I'm sorry well I thought you would read the context as:
You are blaming the retailers and resellers. They are the problem... with the developers losing money.
GameStop doesn't have to apologize about shit, they run a highly profitable business. It's not their fault at all. However if the developers want to blame anyone it's the GameStops for actively trying to sell used products over used ones. Blaming consumers for buying said used games is idiotic.
Again I'm not saying they SHOULD blame used game sellers, but blaming the big used game sellers habit of pushing used games over new games is a much more reasonable assumption than blaming the actual consumers.
So what measures do you think would be reasonable for studios who want to cut out game resellers that would not be construed as anti-consumer? Clearly giving consumers incentive to buy new games over used pisses everyone off - I mean, we have this thread over it, don't we?
Almost everything they do will be considered anti-consumer. Because they want to take something away from the consumer. So the only "non anti-consumer" option they have is to give things extra to people who buy new games (free DLC, Map packs etc) and they already do that (pre order bonsus)
However anything that hurts the resale market (online play codes etc) is anti-consumer. That doesn't mean they are wrong for doing these measures, nor does it mean they can't do these things. However they will be seen as anti-consumer.
I would suggest they should do this stuff and make positive public statements (like the one I mention earlier "We appreciate everyone who buys our games, whether new or used, we are just doing this to increase our financial stability, we appreciate everyone's understanding and support") instead of negative ones (Saying they are being hurt by consumers who buy used games)
So you're mostly concerned about the wording on their press releases? Hell, not even press releases - some comments by a creative director?
Getting rid of used game sales would put gamestop out of business.
The margins on new games alone is nowhere near enough to cover the overhead.
If used game sales are so critical to their business model, why do they host so many sales every other month? Buy 2, Get 1 Free. 30% off all [system] used games. Gamer Days Summer Sale.
emnmnme on
0
Options
Metal JaredMulligan WizardRhode IslandRegistered Userregular
I'm sorry well I thought you would read the context as:
You are blaming the retailers and resellers. They are the problem... with the developers losing money.
GameStop doesn't have to apologize about shit, they run a highly profitable business. It's not their fault at all. However if the developers want to blame anyone it's the GameStops for actively trying to sell used products over used ones. Blaming consumers for buying said used games is idiotic.
Again I'm not saying they SHOULD blame used game sellers, but blaming the big used game sellers habit of pushing used games over new games is a much more reasonable assumption than blaming the actual consumers.
So what measures do you think would be reasonable for studios who want to cut out game resellers that would not be construed as anti-consumer? Clearly giving consumers incentive to buy new games over used pisses everyone off - I mean, we have this thread over it, don't we?
Almost everything they do will be considered anti-consumer. Because they want to take something away from the consumer. So the only "non anti-consumer" option they have is to give things extra to people who buy new games (free DLC, Map packs etc) and they already do that (pre order bonsus)
However anything that hurts the resale market (online play codes etc) is anti-consumer. That doesn't mean they are wrong for doing these measures, nor does it mean they can't do these things. However they will be seen as anti-consumer.
I would suggest they should do this stuff and make positive public statements (like the one I mention earlier "We appreciate everyone who buys our games, whether new or used, we are just doing this to increase our financial stability, we appreciate everyone's understanding and support") instead of negative ones (Saying they are being hurt by consumers who buy used games)
So you're mostly concerned about the wording on their press releases? Hell, not even press releases - some comments by a creative director?
No. I don't want them to take away online capabilities. I don't want them to do anything that is anti-consumer. I love the UFC but I didn't buy 2011 because of their little online code deal.
However, I feel I understand how businesses work, and what businesses need to do to be economically viable. I understand if companies feel like they need this extra income in order to stay competitive and keep their revenues in line.
So if a company does do this kind of anti-reseller activity they should never point blame at their consumer base. It's unforgivable to insult the people who pay your bills. It's insulting to me who has purchased used games and completely unacceptable in a professional setting.
Getting rid of used game sales would put gamestop out of business.
The margins on new games alone is nowhere near enough to cover the overhead.
If used game sales are so critical to their business model, why do they host so many sales every other month? Buy 2, Get 1 Free. 30% off all [system] used games. Gamer Days Summer Sale.
Sales are for a few reasons.
They attract more people to Gamestop. They clear out stock that hasn't been selling, they still make a profit because the lower prices being sold for is (ideally) made up for by the sheer number of people buying.
So if a company does do this kind of anti-reseller activity they should never point blame at their consumer base. It's unforgivable to insult the people who pay your bills. It's insulting to me who has purchased used games and completely unacceptable in a professional setting.
The people buying used games (ie, the people who might be insulted) don't pay their bills.
Doc on
0
Options
Metal JaredMulligan WizardRhode IslandRegistered Userregular
So if a company does do this kind of anti-reseller activity they should never point blame at their consumer base. It's unforgivable to insult the people who pay your bills. It's insulting to me who has purchased used games and completely unacceptable in a professional setting.
The people buying used games (ie, the people who might be insulted) don't pay their bills.
I should really just save this to a notepad file so I don't have to go back into the thread to find it over and over again:
when an item has a secondary resale market the original purchaser (especially someone who later sells the game) takes this fact into account and positively effects their decision to buy it creating a value of the item in the secondary market due the fact it helped sell the game the first time.
Worst case scenario on used sales like the bi quarterly B2G1 sale.
Three new $60 dollar games traded in week one for $35 and sold for $55.
To the people who traded in the games they gave out $105. They bring in $55x2 for the purchased games and zero for the third game. They still make $5.
They usually do not give $35 for games even during the first week. It's usually much less. That money is also in store credit, which has less of an overhead than cash.
Getting rid of used game sales would put gamestop out of business.
