Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

December 3, 2008 -

And the used game trade debate rages on...

As reported by gamesindustry.biz,  Phil Harrison (left), speaking at a London event yesterday, took a moderate approach to the argument over used game trading. Of the issue, the Atari president remarked:

There's no doubt that second hand games sales has a macro-economic impact on the industry and a lot of people get miserable about it.

But it's no coincidence that the most valuable games, the ones that have the most lifetime as a game experience, are the ones that don't get resold, that don't get traded.

The games that have the embedded community, the embedded commerce, the extended, expandable experiences, are the one's that you would never want to trade, the one's you want to keep hold of. And that's perfectly in line with our future strategy so we're not that concerned about it.

Atari CEO David Gardner made similar remarks at the gathering:

Second hand game sales represent consumer choice and desire. Obviously, it has economically been extremely painful for the industry... the publishers don't benefit.

 

But as games change and they become more and more network centric, the disc in the box becomes only one part of the experience. As that experience grows then it becomes not such a problem.

GP: Although the used game issue brings out the militant consumer advocate in me, I must give these guys a little credit for moderating their comments (unlike Epic's whiny Michael Capps). Both Gardner and Harrison seem to be saying that digital distribution is the wave of the future, so let's not get too frothed up about used game sales now. And they're probably right.

Still, I've ginned up enough working-class frustration while writing this to be annoyed by Gardner's complaint that "the publishers don't benefit" [from used game trades].

Why is that a problem?

Gardner's comment is typical of the greedy mindset of some game publishers, who already got paid when they sold the game to the retailer. The retailer then made its money when the consumer purchased the game. And when the consumer disposes of the game, the publisher wants another bite of the apple? What is this, the Mafia? Everyone in the food chain has to kick back up to the Don?

Fughetaboudit...


Comments

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

Okay developers and questionmarkers...  Let's break this down.

Where do you think 2nd hand sales come from exactly?  They are when someone trades in games for new ones, which correct me if I am wrong means a SALE for you that you wouldn't have gotten otherwise.  The only difference is that the games shop recooperates the money by selling on the used games rather than taking cash.

If the 2nd hand games were not being sold then you wouldn't be getting trade-ins which means those that trade in for new titles wouldn't be generating a sale for you.  Those that keep games with no intention of selling them buy a mixture of new and used games dependant on the deal, but whenever I buy a 2nd hand title, I am funded the trade-ins so that the shop generates money.

The 2nd hand market directly feeds the New games market.  What some of you are proposing is a throw-away culture where everybody buys a new game and either hangs on to it or bins it.  Some others are suggesting that those who create something should get a sale at every single step of the way, which is completely against the idea of ownership of an item, and don't give me any balony about EULAs meaning you rent the game rather than buy it - this DOESN'T stand up in court.

Frankly I view this as greed from games developers, pure and simple, and short sightedness on the way the 2nd hand market works and props up the New games market too.

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

Well... why is everyone so against the dev/publishers making money off of their product but not against a retailer making money off of 10 used game sales of a game they only purchased 5 new copies of? So the retailer gets 5 new game sales and 10 used game sales, meaning profits from 15 games, but the publisher/dev of that game only gets profits for the 5 sales to the retailer.

If we're going to talk about greed, then let's lump the retailers into that boat as well. They want to keep the used games market in their hands out of greed as much as the publishers/devs want to stifle it to make money off of each sale of their game.

As long as physical media is sold for a game, no one can really stop consumers from having their own 2nd hand market between other consumers, but that isn't what bothers the publishers. It's the retailers using it as a profit cow at their (the pubs/devs) expense that bothers them.

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

"It's the retailers using it as a profit cow at their (the pubs/devs) expense that bothers them."

If the retailers didn't use it as a profit cow then what would be the point of being involved in the second-hand market?  Its a fine business choice and one that obviouslys works so they would be doing an injustice to all involved with the company(shareholders/partners/employees/etc) if they didn't.  When was it decided that running a business in a way that is profitable is a crime?  They are literally doing nothing illegal or wrong.

I usually don't side against developers but this is a no-brainer if I've ever seen one.  Its so blatantly obvious that retailers are not to blame here that I'm actually stunned that people are convinced otherwise.

"Why is everyone so against the dev/publishers making money off their product but not against a retailer making money off 10 used game sales of a game they only purchased 5 new copies of?"

First off I'm not against devs/pubs making money off their product. I doubt anyone here is claiming that. I'm against them making profit off a game they have already sold.  You fail to mention they purchased all 15 copies.  5 new, 10 used(from cusomers).  Those 10 used copies have already previously provided the devs/pubs with profit when they were originally purchased, so they have already made profit from those 10 units.  The fact that customers choose to buy a used game rather than a new game is purely a choice that should be regulated by two parties.  First party is the retailer that buys/sells the used game and the second is the consumer that buys/sells the used game.  Besides malfunctioning software/hardware the publisher/developer has officially exited the trade cycle because they have already completed the sale of the new unit.  It is totally out of their hands at this point.

What you are essentially saying is that it is wrong for retailers to offer the customer a used game trading service and that if they want to do be involved in the second hand market they should pay devs/pubs for a game the devs/pubs have already made money on. 

I have yet to hear a single reasonable argument against retailers.  I've read multiple articles, all the comments here...  There debate is literally lacking a reasonable argument.

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

"What you are essentially saying is that it is wrong for retailers to offer the customer a used game trading service and that if they want to do be involved in the second hand market they should pay devs/pubs for a game the devs/pubs have already made money on."

I'm not saying the practice of the retailer to offering a used game trading service is wrong. It's the idea that publishers can only make money on one copy of a disc once but retailers can make money on one copy of a disc multiple times that I find strange (but not necessarily wrong). 

Retailers made their money the first time they sold the new disc as well. Why let them profit twice but not the publisher? It just seems like a lot of people support the greed of the retailer over greed the publisher, which I find strange.

Personally, I just don't support the greed of retailers over that of the creators (devs\pubs) even if it is technically legal and a profitable (and smart) business strategy.The publishers\devs will probably just explore different business models that favor themselves (which is already happening) and that isn't wrong either, even if the retailers don't like it because it threatens their 2nd hand sales profits (which only exist due to the publisher in the first place).

 

 

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

 Except most people posting here seem to think that the retailer's 10 used copies were magically created by the power of hopes and dreams. The publisher set what it considered a fair price on the game, and 15 copies were sold. That is the end of the story for the publisher / developer / etc.

The retailer is not doing anything illegal or immoral - if developers are starving because of lack of revenue, they would stop making games and get a more lucrative job, or charge more for their games. Since they're not doing that, we can assume that the status quo is working quite well.

