Volition Dev Vs. Pre-Owned Games

piscian18

piscian18

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
11,020
Volition design director Jameson Durall reckons the idea of next-generation consoles banning pre-owned games is "fantastic."

Durall entered the used-game debate-turned-melee with both fists swinging. He seems particularly enthusiastic about the rumours surrounding the successor to the Xbox 360 and its supposed "anti-used game" technology.

"There's another big rumor about the next Xbox console that could really start to shake things up...it won't play used games at all!" he wrote in a piece called 'I Feel Used'. "Personally I think this would be a fantastic change for our business and even though the consumers would be up in arms about it at first...they will grow to understand why and that it won't kill them."

Durall describes current programs designed to mitigate used-game sales, such as project ten dollar and the online pass system, as "just a band-aid on a large wound," before going on to describe his hypothetical, all-new-games utopia in exacting detail.

" The system is already there for Microsoft, all they'd have to do is use the DLC and codes model they have to tie a game to your Xbox live account," he writes. "Each retail disc would likely need that unique key somewhere in the code so the account would be able to link it properly. Ideally it would tie a full version to the console it is registered on so family members can play even if the main account isn't signed in, but this is exactly how their model works now anyway."

Durall admits that such a system would have its faults. Game rental companies, for example, would be rendered moot, but that could be solved by Microsoft implementing its own rental service. Gamers who want to lend games to their friends could conceivably be accommodated by a system similar to Amazon's book lending policy, which transfers the license for a set period of time. These are just minor details, however, Durall maintains that the industry needs to act quickly because dire things are afoot.

"In the end, I fully believe that we have to do something about these issues or our industry is going to fall apart," he continues. "People often don't understand the cost that goes into creating these huge experiences that we put on the shelves for only $60. They also don't seem to realize how much they are hurting us when they buy a used game and how pirating a copy is just plain stealing. Maybe something as simple as educating them could help solve the problem..."
Click to expand...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/115707-Volition-Dev-Vs-Pre-Owned-Games


I tried to take a break from getting into these conversations, but this one kinda blew my mind. Publishers, the souless monsters that they generally are I can believe but I never expected to hear something like this from a developers mouth. Especially one I like. I buy a lot of used games especially old not easily obtained ones and I get that it's a dying breed. I've sort of come to terms with the Online pass, but I don't know there just seems something kinda unconstitutional about not being able to even buy a game used. Imagine if it were illegal to buy a car or a gun used. No more hand me down clothes for the kids. It just seems to me that if they do this they can forget about fighting pirates. Pirates win. end game. We'll be pirating every game and switch to alternatives for online play. It surprises me that console devs are getting desperate when PC devs have had a complete turn around thanks to competitive pricing DD like Steam, Origin, Gamefly etc.
 
It's stupid. In the end, I doubt it will happen for this one simple reason:

If I'm EA and I sell Madden football to you for $60 I made that money.

When you turn around 3 months later and flip that same copy of Madden off of on Ebay or Gamestop trade in...the next person that gets that SAME copy of Madden has to pop EA another $10 out of pocket to get online. Rinse and repeat that $10 cycle for however many hands that copy of Madden goes through.

Easy, extra money. I can't believe game devs and studios would really deep six an obvious extra boon like that.

Even if none of this was going on and games were $10 pirates are still going to do what they do anyways so it's not even worth bringing up at this point.
 
Of course Durall is against used game sales, just looking at his resume will tell you that because every game he has worked on has been utter turd and not deserving of being retained in anyone's collection.

http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,182216/

Why would someone hang onto a shitty game like red faction armageddon when they could at least recoup some of the money they wasted by selling it second hand?!

And as a counter point to his argument, look no further than CD Projekt.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...-xbox-not-playing-pre-owned-games-a-bad-thing

No, Saints Row developer Volition - the next Xbox possibly preventing people from playing pre-owned games "can be a bad thing".

Those words belong to Adam Badowski, managing director of Polish Witcher 2 developer CD Projekt Red, who spoke to Eurogamer today.

"It can be a bad thing," Badowski said of the rumoured next Xbox technology.

He explained: "I assume you know we decided not to continue our beautiful journey with lawyers seeking pirates...

