it is, what I decide to do with it after that fact is completly up to me. As long as I'm not doing anything illegal with it the company that sold it to me has no say in the matter. You transfered OWNERSHIP of the product to me when you sold it to me. If I decide to sell it on ebay, guess what? I can. If I decide to trade it in for credit for another game guess what? I can.
He reminds me of celebrities who think people give a crap about their political opinions.
Just make your games, talk about your games, whatever, Jaffe. You are a developer, not a publisher, so I really don't care about your opinion on this matter.
Sure he has the right to speak his mind like those moron celebrities, but I'm just saying I also have the right to not give a crap.
We should go for the best deal, and the used game argument needs to be worked out between game companies and the retailers without using the consumers as pawns. I think that's the point he was trying to get across.
Or, maybe he was saying we need to keep our dirty little noses out of it.
Still, I think the used game business is exactly like every other used product business; used cars, used computers, used toasters, used condoms...wait, that last one isn't a good one (look, a joke!).
The argument that a game developer spends millions of dollars to create a game and therefore shouldn't get screwed by the used game business is a crock; what about car companies that spend a fuck-ton of cash to develop new cars? And the money they use to test them, market them, build them, and whatever else they spend money on before the car gets to your hands? You can go off and sell that car to whoever you want, and they in turn can either keep it or make a profit on it by re-selling the car for a higher price than what they paid for it.
Thing is, car companies can and do have dealerships that buy and sell used cars. I know developers can't set up retail stores to do the same, but maybe they can do some sort of online trade-in system...or hell, do what Atlus does and give the consumer bonus stuff when they buy a new copy of the game, instead of threatening us with the "digital distribution is coming and we're going to rape you with it". Think outside the box, developers and publishers, instead of whining about capitalism.
If people knew why it cost so much money to create a video game, maybe they'd be more sympathetic. Hell, if the industry was more up front about why stuff costs what it does, I would guess that there'd be less bitching.
I've been on television/movie sets (via family members who worked the industry) and I've done dubbing for movies, so I've seen a lot. I understand why, for example, a movie with a lot of stunts cost a great deal of cash, since I can see the physical results in the form of pyrotechnics, fake body parts, etc. If one knows how much it costs to, say, make a realistic corpse (including relative cost of material, man hours, etc) then it's undertandable why a budget is so huge.
However, right now for a lot of us, any developer, distributor, etc can open their piehole and just start shooting out numbers that mean absolutely nothing to us. We don't know what's the mark-up, the cost of physically making the discs and packaging, etc. Most people see 60 dollars and all they see is the imminent ass-raping of their wallet. I don't mind paying 60 bucks for a new release, but right now, I think consumers are kind of pissed that they're paying through the nose for a fixed industry that really doesn't go out of their way to include. This isn't like buying a pair of jeans, where you've got 60 brands to choose from. If you want to buy Oblivion and you can't afford a new copy, what're you going to do? Get Two Worlds?
So they look like greedy assholes, and until they start explaining the technicalities, they will remain greedy assholes.
You can't hate people for wanting to be cheap or find the best buy at times. Especially when games these days are either "meh" or living nowhere near the hype developers push out for it.
Also, there should be no debate. Under First Sale doctrine, it's perfectly legal to sell a copy of a game/book/magazine/etc.
If the industry really, really wants to get around that, then they should switch to digital distribution.
Digital distribution will only make it worse. They can price it however they want and there's no alternative other than piracy. Not to mention the ungodly price of consoles once games are ripped directly there; how much space is the average person going to need?
"Do I own the game I purchased or just the license? As a consumer, I need to be concerned about this and should be involved in this debate."
I view that argument as you only purchased a license (and you always have). Ask yourself the following:
a. Can I view the contents of the product on the media?
b. Can I legally modify the contents on the media?
c. Am I able to duplicate the product I purchased?
d. Can I resell the product when I'm done with it?
If you answered "no" to any of those questions, you own a license and not an actual product. While you may have a physical hardcopy you still only paid money to use the product.
As for the main topic, Jaffe is right. Consumers should play no part in corporate-level decision making or discussions. We can be aware of what is happening, but the message is right: "sit down, shut up, listen to what's going on, and let us figure out what we're going to do first". It is however our right to decide what to do after those decisions have been made.
Do we own anything we purchase, then?
I'm a buyer for a maritime company and so far as the vendors are concerned, once I've bought it, it's mine. I'm not renting it or buying the right to sell that product name or use it for the time being. I can mark it up as I please, sell it to whomever I please (with exception to hazmat laws, something not applicable to video games), and I can tinker with it, paint it, use it to summon Ixpah because it's mine. I can't physically recreate the exact item and re-sell it due to copyright and patent protection- this doesn't stop it from being mine until I sell it to another company. The product is their 'intellectual' property insomuch as they hold the patent. But it's still my property.
Why the hell is a game any different?
-You're a consumer you don't have to worry about the future of sales blablabla that's not your job.
-You should just go out and get the best deal you can, that IS your job as a consumer.
-If you want to you can do a bit of voluntary moonlighting and worry about the future, but you're probably not going to make a difference and there's really no benefit to you.
And then some stuff about comics.
Also miss the manuals. Part of the charm of a game like Fallout 3's is the manual..well for me anyway.