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

I'd buy a new game if it is worth it.  Publishers don't have to be afraid if they sell good content.  Game publishers should understand the concept that for them to have people buy their stuff and keep it is by providing good replayable content and other collectible merchandise with the package.  Publishers who suffer because of used game resellers actually should take it as a constructive criticism that they are selling a crappy product.  When I go to buy used games I usually need an hour or two to dig out high quality games.  And most of those quality games up for resale are like two to three years old from their first release.  This means most games that are up for resale earlier than upon it's release compared to others are the short and crappy ones.   Games are like movies, books, and music cd's but why don't these industry whine about used item resellers.  Take for example Gears of War 2 sepcial edition, It's a good game at the same time it has some memorabilia and extra content bundled with it and at the same time it is tagged with a 60 dollar price like other new releases.  You may be able to sell the game cd to gamestop once done with it and keep the other stuff but if I trun the table around, I won't buy a used GoW2 Special edition without the other cool stuff, and I'm sure I will end up buying a new one instead.  I know publishers can think of better gimmicks like this rather than whining about used games resellers. My word to the publishers:  be smart know your market and product then make them work together.    As a basic rule for everything, masterpieces are keepers and crap is just crap.  Avoid selling crap.

 

And guys piracy is getting something for free, buying re-sale games costs you.  If I'm gonna pay for something, I want to get my money's worth that's why crappy games are reselled at a lower price.  Those games are traded in because either they are crappy or old to be considered as keepers.   In the gaming industry piracy is stealing while re-selling is putting the right price tag on old or crappy merchandise, both are totally different but both have the same effect on the publisher sales. There should be no debate on this one.  This year we did not have much good games but 2009 looks promising.  So save up for next year don't spend to much this Crhistmas season.

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

I don't think a publisher deserves a to be paid a second time, and certainly not a third or fourth time, for the same freaking game. I would love to be paid twice for the same job, but that's just not how it works. Are book, music, and movie publishers whining about the same thing?

I think publishers have screwed themselves by making flashier and flashier games. The only thing they keep improving in most of their games are the graphics, and so developing a game means movie-like budgets. No innovation, originality, or heart. Just the same old gameplay with flashier graphics. Now they need extra money so they can make games with even better graphics.

Same thing has happened to the movie inustry. The only innovaion we see comes from indies. Look for ward to playing the same game over and over (with better graphics).

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

 And what's wrong with that? If steak tastes good (to you), you're bound to eat it a lot - you certainly wouldn't complain about how it still tastes good ...

If you don't like steak, switch to something else!

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

I don't know what is up, but I can hardly read any of the comments due to the font size being messed up, even tried changing IE (forced to use, I'm at work) text size but it doesn't affect it. Either way, I'll throw in my two cents and hope I'm not repeating what has already been said. Maybe someone will figure how to fix the font thing later and I will reread the thread.

Resale of games hurt the ones that make crappy games, or try and exploit a title year after year by rereleasing marginal updates as entirely new titles. However, the people who make really GOOD games, they have less to worry about. Shoot, I don't know about now, but do you know how hard it was to find Disgaia? Even used, it was running about $80. I think they rereleased it and the demand went down a little, but the really good games don't drop much in price.

You go to Gamestop and see what they have for used games. You'll find a few gems now and then, but usually you will find crappy games and shovelware (two different terms, they don't mean the same thing). And the worse the game, the more copies you can find used. I just picked up three games for $30. If I had been able to find them new, then it would have run me around $150 for these games. All of them were considered failures, but I hadn't tried them so I picked them up. There isn't any way in heck I would have paid full (fool?) price for any of them.

In short, yes, when a game is resold the publisher doesn't get any money, but:

1. The resale market is rewarding the publishers who put out quality titles by there being fewer good titles for resale, and the difference in price between new and used for a good title is only $5 which means many people will just buy it new.

2. If there was no used game market, the majority of these sales wouldn't happen, therefore the publishers would STILL not get any money. It's a lot like the pirate argument, where the industry equates one infringement with one lost sale. In this case, one used sale doesn't equal one lost new sale.

3. What you have is publishers being greedy by seeing all these sales they aren't getting a piece of. I think of them as the same as these state governments who see these large videogame sales and they want a piece of that money as taxes. They feel they could vote themselves a couple of salary increases if they could just put a percent or two sin tax on videogame sales. The publishers just want just a little piece of these extra sales.

Now, for my coup de grace. If the publishers should get extra money for the resale of their games, then:

1. used book stores should need to send a portion of their profits to the publishers of books.

2. Art auctions would always have to pay a portion of the procedes to the estate of the artist.

3. garage sales would have to pay money to the comapny that hold the copywrite to the pattern on that ugly couch they just sold.

4. used music store have to pay the RIAA for every used disc they sell.

5. used movies would also require a payment to be sent in to the studio that released it.

6. If you sold someone your old computer, you would have to pay the publishers for every individual piece of software that is on the computer, including drivers. Hey, remember, it's only licenced to you...

Also, this doesn't JUST apply to copyright. What about patants? What if you couldn't resell ANYTHING without finding EVERY person that has a patent used in the product and giving them a cut. Selling your old computer would be a logistics nightmare. This is WHY we have the first sale doctrine.

In short, the game publishers SHOULD get nothing extra for resold games. I still have every FF game I've ever played, including FF1 for the NES. If you don't want your game to be resold, then make a game that is a collectors item, that people won't WANT to sell after playing.

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

I agree 100%

As a consumer I see the theory against used game sales as either rooted in ignorance or greed.  I really wish it was ignorance but I somehow just think it is greed.

As a person interested in business, in particular games, I see the theory against used game sales as weakness. What I think we are seeing here is weak business minds trying to push some blame onto others because they are too foolish to admit that maybe their businesses have flaws.  Understanding how games are bought and sold is elementary and should be among the first things understood before a business exists.  As you said, make a product I don't want to get rid of and you'll be more successful.  I find it funny how understanding elementary business theory makes all this so obvious.

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

They put a game out and sell it.  Right there is where it leaves off in terms of the economical issue that they made their money off the game.  Now, they want to make more money by reselling their product.

If they want to truly, truly cut down the reselling in games, IMO, they need to make better games.  Think about it, some of the games you own are their simply because it was such a good experience that you might want to return to them again.  The replayability is the key factor.  I do not ever plan to sell games like Rock Band or Guitar Hero because I plan to one day return to them and enjoy those fun experiences and love the music.  I never want to sell games like Left 4 Dead or Portal because of the shear amount of fun I had, and the fact that Left 4 Dead will feel different from last time I played more than makes up the amount I paid for.

