56% of American Gamers Don't Buy Games

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
 

Draech:

Vault101:

Draech:

I am mainly just promoting it because it will make the games cheaper and put the profits made into the hands of those whos job it is to make more games.

To me digital distribution is like the car taking over for the horse. We may not have the roads to handle the cars yet everywhere, but we are getting there.

The thing is so many here are bloody greedy. Its all about the developers/publishers should take less of a cut so we can get a physical product cheaper rather than us giving up the physical product so we can get it cheaper. We want our cake and eat it to. I am willing to give up the physical copies for a 30% price reduction (estimate). I can only speak for myself thou. I am well aware that even if there is perfect set up with no back draws from internet or file corruptions there will still be customers who insist on having a physical product or not buy at all.

On a note thou. Your point 3 you really shouldn't use. Its anecdotal evidence. It carries as much weight as me saying "my CDs were scratched so Physical has more problems than digital". Just saying. Its a none argument.

As a final thought. I dont mind anyone buying used. I dont want to leave the impression I am a crusader against used games. I am a crusader for digital distribution. The publisher set up the system and people are using it to the best of their ability to get the best deal. Nothing wrong with that. Now I do have a problem with people whining when the publishers want to change the system. Its their right to do so. Its their product. People will start self entitled whines about what they deserve and that the publisher are being greedy while they were trying to get as many games as possible for the money rather than the publishers getting as much money for the games as possible.

Anyway I have rambled on long enough. My point was I think we will be better served with full digital. Better games cheaper.

Im still not convinced, I dont like the Idea of having less control over what I buy (PC aside, with the currnt systm, I buy a game, its mine for as long as i can keep the hardware running its not upto a server or an online service..) plus I dont see the price going down "that" significantly

I dont buy the physical copy because its cheaper (in fact i spent alot more on new than i do used) and I dont complain about having to be more because Im in Aus, I can afford it

bottom line is...its not my problem, I am a consumer and I will take what ever legal options and choice are availible to me as is my right...to you that may seem entitled but I dont see why gaming has to be "special" compared to other industrys

its sad that I cant plays games with somone in the same room as much..and its even more sad the Idea that I cant lend a freind a copy of a game...could you imagine if they took away the ability to do that with other products? DVD's. toys....

you have probably already seen it but the jimquisitions video on the topic has some good points

.

self rightious BS..perhaps? Its also kind of self rightious to shame others for doing somthing perfectly acceptable and LEGAL

but anyway Im stil not convinced digital distribution is the best thing ever for the customer...so what if the games might be cheaper? I can already get games cheap enough..not only through used but also through the sales that they do

it isnt the best thing unless everyone gets unlimited high speed internet...

and also I think your giving publishers too much credit....you bought the game, you downloaded it...then you had to delete it a while to make room for more....you want to play it again somtime later? well too bad its expired..you have to buy it again, ]

and lets not get started on "always online"

EHKOS:
Yeah...but...what about books, and movies. They don't whine like this. Or at least as much. I'm really sick of the whole subject.

Can't say much about books, but movies are different. Film makers make money off movies that are shown in theaters,then MORE money that are made off dvd/blu ray .So having people lend out movies isn't such a big deal.

Although i think it is rediculous that they are complaining about people lending games to their friends. I mean soon developpers are going to make games only work on the first console it is played on, killing the used game market and the video game rental services.

"This story is INCREDIBLY misleading. Try actually reading the datapoints.

56% of console gamers who play games do not buy them, and it includes active sharing of games in families and friends. What does this actually say? Very little actually, because there's no control for people who buy games for other people, say for example, a parent buys games for his kids to play who aren't old enough to play games. If the parent plays too and there's 3 kids, that's one paying gamer and 2 non-paying. If not, then it's 0 paying gamers and two non-paying. That skews the data A LOT.

Furthermore, THIS STORY OUTRIGHT LIES. the "85% buys a significant number of pre-owned games" is from a different population then the 44% that buy games. It includes MAC, PC, and console gamers, not console gamers. This is relevant because console games are much... easier to share in a unit.

This is even more misleading because it's directly stated that from the 44% who pay for console games, 65% of that is spent on brand new games, 23 % is on used, 12% on DLC. So a net 77% of money spent on video games is being divided up in a way that includes money going to publishers and developers.

The first point is horrible data interpretation, the second point is shameless lying or not reading the report, both are completely shameful. I guess I know not to trust escapist, gamespot actually bothered to break down the numbers in their article."

From the depths of Facebook, a man by the name of Matthew Anderson posted exactly what I was going to.

