What rights are taken away? You never owned the game to begin with.
Last edited:
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Why do we care about "devaluing games" when it comes to subscription services like Game Pass, but not with used game sales?
- Thread starter Deleted member 58846
- Start date
What rights are taken away? You never owned the game to begin with.
I agree with both of these posts and think they can naturally coexist.
The notion that everybody was making money before streaming come sweeping the music industry is very amusing.
Before the streaming, almost nobody was able to make or afford jack shit with music. The money only flowed to a very small and select group of bands/artists who were luck enough to sign good contracts. If anything, streaming (and the internet) made the industry way more profitable, visible, open and acessible to a wider audience of consumers and creators.
First, subscriptions have absolutely devalued the money content-makers could make in other industries. The film industry, prior to WW markets becoming a big factor, were seeing lowered overall sales thanks to the shredding of revenue that physical media provided. Its crazy to think about in a post-Netflix world but DVDs & Blu-Ray sales were a big revenue stream for these companies. Music is another industry who had their entire profit model basically upended with the way music streaming impacted things like album sales & such.
However, more to your specific argument - used games *were* perceived as a devaluation effort for games. But there are 2 ways to perceive used games - the business side, and the consumer side. On the business side, they weren't seeing a cent from used game sales. Gamestop had an okay argument in that trade-ins were going towards new-game sales, but the mileage of that argument was never fully measured. On the consumer side, they were seeing deals on new games that never really got deals for a long time.
Both of these issues were rectified this generation in that the shift of new games sales went from sub-20% at the start of the generation, to over 50% of all game sales at the end of the generation. And consumers started finding less value in used games when publishers decided to start marking off digital games far, far earlier than they ever used to in product lifecycles.
The greater issue that you didn't bring up is the disparity in devaluation - when a consumer bought a used game, they were still paying upwards of 80-90% of the game's full retail cost. Consumers weren't measuring the value of a game versus its asking price compared to another game, simply on pure asking price cause they were all more or less in line. With subs now, a consumer has to decide between spending as low as a $1 a month, or $60 on another game. The disparity there is huge. And as far as we know, there is no data to suggest that lost revenue is being made up anywhere.
However, more to your specific argument - used games *were* perceived as a devaluation effort for games. But there are 2 ways to perceive used games - the business side, and the consumer side. On the business side, they weren't seeing a cent from used game sales. Gamestop had an okay argument in that trade-ins were going towards new-game sales, but the mileage of that argument was never fully measured. On the consumer side, they were seeing deals on new games that never really got deals for a long time.
Both of these issues were rectified this generation in that the shift of new games sales went from sub-20% at the start of the generation, to over 50% of all game sales at the end of the generation. And consumers started finding less value in used games when publishers decided to start marking off digital games far, far earlier than they ever used to in product lifecycles.
The greater issue that you didn't bring up is the disparity in devaluation - when a consumer bought a used game, they were still paying upwards of 80-90% of the game's full retail cost. Consumers weren't measuring the value of a game versus its asking price compared to another game, simply on pure asking price cause they were all more or less in line. With subs now, a consumer has to decide between spending as low as a $1 a month, or $60 on another game. The disparity there is huge. And as far as we know, there is no data to suggest that lost revenue is being made up anywhere.
First of all generally I think it mainly is a fanboy argument, Sony's subscription service has exactly the same model but never gets mentioned in the same terms as Gamepass.
Publishers aren't devaluing games 'out of the gate' generally third party games go onto subscription services after the initial sales window. At a time when the pub is making minimal additional revenue from their initial release, the idea of devaluation here makes no sense when when the revenue being generated is close to zero.
Publishers aren't devaluing games 'out of the gate' generally third party games go onto subscription services after the initial sales window. At a time when the pub is making minimal additional revenue from their initial release, the idea of devaluation here makes no sense when when the revenue being generated is close to zero.
OP
OP
Friend, assuming I am ignorant, which I would freely admit to vis-a-vis the music industry (though my understanding is the devaluation came from piracy years before streaming was a thing), the appropriate response would be to help me understand (as several people have done) rather than talk about how frustratingly ignorant I am.
