Nintendo: If devs are worried about used game sales, they should make better games
71 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Captain Chalky;41021292]Good thing I sold my Nintendo DS.[/QUOTE]
To buy a 3DS I assume.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41021002]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]
That's a terrible code to live by. Sometimes it's not as fun playing something because you know what's going to happen or know how to do things which takes away from the experience.
I have many books and movies that I have trouble rewatching because of how great they were.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41021374]That's a terrible code to live by. Sometimes it's not as fun playing something because you know what's going to happen or know how to do things which takes away from the experience.
I have many books and movies that I have trouble rewatching because of how great they were.[/QUOTE]
If something has to rely on constant suspension or if something has to rely on the fact that you don't know what you are doing, it's not fun to me anyway, so if that's the only redeeming factors it has and there's nothing past that that would make it worth experiencing, I don't have to bother at all.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41021229]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.[/QUOTE]
well, to be fair, the problem isn't just with people selling their games, it's with those used games being sold again. the money made from pre-owned games just goes straight back into the business, rather than the publisher.
if a person doesn't have much money and they sell their current game, they're probably more likely to spend the money they got back on another used game since it's cheaper for them
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41021397]If something has to rely on constant suspension or if something has to rely on the fact that you don't know what you are doing, it's not fun to me anyway, so if that's the only redeeming factors it has and there's nothing past that that would make it worth experiencing, I don't have to bother at all.[/QUOTE]
So after you watch a really great movie with twists and turns that keep you guessing through the end, does that make it a terrible movie?
By that logic are you denying what the entire genre of thriller and mystery revolve around?
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;41021408]well, to be fair, the problem isn't just with people selling their games, it's with those used games being sold again. the money made from pre-owned games just goes straight back into the business, rather than the publisher.
if a person doesn't have much money and they sell their current game, they're probably more likely to spend the money they got back on another used game since it's cheaper for them[/QUOTE]
That only bumps up the price of [I]new[/I] second hand games which make money the publisher gets from the firsthand buyer-secondhand seller, tho, because the second-hand buyer knows he it will still have value to third-hand buyer, etc etc etc.
Also, once somebody is so far down the chain that they solely buy very old games, they are probably not going to buy new games anyway, as they just won't have the money for it.
[QUOTE=Van-man;41020897]Well then they're not so great after all.[/QUOTE]
lmao
"No replayability = SHIT GAME WOULD NOT BUY"
I agree that it should be limited how much does the dedicated second hand reseller makes, because that's the only money the original publisher really "loses", but that should be done rather from the other side.
Make it so that if you have a business that buys used games and sells them again, they have to give share back to the original publisher, and let people who do it hand to hand whatever they want. Easy.
[editline]13th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=J!NX;41021509]lmao
"No replayability = SHIT GAME WOULD NOT BUY"[/QUOTE]
Yep. It's that way to me and many others. Why is it such a huge problem for some people?
Yeah used Nintendo games are always sold at a high price, I mean Mario party 8 for the wii is still $45 and that came out in 05. It makes sense less people would trade them in
MGS 3 is what I consider a great game, it's linear and while you can certainly get more out of it through multiple playthroughs, I still wouldn't sell it because it's wicked and i'm likely to go back to it later, regardless if I know the narrative already. Plus other people enjoy it too so they'll be all "oh man mgs 3 cool"
I find linear games to be like books - sure you may have gone through the story more than once by now, but if it's good you won't mind going through it again.
[QUOTE=BrokenSanity;40815899]If game designers attempted to add more replay value to their games these days, there'd be less used copies being sold.
I've got some older games that I'd never sell, simply because I know one day I'm going to want to pick it up and play it again.[/QUOTE]
Nintendo's been reading my posts again.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;41020951]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[/QUOTE]
e.g. far cry 3
Hey CliffyB, you gonna need some ice for that burn?
max payne 3 is a good example of a linear game having high replayablity
because the gameplay is just that good
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41021514]I agree that it should be limited how much does the dedicated second hand reseller makes, because that's the only money the original publisher really "loses", but that should be done rather from the other side.
Make it so that if you have a business that buys used games and sells them again, they have to give share back to the original publisher, and let people who do it hand to hand whatever they want. Easy.
[editline]13th June 2013[/editline]
Yep. It's that way to me and many others. Why is it such a huge problem for some people?[/QUOTE]
because its an extremely trivial issue. Just because you can't play it again doesn't make it a terrible game.
Ninty have a point, games should have a long playtime, especially considering their price. If I am paying £40 for a new game then it better not be fucking 10 hours long. Of course I'd want some money back.
[QUOTE=Novangel;41021444]So after you watch a really great movie with twists and turns that keep you guessing through the end, does that make it a terrible movie?
By that logic are you denying what the entire genre of thriller and mystery revolve around?[/QUOTE]
If it needs the twists and turns to stay worth watching, yeah.
Where are you pulling the exclusivity from? I am not saying "present - bad" I am saying "the only redeeming feature - bad".
I think the thing people spamming boxes are missing and the root at what Nintendo is getting at here is that despite how "good" some games are a lot of people don't see any value in holding on to them because most of them lack any lasting appeal, which is why the used game market is so large and developers and publishers feel like they're missing out on a lot of profit.
Bioshock: Infinite is a perfect example of a critically acclaimed game having short legs with a lot of people. that game's goal is to tell a story and the gameplay is merely a vehicle for that story, honestly it's not even the story, the entire game revolves around your linear interactions with a single character and everything else, from the setting and the combat, is scene dressing, and when you get down to it what you are doing besides that changes very little through the game and doesn't evolve in complexity almost at all.