"We are losing money not because of pirates; we are losing money because people decided not to buy our game.

"We should invest more power to upgrade and polish our products and convince players to keep our products, to be with us, to understand our needs - because we are an independent developer, we have to prevent lay-offs, we need to grow up and have the power to create new games.

"We want to be treated fairly.

"Most hardcore and hardware solutions will be OK for short periods," Badowski bombarded, "but a strong relationship with players, with customers, can change the situation. And for us, this is a better way.

Added CD Projekt Red head of marketing Michał Platkow-Gilewski: "Our players - gamers - they make their choices. they want to keep with us because they believe our product is worth it, is worth keeping on their shelves, even if they ended the game two or three times already. And they are doing this because they have free will, and if we cancel that, maybe that will be good for business, but if someone forced me to keep the game even if I didn't want it, it's against my will.

"We want to do as much as possible for our players, our gamers. We don't want to force anyone. It's like we did with DRM-free: we give them freedom and we believe they will stay with us."

CD Projekt Red used a silly old thing called trust to wage war on PC piracy. The Witcher 2 was sold without DRM from GOG.com, and was relentlessly supported post-launch with burlap sacks stuffed with new content, features and fixes. And all for free - disgusting!

The message was clear: if you like being treated like this, buy our game.

But on consoles, pre-owned sales out-evil piracy. "We are a little bit worried," Badowski admitted, "because this is a quite new market for us, and this is a second opening for the title. It's kind of an experiment for us."

So it's back to that silly old trust thing again: CD Projekt Red hopes the year spent thoroughly adapting and enhancing The Witcher 2 for Xbox 360 will be enough to win over the hearts of console gamers."

"We are offering a huge RPG game," Badowski boomed. "And I think the heart and the real soul of the RPG gamer is different than other players - most of these guys want to have best games on their personal shelf. The game is full of content - this is one of the best RPGs on the market."
Click to expand...

CD Projekt have pretty much guaranteed that I will buy all their games.
 
I saw this article a few days back and suspected he was having a whinge about how badly Red Faction Armageddon flopped, but I didn't bother to check his credits.

Red Faction Armageddon flopped because it removed every single thing that made Red Faction Guerrilla so popular and presented itself as an utterly generic linear shooter... not because of evil second-hand sales being evil.
 
I really wouldn't be surprised if next-gen console games are either 1-time activated, or digitally distributed. That paradigm works well on the PC, but the PC is an open platform so low pricing (due to competition) helped to ease the pain of lacking a physical disc. Consoles are closed, meaning MS/Sony/Nintendo may well have a monopoly on pricing - look how ridiculously priced xbox games on demand are. It's in their best interest to never drop the price on digital goods sold in closed markets. By switching to digital distribution on consoles everyone except the consumer can win. Imagine the $.
 
People complain about this...but how many use steam-like download services, and quickly adopted that route...:p A few years ago (ok about 5) you could go to shops and buy pretty much any PC game preowned...

It's just steam, on a console (which actually already happens with valve games on the PS3 which are tied to a steam account) like a more limiting "multiplayer pass" like all companies are jumping on!
 
Hey,PC gamers haven't had the luxury of pre-owned games for some time now,time for the console crowd to share the joy.
 
DeathPrincess said:
People complain about this...but how many use steam-like download services, and quickly adopted that route...:p A few years ago (ok about 5) you could go to shops and buy pretty much any PC game preowned...

It's just steam, on a console (which actually already happens with valve games on the PS3 which are tied to a steam account) like a more limiting "multiplayer pass" like all companies are jumping on!
Click to expand...

Not even CLOSE to the same thing.

With STEAM you can install on multiple computers, set to offline mode and play any game you want on as many computers you want. I have 4 computers at home and they all have STEAM. You are not locked into 1 console.

STEAM has no discs, everything you own you can access at any time, re-download at any time, backup and burn to disc for storage at any time. There are no "console generations" that lock you into a new piece of hardware "Xbox -> Xbox 360 -> Xbox 720"

And most importantly something that Microsoft and Sony will never do, Holiday says. Most of the $50-60 games I own I bought for $2.00-15.00. Last December I spent close to $120 on games for me, friends, family that got me more than 40 full games. There's no point in returning or trading in a $3 game.
 