Make games replayable but enjoyable.  I was able to play MGS1,2  and 3 over and over again, but not 4 because it was too long and not enough in terms of actually playing a game.

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

Just to throw my two cents in... when you buy a Used Game, you *are* reducing the number of new copies that Gamestop (or whomever) has to purchase in order to keep in good graces.  I *have* walked into a Gamestop, asked for a fairly new release, and been told they were out of stock, but they did have this used copy for $5 off the new price.

Personally, I would rather buy a new copy.  This is the best way I have to push up the number of new copies Gamestop purchases from the distributer, which in turn supports the games that I love.  If I love a game enough to buy it, I should do the best I can to make sure the guys that make it keep doing so, right?

Also, I have to wonder.  How much different is used game sales from Piracy?  What's the difference here between copying a game disc and selling a game disc?  Doesn't it really come down to semantics, where it's 'okay' because you're relinquishing your physical copy and getting paid for it?  When it boils down to it, the economic effect on the publisher is similar, though on smaller scale.  One of the arguments for the used sales has been ' a used sale != a new sale' because the person making the used scale wouldn't have paid full price for the new sale.  Couldn't the same defense be made of piracy?  What's the difference?

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

I *have* walked into a Gamestop, asked for a fairly new release, and been told they were out of stock, but they did have this used copy for $5 off the new price.

You actually proved my point on this in supporting used game sales. There was an artificial shortage and as such you can't buy a new game. Going with what the publishers want, you would have to have paid them more for their artificial shortage.

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

Make new unit sales more attractive for gamestop than buying, maintaining, storing and selling used games.  Problem will be solved.  =).

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

What? You mean you did not know that every used game sale is already counted as a loss due to "piracy" in every sense of the word? Silly boy...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" - Herodotus

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" - Herodotus

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

The very definition of copyright violation? When selling your cd/game/whatever and giving all copies with it as well (or destroying them), you don't violate copyright. Piracy, however, is NOT paying and is basically theft.
It's not whether or not it's 'okay', it's whether or not it is against the law. If you're going to say the price difference matters, would it then be wrong if a shop offers me a discount to get rid of the copies they have left? I'm not paying full price then either, does that mean it's just as bad as piracy?

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

One infringes on the copyright of a video game production company.

The restriction of the other infringes on my right to be able to transfer my license to use a game to someone else.

If you want to equate the second hand market to piracy, we should close all charity clothing shops, or thrift stores because by selling second hand clothes, they are stealing out of the pockets of fashion boutiques. Same difference.

This is why they want to go to pure digital distribution. You can't sell the game to someone else, and you can't lend the game to someone else to play. Its pure 1 unit, 1 sale.

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

I am absolutely gobsmacked at some of the theories here.

Why should developers get kick backs from re-sale? If they want to encourage pirating, thats exactly the way I'd do things.

I don't pay anyone when I sell on books or DVDs.
Someone on here claimed that a video game doesn't deteriorate like a car would... If thats the case, shouldn't the second hand value actually be the same as brand new? Funny that it isn't the case isn't it?

The video games market is already bigger than film and music combined in this country. If they want to get greedy about it, I'll stop the near $3000 of purchasing I've made in this generation of consoles (all three under the TV platforms, both handhelds, 30+ games, numerous peripherals) and won't continue into the next one.

I suppose I could always sell my hardware on... but I'm guessing Microsoft and Sony wouldn't have a problem with that, because they wouldn't be making a loss on that sell-on as they would if they sold a console to a customer brand new...

If they don't have people purchasing the games first hand, then they won't have to worry about a second hand market, as there won't be jobs available. Its very simple to end a market through your own arrogance. The problem here is actually how HIGH the second hand prices are, especially from companies like Game and Gamestation in the UK (same company now), not the market itself. That high price is artifical due to the low buy back price they offer.

If I buy a game new (GTA4, Left 4 Dead, Gears etc) I do so because I know the product will be a worthwhile investment.

Meanwhile, I will then wait for those games that interest me, but due to poor reviews from the places I trust, I will wait on and get once they've reduced down to clearance prices or on the second hand market are low priced. Games such as Mirror's Edge will get this treatment.

So I suppose what I'm saying is, if more companies made more games that I want to actually invest in, rather than play from a curiosity stand point, then the developers would get more $60 sales from me.

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

Too many posts above, won't post my response there, but Zen, insanejedi:

When I posted =/=, I meant !=, or an = with a / through it. It means "does NOT equal". It was a counter-argument, not supporting.

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

"The games that have the embedded community, the embedded commerce, the extended, expandable experiences, are the one's that you would never want to trade, the one's you want to keep hold of." -- I see what he is saying but that isn't always true.  Okay so there are some great games that I don't want to give up and I refuse to but there are plenty of others that do sell great used games either online or in Gamestop.  It happens, it’s easy to find nearly any game you could ever want online.  If you can't find a used game you want to purchase then its either a rare title or you're not trying.  I respect Phil Harrison's approach to the argument though.  Make a solid game with solid replay value and people won't be so willing to get rid of it in a time that will be detrimental to new sales.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now... taking the stance that buying a used game is not contributing to the developer/publisher is a bullshit theory absolutely driven by greed.  Publisher/Developer have already received money from that original sale and obviously failed to captivate the gamer long enough to not get rid of it immediately. Please get your hand out of my pocket at least until you've removed your head from your ass.  If I ever let this kind of verbal/mental diarrhea escape from my mouth or mind I'd be embarrassed at how completely full of shit I was.  These people have to realize they're completely full of shit right?  I mean they're spewing it directly on those who buy and play their games with this stance against used game sales.

If someone doesn't like a game they just bought why shouldn't they take it back.  If they have enjoyed it and now no longer desire to play/own it why not sell it?  Do you want them to keep a game they don't want?  These greedy sons of bitches are killing me. 

Buying a used game isn't taking away from a sale. It is making use of a game that someone didn't want to play anymore. It is no different than buying a used car.  Someone didn't want the car or wanted additional funding for a new one so they sold their old one and bought a new one.  Why shouldn't I be offered the chance to buy the pre-owned item to make use of it?  Do you honestly think it is fair to sell someone a $60 game they play for a week or two only to let it collect dust for the next several years never to be touched again?  Saying used games shouldn't be an option because it is detrimental to new unit sales is exactly like saying you shouldn't be able to sell your car because it prevents others from buying a new car.  This is blind shameful greed of which nothing good will come.  These types of ideas are precisely what people are referring to when they complain about the greedy, self-interest driven corporate mindset that neglects to use even a thread of reason beyond trying to squeeze one last cent out of their consumer base.

