Support NeoGAF

[Can Crusher]

The importance of. i.e. the whole paragraph was alluding to the importance of taking car depreciation values into consideration, which I firmly believe far outweigh games costing $60.
Cars are longer term investments for most people. No game review I've read will talk about the game's depreciation value. It's just not important enough to warrant mentioning.

Apart from completely ignoring the main point of the argument, you're comparing percentages, which you seemingly think is better, but spending $10,000, and spending $10 is different to the average consumer. I don't care about what I will get from a game, but I do factor in depreciation values between a honda or a volkswagen and ford or a vauxhall.

It's completely different. The two examples (car vs gaming) are limited analogous examples. heck, even when you sell a car you have to let the government know, so you can switch ownership details. And there is no fee attached to it. And you don't need to 'phone back home' to Ford for this.

On a separate note, there are reports that claim people are buying more new cars today, due to better fuel economies on newer cars. So newer cars offering something positive for the consumer is what is driving demand, and not er hypothetical keys that lock out new sales or whatever.

Well yeah, I didn't say car analogies were good ones. I was just saying that even if you wanted to use car analogy in favor of 2nd hand games, you really couldn't.

 

[cRIPticon]

The entertainment industry is ahead of governments and law when it comes to digital products so they are trying to dictate the way in which the industry is heading, we need our governments to protect our consumer rights which have existed for a long time in the physical world.

If games were priced more sensibly the second hand market would be far less of a problem for them, how can they justify charging 4-5 times more than for a Blockbuster Hollywood movie or music album? especially as most games nowadays are designed with planned obsolescence in mind (ie. multiplayer user bases collapse due to new minor sequals, server support is dropped etc)

This is what keeps sticking for me. Who is to say that a game is not priced sensibly already? Just because you may think it's too much money does not make it true. Conversely, look at the mobile games market; it swung in the opposite direction. Most developers build games just hoping it will take off and they can recoup their investments. No one complains when game is underpriced, now do they?

 

[BlastProcessing]

This is what keeps sticking for me. Who is to say that a game is not priced sensibly already? Just because you may think it's too much money does not make it true. Conversely, look at the mobile games market; it swung in the opposite direction. Most developers build games just hoping it will take off and they can recoup their investments. No one complains when game is underpriced, now do they?

In a pure economic sense, the correct price is the highest one that the consumer is willing to pay. If enough consumers reject a game at $60, it is hard to argue that $60 was a sensible price.

 

[Myshoe]

This is what keeps sticking for me. Who is to say that a game is not priced sensibly already? Just because you may think it's too much money does not make it true.

The free market does, if something is perceived as being good value then the second hand market is usually very small for it and vice versa.

 

[avaya]

The cretinous behaviour of publishers will destroy this business. They are too thick to realise though.

 

[lmpaler]

They aren't supposed to receive a cent from it.

This.

If I got it right on the business front, developers are paid by the publisher in advance to make said game within a time frame. Then the publisher covers the cost of advertising, printing, and distributing the game. Once it hits the market and sells the publisher gets a piece of the pie of the sale that it has to share with the vendors etc.

Eventually the publisher makes profit and if it made enough it pays the developer to make another game.


So no matter what the developers get paid, but if the game bombs and is a huge loss, the publisher has to take the hit.

Granted there is probably a lot of politics involved with contracts and stipulations that I am unaware of, but that is a nutshell version.

So I agree that developers getting more money on second hand sales is ridiculous, publishers maybe. A very thin maybe

 

[Myshoe]

In a pure economic sense, the correct price is the highest one that the consumer is willing to pay. If enough consumers reject a game at $60, it is hard to argue that $60 was a sensible price.

People will often buy something which they feel is way overpriced if the option is there to sell it on for a small loss afterwards.

 

[pompidu]

Stop making shitty, overpriced games and then the used market will shrink.

 

[cRIPticon]

In a pure economic sense, the correct price is the highest one that the consumer is willing to pay. If enough consumers reject a game at $60, it is hard to argue that $60 was a sensible price.

