Here is another rich developer asking people poorer than him to not buy used games. I do not know if he has a lamborghini like Blezinski.
Above: Cliff Bleszinki buys a new Lamborghini. He currently spends his 30s (doesnt have to get a job) by telling poorer people that used games are evil because they do not give him more money.
What is this Epic guy (not Cliffy B) saying? He says:
Heres a pretty unavoidable truth for consumers: when someone buys a used game, that transaction does not support the artists, designers, programmers, musicians, or anyone who created that game. 100 per cent of the money paid for a used game goes to the people they just handed their money to.
By what intellectual argument can be made that artists, designers, programmers, musicians or anyone else who created the game has a claim on a second hand sale?
In other words, why does Gamestop have a moral right to used game sales?
First, the artists, designers, programmers, musicians, or anyone who created the game already got their money from the sale.
Second, Gamestop has a moral right to used game sale money because the money funds Gamestops brick and mortar store, the employees who interact with gamers, and allow a gaming hang out type of environment. Housing and dealing with used games costs money and time.
It is actually immoral for the game company to get money outside the first sale. The product of the used game is not the game but the business model that allows the used game to be housed in a brick and mortar store. Why shouldnt Gamestop get that money? Gamestop is doing a tremendous service to gamers by offering a way for people to return games they hate or to get credit for future purchases or to get games no longer offered by retail which may be older than a generation. Why SHOULDNT Gamestop be rewarded for that?
If Epic Games wants that money, then they need to allow gamers to sell the game back to the company. Perhaps Epic Games can build some brick and mortar stores and staff it with people who interact with gamers everyday. Since Epic Games probably views the concept of a brick and mortar store or interacting with gamers on a face to face level to be beneath them, then they shouldnt whine like babies when another company (Gamestop) offers this service to gamers.
When someone purchases a new game the funds are divided equitably between the studio that made the game, the publishers that created and marketed the product, the distributors who put it into your hands, the creator of the console gets a portion, and of course with the store for selling you the new game. The gamer just voted with their dollars to support what a group of people created.
This is incorrect. It only applies to a new disc based game. And even then, it applies only when it is sold in a brick and mortar store or by using a third party distributor. In the past, many game companies sold games direct. Why doesnt Epic Games do this? We could order on their website, and they could ship us the games.
Why shouldnt the distributor get some of the money? After all, brick and mortar stores are very expensive to maintain.
Used game purchasers need to be aware that theyre completely cutting out the developers who created that game, and consider if thats what they really intended.
Developers have no moral claim on the money off a used game sale. The developer is not responsible for the product of the used game. Gamestop is responsible for the creation of the used game (by creating a store environment where used games can be displayed, sold, and where consumers can sell games back to the store and get credit). Gamestop has the moral right to the used games money, never the developers.
Authors and musicians have been living with used products forever. Yet, it is only the game developers who are bitching like crazy. And it is the game developers who are FAR WEALTHIER than the poor musicians and poor authors.
Never is that more apparent than the argument: make better games and we wouldnt trade them in. Thats simply not true, and its actually shaping the games available to you in a very distinguishable way. Most games have an ending The Last of Us, for example, is a stunning game, but it has an ending, and millions of happy users will sell it back.
Then it has no replay value. Just because a game has an end often means people replay it over and over. A good example is Final Fantasy IV on the SNES. People dont sell that game. They just keep replaying it over and over again. The truth is that Last of Us is not that good of a game if people are selling it back to the store.
One possible way to discourage reselling is to not make the game experience entirely digital. In the past, cool maps, booklets, and other things were included with the games. No one wants to buy those things used. By removing the manual and all the other cool stuff, it has caused going digital to only increase incentive to buying used games. The more you guys digitize, the more incentive you give people to buy used.
Constantly, we see articles about wanting games with great characters and stories and interesting narratives, but in nearly any case that means a game that you experience once and complete.
Where are these articles? I have been doing this blog for over half a decade. I have yet to see them. From what I can tell, everyone HATES games with characters, stories, and narratives. We tell you guys to stop making them, to make games more like games and less like movies, yet you defy us. Therefore, we sell the games back to Gamestop in droves.
I have sat in many meetings at several companies and witnessed first-hand the destructive power rentals and used games have on triple-A creative decisions.
This is a good thing. It is the market telling you that they dont like these triple-A creative decisions.
When a person goes into a store and carries a new game up to the counter and a salesperson intercepts to say thats $5 cheaper if you buy used, theyre interfering with the process.
Then dont sell games to that distributor. DERP!!!
If you honestly dont care if the developers are rewarded for their work, well, youre still not the bad guy here.
It is incorrect to say that developers are responsible for the creation of the used game product. I dont know why you guys are so **** stupid and cant understand that.
I would say though, you have no ground to stand on when interacting with those developers, complaining about something in their game, or lamenting that they offer DLC. Youre not really their customer and fan youre just a fan of the used game store.
Wrong. It is YOU who do not have the moral high ground. If you dont like Gamestop, stop dealing with them. Then people cant use their credit to buy new games. Problem solved.
The Xbone backlash shows just how totally out of touch you piece of shit people are with the common people. We dont own a Lamborghini. Most of us probably only own used cars and rent apartments or homes because we cant afford to buy new.
You guys are whining like politicians that you may no longer get to spend a quarter of a billion dollars on your project which is just a stupid video game. The depression era market has screwed most of us over. Many people have lost jobs, lost homes, lost everything due to the economy. You guys feel the economic affects trickling up so you bash used games. Used games arent the problem here. The problem is that you have to readjust to the depression era market like the rest of us non-owning lamborhini peasants.
Epic Games may no longer be able to afford to make AAA games, but at least theyll still be able to afford to make games. The Economic Angel of Death is making her rounds through the Game Industry, and Epic Games should consider themselves lucky they are wealthy enough not to get completely chopped down.
Instead, we get all this bitching. Gentlemen, welcome to the real world. No matter how bad you guys think you have it in the AAA of the Game Industry, your typical gamer has it a hundred times worse in this crap economy.