The "record highs every year" for vinyl:
The "expanded market" for music:
Source:
-
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
The "record highs every year" for vinyl:
The "expanded market" for music:
Source:
Part of it is brand loyalty. Sony is saying they have to be discerning about it, and so people toe the company line. You saw it when Jack Ryan was defending lack of cross play; Sony players didn't need to play with a lower standard of player or whatever nonsense.
When Sony inevitably decides that this is a good idea they'll change their tune and act like it's a great, bold step forward.
When Sony inevitably decides that this is a good idea they'll change their tune and act like it's a great, bold step forward.
The reality is that while game streaming services are currently doing well do to good curation of games that are already somewhat popular the services will show their true colors once the flood gates are open and anyone can get in. its not going to look pretty when you have so much competition. its going to be the same problem people have with steam now.
also used games were never a bad thing. thats just the industry being its greedy little self like its always been
also used games were never a bad thing. thats just the industry being its greedy little self like its always been
This makes sense to the smartphone gaming industry but not for console gaming where big games sell millions of copies for $60 and even some successful indies reach the million threshold.
Free to play games have started to affect the console/PC space as well with major publishers citing Fortnite as a factor in weak sales of their $60 products. We've got a version of League of Legends on the way to console, and Destiny has gone free to play. It's only going to become a bigger part of the market.
No they won't, This is a nonsense post about something that isn't even related to the subject at hand and also projecting.
I don't really see the whole 'race to zero' on console like we saw on smartphones, even with subscriptions in the picture, but devaluing is kind of a two-headed coin. I mean would I really rather the entire industry be like Nintendo, who refuse to drop older games prices?
This year's Black Friday 'deals' from Nintendo here in Canada are a pair of games that are over two years old getting $20 chopped off the price (dropping them to $59.99 for a limited time) and a Switch selling at regular price and including a two year old game with it.
If you got $20 off a two year old PS4 game like Horizon: Zero Dawn, the retailer would owe you a penny.
This year's Black Friday 'deals' from Nintendo here in Canada are a pair of games that are over two years old getting $20 chopped off the price (dropping them to $59.99 for a limited time) and a Switch selling at regular price and including a two year old game with it.
If you got $20 off a two year old PS4 game like Horizon: Zero Dawn, the retailer would owe you a penny.
Subscription services could be beneficial to everyone. In theory, you could have a console with no game purchases & a $10-$15/month subscription fee for access to every game on that console. Since the typical game attach rate for consoles is under 10 games, this would make as much or more money for the industry than the current setup if most people stuck with the subscription. Players would get access to tons of games and the industry would make more money. Win-win... except for how that money then gets distributed (aka the subscription holder would probably take the lion's share, leaving developers scrambling for the leftovers).
Concern trolling mainly. One just needs to look how much extra visibility TV shows got since the arrival of Netflix and other services, how much more music people consume since Spotify and such are a thing. Services like Game Pass will drastically increase the visibility and playerbase for games, and while day 1 sales may be hurt from it (not a given, we know of games that are actually selling more thanks to the Pass), in-game spending, merchandising, sequel interest, social relevance, etc. will drastically increase, making the game more future-proof. My gaming habits are already mutating since Game Pass arrived, and I'm playing more due to it.
Artists get paid pennies now.
The only way most artists can continue to make a living is merch sales and killing themselves touring near constantly and sacrificing their family life & health in the process.
Where before streaming services they could tour less with cheaper tickets and live mostly from album sales.
Last edited:
.
The people stanning for corps pushing subs dont see or dont care that the angle is being pushed primarily from a corporate control aspect rather than a consumer oriented one.
Yes and no. The splits are probably different for each project or dev/platform contract, but I doubt they change too much. The value of a game is also sort of set in stone. Base editions of AAA games generally sell for $59.99. If developers don't have a say in how payouts are determined in the streaming era it is likely that the sale certification criteria will be biased to certain types of games. If the powers that be decide to use time played to determine unit equivalent sales that immediately puts games like GONE HOME at a disadvantage compared to service games. Hell, it even puts grander SP games like GOD OF WAR at a disadvantage compared to titles like MODERN WARFARE.
In music, the RIAA came together and said "hey, 1 physical album sale is the equivalent to 10 individual song downloads, which is the equivalent to 1500 individual song streams," and artists didn't really blink until streaming took over. Now they're panicking and complaining about awful payouts. This devaluing definitely alters how much time and effort they put into their craft. Why put your heart and soul into music when all the ancillary things are what actually pays your bills?