Of course this is the answer. My post was a bit rhetorical in spirit, even if it failed to come across that way

 

[quest]

This is what keeps sticking for me. Who is to say that a game is not priced sensibly already? Just because you may think it's too much money does not make it true. Conversely, look at the mobile games market; it swung in the opposite direction. Most developers build games just hoping it will take off and they can recoup their investments. No one complains when game is underpriced, now do they?

There is no underpriced games on a console since basically every game is the standard 59.99 then drops from there. If people did not see games as over priced the used market would not be so large. I think we forget that this hobby is mostly about people with limited income especially their first decade of gaming till they get into mid 20s and get a real job.

Instead of screwing over the consumer. How about rewarding those who buy games new. That is the way to go. Give those who buy new more value. Give them discounts if they are repeat customers, give them some free real DLC, give them special access to betas, give them early access to a game if they bought the previous new. Use a rewards point system were you can use the points on things like DLC, shirts, hats ect. For the achievement whores have special ones that can only be unlocked if you bought the game new. There is a lot they could do that is very easy that could get more people to see more value in buying new. That and get prices more inline with todays world of entertainment.

 

[CreateNowSleepLater]

Stop making shitty, overpriced games and then the used market will shrink.

Maybe its time to rethink the AAA title, they created this mess. Again, those are siding with the small dev but they are not driving this nor have the influence to change anything.

Sony carted out a bunch of Devs and closed with Bungie/Activision
MS carted out EA and CoD Activision.

Its quite clear who is behind this.

 

[Siegfried]

They are killing the industry they fought so hard to create.

They spend resources and force upon us multiplayer modes on games that do not need them, just hoping the owner will stick more time with the game instead of selling it after they finish it.

They create achievements based on dates. Play X number of weeks, play 6 months after release and so on, just to make us keep the game longer before we sell it.

They push DLC pack after DLC pack on us, sometimes with content nobody wanted, just to make us stay longer with the game instead of selling it.

What they are creating is a huge mass hate towards the AAA games.

Sooner or later all this will come back to haunt them, but it will be to late...

 

[TimeKillr]

Then why hasn't the numbers ever been shared on that? I find it incredibly hard to believe loss was identified but those numbers never hit the public eye. That doesn't really happen, when the consumer is involved in the reason why.

The numbers are actually impossible to have unless Gamestop and other retailers release them, which they don't. What I *can* say is that after talking to many people in the publishing industry (and I've been a game dev for about 10 years now) they are seeing less sales than they did before used games hit it huge, so they base their argument on that. With each new generation retailers like Gamestop push used games more and more and more, and when that happens sales of a lot of titles go down. It's not 100% attributable to used sales, obviously, but it does affect them.

Fixing that is simple as hell: only sell used copies of games once their stock is down to zero, otherwise only sell used copies - that's the situation where it would actually not cause problems, but since their margin on new copies is so god damn low, you can see why they have such a huge incentive to push used sales.

What about comic books? Comic books if well maintained(and they can be) keep actually go up in value, so if I wanted to sell one of my Aoa's from way back in the day, I should pay marvel a fee?

You don't count scratches on the disc as something that would depreciate their value? What about classic games on older systems? I buy classic games all the time, you mean to tell me that my local game store has to pay Sega for a 15ish year old genesis game?

Lets say I donate blood (rare commodity in some places), should I be paid each time my blood is used to save someone's life? lol That even possible?

There is a better way to do this, they just aren't trying hard enough./QUOTE]

The comics analogy doesn't work - nobody would buy used comics day 1. Old comics are worthwhile because they're old and rare and no longer in print (or if they are, there's an intrinsic value is owning original print copies). This doesn't really happen with games - it has happened a bit in the PS1 era where non-GH copies of some games sell for far more due to their rarity (SoTN and FFT come to mind) but it's a collector pricing issue, not a retail pricing issue.