DeathPrincess said:
People complain about this...but how many use steam-like download services, and quickly adopted that route...:p A few years ago (ok about 5) you could go to shops and buy pretty much any PC game preowned...

It's just steam, on a console (which actually already happens with valve games on the PS3 which are tied to a steam account) like a more limiting "multiplayer pass" like all companies are jumping on!
Click to expand...

This! I don't understand the uproar. A very large portion of the PC community has embraced Steam and other digital distribution methods. I haven't bought a physical copy of a game in a years. The second hand market for PC games is already non-existent.

The only potential problem I see would be with a DD only model. If Microsoft had no one to price competitively against, games stay $60 forever. That's bad. I think if it's modeled after how Steamworks integration works, you could be OK. In this case, Microsoft still has to price games competitively with retail outlets where the game can otherwised be purchased and activated. Likewise, if game codes could be distributed similar to how Amazon, D2D, ect. already handle Steamworks titles, this would only further inspire reasonable pricing, sales, ect. If that could happen, it would work out to be better than having the option for second hand sales. People who want the game right away and don't care about the cost will buy it day one. Those who want to wait for the right price can sit back and wait. This still leaves an option to get games on the cheap, and it makes dev's happy in the process. Seems like a win/win, as long as it's done right.
 
Don't make bad games. I'm pretty sure that last game that didn't even deserve to have the name Red Faction in the title didn't even sell that well on the consoles.
 
Viper87227 said:
This! I don't understand the uproar. A very large portion of the PC community has embraced Steam and other digital distribution methods. I haven't bought a physical copy of a game in a years. The second hand market for PC games is already non-existent.

The only potential problem I see would be with a DD only model. If Microsoft had no one to price competitively against, games stay $60 forever. That's bad. I think if it's modeled after how Steamworks integration works, you could be OK. In this case, Microsoft still has to price games competitively with retail outlets where the game can otherwised be purchased and activated. Likewise, if game codes could be distributed similar to how Amazon, D2D, ect. already handle Steamworks titles, this would only further inspire reasonable pricing, sales, ect. If that could happen, it would work out to be better than having the option for second hand sales. People who want the game right away and don't care about the cost will buy it day one. Those who want to wait for the right price can sit back and wait. This still leaves an option to get games on the cheap, and it makes dev's happy in the process. Seems like a win/win, as long as it's done right.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if Sony and MS decided to force you to get games through their service and games stayed at $60 it would be pretty shit. Steam is great and all when there's other options and price competitiveness. Steam would be total shit if it were the only source of PC games and all games stayed at $60 long after release. As it is I only buy games on Steam when they're dirt cheap.

Either way though its a bit shit. I'm already not happy about not owning my PC games but instead having them on "non-transferable-licenses", I don't see why I should be happy about console games going the same way just because we already endure it on PC :p
 
Code 51 50 said:
Not even CLOSE to the same thing.

With STEAM you can install on multiple computers, set to offline mode and play any game you want on as many computers you want. I have 4 computers at home and they all have STEAM. You are not locked into 1 console.

STEAM has no discs, everything you own you can access at any time, re-download at any time, backup and burn to disc for storage at any time. There are no "console generations" that lock you into a new piece of hardware "Xbox -> Xbox 360 -> Xbox 720"

And most importantly something that Microsoft and Sony will never do, Holiday says. Most of the $50-60 games I own I bought for $2.00-15.00. Last December I spent close to $120 on games for me, friends, family that got me more than 40 full games. There's no point in returning or trading in a $3 game.
Click to expand...

Which part is not even close? For example the playstation network allows you to download and use the stuff on up to 5 concurrent consoles (you can relinquish a "console" and move it onto another at any time). You can use the applicable titles multiplatform (usually PSone, but probably more soon depening on the PS4s compatibility) titles on whichever device you chose (PS3/PSP/VITA). Even use all 5 devices at once on certain titles. You can download as many times as you like.

