That is like saying that every case of piracy is a game that'd be bought.
I'm sure some people would buy new copies if used wasn't an option, but you have to present some kind of evidence saying that a majority of even plurality would do that.
Until the laws are changed such that Microsoft & it's cronies can "lease" video games (copyrighted software) for the Xbox, there will be a used game market.
What you should really fear is a world where you only get games via Live and the prices are still $60 forever. My biggest beef with console games is the cost.
Steam is living proof that fair pricing can result in first-time purchases of old games. I spent more during the Steam holiday sale this year than I've spent on new Xbox games in the past two years. My Xbox has become a fancy Netflix device because new games cost too much. I keep saying to myself I should play more games on the Xbox and less games on my PC, but when push comes to shove, I can more easily justify PC game purchases.
Used sales hurt developers, arguing that the buyer would never buy new is unrelated. If the used copy was unavailable, then the customer would buy a new copy, thus the presence of the used copy reduces the income of the developer.
i disagree completely, if i can't buy it used i skip it until i can
I was merely attempting to refute your claim of "a person trying to buy used isn't interested in buying new".
Ignoring monkey wrenches like online passes or Dragon Age like DLC (which is becoming harder and harder to do) for me the decision lies in the price difference new vs used. If I'm looking at a new game at $30 and the used is $25-$27 I'd rather show the devs the support and not deal with any potential hassels related to buying used. However if that used price was closer to $10-$15 I'd most likely snag that instead. I'd assume that everyone has their own tip range (for lack of a better term) even if that range is $0.01 :P
If you don't want me to buy used, put your game on a digital distribution service and aggressively price it. I was perfectly fine with buying Sonic Generations for $30 at launch from Steam but $60 for Rayman Origins? Forget that.
I bought Dark Souls used. I went into the store fully prepared to pay the $59.99 for new, but a combination of A) there being a used copy available, and using an Edge card for an additional discount, meant that I got the game for $49.49. And that's before factoring in the 12% tax. And since there were no online activation codes or stuff like that... yeah I'm definitely going to snap at that.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
If you don't want me to buy used, put your game on a digital distribution service and aggressively price it. I was perfectly fine with buying Sonic Generations for $30 at launch from Steam but $60 for Rayman Origins? Forget that.
that's what's baffling about on demand games on 360 at least, they put months old games up for $60 or close to it and then wonder why they aren't making money on it.
Used sales hurt developers, arguing that the buyer would never buy new is unrelated. If the used copy was unavailable, then the customer would buy a new copy, thus the presence of the used copy reduces the income of the developer.
i disagree completely, if i can't buy it used i skip it until i can
Yeah, I'm the same way. Yet, I think a lot of gamers aren't. It's hard to find a more fickle, impulsive buying audience than gamers, particularly the younger ones.
Until the laws are changed such that Microsoft & it's cronies can "lease" video games (copyrighted software) for the Xbox, there will be a used game market.
microsoft could do this right now, if they wanted
first sale doesn't say that publishers are required to support first sale. It just says that selling your copy does not represent infringement. If they sell you a product with controls that prevent you from re-selling it, too bad for you.
ed: especially now that the DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent most of said controls)
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
My objection to the used market is that is leads to games living or dying 100% on hype. Lamestop only buys enough copies to cover preorders, maybe a few extra copies on a popular game, then aggressively pushes the used game cycle where kids rent the game for $30-40. If a game wants to make money, it HAS to sell well in the first few days before the used copies start coming in.
They also are unashamedly a place for thieves to fence stolen games, as they (at least until I stopped shopping there years ago) don't verify any of the data they collect when you trade in, and they don't hold games like a pawn shop would have to.
I'll be happy to see a future where the stores that are completely leveraged on used game sales have taken themselves out of the game by driving publishers to online distro only. It will be far better for the industry as a whole.
If you don't want me to buy used, put your game on a digital distribution service and aggressively price it. I was perfectly fine with buying Sonic Generations for $30 at launch from Steam but $60 for Rayman Origins? Forget that.
that's what's baffling about on demand games on 360 at least, they put months old games up for $60 or close to it and then wonder why they aren't making money on it.
It's not really all that different from how the recording industry tackled the advent of the internet. Or rather, they didn't. They first tried to deny it altogether because it completely circumvented their business model. Then they tried to apply the old business model except online, and it still didn't work. Apple comes in and takes the whole industry by storm with iTunes. RIAA and co throw a massive hissy fit and try to get Apple to charge "proper" prices for "proper" content, but by that stage it's already too late.
The key thing is the belief that you have absolute control of the supply of the content, and therefore people WILL buy it at the prices you set. Where it breaks down is when
a) you're charging too much for people to stomach so they look for alternatives, or
b) there's a competitor offering it cheaper
It's closed system thinking. MS want to create their own economy within the closed system of XBL, everything having prices that define their "value", the consumer should accept that these items are of those specific values, and no less. The problem is that it flies in the face of reality when you're expecting people to pay full price for games that are ancient. Nobody will buy it, but people buying games for less isn't the mentality that they want people to get into.