Publishers/developers do benefit from used game sales.  Why?  Because when you buy a used game you've picked up a game that would otherwise be collecting dust and hopefully appreciating it.  Why is that beneficial?  If a publisher/developer makes a game people enjoy (no matter if they bought it new or used) the consumer is more likely to buy other products from that same publisher/developer.  Now you're probably thinking “wait a minute, if the person bought the game new it would be a greater benefit to the developers/publishers if they purchased it new.”  Not exactly because you are forgetting about the person who consumed it and didn't feel like it was a worthwhile long-term investment.  The person that is tired of the game or would rather play another game now has a sour taste in their mouth.  Well if I was a gamer that regularly sells used games I'd be a little pissed if I bought a game that didn’t really want to play as much anymore.  I'd be stuck with an investment that I did not think was worthwhile.  I would in turn likely wait for a longer period of to purchase another game since now it is much, much more expensive to support my gaming hobby.   Beyond the fact that a large amount of gamers would be consuming a much more limited amount and variety of games it would also instill a feeling of regret for purchasing an expensive game that you no longer want to play.  Eliminating used game sales would quite obviously be terrible for business in the long run.

Here is my theory.

Interfering with the trade cycle of video games in this manner would likely doom the industry to lower sales, make developers less willing to move towards riskier innovative game play decisions and decrease the variety of games in the market place. If you honestly think about how much more gamers would have to spend on games to get the same amount of diverse game play in you’d have to be a fool to believe they’d do it.  At least during the time period where game sales are the most useful to the publisher/developer.  Early sales (when the price of the game is it’s highest) are much better than sales when retailers reduce the price to move it off the shelf.  Consumers will allow games sit on store selves for extended periods of time waiting for the price to drop so the investment isn’t as risky.  Reduced prices will result in less profit.  Less profit on the publisher/developer side will result less money to make a new title.  Less profit on the retailer side will mean less store space for product.  Less money to make a new title, decreased quality in production.  Less store space to sell product will mean even lower sales.  Decreased quality in production means no new contract.  Boned.  Not only will the amount of games consumed be reduced but the time in which they are consumed will also be reduced.  Growth of new studios will be decreased and a downturn for games will be obvious.  Gamers won’t have a chance to buy risky innovative titles because retailers will catch on and won’t want to offer them the shelf space.  Worse of all gamers will be more likely to get bored with the decreased variety of games and will move onto other forms of entertainment.  Retailers have been around much longer than the games industry has and they definitely don’t need video games to survive.  Well… Gamestop does… But they also need used game sales so either way they’ll get the axe.  People have been entertaining themselves and others with other products well before video games.  So while the digital game industry will experience losses other industries will see new growth.

Instead of trying to interfere with the trade cycle why not try to understand it?  Study it, determine why people like selling/trading/buying used games and adjust your business tactics based on that knowledge.  Interfering will result in some predictable and unpredictable negative consequences for the digital game industry.  The result will be the industry having a more difficult time adapting to the market I guarantee you that will be an extremely negative experience.

Every cloud has a silver lining and every silver lining has a touch of gray.  As I mentioned before people have spent money on entertainment for quite some time.  Perhaps they would invest more in non-digital games.  Perhaps a new form of entertainment would be born.  Film and music would definitely try to capitalize on a shrinking video game market.

I guess I could be off base and perhaps I could be exaggerating but it is also possible that I am understating things a bit.  Either way I think it is fairly obvious that trying to prevent gamers from selling, trading and buying used games is a terrible idea.  Furthermore I think it is obvious that it is an idea deeply rooted in greed and is a foolish interest in short-term sales gains that will be followed by a long-term slump.

 

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

Great peice man.

They dont want to research it because it takes time and money, and they rather be lazy CEOs and other high managing positions and take the easy way instead of making great games.  All in all, if the second hand market is increasing, it is because games are not as good as they used to be.

Yes, as G4 said, maybe games have became a little jaded, but game developers/publishers have became lazy.  I would put a certain CEO back in power of certain high ranking game publisher in an instant over the current guy, and have him work his magic.  Do I agree with all of this positions on everything?  No, we have slightly different ideas on how to run a business, but we respect each other's ways and ideas still, and know both ways can be successful and not only a good way to run a business for us and our consumers, but also for our industry.

You can't only think about money, you have to think about every angle out there.  If you ignore other angles, you start killing off your business slowly, just like many companies are doing right now, even non-game.  It isn't only the stock market having problems.  It is high ranking executives focusing on the certain things instead of looking at the bigger picture.  Do you have to make money to excite inverters to get money to make more money?  Yes, but at the same time you have to do it the right way.  EA is going to go through a painful time with the Madden trails, and will lose a lot in stock value, permanently. (As in after the market recovers, they will not recover as much as other companys, not that they will never get that high again.)

Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls

 

Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

If EA wanted Madden to do better they should actually work on it.  I was gifted a copy of hte PS2 Madden game by a friend that got it for free(lol).  When I score it is common for the OTHER TEAM to celebrate, I've fallen through the centerfield logo, I've thrown a pass backwards, I've ran THROUGH A WALL, I've transported 5 yars to the other side of the field mid sprint and I've had all my graphics change from my favorite team(steelers) to the texans...  wtf.  Its an unfinished game.  I wouldn't even be satisfied if it was a beta and I was testing it.  People buy it not because it is a good game but because they love the NFL.

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

Yup...  they don't care, they get their money.  09 and 08 are the same game, changed a few textures that were prolly alternate textures from the year before that they decided to leave out, and other than that...  same sound, same 3d models, same animations, same everything.  I love how EA released a video comparing 08 and 09, and there were only minor lighting changed in half of it.  I wondered what they were comparing... oh look, we know how to change the hue of a light in our game engine, and movie it slightly, wow.

Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls

 

Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

 

With all due respect, I don't think I've seen anyone cram more wrong into one post since Jack was last here.

>Now... taking the stance that buying a used game is not contributing to the developer/publisher is a bullshit theory absolutely driven by greed. Publisher/Developer have already received money from that original sale

That is only relevant as far as individual discs are concerned, and in terms of individual discs I'm pretty much in agreement with you, the games industry shouldn't be getting a cut of resales.

However, the issue is about complete projects, the individual titles that costs millions of dollars to make, millions of dollars that aren't being recouped beause of the current state of the games retail market and its reliance on second-hand.
 

>Buying a used game isn't taking away from a sale.