Vault101:

Draech:

Vault101:

Im still not convinced, I dont like the Idea of having less control over what I buy (PC aside, with the currnt systm, I buy a game, its mine for as long as i can keep the hardware running its not upto a server or an online service..) plus I dont see the price going down "that" significantly

I dont buy the physical copy because its cheaper (in fact i spent alot more on new than i do used) and I dont complain about having to be more because Im in Aus, I can afford it

bottom line is...its not my problem, I am a consumer and I will take what ever legal options and choice are availible to me as is my right...to you that may seem entitled but I dont see why gaming has to be "special" compared to other industrys

its sad that I cant plays games with somone in the same room as much..and its even more sad the Idea that I cant lend a freind a copy of a game...could you imagine if they took away the ability to do that with other products? DVD's. toys....

you have probably already seen it but the jimquisitions video on the topic has some good points

.

self rightious BS..perhaps? Its also kind of self rightious to shame others for doing somthing perfectly acceptable and LEGAL

but anyway Im stil not convinced digital distribution is the best thing ever for the customer...so what if the games might be cheaper? I can already get games cheap enough..not only through used but also through the sales that they do

it isnt the best thing unless everyone gets unlimited high speed internet...

and also I think your giving publishers too much credit....you bought the game, you downloaded it...then you had to delete it a while to make room for more....you want to play it again somtime later? well too bad its expired..you have to buy it again, ]

and lets not get started on "always online"

Next time qoute me. i never shamed anyone for buying used. I said they are using the system the best way they can to get the best deal. I said that people who whines when the publisher want to change the system needs to get over it. Publisher have every right to treat their product any way they want. Its the same right you hold to when you buy it and then sell it again. Dont say I did things I didn't. If you tell yourself I hate you for using the system then you have a problem.

But if you are gonna talk about problems that dont exist like "what if they turn off the services" and change the subject to always on that has nothing to do with anything i have talked about then fine we are done. Its pointless from here on out. If you got nothing relevant to what I am saying, then dont waste both our time.

Fact is the biggest hurdle is that the offline users still make out a large part of the market. As this part shrinks so will the reasons for keeping physical copies. The full digital distribution will ruin your trade in, but give you cheaper better games. I see that as an overall win.

You also have to remember that if some of these people couldn't sell their old games, they couldn't buy your new games. Just drop the game prizes already and you'll sell a lot more!

I don't understand the used game hate. Video games have been fine for decades allowing used game sales. Not to mention other industries like books or videos are able to survive when people buy used and can pass one copy around a circle of friends.

Does a used game sale directly translate to a new sale lost anyway? For many cash strapped gamers it's not a choice between new or used but used or nothing.

However, I don't see the point in getting used games often since it's usually only about $5 off the price of a new game, which I don't see as enough to justify the risk of getting a scratched disk or missing manual or whatever else.

The sad part about stories like this is you can see publisher execs looking at them and working on ways to "recapture the lost consumer revenue." Expect to see a strong push in the future for PC-style cd-keys and licensing on consoles, where your games are linked to you PSN/XBL account, and if you sit down to play some Gears Co-op with a buddy he will need to pay $60 first.

The problem is that the game industry cranks out a lot of garbage which it consistently over-values. They should focus on making fewer games at higher quality, rather than sneakier and sneakier ways to bilk people out of more money. The second-hand game market only thrives because consumers don't feel most games are worth $60. Drop the price to the $30-$40 range and Gamestop would basically go out of business.

Draech:
I see that as an overall win.

Annnnd people like I do not. Firstly, if you buy a bad game, you have no legal redress of grievances under Digital Distribution. Secondly, they can shut of your service at any time if you break one of their rules. Do you really trust people like EA to not make mistakes? A person could loose their entire collection due to clerical error. Thirdly, suppose we get another attack by some group, and the servers go down. Without physical copies, no one can download any games. Further, you're being too trusting of these businesses. They won't slash prices across the board by any significant means. They'll come up with something else to blame. They always have. In addition, think about how much memory this would take. People couldn't easily amass large collections. And that's a problem for some people. For me, I vastly prefer physical mediums. Because under Digital Distribution, they can get away with ignoring consumer rights.

Publishers pushed for consoles because they didn't have as much of a problem with piracy. They did, however, have to deal with a legal second hand market. Now they are trying to trick gamers into thinking that they don't and can't own games. There is no crisis of money. Publishers are still making money. Hell, gaming is such a profitable business, despite it being more niche than movies.

So the problem is Gamestop. OK, then.

In short, and accepting the article at face value.

'56% of gamers don't buy new games'
'Games industry is making a profit'
'Therefore 44% is enough'
'Shut the hell up games industry'

Misleading article title is Misleading! The author should be ashamed.

CM156:

Draech:
I see that as an overall win.

