• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Egg headed man sticks it to Jaffe over used game sales

Gestahl

Member
StoOgE said:
Look, if it doesn't make financial sense to keep gamers playing your 2-3 month old game (or older) than don't do it. But don't complain when gamers see more value in selling your game than keeping it.

You can't expect consumers to hold on to something that they don't see any value in anymore. So either provide that value somehow or stop bitching.

I think Crackdown is a good example of doing it right.

1) Buy it on Day 1 you get a Halo 3 demo.
2) Lots of replay value/shit to go look for.
3) Fun pick up and play game for 10-15 minutes even months after release.
4) 3 months after release we got a free DLC upgrade that let us reset the city/do some cool shit.
5) Same day we got a pay DLC that added a ton of cool new features that got me playing online again for months.

And the wrong way would be anything done by Bioware. Putting premade DLC into a special edition before the game is even out is not the best way to make me want to buy your game. Nor is hyping up DLC as a means to bridge the gaps between games in a trilogy and then crapping out a survival mode.
 

Noshino

Member
Pureauthor

That's the problem though, GameStop does claim that, once you have decided which game you are going to buy, the first thing they ll do is persuade you into buying a used copy by any means available (reason why I was kicked out of a GameStop a few months ago)

The problem is that the uninformed customer, which happens to be the biggest customer in the video game industry, actually thinks that they are getting a good deal, or to be exact, the "best" deal.

Segata Sanshiro said:
I don't believe Gamestop is looking out for the customer any more than the game companies are, but it just happens to be that on this particular issue, we have a common interest.

Gamestop can go die in a fire for all I care, but the way the industry is choosing to go about achieving that end is also going to affect me, and quite heavily at that.

Segata, I understand your concern and is an awful shame, really. But unfortunately you are in the small group of people that informed and actually take part on trading/reselling games. I was a huge anti DD guy, but I have been pleased with PSN's offerings, specially game sharing. Hopefully the industry implements more features to please you as well.

and last but not least

StoOgE said:
It's called a secondary market. It is completely "right" and is part of the basis of capitalism.

WTF

Its right because it qualifies under capitalism? holy shit man, I really don't have anything to add to this
 

Davidion

Member
Raist said:
Huh... so in order to lose less money, they should work on free updates. Makes sense.

I think the main issue here is the consumer's behaviour, and I think that's why many people still regard videogames as an "immature" media.
Think of it, do you see many people enjoying a good movie/CD/book and then selling it after they've watched/listened to/read it once? Not really. While for videogames, that's pretty much common.

That may be the most disheartening thing for a developper. I mean, it takes as long to make a game as to write a book or record an album, and yet games have this kind of "kleenex" status, with people asking for more, and for free. I've never seen someone say "hey, give me another chapter/track/scene for free, or else there's no reason why I should not sell your stuff.

You know, this is hilarious to me. You have here a medium where the developers and "power users" puts so much weight on ADD-driven enjoyment mechanics and graphic whoring that 90% of the time has no lasting re-enjoyment incentive for the consumer whatsoever, and we now have people turn around and blame the CONSUMERS' behavior.

Nobody here defending this ridiculous line of thinking has managed to mention a single reason why someone who buys a game actually should, for their own benefit, keep the product that they've bought. None. There's a huge secondary/second hand market for books, CDs, and movies. Where's the outrage?

It's not the content, but the consumer's behavior that makes video games an "immature" market? What crack are you smoking?
 

Raist

Banned
Segata Sanshiro said:
Uh, people do that with books all the time. And in a fashion, movies are also treated as "kleenex" thanks to a very robust rental market (note that game rentals would also be eliminated by DD-only).

If the companies want people to keep things, make them worth keeping. I don't see a ton of Nintendo's games sitting on used shelves... I wonder why that is?