Steam on the other hand is on an open platform. They aren't the only game in town and if people decide one day they don't like Steam or its prices, they can easily go to any of a half-dozen other stores now, each of which is competing for your money. Likewise developers (both indie and major league) price their games with the competition in mind as well.
Way back when, before services like Steam and similar (but maybe after the golden age of shareware), there were still indie devs and an indie scene on the PC. But what you were seeing was similar to what you see on XBL today. I remember a lot of indie devs pushing crappy rip-offs of Arkanoid, derivative platformers of all sorts, and similar. And they'd charge as full price games, £20, £30 and so on. Same mentality "I'm the only one selling MY product, so if you want it you'll pay MY price".
Admittedly it's a lot more complicated than that. The indie scene back then was also much smaller, so higher price points were understandable in a way. But I saw a lot of devs charging copies of arkanoid-alikes for the kind of money you'd expect to spend in-store on a major release.
Let's not forget the crazy sales that retailers put up on new games. Amazon offered BF3 for like $42 prior to launch. If you waited a day to long (like me) then you had to "settle" for $50. On a game that's listed as $59.99.
Now my friends want to play BF3. How can I explain to them why this game, which is 3 months old, will cost them $60 when people paid $42 at -1 months? I'm not even talking about map-packs and such, which us early adopters already get for free.
The fact that the retailers can mark down these games to $40 says something. That you can go to Best Buy, Walmart, etc. and get Assassin's Creed/BF/COD/etc. for $40, really shakes the whole "games must cost $60" thing. And that's why used games gain so much traction -- it makes those $60 titles stand out that much more months later.
0
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
edited January 2012
I very rarely buy used.
I am far more inclined to buy discounted games however.
It just seems to me that in the time it takes used games to come down to a price I find agreeable, I can buy the Greatest Hits (or its equivalent) for the same price (if not cheaper). Failing a Greatest Hits version, I can usually count on some sort of sale that'll let me snag the game at a great price.
We have two used games stores in my town. One GameStop, which seems to range wildly in quality season to season for some unknowable reason and a Mom and Pop store. The M 'n P store has great prices, but I am fairly certain a lot of those games are stolen.
On the extremely rare occasions I do buy a used game, its normally something from a previous Gen that I can't find in stores anymore and the prices on ebay or amazon are insane.
edit- Caveat to buying previous Gen games used.
If they are available on the PSN or XBL or Nintendo store I will buy it there. Likewise if there is a new handheld version.
Fucking bought Chrono Trigger countless times. :P
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Video games really haven't changed in effective price. I just looked up an old Sears catalogue and Atari 2600 games in 1979 were $25. That's $75 today.
Obviously there's a much larger market for games, but games back then weren't built by a team of a hundred with a huge publisher backing them and all the marketing and other things. It's a weird sort of thing, but we've gotten an immense increase in quality with no real change in cost. The Atari console itself was $150 or so, or $450 today.
One part of the used games argument that seems to always be forgotten is the other side of the equation - people who trade their games in get store credit, which is then used to buy games. You stop used game sales, and you stop one of the means by which people buy new games.
There is no real way to know offhand how big a difference it would make.
Except, bottom line, if there was no used sales at all then every game sold would be for profit. That is the one factoid we can take out of this.
Case in point as someone made above: they planned to buy new and simply didn't because a cheaper used option was there. Thats flat out a lost sale. I know I've done the same once or twice.
Do I think a majority of the market is this way? Probably not. Do I think there are enough people who are this way that it would make up for the market who buy through used game tradeins? I do. I have no facts to support this (As none really exist that can be used as a viable metric.) but I really think most publisher/developer bottom lines wouldn't be hurt by such a thing.
In fact, in the long run, even many cheap gamers would simply wait til the new game goes on sale/gets discounted to the point that they'd be willing to pay for it. Even if the sale isn't made within the critical initial month, at the very least the money is still coming in months down the road. This point is extremely important to more niche titles and developers who aren't ballin hard off something like CoD which can sell enough copies to support several dev teams for the next year.
Used games aren't 'evil' in any sense, but they aren't exactly creating a great gaming environment either. Would all this online pass/preorder dlc/multiplayer EVERYWHERE bullshit really be popping up if publishers weren't so desperate to stem the advent of gamestop's crushing used games market? I don't know. The fact that gamestop became such a juggernaut in used games and these systems started to rise up directly afterwards is a good indication of cause and effect, though again there is no way to prove it one way or the other.
As much as publishers complain about Gamestop (either directly or indirectly) just imagine how much more appealing used games would be if they priced them more aggressively.