Yes it is.

We know this, because people keep being offered a second-hand copy at the checkout when they try to buy a new copy on the basis that it's $5 cheaper. Everyone who takes the second-hand copy instead is a lost new sale.

We also know this due to people going into a game shop being unable to find a new copy on the shelves have to buy a second-hand copy instead. That's a new sale the industry has lost to the second-hand market.

>Publishers/developers do benefit from used game sales. Why? Because when you buy a used game you've picked up a game that would otherwise be collecting dust and hopefully appreciating it.

Okay, I appreciate your post. Now take that appreciation to your local supermarket and buy your weekly food shopping with it. You know, food- that thing you (and all game developers) need to eat to live.

Oh.

>Here is my theory.

Interfering with the trade cycle of video games in this manner would likely doom the industry to lower sales, make developers less willing to move towards riskier innovative game play decisions and decrease the variety of games in the market place. 

It would doom them to no more sales than they're currently getting- everyone currently happy to pay top whack for a new game are totally unaffected. The only people who would not be buying games are the people buying second-hand, who aren't contributing anyway and therefore are not a visible part of the market in the sense that if their money was to disappear tomorrow, it wouldn't have any effect on the games industry.

People willing to pay full price, $60, for a game fall into two broad categories:

*People willing to pay $60.
*People willing to pay $60, but if they can get it for $55, they will.

The $55 people, are, of course, the people being offered a $5 cheaper second-hand copy at the checkout. These people, as we know, are willing to pay $60. So they will.

Result: higher sales, not lower. The games biz becomes less risky, publishers are able to move onto the next project quicker and "riskier, innovative game play decisions" are moved towards and "the variety of games in the market place" increases.

>If you honestly think about how much more gamers would have to spend on games to get the same amount of diverse game play in you’d have to be a fool to believe they’d do it. At least during the time period where game sales are the most useful to the publisher/developer.

Early sales (when the price of the game is it’s highest) are much better than sales when retailers reduce the price to move it off the shelf. Consumers will allow games sit on store selves for extended periods of time waiting for the price to drop so the investment isn’t as risky.

The early sales period is cut artificially short by the second-hand market.

Second-hand sales are driven by two things- high new prices and the inability to find new copies of games that are more than a week old.

The latter is caused by retailers only buying in a small number of new games, knowing that this will force sales towards the second-hand channel. The former is caused by there only being a small number of new copies in the marketplace, meaning the publisher has to spread the initial cost of development over fewer units in order to break even.

This neatly brings us onto your next point:

>Reduced prices will result in less profit. Less profit on the publisher/developer side will result less money to make a new title. Less profit on the retailer side will mean less store space for product. Less money to make a new title, decreased quality in production. Less store space to sell product will mean even lower sales. Decreased quality in production means no new contract. Boned.

Alternatively, reduced prices result in a larger buying market (While nobody's suggesting that we'd see 1:1 sales conversion, we do know people who will not buy games at $60 will buy games for $50, they're doing it in the second-hand market now) meaning costs can be spread over a greater number of units. This means greater profits can be made per unit at the dev/pub side while still reducing costs for the retailer, who can make more profit per unit while still reducing costs for the consumer.

The catch is, of course, the games industry can't reduce their prices because the second hand market is cannibalising new sales, and the retailers won't let go of the market because it's too lucrative- and that assumes that the retailers aren't keeping new prices artificially high to keep the second-hand market going.

>Not only will the amount of games consumed be reduced but the time in which they are consumed will also be reduced. Growth of new studios will be decreased and a downturn for games will be obvious. Gamers won’t have a chance to buy risky innovative titles because retailers will catch on and won’t want to offer them the shelf space. Worse of all gamers will be more likely to get bored with the decreased variety of games and will move onto other forms of entertainment.

On the other hand, shelf space is already at a premium because half of every branch of GameStop is clogged up with second-hand- how many risky, innovative games do you suppose haven't been able to get into GameStop because there isn't enough room in between the copies of Halo and the second-hand shelves?

>Instead of trying to interfere with the trade cycle why not try to understand it? Study it, determine why people like selling/trading/buying used games and adjust your business tactics based on that knowledge.

They are, it's just that their wriggle room they could use to do so is being eaten by the second-hand market. They can't make games cheaper, as they won't be able to break even. They can't rely on sales past the first week, because by this time everyone's buying second-hand instead. They can't make shorter games that are cheaper to produce, because everyone complains that they're too short and not worth $60.

The only people who benefit from the second-hand market are the big-box retailers, who make millions of dollars in profit. It screws over developers and publishers who can't make their outlay back, it screws over the independent retailer who simply can't afford either the high wholesale cost of new games or a high-street location and most importantly it screws over the consumer who is spending $10 to save $5 and by reducing choice.

/b

 

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

You know that with Sims 2 and its expansion packs alone, EA can fund their entire company during the start of the Sims 2 project to now, advertisement for all of their games, and much more without dipping into other income from other games right?  That is figuring in taxes, retailer cut and so on.  Once you add in Madden and other games, EA is just raking it in.  So they have no excuses anywhere.  That is figuring taxes take out 60% too, which good ol' Bushy has them paying less than that given their income. 

Epic has made so much off of Gears of War, that they are more than good for a while as well, as well as other companies.  If anything, second hand hurts small time developers, and that isn't what the publishers are even thinking about, because they don't make them enough money for them to care, and if they really wanted smaller developers to be more successful, all they would have to do is make it cheaper for them to publish games instead of taking over half of the profits they receive.  I am sure the poor business skilled, in my eyes, man who developed a certain tractor brand games, would have loved the publisher to charge less for their service so he could have pocketed more money, and keep paying his employees a minimal amount. (intern level pay)  The guy only keeps his company around for fun now.

Once you realize that these companies pay hardly nothing in taxes because their financial people are geniuses and know how to show little to no profit to the government...  wow.  Some of these companies only show a profit every 3 years so they are not forced into a different bracket and forced to pay taxes no matter what their expenses show.  If they stupidly invest their money, then the developers only have the management to blame.

Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls

 

Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

You can say I'm wrong and I'll respect that but you've done little to support any argument that this opinion against used game sales isn't based directly off greed.  You've simply twisted my words and compared me to Jack Thompson (nice, douche).