The margins on new games alone is nowhere near enough to cover the overhead.
If used game sales are so critical to their business model, why do they host so many sales every other month? Buy 2, Get 1 Free. 30% off all [system] used games. Gamer Days Summer Sale.
To get more people in the door. And what happens when you open the door to a Gamestop? You are endlessly assaulted for subscriptions, pre-orders, and trade-ins, trade-ins, trade-ins. Until you leave.
Getting rid of used game sales would put gamestop out of business.
The margins on new games alone is nowhere near enough to cover the overhead.
If used game sales are so critical to their business model, why do they host so many sales every other month? Buy 2, Get 1 Free. 30% off all [system] used games. Gamer Days Summer Sale.
Because the profit margins on used games are so high that they can afford to.
It pushes more sales. Notice how it's specific games that often go on sale? those are the games that they have too many of
So if a company does do this kind of anti-reseller activity they should never point blame at their consumer base. It's unforgivable to insult the people who pay your bills. It's insulting to me who has purchased used games and completely unacceptable in a professional setting.
The people buying used games (ie, the people who might be insulted) don't pay their bills.
I should really just save this to a notepad file so I don't have to go back into the thread to find it over and over again:
when an item has a secondary resale market the original purchaser (especially someone who later sells the game) takes this fact into account and positively effects their decision to buy it creating a value of the item in the secondary market due the fact it helped sell the game the first time.
To put it another way (as I already did) you can't sell a game used if no one bought it new.
The companies that are really hurting aren't hurting because of used game sales. In order for used game sales to canabalize new, you have to have ALREADY sold a large number of new copies
Sales are also a form of price discrimination (no, not that kind of discrimination). It allows the seller to capture a little bit of the full price buyers' consumer surplus.
McGuffin: It is not at all unusual for individuals other than original manufacturers to make significantly more profit off of a sale. Stationary manufacturers do not get a fraction of what students and businesses make from using their humble pencils and paper during their school and business years. Microsoft does not get a percentage of all profits made using their computer software. Paint manufacturers do not raid the coffers of famous artists. Expensive furniture makers do not get more money for selling the same sturdy bed to a hotel instead of a poor hippie.
If you don't like how the economies of first world nations work, that's fine. The gaming industry is not some singled-out victim of the business world.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
I'd be much more inclined to buy new if there weren't so many bad games, or if every game had a demo.
This is a very good point, and there are few other forms of media where the penalty for taking a chance and being wrong is so heavily punished.
If you go see a movie, you're paying somewhere between $5-10, depending on where you are and what time of day it is. If the movie is completely terrible, you've lost $5-10. (And if you wait to rent it, then it's somewhere between free and $3.) If you want to buy an album, you're probably able to listen to samples of at least some of the songs. And even if it's shit, you've lost maybe $15.
A game, though, is $60. And if it's a really crappy game, there might not even be much of a resale market. You can hock it at GS, but you've lost at least $30 on the deal. And even if you played a demo, and loved the demo, it's still possible that the other 95% of the game is shit.
If you manage to score a great game with a good amount of content, it's a pretty good deal. You're paying $60 new for maybe 20 hours of unique gameplay, which works out to $3/hour if you never play it again. But if you guess wrong, you can get proper fucked. The used market is a lot more painless.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
So if a company does do this kind of anti-reseller activity they should never point blame at their consumer base. It's unforgivable to insult the people who pay your bills. It's insulting to me who has purchased used games and completely unacceptable in a professional setting.
The people buying used games (ie, the people who might be insulted) don't pay their bills.
I should really just save this to a notepad file so I don't have to go back into the thread to find it over and over again:
when an item has a secondary resale market the original purchaser (especially someone who later sells the game) takes this fact into account and positively effects their decision to buy it creating a value of the item in the secondary market due the fact it helped sell the game the first time.
Not that I'm disputing the truth to this, but it assumes a few things.
1 - that there's further similar product to be had.
2 - or there's a healthy supply of the original product in the primary market that exists and renewed at all times
Number 1 means you're doing well enough to overcome any game industry selling problems to have sequels.
Number 2 is simply not true in most cases. Once something sells out in the game industry, there isn't usually second printings unless it's very popular. Some games you can only find used these days. This is exasperated by the fact that a lone-business driving a lot of the supply - they can choose simply not to stock more from the primary market and focus on procuring the product used to fuel demand into the secondary market instead.
There really isn't an opportunity for word of mouth to sell your product over time if you don't do well on the first introduction. A big part of that is the environment Gamestop has created - using pre-orders to (sometimes inaccurately) measure interest and determine their stocking, and then using the used gamed market to limit their restocking. Perhaps interest is eventually generated through the secondary market, but at that point it might be too late for the primary.
Makes the market a lot more risk unfriendly for new creative ideas then it needs to be.
I know little about economics - aside from what I think I know - so take my words with salt. I just can't help but think that the big ugly thing that Gamestop has created has gotten to the point where a statement of "You aren't our customer" actually has some truth in it for certain titles who died out the door, where if the primary market had a bit more longevity that wouldn't be the case.
I dunno. Is there any other industries that have had to deal with a huge behemoth secondary market?
Edit: Of course, being digital is nice as supply is unlimited and always on the shelf. of course, the console market doesn't have that option yet.
I'd be much more inclined to buy new if there weren't so many bad games, or if every game had a demo.
This is a very good point, and there are few other forms of media where the penalty for taking a chance and being wrong is so heavily punished.
If you go see a movie, you're paying somewhere between $5-10, depending on where you are and what time of day it is. If the movie is completely terrible, you've lost $5-10. (And if you wait to rent it, then it's somewhere between free and $3.) If you want to buy an album, you're probably able to listen to samples of at least some of the songs. And even if it's shit, you've lost maybe $15.