When that fairly small difference new games have a pretty good chance. Should the price difference be more significant, like $15 or so, I could only imagine what a kick to the teeth that would be.
0
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
I know this is anecdotal, but I personally don't know anyone who buys recently released games used.
I agree with my distinguished colleague Mr. chocobolicious. I do not think the used game market is hurting Publishers/Devs bottom line in a real significant way. Unfortunately without any real numbers, I can only go off my gut feeling. And my gut tells me that the whole, "Oh no! The used game market is taking food out of the mouths of hard working developers' children!" is really just corporate Newspeak for, "we want all the monies."
If there was no used games market and everyone had to buy new, do I think developers would see more money in their bank accounts? Once again I have to go with my gut and my gut says no, probably not.
Though I could just be cynical.
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
I guess the only way a person who aggressively buys used would buy new is via trade-ins. Which relies on there being a used market.
If that person buys used aggressively, wont they be much more inclined to use their trade-ins for more used games?
I don't think that used games are evil or that publishers should try to abolish them, but I do think that the presence of used games negatively impacts the bottom lines of developers. I think the most important point made in this thread so far is that if developers see used games as enough of a problem to take action all they would have to do is start competitively pricing their games through digital distribution or other sales. The fact that console developers are not trying to cut out the middle man through competitive pricing may indicate that they have a relatively small impact on the developer in the long run. On the other hand publishers may just be so resistant to change that they would rather take the losses than change their pricing structure.
"GameStop has released its financial results for its fiscal third quarter, which ended October 29. Things remained relatively flat, with sales seeing a slight increase from $1.9 billion during the same period last year to $1.95 billion"
How can any competition EVER get into the used game market, in a Brick and Mortar sense, when GameStop can just throw money at them to shut them out.
You want someone to blame for publishers trying to rake back a tiny bit of that profit? (5% of that would be 5 million dollars), blame GameStop. Giving 30 bucks for a trade then selling it 5 bucks cheaper, removing the chance for the new game to make any money, Its a business strategy for sure , a successful one at that, the response is locked, online pass accessed elements.
If we let the industry kill Gamestop with online passes and such, then maybe they won't feel the need to technologically prevent us from playing used games.
I'll sympathize with Publishers/Devs in regards to used sales when the video games industry starts sympathizing with me as a consumer. I'd like some enforced industry standards in terms of product quality (oh lol they released a beta again), practices (oh hey they're making us pay extra for stuff they removed from the disc before releasing the game) and long term support (ah crap, they're shutting down the servers that allow me to play the game I paid for), for example.
Until then? Not gonna shed a tear over used sales. Too busy being fucked over by shoddy ports, oppressive DRM and abusive DLC strategies.
I'm not sure why people are so down on gamestop (who admittedly have been jerks about things previously), but so sympathetic to big publishing (who are also out to extract as much money as possible.)
ed: I mean walk into a damn gamestop sometime. You know what they aren't selling? Indie games.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
"GameStop has released its financial results for its fiscal third quarter, which ended October 29. Things remained relatively flat, with sales seeing a slight increase from $1.9 billion during the same period last year to $1.95 billion"
How can any competition EVER get into the used game market, in a Brick and Mortar sense, when GameStop can just throw money at them to shut them out.
You want someone to blame for publishers trying to rake back a tiny bit of that profit? (5% of that would be 5 million dollars), blame GameStop. Giving 30 bucks for a trade then selling it 5 bucks cheaper, removing the chance for the new game to make any money, Its a business strategy for sure , a successful one at that, the response is locked, online pass accessed elements.
I think the answer is not to get into the market through brick and mortar, but for publishers to adopt a digital distribution system that actually provides a good user experience for consoles. Without the overhead that Gamestop pays for every one of its stores, publishers could price their games competitively and still see a cut of every sale, while customers get a (hopefully) convenient way to purchase games.
I'm not sure why people are so down on gamestop (who admittedly have been jerks about things previously), but so sympathetic to big publishing (who are also out to extract as much money as possible.)
ed: I mean walk into a damn gamestop sometime. You know what they aren't selling? Indie games.
I think the negativity towards Gamestop comes because they offer very little in the way of an actual service to their customers. New games can be found in larger quantities and better sales at traditional retailers and used games are not competitively priced compared to Steam (or the theoretical Steam equivalent on consoles). Publishers, on the other hand, create games that we want to play. They don't always use the best practices and they certainly don't put their customers first, but at least when they are trying to increase their profits some of that money goes towards creating games in the future.
What Gamestop does have going for it is that it's often the only way to find a title that has been out of print for years. However, digital distribution solves that simply by never letting titles go out of print.
And the developer/publisher still doesn't see any part of the sale. The only way I'll ever buy a used game from Gamestop (or in theory, Ebay, though I've never been part of that scene) now is if that's the only way I can get my hands on the game, but that's because I view it as Gamestop essentially facilitating abandonware. I'd be happy to cut them out of the chain entirely, but it would require me doing things to my consoles that I don't want to do.
0
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
I'm not against the used game market in any way. I just dislike GameStop and their shoddy/shady practices.
At the same time a lot of Publishers (not all, but many) seem to want to actively fuck over their legitimate customers. So I'm not going to be shedding any tears over their lost potential earnings that the used game market takes.
Honestly, when these people refer to the "used game market", I doubt very much they are talking about Mom 'n Pop stores, but are in fact talking strictly about GameStop. Which one could argue, quite well in IMHO, that GameStop is the used game market.
At the heart of the matter are two entities I really don't care for. Both seem to hate their customers, both want to nickle and dime their customers, and both are faceless corporate entities.
At the end of the day the only real choice a consumer has is which one do you prefer screws you over?
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
Used games aren't 'evil' in any sense, but they aren't exactly creating a great gaming environment either. Would all this online pass/preorder dlc/multiplayer EVERYWHERE bullshit really be popping up if publishers weren't so desperate to stem the advent of gamestop's crushing used games market? I don't know. The fact that gamestop became such a juggernaut in used games and these systems started to rise up directly afterwards is a good indication of cause and effect, though again there is no way to prove it one way or the other.
y'know what else doesn't create a good gaming environment? massive, multi-million game budgets that drive devs and publishers to look at every avenue they can to save money. they spend so much money on marketing, and have massive teams working on these games. these reactions to the used market end up hurting the customer because they are so desperate to break even with their games. look at THQ, whose basically on the verge of going out of business because they just throw money at the wall to see if anything sticks.
used games shouldn't even be a factor if your game sells well, and that starts with the product. don't place limitations on the costumer because you want to save money, because that's counter intuitive. if your game is quality people will line up to buy it new.
I also really don't believe publishers are losing out on $Texas because gamers are buying recently released games for $58 used. Annecdotally, I've never seen this happen and I've never heard anyone say they'd do it. If anything the general consensus seems to be that gamers will happily pay a 5-10% premium to support publishers if given the option. What they will not do is pay a 20+% premium without balking (notice that the earlier Dark Souls example was right about a 20% jump for the new version).
The problem seems to be that publishers see all these dollars spent on the game 2-3 months later for 30-50% less than retail and instead of saying 'how do we get a piece of that market?' they ask 'why are these thieves not giving us our $60? How do we kill this market?'
This is especially sad given DD options even on consoles make it so easy to do a delayed budget release. If EA announced they would be putting ME3 on XBL for $30 6 months after launch I doubt it would cost them any real money - everyone willing to wait that long already knew they could get it for that price by then. And yet for some reason publishers are terrified that satin this out loud would kill their day 1 sales.
Annecdotally, I've never seen this happen and I've never heard anyone say they'd do it. If anything the general consensus seems to be that gamers will happily pay a 5-10% premium to support publishers if given the option. What they will not do is pay a 20+% premium without balking (notice that the earlier Dark Souls example was right about a 20% jump for the new version).
Not everyone who buys games is a gamer, there are a hella lot of soccer moms and grandparents out there.
The problem seems to be that publishers see all these dollars spent on the game 2-3 months later for 30-50% less than retail and instead of saying 'how do we get a piece of that market?' they ask 'why are these thieves not giving us our $60? How do we kill this market?'
The problem isn't "how do we kill the market?", its how do we redirect some of that money back towards us instead of into the pockets of GameStop?, given the afore mentioned '5 dollar savings' issue forcing GameStop to drop the price of used games but admit to a better product if they buy the game new, is the start of "how do we get a piece of this market?"
This is especially sad given DD options even on consoles make it so easy to do a delayed budget release. If EA announced they would be putting ME3 on XBL for $30 6 months after launch I doubt it would cost them any real money - everyone willing to wait that long already knew they could get it for that price by then. And yet for some reason publishers are terrified that satin this out loud would kill their day 1 sales.
Ok this one needs a longer explanation, DD options for both Sony and Microsoft have the same certification costs as the main game, with the added problem of making sure patches and DLC play nice with the DD build of the game, and that all costs money, Failing certification runs into the tens of thousands of dollars, So when you say 'DD is just the digital code, abloo abloo', its not, its another product.
And until people stop wanting physical copies it will always go this way.
that's the thing, some act like people buying used don't care about developers. that's just crap, in fact i try to buy new when i can, especially if it's one i know will be worth my $60. it's not a cheap hobby and game companies don't seem to want to see it from our perspective.
I can't take the developer's complaints about Gamestop seriously when they're also sucking Gamestop's cock with all this preorder shit.
This.