I'm mainly worried about how indie developers will manage in the streaming era. Developers owned by publishers are not exactly exempt but their situation is obviously very different.
Maybe if you define value as "sticker price". Why you would do that, I don't know. The value to me of listening to a song is certainly as high as it ever was. The value to an artist of producing and releasing a song is more complicated -- probably gone up for many, down for others who benefited from the previous higher barriers to entry. But I don't think there's been a decrease in music production since the advent of streaming, so I don't know why I should assume that on average the value has gone down.
The "record highs every year" for vinyl:
The "expanded market" for music:
Source:
I'm not sure what the argument is? Yes, fewer people no longer consume music through outdated, inconvenient, and expensive methods. Vinyl went from the mainstream way to listen music to a (growing) enthusiast niche. As a result, it's far easier for someone to make their music available to people than ever before. Unless you can make some argument that the quantity and/or quality of music has decreased with streaming services, I don't know why anyone should care. Except, that is, for people whose business model relies on those now-outdated methods, and I don't see why their well-being should take priority over everyone else's. Those people are just best-positioned to complain about changes on the internet.
But that's basically how it already works, no? The gatekeepers -- publishers and platform holders -- have the most leverage in negotiating their revenue share. So the real question is, will platform holders have more or less leverage over developers with streaming services? I don't think anyone knows the answer to that yet.
the cost of living is high and sucks
i'm not willing to pay for individual albums, games or movies anymore bc im poor as hell. and considering you get ripped off anywhere still willing to buy used games, subscription based is the only way for me
i'm not willing to pay for individual albums, games or movies anymore bc im poor as hell. and considering you get ripped off anywhere still willing to buy used games, subscription based is the only way for me
The better question is why should the current market be protected? Every other form of entertainment has had to deal with streaming and subscription and they have adjusted. Yet gaming is some special flower that is above the rest. They are businesses. Nothing more and nothing less. The people who want to own a physical or digital license to a game are still free to do so.
Last edited:
There has been a whole economy made off used games and rented games people don't realize even with the 10 a month point they make more than what they normally would long term by getting rid of the second hand market.
Instead of parents going in GameStop eBay or redbox they just play a flat monthly fee the kids win because they always have something to play the parents win because it's easier on the pockets and the publishers platform holders and developers win because that's more money they'll get their hands on without retail or second hand market being in their pockets.
people hate on it because Microsoft does it better or they won't be able to brag about they went and bought this or that game because we all have access to it now. It doesn't devalue anything if not it will let people be more creative.
Instead of parents going in GameStop eBay or redbox they just play a flat monthly fee the kids win because they always have something to play the parents win because it's easier on the pockets and the publishers platform holders and developers win because that's more money they'll get their hands on without retail or second hand market being in their pockets.
people hate on it because Microsoft does it better or they won't be able to brag about they went and bought this or that game because we all have access to it now. It doesn't devalue anything if not it will let people be more creative.
People here largely don't give a damn about used game sales or piracy or streaming services in the abstract — they're just worried that the kind of games they like will no longer be made.
We know that our favorite series are not in danger from used games. We don't know how subscription services will affect them.
We know that our favorite series are not in danger from used games. We don't know how subscription services will affect them.
I know this is just a typo, but this is a fantastic mental image.
Because we understand that it's the retailer who takes a hit on used sales, in fact we know they paid $25-$30 for a copy of a recent release in order to sell it at $50+
beyond the obvious "I get X games for $9.99" or I get one game for $40-$50
bundling tons of games into a low sub price makes consumers more likely to not buy the games at full price imo. Over time that could led them to devalue all games and wait for it to "hit Netflix, hulu" etc.
We've already seen movies and to a greater extent, music, be devalued. Makes sense that those fears are the same for games
beyond the obvious "I get X games for $9.99" or I get one game for $40-$50
bundling tons of games into a low sub price makes consumers more likely to not buy the games at full price imo. Over time that could led them to devalue all games and wait for it to "hit Netflix, hulu" etc.
We've already seen movies and to a greater extent, music, be devalued. Makes sense that those fears are the same for games
Saying Game Pass gives you choice and value is obviously subjective. You get to choose from games that are on the service. You don't get to choose any game on the Xbox library. As far as value, it's just like renting a game. When you don't want to pay the subscription anymore, you give the games back. Different people will have different opinions on whether that's a good value or not.