A game, though, is $60. And if it's a really crappy game, there might not even be much of a resale market. You can hock it at GS, but you've lost at least $30 on the deal. And even if you played a demo, and loved the demo, it's still possible that the other 95% of the game is shit.
If you manage to score a great game with a good amount of content, it's a pretty good deal. You're paying $60 new for maybe 20 hours of unique gameplay, which works out to $3/hour if you never play it again. But if you guess wrong, you can get proper fucked. The used market is a lot more painless.
Man. Your point stands, but I haven't paid less than $12 to see a movie in a looooong time. I don't think the concept of matinee even exists in NYC anymore.
I'd be much more inclined to buy new if there weren't so many bad games, or if every game had a demo.
This is a very good point, and there are few other forms of media where the penalty for taking a chance and being wrong is so heavily punished.
If you go see a movie, you're paying somewhere between $5-10, depending on where you are and what time of day it is. If the movie is completely terrible, you've lost $5-10. (And if you wait to rent it, then it's somewhere between free and $3.) If you want to buy an album, you're probably able to listen to samples of at least some of the songs. And even if it's shit, you've lost maybe $15.
A game, though, is $60. And if it's a really crappy game, there might not even be much of a resale market. You can hock it at GS, but you've lost at least $30 on the deal. And even if you played a demo, and loved the demo, it's still possible that the other 95% of the game is shit.
If you manage to score a great game with a good amount of content, it's a pretty good deal. You're paying $60 new for maybe 20 hours of unique gameplay, which works out to $3/hour if you never play it again. But if you guess wrong, you can get proper fucked. The used market is a lot more painless.
Even if the game isn't shit, you could still get screwed. Take Brutal Legend, where the game is (IMO) good but the demo isn't really representative of the rest of the game. Or sometimes you just don't wind up playing it...I've played a grand total of 5 hours of L4D2 (I finally bothered to check), because I just kinda got over it sometime after I pre-ordered (or right after release). That's not exactly $50 well spent, and Steam ensures that it's $50 that stays spent.
I think an amount of research of what you're buying is required even if a game only costs $30. It's not hard to read a game review and find out what a game might be like.
"Don't judge a book by it's cover" will always be relevant.
I think an amount of research of what you're buying is required even if a game only costs $30. It's not hard to read a game review and find out what a game might be like.
"Don't judge a book by it's cover" will always be relevant.
Which is why I keep harping on both L4D2 and FFXIII. Based both on previous installments and reviews, I had every reason to believe I'd like them. No amount of research would have prevented the problem there.
So if a company does do this kind of anti-reseller activity they should never point blame at their consumer base. It's unforgivable to insult the people who pay your bills. It's insulting to me who has purchased used games and completely unacceptable in a professional setting.
The people buying used games (ie, the people who might be insulted) don't pay their bills.
I should really just save this to a notepad file so I don't have to go back into the thread to find it over and over again:
when an item has a secondary resale market the original purchaser (especially someone who later sells the game) takes this fact into account and positively effects their decision to buy it creating a value of the item in the secondary market due the fact it helped sell the game the first time.
I am aware that non-customers can affect sale prices. That doesn't change the fact that they are non-customers.
Doc on
0
Options
sportzboytjwsqueeeeeezzeeeesome more tax breaks outRegistered Userregular
edited August 2010
Man, I think people need to take a look at League of Legends model. The game is free. And anything you want (other than skins/boosts which have no in-game effect) can be earned through grinding/playing. However, if you go to the thread, you'll see people buying (with $$$$$$$$$$$$) the new character pack each time a new char comes out. Those are 10$! People are paying super-subscriptions to a free game! While this model does not work for everyone, and relies on people wanting to buy the new content, there are ways for gaming companies to continue to stream cash into their coffers rather than gamestop (or whoever) getting all of their resales sewn up.
sportzboytjw on
Walkerdog on MTGO
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
how do you do a single player game with the LoL model?
I'm a big fan of the freemium model, but it actually doesn't work with the games I like to play.
Eh, if you're Diablo 2 for example, you can play the Barbarian only to start. Each time you beat the game, you get one more dude. Or you can just PP or whatever $5 to unlock the Amazon right away, and $10 for the necro, cuz necro's are awesome, right away. Or something. Obviously this would require persistent internet connection to allow the game to work or something.
sportzboytjw on
Walkerdog on MTGO
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
As someone who works in game development (full disclosure), I'm going to throw an argument into the pot:
An argument for what exactly?
For? Well, I guess pointing out that many people are focusing on the wrong part of the problem.
There's been a certain amount of misdirection going on to hide where the money is going and why, which I thought I'd clarify. It's currently a bit like someone knocked over a vase, and when challenged saying: "Ah, but HE smashed the window" and running away.
My argument is: It's a fair system and if it's explained better, we can all calm down and enjoy our games.
McGuffin: It is not at all unusual for individuals other than original manufacturers to make significantly more profit off of a sale. Stationary manufacturers do not get a fraction of what students and businesses make from using their humble pencils and paper during their school and business years. Microsoft does not get a percentage of all profits made using their computer software. Paint manufacturers do not raid the coffers of famous artists. Expensive furniture makers do not get more money for selling the same sturdy bed to a hotel instead of a poor hippie.
If you don't like how the economies of first world nations work, that's fine. The gaming industry is not some singled-out victim of the business world.
Oh, I understand how it works, I was just explaining it for some people who are arguing from a position that implied they didn't.
So do publishers, which is why they are making this change to 'deal with it' and get a slice of the pie, and NOT at the expense of the gamers. There is only so much pie available and they want to simply reduce the size of the Game Stores' bit and increase their slice.