I remember buying TV series on DVD for like 50€ for a season. I can watch multiple series simultaneously these days for a fifth of that cost. Same with music.
You're conflating streaming with the internet as a whole. The internet is fucking great and has completely democratized music making, yes, but there was a good decade between iTunes becoming a thing and streaming becoming the standard way to listen to music. Spotify in particular completely undersells everyone's music with their pricing models and funnels most of the revenue towards major label artists.
But that's not a) the market price, which you said before is what we are talking about, and b) the thing that actually matters to anyone.
Lmao @ thinking vinyl sales are making up for the physical sales lost with the transition to digital subscription services. And that's your entire premise. What a fucking poorly thought out thread.
Marketing will still work as well as it's always had in the real world. Users will be as exposed as they've ever been. Discoverability won't change.
Unless you're making the assertion that MS will punitively demarket indies that aren't on Gamepass.
OP
OP
It's not my entire premise. Read.
Jesus, people on this site are in a constant state of hostile antagonism.
Netflix might have devalued movies but we get way more prestige pieces that wouldn't see the light of day on cable or in theaters as subscription services try to differentiate themselves. I hope the same is true for videogames. At the least, Stadia represents another platform for studios like Platinum to possibly secure some exclusive work.
Your entire premise hinges on the idea that "we haven't seen content devaluation in other industries!" which is bullshit. You state it as a fact and work from there to try and paint your narrative, never bothering to reinforce or backup your claim.
OP
OP
My premise is that devaluation is leveled at one instance of customer value but not the other, and an attempt to understand why.
Piracy actually had net-benefits that the music industry even admitted to - piracy had a zero-cost barrier of entry for music, which would in turn become potential new fans and album sales. Before you go off and try to map this 1:1 for games, understand that there is no sales data to suggest this is happening, and there is sales data to suggest that *fewer* games are being sold, or rather, that smaller amounts of revenue is being generated than prior.
Streaming music basically made music a 'free' experience, which is exactly what Iwata warned about when looking at what happened with the mobile games market when '$0.00' became the expected asking price. Sub-services, on any platform mind you, can do this. If you extrapolate this logic, that means that a potential reduction in the size/scope/budget of games could be coming if the developers have to depend on a much lower revenue model (which musicians do have to), revenue models which are skewed in overwhelmingly-large favor to the subscription service owner and not any independent content makers who participate in that service.
No one in the games industry really cares about used game sales anymore because the digital-sales growth of the generation has essentially made them a non-issue. Heck, Gamestop is literally going out of business as we speak specifically because their entire business model relied on used game sales. And back when used games were a huge factor in the industry, this devaluation was ABSOLUTELY brought up by both the industry and people observing it - at the end of the PS3/360 gen, games were shipping with glorified CD keys for MP modes specifically to combat used games.
same model but with 1/10th of the Gamepass' content lol. ofc no one's gonna namedrop it
to understand why you have to understand that devaluation does exist and is leveled at other industries. Music in particular. The idea that sub services have been bad for the music industry and in particular the artists is not new.
OP
OP
Wherein the counter argument, which I have followed through on, is that the devaluation occurred before streaming thanks to piracy.
? It's got like 2x as many games as GP, but they are mostly older games. There is no "day 1" mandate
OP
OP
Thank you. This makes sense. I do agree that the data intensive and interactive nature of video games makes any 1:1 comparison between them and other media slightly difficult.
Subscription services don't take away retail sales, so this argument makes no sense.
Based on your premise, you should be railing against digital game downloads, not subscription services.
If game streaming services had a similar pay structure as music streaming services (paying publishers from a pool based on customer engagement) or were positioned as a complete replacement for all game consumption, you would see the exact same criticism.
Nobody cares about used games so much anymore. Communities like this one used to be strongly against used games as well, or at least, there was a vocal bully minority that was strongly against used games. It's not that dissimilar from the vocal bully minority that is against digital, streaming, and other newer changes to the game industry. But, to the point, it's not *that* long ago when you'd get bullied and criticized if you admitted to buying or selling used games in communities like this one.
I think most people, though, like programs like GamePass. Seems to be a much more positive response to it than negative, at least.