And blood? LOL. Seriously, would you really bring that up? First of all, you donate your blood (so no pay is expected!) and even if you were, you are paid once for a specific amount of blood. It's not like they're going to use your blood on someone, then that person is going to sell that blood away to another blood bank and they resell it at a higher value!

As has been pointed out, this is probably the only issue if any that they have against gamestop. When i'm there i do not see many of them. Like the poster who quoted you said, we would need to see some kind of numbers dictating this as factual loss. I don't believe anybody will be forthcoming however, so...

I don't know what Gamestop you're going to, but every single one in my area pushes used games like there's no tomorrow. As in they start mixing new and used copies on the shelves, mark the price for used copies in much more colorful stickers so they stand out, put 2 stickers on each box (a huge red one with "RECYCLED" on it with a reduced price and a small white one with the new price on it), then when I buy a game they always say "Would you like the recycled copy? it's 10$ cheaper and you get rewards with your Edge card!" and shit like that. They they go into their stance about "If there's any games you don't play anymore, bring em in, you could have gotten this game for much cheaper!".

(And this is without mentioning their "insurance" on games which is incredibly funny - I once told a guy about a really niche title "Can you guarantee me you'll have another copy here for me if this one fucks up?" and his face was priceless... he had no idea what the god damn game was, let alone even remember it's name).

 

[Salamando]

Instead of screwing over the consumer. How about rewarding those who buy games new. That is the way to go. Give those who buy new more value. Give them discounts if they are repeat customers, give them some free real DLC, give them special access to betas, give them early access to a game if they bought the previous new. Use a rewards point system were you can use the points on things like DLC, shirts, hats ect. For the achievement whores have special ones that can only be unlocked if you bought the game new. There is a lot they could do that is very easy that could get more people to see more value in buying new. That and get prices more inline with todays world of entertainment.

That's what online passes were. We all see how well we reacted to that.

 

[CreateNowSleepLater]

There is no underpriced games on a console since basically every game is the standard 59.99 then drops from there. If people did not see games as over priced the used market would not be so large. I think we forget that this hobby is mostly about people with limited income especially their first decade of gaming till they get into mid 20s and get a real job.

Instead of screwing over the consumer. How about rewarding those who buy games new. That is the way to go. Give those who buy new more value. Give them discounts if they are repeat customers, give them some free real DLC, give them special access to betas, give them early access to a game if they bought the previous new. Use a rewards point system were you can use the points on things like DLC, shirts, hats ect. For the achievement whores have special ones that can only be unlocked if you bought the game new. There is a lot they could do that is very easy that could get more people to see more value in buying new. That and get prices more inline with todays world of entertainment.

Yep, why is Madden an every year title? Its not about great games anymore. Its about adding just enough that they can justify the $60 price tag. Every year now you basically get rehashes of the games from the year before.

 

[CreateNowSleepLater]

That's what online passes were. We all see how well we reacted to that.

Not really, that was something done mid gen which devalued your game. Agree or disagree this is much different because you are launching a generation behind it with the 2 biggest players launching at the same time.

People do not have the green for 5 $60 titles between Oct-Nov. Used game helps those people buy more new games.

 

[pompidu]

Maybe its time to rethink the AAA title, they created this mess. Again, those are siding with the small dev but they are not driving this nor have the influence to change anything.

Sony carted out a bunch of Devs and closed with Bungie/Activision
MS carted out EA and CoD Activision.

Its quite clear who is behind this.

i have a bunch of last gen games that i would never part with. not so much this gen, alot of games are one and done. if your game is fun i will keep it, that should be developers goal. not to artificially create a longer lasting game through expensive dlc and season passes.

 

[Salamando]

Not really, that was something done mid gen which devalued your game. Agree or disagree this is much different because you are launching a generation behind it with the 2 biggest players launching at the same time.

People do not have the green for 5 $60 titles between Oct-Nov. Used game helps those people buy more new games.

How so? Rewarding people who buy games new with free DLC and giving people who buy the game new a code to unlock additional features are pretty similar. Either case, you buy the game new, you get content you wouldn't have had if you bought it used.