If they made cars - the common analogy used - then they could start a dealership that took in old Fords when they sold a new Ford, making a profit on the sale of the trade-in car as well as the new.
As it's impractical for EA etc. to start up 'EA only' stores, then this model of charging for what is basically a service that - if continued to be offered free - would lose them money supporting online for ever and ever, is currently, the 'least worst' option.
Single player games, of course, will not be affected by any of this, so will continue as now. The Publisher can't leverage any of the money from the 2nd and 3rd trade-in out of those sales, so the shops still win there.
Expect even single player games to offer DLC and other goodies in the future to attempt to address this.
McGuffin on
0
Options
Metal JaredMulligan WizardRhode IslandRegistered Userregular
So if a company does do this kind of anti-reseller activity they should never point blame at their consumer base. It's unforgivable to insult the people who pay your bills. It's insulting to me who has purchased used games and completely unacceptable in a professional setting.
The people buying used games (ie, the people who might be insulted) don't pay their bills.
I should really just save this to a notepad file so I don't have to go back into the thread to find it over and over again:
when an item has a secondary resale market the original purchaser (especially someone who later sells the game) takes this fact into account and positively effects their decision to buy it creating a value of the item in the secondary market due the fact it helped sell the game the first time.
Not that I'm disputing the truth to this, but it assumes a few things.
1 - that there's further similar product to be had.
2 - or there's a healthy supply of the original product in the primary market that exists and renewed at all times
Number 1 means you're doing well enough to overcome any game industry selling problems to have sequels.
Number 2 is simply not true in most cases. Once something sells out in the game industry, there isn't usually second printings unless it's very popular. Some games you can only find used these days. This is exasperated by the fact that a lone-business driving a lot of the supply - they can choose simply not to stock more from the primary market and focus on procuring the product used to fuel demand into the secondary market instead.
There really isn't an opportunity for word of mouth to sell your product over time if you don't do well on the first introduction. A big part of that is the environment Gamestop has created - using pre-orders to (sometimes inaccurately) measure interest and determine their stocking, and then using the used gamed market to limit their restocking. Perhaps interest is eventually generated through the secondary market, but at that point it might be too late for the primary.
Makes the market a lot more risk unfriendly for new creative ideas then it needs to be.
I know little about economics - aside from what I think I know - so take my words with salt. I just can't help but think that the big ugly thing that Gamestop has created has gotten to the point where a statement of "You aren't our customer" actually has some truth in it for certain titles who died out the door, where if the primary market had a bit more longevity that wouldn't be the case.
I dunno. Is there any other industries that have had to deal with a huge behemoth secondary market?
Edit: Of course, being digital is nice as supply is unlimited and always on the shelf. of course, the console market doesn't have that option yet
SNIP.
I don't understand what your argument to my point is, based upon your post. The supply of the original product can actually makes the secondary value of the game worth more, which again increases the value of the new game.
The two classic examples I can think of are: Marvel Vs. Capcom 2 for Xbox and Chrono Trigger for SNES. Both cost more used than they ever did new because there was a very low original supply. I never understood why they didn't produce more for these games (I always remember looking at the Funco land buy/sell sheet and seeing Chrono Trigger at like $80 every time I went there)
In these cases it would be in the best interest of the publisher/developer to produce more new copies. However they didn't for whatever reason (lost their license to do so, or whatever).
I know you said that there is only a limited production run, but what I don't understand is, if you see the game has a large used market there is obviously more money to be made for the developer. Why doesn't your business model allow for a reprint at a discounted price. Maybe add a feature or two (which happens consistency with "Game of the Year" editions).
Again no one is stopping you from printing more products, or lowering the price, or giving away more features with the games you sell. If you don't do it, that's your fault. Yes I understand there are costs with production, creating new (updated) products for the same game but that's a risk you take if you want to add revenue.
Also if your game "Died out the door" and got heavy sales in the used market, I'll let you in on a little 'econcomic secret'
The retail price for your game was too high.
Again it's all about value, if the consumer base decides that $60 isn't the right price for your game and that $30 is, that's not the consumer fault, or GameStops fault, it's the developers/publishers fault.
Metal Jared on
BattleTag: MetalJared#1756
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I'd be much more inclined to buy new if there weren't so many bad games, or if every game had a demo.
This is a very good point, and there are few other forms of media where the penalty for taking a chance and being wrong is so heavily punished.
If you go see a movie, you're paying somewhere between $5-10, depending on where you are and what time of day it is. If the movie is completely terrible, you've lost $5-10. (And if you wait to rent it, then it's somewhere between free and $3.) If you want to buy an album, you're probably able to listen to samples of at least some of the songs. And even if it's shit, you've lost maybe $15.
A game, though, is $60. And if it's a really crappy game, there might not even be much of a resale market. You can hock it at GS, but you've lost at least $30 on the deal. And even if you played a demo, and loved the demo, it's still possible that the other 95% of the game is shit.
If you manage to score a great game with a good amount of content, it's a pretty good deal. You're paying $60 new for maybe 20 hours of unique gameplay, which works out to $3/hour if you never play it again. But if you guess wrong, you can get proper fucked. The used market is a lot more painless.
Man. Your point stands, but I haven't paid less than $12 to see a movie in a looooong time. I don't think the concept of matinee even exists in NYC anymore.
"But Drez....we came all the way to the theatre. We HAAAAVVVVVEEEEE to see it in 3D...."
*Boom* $15.
Deebaser on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
So if a company does do this kind of anti-reseller activity they should never point blame at their consumer base. It's unforgivable to insult the people who pay your bills. It's insulting to me who has purchased used games and completely unacceptable in a professional setting.
The people buying used games (ie, the people who might be insulted) don't pay their bills.