Annnnd people like I do not. Firstly, if you buy a bad game, you have no legal redress of grievances under Digital Distribution. Secondly, they can shut of your service at any time if you break one of their rules. Do you really trust people like EA to not make mistakes? A person could loose their entire collection due to clerical error. Thirdly, suppose we get another attack by some group, and the servers go down. Without physical copies, no one can download any games. Further, you're being too trusting of these businesses. They won't slash prices across the board by any significant means. They'll come up with something else to blame. They always have. In addition, think about how much memory this would take. People couldn't easily amass large collections. And that's a problem for some people. For me, I vastly prefer physical mediums. Because under Digital Distribution, they can get away with ignoring consumer rights.

Publishers pushed for consoles because they didn't have as much of a problem with piracy. They did, however, have to deal with a legal second hand market. Now they are trying to trick gamers into thinking that they don't and can't own games. There is no crisis of money. Publishers are still making money. Hell, gaming is such a profitable business, despite it being more niche than movies.

Ok ill try to break that down individually.

There is so much here that I am going to need to.

CM156:
Firstly, if you buy a bad game, you have no legal redress of grievances under Digital Distribution.

Now thats just passing the Turd on. It wont give them any feedback on whether or not a feature was bad. More importantly if that is your reasoning that means all games that get sold used are bad, and we know that is a lie. Jim made that mistake and people ate it raw.

CM156:
Secondly, they can shut of your service at any time if you break one of their rules. Do you really trust people like EA to not make mistakes? A person could loose their entire collection due to clerical error.

Yes they could. They could shut down the service and go laughing "HAHAHAHA we got your money and you got nothing". The thing is they could by that logic leave empty CD's in the cases. This is an absurd reasoning. You might have it in your skull that its us VS them but you cant run a business very long like that. You are overly emotionally involved with this. Change EA to Valve and see if your own argument carries as much weight to you as it did when you said it with EA.

CM156:
Thirdly, suppose we get another attack by some group, and the servers go down. Without physical copies, no one can download any games.

Yeah this is just hyperbole. If you really believe this then give up your electricity, your cellphone and your running water. Fact is you accept this anywhere else than here. Those service are as vulnerable to attacks as a games distribution. If you think they are less vulnerable and that why you accept them, then its just a case of increasing the safety to an equal point.

CM156:
Further, you're being too trusting of these businesses. They won't slash prices across the board by any significant means. They'll come up with something else to blame. They always have.

No they havn't always. See Irridium. He links some very nice articles of Gabe Newel taking about how lowering game prices will increases revenue. Not to mention all the different games experimenting with payment methods. Lowering you prices to stay competitive isn't a new concept. You really need to get over this "us VS them" mentality.

CM156:
In addition, think about how much memory this would take. People couldn't easily amass large collections. And that's a problem for some people.

Now this is a valid concern, but one time will fix very quickly. Moore's Law has been fairly accurate on this so far. Now I might have given the picture that I expected this to happen overnight. That is my mistake. I am thinking through one console generations we would have the hardware to solve that problem. If the hardware was build with this in mind then it should be no problem at all. Before this consoles didn't even have Harddisks making my suggestions completely impossible a generation ago. Now? not so much.

CM156:
For me, I vastly prefer physical mediums. Because under Digital Distribution, they can get away with ignoring consumer rights.

no....
Just no. Neither legally or financially can they get away with ignoring consumer rights. The problem is that people seem to think consumer rights means that "the consumer is always right". People are still being dragged to court for this stuff. More importantly in the market we have now there will be 4 competitors ready to take your customers if you dont keep them. Again this hyperbole Us VS them you got going. It just isn't true.

CM156:
Publishers pushed for consoles because they didn't have as much of a problem with piracy. They did, however, have to deal with a legal second hand market. Now they are trying to trick gamers into thinking that they don't and can't own games. There is no crisis of money. Publishers are still making money. Hell, gaming is such a profitable business, despite it being more niche than movies.

Now that is just misinformation. Games are a riskier business than and bigger than movies. More money goes through the gaming industry than Movies and music combined (I would rephrase that, but I cant find the english word for "omsætning"). The media might portray gaming as "nieche" but fact is the gaming industry pays more people.
Even thou it is this big, only 1 in 4 projects will turn a profit and the average time anyone works in this industry is 5 years (admittedly there are some none financial factors in. People will leave the industry for other reasons than financial). This is a risky business. Dont take that the big boys like EA and Activision are turning a profit as fact that the industry is swimming in cash. Studios are cut at regular basis to keep them having that profit.

This is why I didn't like the Jimqisition. No1 went and looked at this stuff. Just stirred up a rage with emotional bullshit and misinformation. Everyone leaves a little worse informed.

As a last note. If you have intentions of quoting me again please qoute the whole thing. I dont like quote-mining

I only buy used If the game is over average AAA launch date price or hilariously out of print.