Renting is another issue, with specific regulations (especially in the case of movies, at least over here). As for books, that's true, but at the same time you don't see used books on shelves right next to the new ones. Usually, it's completely different stores. And I was mostly commenting on the "give me more or I'll sell" behaviour, which is something that you don't see for other culture/entertainment products.
 
Raist said:
Renting is another issue, with specific regulations (especially in the case of movies, at least over here). As for books, that's true, but at the same time you don't see used books on shelves right next to the new ones. Usually, it's completely different stores. And I was mostly commenting on the "give me more or I'll sell" behaviour, which is something that you don't see for other culture/entertainment products.
True, but that's probably because people aren't as unhappy with the value proposition in other culture/entertainment products.
 

Mutagenic

Permanent Junior Member
Raist said:
Huh? I'm just saying that used copies directly compete with new copies. The typical used car or house is years old. So it's totally different.
What are you talking about? I bought my car used, which took away from a new sale. Should the person that sold me the used car give back to Honda? Hell no. Once again, the games industry thinks it's special, when a majority of games are trash to begin with. If you make an awesome game, I won't want to get rid of it. I have an amazing music store that sells used CDs by me, and they would laugh in your face if you told them to give some of that profit back to Capitol, etc. GameStop shouldn't feel bad that they've come up with a successful business model. People want them to suddenly develop a heart and give back to publishers because it's the 'right thing to do'?

GameStop is killing themselves in the long haul, but they have every right to make as much money as humanly possible until that day arrives. These companies going under must be a direct result of used game sales, right? Not because they have shitty business models and develop trash.
 

Onemic

Member
Segata Sanshiro said:
Normally I would throw a quip about learning to read here, but you clearly can't read so there isn't much point.

Wow, way to be a complete douche, douche.



Anyway, I read the OP and everyone seems to be on the side of gamestop getting 100% of everything on the used games business, when GAF has normally been quite against it in the past. Just making an observation, nothing more.
 

Noshino

Member
onemic said:
Wow, way to be complete douche, douche.



Anyway, I read the OP and everyone seems to be on the side of gamestop getting 100% of everything on the used games business, when GAF has normally been quite against it in the past. Just making an observation, nothing more.

No, only StoOgE and Mutagenic are....
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Noshino said:
Its right because it qualifies under capitalism? holy shit man, I really don't have anything to add to this

Caveot Emptor. Could someone find a used game at a better price somewhere else? Sure. Could they sell it at a better price somewhere else? Sure. But for some people not dealing with ebay is worth getting a little less/paying a little more and having a B&M store to return a defective product to.

And yes, I happen to like the free market and capitalism especially when we are talking about creating aditional flexibility for consumers, sorry if you have a problem with it. Gamestop has a lot of problems, but creating a used game market for consumers to take advantage of is not one of them.
 

drakesfortune

Directions: Pull String For Uninformed Rant
I'm guessing that everyone in this thread also thinks we should leave the pharmaceutical companies alone too and allow them to have a monopoly on the distribution of the drugs they create forever. Right? Asprin should still be monopolized by whoever created it and should cost $500 a bottle. Right? Right?

If publishers like Jaffe get their way, game prices will be whatever they can charge for them. It'll keep prices high. Or do we really think that Activision is looking for ways to make their games more affordable for us by packing in $10 guitars with their games that they then sell us for $50?

When pubs have a monopoly on the way their games are distributed, game prices will be higher, remain higher for much longer, and be bad for the consumer. Your purchase of $60 will be worth $0 the moment you hit buy. No thanks.

There are a whole lot of games I would NEVER buy if I had to pay full retail and know that I'm just going to eat it if I don't like it. I'd be stuck with Lair forever!!!!!!

I love Jaffe though. I appreciate his big mouth, and his complete lack of a filter over what's in his brain and what comes out of his mouth, even if I completely disagree with him on this issue.
 
onemic said:
Wow, way to be complete douche, douche.