I should really just save this to a notepad file so I don't have to go back into the thread to find it over and over again:
when an item has a secondary resale market the original purchaser (especially someone who later sells the game) takes this fact into account and positively effects their decision to buy it creating a value of the item in the secondary market due the fact it helped sell the game the first time.
I am aware that non-customers can affect sale prices. That doesn't change the fact that they are non-customers.
You aren't a customer if you buy new either. That is the wrong word. You're a customer of gamestop regardless of whether you buy new or used from gamestop.
Expect even single player games to offer DLC and other goodies in the future to attempt to address this.
They already do this. Both ME2 and Dragon Age have DLC codes with new purchases.
I'm perfectly fine with this. It makes the new copies worth more, without really degrading used value. You can still buy the dlc separately if you buy used.
I think an amount of research of what you're buying is required even if a game only costs $30. It's not hard to read a game review and find out what a game might be like.
"Don't judge a book by it's cover" will always be relevant.
Except the amount of shit publishers and retailers do to incentivize preorders goes directly against the grain of "wait for reviews."
For instance, I bought BioShock 2 on Steam which had a preorder bonus of the first BioShock for free. Call me naive or whatever but every trailer and screenshot of BioShock 2 made it seem like it was extremely similar to BioShock 1, which I had already beaten on the Xbox 360. They even posted an article a week before the game came out in which they expressed that certain issues were given specific attention.
Well, the article was a lie. BioShock 2 came out on February 9th of this year with dozens of issues, from stuff like improper HUD scaling and Field of View, all the way to multiplayer games freezing Xbox 360s and crashing and sometimes even rebooting PCs.
To this day, August 28th, and after three patches, the game is still a buggy disaster. I really do feel like I pissed away $50 because I have no recourse at this point. And the way the game was advertised made it sound like these issues shouldn't exist. Hell, issues SHOULDN'T exist when the game is released. Bugs invariably get into gold code. It's a thing that consumers have been forced to accept. But even though it actually happens 99% of the time, it is wrong 100% of the time.
The onus should be on the publisher to publish only when the game is actually working the way it should be working. This is another unique aspect to the video game industry. Name one other industry where nearly every product, or even a substantial amount of product, is released with severe bugs? I'll grant that certain technologies and appliances suffer the same fate, but not nearly to this degree. A lot of tech you see on shelves actually does function properly, whether it sucks or not.
The difference here is that I don't want to foist this horridly bungled piece of shit on anyone else either. Frankly I don't see this as a problem of not being able to resell but rather Steam's "no returns, ever" policy.
(P.S. I know I'm talking about buggy games and not "games that I don't like" but it all comes out to the same thing in the end: being stuck with a product you don't want for eternity with no way to reclaim any of that loss.)
Expect even single player games to offer DLC and other goodies in the future to attempt to address this.
They already do this. Both ME2 and Dragon Age have DLC codes with new purchases.
I'm perfectly fine with this. It makes the new copies worth more, without really degrading used value. You can still buy the dlc separately if you buy used.
Why should I pay full price for a new game when I'm only getting 2/3 of it? And then being pestered to buy the rest of the game as DLC the day it comes out?
Fuck that.
Any game with DLC announced before the game is even out is an instant used sale for me, and deservedly so. At the very least I wait and see if there's a separate version with the DLC included a year later.
If you want me to buy a new game, don't chop it up in pieces and sell it to me in bits. That's crap.
PooPooKaKaBumBum on
0
Options
sportzboytjwsqueeeeeezzeeeesome more tax breaks outRegistered Userregular
Expect even single player games to offer DLC and other goodies in the future to attempt to address this.
They already do this. Both ME2 and Dragon Age have DLC codes with new purchases.
I'm perfectly fine with this. It makes the new copies worth more, without really degrading used value. You can still buy the dlc separately if you buy used.
Why should I pay full price for a new game when I'm only getting 2/3 of it? And then being pestered to buy the rest of the game as DLC the day it comes out?
Fuck that.
Any game with DLC announced before the game is even out is an instant used sale for me, and deservedly so. At the very least I wait and see if there's a separate version with the DLC included a year later.
If you want me to buy a new game, don't chop it up in pieces and sell it to me in bits. That's crap.
That is your opinion, and it's fine, but that's what is going to happen to virtually everything. They're not keeping anything essential to the game, but it's a way to extend the playtime you get with a game (or maybe it's a quest you should have gotten before). Either way, it's coming and it's not a terribly bad thing.
sportzboytjw on
Walkerdog on MTGO
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
Expect even single player games to offer DLC and other goodies in the future to attempt to address this.
They already do this. Both ME2 and Dragon Age have DLC codes with new purchases.
I'm perfectly fine with this. It makes the new copies worth more, without really degrading used value. You can still buy the dlc separately if you buy used.
Why should I pay full price for a new game when I'm only getting 2/3 of it? And then being pestered to buy the rest of the game as DLC the day it comes out?
Fuck that.
Any game with DLC announced before the game is even out is an instant used sale for me, and deservedly so. At the very least I wait and see if there's a separate version with the DLC included a year later.
If you want me to buy a new game, don't chop it up in pieces and sell it to me in bits. That's crap.
You're certainly entitled to that opinion, based on no further information being currently available to you.
So, a question: What if the game was $10 cheaper in the 1st place and you were charged $8 to download the DLC, saving you $2 for the inconvenience of not having 'instant access' to all the features from the disc version?
Better deal, right? And one that rewards the publishers on 2nd and 3rd sales without (unduly) inconveniencing the end customer.
The Publishers are just trying to leverage money from the Games shops and they're being a bit clumsy about it, but aside from full digital download (which I hate the idea of, because I prefer an actual copy to hold, caress and sell) this may be a fairly reasonable hybrid that could work.
Now the current problem is that for the first game that does this: the customer may not get a good deal, because the shops will be trying to hold out for the same margins as they made before, but market forces will sort that out fairly swiftly.
After that, for every game that is worth less to sell second-hand, you'd hope to pay less for in the first place, so it will all balance out.
In the 'future', you will then buy a $40 game (instead of a $50 game) and you pay $8 for online and some DLC (for single player: lots of added-value DLC).
You will then only get $10 when you trade it in and the shop can only sell it for $20 instead of the $30 they would have sold it for previously. The next customer will have to pay $8 for the online and DLC (plus the $20), for a saving to the 2nd customer of $12 on the new price. Jiggle these figures about until you get something that sounds fair to you. :winky:
It's just like buying things on ebay: you take the cost of the Postage and Packaging into account when you buy the product and build it into the price you are willing to bid for something.
This is a similar model; where 'Online features' is the new 'P&P'. :P
Give it 6 months and everyone will wonder what the fuss was all about.
Any game with DLC I will not buy new. Something like the RE 5 Gold Edition or the Fallout 3 GOTY edition with the DLC included, I will happily pay full price on day one for.
Put the content on the disc.
PooPooKaKaBumBum on
0
Options
sportzboytjwsqueeeeeezzeeeesome more tax breaks outRegistered Userregular
Any game with DLC I will not buy new, unless it's something like the RE 5 Gold Edition or the Fallout 3 GOTY edition with the DLC included.
I will happily pay full price on day one for those.
Put the content on the disc.
Why do you not buy DLC? How is it different from an expansion pack that they cut the store out of getting money from? They offer a lot of content for very little (Most of the time at least).
sportzboytjw on
Walkerdog on MTGO
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
all DLC is just content that was cut and given a delayed release in order to steal more money from the consumers, us gamers.
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but a lot of people who complain about Day 1 or early release DLC don't really know what really goes on at the end of a game's development, when code is locked and the majority of their time is spent doing QA and bughunting.
Early release DLC is generally content that is developed during this period.
I'm not saying that content that would normally be in the retail game is never bumped back to become paid DLC (just look at games like Marvel Ultimate Alliance for some really atrocious examples of this happening), but it's not like every developer just decides "let's cut this, this, and this from retail and ship it for $10 a week later".
how do you do a single player game with the LoL model?
I'm a big fan of the freemium model, but it actually doesn't work with the games I like to play.
Eh, if you're Diablo 2 for example, you can play the Barbarian only to start. Each time you beat the game, you get one more dude. Or you can just PP or whatever $5 to unlock the Amazon right away, and $10 for the necro, cuz necro's are awesome, right away. Or something. Obviously this would require persistent internet connection to allow the game to work or something.
I will never, ever buy a single-player game that requires an internet connection to work.
As somebody who occasionally likes to game where I do not have internet, and who every now and then goes a year at a time without a personal internet connection, this is simply unacceptable to me.
The day single player games start regularly requiring internet connections just to play them is the day I stop gaming.
Posts
So you're mostly concerned about the wording on their press releases? Hell, not even press releases - some comments by a creative director?
If used game sales are so critical to their business model, why do they host so many sales every other month? Buy 2, Get 1 Free. 30% off all [system] used games. Gamer Days Summer Sale.
No. I don't want them to take away online capabilities. I don't want them to do anything that is anti-consumer. I love the UFC but I didn't buy 2011 because of their little online code deal.
However, I feel I understand how businesses work, and what businesses need to do to be economically viable. I understand if companies feel like they need this extra income in order to stay competitive and keep their revenues in line.
So if a company does do this kind of anti-reseller activity they should never point blame at their consumer base. It's unforgivable to insult the people who pay your bills. It's insulting to me who has purchased used games and completely unacceptable in a professional setting.
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
Sales are for a few reasons.
They attract more people to Gamestop. They clear out stock that hasn't been selling, they still make a profit because the lower prices being sold for is (ideally) made up for by the sheer number of people buying.
The people buying used games (ie, the people who might be insulted) don't pay their bills.
I should really just save this to a notepad file so I don't have to go back into the thread to find it over and over again:
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
Three new $60 dollar games traded in week one for $35 and sold for $55.
To the people who traded in the games they gave out $105. They bring in $55x2 for the purchased games and zero for the third game. They still make $5.
They usually do not give $35 for games even during the first week. It's usually much less. That money is also in store credit, which has less of an overhead than cash.
To get more people in the door. And what happens when you open the door to a Gamestop? You are endlessly assaulted for subscriptions, pre-orders, and trade-ins, trade-ins, trade-ins. Until you leave.
Because the profit margins on used games are so high that they can afford to.
It pushes more sales. Notice how it's specific games that often go on sale? those are the games that they have too many of
To put it another way (as I already did) you can't sell a game used if no one bought it new.
The companies that are really hurting aren't hurting because of used game sales. In order for used game sales to canabalize new, you have to have ALREADY sold a large number of new copies
This is making me want to start drawing diagrams.
If you don't like how the economies of first world nations work, that's fine. The gaming industry is not some singled-out victim of the business world.
This is a very good point, and there are few other forms of media where the penalty for taking a chance and being wrong is so heavily punished.
If you go see a movie, you're paying somewhere between $5-10, depending on where you are and what time of day it is. If the movie is completely terrible, you've lost $5-10. (And if you wait to rent it, then it's somewhere between free and $3.) If you want to buy an album, you're probably able to listen to samples of at least some of the songs. And even if it's shit, you've lost maybe $15.
A game, though, is $60. And if it's a really crappy game, there might not even be much of a resale market. You can hock it at GS, but you've lost at least $30 on the deal. And even if you played a demo, and loved the demo, it's still possible that the other 95% of the game is shit.
