Nintendo: If devs are worried about used game sales, they should make better games
71 replies, posted
[B]Source:[/B] [url=http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/13/4426338/nintendo-if-youre-worried-about-used-game-sales-make-better-games]Link[/url]
[quote]The best way for console makers to deal with the used games market is to ensure their games are so good that people don't want to trade them in, Nintendo of America president Reggie Fils-Aime told Polygon. But supporting used games is also important, he added.
"We have been very clear, we understand that used games are a way for some consumers to monetize their games," Fils-Aime said. "They will buy a game, play it, bring it back to their retailer to get credit for their next purchase. Certainly, that impacts games that are annualized and candidly also impacts games that are maybe undifferentiated much more than [it] impacts Nintendo content. Why is that? Because the replayability of our content is super strong. The consumer wants to keep playing Mario Kart. The consumer want to keep playing New Super Mario Bros. They want to keep playing Pikmin. So we see that the trade-in frequency on Nintendo content is much less than the industry average – much, much less. So for us, we have been able to step back and say that we are not taking any technological means to impact trade-in and we are confident that if we build great content, then the consumer will not want to trade in our games."
Used games have become a hot-button topic this year as both Microsoft and Sony continue to detail how their new consoles will operate.
While Microsoft won't charge any fees as a platform holder for the sale or purchase of used Xbox One games, they are leaving it up to individual publishers to decide whether their games can be sold or traded — a policy that hasn't been very popular.[/quote]
Some great games don't have replayability though
[QUOTE=Trumple;41020889]Some great games don't have replayability though[/QUOTE]
Well then they're not so great after all.
[QUOTE=Van-man;41020897]Well then they're not so great after all.[/QUOTE]
yep everyone lets jump on the party minigames and tacked-on online
replayabilityyyyy
[QUOTE=Van-man;41020897]Well then they're not so great after all.[/QUOTE]
So every linear game isn't great?
[QUOTE=Van-man;41020897]Well then they're not so great after all.[/QUOTE]
uh what
[ ] Not told
[X] Told
This is why I like Reggie.
[QUOTE=Van-man;41020897]Well then they're not so great after all.[/QUOTE]
greatness of a game isn't a measure of how many times you can play it again without it getting boring
in the same way you've probably seen your favourite film just a few times
[QUOTE=Trumple;41020889]Some great games don't have replayability though[/QUOTE]Bioshock Infinite doesn't have replayability, but they deserve every dollar I spent on that game.
Although, I'd like to play the entire game again in about a year.
about time someone big in the industry simply said the truth.
[IMG]http://photos.bwca.com/b/BOJIBOB-190211-120627.JPG[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Trumple;41020924]greatness of a game isn't a measure of how many times you can play it again without it getting boring
in the same way you've probably seen your favourite film just a few times[/QUOTE]
if I buy a game and love it then I'll want to keep it, even if it's not instantly replayable
I feel that great games are ones you should be happy to have in your collection
While I don't hold up replayability as the number one most important aspect of a game, I still think it's pretty damn important. To me, it's what separates a rent from a buy. I'm not going to keep a game if I don't see myself playing it again.
Does this mean Nintendo should make better games?
Yeah when I was younger I sold my old games because I wanted to buy new ones, not because they were not good.
[QUOTE=Trumple;41020889]Some great games don't have replayability though[/QUOTE]
My rule goes "What isn't worth reading/watching/playing twice (eventually, at some point in the future, even if far), wasn't worth reading/watching/playing the first time either." and obviously applies to books, movies and games alike.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41021002]My rule goes "What isn't worth reading/watching/playing twice, wasn't worth reading/watching/playing the first time either." and obviously applies to books, movies and games alike.[/QUOTE]
That's a really terrible rule
I wouldn't play through Bioshock again but god damn it's a good game
[QUOTE=Trumple;41020924]greatness of a game isn't a measure of how many times you can play it again without it getting boring
in the same way you've probably seen your favourite film just a few times[/QUOTE]
There's difference between game being replayable over and over and over again and game that I just want to play sometime in the future, again.
People say Skyrim is replayable and I wouldn't hesitate to throw my copy at the first guy to offer me five bucks.
I don't intend to replay Dead Space any time soon again but I wouldn't sell it for more less than what it's worth for purchase right now.