Won't argue that some people who currently buy new won't be able to buy as many new games if this goes through. I will say that it will increase profitability among people who buy used games, either in getting a piece of the sale or transitioning them into New game buyers.

And hopefully, if this works, games being profitable for longer means they won't need to release every game in the same small window.

 

[Sera O]

It's ridiculous. These companies actually think that reducing the value and increasing the perceived cost of their products is going to help the bottom line. The console market is set to shrink as it is, competing with mobile/tablet gaming, and it's partially because of this kind of bullshit.

Do I buy games used? Not if I have a choice - I think I picked up a used DS game a couple of years ago because it was out of print. Do I buy new games close to release? Yes, all the freaking time. That will change if the option to trade a game in went away - it basically bumps the price up 15 bucks in my head. I have traded 2 games in the past three years, probably, but the fact that I know it's possible makes me way more likely to buy in release window.

The short-sighted cash grab mentality only reduces the number of people in the customer base because they'll start moving elsewhere.

When you want to increase the number of people who buy your product, the solution is never to make it shittier.

 

[Forsaken82]

You ahve 2 copies of a new piece of software to sell and you sell one copy to one guy who sells the copy for like 75% of the cost to another guy...

are you going to be satisfied that someone else made money off your product instead of buying the 2nd copy you had to sell?

 

[Just_myles]

I don't know what Gamestop you're going to, but every single one in my area pushes used games like there's no tomorrow. As in they start mixing new and used copies on the shelves, mark the price for used copies in much more colorful stickers so they stand out, put 2 stickers on each box (a huge red one with "RECYCLED" on it with a reduced price and a small white one with the new price on it), then when I buy a game they always say "Would you like the recycled copy? it's 10$ cheaper and you get rewards with your Edge card!" and shit like that. They they go into their stance about "If there's any games you don't play anymore, bring em in, you could have gotten this game for much cheaper!".

Like I said, I am not denying that pushing used copies does not happen. I as of yet have not seen any "used" 5 dollar off full retail priced games mixed together at gamestop. Maybe I am not looking hard enough. I'll tell you what, I live by a few of them and I will check that out. When I was there last that is what I happened to notice right away was the games that were 5 dollars off full retail and in the used section.

My point finally being that this is the only real argument publishers should have at this point. Also I am in agreement that until we see some kind of detailed report saying this actually does hurt their business, I'm going to call it what it is, scapegoating.

 

[A.R.K]

Why not keep everything same like current gen but only charge fee for the MP part of the game if you buy used game. I believe that is fair as pubs/devs need to run the infrastructure for the MP part of the game. Getting paid for SP games on used games market again and again is asking too much.

 

[cRIPticon]

There is no underpriced games on a console since basically every game is the standard 59.99 then drops from there. If people did not see games as over priced the used market would not be so large. I think we forget that this hobby is mostly about people with limited income especially their first decade of gaming till they get into mid 20s and get a real job.

Instead of screwing over the consumer. How about rewarding those who buy games new. That is the way to go. Give those who buy new more value. Give them discounts if they are repeat customers, give them some free real DLC, give them special access to betas, give them early access to a game if they bought the previous new. Use a rewards point system were you can use the points on things like DLC, shirts, hats ect. For the achievement whores have special ones that can only be unlocked if you bought the game new. There is a lot they could do that is very easy that could get more people to see more value in buying new. That and get prices more inline with todays world of entertainment.

Except for the first bit, every one of these things has been tried including DLC for pre-ordering, and when developers try to do these things, someone always cries foul.

 

[quest]

You ahve 2 copies of a new piece of software to sell and you sell one copy to one guy who sells the copy for like 75% of the cost to another guy...

are you going to be satisfied that someone else made money off your product instead of buying the 2nd copy you had to sell?