I haven't seen anyone make a legitimate sustained argument that programs like GamePass devalue game development, or what have you. At least, it doesn't seem like a common enough argument. Generally, I don't even think it's true, it just shifts the compensation/profit model from being at the point of sale, to spreading it around. If game developers were taking major losses on GamePass or other programs like it, their games would not be up on GamePass.
I think most people, though, like programs like GamePass. Seems to be a much more positive response to it than negative, at least.
I haven't seen anyone make a legitimate sustained argument that programs like GamePass devalue game development, or what have you. At least, it doesn't seem like a common enough argument. Generally, I don't even think it's true, it just shifts the compensation/profit model from being at the point of sale, to spreading it around. If game developers were taking major losses on GamePass or other programs like it, their games would not be up on GamePass.
Well, there might be that angle, but I mean more that some are happy to spend x on a new game knowing that they can re-sell for y - the resale value adds value to the unit, and helps generate money for future new game purchases, supporting their price. I don't know about the latest trends in the secondary market, but this was recognised in the past as a significant dynamic supporting new game sales.
Except the music industry, in many ways, also benefited from piracy. In the piracy scenario, the product evaluation (the value at which people perceived music to be worth), was not $0.00. People were still paying to own music, they just had a venue to steal it if they chose to do so.
Now, with streaming, the value perception of music *is* $0.00 - most people can listen to music for free, any song they want, any album they want. So, before, all those production people and people who worked at record companies, they would get a cut of the, oh I dunno, lets say $10-20 an album would bring in. Now? Thats $0. Cause you don't have to pay for music at all. No one working in music could get away with asking users to pay money now. THATS the devaluation people speak of.
This was the reality before the streaming. The difference is that small labels and independent artists make some money nowadays (with distribution), even if it's not much. In the past they were totally reliant on shows and word of mouth opinions. I listen to music and get to know artists to an extent that I'd never known if it wasn't for the streaming, and that lead me to buy T-shirts, tickets to gigs etc.
And the format to capitalize the music industry also has changed, which is natural, given how the market has evolved from a regional "offline" audience to become a global entertainment "online" industry.
Internet is just another tool in this process - and a wonderful one.
can you get traditional AAA games for $0? Because those are the games we're talking about. Games like Gears 5 and outer worlds being practically given away for a couple bucks.
The model of purchasing individual games creates winners, such as an individual developer that becomes an overnight millionaire, and losers such as a mid-sized studio that goes out of business.
A subscription service like Netflix is much more sustainable because revenue is much more predictable and the service can pay the developers enough for them all to make a small profit. This model requires the developers to negotiate a fair price up front and manage their business so they make the game within a reasonable budget.
A subscription service like Netflix is much more sustainable because revenue is much more predictable and the service can pay the developers enough for them all to make a small profit. This model requires the developers to negotiate a fair price up front and manage their business so they make the game within a reasonable budget.
You're objectively wrong. Stop now before you humiliate yourself further.
There were rumors earlier this year that Activision has been considering making COD F2P. So I doubt it gets much bigger than that.
It does count, though. Aftermarket is more difficult to really gauge since time is a factor in the sale ($60 new vs $55 used? I'll take the new, thanks) but it still devalues the games, not to mention buying used doesn't give money to the developer at all.
This is true, but the revenue model underpinning wasn't. During the iTunes days (or now with artists selling primarily on Bandcamp). Because Spotify's entire royalty pool is shared, it's impossible for a customer to have direct engagement with the music like they can with a direct purchase.
The rest of your post is showing the exact problem. Listening to music (the actual fucking product) has now become an advertising method for other revenue streams that haven't become completely devalued. The irony is that while you're talking about the industry being "global", most money artists are getting (assuming they aren't big playlist staples) is gonna be from offline sources like local concerts.
Leaving these here as references:
In that scenario, they would still be making their revenue through in game MTX. Not really sure what that has to do with subscription services.
The cost of game development versus other mediums, with the exception of film, is simply incompatible. Games simply cost too much to both make and maintain - the majority of games that release now are not intended to be 'completed' for months or years, with users expecting ongoing development support for a long, long time.