Game Informer doesn't seem to have any trouble lining up friendly interviews with industry execs. And those online passes are up on display for purchase right in the store, sometimes with Gamestop branding right on the face. Like consumers, when businesses have something to say, they say it with their pocketbook, or with their feet. What the big publishers, at least, are saying loudly with their actions is that Gamestop is more than worth courting as a huge distribution outlet and advertising venue that pitches preorders to all that foot traffic who comes through the door for cheap used games.
Zoku Gojira on
"Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are." - Bertolt Brecht
One part of the used games argument that seems to always be forgotten is the other side of the equation - people who trade their games in get store credit, which is then used to buy games. You stop used game sales, and you stop one of the means by which people buy new and other used games.
Used games aren't 'evil' in any sense, but they aren't exactly creating a great gaming environment either. Would all this online pass/preorder dlc/multiplayer EVERYWHERE bullshit really be popping up if publishers weren't so desperate to stem the advent of gamestop's crushing used games market? I don't know. The fact that gamestop became such a juggernaut in used games and these systems started to rise up directly afterwards is a good indication of cause and effect, though again there is no way to prove it one way or the other.
I see people make this argument and I just want to throw notsureifserious.jpg at them.
Like, EA's goal is not to deliver games to the consumer at the lowest price they can, and they don't view cut content/dlc/etc as an unfortunate way of coping with used sales. Their goal is to make as much fucking money as possible, and DLC/pre-orders/multiplayer/social media/origin are a way to do that. They would do it whether used games (or piracy for that matter) existed or not, cause it's a way to extract more cash from the consumer.
I don't hold it against them really because I'm smart enough to not pre-order at gamestop or buy all the other stupid shit people buy for the sake of having every possible shiny thing, but let's not pretend they wouldn't be doing it anyway. They started doing it the precise moment technology made it possible for them to begin doing it, and if every gamestop burned to the ground tomorrow they wouldn't stop.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I also really don't believe publishers are losing out on $Texas because gamers are buying recently released games for $58 used.
Really?, People are dumb, They'll see five buck off an think 'I save 5 bucks' when really they don't, in addition they cost a new game sale.
Anecdote meets anecdote. Shockingly, I am unconvinced by yours. And until GameStop decides to just give away publicly some very valuable information about the distribution of their used sales, that's about all we've got to go on.
Annecdotally, I've never seen this happen and I've never heard anyone say they'd do it. If anything the general consensus seems to be that gamers will happily pay a 5-10% premium to support publishers if given the option. What they will not do is pay a 20+% premium without balking (notice that the earlier Dark Souls example was right about a 20% jump for the new version).
Not everyone who buys games is a gamer, there are a hella lot of soccer moms and grandparents out there.
So let me get this rght: the soccer mom is 'stupid' enough to care abut the $5 difference and doesnt care about hurting the publisher but is also aware of, say, the $6 worth of levels behind an online pass and will take that into account when making their new/used decision? Once again I don't find your not-even-an-anecdote argument all that compelling.
The problem seems to be that publishers see all these dollars spent on the game 2-3 months later for 30-50% less than retail and instead of saying 'how do we get a piece of that market?' they ask 'why are these thieves not giving us our $60? How do we kill this market?'
The problem isn't "how do we kill the market?", its how do we redirect some of that money back towards us instead of into the pockets of GameStop?, given the afore mentioned '5 dollar savings' issue forcing GameStop to drop the price of used games but admit to a better product if they buy the game new, is the start of "how do we get a piece of this market?"
Prove that this '$5 issue' has any real impact. For that matter prove that it even exists. I'll wait while you dig for all that detailed sales info we don't have.
This is especially sad given DD options even on consoles make it so easy to do a delayed budget release. If EA announced they would be putting ME3 on XBL for $30 6 months after launch I doubt it would cost them any real money - everyone willing to wait that long already knew they could get it for that price by then. And yet for some reason publishers are terrified that satin this out loud would kill their day 1 sales.
Ok this one needs a longer explanation, DD options for both Sony and Microsoft have the same certification costs as the main game, with the added problem of making sure patches and DLC play nice with the DD build of the game, and that all costs money, Failing certification runs into the tens of thousands of dollars, So when you say 'DD is just the digital code, abloo abloo', its not, its another product.
And until people stop wanting physical copies it will always go this way.
...and yet tons of publishers feel its worth putting out Live editions of games for 2-3 times the used cost which will never sell shit. It's sure as hell easier to release a time delayed budget version DD that it is to convince retailers to carry a physical copy on their shelves, which WAS the company line argument against it until DD made that laughable on its face. Is it FREE to release a DD edition of a game that beats the used market price 3 months after launch. No. Is it profitable? I find it hard to believe it wouldn't be in most cases.
[edit]
Okay finally got the damn quote tags right.
Posts
I'm sure some people would buy new copies if used wasn't an option, but you have to present some kind of evidence saying that a majority of even plurality would do that.
Until the laws are changed such that Microsoft & it's cronies can "lease" video games (copyrighted software) for the Xbox, there will be a used game market.