If the guy uses that money to purchase another piece of software it is a win. It is amazing people don't get it. Do you think gamers have endless money to spend on 60 dollar titles especially gamers who are 20 and under. People basically have so much they will spend on games/entertainment. If you cut the value of a game to nothing but leave the prices the same people will buy a lot less games. It is not that hard to figure out the second hand market lets many gamers buy more games. The consumers have spoken and everyone but the publishers have heard. People don't think most game are worth 59.99. They see the value of a game closer to 29.99. The resale value of games let them buy games at near what they see the market price is. I don't think it is a coincidence that trading games in started to catch on around the PS1 era and gaming exploded after to a mainstream hobby.

 

[quest]

Except for the first bit, every one of these things has been tried including DLC for pre-ordering, and when developers try to do these things, someone always cries foul.

I am not talking crappy costume or weapon pack for buying new. I am talking real content as a reward. Give them the first 3-6 months of map packs for free. Charge those who buy used like 14.99. It raises the value of that new game a ton and lowers the value of used games a ton. That basically stops used games at gamestop right there for games with a decent online community. The problem is they make a ton of money on DLC and won't give that up since it is more than used games cost them. They basically want games to be 59.99 dollar rentals and that will kill the industry. I think the console game industry is about the only one dumb enough to think the best way to get more sales is to effectively double the price of its product. I will sit back and say I told you so when it don't work out like they want and they find something else to blame for poor business practices.

 

[Meier]

If anyone thinks for whatever reason that the original publisher should receive a percentage of used game sales, that's fine -- it should come from the retailer who is re-selling it though. Any of you who are willingly thrilled to give up all of your rights as a consumer are insane.

 

[iNvid02]

If anyone thinks for whatever reason that the original publisher should receive a percentage of used game sales, that's fine -- it should come from the retailer who is re-selling it though. Any of you who are willingly thrilled to give up all of your rights as a consumer are insane.

it will come from gamestop as they will pay the fee to microsoft. its just that the cost will be passed onto the consumer in the form of lower trade in prices and higher used game prices

the consumer will get fucked, period

Spoiler

take my hand - be a man

 

[Salamando]

I am not talking crappy costume or weapon pack for buying new. I am talking real content as a reward. Give them the first 3-6 months of map packs for free. Charge those who buy used like 14.99. It raises the value of that new game a ton and lowers the value of used games a ton. That basically stops used games at gamestop right there for games with a decent online community. The problem is they make a ton of money on DLC and won't give that up since it is more than used games cost them. They basically want games to be 59.99 dollar rentals and that will kill the industry. I think the console game industry is about the only one dumb enough to think the best way to get more sales is to effectively double the price of its product. I will sit back and say I told you so when it don't work out like they want and they find something else to blame for poor business practices.

How is that not what Arkham City with the Catwoman Online Pass did? Or Mass Effect 2's Cerberus Network? Internet still didn't react favorably to it. Sure, it's not multiplayer mappacks, but I think single-player games are the ones that get hurt the most by used games.

 

[Artorias]

But likewise you don't tend to see music and DVD retailers setting aside large sections of their stores to sell used alongside new

DVD/CD/books are probably the closest media type to games, but the sales models are still different

I mainly shop at Amoeba...so yes, I certainly do see that.

You ahve 2 copies of a new piece of software to sell and you sell one copy to one guy who sells the copy for like 75% of the cost to another guy...

are you going to be satisfied that someone else made money off your product instead of buying the 2nd copy you had to sell?

...if you had nothing to offer to make your more expensive copy worthwhile, then why on earth should you be upset about it?

 

[KageMaru]

I've already said books and movies are a better comparison. Not perfect but at least closer than the car comparison people always use for some reason.

They make for better comparisons, but still not good ones. Books don't cost anywhere near as much to make as a game and while movies do cost a lot, aren't they hurting financially too?

We would need to look at a form of entertainment where the costs are close to that of a AAA game but the industry is still healthy.

 

[Phreaker]

Well, they made the product. They are entitled to think whatever they want about it. Also, games aren't cars, so the comparison is off.

How is it different from a movie (DVD or Blu-Ray) or an audio CD then?

 

[this_guy]

You ahve 2 copies of a new piece of software to sell and you sell one copy to one guy who sells the copy for like 75% of the cost to another guy...

are you going to be satisfied that someone else made money off your product instead of buying the 2nd copy you had to sell?

It doesn't matter at that point - the publishers already received their money from Gamestop/retailers. Remember retailers buy games from publishers to sell. Publisher's don't just give games to retailers and collect when a customer buys.

 

[lmpaler]

Reading this thread makes me really appreciate my investment into PC Gaming again because I know eventually the games will be a reasonable price.

Those sales are a godsend, and even though I can't resell it, I didn't drop $60+ on it and it sucked.

Digital distribution is the way of the future, consoles need to accept this and push it a lot harder than they are.

 

[TheBaldEmperor]

Assuming that you would go an buy new or just wait to get a used copy. We all know of at least one person (amirite) who only buys used. Always. At any rate, you can't make that assumption that selling old games drives the purchase of new. It is most certainly a mix.

I never said everyone does exactly what I do. Never assumed anything. Merely pointed out a benefit that devs and pubs do get. If people weren't trading old for new I doubt GameStop would be offering the incentives for trading in used games towards new. $60 is a lot of money for some and paying half of that after trade ins makes it more manageable. I'm pretty sure we had a topic from a few months ago where they commented about how much this actually takes place. I don't remember it being a dollar amount that game makers should be ignoring.

 

[abstract alien]

How is it different from a movie (DVD or Blu-Ray) or an audio CD then?

It has much more in line with a CD or movie than a car. With a vehicle, I could see them not being as upset because they still have and often do make money from used car buyers due to maintenance, parts, etc. With a game or music cd, there is no middle ground. The models won't good bad and need repair or anything. I just thought the car vs game comparison was always kinda silly.

I don't really care one way or the other about it since I only by new games, just that I get why developers don't like the whole idea of used games. You don't have to agree with it to understand, is all I'm really saying.

Edit: DLC is the middle ground now maybe?

 

[coldfoot]

One thing I do not understand is that if used games bother MS/Sony/Publishers so much, why don't they price digital versions cheaper? That's because they want Gamestop to do all the marketing and exposure but then they cry foul because GS has to mark up used games to make a profit. They can't have it both ways. Either GS goes away and they have to pay for marketing themselves and also worry about retail sales, or they put up with GS.

 

[KojiKnight]

How to tell if your pricing may not be market appropriate...


When you have a huge and flourishing second hand market that you feel is crowding out your new products. That may be a small hint

 

[Garcia]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If devs want to make more money from their games they need to offer a digital download rental service. $60 for a 10 hour game you'll play once is outrageous, nobody wants to pay that anymore.

That's not a bad idea at all since it's basically the same all of us did back in the 90's during the SNES era.

If anyone thinks for whatever reason that the original publisher should receive a percentage of used game sales, that's fine -- it should come from the retailer who is re-selling it though. Any of you who are willingly thrilled to give up all of your rights as a consumer are insane.

And it will keep getting worse as years go by. Just look at the way people care more about the developers rather than protecting their own rights. Insane shit, I agree.

 

[CreateNowSleepLater]

How so? Rewarding people who buy games new with free DLC and giving people who buy the game new a code to unlock additional features are pretty similar. Either case, you buy the game new, you get content you wouldn't have had if you bought it used.

Won't argue that some people who currently buy new won't be able to buy as many new games if this goes through. I will say that it will increase profitability among people who buy used games, either in getting a piece of the sale or transitioning them into New game buyers.

And hopefully, if this works, games being profitable for longer means they won't need to release every game in the same small window.

I meant that online passes were not perceived to be extra value when introduced.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

They make for better comparisons, but still not good ones. Books don't cost anywhere near as much to make as a game and while movies do cost a lot, aren't they hurting financially too?

We would need to look at a form of entertainment where the costs are close to that of a AAA game but the industry is still healthy.

Yeah I agree. There is no perfect comparison to the situation games are in.

 

[Phreaker]

Edit: DLC is the middle ground now maybe?

Maybe. Like the OP, I do wonder where they got the notion they are entitled to money for used games. I don't see any other industry doing this successfully. I remember many years ago when Disney and Circuit City were going to try the self-destructing DVD (48 hrs) or pay per view (pay each time you view the DVD). That worked out well.

 

[Salamando]

Maybe. Like the OP, I do wonder where they got the notion they are entitled to money for used games. I don't see any other industry doing this successfully. I remember many years ago when Disney and Circuit City were going to try the self-destructing DVD (48 hrs) or pay per view (pay each time you view the DVD). That worked out well.

Sarcastic Answer: The automobile industry. If I sell a car to someone, there's fees and taxes involved with the transfer of the registration.

Serious Answer: they're doing this to see if they can get away with it. No other forms of media have the same internet connection thing consoles do...I've never once had to connect my car/CD player/Book to the internet. The ability to do this properly is a fairly recent thing. And "nobody else has done it" is a terrible reason not to do something. They think it'll result in more profit, and we'll either prove them right or prove them wrong.

 

[Biker19]

It's not about used games and it never really has been. Budgets have risen disproportionately with market growth and now publishers need some additional income to try and prop this up. Pre-order bonuses, season passes and day 1 DLC took them so far but now they want more and Microsoft (and possibly Sony) have put the mechanism in place to make that happen.

The truth is that this industry is dead. It just hasn't realised it yet. All but the elite few and the sensible niche are making games that nobody asked for with money they don't have, hoping beyond hope that it will become the next cultural phenomenon and sell 10million units but it never happens.

There is a massive disconnect between the value publishers and developers think they are providing and the value that most consumers actually see in video games. Whereas most producers believe they are creating a cinematic masterpiece with a comprehensive multiplayer community, whet they end up with is a linear game with a shitty story, acting and pacing that's great for a single run through and everyone's friends are still playing Call of Duty months and years after release.

Most modern video games are the equivalent of Jason Statham movies. Visceral, throwaway fun that you watch once and forget about, produced on a limited budget and worth the $8 theatre ticket or Netflix/Blockbuster rental. Except the part about the limited budget and the $8 entry fee. And that's the key point here. Video games may well have budgets that require a $60+ entry fee, they may well have the sort of theoretical content that makes them "worth" $60+ but the are essentially Crank or The Transporter 3.

The industry is creating throwaway, pulp entertainment but deluding themselves that what they are creating is art, albeit art where you can justify keeping Michelangelo's David's legs back as a pre-order bonus, or Van Gough's Sunflowers where the vase will run you $5. And then they act all shocked that people are trading their throwaway nonsense in three weeks later.

This used games fiasco is simply the last throw of the dice of an industry that can't throw in the towel and admit defeat. There were options to course correct, but most publishers let those go a long time ago; they could have developed Wii games and stayed back making less-risky PS2-level games and with that try taking the medium in new directions for the expanded audience and and reducing the reliance on every game to involve shooting people, they could have just held steady, kept budgets in check, and let EA and Activision spend themselves into oblivion.

But they wouldn't and couldn't because they daren't admit that they weren't AAA-tier and now we are here: the final throw of the dice of an industry that's walking wounded, one which will almost certainly backfire because Andy McNabb doesn't suddenly become Leo Tolstoy just because you handcuff a hardback to someone's wrist.

You come up with some of the most brilliant posts ever. I don't know how you do it.

Greed is what will ultimately do this industry in.

Yep. And it'll probably be even worse than the North American video game crash of 1983.

 

[vpance]

How to tell if your pricing may not be market appropriate...

When you have a huge and flourishing second hand market that you feel is crowding out your new products. That may be a small hint

Well, it's not so simple. Truth is, gaming is a unique and immature industry. And Gamestop are a unique retailer/middleman. So we need unique solutions to the problem.