Yes we are talking about amounts between 5-15 dollars and I absolutely realize that.  Gamers benefit from second hand sales and so does the game industry.  I'm sorry but when gamers play a variety of games the weak ones get sifted out and if that means your game isn't liked enough to sell well then that is to blame on poor decisions durring development.  Your taking ownership of the game away from the buyer when you try to prevent them from selling the game or interfere with that process in anyway.  Its like they don't really own the game so why would I even want to buy these games anymore?  Why not just rent or pirate at that point?  Thats what happens when you sell something, someone else owns it and can do whatever the hell they want with it.  They can buy all the copies they want from wal-mart then re-sell them new on ebay for $100.  Developers, publishers, government or anyone should have no power to stop them or effect them in anyway.

They can't rely on sales past the first week because everyone is buying secondhand because the coices made durring the design only entertains one for a short period of time. That is a flaw in the design and theory behind the business, not the fault of the retailer and consumer.  Tell you what, make a game that captivates me a bit longer that I can play multiple times over and I won't immediately want to sell it.  Make a quality game and people won't be getting rid of it so quickly.  Stop blaming consumers for mistakes developers make.

I can compare cars to games because they are both luxury.  YES a luxury.  I could take the bus around to get groceries if I NEEDED to.  Transportation is a nessesity but personal vehicles aren't.

So I kind of want a new car right now because I think it isn't reliable.  Its aging and things keep breaking.  Why do things keep breaking when I do everything i can to maintain it the best I can?  No idea but I do know that I won't invest in another Pontiac.  It seems to be dying before its time as it isn't nearly as old as some of the other cars I see on the road.  So if I go to sell this I might get about two grand because of the year.  Now your saying Pontiac deserves some money back after I sell this car and the dealership sells it to someone else.  They've made a questionable product and now they get some more profit when its resold?  How the fuck would that not make Pontiac greedy assholes?

So to me when someone says because a game company has a hard time staying open they should get a little bit from re-sales or be paid some kind of used sales fee from stores like gamestop.  And what it sounds like to me is that the company that is at risk of not making their money back is in that position because of the poor decisions that business made.  When you start a business you want to make a profit.  If you fail to make a profit you can't always just blame the consumer or retailer for selling their games they didn't feel the need to keep.  You need to either A.) blame the business tactic you've implemented or B.) blame the product you've made. (or perhaps blame the marketing).  I'm sorry but thats how it is.  If you want to be successful you have to reduce cost of production as much as possible without reducing the quality of the product made.  You must make innovative choices in design to differenciate your product from others out there and ontop of that you must make the game have replay value(meaning you can replay the game and not get bored).  I don't understand how this is not clear as crystal to everyone.  So now businesses that fail to do this are crying because they can't make games that are as profitable as the big guys?  Sounds to me an aweful lot like some weak business ideas that need to die.  Businesses that can't turn a profit and can't make a product people want to buy and keep are going to display poor results.  Those poor results usually mean the business should fail and should eventually be replaced by another.  Thats how markets work.

Well thats how they are supposed to work now if a company makes poor choices they get to whine and possibly do so enough to get bailouts that far excede the value of their company.  Or perhaps push blame onto competition, consumer or retailers of their products.  But the fact remains if a company makes a solid product that people want to keep then they will succeed.  If they make a product people want but only for a short period of time then that makes it a lot more difficult to push new units out of the door so implementing changes in the design of the product will be needed.  If they fail to see this they are destined to fail, and should.

When a company fails and closes its doors it isn't always a terrible thing.  It just means that it failed.  Businesses fail all the time and new businesses ideas are born from them.  Experience is gained and people move on.  Don't want your business to fail?  Well start off by avoiding the spineless 'the consumer/retailer' is to blame approach and put the blame directly on the shoulders of the company itself.  Re-evaluate the business strategy and make better decisions.  That is basically all you can do... stabbing the consumer and retailer in the back doesn't seem like a good way to push product out of the door.

If I ran a business, and I'd first not waste time and money on this foolish idea that a retailer or consumer is to blame for my failure.  I'd realize that the success of my business is going to be determined by several things that all trace back to the company and the decisions and actions taken by it.  Failing to produce on any level will be bad for business and can eventually lead to failure.  Failing to remedy poor decisions or mistakes will definitely lead to failure.  It is a high stress, high pressure environment only meant for brave individuals willing to own up to their own shortcomings.  If I had a successful business and I seen my competition put out claims that second-hand sales are harmful to their business I'd feel damn good because its a reflection of weakness on their part.

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

The latter is caused by retailers only buying in a small number of new games, knowing that this will force sales towards the second-hand channel.

Let me reiterate what I've said before. Wal-mart is the number one retailer of games. Why are they buying a small number if something is not available?

 

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

Because Wal-Mart, and most non-specialist retailers only deal in the newest of new releases in order to generate footfall for other products, often selling games at cost or even at a loss.

Games older than a week do not represent an attractive product to Wal-Mart as by this time a/ newer games have been released and b/ everyone can get the title cheaper second-hand at GameStop.

/b

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

Some very astute observations and clear logic there my friend.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" - Herodotus

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" - Herodotus

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

A few points missing from the pro-pay group:

1. You are assuming that the publishers will supply enough of their product to meet the demand. This is rare at best. Often times, to avoid a REAL loss, they reduce their numbers to 80-90% of evaluated demand. Depending on the game, this can be anywhere from 10-110% of the actual demand, with the higher numbers being the result of fallen hype.

2. All Publishers are concerned about with their numbers is first day/week/month sales. Anything beyond that is not accounted for because it's too long term for it. This has the unfortunate effect of affecting the evaluated demand the publishers use for their supply. Most rare tiles are a result of this effect, where initial projected sales are considered to be weak but surge in later times, with no demand to match it.

3. At no point with a retail/web store purchase is a customer in a DIRECT sales contract with the publisher or developer. A developer is in a contract with the publisher, and the publisher is in a contract with the distributor/retailer. When you buy a game, you go into a contract with the retailer to pay for the product. And if you think that the EULA is the contract, think again. The EULA is not considered a legal contract, nor is it a sales contract. It is a usage agreement, with no bearing of law behind it.

 

The companies whining about wanting to get their piece of the pie have to consider that their games have been sold more than once by  the time it reaches the customer. This is simply them being greedy and trying to squeeze more money out of their user base by trying to claim number they never accounted for anyway.

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

Ebay flat out sucks now with the "Buyer always gets postive feedback" rule.

 

But more importantly lets say I go to Sam's Club and buy baking supplies for Holiday Pies should Sam's get a cut off of my pies since I'm stealing sales of Pies from the bakery section of their store?

While food is a need a dessert is a treat/want?

 

I think I'm going to look back at which companies ******* about this and kick them out of my collection.

First up to go N+.

 

And the swoop is a better offer for consumers, it really is no different from eBay and going with a cheaper aution.