Anyway, I read the OP and everyone seems to be on the side of gamestop getting 100% of everything on the used games business, when GAF has normally been quite against it in the past. Just making an observation, nothing more.
Hey look, you attained basic literacy, and in about ten minutes, too! Who says the younger generation is a bunch of slackers?

People aren't fighting for Gamestop's rights here as much as they are fighting for their own rights, which happen to coincide with Gamestop's rights.
 

NeoUltima

Member
The Les is just a trolling pos. Look at his damn blog(sly smirk on pic included), he is a professional troll(comical exaggeration for those who take this comment to serious). The fact of the matter is used game sales, especially the way GS does it, hurts devs financially which in turn can have a future effect on the quality of games. It's business there is no need to overthink it. But this Les kept bringing up all the consumer BS...cause he knows Jaffe will not publically say "sometimes the consumer needs to suffer cause we need to make money to stay in business". It's stupid...if Les doesn't want consumers to be hurt in anyway than he should just beg Jaffe to give his next game away for free.

And people saying that pubs getting a cut of used game sales will lead to higher used prices is total bs. Gamestop only undercuts new games by a couple bucks anyway(which is enough for most people), if they raise the prices anymore they will be basically the same as new games anyway.
 
StoOgE said:
Look, if it doesn't make financial sense to keep gamers playing your 2-3 month old game (or older) than don't do it. But don't complain when gamers see more value in selling your game than keeping it.

You can't expect consumers to hold on to something that they don't see any value in anymore. So either provide that value somehow or stop bitching.

I think Crackdown is a good example of doing it right.

1) Buy it on Day 1 you get a Halo 3 demo.
2) Lots of replay value/shit to go look for.
3) Fun pick up and play game for 10-15 minutes even months after release.
4) 3 months after release we got a free DLC upgrade that let us reset the city/do some cool shit.
5) Same day we got a pay DLC that added a ton of cool new features that got me playing online again for months.
The Halo 3 demo is just a few short jumps from Steam's "Discs just a convienent way to install a downloadable game". Essentially consider Halo 3 the game code that people bought the discs for. After that was gone the market crashed hard on Crackdown as a resale object. I think it was something like $5-7 used after the demo was over and never went back up, trading it in made no fucking sense at all. If publishers had any brains they'd find a way to make that happen for all games.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
onemic said:
Anyway, I read the OP and everyone seems to be on the side of gamestop getting 100% of everything on the used games business, when GAF has normally been quite against it in the past. Just making an observation, nothing more.

I don't actually like gamestop and don't sell used games myself (I only buy games that I know I will like, and I like to revisit games). I also have a real problem with some of their business practices (pushing pre-orders of games that will be readily available anywhere on day 1 in order to get an interest free loan on a game, selling used games as new, pushing pre-order bonuses that they run out of when you go to pick a game up,etc).

But I don't have any problem with them setting up a used games market at all.
 

ahoyhoy

Unconfirmed Member
spwolf said:
I love Jaffe... :lol
Guy was trying to be an dick and hence he gets fuk off :lol

besides, that guy is also stupid... car analogies dont work well there as car companies still make money on used cars....

What about DLC?
 

Gravijah

Member
Noshino said:
Pureauthor

That's the problem though, GameStop does claim that, once you have decided which game you are going to buy, the first thing they ll do is persuade you into buying a used copy by any means available (reason why I was kicked out of a GameStop a few months ago)

I seriously almost NEVER get pressured by GameStops. They might casually ask if I want to buy used every so often, but I have never been pressured into or out of a purchase, or anything like that.
 
Noshino said:
Pureauthor

That's the problem though, GameStop does claim that, once you have decided which game you are going to buy, the first thing they ll do is persuade you into buying a used copy by any means available (reason why I was kicked out of a GameStop a few months ago)

The problem is that the uninformed customer, which happens to be the biggest customer in the video game industry, actually thinks that they are getting a good deal, or to be exact, the "best" deal.