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;41021021]That's a really terrible rule
I wouldn't play through Bioshock again but god damn it's a good game[/QUOTE]
That's a personal preference and depends on opinion.
Funnily I think Bioshock is meh but still intend to play it again sometime, eventually :v:
[editline]13th June 2013[/editline]
To clarify, I am not talking
*Credits roll*
"Welp, time for a new character!"
or, finish a book and just flip to page one.
I mean the fact that I know that one day, that one cold winter evening, I will tell to myself "Well shit, I would totally play a bit of what'sitcalled... Psychonauts!"
And having this in mind, I still wouldn't sell plenty of my games.
[QUOTE=The golden;41021081]While there are a few linear games out there that I liked, I have [B]SUBSTANTIALLY[/B] larger amount of fun out of more non-linear games. Even if the mechanics are slightly weaker or the story isn't as good I just find it more enjoyable knowing that I can go where I want when I want doing what I want. Not to mention that the game usually doesn't end after the story is done.
$60 for a game which I beat in 8-12 hours and then goes into my games drawer never to be touched again is just not something I consider worth it. Linear games also typically have weaker modding scenes (excluding conversions) because there is so much less to work with.
Even to this day I still sometimes pop my Morrowind disk in even though its mechanics and visuals are highly dated. It's just got so much to do and see that even this many years after buying it I can still get value out of it.
But hey, that's my opinion.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying non-linear games aren't great, hell they're amazing I like them too. It's just Van kinda dismissed the entirety of linear games as not as great as non-linear/party games, which irks me.
[QUOTE=Novangel;41021126]I'm not saying non-linear games aren't great, hell they're amazing I like them too. It's just Van kinda dismissed the entirety of linear games as not as great as non-linear/party games, which irks me.[/QUOTE]
Except he didn't at all.
I have played Half Life 2 like 3.5 times, picking and choosing various passages.
Good linear game keeps replayability. Bad one doesn't.
i don't know about others, but i personally don't think single player games that you can end in 6-8h are worth $50-60, now RTS, 4x, etc that you can play effectively for god knows how long, is totally worth it in my opinion.
this also depends on the kind of single player through, nintendo games like someone mentioned tend to be single player, but they also tend to have a lot of replayability despite that.
i don't know anyone who ever wanted to get rid of a mario game or zelda for instance.
Halfe Life 2 had different passages?
[editline]14th June 2013[/editline]
Episode 2 gave you the illusion of freedom, HL2 and EP1 surely didn't.
[QUOTE=Novangel;41020914]So every linear game isn't great?[/QUOTE]
The difference is that the blockbuster B-movie explosion-packed cutscene-filled press-A-to-Awesome games that the Xbone tries really hard to appeal to the publishers of, are the games the most susceptible to go to the used games market due to their very nature and content
There is a reason a lot of older gamers still have their N64 or NES sitting around somewhere.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;41020921][ ] Not told
[X] Told[/QUOTE]
Nintolddo?
By the way, the knuckleheads who think that they gonna make significantly more money if they kill the used game market are sorta forgetting what do people buy with the money they get for games they sold - more games.
Many many many of their customers (children) run on limited budget. If they buy a 60$ game and sell it for $30 few days later, they gonna go and push the money into the next game they want. If they buy a 60$ game and end up stuck with it, they will just have to wait to get next month's worth of pocket change, anyway. Or pirate more.
It's not like AAA games are a cheap entertainment - for 60$, I can go watch 10 movies in a big nice cinema here (I imagine it's even cheaper elsewhere). Their sales won't skyrocket if they make them practically more expensive by killing second hand, because people will just buy less of them in general.
You know you're in deep shit when [I]Nintendo[/I] takes the piss out of you.
It's pretty hilarious how [I]no one[/I] is backing MS up on this. Even the publishers who were surely pushing for it in the first place have shat themselves at the backlash and are now saying they support used games and wow Microsoft how could you do such a thing
[QUOTE=smurfy;41021270]It's pretty hilarious how [I]no one[/I] is backing MS up on this. Even the publishers who were surely pushing for it in the first place have shat themselves at the backlash and are now saying they support used games and wow Microsoft how could you do such a thing[/QUOTE]
CliffyB is [b]sort of[/b] backing them?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.