There are also holiday sales (got a few PSP titles for >$5 during the summer) and random sales on items/deals of the week. Pretty sure microsoft does sales or something similar. You can download and buy "disk" games like BF3/MW whatever, just like you can on the PC via steam/origin. Steam has been recently more expensive than physical sales from places like amazon, and there has never been $60 games for $2 on steam. :p

But what IS undeniably exactly the same as services like steam (not just steam) is that they elliminate preowned sales entirely. Which isn't a normal thing for consoles.
 
Viper87227 said:
This! I don't understand the uproar. A very large portion of the PC community has embraced Steam and other digital distribution methods. I haven't bought a physical copy of a game in a years. The second hand market for PC games is already non-existent.
Click to expand...

Greenmangaming allow you to "trade in" PC download games, but I think it just removes the key from your account and so no trading ability. You also can't use it on games with things with third party DRM like steamworks... So thats kind of halfway there! :D
 
One of the big differences is I'm downloading something. There's A) a convenience factor there, and B) a cost factor.

If I buy a disc, I'm still either buying it online and waiting for it to ship, or driving to a store to buy it. And the chances of me getting a game like Skyrim for basically half price a month after release is next to zero.

Also being that I'm buying a disc, its less likely that I've made backups on it. Verifying that someone owns a disc is a bit easier than verifying if someone still has bits on a hard drive. Its physical media. I can hold it in my hand. Maybe I'm a little too old-hat, but the way I see it physical media = used market.

If Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo want to do a DD service like Steam/Origin, that's great. I applaud that (as long as it doesn't suck). But I draw the line at used games not working.
 
Q-BZ said:
Don't make bad games. I'm pretty sure that last game that didn't even deserve to have the name Red Faction in the title didn't even sell that well on the consoles.
Click to expand...

I take this side more or less. I can only think of a couple games that did not turn a profit on console recently and that was for disastrous launch and design choices like APB, homefront, and brink.

Whats worse is no publisher backed developers can come out and say their game failed because of piracy or the used game market. Infact the only developers who have accounted for numbers lost to piracy are indie developers who have no interest in pushing this issue.

I just kinda hate the way they're not complaining that they're losing money. They're complaining about money someone else is making that they want on top of the money they already made. Indies complain about not having enough money to keep the lights on and these guys are mad they can only swim in jello and not jello made from moon rocks.
 
"for only $60". I really like that part.

Q-BZ said:
It's stupid. In the end, I doubt it will happen for this one simple reason:

If I'm EA and I sell Madden football to you for $60 I made that money.

When you turn around 3 months later and flip that same copy of Madden off of on Ebay or Gamestop trade in...the next person that gets that SAME copy of Madden has to pop EA another $10 out of pocket to get online. Rinse and repeat that $10 cycle for however many hands that copy of Madden goes through.

Easy, extra money. I can't believe game devs and studios would really deep six an obvious extra boon like that.

Even if none of this was going on and games were $10 pirates are still going to do what they do anyways so it's not even worth bringing up at this point.
Click to expand...

Yes, but in their mind, they should be getting the full $60 for each of those additional copies, instead of just $10. So you are really stealing $50 from them (in their minds). Of course, it doesn't/won't work that way, but it doesn't stop them from dreaming/believing it will.
 
If I can no longer resell console games, and if they maintain the $60 price point, the chances of me buying any console game immediately plummet. I buy a lot of PC games via digital distribution, but only because they are either AAA titles or super cheap.

If they want to sell Red Faction for $2.50, I might download and try it, but I'm not downloading shit for $60 unless it is a GOTY candidate.
 
These developers support it because they believe people that buy used games or rent them will in turn purchase them new instead. In the real world, lower tier developers and start-ups will be the ones getting screwed. The current generation of console users tends to want what is new and big. They seem not care about game play as long as it has an uber popular multi-player.
 
i'd only be somewhat ok with this if games were drastically reduced in price. i buy games on steam (which tie in to my account) because i get them for so cheap.

but at the same time, with console games, it's nice to be able to take your game to a buddy's place and not have to go through hoops to get it to work on their console.
 
piscian18 said:
I take this side more or less. I can only think of a couple games that did not turn a profit on console recently and that was for disastrous launch and design choices like APB, homefront, and brink.

Whats worse is no publisher backed developers can come out and say their game failed because of piracy or the used game market. Infact the only developers who have accounted for numbers lost to piracy are indie developers who have no interest in pushing this issue.

