Game Dev Tycoon (Oh, the irony) | Forums

[jook13]

As crappy of a system as it is, there still needs to be something in place. I think there needs to be some sort of contract in place that allows developers to get a tiny cut of used game sales from the retailer. But maybe that is not possible.

Why? In what other business do the original creators get a cut if their product is sold used? Why should they get money twice for one item? That makes no sense.

If a Game company is trying to take measures to "fight" used games or piracy, they need to really think their tactics through. They should ask if it will cause a headache for the legal and honest customer.
I believe that they are looking at the whole thing from the wrong perspective. They are asking themselves "Will the gain in profits from less piracy offset the loss in customers when this goes through." They are banking on the fact that we will all just accept it, bending over and taking it. Like D2 just wrote, short term may see some gains. But I am not overly confident about the whole industry long-term.

[LukeMSki]

Instead of DRM and other anti-piracy measures and anti-used game measures, just make good games that are worth the price the publisher is asking for. Instead of focusing on how to prevent the pirates and used game market, why don't companies focus on making games that people want to pay to support a developer for making a quality product. If the overall quality of games went up and less DLC and other nickel and dimeing techniques weren't employed, I bet we will see more people buying games new and legitimately.

[Stego111]

As crappy of a system as it is, there still needs to be something in place. I think there needs to be some sort of contract in place that allows developers to get a tiny cut of used game sales from the retailer. But maybe that is not possible.

Why? In what other business do the original creators get a cut if their product is sold used? Why should they get money twice for one item? That makes no sense.

The game industry is unlike other industries. A used car is older, has older technology, and has already been worn out by the previous owners; a used game is the same as the new copy (not counting physical damage.) People buying a used game get the EXACT same experience as the person who bought it new. Which means there is very little draw for anyone to buy new, which means less money goes to the people that made the game, which in turn means they have less money to make their next game.

Think about sneaking a friend into the movie theatre. Two people enjoy the movie for the price of one. But the used game market is like sneaking in all your friends to the theatre.

Instead of DRM and other anti-piracy measures and anti-used game measures, just make good games that are worth the price the publisher is asking for. Instead of focusing on how to prevent the pirates and used game market, why don't companies focus on making games that people want to pay to support a developer for making a quality product. If the overall quality of games went up and less DLC and other nickel and dimeing techniques weren't employed, I bet we will see more people buying games new and legitimately.

To quote Shifty:

Not to stoke any fires here, but no, DRM didn't bring upon piracy. If there were little to no piracy then there would never have been a need for DRM in the first place. DRM was dreamed up to try to offset the perceived loss in sales caused by piracy.

Online passes were dreamed up because of the used games market, and publishers & developers wanting to see some of the revenue from second hand sales.

Developers making the 'good' games are not seeing the money they used to. So they needed to employ some way to make more, whilst keeping the retail price of the game the same.

[jook13]

Stego. Sorry, but I still dont think your argument holds much water. I could see your point if we were talking about digitally distributed games. But not physical media discs or cartridges.

I also disagree with your sneaking a friend into a theatre argument. The theatre is selling the experience, with the huge screen and speakers. The videogame is selling a product. The disc is yours to own, or to sell if you choose.

I could buy a movie and have my whole family watch it, then let friends borrow it. Same with a music CD or a videogame. How about a book? Should I be allowed to let a friend borrow a book I bought? The author doesnt see any money from the book my friend didnt buy? We both got the same experience. Where do you draw the line? Why videogames?

I will say that I can understand the game companies frustrations. I think the used game industry does take a little chunk out of their revenue. But I still dont think its right they should be able to sell the same disc twice. I feel the whole thing will be forgotten eventually, sooner or later we will be downloading all of our games onto a hard drive, used games are a limited time thing I think. And for the record, I never buy used and I never sell any of my games. I take pride in my vast game collection and am kinda anal about the condition of it.

I also wanted to state I am not trying to be hostile, its a friendly argument. I think its an important issue that should be discussed.

[JolanXBL]

Saw this and had to share. This is just too funny.

What happens when pirates play a game development simulator and then go bankrupt because of piracy?

That website does not exist. The correct kink is this:
http://www.greenheartgames.com/2013/...use-of-piracy/

And downloading that game is NOT piracy because the developer released it. Those people are downloading a legit, FAULTY version of the game for free from the developer. If it was to be considered piracy then:
1. The developer is a troll and cannot be trusted with your money
2. Allowing you to progress that far in a demo is a dck move, and again no point in buying the full game.