Anyway, I just started renting and trading games simply because it allows me to play more. But I will still by fantastic games. I rented Shadow of the Colossus and would have immediately gone to a shop and picked it up - but I had to get it used because of availability. But that's beside the point, if the game is good enough, I have to own it. Make awesome games! That too much to ask?
Not asking to be an ass, asking seriously. Why in the world does visual media get that sort of preference?
Also, this:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/bigboxshots/5/454495_100528_front.jpg
Are you serious? You buy a license, and the means to play the game. The price covers both. By your logic the game company should just sell you a piece of paper saying you can play the game and not actually give you a disc.
If your game breaks and you can prove you bought it, you can get a replacement for the means to play the game i.e. the disc. For a small fee - why is it you think that the company shouldn't be charging you for those costs?
As things move towards digital distribution, they do not need to charge for the replacement, of course as there are no materials involved, just bandwidth.
Come on, folks, this stuff is just common sense.
Bullshit... Bullshit... Bullshit...
It's almost as if they WANT me to stop gaming. The second they stop selling physical media and the second they take away the ability to hock what I've rightfully purchased is the second I throw in the towel on video games.
Agreed^, at that point i'm back to 100% pc gaming
"Do we own anything we purchase, then?"
Certainly, the problem is the differences between physical media (cars, bikes, boats, books, computer hardware) and "virtual" media (games, music, dvds, VHS tapes).
I suggest you read up on the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) also check out the user manual for your games as they have EULAs (most new ones do) in the back page to see what your rights ACTUALLY are as you are implicitly accepting the EULA when you open the shrink wrap.
Hell, drag out your Wii, 360, or PS3 manual and read that EULA. It's eye opening as to what is contained in the console EULA. Again, by opening the package you are accepting the EULA that restricts your usage of the physical device that you just purchased.
the peaple should be able to decide whats right and whats wrong, and everything is our business.
in an ideal world i guess
And while the consumers can voice their opinions why in the world would they EVER have the right to tell someone else how to run/market/price/ect their company? The consumer's opinion is their wallet, nothing more.
Seriously though, he's making some reasonable points. He sounds like a guy who's just thinking out loud.
And I like Timstuff's comment. If somebody was forced to keep a crappy game (like Episode 1: The Phantom Menace back in 1999) and there wasn't anything they could do to try to get something back out of it....wow.
If that scenario existed where I *HAD* to throw down $60, and if I didn't like it I couldn't get jack frickin' crap for it, I'd be afraid to throw down my dollars for hardly ANY game that I wasn't already familiar with.
I don't care what qualifier Jaffe puts in front of his spiel, even if he admits games should be cheaper.
He's talking about choking off the consumer owning a physical property when he says digital distribution will "fix" the problem of used game sales. Again, my bootleg liquor analogy. What "problem" is there in getting Mass Effect for $15 used a year after it comes out for $60?
How many people would REALLY buy a fucking Madden game EVERY YEAR if they couldn't turn around and trade that sumbitch in before the next year's edition comes out?
Dude, seriously. How many fucking hands would've games like Psychonauts or Beyond Good and Evil gotten into if there weren't some second-hand copies circulating around that could be passed on to other consumers? Would those games even be *made* anymore if 50,000 copies of them all sat on shelves and nobody was buying them for $40-$50 when they came out?
Who is Jaffe, oh high and mighty God of War 1 Director, to call down the lightning and say that "OH NOES, USED GAME SALES IS WRONG, SO WRONG. WE WANT ALL YO DIRTY LIL CHILLUN'S MONEY FOR OURSELVES AND EVERY OTHER DEVELOPER OUT THERE."
Though his language is veiled, Jaffe sounds like a frickin' Ayn Rand disciple to me. Get what the hell you can and absolutely forget about everything and everybody else. That's awful.
The game industry has grown larger than the U.S. motion picture industry, but I don't hear Paramount, Fox, Universal, et al complaining about USED DVD sales taking coin out of their pocket. Not yet anyway. Some of those damn pigs might follow the frickin' game industries acorns complaining about used movie sales and start hollering.
Let's outlaw flea markets and pawn shops! CLOSE ALL GAMESTOPS and independent game stores! Shut them ALL DOWN and get ALL your games now and forever through the cable line. And if your game system's memory fills up from all your games, buy another overpriced, $120 hard drive.
Ridiculous. Ridiculous. RIDICULOUS.
1. It is none of our business.
If you honestly believe that then go down to sony, capcom, etc.. and explain your case and see how seriously they will take you.
2. But the customer is always right.
No! It's one of the misunderstood sayings of all time. This self righteousness attitude where consumers feel that somehow we are OWED this because we pay. That simply just isn't the case, you conscious decision to consider the purchase before hand, hence the direct contradictory saying that exists, "let the buyer beware"
2. Want to send a message that will change the industry?
Simple, think a game is too much, DON'T BUY THE FUCKING GAME!!! YOU DON'T NEED HALO 3, Killzone 2, FF 1236757, etc. The customer is always right, in that sense because the industry will always follow the money. If McDonalds saw that all of sudden people wanted shit sandwiches, guess what, a new McShitty Sandwich would be on their menu in a second.
So want to be that "Always right consumer" then hold on to your money and DON'T spend, not spend then demand all this.. So look for the best deal, and the industry WILL follow, it's a machine that is fueled by money.