I just kinda hate the way they're not complaining that they're losing money. They're complaining about money someone else is making that they want on top of the money they already made. Indies complain about not having enough money to keep the lights on and these guys are mad they can only swim in jello and not jello made from moon rocks.
Click to expand...

It's the same shit with hollywood right now. They're making profits, but their greed is insatiable, apparently.
 
DeathPrincess said:
People complain about this...but how many use steam-like download services, and quickly adopted that route...:p A few years ago (ok about 5) you could go to shops and buy pretty much any PC game preowned...

It's just steam, on a console (which actually already happens with valve games on the PS3 which are tied to a steam account) like a more limiting "multiplayer pass" like all companies are jumping on!
Click to expand...

I don't think used games would work on the PC because of the price point steam sales have. I find that if I wait for a sale (which I generally don't have to wait long for) I will usually pay the cost of a used copy of the game or less. And with how quickly games on steam drop to the $5-10 point I'm just not sure they would be worth the hassel of selling. Would it be cool if we had used game sales back on the PC? Yes it would, but I think it would be an extremely small market though almost to the point of being useless in the first place. Even on consoles (which have a decent used market) if selling a game is only going to get me $5 I'll keep it on the off chance that I want to play it again.
 
I don't think I've ever resold a game, ever. So if it meant putting vampires like GameStop out of business, I'd be all for making used game sales impossible.
 
TheGreySpectre said:
I don't think used games would work on the PC because of the price point steam sales have. I find that if I wait for a sale (which I generally don't have to wait long for) I will usually pay the cost of a used copy of the game or less. And with how quickly games on steam drop to the $5-10 point I'm just not sure they would be worth the hassel of selling. Would it be cool if we had used game sales back on the PC? Yes it would, but I think it would be an extremely small market though almost to the point of being useless in the first place. Even on consoles (which have a decent used market) if selling a game is only going to get me $5 I'll keep it on the off chance that I want to play it again.
Click to expand...

I remember when I was in a gamestop style preowned system shop how many people would come in with bags full of games (180 was the most I ever saw) and they were told the most they would get cash was about $1-2 each (or $2-3 store credit) for 10 games they probably paid full price for a year or two back, and the vast majority of the time they would take that, even after going through all the 2 ID crap. Or "go away and think about it" and then come back the next day and dump them all for next to nothing. The 6 month old $50 games they would probably get around $10, but it varied up and down. Then the store would put them back out for sometimes +1000% of the "stock value" and then sell them again pretty quickly. We were told to push the second hand games more than the new ones because they made so much more money.

One of the problems I can see is in a few years time. People like to think that games will be around forever, but theres already been a few cases of games dissapearing from steam, like stubbs the zombie, and a few others. Which without a second hand system, would mean no legal way of owning these games, even though piracy would mean they wouldn't totally dissapear.
 
Q-BZ said:
Don't make bad games. I'm pretty sure that last game that didn't even deserve to have the name Red Faction in the title didn't even sell that well on the consoles.
Click to expand...

Let's go on a tangent about Ubisoft games.

Oh wait, let's not go down that path, it's a path of misery and woe, tied to their always on DRM service and their continued detoriating quality of their games.
 
This is exactly what Steam does with your games already and people seem to deal with that just fine.
 
I doubt this will ever happen. Gamestop will kick up such a huge stink that the publishers will back down, as usual, and ask MS to not include the feature.
 
When a game developer complains about budgets, I just look the other way. They set their own budgets, so how is it the consumers fault? I don't remember developers complaining about budgets 10 years ago, and they sell more now then ever.
 
bigdogchris said:
When a game developer complains about budgets, I just look the other way. They set their own budgets, so how is it the consumers fault? I don't remember developers complaining about budgets 10 years ago, and they sell more now then ever.
Click to expand...

And these days we have far better tools and training available (you can hire people out of college that have taken game programming and digital art courses) versus back in the day when you basically had to roll your own everything. It should be proportionally easier and cheaper to create a game in this day and age. You have far better tools, training, and a wider market, you don't even need studio space anymore. Fast and ubiquitous internet allows for remote development from home if you are a small indie team. Yet somehow 15-20 years ago they were still able to make truckloads of money (which directly led to mega-publishers like EA and Activision) yet today they can't make a profit? I don't buy it.
 