Draech:
Snip for size

In order of points: No. I never said that all games sold second-hand were bad. But I did notice that quite a few games that are good or people value more are held onto longer. I stood in a Gamestop one day for half an hour one day while my brother looked at games. Three people came in, during that time, to trade in Call of Jaures The Cartel. I asked the manager, and he said they were gettin quite a few copies. Two of the dudes traded it in to buy a new game, in fact.

I have heard complaints about people losing their steam account and getting stonewalled by valve as to why. However, if I buy a physical disk, they cannot do that.

Fair point. However, if those other things get shut down, they have a redundancy in place. Will they have one with gaming? I don't know.

I'm not going Us Vs Them. But it is a real issue about consumer rights.

There's still the problem that there's a lower upper-limit on what can be stored on the console then. Unless we get huge-ass consoles.

My mistake in wording. I mean that consumer rights are different for a product (Which games are now) and a service (Which you are advocating they be)

If only 1/4 projects makes money, how the hell is the industry making money? I'd also like to see a source on that, if you don't mind. Further, if that's the case, perhaps the industry should be making fewer games?

However, I think I can consolidate our differences. Have you taken macroeconomics? If you have a heterodox professor, they may talk about Economic paradigms. It's basically what you look at. A feminist economic paradigm will be more concerned with gender equality than a Keynsian or GE economist. I'm looking at second hand sales as an issue of consumer rights. That is my paradigm. You're looking at it from a view of potential improvement. That's you paradigm. I value consumer rights more, so that's why I think what I do.

CM156:

Draech:
Snip for size

In order of points: No. I never said that all games sold second-hand were bad. But I did notice that quite a few games that are good or people value more are held onto longer. I stood in a Gamestop one day for half an hour one day while my brother looked at games. Three people came in, during that time, to trade in Call of Jaures The Cartel. I asked the manager, and he said they were gettin quite a few copies. Two of the dudes traded it in to buy a new game, in fact.

I have heard complaints about people losing their steam account and getting stonewalled by valve as to why. However, if I buy a physical disk, they cannot do that.

Fair point. However, if those other things get shut down, they have a redundancy in place. Will they have one with gaming? I don't know.

I'm not going Us Vs Them. But it is a real issue about consumer rights.

There's still the problem that there's a lower upper-limit on what can be stored on the console then. Unless we get huge-ass consoles.

My mistake in wording. I mean that consumer rights are different for a product (Which games are now) and a service (Which you are advocating they be)

If only 1/4 projects makes money, how the hell is the industry making money? I'd also like to see a source on that, if you don't mind. Further, if that's the case, perhaps the industry should be making fewer games?

However, I think I can consolidate our differences. Have you taken macroeconomics? If you have a heterodox professor, they may talk about Economic paradigms. It's basically what you look at. A feminist economic paradigm will be more concerned with gender equality than a Keynsian or GE economist. I'm looking at second hand sales as an issue of consumer rights. That is my paradigm. You're looking at it from a view of potential improvement. That's you paradigm. I value consumer rights more, so that's why I think what I do.

I want to go a little into some of the first points you, but not to much because I also think we can consolidate our differences.

Now your Valve stonewall example is anecdotal evidence, but its not something ill hold against you since it seems perfectly reasonable. However you make the mistake that this cant happen in physical Media. May I remind you of the episodes of scratched Halo 2 Cds. We can be screwed either way.

On the consoles part. Now this is just making a method with a an account like steam where games can be downloaded on a rolling basis. I cant have every game I own on steam on my computer at the same time, doesn't make steam a bad idea. The real problem is going to be supply the offline market with digital distribution. I was thinking if the next generation of console had a Dongle type device it could work as a middle ground for you to get your games down from hub areas (maybe at your gaming store) or to take with you to play your games on others consoles.

Now I have looked after the source for the 1/4 statement and its embarrassing I cant find it. I know it is somewhere on http://www.gamesindustry.biz/ but I cant for the love of god find it. It isn't that counter intuitive thou. You rarely hear about the failed projects. Thats probably why they fail. Lot of games just manage to break even. Games like Heavy Rain and Bulletstorm fall in this category. Thou since I cant provide you with the direct source I dont blame you for not believing me.

Now on the last part.
No I havn't taken any courses in Economics, but I do understand what you are getting at.

The problem is thou I dont think we have a Right to Buy. The owner has a right to sell. We cannot force the owner to give up ownership. We should ofc make sure we get the best deals possible, but with the state of digital distribution I do not see a problem in it. It is my main source for buying games and I am quite happy with the services and pricing it provides. If giving up the idea of ownership leaves me with more entertainment per dollar I a for it all the way.

