Cliff Blezinski "You cannot have game and marketing budgets this high.."

[nremdn]

Originally Posted by ReverendSlim

But who are we kidding? They'll probably just continue raking in that 50+% profit margin they get by screwing people over on trades until something drives them out of business.

I think it is amusing that you feel like Gamestop is screwing people and never felt the same way about Microsoft. LOL

[ReverendSlim]

Originally Posted by nremdn

I think it is amusing that you feel like Gamestop is screwing people and never felt the same way about Microsoft. LOL

Oh, I have a long history with Microsoft, and I definitely know that they screw people left and right (and I have a drawer full of 360 faceplates as a testament). I also deal with them on the IT side for my job on occasion, and they're a giant cluster-f#$* on that front. Hell, Windows 8 is the first Microsoft OS I've actually paid for since I had an 80286 CPU in my distant past (and that only because it was $40 at the time and I needed to do a from-scratch refresh of my PC). I just don't think their push for digital was them trying to screw anyone, and I liked the possibilities that all-digital would have presented, however unpopular an opinion that may have been here. I also think they were at least TRYING to also accommodate used sales into that model, which would have helped with the transition (though they totally botched the execution). And honestly, I think if they had stuck to their guns and just added disc-based verification for offline play as an option, they still could have pulled it off. But regardless, I don't think that was them trying to screw anyone... I think they just had a vision for the future that proved to be too soon for people to accept. If they had been launching a few years from now, who knows? Maybe it would have made more sense to people. It's hard to tell what the future holds. And I hope at least SOME of that vision of the future they were trying to bring still survives this change somehow. I think they will still bring people who want to go digital some of those features as the system evolves. May take a dashboard update or three... but considering how much the 360 changed post-launch, I think they'll figure it out.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by ReverendSlim

But who are we kidding? They'll probably just continue raking in that 50+% profit margin they get by screwing people over on trades until something drives them out of business.

that's not their fault. that's the fault of the consumer. if they didn't trade them in to gamestop then gamestop couldn't charge those prices. sell on ebay, half.com etc. Gamestop's job is to push the market until it baulks. unfortunately a vast majority of casual gamers don't baulk, which is on their shoulders not Gamestops

[Dynamo of Eternia]

I don't mean to beat a dead horse by bringing this up, and I'm not trying to "troll" by saying this, despite what you might otherwise assume, but I really don't see how anyone can look at the 24 hour check in as anything OTHER than a way of screwing over the gamer.

Clearly that was just over the top, unnecessary DRM. They claimed that it was "necessary" for the family sharing feature, but it turns out that feature was never even going to allow your family access to the games as much as they want, whenever they want, for how ever long they want, with the only limitation being that one person could play it at a time. No, instead it was a timed full-game demo akin to what PS+ members get on PS3 now.

There's no reason that some kind of offline verification couldn't have been done, and they didn't bother. Though honestly if they were going in favor of full game installs, it really shouldn't work any different than downloading and installing a game on 360 works now, where it can be used offline as much as you want after it's been installed.

No matter how they try to defend it, no matter what justification that they felt they had for it, there was no other way for the customer to feel other than screwed. It was the single thing that absolutely guaranteed that all games would have a shelf life unless MS were to do something about it later (had they stuck with the DRM in the long run), and they never outlined any plan for that, so people had every reason to assume the worst.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by wormraper

that's not their fault. that's the fault of the consumer. if they didn't trade them in to gamestop then gamestop couldn't charge those prices. sell on ebay, half.com etc. Gamestop's job is to push the market until it baulks. unfortunately a vast majority of casual gamers don't baulk, which is on their shoulders not Gamestops

Exactly. And really, short of giving money to the publishers from their trade ins, what can Gamestop otherwise do to appease them? If Gamestop changed it's ways more so in favor of the consumer, they'd either give more money for each trade in and then make less profit when reselling it at the same prices that they currently sell them for (often just $5 less than the cost of a new copy of a game for any games that just recently came out), or they would still give the relatively low amounts for trade in, but not mark them up nearly as much, still making less profit, and probably pissing off the publishers more since they'd be undercutting the retail cost of a new copy by a much wider margin.

Frankly in a world where used games exist at all, Publishers should be thankful that a used copy of a game that just came out within the last few weeks is only marked at $5 less than that of a new copy. That small of a difference likely prompts more people to opt for a new copy over the used than it would if the price difference was $10 or $20.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

Exactly. And really, short of giving money to the publishers from their trade ins, what can Gamestop otherwise do to appease them? If Gamestop changed it's ways more so in favor of the consumer, they'd either give more money for each trade in and then make less profit when reselling it at the same prices that they currently sell them for (often just $5 less than the cost of a new copy of a game for any games that just recently came out), or they would still give the relatively low amounts for trade in, but not mark them up nearly as much, still making less profit, and probably pissing off the publishers more since they'd be undercutting the retail cost of a new copy by a much wider margin.

Frankly in a world where used games exist at all, Publishers should be thankful that a used copy of a game that just came out within the last few weeks is only marked at $5 less than that of a new copy. That small of a difference likely prompts more people to opt for a new copy over the used than it would if the price difference was $10 or $20.

exactly , M$ and the publishers are pissed because gamestop is taking away what they believe is their marketshare with used games. what would make them happy is to steal some of their profits or have GS magically stop selling used games.

[ReverendSlim]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

I don't mean to beat a dead horse by bringing this up, and I'm not trying to "troll" by saying this, despite what you might otherwise assume, but I really don't see how anyone can look at the 24 hour check in as anything OTHER than a way of screwing over the gamer.

Clearly that was just over the top, unnecessary DRM. They claimed that it was "necessary" for the family sharing feature, but it turns out that feature was never even going to allow your family access to the games as much as they want, whenever they want, for how ever long they want, with the only limitation being that one person could play it at a time. No, instead it was a timed full-game demo akin to what PS+ members get on PS3 now.

I don't even think it was about the family sharing thing at all. I think it was more about the discs basically being the method by which you got the installation on the box. It was their workaround to have instant switching from installed games without requiring the disc, but still letting you buy the disc and potentially trade it in. It was a half-measure toward all-digital, but giving you the option of bringing the data to the box without using your bandwidth (since there are still ISPs with bandwidth caps). And it also kept retailers in the loop during the move to all-digital. I actually liked that they were trying to make EVERY game instantly switchable, not just digital downloads, since that plays nice with their new asynchronous matchmaking system. The question now will be whether they can even still implement that system if they have to account for people changing discs (since you would basically be holding up the lobby for others). I imagine we're going to see a lot of the ancillary stuff they mentioned have to change because of them switching things up. And I imagine their software people are going to be scrambling to redo the back-end stuff they had already put in place in order to get a finalized OS ready for November (though realistically, they only have until October, since they will have to have that hashed out in time for the discs of launch titles to be pressed).

Either way, it will be interesting to see what we finally end up with. Hopefully, they'll have enough in place by Gamescom to give us more details.

[Trekkie313]

Originally Posted by Blu-Generation

He's making a Halo TV series, yet downplay the quality of drama in games? This man is confuse...

In reality he's just gonna be a "creative consultant" or "script doctor", Microsoft will prop him up in front of a few monitors and call it directing.

[ReverendSlim]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

Exactly. And really, short of giving money to the publishers from their trade ins, what can Gamestop otherwise do to appease them? If Gamestop changed it's ways more so in favor of the consumer, they'd either give more money for each trade in and then make less profit when reselling it at the same prices that they currently sell them for (often just $5 less than the cost of a new copy of a game for any games that just recently came out), or they would still give the relatively low amounts for trade in, but not mark them up nearly as much, still making less profit, and probably pissing off the publishers more since they'd be undercutting the retail cost of a new copy by a much wider margin.

Frankly in a world where used games exist at all, Publishers should be thankful that a used copy of a game that just came out within the last few weeks is only marked at $5 less than that of a new copy. That small of a difference likely prompts more people to opt for a new copy over the used than it would if the price difference was $10 or $20.

Honestly, I think it would have been enough if GameStop had just promised not to have their employees push the used copies over new for a couple of weeks. Not that people shouldn't have the option... but I can't count how many times I've gone in to buy a recently released game and had one of their employees tell me, "We have a used copy of that for a few bucks cheaper." I've actually had one bug me about buying it used until I told him to shut up and sell me a new copy (and then he tried to give me a copy that had already been opened and "checked out" by one of their employees, which pisses me off - if I'm buying "new", it should be NEW). It's a simple thing... and possibly wouldn't have a huge financial effect, but at least it would give the publishers SOME semblance that the store isn't actively trying to screw them.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by ReverendSlim

Honestly, I think it would have been enough if GameStop had just promised not to have their employees push the used copies over new for a couple of weeks. Not that people shouldn't have the option... but I can't count how many times I've gone in to buy a recently released game and had one of their employees tell me, "We have a used copy of that for a few bucks cheaper." I've actually had one bug me about buying it used until I told him to shut up and sell me a new copy (and then he tried to give me a copy that had already been opened and "checked out" by one of their employees, which pisses me off - if I'm buying "new", it should be NEW). It's a simple thing... and possibly wouldn't have a huge financial effect, but at least it would give the publishers SOME semblance that the store isn't actively trying to screw them.

I will NOT buy a game that has been opened that they try to sell as new.

That hasn't happened to me in YEARS though and I think Gamestop has actually stopped that policy.

[madlost1]

Originally Posted by MerrickG

I will NOT buy a game that has been opened that they try to sell as new.

That hasn't happened to me in YEARS though and I think Gamestop has actually stopped that policy.

I'm pretty sure they have. The last two years everything I've bought from them new be it a be release our a game that's a few months old it has been sealed.

Sent from my Droid DNA using Tapatalk 2

[ReverendSlim]

Read this earlier and thought it was interesting. Cliffy should take note, because THIS is how you argue against used games without being a douche.

http://devfodder.blogspot.com/2013/0...used-game.html

[Terjyn]

Originally Posted by ReverendSlim

Read this earlier and thought it was interesting. Cliffy should take note, because THIS is how you argue against used games without being a douche.

http://devfodder.blogspot.com/2013/0...used-game.html

Well reasoned article, but what I don't get is why he dismisses the claims about it being similar to movies.

Yes, movies are in the theater.

But it's not like there are millions of used copies available on launch day. Or even launch week.

Used games hurt long term sales, not really short term ones. I'd like to see him talk about it from that perspective.

Rentals admittedly being a different matter, but I've never found a major launch week rental that wasn't rented out. Which can be viewed both ways, people are renting them, but they don't have enough to meet demand.

[ReverendSlim]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

Well reasoned article, but what I don't get is why he dismisses the claims about it being similar to movies.

Yes, movies are in the theater.

But it's not like there are millions of used copies available on launch day. Or even launch week.

Used games hurt long term sales, not really short term ones. I'd like to see him talk about it from that perspective.

Rentals admittedly being a different matter, but I've never found a major launch week rental that wasn't rented out. Which can be viewed both ways, people are renting them, but they don't have enough to meet demand.

For single player games, you'd be surprised at how quickly people marathon them and trade them in. That's why the industry fights to give you reasons to hang on to those titles (kind of the way Bioshock Infinite is still in my collection because there's DLC coming, even though I've beaten the game).

Rentals help their sales in the short term because GameFly and the like buy a bunch of copies wholesale. But over time, I can see how that costs them sales.

Cliffy was talking earlier on Twitter about how the days of all games being the same price needs to die, and I kinda' agree with that. If it's a 5 hour single player experience, that shouldn't be $60. I can see it for games that have a lengthy campaign or multiplayer and single-player, but there are some games that just shouldn't be full-priced games.

[Terjyn]

You say I'd be surprised but as someone who grew up on rentals, I'm not.

But I've been in many gamestops the week a game came out and in my experience it is as likely that they are sold out of new copies as have used copies available. This might be a regional thing.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by ReverendSlim

Cliffy was talking earlier on Twitter about how the days of all games being the same price needs to die, and I kinda' agree with that. If it's a 5 hour single player experience, that shouldn't be $60. I can see it for games that have a lengthy campaign or multiplayer and single-player, but there are some games that just shouldn't be full-priced games.

Where did he say this?

If so he is on to something.

[Terjyn]

Originally Posted by MerrickG

Where did he say this?

If so he is on to something.

Not all games are 60$ now. You can argue more are than should be, but this is a dangerous road to tread.

If they start pricing games based on what people will pay, expect game prices to go up, not down. Activision would LOVE to sell Call of Duty games for 75$ or more. What prevents them from doing so is standardization of prices.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

Well reasoned article, but what I don't get is why he dismisses the claims about it being similar to movies.

Yes, movies are in the theater.

But it's not like there are millions of used copies available on launch day. Or even launch week.

Used games hurt long term sales, not really short term ones. I'd like to see him talk about it from that perspective.

Rentals admittedly being a different matter, but I've never found a major launch week rental that wasn't rented out. Which can be viewed both ways, people are renting them, but they don't have enough to meet demand.

It was a good well reasoned article, but I don't feel he adequately addressed the trading in to buy new portion.

I think giving a two week window would make a lot in the industry quite happy.

[ReverendSlim]

Originally Posted by MerrickG

Where did he say this?

If so he is on to something.

I was gonna scroll back to find the tweets, but DAMN does that guy tweet a lot!

I agree though. Just because a game can be $60, that doesn't mean all games SHOULD be $60.

[Terjyn]

Originally Posted by ReverendSlim

I was gonna scroll back to find the tweets, but DAMN does that guy tweet a lot!

I agree though. Just because a game can be $60, that doesn't mean all games SHOULD be $60.

I think you guys don't remember the SNES days where game prices were not standardized.

Sure some games were cheap. But I remember paying 70$ for Chrono Trigger.