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

Okay, I don't think a lot of you understand the problem with used games.

The problem is that the retail stores are constantly cockblocking new game sales. I can't count the amount of times I or someone else in the store has been told "Hey you can buy this used for $5 cheaper!", which is basically swooping in on someone elses sale and stealing it from under their nose. The developer, publishers and distributers were just about to make money from a sale, then Gamestop swoops in and goes "Nah we want this one".

And the thing is, selling used games through there is a complete rip-off, too. $20 for a game you're going to sell at $5 less than retail? That's rediculous.

I don't have a problem with used game sales. I DO, however, have a problem with Gamestop and its ilk ripping off customers, and then snatching legitimate sales for their own greedy purposes. They sell used games? Fine. Forcing sales staff to meet a used game quota which means they take away from proper sales? That's fucked. ESPECIALLY when you consider that these stores are the main point of sale for games; it's not like you'd ever walk into a Wal-Mart and get told you could save $2 on your toaster by buying used.

Also, one final thing, to anyone that believes in 'voting with your wallet'; if you buy used you're basically submitting a donkey vote. If you find a game that you love and want to encourage the development of, by buying used the publisher will never see those sales and you've basically contributed nothing to the further development of these games.

And, for the case of full disclosure, I am a developer. However I can tell you now that the sales of games I've worked on really doesn't affect me in any meaningful way, I don't get royalties or anything like that so it doesn't factor into my comments here.

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

Gamestop is  *NOT* the main point of sale for games (used probably, new, no), that title belongs to Wal-mart.

I agree, the price that gamestop pays for games is ridiculous. But anyone selling can vote with their feet. They're perfectly free to not sell. I won't sell to gamestop, it's not worth it. I've only sold a handful of games to them, ones that really weren't worth keeping (Stretch Panic, I'm looking at you). In my life I've sold very few games. I've sold ones with the computer I was selling, where I'd be unable to run them any more, I've sold in tag sales when I've been broke.

I'll rarely buy recent games new, $5 off isn't worth it. Of course, I also consider that most of the games that only get that much off aren't worth the full price either. I consider very, very few games worth $49.99/$59.99.

 

For Question:

Your game is (probably) getting built with Visual Studio, and wouldn't be possible without Windows.

Are you giving Microsoft its cut of each sale?

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

 Simple math...

You buy a game for $100 (makes the math easier to see, God forbid we get prices that high).  Let's assume that of that, the retailer gets $90, which he paid $80 for a distributor, which paid $70 to the publisher, who paid $60 to a developer.  Of those $60, you can usually assume $5 is profit reinvested in the company.  Everyone else gets a $10 cut and thats reinvested into their company.

You go to Gamestop, trade in your game...they give you $50, and they place it on the shelf for $90.  It's cheaper than new, but now they'll make $40.  Why should Gamestop even sell new games for a $10 cut when they can make $40 on used sales?  They know they shouldn't, and thus make it as difficult as possible for you to buy a new game.  This is the problem with the used game industry...companies building their strategies around cutting off future potential profit for the people making the game.

If you wanted to go and sell the game for $90 on eBay, more power to you...you lost $10, which is a reasonable amount to pay for the experience in which you don't keep the disc.  For $90, you've reliquished your hold on that product and can now raise the remaining $10 to buy something new.

I'm all for a used games market, as long as you're not chumped by a company who has turned their stores in digital pawn shops.  Trading at Gamestop is a rip-off for the consumer and the producer of video game content.  Sell it yourself and get real cash back!

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

Ebay is a rip off as well....
=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

Ebay is becoming a pain to sell through, they raise the prices on their cut pretty high. You can get significantly more than trading in at GS though. We don't know how much of this goes towards another game sale though. You can at least consider that some of that in-store credit goes towards some new titles.

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

The book publishing industry whined about this...

The music industry whined about this...

The movie industry whined about this...

And now the game industry is whining about this...

Get over it. Aftermarket sales will happen, whether it be at GameStop or on eBay.

If the industry wiped out used game sales overnight, do you think the price for new games would go down tomorrow? By rights they should, because now there's nothing cutting into the publisher's potential sales. But they won't. They'll just report even more obscene profits.

The day that games become 100% download distribution is the day I quit gaming. If I can't get any value back from my game after I'm done playing it then I'm not interested in coming to the party anymore.

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

Let's see.  I don't think I can buy used books at Borders.

I may be able to find a used section in the music store, but it's not going to be as big as their 'new' section is. (which Gamestop's usually is, if not bigger.)

And I'm pretty sure if I could *find* a speciality movie store they wouldn't have a used section.  As it is my best reference is Best Buy.

I don't think that anyone expects 'Used sales' to go away.  I think it's the fact that the primary retail establishment for games has pretty much made their business model around Used sales.  You see smaller shops do that in other industries, you don't see Barnes & Noble, Suncoast, or Sam Goody doing this to the industries you mentioned.

And when you leave because gaming has gone digitial, which it will one day, you can take your newspapers, your vinyl records, your laser discs, your eight track tapes, and your DVDs with you and hang out with the *rest* of the dinosaurs.

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

blockbuster has a huge used inventory section, they even carry used games. Granted however they don't buy em and resell.

------------------------------------

I am a signature virus, please copy and paste me into your signature to help me propagate.

------------------------------------ I am a signature virus, please copy and paste me into your signature to help me propagate.

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

Best Buy carries used.

 

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

The day that games become 100% download distribution is the day I quit gaming

Ditto. My backlog is enough I could keep going for a long, long time.

 

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

It really sounds like you believe developers should be paid more for their work and I can't argue that but to keep getting money on a single product (1 game copy) over and over is stupid. So in your world does the guy working the factory line in a car plant get his share of a resale of a car, without this guy the car may not have a functional engine or something? How far do we take this? Does the creature of the bolt the car facture use in making the car get a share as well? How about the manfacturer of the machine who made the bolt? How about the steel plate who created the steel that was used in making the bolt? How far does this go back? Please tell me where it stops cause frankly it has to stop someplace and at that location someone would get screwed of money with your system.

Relating to artwork cause you believe cars and games are different and not valid. An artist creates a painting and sells it. 1st Step. Person who created the canvas get his share of the sale. (Without the canvas there would be no painting) Person who created the paint get his share. 2nd Step. The person who created the wool for the canvas would get his share of the sale of the painting. The person who made the wood frame for the canvas would get his share. The person who created the dye used in the paint would get a share. 3rd Step. The guy who processed the wood for the canvas frame get his share. The person who processed the wool into thread get his share. (not going to keep this level going for all items) 4th Step. The person who chopped down the tree gets his share.... Hopefully you get what I saying here where does this stop? Why have all of this complexity in the system when each step the person sold a product for how ever much they wanted to sell it and was happy. If they weren't happy with the money they recieved they should of sold it for more or look at doing something else. Same would apply for games. If they want more money to develop the game they should of asked for more and if it increases the cost of the game for buyer let them decide if its worth it. Anything is worth only so much money as someone is willing to send.