In layman's terms, it's a good story's game, but a terrible game's game, and story alone does not keep the game on the shelves of many for very long, books and movies get away with it but video games don't.
That doesn't mean "hur durr tack on multiplayer," it means games need to find ways to have more lasting appeal so they don't wind up back at the shop they came from in two months.
Nintendo I fucking love you but you aren't exactly in a position to be calling out who makes better games or not. Especially when your console is failing due to a focus on rehashes and sequels and not third-party deals with developers.
Reggie brings up a good argument (although subjective, since there are many people who don't like Nintendo games), but the main reason Nintendo hasn't put any used game DRM in any of their consoles is simply because the used game market is huge in Japan. To try and stop used games would hurt their business more than help it.
[editline]13th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=BenJammin';41022325]Especially when your console is failing due to a focus on rehashes and sequels[/quote]
this still isn't a good argument. Nintendo prefers to add new mechanics to existing IPs than make new IPs with new mechanics because
1. it lessens the risk of failure
2. making a new ip would just give the illusion that it's a new game when, in reality, at it's core, the game isn't any different than anything else they've done before other than having new characters.
the only series that does the thing you're arguing for is NSMB. and even then, 4 games in the series (2 of which were developed at the same time by different teams and for different systems) in 6 years is nothing compared to what we're getting now by other studios, and they all have a different focus. (1 is an introduction to platforming, Wii adds co-op, 2 has an emphasis on exploring the levels to find secrets and U has Co-op again but with the addition of a 5th player)
by comparison, look at kirby games in the past 10 years. 9 kirby games have been released, but very few of them play the same. only about 2 or 3 are traditional kirby games and the rest are experimental/have something different going for them.
This is why I like Nintendo, they strive for quality. Say what you will about rehashes or whatever, but their games are put together very well. And their hardware has a reputation for being very solidly built as well (what with being made out of Nintendium and all).
where's your god now CliffyB? (he considers Nintendo his inspiration)
[QUOTE=goon165;41022279]I think the thing people spamming boxes are missing and the root at what Nintendo is getting at here is that despite how "good" some games are a lot of people don't see any value in holding on to them because most of them lack any lasting appeal, which is why the used game market is so large and developers and publishers feel like they're missing out on a lot of profit.
Bioshock: Infinite is a perfect example of a critically acclaimed game having short legs with a lot of people. that game's goal is to tell a story and the gameplay is merely a vehicle for that story, honestly it's not even the story, the entire game revolves around your linear interactions with a single character and everything else, from the setting and the combat, is scene dressing, and when you get down to it what you are doing besides that changes very little through the game and doesn't evolve in complexity almost at all.
In layman's terms, it's a good story's game, but a terrible game's game, and story alone does not keep the game on the shelves of many for very long, books and movies get away with it but video games don't.
That doesn't mean "hur durr tack on multiplayer," it means games need to find ways to have more lasting appeal so they don't wind up back at the shop they came from in two months.[/QUOTE]
Have my babies.
[SUP][SUP][SUP]Less responsibility for me, aww yeah.[/SUP][/SUP][/SUP]
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41021514]I agree that it should be limited how much does the dedicated second hand reseller makes, because that's the only money the original publisher really "loses", but that should be done rather from the other side.
Make it so that if you have a business that buys used games and sells them again, they have to give share back to the original publisher, and let people who do it hand to hand whatever they want. Easy.
[editline]13th June 2013[/editline]
Yep. It's that way to me and many others. Why is it such a huge problem for some people?[/QUOTE]
all the best gaming experiences I've had have been games where the first playthrough shocked me and left me unwilling to revist the game for a few days at least and made me think about it a lot
just because it's a once through doesn't mean it's a bad game. not at all.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;41024802]all the best gaming experiences I've had have been games where the first playthrough shocked me and left me unwilling to revist the game for a few days at least and made me think about it a lot
just because it's a once through doesn't mean it's a bad game. not at all.[/QUOTE]
I barely ever find myself heavily impressed by a sudden revelation, I might be just too predictive and rarely ever have an actual "well I didn't see that one coming" moments, so it has very little worth for me.
If the piece is built on such moments and isn't worth playing without them, it's not worth playing with them, for me, either.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;41021214]There is a reason a lot of older gamers still have their N64 or NES sitting around somewhere.[/QUOTE]
I'm 14 and I have both, and more
[QUOTE=Trumple;41020889]Some great games don't have replayability though[/QUOTE]
Tsk, games like Half Life and Metro 2033 are the same every time you play them, but frankly they're damn good games and I don't sell good games because I might want to replay them some time down the line. That's because I'm a type of person that does that, I even kept some of my old phones. Some people will play a fantastic game that's linear and always has the same outcome and they'll leave it at that and sell it after a while. It comes down to preference.
The fact is though, good games don't get sold used as often as shitty games (or seasonal releases (which I count under shitty anyway)). Somebody [I]might[/I] sell a fantastic game like Portal or say Spec Ops: The Line after playing it once, but they will [I]definitely[/I] sell a shit game like Walking Dead: Survival Instinct or a seasonal game like Call of Duty.
[QUOTE=Van-man;41020897]Well then they're not so great after all.[/QUOTE]
Not every game can have replayability while not sacrificing the quality of the first playthrough.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.