Just look at Nintendo titles. They famously don't get discounted for a long, long time. In consequence, used game prices for them are also higher than even many non-used games that get deep discounts just two months after release. So the impact of used game sales on game values isn't really that high.
You visibly don't know what devaluation mean. Your personal sense of enjoyment isn't an universal parameter for what the market (a.k.a us - consumers - developers, publishers, retailers etc.) thinks about value.
And yes, thanks capitalism, indeed. The capitalist bourgeois democracy is the reason why this market (or any other you may find enjoyment in) actually exists.
I guess you could add steam sale too. That has done more for the devaluation of games than used games or subscriptions.
I disagree
musicians more and more have to use patreon and constant touring to make ends meet
Music was significantly devalued before streaming became mainstream. It was gutted by years of rampart pirating.
Absolute nonsense. The devaluation of music and TV from streaming has been severe. Music artists are largely reliant on gigs and other income streams because streams of their songs are generally paying jack shit. That used to be vastly different.
So no, your premise is completely flawed.
Your forgetting that used games are commonly used for people of lower income to afford those brand new games they really want. More often then not used games go right back into the industry.
There were plenty of arguments back in the day at the old place about used games. People would argue against used games because it was "piracy" or would "devalue" games for the average consumer. Some of the same arguments are being recycled against subscription services now. It's a futile argument because like me the average consumer does not give two shits about a publisher/developers bottom line and care mostly about ours.
I just read the bit in the op about people not valuing music less because of Spotify and I think I'm dead now.
There is something always devaluing games or media. I remember way back when Steam sales were considered harmful. Then it was mobile, f2p, humble bundle, and now subscriptions. Meanwhile the industry at large seems to keep making more money.
People think publishers talking about single player games and the value will "protect" the games. Truth is even if you pay $60 for a new title, almost every company just wants more regardless. Bethesda made a big show about single player games and now they're offering subs within a game.
Even first party studios like Nintendo and Sony are dipping their toes . UC4 had multiplayer boosters, Nintendo is slowly doing dlc and mobile. Not saying they shouldn't or that they've done these moves poorly. I just mean they're always going to look for more money.
People think publishers talking about single player games and the value will "protect" the games. Truth is even if you pay $60 for a new title, almost every company just wants more regardless. Bethesda made a big show about single player games and now they're offering subs within a game.
Even first party studios like Nintendo and Sony are dipping their toes . UC4 had multiplayer boosters, Nintendo is slowly doing dlc and mobile. Not saying they shouldn't or that they've done these moves poorly. I just mean they're always going to look for more money.
god as someone who was worked a bit in the fringes of the music industry and has close friends who are professional musicians this is just one of the most infuriatingly, bafflingly ignorant things i have ever read on this website (and there is a lot of competition)
Why do you not quote the interesting part : "what is the maximum amount of money a specific actor is willing and able to pay for the good or service"
This is exactly what we are talking about here.
OP made a thread based on a single Tweet about 23 people that signed a petition wanting to ban Pokemon S&S from coming to the US. I honestly think OP gets bored and creates threads about anything simply to converse with people and not be bored.
Wait a min....I thought the original issue was new games day n date.
Now it's just the sub service? I don't think anyone were really against it. EAAccess doesn't get as much hate now.
PSPlus didn't get any hate as far as devaluing, same for Games with Gold.
New games on the service day one? I can see that being an issue.
C'mon OP, you know good n well what the topic of conversation really is with these services.
Now it's just the sub service? I don't think anyone were really against it. EAAccess doesn't get as much hate now.
PSPlus didn't get any hate as far as devaluing, same for Games with Gold.
New games on the service day one? I can see that being an issue.
C'mon OP, you know good n well what the topic of conversation really is with these services.
This is a tacit admission of the devaluation
A concert is not recorded music, it's a completely separate revenue stream. Producers, songwriters, session musicians, mastering engineers, etc, are not part of this process. That also doesn't even go into the scenarios for artists that are incapable of constant touring and the horrible effects of it on mental physical health. Finally, in this analogy, game developers have no concert equivalent to fall back on if their game sale revenue plummets.
The $1 a month for Gamepass is a temporary deal targeted at new users. It's a standard user acquisition move that most companies use.
These deals won't be there forever, no more than anyone expects Apple TV + to be free forever to subscribers.
Nope, because ideally that customer would never be offered a $1 deal again.
Amazon gives away cheap Prime and Audible deals for new subs. I am never eligible for any of these since I've been on Prime since 2011.
You can be sure I won't get any more free months of Apple TV + when my free year ends in November 2020.