Frankly what you are talking about get so complex so quickly most of money flowing in this world would be just to pass the share of money to someone and no one would know why. Who would be in charge of making sure the right people get the money?


 

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

They guy on the car line is either in a foreign country, has no rights, and gets paid very little but still higher than the majority of the people around there or else he wouldnt be there, OR he works in the US gets paid way too damn much for not having any education, and his union is part of why cars cost so damn much.  (seriously, starting union pay doing that is $60,000 a year, for the first 6 months, then it gets jacked up to $80,000-$180,000 a year, screw unions.)

Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls

 

Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate


The only way to do it right is via a tax or ban of all 2nd hand media, either witch unlikely and a tax would only get 20-40% of the value to the dev, which in msot cases would go though the publisher...its just a messy idea thats a imposablity.


=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

..... why can't developers just be happy people are at least enjoying their work long after the publisher stops having copies made?

Seriously, if used game sales were done away with, even games people enjoyed greatly will vanish off the face of the earth for good.

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

Some developers only care if their game gets sold new so they get money to feed theirselves. Some won't support past receiving the money for the title which is sad, but true in many cases.

I can't really blame them, but it goes both ways that consumers may not care if developers/publishers go under if they can save some money theirselves or do something illicit to get what they demand what they want from a title. Fact is that, when it comes to piracy, it preserves many titles in their original state of playability and can last longer than many other means and that is great for archivers (library) or collectors that want to preserve what they consider treasure.

It isn't necessarily something I condone, but when you compare the value of a pirate copy to an official copy it far outweighs its value over time to be enjoyed throughout the ages but companies won't have that because they want you to repay in the future, should they decide to republish it, not if you a lone consumer wants to. This is a problem and I doubt both [consumer & publisher] will ever see eye to eye on that issue.

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

This is a serious problem with books. There's lots being lost because they aren't being published any more, still in copyright and the original owners can't be found.

I think SCotUS screwed up with Eldred. Mickey Mouse was in copyright when I was born, probably will be when I die. How is that "limited times"?

 

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

Its simple limit it to the life of the creator +, hell give the creator more inflaucne over his works and ensure the creator a 10% of all profit for his life and force works into public domain acoupel decades after their death, one can still make money off public domain works all you need is a quality brand to make it under, would it hurt Disney if they lost absolute CP control over Snow white,Mmouse,ect, hell no they are a brand franchise and have a loyal fanbase . Mew thinks they forget what CP is for......to give you a short term advantage over competition before the work is let lose on the public domain and imitators try their hand at kncok offs, because it costs ahell of alot more to do TV/film there will not be alot of competition there in merchandising maybe but he brand and its quality will shine through and if not you have something better to replace it.
=================================
Pirates,Shearers,Lenders and downloaders are not a market that can be taped by the mainstream.
---------------------------------
I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: Atari's Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate

Why even plus? Read the Constitution. The purpose of copyright is to promote the arts. How does keeping things stagnant promote anything?

 

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
quiknkoldP.T. is a game I just cannot play alone. I puss out hard on it. need somebody with me when I play that. Kojima was right. it is Pants Shittingly Scary10/01/2014 - 6:17pm
quiknkold@james_fudge not playin all the way through. P.T, Silent Hill(Not sure which), Resident Evil Gamecube Remake, Alien Isolation, Ghostbusters, Outlast, Super Castlevania 410/01/2014 - 6:04pm
james_fudgeI wish I could like that last shout.10/01/2014 - 5:48pm
MechaTama31Tried out Sims 4 on my brother in law's pc. Promptly got my sim exhausted, to soil himself, then sent him without cleaning up to mock people at the museum. Good times...10/01/2014 - 5:33pm
E. Zachary KnightSo they figured out how to share CPU cycles between pools and their advanced emotions engine? Sweet.10/01/2014 - 2:53pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/10/01/ghosts-pools-darth-vader-coming-to-the-sims-4/ Pools no longer impossible.10/01/2014 - 2:06pm
james_fudgeDon't eat angry.10/01/2014 - 1:49pm
E. Zachary KnightI am pretty hungry. I feel like I could smash some supper. Not sure if I am up for making a collage though.10/01/2014 - 1:00pm
Matthew Wilsonhttps://www.facebook.com/SmashBrosEN/events What a weird idea. Nintendo will be bringing Supper smash brothers for 3ds and wiiu to collage football games.10/01/2014 - 12:52pm
PHX CorpI'll give the hosting 2 Streams on twitch a spin during extra life marathon10/01/2014 - 12:41pm
james_fudgequiknkold:: oh yeah which games?10/01/2014 - 11:20am
Andrew EisenInfophile - Your comment is on the second page. Scroll to the bottom and click "Previous Entries."10/01/2014 - 9:55am
MaskedPixelantehttps://time.com/3450854/amc-netflix-imax-crouching-tiger-hidden-dragon-boycott/ Theatres refuse to show the new Crouching Tiger movie because... well, I'm sure they've got a good PR spin reason, pick one.10/01/2014 - 9:06am
IanCForza Horrizon 2 isn't even out yet, but theres already a 31 car DLC pack, along with a season pass....10/01/2014 - 8:42am
quiknkoldstarting my Halloween Spooktacular Stream today. Every day from 7-11, I'm going to be streaming Spooky games on Twitch.10/01/2014 - 8:37am
MaskedPixelanteSteam is going to start charging us Canadians in CAD. This is bad news... for people who don't use key sellers like GMG and GamersGate.10/01/2014 - 7:23am
InfophileSomething weird was going on with that comment. As soon as I posted it, it looked like it had replies from the past. And now I can't even find it. Ah well, it was getting off-topic for that thread anyway.10/01/2014 - 4:29am
Sleaker@CraigR been using Win8.1 for a while, I don't really see any usability difference between it and 7 (Work uses 7)10/01/2014 - 2:16am
Craig R.Ok, my internal debate was short-lived. If Win10 is still a year out, I'm not waiting that long for an SSD, so on Win7 I will remain.09/30/2014 - 7:52pm
Matthew Wilsonits called windows 10, and I am happy to get the start menu back.09/30/2014 - 7:18pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician