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?'
They have been adapting, though. They've figured out a way to get money from people who buy the used games, while barely affecting the majority of people who buy the games new.
It's easy to accuse companies of effectively just downgrading the quality of their games for everyone, but it isn't like they have much room to upgrade. If everything is already present on the disk and unlocked, making a new purchase better involves making the used purchase exactly as much better. The only way that companies can make a superior experience for their customers without shooting themselves in the foot by supporting non-customers just as much is to build in some sort of online system that only customers have access to, whether it be free DLC or registration-required online.
The big innovation lately has merely been allowing non-customers to become customers from their own homes, instead of requiring them to purchase a full copy of the the product.
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?"
by competitively pricing games in away that is attractive to customers? let's put it this way: nobody is out to save just $5, if they are that close in price i too would just make the jump to buying new. but it's usually a better discount than that if you are smart. the whole point of this is that gaming on the whole is prohibitively expensive hobby. instead of making good decisions developers spend more money coming up with ways to piss in used game buyers cherrios. it's tough that gamestop has managed to make a whole bunch of money off used games, but the used game market would exist with or without them. hell, if they did go under you can bet there'd be a new company doing the same thing.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited January 2012
I hate to come in here and imply some sort of "My real life is better blah blah" attitude over anyone, which is absolutely not my intent but right now buying used games is a rather irrelevant thing to me. I'm not going to say that nobody else is busy, isn't married, has stuff to do on a regular basis but for me with how my life is now, it's rather demanding time wise. I work on SCIENCE! once again, I'm married to a lovely woman and I am the regular cook in the house. The point is that I now have so much less time for games than I did some time ago, that I can only play one or at most two games at a time. Skyrim has kept me occupied all January, at least until my 360 hard drive imploded, but in that time there isn't any room for another game - there simply isn't time. What time I did have to play games went into Skyrim and pretty much stayed there. I played that game for 91 hours and yeah, that's impressive but that was from December 25 (when I got it) to January 26. That's only ~3 hours a day on average (with some days obviously being higher than others) and I've been on holiday most of that time, with my new position beginning next week. It's the fact I haven't really played a whole lot else outside of that time in terms of other games that's different.
So while games are expensive, there isn't the huge incentive for me to go buy used games anymore that I used to have. This is because I simply am not able to play what I buy anymore outside of a very limited selection. I can buy one game a month or so and it will (due to the amount of time I spend with it) keep me occupied most of the month playing it. If a game is of good quality and I want it, I have no problem buying it new and will anyway. I don't feel the need to wait for a sale because unless that game isn't very long, it's going to last me a fair amount of time just because I can't sit down, plug it in and play 4 hours a day (and double that easily on weekends) that I used to. This means I'm just not caring about the used game market, especially the disgusting way that I've heard gamestop attempts to push it over new releases whatsoever. If publishers want to make day 1 DLC (Online Passes) or screw them over by having some sort of a system to prevent used sales it isn't going to be a huge issue to me. I will happily plunk my money down on great new games I want, as this month I'm buying Kingdoms of Amalur and next month I'm buying Mass Effect 3. I want to buy these games because I think the developers are great people, deserve my money and they look to have made great games. I don't have a compulsion to buy every single game I think is fun anymore, so I'm not going to feel "left out" if I miss anything. I didn't buy Rage for example, despite it being a great sounding shooter simply because I had played enough of them last year (and actually, for a while).
If I didn't want them I wouldn't buy them and I've got to the point where I'm not just going to buy anything I feel like, then leave a string of unloved or unfinished games due to new releases. Good examples include Star Ocean, Resonance of Fate and LA. Noire. I'm not making some list here of things that I hate or bought and regretted: These are all games that got buried under other ones that I bought subsequently. Star Ocean III I bought used (ironically) because I couldn't find it anywhere else, but after buying it I got Tales of Vesperia and didn't look back. I was still on the last dungeon of that game when I gave it up over a year and a half ago. Resonance of Fate is a brilliant JRPG with an excellent combat system and great story. Once again, it got buried under other games I bought and I haven't progressed further than chapter IV. In fact, I didn't even progress past Chapter III until about 2ish months ago when I decided to play it again on a whim. LA. Noire was a great if very flawed game, which I have all the DLC for but I got it a bit late to the party and again, buried under new releases. I haven't got past the second case of the vice desk (if you're familiar with the game).
I have many more examples of this but the point is I don't need to buy a lot of games anymore. Because I am failing to play the games I do buy and that's not a good thing by any means. There really isn't anything wrong with those games above, they are just falling by the wayside due to the fact I'm buying too many other games combined with the increasing lack of time to play them. So a "used" market is utterly irrelevant to the way I am buying and playing games from this year on. I'll get one game and maybe a couple of Xbox live arcade games, but otherwise not buy things until I'm finished with them. Then either go back and play what I missed, or buy a new release I want. Will I miss out on tons of great games? Yes I will. But will I get to fully enjoy all the great games I do buy because I'm giving the time they deserve to play them? Yes. Yes I will.
I do feel it sucks that people's consumer rights to resale things they "own" (and I am using the term "own" here liberally because the games industry clearly has other ideas now) is being violated - but then again the PC has already been doing this for a while. Steam is a form of DRM and provides a platform that doesn't have any resale value: But it's hardly killed the PC gaming industry. In fact I suspect steam is probably what keeps the PC a relevant platform and alive, with the amount of great indie games on there and the numerous sales of games it has (for ridiculously great prices). So while it might be a scary and dark future where we can't trade in games anymore, if that future looks like a console version of steam and perhaps the sales to go with it, I can't see it being that bad.
I would definitely buy the odd game if it had a sale if there was nothing else I wanted to buy, but there is nothing that tells me "Just wait a week, buy it used for like $10 less" or whatever. If digital distribution of games becomes a common thing in the future, then I'm not worried about the lack of a second hand market so long as I can get titles I missed if I want easily. This is actually why I rather love steam in a lot of ways despite the fact I can't "resell" my games. As long as I can still buy physical copies of a game in a store - which one day could go the way of the dodo as well - I'm not going to be unhappy. I like a collection of games on my shelf and always will, but if the times change and I still want to play games I'll probably just go with it anyway.
Quite frankly, the bitching about used games getting "screwed" due to DLC is just ridiculous. You aren't their customer and they don't have to give a royal fifth of a shit if you are incensed at them dropping seven quests, denying access to multiplayer or whatever other things they decide to do. Outside of making the game absolutely unplayable without DLC, this is really an irrelevant complaint and my only response is "Deal with it". You aren't giving the publisher any of the proceeds and arguing "Well someone else did" just doesn't cut it in any way as an argument. The fact is you didn't and so they have no reason to treat you as their customer: You're the customer of the store you bought it off in the first place. The publisher, developer and anyone else doesn't owe you jack beyond that, so stop pretending you're entitled to what people plunking down full price get as a thanks or benefit for buying the game new.
As for offline gamers, this is an even more asinine argument than the whole thing over the online pass debate (which does have valid points on both sides at least). Someone offline can't use multiplayer features anyway and a great deal of EA games online pass these functions. If you can't get online and if the game lacks significant split screen play, there is usually no significant problem there in the first place. It's irrelevant to them. As for bonus content, I can agree there that it sucks but it depends on what it is. Dragon Age 2 for example has a DLC character that actually is really plot critical and helps to make some of the story make sense. Without him, one of the acts feels like a chopped up half assed mess with no actual logic behind it (of course the DLC character doesn't help entirely, but it comes off much better with him). I can feel sympathy there, but if it's used alright for just some extra items or a few quests (out of hundreds) I really can't see offline gamers losing out hugely.
Being from New Zealand originally, I know what it's like to have absolutely terrible internet that only works for half the month and might as well not exist beyond that due to incredibly low data caps (20gigs - imagine playing the games you do, downloading and such on a 20 gig cap per month. It's not easy whatsoever). You just have to live with it and play your games that need internet DLC or whatever at the start of the month, with other games later. That's just the way an increasingly digital world works and there is no easy solution to that except to force telecommunications companies to pull their finger out (haha, like they will).
So really, I could care less what happens to the used games market. With what gamestop and its ilk have turned it into, I can't say I am going to miss it in any way. Honestly if you have the time to play a ton of games then maybe you should look at sales, like on steam (or hopefully console equivalent services) or even buying the cheaper and often very awesome Xbox live arcade games to fill the gap or something. Plenty to choose from that's great and will occupy plenty of time between new releases that you really do want to pay full price for. Sure you can't wait a week and get it $10 off anymore, but really is that such a terrible thing when there are so many good games to play anyway that are worth the full price?
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.
Anecdote? that was the thrid quarter share holder info, thats as public as they get. What? you think they made 19.5 billion in mostly new sales?, Take a moment and think about that statement, Don’t you think its odd that the business model relies on pre–orders? And has more used stock than new?.
You have no numbers to back up your previous statements, but some reasonable educated guesses can be made.
So let me get this right: the soccer mom is 'stupid' enough to care about the $5 difference and doesn’t 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
I never called anyone stupid, uninformed maybe but never stupid.
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.
Its human nature to buy the cheaper product, especially when you are an uninformed consumer, see the link above once again.
...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.
The choice of when and where to release a DD version is a new thing, and price is usually set by MS or Sony, you have to allow the industry time to work out the birthing pangs that come with a new distribution model.
Can I ask where is your knowledge on the subject coming from? How you know so much about the Live and PSN certification process?
The fact that they made $lots on used games as an aggregate is not really relevant to this part of the conversation; we're discussing the distribution of used game sales within that block, I.e. whether GameStop makes its money selling new releases for $58 or selling titles 2-3 months after release for $30-$40 to a customer base that simply wasn't going to buy that title for $60. We almost certainly DO NOT have the detailed data to make that determination; if you believe it's out there and backs up your argument, go find it.
And you're right, you didn't call non-gamer consumers stupid. You called them 'dumb'. Clearly I made a huge mistake in mischaracterizing your comments.
Quite frankly, the bitching about used games getting "screwed" due to DLC is just ridiculous. You aren't their customer and they don't have to give a royal fifth of a shit if you are incensed at them dropping seven quests, denying access to multiplayer or whatever other things they decide to do. Outside of making the game absolutely unplayable without DLC, this is really an irrelevant complaint and my only response is "Deal with it". You aren't giving the publisher any of the proceeds and arguing "Well someone else did" just doesn't cut it in any way as an argument. The fact is you didn't and so they have no reason to treat you as their customer: You're the customer of the store you bought it off in the first place. The publisher, developer and anyone else doesn't owe you jack beyond that, so stop pretending you're entitled to what people plunking down full price get as a thanks or benefit for buying the game new.
This times a thousand. I really don't get the entitled bitching that happens whenever the publishers try and come up with some way to at least profit off of the used game market. Why should they give two shits about people not buying any more used games? It's not like a lost used game sale to Gamestop is going to affect EA's bottom line at any point. Sure, the argument could be made that "well, in the future, if you buy this old game used that isn't sold anymore officially, you may not even be able to redeem these features!" To which I say that argument is horseshit. A lot of old games don't have functional MP anymore just because the master servers are gone. It's not any different from that.
Sure, some things being locked up as DLC and what not is dumb if it directly impacts your game in a meaningful way (like with that DA2 example) and practices like that should be protested against, but beyond that? Pfft, who cares if you can't access your horse armor anymore?
So really, I could care less what happens to the used games market. With what gamestop and its ilk have turned it into, I can't say I am going to miss it in any way. Honestly if you have the time to play a ton of games then maybe you should look at sales, like on steam (or hopefully console equivalent services) or even buying the cheaper and often very awesome Xbox live arcade games to fill the gap or something. Plenty to choose from that's great and will occupy plenty of time between new releases that you really do want to pay full price for. Sure you can't wait a week and get it $10 off anymore, but really is that such a terrible thing when there are so many good games to play anyway that are worth the full price?
from the bulk of your post you seem like a older, rather well off and busy person; like you said we aren't all that lucky. people keep referencing the $5-10 discount but that's not really accurate, because often i can save more than that buying used. i take advantage of new game sales all the time, as well as used game sales (they have buy 2 get 1 all the time and it's a steal). i've taken to TRU for new games because they offer a $15 discount right off the bat, but the truth is i haven't bought a new game since november. XBLA is great and i have more than a few games, but while they are cheaper they are also much shorter with limited replay value.
i'm not complaining for the sake of it, i enjoy used games because they let me experience more games for my money. it's also why i use gamefly and redbox, because there are many games i'd like to try but can't due to lack of funds. it's just nice to have options but game makers see a lost dollar sign everywhere i go apparently.
i buy new as frequently as i can, and if they want more sales from me they can start by making the games just a little bit more affordable.
0
anoffdayTo be changed whenever Anoffday gets around to it.Registered Userregular
I'm all for buying used. Games are too damn expensive. 60 dollars for a 5 hour game is not right at all.
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.
This is my exact feelings. I never buy used because im a PC gamer and that market doesn't really exist anymore. But I do routinely pass on games prices over the 30 dollar mark unless I am absolutely certain I will enjoy it for a long time (Battlefield 3, Skyrim, Saints Row The Third are probably the only 3 I bought at full price in the last 2 years.) or else I will simply wait till the price goes down and buy it on a steam sale. The reason I stopped playing games on consoles and sold my xbox was for this very reason, Steam Sales make games I want to get really, really cheap and affordable. Why pay more for an inferior product when I can pay the price of 2 cups of starbucks for something that I will (theoretically.) get way more out of?
But yes, games like Call of Duty I have never bought because the price is too steep, and they ALWAYs sit at 60 dollars, even a year later. Sometimes they go down to 40 after 2 years, but then to play online you have to spend another 40 bucks in stupid DLC. I know the hardcore CoD people buy it all up, but for me thats ridiculous for a shooter game. I am not willing to invest that kind of money on a single title and developers need to realize this as well. If prices were put at a more affordable point to the average consumer it would look a lot more appealing and i believe even straight up pirates would start buying more games.
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Well, CoD pricing isn't going to change - it sells like mad.
But I've been really hesitant about buying any game full price. I'm waiting on Skyrim to hit <$30 and the only games I've bought full price recently are BF3 and Forza 4. I've pre-ordered SSX, but I'm probably just going to pass on most games as is. I just simply can't keep up any longer. I have like 10 XBox titles that I have barely played and my Steam list is officially retarded.
what if companies released two versions of their game, one with the online pass/DLC and one without? they could price them accordingly and let the customer decide if they contents of the pass is worth the money to them. this would cut into the used market's appeal and hell, i think they'd be surprised at the number of people who go for the cheaper version.
better yet, price the game at $40 but then have day one DLC that fleshes out the experience. the initial investment of over half a hundred dollars is a barrier for some of us, so if they did smarter things with these ideas i think they could really take advantage of it. if i pick up the game and say "oh man i need more" it's right there and i can snap it up, and then they make money.
0
anoffdayTo be changed whenever Anoffday gets around to it.Registered Userregular
Well, CoD pricing isn't going to change - it sells like mad.
But I've been really hesitant about buying any game full price. I'm waiting on Skyrim to hit <$30 and the only games I've bought full price recently are BF3 and Forza 4. I've pre-ordered SSX, but I'm probably just going to pass on most games as is. I just simply can't keep up any longer. I have like 10 XBox titles that I have barely played and my Steam list is officially retarded.
Well steam is one thing. I can't pass up a game 75% off that I know I'll play...sometime.
Skyrim is about the only game I can justify spending 60 bucks on right now. If everyone took 2 years to make their games and had that much content, then I don't think there'd be an issue. But instead we have 5 hour games or less that demand we pay full price for.
Steam: offday
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited January 2012
I am actually not that well off (older yes, which I unfortunately cannot deny this close to being 30), but I've been scraping by mostly by selling my books (the irony!) to get new games or whatever else I fancy. Starting SCIENCE! soon is naturally going to change that, but the time and responsibilities equation just gets worse. So I will be well off shortly, but very time poor and so I end up in the situation I could buy tons of games - but they'll just end up like LA. Noire, Star Ocean and Resonance of Fate. Personally I do think games are more expensive, but the used market being so "competitive" with new games sales doesn't help this. Not that I feel publishers will make any big move to drop the price of games if they did manage to find some way of winning any time soon. But honestly, unless I did nothing else buy play games I can't see myself going through a ton of new releases like I used to. At most, I could play two new games in a month and then I know I would have a huge backlog of XBLA and RPGs (Skyrim, sigh) to go back to anyway.
Also, in terms of money games here in Australia cost about $80 - $120. This is literally equivalent to paying that much US at the moment, which is nearly double. It's particularly absurd and stupid, but it's how we've been gouged since forever and it's not a whole lot better in NZ (though ironically, you still pay about $80-120 NZ for a new release, so Australia is getting so screwed here). This is why I am so generally critical of games when I tend to post and very meticulous when it comes to buying new games. I try to get as much value out of what I buy as I possibly can, because in the end it's a lot of money to put down and then fritter away on something unsatisfying. I can't say I've played a game that I felt ripped off or didn't feel I got good value out of outside of Dragon Age 2, which made me feel both ripped off and unsatisfied (and I got that on sale for $20 Australian!). I do think games should be cheaper, but generally speaking I'm only paying those prices because I still have loyalty to stores and talking to people who work there. If it wasn't for that, I could buy those games MUCH cheaper online, still get them on release, still get their collectors editions and such forth. But that is my choice and really with the lower amount of games I'm buying, it's not something I need or want to worry about.
Edit: I am going to sound like such an ass, but if you pay $60 for a 5 hour game like CoD that you KNEW would be a 5 hour game without the intention of playing it MP I just can't be sympathetic. Is that a total and absolute rip off? Oh yes, yes it is. Is it your fault for buying a game that you knew would be 5 hours beforehand? Yes, that almost certainly is. Do what I do: Don't buy it. I didn't buy BF3 because of its short campaign, didn't buy MW3 because I had no interest in it at that price but I DID buy Gears of War 3. Because I knew I would love the multiplayer and I played a good long chunk of that (and still intend to play more actually). This is why I think you should be willing to look at reviews or just generally be careful on new games. With how much information spills out about a game, even closely guarded ones close to release there is just no excuse to get caught with your pants down on a 5 hour game these days.
I mean I got Skyrim for Christmas, will be buying Kingdoms of Amalur next month and will get Mass Effect 3 in March. I can't even figure out what I would want in between those.
what if companies released two versions of their game, one with the online pass/DLC and one without? they could price them accordingly and let the customer decide if they contents of the pass is worth the money to them. this would cut into the used market's appeal and hell, i think they'd be surprised at the number of people who go for the cheaper version.
better yet, price the game at $40 but then have day one DLC that fleshes out the experience. the initial investment of over half a hundred dollars is a barrier for some of us, so if they did smarter things with these ideas i think they could really take advantage of it. if i pick up the game and say "oh man i need more" it's right there and i can snap it up, and then they make money.
having two versions of the game on shelves is just confusing
they already have Day 1 DLC even for $60 games
and either way, the used copy will still always be cheaper
People who use their budgets as their excuse as to why what the publishers are doing now is bad seem to be missing the tiny problem that gaming is, and always will be, a luxury recreation. You are not entitled to be able to afford video games and the publishers have ZERO reason to cater to you since as a used game purchaser, you don't impact their bottom line anyway. You can't be a lost sale cause you were never a customer in the first place.
Now, if your argument is:
If you don't want me to buy used, put your game on a digital distribution service and aggressively price it.
That's actually a good idea. Drop the price by the amount that packaging and shipping would cost (ahahahahah like that will EVER happen with DD) and sell the game online for cheaper. With the massive hard drive space home consoles have, I can't see any real reason that companies aren't offering 0 day digital releases of their stuff other than just archaic business practices. At least the PC side of things is pretty on the ball, it'd just be nice not to get charged full store price for something that doesn't have to be boxed and shipped and then marked up by a middle man. I'm more just talking from the perspective of someone who hates having to order stuff online just due to living on an island in the middle of nowhere.
Games are too damn expensive. 60 dollars for a 5 hour game is not right at all.
5 hour SP games are complete ripoffs and even from the standpoint of someone who can feed his hobby with no worries I tend to avoid them just cause they're a waste. Very rarely do short SP games actually have massive value. Vanquish is a great example. Short? Sure, but the replay value is fantastic if you're a score whore. HOWEVER:
Edit: I am going to sound like such an ass, but if you pay $60 for a 5 hour game like CoD that you KNEW would be a 5 hour game without the intention of playing it MP I just can't be sympathetic
That's not being an ass, that's being realistic. Buying a primarily MP game for the SP and then bitching about the length is just being a brat. If you just absolutely have to know what happens to Price's glorious muttonchops then cough up the cash yo.
TOGSolid on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited January 2012
Alternatively, if you intend to play a short SP game like MW3 without buying it just rent the thing. Actually I am more interested to know what will happen to the video game rentals market if they implement a "Buy then submit a code to tie it to your console/account" thing in future.
they already have multiple versions on the shelf, they just get more expensive as you go. limited, hardened, special and legendary editions that go up to $150-$200!
i'm looking at it from the position of someone who wants to support devs and buy new but with limited funds. if they really think they are losing money to cheaper alternatives, then give us a cheaper alternative!
The way I've always seen it, is that the dev/publisher side has always been saying that you dont buy a game, you buy a licence and the media that goes with it.... then when the consumer decides to pass that licence and media onto someone else, the dev/publisher starts crying that the cost of the game isn't a licence but a per-person experience.
And my idea's always been if you want people to hold onto games, sell them one they want to keep.
Special editions tend to obviously stand out from the regular ones because they have extra stuff in there and come in a big box and can't just be put on the shelves. If we're talking just "disc in a box" right next to each other then confusion will happen especially if it's being bought as a gift.
Special editions tend to obviously stand out from the regular ones because they have extra stuff in there and come in a big box and can't just be put on the shelves. If we're talking just "disc in a box" right next to each other then confusion will happen especially if it's being bought as a gift.
then market the $40 version as the 'basic' package and the $60 with all the fixin's as the 'deluxe'. kids who end up with the wrong version might cry afoul but then they should be more specific on their x-mas lists :P
complaining about "$60 for 5 hours" is weird to me because there are rental services available exactly for that situation
Honestly there's nothing around me anymore. Video rental stores have closed down and all that's left is red box and they never have the games I want since they carry so few of them.
And no I'm not interested in gamefly. I tried a similar service and had 3 games in a row that were scratched beyond repair and were sent to me anyway. It also seems a little pricey to me.
they already have multiple versions on the shelf, they just get more expensive as you go. limited, hardened, special and legendary editions that go up to $150-$200!
i'm looking at it from the position of someone who wants to support devs and buy new but with limited funds. if they really think they are losing money to cheaper alternatives, then give us a cheaper alternative!
It's not that simple. Publishers probably could out compete Gamestop because it's probably cheaper to make DVDs and ship them to stores than to buy used games and pay people to inspect them, put stickers on them, inventory them, put more stickers on them, etc. In short the marginal cost of making a game is very low so publishers could lower the price. But that leaves the very large up front costs of making that first copy. As it is, most publishers that don't have a cash cow named WoW are losing money.
Anyway, when I looked into it a few years ago I think EA alone was losing more money than GameStop was making in profits, so cutting them out of their used sales is not likely to fix what ails the industry overall.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
gamefly has it's flaws but overall when it works it's amazing. i've played entire games to completion in a week or less. i definitely can get down with getting 3-4 games in a month for $10 or so.
redbox is also becoming more prevalent, in my small ass town there are about 7 grocery stores and each one has a redbox, so it might take some hunting but i can find games there (that's how i beat sonic generations, had to look at something like 4 kiosks before i found it)
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Vanquish was an excellent game that I sadly missed out on. One day I might get it. One day.
Special editions tend to obviously stand out from the regular ones because they have extra stuff in there and come in a big box and can't just be put on the shelves. If we're talking just "disc in a box" right next to each other then confusion will happen especially if it's being bought as a gift.
then market the $40 version as the 'basic' package and the $60 with all the fixin's as the 'deluxe'. kids who end up with the wrong version might cry afoul but then they should be more specific on their x-mas lists :P
Disgaea 4 did exactly this, and I felt it was great. $49 got you the bare bones game, while $59 got you the artbook and Fuka figurine. Priced like that, I felt the bonuses were worth the extra $10.
With other games, it doesn't work for me on a psychological level. $59 for just the game, and +10-15 for the bonuses? When it's like that, 9 times out of 10 I don't feel like the bonuses are worth the extra cash.
It's totally a mental thing. Price the bare bones game lower, and I'll probably snap at the special edition. But price the special edition higher, and I'll probably skip it.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
I find it hard to believe that anyone could rationally defend Gamestop. This company makes their money by ripping off children. Anyone involved in selling games to or buying used games from Gamestop is being taken advantage of. For example I picked a high profile title and looked up the trade in value at cheapassgamer. Trading in Modern Warfare 3 will get someone $27 worth of store credit. They will then turn around and sell this game to someone for $55, more than 100% markup. This is a game that Amazon is selling brand new for $48.80 right now.
If someone is looking to buy a used Modern warfare 3 there are obviously people out there willing to sell it to you for $27. If someone is looking to sell a used Modern Warfare 3 there are people out there willing to pay you $55 for it and you aren't stuck with store credit. Craigslist is a better deal for both the buyer and seller, but children can't use craigslist. Even ebay is better after their inflated transaction fees. If you are an adult and buy/sell used from Gamestop you are probably not good at math.
Maybe I'm just an old man, set in his ways, in my rocking chair on my porch yelling at kids to stay off my lawn, but I completely disagree that companies should have the right to gimp their game if you don't buy it new.
The posts above state that companies have the right to try to make money off of used sales by disabling certain parts of a game, that it's ok to them to take away our ability to resell our unwanted games, and that people are taking food out of the mouths of developers by buying used.
Then they bitch about being gouged by Aus/NZ prices, being screwed by monopolistic ISPs who gimp their data transfers, and paying the same price for DD games as boxed games even though there is MUCH less overhead for DD games.
What do you think would happen when you give the companies full control?
When you give away your consumer rights so the companies can make a few extra dollars, the consumer will suffer every time. You have no place to bitch about having a gimped internet connection or severely being screwed by game prices if you're willing to give away your right to choose how to buy your games or what you're able to do with your purchased games after you are done with them.
You're taking the power away from the consumer and giving it to the people who are supposed to be catering to us.
I remember a time when game companies used to add in special features, cheat codes, have hidden secrets/quests/additional games into their games to expand the life of the game. Very rarely do you get Easter eggs in games anymore, because what was initially fun "extras" are now "DLC".
Our mentality even 5-10 years ago would have burned a company to the ground that locked away game content that was already on the disc unless we paid an additional fee to unlock it. The "online pass" bullshit would never have flown, nor would a good half of the DLC out there, where the data is already on the game you bought, or was ready at launch and stripped out of the game just so you could buy it later.
Would you be angry if you bought a used cd, and three of the songs were locked out? How about if you bought a used book, and 20 random pages were ripped out? A used DVD that locked out 10 minutes of the movie, and made the special features and deleted scenes unavailable?
And these are products from companies that think good business strategies include sueing dead people and 8 year olds, making their products unusable, and attacking the very market that they're supposed to serve.
None of that would be acceptable, but it is for games? Because the game companies want money, and it's our fault for not buying new? What kind of crap is that?
Yes, I agree Gamestop is terrible, their practices are downright criminal, and their business model hurts the industry, but that's not the consumer's fault. As long as the game companies are working with Gamestop, they're doing it to themselves. They bitch and bitch about Gamestop, abloobloobloo about how used sales are cutting into their bottom line, and then turn right around and apologize to Gamestop when Gamestop opens up new games, take out free stuff, and still sell the game as new.
Why? Because Gamestop buys tons of their games. They're supporting the same company that is aggressively trying to bleed them dry. They don't offer cheap DD alternatives because they don't want to piss Gamestop off by offering the same product at a cheaper price, even though that's exactly what Gamestop is doing.
They do it to themselves. They then continuously change their games/cut content/gimp/limit their games so we as consumers have to pay more to make up for this sort of self-defeating "gold-digger girlfriend" existence. It's bullshit, and the mentality of "we're kicking puppies by buying used" is crap.
If I'm walking through a garage sale and see a video game, I don't want to have to sit there and remember if I can actually play the game online if I decide to purchase it, or exactly how much game I'll be getting by "just" buying the disc.
While apt comparisons, there is no used market of any product that rivals gamestop for pure market control of their domain. Or their vast network.
Also people that complain about Oz prices never seem to mention the people getting paid 15$ at mcds or the 900$ rent for a four bedroom beachside house. I know plenty of people who live there, and they get paid more and generally pay less for housing. They get gouged on imports, yes, but that's to be expected.
And.. when you buy a used book, there often are pages missing, written on, yellowed, pages fading... used books are a bitch unless its brand new. Even then the chance it isn't dog eared and folded down the spine from hell to back is middling at best.
Last but not least: No one can say what companies would do without the worry of used games and such. The best example is Valve or other pc other developers that don't generally even bother with gamestop past a token offering: they all tend to price competitively, go on sale often and lower in price at a reasonable rate.
So, in closing, the only market without a used market is the lowest priced on average, with rapidly lowering msrp and frequent sales. This is fact. Find me any others concerning the used market except "gamestop makes a shit ton of money off their used division."
As for offline gamers, this is an even more asinine argument than the whole thing over the online pass debate (which does have valid points on both sides at least). Someone offline can't use multiplayer features anyway and a great deal of EA games online pass these functions. If you can't get online and if the game lacks significant split screen play, there is usually no significant problem there in the first place. It's irrelevant to them. As for bonus content, I can agree there that it sucks but it depends on what it is. Dragon Age 2 for example has a DLC character that actually is really plot critical and helps to make some of the story make sense. Without him, one of the acts feels like a chopped up half assed mess with no actual logic behind it (of course the DLC character doesn't help entirely, but it comes off much better with him). I can feel sympathy there, but if it's used alright for just some extra items or a few quests (out of hundreds) I really can't see offline gamers losing out hugely.
See, this is something I take a little bit of issue with. I bought a new copy of DA2 and I didnt buy sebastian(which is who I assume you're talking about) because he was like seven bucks or something when the game first came out. What I take issue with is him being central to the plot and such. Thats almost like ripping out part of the game right then and there, and then expecting me to pay extra.
Shale, Zaeed and kasumi dont really bother me at all because theyre not central to the damn plot, really. And I think you got shale for free if you bought the game new.
As far as used gamers having to pay for an online pass for stuff? Doesnt really bother me. Especially when its like 5-10 dollars for extra stuff you dont need to play the base game.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited January 2012
Couldn't agree with you more there tehkensai. I don't mind it generally when it's something I wouldn't notice like a non-plot critical character like Zaeed (who was cool, but was in no way essential to explaining plot exposition) over someone like Sebastion who made certain aspects of the entire plot more coherent through their quests. To be honest, if 2/3 of DA2 wasn't copy and pasted it wouldn't have bothered me so much, but when the entire game is so repetitively designed holding back content like that (and I did buy it new, despite it being on sale) was just offensive. It pretty much ensured I automatically had no interest in purchasing further DLC for that game, unless it was absolutely exceptional (which neither DLC has been). There is clearly a good way of doing this and a bad one, with most games I've seen doing it not being too bad (Rage's sewers, Kingdoms of Alamur and its extra quests, ME2 with Zaeed and so on).
Believe it or not, the DLC for DA2 was pretty good. Nothing that was LotSB good, but Mark of the Assassin had some cool gameplay, and Legacy had some cool monster designs.
Posts
They have been adapting, though. They've figured out a way to get money from people who buy the used games, while barely affecting the majority of people who buy the games new.
It's easy to accuse companies of effectively just downgrading the quality of their games for everyone, but it isn't like they have much room to upgrade. If everything is already present on the disk and unlocked, making a new purchase better involves making the used purchase exactly as much better. The only way that companies can make a superior experience for their customers without shooting themselves in the foot by supporting non-customers just as much is to build in some sort of online system that only customers have access to, whether it be free DLC or registration-required online.
The big innovation lately has merely been allowing non-customers to become customers from their own homes, instead of requiring them to purchase a full copy of the the product.
So while games are expensive, there isn't the huge incentive for me to go buy used games anymore that I used to have. This is because I simply am not able to play what I buy anymore outside of a very limited selection. I can buy one game a month or so and it will (due to the amount of time I spend with it) keep me occupied most of the month playing it. If a game is of good quality and I want it, I have no problem buying it new and will anyway. I don't feel the need to wait for a sale because unless that game isn't very long, it's going to last me a fair amount of time just because I can't sit down, plug it in and play 4 hours a day (and double that easily on weekends) that I used to. This means I'm just not caring about the used game market, especially the disgusting way that I've heard gamestop attempts to push it over new releases whatsoever. If publishers want to make day 1 DLC (Online Passes) or screw them over by having some sort of a system to prevent used sales it isn't going to be a huge issue to me. I will happily plunk my money down on great new games I want, as this month I'm buying Kingdoms of Amalur and next month I'm buying Mass Effect 3. I want to buy these games because I think the developers are great people, deserve my money and they look to have made great games. I don't have a compulsion to buy every single game I think is fun anymore, so I'm not going to feel "left out" if I miss anything. I didn't buy Rage for example, despite it being a great sounding shooter simply because I had played enough of them last year (and actually, for a while).
If I didn't want them I wouldn't buy them and I've got to the point where I'm not just going to buy anything I feel like, then leave a string of unloved or unfinished games due to new releases. Good examples include Star Ocean, Resonance of Fate and LA. Noire. I'm not making some list here of things that I hate or bought and regretted: These are all games that got buried under other ones that I bought subsequently. Star Ocean III I bought used (ironically) because I couldn't find it anywhere else, but after buying it I got Tales of Vesperia and didn't look back. I was still on the last dungeon of that game when I gave it up over a year and a half ago. Resonance of Fate is a brilliant JRPG with an excellent combat system and great story. Once again, it got buried under other games I bought and I haven't progressed further than chapter IV. In fact, I didn't even progress past Chapter III until about 2ish months ago when I decided to play it again on a whim. LA. Noire was a great if very flawed game, which I have all the DLC for but I got it a bit late to the party and again, buried under new releases. I haven't got past the second case of the vice desk (if you're familiar with the game).
I have many more examples of this but the point is I don't need to buy a lot of games anymore. Because I am failing to play the games I do buy and that's not a good thing by any means. There really isn't anything wrong with those games above, they are just falling by the wayside due to the fact I'm buying too many other games combined with the increasing lack of time to play them. So a "used" market is utterly irrelevant to the way I am buying and playing games from this year on. I'll get one game and maybe a couple of Xbox live arcade games, but otherwise not buy things until I'm finished with them. Then either go back and play what I missed, or buy a new release I want. Will I miss out on tons of great games? Yes I will. But will I get to fully enjoy all the great games I do buy because I'm giving the time they deserve to play them? Yes. Yes I will.
I do feel it sucks that people's consumer rights to resale things they "own" (and I am using the term "own" here liberally because the games industry clearly has other ideas now) is being violated - but then again the PC has already been doing this for a while. Steam is a form of DRM and provides a platform that doesn't have any resale value: But it's hardly killed the PC gaming industry. In fact I suspect steam is probably what keeps the PC a relevant platform and alive, with the amount of great indie games on there and the numerous sales of games it has (for ridiculously great prices). So while it might be a scary and dark future where we can't trade in games anymore, if that future looks like a console version of steam and perhaps the sales to go with it, I can't see it being that bad.
I would definitely buy the odd game if it had a sale if there was nothing else I wanted to buy, but there is nothing that tells me "Just wait a week, buy it used for like $10 less" or whatever. If digital distribution of games becomes a common thing in the future, then I'm not worried about the lack of a second hand market so long as I can get titles I missed if I want easily. This is actually why I rather love steam in a lot of ways despite the fact I can't "resell" my games. As long as I can still buy physical copies of a game in a store - which one day could go the way of the dodo as well - I'm not going to be unhappy. I like a collection of games on my shelf and always will, but if the times change and I still want to play games I'll probably just go with it anyway.
Quite frankly, the bitching about used games getting "screwed" due to DLC is just ridiculous. You aren't their customer and they don't have to give a royal fifth of a shit if you are incensed at them dropping seven quests, denying access to multiplayer or whatever other things they decide to do. Outside of making the game absolutely unplayable without DLC, this is really an irrelevant complaint and my only response is "Deal with it". You aren't giving the publisher any of the proceeds and arguing "Well someone else did" just doesn't cut it in any way as an argument. The fact is you didn't and so they have no reason to treat you as their customer: You're the customer of the store you bought it off in the first place. The publisher, developer and anyone else doesn't owe you jack beyond that, so stop pretending you're entitled to what people plunking down full price get as a thanks or benefit for buying the game new.
As for offline gamers, this is an even more asinine argument than the whole thing over the online pass debate (which does have valid points on both sides at least). Someone offline can't use multiplayer features anyway and a great deal of EA games online pass these functions. If you can't get online and if the game lacks significant split screen play, there is usually no significant problem there in the first place. It's irrelevant to them. As for bonus content, I can agree there that it sucks but it depends on what it is. Dragon Age 2 for example has a DLC character that actually is really plot critical and helps to make some of the story make sense. Without him, one of the acts feels like a chopped up half assed mess with no actual logic behind it (of course the DLC character doesn't help entirely, but it comes off much better with him). I can feel sympathy there, but if it's used alright for just some extra items or a few quests (out of hundreds) I really can't see offline gamers losing out hugely.
Being from New Zealand originally, I know what it's like to have absolutely terrible internet that only works for half the month and might as well not exist beyond that due to incredibly low data caps (20gigs - imagine playing the games you do, downloading and such on a 20 gig cap per month. It's not easy whatsoever). You just have to live with it and play your games that need internet DLC or whatever at the start of the month, with other games later. That's just the way an increasingly digital world works and there is no easy solution to that except to force telecommunications companies to pull their finger out (haha, like they will).
So really, I could care less what happens to the used games market. With what gamestop and its ilk have turned it into, I can't say I am going to miss it in any way. Honestly if you have the time to play a ton of games then maybe you should look at sales, like on steam (or hopefully console equivalent services) or even buying the cheaper and often very awesome Xbox live arcade games to fill the gap or something. Plenty to choose from that's great and will occupy plenty of time between new releases that you really do want to pay full price for. Sure you can't wait a week and get it $10 off anymore, but really is that such a terrible thing when there are so many good games to play anyway that are worth the full price?
Anecdote? that was the thrid quarter share holder info, thats as public as they get. What? you think they made 19.5 billion in mostly new sales?, Take a moment and think about that statement, Don’t you think its odd that the business model relies on pre–orders? And has more used stock than new?.
You have no numbers to back up your previous statements, but some reasonable educated guesses can be made.
I never called anyone stupid, uninformed maybe but never stupid.
Who has ever seen GameStop deal in a ‘morally dubious’ way? From giving some kid 4 buck a pop for rare games to outright lying to a customer?
http://consumerist.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&limit=20&search=gamestop
Once you get to a set point ‘anecdote’ becomes evidence.
Its human nature to buy the cheaper product, especially when you are an uninformed consumer, see the link above once again.
The choice of when and where to release a DD version is a new thing, and price is usually set by MS or Sony, you have to allow the industry time to work out the birthing pangs that come with a new distribution model.
Can I ask where is your knowledge on the subject coming from? How you know so much about the Live and PSN certification process?
And you're right, you didn't call non-gamer consumers stupid. You called them 'dumb'. Clearly I made a huge mistake in mischaracterizing your comments.
Sure, some things being locked up as DLC and what not is dumb if it directly impacts your game in a meaningful way (like with that DA2 example) and practices like that should be protested against, but beyond that? Pfft, who cares if you can't access your horse armor anymore?
i'm not complaining for the sake of it, i enjoy used games because they let me experience more games for my money. it's also why i use gamefly and redbox, because there are many games i'd like to try but can't due to lack of funds. it's just nice to have options but game makers see a lost dollar sign everywhere i go apparently.
i buy new as frequently as i can, and if they want more sales from me they can start by making the games just a little bit more affordable.
This is my exact feelings. I never buy used because im a PC gamer and that market doesn't really exist anymore. But I do routinely pass on games prices over the 30 dollar mark unless I am absolutely certain I will enjoy it for a long time (Battlefield 3, Skyrim, Saints Row The Third are probably the only 3 I bought at full price in the last 2 years.) or else I will simply wait till the price goes down and buy it on a steam sale. The reason I stopped playing games on consoles and sold my xbox was for this very reason, Steam Sales make games I want to get really, really cheap and affordable. Why pay more for an inferior product when I can pay the price of 2 cups of starbucks for something that I will (theoretically.) get way more out of?
But yes, games like Call of Duty I have never bought because the price is too steep, and they ALWAYs sit at 60 dollars, even a year later. Sometimes they go down to 40 after 2 years, but then to play online you have to spend another 40 bucks in stupid DLC. I know the hardcore CoD people buy it all up, but for me thats ridiculous for a shooter game. I am not willing to invest that kind of money on a single title and developers need to realize this as well. If prices were put at a more affordable point to the average consumer it would look a lot more appealing and i believe even straight up pirates would start buying more games.
But I've been really hesitant about buying any game full price. I'm waiting on Skyrim to hit <$30 and the only games I've bought full price recently are BF3 and Forza 4. I've pre-ordered SSX, but I'm probably just going to pass on most games as is. I just simply can't keep up any longer. I have like 10 XBox titles that I have barely played and my Steam list is officially retarded.
better yet, price the game at $40 but then have day one DLC that fleshes out the experience. the initial investment of over half a hundred dollars is a barrier for some of us, so if they did smarter things with these ideas i think they could really take advantage of it. if i pick up the game and say "oh man i need more" it's right there and i can snap it up, and then they make money.
Well steam is one thing. I can't pass up a game 75% off that I know I'll play...sometime.
Skyrim is about the only game I can justify spending 60 bucks on right now. If everyone took 2 years to make their games and had that much content, then I don't think there'd be an issue. But instead we have 5 hour games or less that demand we pay full price for.
Also, in terms of money games here in Australia cost about $80 - $120. This is literally equivalent to paying that much US at the moment, which is nearly double. It's particularly absurd and stupid, but it's how we've been gouged since forever and it's not a whole lot better in NZ (though ironically, you still pay about $80-120 NZ for a new release, so Australia is getting so screwed here). This is why I am so generally critical of games when I tend to post and very meticulous when it comes to buying new games. I try to get as much value out of what I buy as I possibly can, because in the end it's a lot of money to put down and then fritter away on something unsatisfying. I can't say I've played a game that I felt ripped off or didn't feel I got good value out of outside of Dragon Age 2, which made me feel both ripped off and unsatisfied (and I got that on sale for $20 Australian!). I do think games should be cheaper, but generally speaking I'm only paying those prices because I still have loyalty to stores and talking to people who work there. If it wasn't for that, I could buy those games MUCH cheaper online, still get them on release, still get their collectors editions and such forth. But that is my choice and really with the lower amount of games I'm buying, it's not something I need or want to worry about.
Edit: I am going to sound like such an ass, but if you pay $60 for a 5 hour game like CoD that you KNEW would be a 5 hour game without the intention of playing it MP I just can't be sympathetic. Is that a total and absolute rip off? Oh yes, yes it is. Is it your fault for buying a game that you knew would be 5 hours beforehand? Yes, that almost certainly is. Do what I do: Don't buy it. I didn't buy BF3 because of its short campaign, didn't buy MW3 because I had no interest in it at that price but I DID buy Gears of War 3. Because I knew I would love the multiplayer and I played a good long chunk of that (and still intend to play more actually). This is why I think you should be willing to look at reviews or just generally be careful on new games. With how much information spills out about a game, even closely guarded ones close to release there is just no excuse to get caught with your pants down on a 5 hour game these days.
I mean I got Skyrim for Christmas, will be buying Kingdoms of Amalur next month and will get Mass Effect 3 in March. I can't even figure out what I would want in between those.
having two versions of the game on shelves is just confusing
they already have Day 1 DLC even for $60 games
and either way, the used copy will still always be cheaper
Now, if your argument is: That's actually a good idea. Drop the price by the amount that packaging and shipping would cost (ahahahahah like that will EVER happen with DD) and sell the game online for cheaper. With the massive hard drive space home consoles have, I can't see any real reason that companies aren't offering 0 day digital releases of their stuff other than just archaic business practices. At least the PC side of things is pretty on the ball, it'd just be nice not to get charged full store price for something that doesn't have to be boxed and shipped and then marked up by a middle man. I'm more just talking from the perspective of someone who hates having to order stuff online just due to living on an island in the middle of nowhere.
5 hour SP games are complete ripoffs and even from the standpoint of someone who can feed his hobby with no worries I tend to avoid them just cause they're a waste. Very rarely do short SP games actually have massive value. Vanquish is a great example. Short? Sure, but the replay value is fantastic if you're a score whore. HOWEVER: That's not being an ass, that's being realistic. Buying a primarily MP game for the SP and then bitching about the length is just being a brat. If you just absolutely have to know what happens to Price's glorious muttonchops then cough up the cash yo.
(I honestly can't tell if my response is above or below -Tals, it keeps switching on my browser).
you're worse than used games!!
i'm looking at it from the position of someone who wants to support devs and buy new but with limited funds. if they really think they are losing money to cheaper alternatives, then give us a cheaper alternative!
And my idea's always been if you want people to hold onto games, sell them one they want to keep.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Hell, I bought that game twice, once at full price, and once at twenty bucks for my PS3 and I still don't feel like I wasted my money at any point.
That game is SOOOOO GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD.
I thought it was better then Bayonetta in terms of gameplay an pacing, but had less interesting designs.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Honestly there's nothing around me anymore. Video rental stores have closed down and all that's left is red box and they never have the games I want since they carry so few of them.
And no I'm not interested in gamefly. I tried a similar service and had 3 games in a row that were scratched beyond repair and were sent to me anyway. It also seems a little pricey to me.
It's not that simple. Publishers probably could out compete Gamestop because it's probably cheaper to make DVDs and ship them to stores than to buy used games and pay people to inspect them, put stickers on them, inventory them, put more stickers on them, etc. In short the marginal cost of making a game is very low so publishers could lower the price. But that leaves the very large up front costs of making that first copy. As it is, most publishers that don't have a cash cow named WoW are losing money.
Anyway, when I looked into it a few years ago I think EA alone was losing more money than GameStop was making in profits, so cutting them out of their used sales is not likely to fix what ails the industry overall.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
redbox is also becoming more prevalent, in my small ass town there are about 7 grocery stores and each one has a redbox, so it might take some hunting but i can find games there (that's how i beat sonic generations, had to look at something like 4 kiosks before i found it)
Disgaea 4 did exactly this, and I felt it was great. $49 got you the bare bones game, while $59 got you the artbook and Fuka figurine. Priced like that, I felt the bonuses were worth the extra $10.
With other games, it doesn't work for me on a psychological level. $59 for just the game, and +10-15 for the bonuses? When it's like that, 9 times out of 10 I don't feel like the bonuses are worth the extra cash.
It's totally a mental thing. Price the bare bones game lower, and I'll probably snap at the special edition. But price the special edition higher, and I'll probably skip it.
If someone is looking to buy a used Modern warfare 3 there are obviously people out there willing to sell it to you for $27. If someone is looking to sell a used Modern Warfare 3 there are people out there willing to pay you $55 for it and you aren't stuck with store credit. Craigslist is a better deal for both the buyer and seller, but children can't use craigslist. Even ebay is better after their inflated transaction fees. If you are an adult and buy/sell used from Gamestop you are probably not good at math.
The posts above state that companies have the right to try to make money off of used sales by disabling certain parts of a game, that it's ok to them to take away our ability to resell our unwanted games, and that people are taking food out of the mouths of developers by buying used.
Then they bitch about being gouged by Aus/NZ prices, being screwed by monopolistic ISPs who gimp their data transfers, and paying the same price for DD games as boxed games even though there is MUCH less overhead for DD games.
What do you think would happen when you give the companies full control?
When you give away your consumer rights so the companies can make a few extra dollars, the consumer will suffer every time. You have no place to bitch about having a gimped internet connection or severely being screwed by game prices if you're willing to give away your right to choose how to buy your games or what you're able to do with your purchased games after you are done with them.
You're taking the power away from the consumer and giving it to the people who are supposed to be catering to us.
I remember a time when game companies used to add in special features, cheat codes, have hidden secrets/quests/additional games into their games to expand the life of the game. Very rarely do you get Easter eggs in games anymore, because what was initially fun "extras" are now "DLC".
Our mentality even 5-10 years ago would have burned a company to the ground that locked away game content that was already on the disc unless we paid an additional fee to unlock it. The "online pass" bullshit would never have flown, nor would a good half of the DLC out there, where the data is already on the game you bought, or was ready at launch and stripped out of the game just so you could buy it later.
Would you be angry if you bought a used cd, and three of the songs were locked out? How about if you bought a used book, and 20 random pages were ripped out? A used DVD that locked out 10 minutes of the movie, and made the special features and deleted scenes unavailable?
And these are products from companies that think good business strategies include sueing dead people and 8 year olds, making their products unusable, and attacking the very market that they're supposed to serve.
None of that would be acceptable, but it is for games? Because the game companies want money, and it's our fault for not buying new? What kind of crap is that?
Yes, I agree Gamestop is terrible, their practices are downright criminal, and their business model hurts the industry, but that's not the consumer's fault. As long as the game companies are working with Gamestop, they're doing it to themselves. They bitch and bitch about Gamestop, abloobloobloo about how used sales are cutting into their bottom line, and then turn right around and apologize to Gamestop when Gamestop opens up new games, take out free stuff, and still sell the game as new.
Why? Because Gamestop buys tons of their games. They're supporting the same company that is aggressively trying to bleed them dry. They don't offer cheap DD alternatives because they don't want to piss Gamestop off by offering the same product at a cheaper price, even though that's exactly what Gamestop is doing.
They do it to themselves. They then continuously change their games/cut content/gimp/limit their games so we as consumers have to pay more to make up for this sort of self-defeating "gold-digger girlfriend" existence. It's bullshit, and the mentality of "we're kicking puppies by buying used" is crap.
If I'm walking through a garage sale and see a video game, I don't want to have to sit there and remember if I can actually play the game online if I decide to purchase it, or exactly how much game I'll be getting by "just" buying the disc.
Also people that complain about Oz prices never seem to mention the people getting paid 15$ at mcds or the 900$ rent for a four bedroom beachside house. I know plenty of people who live there, and they get paid more and generally pay less for housing. They get gouged on imports, yes, but that's to be expected.
And.. when you buy a used book, there often are pages missing, written on, yellowed, pages fading... used books are a bitch unless its brand new. Even then the chance it isn't dog eared and folded down the spine from hell to back is middling at best.
Last but not least: No one can say what companies would do without the worry of used games and such. The best example is Valve or other pc other developers that don't generally even bother with gamestop past a token offering: they all tend to price competitively, go on sale often and lower in price at a reasonable rate.
So, in closing, the only market without a used market is the lowest priced on average, with rapidly lowering msrp and frequent sales. This is fact. Find me any others concerning the used market except "gamestop makes a shit ton of money off their used division."
Get it sooner then later, it's great fun. And the graphics are beautiful.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
See, this is something I take a little bit of issue with. I bought a new copy of DA2 and I didnt buy sebastian(which is who I assume you're talking about) because he was like seven bucks or something when the game first came out. What I take issue with is him being central to the plot and such. Thats almost like ripping out part of the game right then and there, and then expecting me to pay extra.
Shale, Zaeed and kasumi dont really bother me at all because theyre not central to the damn plot, really. And I think you got shale for free if you bought the game new.
As far as used gamers having to pay for an online pass for stuff? Doesnt really bother me. Especially when its like 5-10 dollars for extra stuff you dont need to play the base game.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
what market would this be, precisely?
cause gamestop and steam are selling to the same consumers
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Did you pay the company that made the game any money for said game?
No?
They don't owe you shit.
Talk to the people you DID pay. Gamestop has a customer service department I'm sure.
Done.