What you should really fear is a world where you only get games via Live and the prices are still $60 forever. My biggest beef with console games is the cost.
Steam is living proof that fair pricing can result in first-time purchases of old games. I spent more during the Steam holiday sale this year than I've spent on new Xbox games in the past two years. My Xbox has become a fancy Netflix device because new games cost too much. I keep saying to myself I should play more games on the Xbox and less games on my PC, but when push comes to shove, I can more easily justify PC game purchases.
i disagree completely, if i can't buy it used i skip it until i can
Ignoring monkey wrenches like online passes or Dragon Age like DLC (which is becoming harder and harder to do) for me the decision lies in the price difference new vs used. If I'm looking at a new game at $30 and the used is $25-$27 I'd rather show the devs the support and not deal with any potential hassels related to buying used. However if that used price was closer to $10-$15 I'd most likely snag that instead. I'd assume that everyone has their own tip range (for lack of a better term) even if that range is $0.01 :P
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire,
that's what's baffling about on demand games on 360 at least, they put months old games up for $60 or close to it and then wonder why they aren't making money on it.
Yeah, I'm the same way. Yet, I think a lot of gamers aren't. It's hard to find a more fickle, impulsive buying audience than gamers, particularly the younger ones.
microsoft could do this right now, if they wanted
first sale doesn't say that publishers are required to support first sale. It just says that selling your copy does not represent infringement. If they sell you a product with controls that prevent you from re-selling it, too bad for you.
ed: especially now that the DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent most of said controls)
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
They also are unashamedly a place for thieves to fence stolen games, as they (at least until I stopped shopping there years ago) don't verify any of the data they collect when you trade in, and they don't hold games like a pawn shop would have to.
I'll be happy to see a future where the stores that are completely leveraged on used game sales have taken themselves out of the game by driving publishers to online distro only. It will be far better for the industry as a whole.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
It's not really all that different from how the recording industry tackled the advent of the internet. Or rather, they didn't. They first tried to deny it altogether because it completely circumvented their business model. Then they tried to apply the old business model except online, and it still didn't work. Apple comes in and takes the whole industry by storm with iTunes. RIAA and co throw a massive hissy fit and try to get Apple to charge "proper" prices for "proper" content, but by that stage it's already too late.
The key thing is the belief that you have absolute control of the supply of the content, and therefore people WILL buy it at the prices you set. Where it breaks down is when
a) you're charging too much for people to stomach so they look for alternatives, or
b) there's a competitor offering it cheaper
It's closed system thinking. MS want to create their own economy within the closed system of XBL, everything having prices that define their "value", the consumer should accept that these items are of those specific values, and no less. The problem is that it flies in the face of reality when you're expecting people to pay full price for games that are ancient. Nobody will buy it, but people buying games for less isn't the mentality that they want people to get into.
Steam on the other hand is on an open platform. They aren't the only game in town and if people decide one day they don't like Steam or its prices, they can easily go to any of a half-dozen other stores now, each of which is competing for your money. Likewise developers (both indie and major league) price their games with the competition in mind as well.
Way back when, before services like Steam and similar (but maybe after the golden age of shareware), there were still indie devs and an indie scene on the PC. But what you were seeing was similar to what you see on XBL today. I remember a lot of indie devs pushing crappy rip-offs of Arkanoid, derivative platformers of all sorts, and similar. And they'd charge as full price games, £20, £30 and so on. Same mentality "I'm the only one selling MY product, so if you want it you'll pay MY price".
Admittedly it's a lot more complicated than that. The indie scene back then was also much smaller, so higher price points were understandable in a way. But I saw a lot of devs charging copies of arkanoid-alikes for the kind of money you'd expect to spend in-store on a major release.
Now my friends want to play BF3. How can I explain to them why this game, which is 3 months old, will cost them $60 when people paid $42 at -1 months? I'm not even talking about map-packs and such, which us early adopters already get for free.
The fact that the retailers can mark down these games to $40 says something. That you can go to Best Buy, Walmart, etc. and get Assassin's Creed/BF/COD/etc. for $40, really shakes the whole "games must cost $60" thing. And that's why used games gain so much traction -- it makes those $60 titles stand out that much more months later.
I am far more inclined to buy discounted games however.
It just seems to me that in the time it takes used games to come down to a price I find agreeable, I can buy the Greatest Hits (or its equivalent) for the same price (if not cheaper). Failing a Greatest Hits version, I can usually count on some sort of sale that'll let me snag the game at a great price.
We have two used games stores in my town. One GameStop, which seems to range wildly in quality season to season for some unknowable reason and a Mom and Pop store. The M 'n P store has great prices, but I am fairly certain a lot of those games are stolen.
On the extremely rare occasions I do buy a used game, its normally something from a previous Gen that I can't find in stores anymore and the prices on ebay or amazon are insane.
edit- Caveat to buying previous Gen games used.