That doesn't require information - that requires the customer to look at the deal offered and think 'Hm, is it worth it for me?'
 

tekumseh

a mass of phermones, hormones and adrenaline just waiting to explode
In my estimation, the problem here is self inflicted by the game publishers. When you charge, if accurate, $55 for a 60 buck retail game, you force the hand of sellers to look for other ways to supplement their revenue stream. If the wholesale price was half that, with a suggest retail price at, let's say, $50 bucks, everyone makes money from new sales, it undercuts the profit margin on used sales and trade in value, which makes that option, from a retail perspective, less attractive.


When I had much more disposable income, I rarely bought used games, with the exception of a buy 2, get 1 deal occasionally. Now that I have a bit less to "waste" as my wife would say, I rarely buy a new game and, instead, wait for some used copies to hit the market. It just makes more sense: $60 and tax vs. $49 and tax (or less). Plus, when I buy used, if it's a game I end up hating, for whatever reason, I can exchange it for something else, when I have done a couple of times over the years. It's a safer expenditure in an economy where proper delegation of every dollar counts....
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Gravijah said:
I seriously almost NEVER get pressured by GameStops. They might casually ask if I want to buy used every so often, but I have never been pressured into or out of a purchase, or anything like that.

and again, what is wrong with gamestop trying to make more money?

If you are about to drop 60 bucks on a game, it makes sense for them to tell you "Hey, you can save 5-10 dollars if you buy it used".

1) It saves the consumer money
2) It makes gamestop a shitload more money.
3) If the consumer doesn't want to do it, it's as hard as saying "No, I want a new copy"
 

faust666

Member
Zenith said:
Jaffe kept saying retailers should cut him in on used game sales but the only reason he gave was "it's darn rude", which is essentially entitlement.

And the blogger's opinion isn't based around his own entitlement?
 

Noshino

Member
Davidion said:
Don't forget anyone else who actually have a sane person's outlook on how the retail market actually works.

You mean to tell me that sane people supports GameStops practices?

Not only getting profits for new games, but also getting about 20% or more off the original prices from pre owned games?

Persuading customers to sell their games, claiming that their prices are the best they can get?

Persuading customer into buying used games instead of new ones, at times even persuading customers to even change the title because they didn't have a used copy of the other one available?
 

Raist

Banned
Mutagenic said:
What are you talking about? I bought my car used, which took away from a new sale. Should the person that sold me the used car give back to Honda? Hell no. .

So who did you buy your car from?
 

Gravijah

Member
StoOgE said:
and again, what is wrong with gamestop trying to make more money?

If you are about to drop 60 bucks on a game, it makes sense for them to tell you "Hey, you can save 5-10 dollars if you buy it used".

1) It saves the consumer money
2) It makes gamestop a shitload more money.
3) If the consumer doesn't want to do it, it's as hard as saying "No, I want a new copy"

That's my point. It at most is a minor inconvenience, and it doesn't bother me one bit. I'm still going to go in, get what the fuck I want (probably used, in the first place) and I'm going to be fucking happy.
 

Ranger X

Member
-Start by cutting you cost and making shorter but better games.
-Retail them at 40$
-Create "Game Theaters", a modern concept similar of arcades and release every game there as demos or 30 mins play sessions.
-Release the games for home 6 months later with incentives bonuses and announce DLC.
-Sell every digital game in retail as a download card.

If you really are "customers first", you shouldn't want to prevent used sales (that can happen in alot of places anyways). You should also provide the same convenience with digital products as retail does. This means I should presently be able to sell Calling All Cars to someone right now. I can't. See? This is where shit hits the fan.

At that point it only become a matter of money and customers are simply bending over. WELL, I disagree. Time change and it's BUSINESS that need to adapt to people and not the other way around. If you fear to lose too much money on the retail side? How come there's no new videogame retailers popping around? One you're associated with? You could simply stop shipping your games at the other retailers that you hate!