... Give me a reason to buy games new then I will "the batman game or fall out new vegas helped" but not everyone will buy a game brand spanking new day one. It is better to wait for reviews to come in and weigh in before making a decision like that. I do agree that this is misleading and dlc or expansions do make up the profit loss or what would be the profit loss but hell I still lend games out to my friends and vice versa "i own over or near 1000 games total".

wow, I never realized there was so much money to be made with DLC.

This may be slightly off topic, but to my experience, lending games to others is not the way to go. Out of the four games I've lent to others in the past year, two never came back, and one came back scratched.
Also, the title of this thread makes the matter sound like a bigger deal than it actually is.

I think if a lot of the games coming out these days didn't suck and weren't so overly priced in a hurting economy, maybe more people would buy them. I hardly touch new games anymore, save for a few gems like Saints Row 2 and Ghost Trick. I typically play old games via the consoles that still work or emulation when they don't. Well, that and PC games I get from Good Old Gamers, which you probably won't hear about in that kind of article, cause most of those games are quite old.

I buy new games if they do come with some bonus (e.g. Arkham City's Catwoman) or if I just think the game is going to be good enough that I should give the publisher and developer my money, instead of giving it to the used games retailer (thus, for instance, I'm buying Mass Effect 3 new).

I have no problem with day-one DLC or Online Passes; I understand that used game sales don't give a penny to the people who actually MADE the game, and it's not as if you MUST buy the DLC or the Online Pass to play the game.

A bit of commentary.

Draech:
Yes they could. They could shut down the service and go laughing "HAHAHAHA we got your money and you got nothing". The thing is they could by that logic leave empty CD's in the cases. This is an absurd reasoning. You might have it in your skull that its us VS them but you cant run a business very long like that.

It isn't completely absurd; just partly.
Lets just state the obvious: if anyone can get something valuable for nothing, they would do it every single time. If EA believed that it was time to make their last big wad of cash, then pack their bags and go home, they could swindle hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of people and get away scot-free.

But that isn't the whole story here; if Demand decreases as a result of protest, then Supply will be forced to change. Conversely, if Supply under-prices their goods, the Tragedy of the Commons kicks in, and Supply ultimately shrivels up and dies.

So it's up to Demand to keep Supply's pricing schemes under control, as much as it's up to Supply to limit availability so production doesn't shrivel up. So yes, in a sense it IS Us Vs Them, but it's competition designed to let economics overcome potential hazards/pitfalls and to keep things moving in the long-run.

When Supply starts unilaterally dictating what Demand should do, it destabilizes the process and leads to a crash down the line. EA *could* milk their customers for cash one last time, then pack their bags and cash out, and there wouldn't be a single thing their customers could do about it.

They wouldn't work in the business again, but they would have made a ton of money. However, I'd like to think that EA is in it for the long haul.

no....
Just no. Neither legally or financially can they get away with ignoring consumer rights. The problem is that people seem to think consumer rights means that "the consumer is always right". People are still being dragged to court for this stuff. More importantly in the market we have now there will be 4 competitors ready to take your customers if you dont keep them. Again this hyperbole Us VS them you got going. It just isn't true.

Oh yes they can. From their perspective, "consumers should only have the rights WE define for them; which is as few as possible". This is a game of control with them. They test our willingness to throw away bargaining in exchange for access to the good.

Economic law would sort EA out in a heartbeat, if not for two facts:
1) Most gamers (or potential customers) are completely ignorant of what they've given up by using Origin.
2) EA is going to flex their natural monopoly power at some point (tangentially, this is why I find it a bit silly to compare Origin and Steam directly. Steam doesn't own the products they sell. However, EA owns everything they sell on Origin. Economically, that's a HUGE difference.)

Monopolies have a bad habit of overpricing their goods because they get TOO greedy. The irony is that most monopolies would be more profitable if they priced even a bit lower.

However, most businesses with virtual/natural monopolies are content with those profits, so they leave them in place as long as it doesn't cripple them, and focus on maintaining their monopoly instead. The severance of consumer rights is a definitive first step in that direction, like it or not.

Now, don't construe my argument to mean that customers should work/compete towards the destruction of these publishers or the market in general. That ultimately serves nobody.
However, it's our job (as Demand) to keep them accountable, and to let them know when they've gone too far, not only so we can get the games we so selfishly want, but it keeps THEM in business for longer.

It's "us vs them", but again, it's not intended to be a purely destructive relationship; just one of adjustment.

Atmos Duality:
A bit of commentary.

Draech:
Yes they could. They could shut down the service and go laughing "HAHAHAHA we got your money and you got nothing". The thing is they could by that logic leave empty CD's in the cases. This is an absurd reasoning. You might have it in your skull that its us VS them but you cant run a business very long like that.

