Latest Ubisoft DRM measure - all SP saves stored on a cloud server - by EvaUnit02
heywood on 4/3/2010 at 02:36
Take 2 copies of Thief selling new for $50. Copy A gets sold to a TTLG'er who keeps it and plays it ten times over a decade. Copy B gets sold to casual gamer who plays it once and sells it to another casual gamer who plays it once and sells it to another casual gamer who plays it once and then it's obsolete and gets tossed in the trash. I don't see what's wrong with either scenario. The buyer of Copy A is out $50 but gets his/her money's worth through multiple playings. The multiple buyers of Copy B are spending considerably less but only enjoying a single play.
If publishers want to change their pricing model to pay-for-play, they are free to do that. But they won't because the unit price they can get for a single play is too low - probably on the order of a game rental charge. The movie industry tried to push a pay-for-play version of DVD called DIVX (not to be confused with DivX) about 10 years ago and it bombed. So they stuck with DVD which had no restrictions on replay or resale, and made a killing from it.
Phatose on 4/3/2010 at 04:50
From the publisher's viewpoint, the first sale created 1 sales worth of profit and reduced demand by 1 sale. The second created 1 sales worth of profit, but reduced demand by multiple sales. The former is simply much more valuable then the latter.
At any rate, they won't adopt a pay to play model, not any time soon. They will, however, broadly adopt the Bioware tactic of large amounts of Day 1 DLC, free with a new purchase but non-transferable.
Edit: That is, of course, primarily for the consoles. The used PC games market is simply not large enough to be a major consideration, especially when it ends up being covered by anti-piracy techniques.
mothra on 4/3/2010 at 08:12
funny thing: a torrent + working crack was released for AC2 PC yesterday before its release (silent hunter5 has been cracked as well) and ubisoft releases the first AC2 pc patch at the same time altering the DRM to pick off the game where you left it.
heywood on 4/3/2010 at 15:46
Quote Posted by Phatose
From the publisher's viewpoint, the first sale created 1 sales worth of profit and reduced demand by 1 sale. The second created 1 sales worth of profit, but reduced demand by multiple sales. The former is simply much more valuable then the latter.
No, because the demand is not static. The demand is inversely related to the price and the time since release. The buyer of copy A was willing to pay $50. The three buyers of copy B were willing to pay less. Suppose the first buyer buys it for $50 and sells it on eBay for $20 and the second buyer sells it on eBay for $10. For the first buyer of copy B, it was worth $30 to play the game at release. If the game could not be resold, then that buyer would have waited for a price reduction. And since the game would be older by the time its price was reduced, it would be less valuable to that buyer, say $20 instead of $30. The two other buyers of copy B would have waited until the game hit the bargain bin and spent $10 each. In this hypothetical example, the publisher makes less money total in 3 sales without the used market than it makes in 1 sale with the used market. Depending on where the publisher sets their prices over time and how popular the game turns out to be, they might make more or less than that, but it's nowhere near 3x the full price at release.
Let's bring in the car analogy again. The Honda Accord sells well in the US despite being priced higher than its competition. One of the big reasons why is resale value. A lot of the people who buy new Accords drive them for 3 or 4 years and 60-80k miles and then get something newer. The more the car holds its value, the more they're willing to pay new. That's why Honda can charge several $k more for an Accord than Ford can get for a Fusion. The point I'm making here is that demand in the used market inflates demand in the new market, and if Honda were to act to thwart the used market, they would drive down demand for their cars in the new market.
Same thing for video games, especially console titles. If publishers take away the ability to re-sell games, they're going to decrease demand for their product at the full release price. The potential for increased demand later in the bargain bins may not make up for that.
Nameless Voice on 4/3/2010 at 15:55
That still doesn't change the fact that if you really like a game, you should want to support the developers by buying it new.
I just wish there was a way to buy from the developers directly, skipping out on the publishers and resellers.
CCCToad on 4/3/2010 at 16:38
apparently, the Silent Hunter 5 DRM has already been cracked.
heywood on 4/3/2010 at 16:45
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
That still doesn't change the fact that if you really like a game, you should want to support the developers by buying it new.
Depends on what you mean by really liking a game. I paid full price for STALKER when it came out even though I knew it was going to be while before I'd get around to playing it. Part of that decision was wanting a new, ambitious, PC oriented developer to succeed. I try to similarly support Valve. But that's about it. When I'm ready to play BS2 I have no qualms about picking it up used if it's cheaper than it's selling for new. For the reasons I stated above, I don't feel like I'm cheating them by buying used any more than I would be cheating a car manufacturer by buying used.
Quote:
I just wish there was a way to buy from the developers directly, skipping out on the publishers and resellers.
I think the closest you can get to that is Steam, especially for Valve titles.
What I wish for is a way to provide follow-on monetary support to developers for supporting the mod community. I've personally gotten way more value from my purchases of SS2 and DX1 through countless replays and mods than the original purchase price. I wish the developers of these games were rewarded for their long term popularity even though they weren't blockbusters at release. That's what would get more of these games made.
Nameless Voice on 4/3/2010 at 17:02
Quote Posted by heywood
I think the closest you can get to that is Steam, especially for Valve titles.
I haven't used Steam myself, though I guess in theory it goes something in that direction, and I do seem to recall reading somewhere that a larger percentage of the price goes to the developers than via more conventional methods. They most certainly still take a nice cut of the profits, though. And I kind of like boxes and manuals for games I buy.
Quote Posted by heywood
What I wish for is a way to provide follow-on monetary support to developers for supporting the mod community. I've personally gotten way more value from my purchases of SS2 and DX1 through countless replays and mods than the original purchase price.
Unfortunately, the developers of both games no longer exist.
(... um, in theory Irrational still exist but I refuse to acknowledge their continued existence.)
Chade on 4/3/2010 at 22:15
Quote Posted by heywood
No, because the demand is not static. The demand is inversely related to the price and the time since release. The buyer of copy A was willing to pay $50. The three buyers of copy B were willing to pay less. Suppose the first buyer buys it for $50 and sells it on eBay for $20 and the second buyer sells it on eBay for $10 ...
The trouble is that the owner devalues his games faster then the market does.
What interests me is why you don't get these problems with books and movies. Or perhaps you do, in which case I wonder why those industries don't go to such efforts to stop it.
Phatose on 4/3/2010 at 23:11
I'd expect for movies and books the reason is the lower base cost. A new movie is $20, so you'll get maybe $8 back if you're lucky. Less of a motivator for someone to actually bring it in to trade in, less motivation for a store to devote the shelf space to it as well.