[D2Dahaka]

Not to stoke any fires here, but no, DRM didn't bring upon piracy. If there were little to no piracy then there would never have been a need for DRM in the first place. DRM was dreamed up to try to offset the perceived loss in sales caused by piracy.

Online passes were dreamed up because of the used games market, and publishers & developers wanting to see some of the revenue from second hand sales.

Developers making the 'good' games are not seeing the money they used to. So they needed to employ some way to make more, whilst keeping the retail price of the game the same.

But why are they seeing less money? Is it just because of piracy? Or is it because game development is more expensive, the market is now transitioning and they're not keeping up, sales targets aren't being met due to error or unexpected market changes or goodness knows how many other reasons.

There's nothing wrong with protecting one's IP, but I am fully against consumers being punished with draconian drm for buying a game.

As crappy of a system as it is, there still needs to be something in place. I think there needs to be some sort of contract in place that allows developers to get a tiny cut of used game sales from the retailer. But maybe that is not possible.

Why? In what other business do the original creators get a cut if their product is sold used? Why should they get money twice for one item? That makes no sense.

The game industry is unlike other industries. A used car is older, has older technology, and has already been worn out by the previous owners; a used game is the same as the new copy (not counting physical damage.) People buying a used game get the EXACT same experience as the person who bought it new. Which means there is very little draw for anyone to buy new, which means less money goes to the people that made the game, which in turn means they have less money to make their next game.

Introducing online passes has already changed that (along with other such measures) so now the 2nd hand user isn't guaranteed the same experience without paying extra. What's more disk based media suffers from wear, people are supposed to accept that as well?

[QcChopper]

I like the idea that this guy had for this game, a rare opportunity to make the pirate struggle to earn anything for their hard work, trying to put the pirate in the developer's shoes, which was the point of the game in the first place so, pirates, eat that, it's food for thought.

[Stego111]

I also wanted to state I am not trying to be hostile, its a friendly argument. I think its an important issue that should be discussed.

I feel the same way. ^^^

I completely see where you are coming from. If we buy a game we should be able to do with it what we please, but at the same time retailers, (ie Gamestop) push used game sales way too much (each customer that walks in is supposed to be told about buying/bringing in used games 3 times. Not to mention answering the phone with, Hi Gamestop, where you can trade and save ______ speaking.) I guess that is really what I have a problem with.

And why do I draw my line at games? I guess cause I want them to be around forever, or at least the rest of my life lol.

( I am now imagining a similar conversation occurring on a book forum, where perturbed readers are complaining about authors running out of money due to book sharing.)

But why are they seeing less money? Is it just because of piracy? Or is it because game development is more expensive, the market is now transitioning and they're not keeping up, sales targets aren't being met due to error or unexpected market changes or goodness knows how many other reasons.

Good question.

Introducing online passes has already changed that (along with other such measures) so now the 2nd hand user isn't guaranteed the same experience without paying extra. What's more disk based media suffers from wear, people are supposed to accept that as well?

I was more or less trying to defend the use of online passes. Sorry if that wasn't clear. And tbh I have never had a game disc wear out on me, so I was not aware that was an issue. ( I realize early 360 models killed many discs, but I consider that a hardware issue, not usual wear and tear on the disc.)




.................I should really go to bed.

[LukeMSki]

I think what publishers are trying to do about used-games is eliminate Gamestop and other retailers. They don't like that Gamestop makes money and they make nothing. When you lend your game to your friend, you aren't getting any money for doing so. I think this is the difference between retailers and lending between friends. In either case, the developer doesn't make any money, but the probably see retailers as worse because they make money while the publishers make nothing.

[RetiredRonin]

I think what publishers are trying to do about used-games is eliminate Gamestop and other retailers. They don't like that Gamestop makes money and they make nothing.

If developers or publishers wanted eliminate stores such as Gamestop then they probably wouldn't make deals that offer exclusive preorder incentives for purchases made at those stores (and they would quit selling them the games that they sell). Currently Amazon and Gamestop will both buy and sell second hand games, and both outlets provide some of the best bonuses available.

And why do I draw my line at games? I guess cause I want them to be around forever, or at least the rest of my life lol.

( I am now imagining a similar conversation occurring on a book forum, where perturbed readers are complaining about authors running out of money due to book sharing.)

This does happen quite a bit as it is much easier to share a PDF/txt/word doc than a 3-5 gig game. The only book I ever finished writing was circulated on a few torrent sites (where it got hammered because it was a rather crap book) as the time, effort, and investment of trying to self-publish through available mediums was more time consuming than the amount I may have made.