It isn't completely absurd; just partly.
Lets just state the obvious: if anyone can get something valuable for nothing, they would do it every single time. If EA believed that it was time to make their last big wad of cash, then pack their bags and go home, they could swindle hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of people and get away scot-free.

But that isn't the whole story here; if Demand decreases as a result of protest, then Supply will be forced to change. Conversely, if Supply under-prices their goods, the Tragedy of the Commons kicks in, and Supply ultimately shrivels up and dies.

So it's up to Demand to keep Supply's pricing schemes under control, as much as it's up to Supply to limit availability so production doesn't shrivel up. So yes, in a sense it IS Us Vs Them, but it's competition designed to let economics overcome potential hazards/pitfalls and to keep things moving in the long-run.

When Supply starts unilaterally dictating what Demand should do, it destabilizes the process and leads to a crash down the line. EA *could* milk their customers for cash one last time, then pack their bags and cash out, and there wouldn't be a single thing their customers could do about it.

They wouldn't work in the business again, but they would have made a ton of money. However, I'd like to think that EA is in it for the long haul.

no....
Just no. Neither legally or financially can they get away with ignoring consumer rights. The problem is that people seem to think consumer rights means that "the consumer is always right". People are still being dragged to court for this stuff. More importantly in the market we have now there will be 4 competitors ready to take your customers if you dont keep them. Again this hyperbole Us VS them you got going. It just isn't true.

Oh yes they can. From their perspective, "consumers should only have the rights WE define for them; which is as few as possible". This is a game of control with them. They test our willingness to throw away bargaining in exchange for access to the good.

Economic law would sort EA out in a heartbeat, if not for two facts:
1) Most gamers (or potential customers) are completely ignorant of what they've given up by using Origin.
2) EA is going to flex their natural monopoly power at some point (tangentially, this is why I find it a bit silly to compare Origin and Steam directly. Steam doesn't own the products they sell. However, EA owns everything they sell on Origin. Economically, that's a HUGE difference.)

Monopolies have a bad habit of overpricing their goods because they get TOO greedy. The irony is that most monopolies would be more profitable if they priced even a bit lower.

However, most businesses with virtual/natural monopolies are content with those profits, so they leave them in place as long as it doesn't cripple them, and focus on maintaining their monopoly instead. The severance of consumer rights is a definitive first step in that direction, like it or not.

Now, don't construe my argument to mean that customers should work/compete towards the destruction of these publishers or the market in general. That ultimately serves nobody.
However, it's our job (as Demand) to keep them accountable, and to let them know when they've gone too far, not only so we can get the games we so selfishly want, but it keeps THEM in business for longer.

It's "us vs them", but again, it's not intended to be a purely destructive relationship; just one of adjustment.

I am not going to disagree with this because you pretty much clarified what I was trying to say.

I used the term VS because it is negative and meant as destructive.

Draech:

I am not going to disagree with this because you pretty much clarified what I was trying to say.

I used the term VS because it is negative and meant as destructive.

The only point I'd like to add/amend (couldn't because I had to run off to class) is that "destruction" (absolute rejection of a firm and intervention) should only be employed when a firm is systematically, and deliberately violating/destroying the market for any reason; be it flat-out destroying stock (or capital), extorting money in patently unnecessary or illegal ways ("shylock market") or anything more overtly drastic.

(I leave "carteling" out of the equation, because cartels have a habit of cheating themselves to death; very few that spring to my mind have stood the test of time and all of them necessity-goods)

IMO, EA's removal of consumers' rights should be grounds for strong rejection by anyone who is aware of the potential (and likely) consequences, but not outright destruction. I'd save that for if/when they start screwing people over regularly (significant proportions of the market; not just outlier incidents here and there).

Atmos Duality:

Draech:

I am not going to disagree with this because you pretty much clarified what I was trying to say.

I used the term VS because it is negative and meant as destructive.

The only point I'd like to add/amend (couldn't because I had to run off to class) is that "destruction" (absolute rejection of a firm and intervention) should only be employed when a firm is systematically, and deliberately violating/destroying the market for any reason; be it flat-out destroying stock (or capital), extorting money in patently unnecessary or illegal ways ("shylock market") or anything more overtly drastic.

(I leave "carteling" out of the equation, because cartels have a habit of cheating themselves to death; very few that spring to my mind have stood the test of time and all of them necessity-goods)

IMO, EA's removal of consumers' rights should be grounds for strong rejection by anyone who is aware of the potential (and likely) consequences, but not outright destruction. I'd save that for if/when they start screwing people over regularly (significant proportions of the market; not just outlier incidents here and there).

The thing is potential is a "What if argument" and doesn't bear much weight with me. Yeah if our product/service will be devalued or prices be inflated then ofc the situation is changed and so would my opinion on the subjects.