Ryom said:
And these days we have far better tools and training available (you can hire people out of college that have taken game programming and digital art courses) versus back in the day when you basically had to roll your own everything. It should be proportionally easier and cheaper to create a game in this day and age. You have far better tools, training, and a wider market, you don't even need studio space anymore. Fast and ubiquitous internet allows for remote development from home if you are a small indie team. Yet somehow 15-20 years ago they were still able to make truckloads of money (which directly led to mega-publishers like EA and Activision) yet today they can't make a profit? I don't buy it.
Click to expand...

Its not hard to believe. Games are more ambitous and expensive to make now, instead of a studio of a few people whipping together some basic textures and things into a game, you have a hundred-something team of people working on a few hundred thousand dollars worth of computers. If you have 100 people and are paying them around $50k each a year you're looking a 5 million a year in salaries, they're all probably working on computers that cost $5k each (I think that's reasonable when you look at the price of decent workstation graphics cards) its another half million of set up costs.

Then you have all the marketing costs, I was seeing Crysis 2 posters in bus stands here in Australia, Australia for goodness sake! :p Imagine the costs involved in a marketing campaign that wide spread. Or did you see that TV ad for Skyrim? Paying those actors, paying the graphics people, making the sets... that sort of shit aint cheap.

Sure, you have cheap little indie games with almost no development costs and almost no marketing just hoping to strike it lucky and become some sort of viral success, but those a few and far between. Big budget games which most of us buy are just that, "big budget".
 
I understand for some people, this is the way they do it since they can not afford to buy new games. (part of me thinks, quit playing so many games and get a better job so you can afford them, but that is kind of evil, considering the job market, lol)
I personally never buy used console games, I do not feel like playing someone else's hand out, I also do not like the %'s, places like gamestop are making off of the titles. I never sell any of my games, I might want to go back and play them again. So none of this would effect me except for the fact that if something like this happens, they still sell "older" games for the same price as new.
I DO believe in freedoms though and for that, I do not wholly agree with this in some ways. You start taking away freedoms, then stuff goes down like a snowball down a hill.
 
chockomonkey said:
Wrong.

My brother has steam on like 6 computers, all working simultaneously--or so he tells me.
Click to expand...

Not simultaneously in online mode. Steam kicks you off once you login from another machine. If you go into offline mode and disconnect the internet then maybe you can pull it off.

My point was, Steam locks any game purchases to your account and you can't transfer/sell them as "used" games. This is one of the things people seem to be complaining about.

I understand the situation sucks, but something needs to be done. Used software is nothing like used books, cars, or any other physical media. Software is the same experience regardless of how many times it's used. You paid $25 for a used game and you got the exact same experience as someone who originally paid $60. Gamestop made money off the sale and the developer got nothing beyond the first purchase, and there is something wrong with that.
 
Blazestorm said:
Not simultaneously in online mode. Steam kicks you off once you login from another machine. If you go into offline mode and disconnect the internet then maybe you can pull it off.

My point was, Steam locks any game purchases to your account and you can't transfer/sell them as "used" games. This is one of the things people seem to be complaining about.

I understand the situation sucks, but something needs to be done. Used software is nothing like used books, cars, or any other physical media. Software is the same experience regardless of how many times it's used. You paid $25 for a used game and you got the exact same experience as someone who originally paid $60. Gamestop made money off the sale and the developer got nothing beyond the first purchase, and there is something wrong with that.
Click to expand...

What? How is used software nothing like books, cars and any other physical media? I get the ame expereince when when i read a book, watch a move etc wether its used or not.

Like most people here having pointed out, we accept no used games for computers because we tend to pay alot less for those games. You show me a console service where i pay a reasonable price for a game and i will buy it. $60 for most games is not worth it, and if MS or Sony have there way it will be 2 year old games still being priced @ $60. the bargin bin at my local walmart is $20 dollars.. 20! for 20 on steam I got Dead space 2, Dragon age, Bullet Storm, and Bioshock. How do you beat that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top