If they are available on the PSN or XBL or Nintendo store I will buy it there. Likewise if there is a new handheld version.
Fucking bought Chrono Trigger countless times. :P
Obviously there's a much larger market for games, but games back then weren't built by a team of a hundred with a huge publisher backing them and all the marketing and other things. It's a weird sort of thing, but we've gotten an immense increase in quality with no real change in cost. The Atari console itself was $150 or so, or $450 today.
Except, bottom line, if there was no used sales at all then every game sold would be for profit. That is the one factoid we can take out of this.
Case in point as someone made above: they planned to buy new and simply didn't because a cheaper used option was there. Thats flat out a lost sale. I know I've done the same once or twice.
Do I think a majority of the market is this way? Probably not. Do I think there are enough people who are this way that it would make up for the market who buy through used game tradeins? I do. I have no facts to support this (As none really exist that can be used as a viable metric.) but I really think most publisher/developer bottom lines wouldn't be hurt by such a thing.
In fact, in the long run, even many cheap gamers would simply wait til the new game goes on sale/gets discounted to the point that they'd be willing to pay for it. Even if the sale isn't made within the critical initial month, at the very least the money is still coming in months down the road. This point is extremely important to more niche titles and developers who aren't ballin hard off something like CoD which can sell enough copies to support several dev teams for the next year.
Used games aren't 'evil' in any sense, but they aren't exactly creating a great gaming environment either. Would all this online pass/preorder dlc/multiplayer EVERYWHERE bullshit really be popping up if publishers weren't so desperate to stem the advent of gamestop's crushing used games market? I don't know. The fact that gamestop became such a juggernaut in used games and these systems started to rise up directly afterwards is a good indication of cause and effect, though again there is no way to prove it one way or the other.
When that fairly small difference new games have a pretty good chance. Should the price difference be more significant, like $15 or so, I could only imagine what a kick to the teeth that would be.
I agree with my distinguished colleague Mr. chocobolicious. I do not think the used game market is hurting Publishers/Devs bottom line in a real significant way. Unfortunately without any real numbers, I can only go off my gut feeling. And my gut tells me that the whole, "Oh no! The used game market is taking food out of the mouths of hard working developers' children!" is really just corporate Newspeak for, "we want all the monies."
If there was no used games market and everyone had to buy new, do I think developers would see more money in their bank accounts? Once again I have to go with my gut and my gut says no, probably not.
Though I could just be cynical.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
If that person buys used aggressively, wont they be much more inclined to use their trade-ins for more used games?
I don't think that used games are evil or that publishers should try to abolish them, but I do think that the presence of used games negatively impacts the bottom lines of developers. I think the most important point made in this thread so far is that if developers see used games as enough of a problem to take action all they would have to do is start competitively pricing their games through digital distribution or other sales. The fact that console developers are not trying to cut out the middle man through competitive pricing may indicate that they have a relatively small impact on the developer in the long run. On the other hand publishers may just be so resistant to change that they would rather take the losses than change their pricing structure.
How can any competition EVER get into the used game market, in a Brick and Mortar sense, when GameStop can just throw money at them to shut them out.
You want someone to blame for publishers trying to rake back a tiny bit of that profit? (5% of that would be 5 million dollars), blame GameStop. Giving 30 bucks for a trade then selling it 5 bucks cheaper, removing the chance for the new game to make any money, Its a business strategy for sure , a successful one at that, the response is locked, online pass accessed elements.
Until then? Not gonna shed a tear over used sales. Too busy being fucked over by shoddy ports, oppressive DRM and abusive DLC strategies.
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
ed: I mean walk into a damn gamestop sometime. You know what they aren't selling? Indie games.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I think the answer is not to get into the market through brick and mortar, but for publishers to adopt a digital distribution system that actually provides a good user experience for consoles. Without the overhead that Gamestop pays for every one of its stores, publishers could price their games competitively and still see a cut of every sale, while customers get a (hopefully) convenient way to purchase games.
I think the negativity towards Gamestop comes because they offer very little in the way of an actual service to their customers. New games can be found in larger quantities and better sales at traditional retailers and used games are not competitively priced compared to Steam (or the theoretical Steam equivalent on consoles). Publishers, on the other hand, create games that we want to play. They don't always use the best practices and they certainly don't put their customers first, but at least when they are trying to increase their profits some of that money goes towards creating games in the future.
And the developer/publisher still doesn't see any part of the sale. The only way I'll ever buy a used game from Gamestop (or in theory, Ebay, though I've never been part of that scene) now is if that's the only way I can get my hands on the game, but that's because I view it as Gamestop essentially facilitating abandonware. I'd be happy to cut them out of the chain entirely, but it would require me doing things to my consoles that I don't want to do.