I dont know how far back you read, but I was more or less arguing for the advancement of digital distribution and the potential complete abolishment of physical copies because it would lower prices and remove the need for splitting resources to make things like day one DLC.

I didn't really talk about EA's removal of consumer rights.

Draech:

I dont know how far back you read, but I was more or less arguing for the advancement of digital distribution and the potential complete abolishment of physical copies because it would lower prices and remove the need for splitting resources to make things like day one DLC.

I didn't really talk about EA's removal of consumer rights.

Don't worry; the topics are closely related.

Digital distribution is basically going to take over the majority of the market in the future (assuming no horrific crashes or such).
However, full-on digital distribution has inevitable and dire consequences for the consumer if we can't hammer out some sort of ground rules/rights now, because full-distribution requires DRM to be effective, and the sort the publishers want to push is Always-Online DRM.

Add to that the fact that we've seen the first signs of some truly ridiculous terms in their agreements (do I even have to bring up the Origin EULA?), and the legitimate customer starts to get jacked.

Basically, this boils down to two things:
1) The publishers want to push for proprietary all-digital distribution SERVICE so they can flex their their Natural Monopoly power. Because it's a Natural Monopoly, prices will not likely drop.
2) They want to take all market control from the consumer, and boil it down to a "Do or Die/Take it or Leave it" system enforced by Hardline DRM. Games will become services that can be terminated AT WILL by the Publisher, and consumers will have no recourse but to not do business with them.

Physical copies, by simple logic, are essentially immune to the DRM and instant-termination clauses. This provides the consumer security in their transaction. Online also can (as Steam has) but my prediction suggests that the publishers aren't as interested in making their customers happy.

Why entice when you can FORCE.

Now you are pushing Hyperbole stuff. The must successful of all digital distribution doesn't have always on DRM.

Atmos Duality:

Draech:

I dont know how far back you read, but I was more or less arguing for the advancement of digital distribution and the potential complete abolishment of physical copies because it would lower prices and remove the need for splitting resources to make things like day one DLC.

I didn't really talk about EA's removal of consumer rights.

Don't worry; the topics are closely related.

Digital distribution is basically going to take over the majority of the market in the future (assuming no horrific crashes or such).
However, full-on digital distribution has inevitable and dire consequences for the consumer if we can't hammer out some sort of ground rules/rights now, because full-distribution requires DRM to be effective, and the sort the publishers want to push is Always-Online DRM.

Add to that the fact that we've seen the first signs of some truly ridiculous terms in their agreements (do I even have to bring up the Origin EULA?), and the legitimate customer starts to get jacked.

Basically, this boils down to two things:
1) The publishers want to push for proprietary all-digital distribution SERVICE so they can flex their their Natural Monopoly power. Because it's a Natural Monopoly, prices will not likely drop.
2) They want to take all market control from the consumer, and boil it down to a "Do or Die/Take it or Leave it" system enforced by Hardline DRM. Games will become services that can be terminated AT WILL by the Publisher, and consumers will have no recourse but to not do business with them.

Physical copies, by simple logic, are essentially immune to the DRM and instant-termination clauses. This provides the consumer security in their transaction. Online also can (as Steam has) but my prediction suggests that the publishers aren't as interested in making their customers happy.

Why entice when you can FORCE.

Now you are pressing on potential again. The most successful digital distributor in the business hasn't pushed the always on DRM. As a matter a fact the always on is the exception rather than the rule. I would like to see your logic to why it would become the standard. it may boil down to a take it or leave it standard, but its the publishers are well aware that many customers would for a fact leave it. That is one of the thing that is holding digital distribution back at the moment.

Secondly there is no monopoly. Even with full digital distribution, the companies will have to compete amongst themselves. I may misunderstand what you mean, but the only competitor full digital distribution will remove is the second hand market. At the end of the day prices has to stay competitive with other publishers.

Now on the EA origins Eula.
I am willing to say some of it was incompetence and general lack of goodwill towards the EA side that made this into a bigger problem than it were. The original intent for origin to scan your PC for other EA product and then add them automatic to your steam account. Now should they have added this? No because it is an invasion of privacy. But it was blown out of proportion by people being iron clad sure that "EA wants to take over your PC", when what it really was was a misguided attempt of getting users to give up privacy in exchange for service.

I really tire of people referring to it. Especially now it has been changed.

Draech:
Now you are pushing Hyperbole stuff. The must successful of all digital distribution doesn't have always on DRM.

You ignore the fact that Steam does not own the copyright to most of the games they distribute. Steam will flourish as it does now so long as developers and publishers are willing to license their property to them.