 

[Biker19]

I'm satirizing the hypocritical Marxists here. GameStop controls the means of production (well, as it applies to used games, anyway) and exploits game creators! You didn't build that, GameStop!

Of course it doesn't work that way. GameStop, consumers who buy used games, etc. are simply responding to economic incentives. It's just a matter of changing the business model to change those incentives.

If publishers hate Gamestop so much, why do they still do business with them with pre-order stuff? Exactly.

As for the other comments above regarding the stupid developers who don't know how to budget and spend too much on making games....seriously? Companies are about retaining revenues, not blowing through them. To a large extent, they are placing bets on big budget titles and the costs that go along with those games are significant. We, as gamers, want more (more graphics, more content, more levels, etc.) but complain when we hear about the cost of such development? Come on....

Bullshit. If From Software can make a profit off of games like Demon's Souls & Dark Souls, so can other companies. How do they do it? By keeping their budgets of development & advertising the games in check & not going overboard in which most publishers are currently doing right now.

 

[kirby_fox]

The entire business model of gaming is going to destroy itself.

Devs/pubs want their hands in second hand sales because they came to this forgone conclusion that if nobody had sold that game in the first place- consumers would be forced to buy all of their games new. Except the fallacy with that is of course: people are buying used because of what they can afford.

I mean, do the math. AAA games are the cornerstone of publishers and there's tons of them. You're talking 30-60 titles a year if you're into each of the games and own all systems. If I were to buy 30 games at full retail price, I'd have spent $1800 plus tax. $1800 fucking dollars. For a job working 8 bucks an hour, that's 225 hours of work or more than a month of time working just to afford that.

But cut that in half- and you have 900 bucks. A little more than 2 weeks pay for an $8/hr job. Over a year, not so bad. And the more and more you cut this, the more people can afford.

So the logic would be "Let's cut the price after so long on the market in order to expand the game to as many people as possible in a rather expensive market." Instead the logic has somehow gone to "YOU STEALIN MONEY FROM ME! I MADE THAT! YOU CAN'T SELL THAT, I MADE THAT AND YOU AIN'T GIVIN ME MONEY FOR IT SO YOU STEALIN FROM ME!"

 

[Seth]

Personally my reason for buying games used is because i don't feel a game is worth the retail price. Lots of games out there that look mildly interesting or something new that doesn't quite grab my attention before playing and games that are 8 hours long with no compelling extras. don't want to spend $60 on games like this. If they had released for a lower price I may consider purchasing the game. Or even price dropping within a reasonable time. If the standard starting price is $60, what if it became standard to drop the price to $50 in a month? Then maybe $40 in 2 more months, $30 in another 2 months after that, etc. If I want a game bad enough ill buy it within the first month at $60. If not ill buy it when it reaches what I see as a reasonable price. If i have low interest then it could turn into an impulse purchase at $30. Or maybe down the line I gain interesting and realize I can buy the game used for $15 or buy it new for $60. Its hard to choose $60.

I don't think trying to get a cut of used game sales is the answer. Beat the used price, come close to the used price, offer some other incentive (maybe start including a code for some free DLC down the line).

 

[ZealousD]

Well you haven't really been able to resell PC software for a long long time. Why should console software be different?

It shouldn't.

I think you should be able to resell PC software too.

 

[Htown]

It shouldn't.

I think you should be able to resell PC software too.

Yep.

The only reason it doesn't really happen now is that the nature of PCs and digital distribution makes it difficult for there to be a simple transfer of a game from one person to another that doesn't involve the creation of a copyright-infringing instance of the game.

 

[Seth]

Yep.

The only reason it doesn't really happen now is that the nature of PCs and digital distribution makes it difficult for there to be a simple transfer of a game from one person to another that doesn't involve the creation of a copyright-infringing instance of the game.

Buying digitally i think you should know what you are getting into. No physical disc, relying on a company to make the game downloadable for a very long time, no ability to sell. However if you wait long enough you will get a very reasonable price on a steam sale... and at that point its so cheap, who cares if you can't sell it back?