At the same time a lot of Publishers (not all, but many) seem to want to actively fuck over their legitimate customers. So I'm not going to be shedding any tears over their lost potential earnings that the used game market takes.
Honestly, when these people refer to the "used game market", I doubt very much they are talking about Mom 'n Pop stores, but are in fact talking strictly about GameStop. Which one could argue, quite well in IMHO, that GameStop is the used game market.
At the heart of the matter are two entities I really don't care for. Both seem to hate their customers, both want to nickle and dime their customers, and both are faceless corporate entities.
At the end of the day the only real choice a consumer has is which one do you prefer screws you over?
y'know what else doesn't create a good gaming environment? massive, multi-million game budgets that drive devs and publishers to look at every avenue they can to save money. they spend so much money on marketing, and have massive teams working on these games. these reactions to the used market end up hurting the customer because they are so desperate to break even with their games. look at THQ, whose basically on the verge of going out of business because they just throw money at the wall to see if anything sticks.
used games shouldn't even be a factor if your game sells well, and that starts with the product. don't place limitations on the costumer because you want to save money, because that's counter intuitive. if your game is quality people will line up to buy it new.
The problem seems to be that publishers see all these dollars spent on the game 2-3 months later for 30-50% less than retail and instead of saying 'how do we get a piece of that market?' they ask 'why are these thieves not giving us our $60? How do we kill this market?'
This is especially sad given DD options even on consoles make it so easy to do a delayed budget release. If EA announced they would be putting ME3 on XBL for $30 6 months after launch I doubt it would cost them any real money - everyone willing to wait that long already knew they could get it for that price by then. And yet for some reason publishers are terrified that satin this out loud would kill their day 1 sales.
Really?, People are dumb, They'll see five buck off an think 'I save 5 bucks' when really they don't, in addition they cost a new game sale.
Not everyone who buys games is a gamer, there are a hella lot of soccer moms and grandparents out there.
The problem isn't "how do we kill the market?", its how do we redirect some of that money back towards us instead of into the pockets of GameStop?, given the afore mentioned '5 dollar savings' issue forcing GameStop to drop the price of used games but admit to a better product if they buy the game new, is the start of "how do we get a piece of this market?"
Ok this one needs a longer explanation, DD options for both Sony and Microsoft have the same certification costs as the main game, with the added problem of making sure patches and DLC play nice with the DD build of the game, and that all costs money, Failing certification runs into the tens of thousands of dollars, So when you say 'DD is just the digital code, abloo abloo', its not, its another product.
And until people stop wanting physical copies it will always go this way.
This.
Game Informer doesn't seem to have any trouble lining up friendly interviews with industry execs. And those online passes are up on display for purchase right in the store, sometimes with Gamestop branding right on the face. Like consumers, when businesses have something to say, they say it with their pocketbook, or with their feet. What the big publishers, at least, are saying loudly with their actions is that Gamestop is more than worth courting as a huge distribution outlet and advertising venue that pitches preorders to all that foot traffic who comes through the door for cheap used games.
Fixed that for you.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
I see people make this argument and I just want to throw notsureifserious.jpg at them.
Like, EA's goal is not to deliver games to the consumer at the lowest price they can, and they don't view cut content/dlc/etc as an unfortunate way of coping with used sales. Their goal is to make as much fucking money as possible, and DLC/pre-orders/multiplayer/social media/origin are a way to do that. They would do it whether used games (or piracy for that matter) existed or not, cause it's a way to extract more cash from the consumer.
I don't hold it against them really because I'm smart enough to not pre-order at gamestop or buy all the other stupid shit people buy for the sake of having every possible shiny thing, but let's not pretend they wouldn't be doing it anyway. They started doing it the precise moment technology made it possible for them to begin doing it, and if every gamestop burned to the ground tomorrow they wouldn't stop.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Anecdote meets anecdote. Shockingly, I am unconvinced by yours. And until GameStop decides to just give away publicly some very valuable information about the distribution of their used sales, that's about all we've got to go on.
So let me get this rght: the soccer mom is 'stupid' enough to care abut the $5 difference and doesnt care about hurting the publisher but is also aware of, say, the $6 worth of levels behind an online pass and will take that into account when making their new/used decision? Once again I don't find your not-even-an-anecdote argument all that compelling.
Prove that this '$5 issue' has any real impact. For that matter prove that it even exists. I'll wait while you dig for all that detailed sales info we don't have.
...and yet tons of publishers feel its worth putting out Live editions of games for 2-3 times the used cost which will never sell shit. It's sure as hell easier to release a time delayed budget version DD that it is to convince retailers to carry a physical copy on their shelves, which WAS the company line argument against it until DD made that laughable on its face. Is it FREE to release a DD edition of a game that beats the used market price 3 months after launch. No. Is it profitable? I find it hard to believe it wouldn't be in most cases.
[edit]
Okay finally got the damn quote tags right.