In large part, the reason 'premium games' have continued to evolve the way they have - targeting higher fidelity, more network intensive experiences built to scale, with production quality in music & animation that rivals some of the best film has to offer - all of this has been allowed due in large part because of the revenue model and product evaluation 'premium games' have had for as long as they have.
I'm looking forward to seeing the industry as it adjusted to the overall lower revenue that will be generated for the cost of entry; going from $60 new cost of entry to less than $5 is massive. Its literally over a 90% loss. And if that sub-revenue is to be shared amongst a myriad of developers....
they will never do this for CoD launches. Those games sell like 15 million copies in a couple months. And they also can't really go f2p months later because that will train gamers not to buy cod at launch anymore.
What? I remember people dismissing the concern for the lost of used games back when they were defending the OG XBO plan (mostly as "I don't buy used", "I don't lend/sell/exchange my games", etc) But I don't remember even a small minority being against used games.
Back in the mid to late 2000s there was a vocal minority that believed / shamed people into thinking that buying used games was stealing money from developers. It was a wild world.
WHUUUUT? JFC, I am glad I misses those times then. Like, wth!
Not traditional, but I imagine a lot of F2P games have lifetime development budgets that are easily in the AAA range.
It's tough to find original wars over stupid shit like this, but there's a good number of articles "discussing both sides" about it... it's just hilarious in retrospect. Of course like most debates today, you have people take wildly crazy positions in defense of their favorite game developers / publishers / console makers.
(literally someone spent time making this...)
Wired: "GameStop the ScapeGoat: Why Used Games Debate Isn't So Simple" (2008)
Tom's Guide: "Does the purchase of used games hurt the gaming industry? Ask yourself that question, and then five of your friends – you will more than likely get a mixed bag of answers." (2010)
Destructoid: "The Entitlement of Publishers: Used games Pt. 1" (2009, this is mostly unreadable today)
GameSpot User Discussion: "Do game devs lose money on used games?" (2006)
GameRant: "GameStop says Publishers are finally starting to understand used game sales"
Ars: ""We hope people understand that when the game's bought used we get cheated" (2010, Some guy from THQ)
Unfortunately, it's impossible to find forum wars over this stuff, but it was a real hot debate 10+ years ago. 20+ years ago, there were similar (in essence, not scope) debates around the ethics of game rentals... But the internet wasn't big enough for it to get outside of a few really niche communities.
I think that the annual firesales you see on Steam, Xbox Live, PSN, etc., kinda put a lot of those debates to bed thankfully. After some growing pains (like games coming bundled with 1-time use codes that went after used games by deactivating features of the game), publishers started selling games on digital storefronts heavily discounted, whether to combat used sales or lagging sales of games, or just to keep up with the joneses, who knows. It did kinda lead to this environment we have today of post-sale revenue like MTX, Annual Passes, and things like that. I think they're all related.
I just think the debate was so hilariously stupid.
Last edited:
It's funny you mention the bit about audible since I've been able to get the promos that were meant for "new" subs only a few times. In the last 2 months I got not one but two letters from amazon in the mail with a 50% off coupon for 3 months. They also sent me $10 kindle credit for whatever reason lol
Why would I pay $60 for a game that's coming to a service I already subscribe to? Isn't that the definition of devaluation?
There's a list of games I'd like to play but they're perfect "stocking filler" for game pass so I'm waiting for that. They might not appear, but I'd rather wait than buy the games, even at a discount. If game pass didn't exist I'd probably had bought these games by now.
Also just because something is successful (Spotify/netflix) doesn't mean it hasn't devalued the content. Fast food is extremely successful but I'd also say it's devalued quality ingredients.
There's a list of games I'd like to play but they're perfect "stocking filler" for game pass so I'm waiting for that. They might not appear, but I'd rather wait than buy the games, even at a discount. If game pass didn't exist I'd probably had bought these games by now.
Also just because something is successful (Spotify/netflix) doesn't mean it hasn't devalued the content. Fast food is extremely successful but I'd also say it's devalued quality ingredients.
Last edited:
Well not really the same, they don't put their exclusives there day one. So it's quite a big difference.