If you manage to score a great game with a good amount of content, it's a pretty good deal. You're paying $60 new for maybe 20 hours of unique gameplay, which works out to $3/hour if you never play it again. But if you guess wrong, you can get proper fucked. The used market is a lot more painless.
Not that I'm disputing the truth to this, but it assumes a few things.
1 - that there's further similar product to be had.
2 - or there's a healthy supply of the original product in the primary market that exists and renewed at all times
Number 1 means you're doing well enough to overcome any game industry selling problems to have sequels.
Number 2 is simply not true in most cases. Once something sells out in the game industry, there isn't usually second printings unless it's very popular. Some games you can only find used these days. This is exasperated by the fact that a lone-business driving a lot of the supply - they can choose simply not to stock more from the primary market and focus on procuring the product used to fuel demand into the secondary market instead.
There really isn't an opportunity for word of mouth to sell your product over time if you don't do well on the first introduction. A big part of that is the environment Gamestop has created - using pre-orders to (sometimes inaccurately) measure interest and determine their stocking, and then using the used gamed market to limit their restocking. Perhaps interest is eventually generated through the secondary market, but at that point it might be too late for the primary.
Makes the market a lot more risk unfriendly for new creative ideas then it needs to be.
I know little about economics - aside from what I think I know - so take my words with salt. I just can't help but think that the big ugly thing that Gamestop has created has gotten to the point where a statement of "You aren't our customer" actually has some truth in it for certain titles who died out the door, where if the primary market had a bit more longevity that wouldn't be the case.
I dunno. Is there any other industries that have had to deal with a huge behemoth secondary market?
Edit: Of course, being digital is nice as supply is unlimited and always on the shelf. of course, the console market doesn't have that option yet.
Man. Your point stands, but I haven't paid less than $12 to see a movie in a looooong time. I don't think the concept of matinee even exists in NYC anymore.
Even if the game isn't shit, you could still get screwed. Take Brutal Legend, where the game is (IMO) good but the demo isn't really representative of the rest of the game. Or sometimes you just don't wind up playing it...I've played a grand total of 5 hours of L4D2 (I finally bothered to check), because I just kinda got over it sometime after I pre-ordered (or right after release). That's not exactly $50 well spent, and Steam ensures that it's $50 that stays spent.
"Don't judge a book by it's cover" will always be relevant.
Which is why I keep harping on both L4D2 and FFXIII. Based both on previous installments and reviews, I had every reason to believe I'd like them. No amount of research would have prevented the problem there.
I am aware that non-customers can affect sale prices. That doesn't change the fact that they are non-customers.
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
I'm a big fan of the freemium model, but it actually doesn't work with the games I like to play.
Eh, if you're Diablo 2 for example, you can play the Barbarian only to start. Each time you beat the game, you get one more dude. Or you can just PP or whatever $5 to unlock the Amazon right away, and $10 for the necro, cuz necro's are awesome, right away. Or something. Obviously this would require persistent internet connection to allow the game to work or something.
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
For? Well, I guess pointing out that many people are focusing on the wrong part of the problem.
There's been a certain amount of misdirection going on to hide where the money is going and why, which I thought I'd clarify. It's currently a bit like someone knocked over a vase, and when challenged saying: "Ah, but HE smashed the window" and running away.
My argument is: It's a fair system and if it's explained better, we can all calm down and enjoy our games.
Oh, I understand how it works, I was just explaining it for some people who are arguing from a position that implied they didn't.
So do publishers, which is why they are making this change to 'deal with it' and get a slice of the pie, and NOT at the expense of the gamers. There is only so much pie available and they want to simply reduce the size of the Game Stores' bit and increase their slice.
If they made cars - the common analogy used - then they could start a dealership that took in old Fords when they sold a new Ford, making a profit on the sale of the trade-in car as well as the new.
As it's impractical for EA etc. to start up 'EA only' stores, then this model of charging for what is basically a service that - if continued to be offered free - would lose them money supporting online for ever and ever, is currently, the 'least worst' option.
Single player games, of course, will not be affected by any of this, so will continue as now. The Publisher can't leverage any of the money from the 2nd and 3rd trade-in out of those sales, so the shops still win there.
Expect even single player games to offer DLC and other goodies in the future to attempt to address this.
I don't understand what your argument to my point is, based upon your post. The supply of the original product can actually makes the secondary value of the game worth more, which again increases the value of the new game.
The two classic examples I can think of are: Marvel Vs. Capcom 2 for Xbox and Chrono Trigger for SNES. Both cost more used than they ever did new because there was a very low original supply. I never understood why they didn't produce more for these games (I always remember looking at the Funco land buy/sell sheet and seeing Chrono Trigger at like $80 every time I went there)
In these cases it would be in the best interest of the publisher/developer to produce more new copies. However they didn't for whatever reason (lost their license to do so, or whatever).
I know you said that there is only a limited production run, but what I don't understand is, if you see the game has a large used market there is obviously more money to be made for the developer. Why doesn't your business model allow for a reprint at a discounted price. Maybe add a feature or two (which happens consistency with "Game of the Year" editions).
Again no one is stopping you from printing more products, or lowering the price, or giving away more features with the games you sell. If you don't do it, that's your fault. Yes I understand there are costs with production, creating new (updated) products for the same game but that's a risk you take if you want to add revenue.
Also if your game "Died out the door" and got heavy sales in the used market, I'll let you in on a little 'econcomic secret'
The retail price for your game was too high.
Again it's all about value, if the consumer base decides that $60 isn't the right price for your game and that $30 is, that's not the consumer fault, or GameStops fault, it's the developers/publishers fault.
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
"But Drez....we came all the way to the theatre. We HAAAAVVVVVEEEEE to see it in 3D...."