EA pulled out of Steam not due to any sort of "unfair" business agreement (as they claimed), but simply because they could finally cut them out as a middleman and increase their revenue per sale by selling AT RETAIL PRICES, without actually paying the difference that goes with distributing via retail.

This is an important distinction.

Now you are pressing on potential again.

Lacking the ability to see the future, I can only speak of potentials.

Secondly there is no monopoly. Even with full digital distribution, the companies will have to compete amongst themselves. I may misunderstand what you mean, but the only competitor full digital distribution will remove is the second hand market. At the end of the day prices has to stay competitive with other publishers.

I apologize for the lack of clarity on my part here, but digital goods fall under the type "Natural Monopoly". They are excludable, and non-rival goods. I used an economical term here when it had an ambiguous meaning. Sorry.

EA still has to compete with other game companies, yes. But what I mean is that they will become the sole distributor, which in turn decreases the need to compete for their customer's business.

Before, when games were treated as products, we could apply market practices that could benefit consumers (as a result of competition). With purely proprietary digital distribution, the consumer will pay whatever price the publisher wants, just like a monopoly.

Steam competes with other online distribution services, and contrary to what many claim, other retailers. Again, Steam is heavily reliant on other publishers/developers for its business. They still have their inhouse/core games to fall back on, but Steam would be nowhere near as successful as it is today without that support.

Now on the EA origins Eula.
I am willing to say some of it was incompetence and general lack of goodwill towards the EA side that made this into a bigger problem than it were. The original intent for origin to scan your PC for other EA product and then add them automatic to your steam account. Now should they have added this? No because it is an invasion of privacy. But it was blown out of proportion by people being iron clad sure that "EA wants to take over your PC", when what it really was was a misguided attempt of getting users to give up privacy in exchange for service.

The original intention was made clear as day. EA flat out said in the original draft of their EULA (and more subtly in their current draft) that they were going to gather marketing data on you from your computer, and either use it, share it, or sell it to "approved business partners/affiliates", which basically means anyone they do business with.

What is the benefit to the customer? Very little compared to the benefits to EA. Miniscule.
Maybe better technical support. MAYBE.

In fact, Origin's EULA is still far too vaguely worded on what they request access to. I've addressed this repeatedly in other topics on the subject. I'll provide a summary below.

I really tire of people referring to it. Especially now it has been changed.

Their EULA as *currently worded* states that they will scan for "information on....software, AND software usage..." individually. "Software" as worded, legally means ANYTHING ON YOUR HARD DRIVE.

NOT "EA's installed software", nor "competitor's software" or even "frequently used software", but just "software", with an implicit general definition. And if you don't agree to that, they could legally terminate the agreement, and lock you out of the games you paid for.

I must emphasize, there is not ONE exaggeration in what I said here. No hyperbole.
Can you see why I take this matter so seriously?

Atmos Duality:

Draech:
Now you are pushing Hyperbole stuff. The must successful of all digital distribution doesn't have always on DRM.

You ignore the fact that Steam does not own the copyright to most of the games they distribute. Steam will flourish as it does now so long as developers and publishers are willing to license their property to them.

EA pulled out of Steam not due to any sort of "unfair" business agreement (as they claimed), but simply because they could finally cut them out as a middleman and increase their revenue per sale by selling AT RETAIL PRICES, without actually paying the difference that goes with distributing via retail.

This is an important distinction.

You are going "Claimed". I would like to know the source that made clear that they were lying. You say they did it to cut out the middleman, but I would like to know where that info is from. So far every source I have found has repeated the "claim".

Atmos Duality:

Secondly there is no monopoly. Even with full digital distribution, the companies will have to compete amongst themselves. I may misunderstand what you mean, but the only competitor full digital distribution will remove is the second hand market. At the end of the day prices has to stay competitive with other publishers.

I apologize for the lack of clarity on my part here, but digital goods fall under the type "Natural Monopoly". They are excludable, and non-rival goods. I used an economical term here when it had an ambiguous meaning. Sorry.

EA still has to compete with other game companies, yes. But what I mean is that they will become the sole distributor, which in turn decreases the need to compete for their customer's business.

Before, when games were treated as products, we could apply market practices that could benefit consumers (as a result of competition). With purely proprietary digital distribution, the consumer will pay whatever price the publisher wants, just like a monopoly.

Steam competes with other online distribution services, and contrary to what many claim, other retailers. Again, Steam is heavily reliant on other publishers/developers for its business. They still have their inhouse/core games to fall back on, but Steam would be nowhere near as successful as it is today without that support.

Now again I am going to have you clarify. It doesn't change anything that they go digital. They still have to compete with rival publishers. That they control the distribution makes no difference since they cant control rival distribution. They cannot inflate prices if the competition lowers prices (and competitors do all the time).

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here