*Boom* $15.
You aren't a customer if you buy new either. That is the wrong word. You're a customer of gamestop regardless of whether you buy new or used from gamestop.
They already do this. Both ME2 and Dragon Age have DLC codes with new purchases.
I'm perfectly fine with this. It makes the new copies worth more, without really degrading used value. You can still buy the dlc separately if you buy used.
Except the amount of shit publishers and retailers do to incentivize preorders goes directly against the grain of "wait for reviews."
For instance, I bought BioShock 2 on Steam which had a preorder bonus of the first BioShock for free. Call me naive or whatever but every trailer and screenshot of BioShock 2 made it seem like it was extremely similar to BioShock 1, which I had already beaten on the Xbox 360. They even posted an article a week before the game came out in which they expressed that certain issues were given specific attention.
Well, the article was a lie. BioShock 2 came out on February 9th of this year with dozens of issues, from stuff like improper HUD scaling and Field of View, all the way to multiplayer games freezing Xbox 360s and crashing and sometimes even rebooting PCs.
To this day, August 28th, and after three patches, the game is still a buggy disaster. I really do feel like I pissed away $50 because I have no recourse at this point. And the way the game was advertised made it sound like these issues shouldn't exist. Hell, issues SHOULDN'T exist when the game is released. Bugs invariably get into gold code. It's a thing that consumers have been forced to accept. But even though it actually happens 99% of the time, it is wrong 100% of the time.
The onus should be on the publisher to publish only when the game is actually working the way it should be working. This is another unique aspect to the video game industry. Name one other industry where nearly every product, or even a substantial amount of product, is released with severe bugs? I'll grant that certain technologies and appliances suffer the same fate, but not nearly to this degree. A lot of tech you see on shelves actually does function properly, whether it sucks or not.
The difference here is that I don't want to foist this horridly bungled piece of shit on anyone else either. Frankly I don't see this as a problem of not being able to resell but rather Steam's "no returns, ever" policy.
(P.S. I know I'm talking about buggy games and not "games that I don't like" but it all comes out to the same thing in the end: being stuck with a product you don't want for eternity with no way to reclaim any of that loss.)
Why should I pay full price for a new game when I'm only getting 2/3 of it? And then being pestered to buy the rest of the game as DLC the day it comes out?
Fuck that.
Any game with DLC announced before the game is even out is an instant used sale for me, and deservedly so. At the very least I wait and see if there's a separate version with the DLC included a year later.
If you want me to buy a new game, don't chop it up in pieces and sell it to me in bits. That's crap.
That is your opinion, and it's fine, but that's what is going to happen to virtually everything. They're not keeping anything essential to the game, but it's a way to extend the playtime you get with a game (or maybe it's a quest you should have gotten before). Either way, it's coming and it's not a terribly bad thing.
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
You're certainly entitled to that opinion, based on no further information being currently available to you.
So, a question: What if the game was $10 cheaper in the 1st place and you were charged $8 to download the DLC, saving you $2 for the inconvenience of not having 'instant access' to all the features from the disc version?
Better deal, right? And one that rewards the publishers on 2nd and 3rd sales without (unduly) inconveniencing the end customer.
The Publishers are just trying to leverage money from the Games shops and they're being a bit clumsy about it, but aside from full digital download (which I hate the idea of, because I prefer an actual copy to hold, caress and sell) this may be a fairly reasonable hybrid that could work.
Now the current problem is that for the first game that does this: the customer may not get a good deal, because the shops will be trying to hold out for the same margins as they made before, but market forces will sort that out fairly swiftly.
After that, for every game that is worth less to sell second-hand, you'd hope to pay less for in the first place, so it will all balance out.
In the 'future', you will then buy a $40 game (instead of a $50 game) and you pay $8 for online and some DLC (for single player: lots of added-value DLC).
You will then only get $10 when you trade it in and the shop can only sell it for $20 instead of the $30 they would have sold it for previously. The next customer will have to pay $8 for the online and DLC (plus the $20), for a saving to the 2nd customer of $12 on the new price. Jiggle these figures about until you get something that sounds fair to you. :winky:
It's just like buying things on ebay: you take the cost of the Postage and Packaging into account when you buy the product and build it into the price you are willing to bid for something.
This is a similar model; where 'Online features' is the new 'P&P'. :P
Give it 6 months and everyone will wonder what the fuss was all about.
Any game with DLC I will not buy new. Something like the RE 5 Gold Edition or the Fallout 3 GOTY edition with the DLC included, I will happily pay full price on day one for.
Put the content on the disc.
Why do you not buy DLC? How is it different from an expansion pack that they cut the store out of getting money from? They offer a lot of content for very little (Most of the time at least).
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but a lot of people who complain about Day 1 or early release DLC don't really know what really goes on at the end of a game's development, when code is locked and the majority of their time is spent doing QA and bughunting.
Early release DLC is generally content that is developed during this period.
I'm not saying that content that would normally be in the retail game is never bumped back to become paid DLC (just look at games like Marvel Ultimate Alliance for some really atrocious examples of this happening), but it's not like every developer just decides "let's cut this, this, and this from retail and ship it for $10 a week later".
^ That.
Also, I'm waiting for the shoe to drop and the announcement that all the DLC people bought this gen won't be compatible with the next gen of consoles.
If it's worth making, its worth putting on a disc.
I like physical media.
The less there is on physical media, the less inclined I am to buy new, or at all.
I will never, ever buy a single-player game that requires an internet connection to work.
As somebody who occasionally likes to game where I do not have internet, and who every now and then goes a year at a time without a personal internet connection, this is simply unacceptable to me.
The day single player games start regularly requiring internet connections just to play them is the day I stop gaming.