There's millions of solutions and yes many would take some money invested and time and logistic.... BUT DON'T YOU CARE FOR REAL? So why is there's still a cold with Gamestop and therefore our right to sell what we buy?

At least be smart and tell us we RENT the games. Tell us on the box we only purshased a liscence to use the product but that we don't physically own it. End of the question, Gamestop would become illegal if he buys a game from us!

I mean, there are a multiple tons of solutions of any kind and even tons that woudn't affect the customer and yet we hear those publishers complaining. SHUT UP AND MOVE YOUR GOD DAMNED BUTTS. Have public consultations with gamers out there if you care for us, talk with governments, etc.

Right now they all look silly like Warner brothers crying over MP3s in the late 90s WHILE THEY WEREN'T SELLING ANY MUSIC DIGITALLY. Ain't that short-sighted? When there's money sleeping on the internet, you open an internet store.
 
Noshino said:
Persuading customers to sell their games, claiming that their prices are the best they can get?

Persuading customer into buying used games instead of new ones, at times even persuading customers to even change the title because they didn't have a used copy of the other one available?

In all my years of shopping at Gamestop(across 10+ stores no less) I never been hit by either of these.

Actually neither of these really make any sense.
 

NeoUltima

Member
No reason anyone here should buy used games anyway since Best Buy matches Gamestop Used prices on New games. (unless you don't have a BB near you)
 
If these guys want in on the used sales profits then they should have a buyback service themselves, all they need to do is give you a better trade in deal than Gamestop etc.. (which, lets face it, isn't hard to do since you get peanuts for your trades anyway).
 

Gravijah

Member
PepsimanVsJoe said:
In all my years of shopping at Gamestop(across 10+ stores no less) I never been hit by either of these.

Yeah, me either. It just seems a very vocal minority is offended by this, and like to spout it off all the time.
 
-COOLIO- said:
batman arkham asylum released at $40 for a short window. it was a glimpse of the future.

Changing the price changes nothing to why the used game market went from being a nice option for the kids to a parasite. None. Used game market could give 2 terds about the actual price of the product. They will buy it back for half the price and re-sell it for 5 dollars less than retail. Doesn't matter if the game is 100 bucks or 25.
 

Zenith

Banned
faust said:
And the blogger's opinion isn't based around his own entitlement?

No it's about how there's nothing stopping people reselling games and not giving publishers a cut and how there's no reason to introduce such a bizarre, constraining law.
 

Xellos

Member
Jaffe's idea that DD gaming will follow the path of music is flawed, as the blogger from the OP points out, but I just wanted to add a few points from the consumer perspective. With DD music I can buy selected songs instead of the complete album for a lower price. From there, I can burn the files to a CD or DVD, put them on a MP3 player, or take them with me via a flash memory device. I have lost the ability to resell my music but there are other conveniences to DD music which IMO compensate for the loss of physical media (and even then I still have the ability to create a physical copy that is without value but is usable anywhere). With DD gaming I must buy the entire game, and I can only play it on a dedicated machine or while connected to my online account. My ability to even share the game with my friends has been limited.

If the games industry wants people to embrace DD gaming the same way people have with DD music, they should give customers the same freedoms. Unfortunately I think they only see DD gaming as a means to destroy the used game market and cut out retailers, which will only hurt the consumer.
 
Right now, from my point of view DD sucks, sure I bought my good share of DD, but going from my experience (Xbox live) it sucks, overpriced DLC that could be perfectly on the DVD, overpriced games, half of the games on "games on demand" can be found way cheaper on retail, etc...

If the industry wnats to go this direction, they better change that milking the consumer actitude, DLC can be an awesome way to add more value to the game but they decided to use DLC to make up for their awful management this gen...
 
A better point to raise if no-one else is that "Les" has bought "very few" digital distro titles. This means all of Steam, PSN, XBLA and WiiWare and all the indie devs on them there can go fuck themselves as far as he's concerned because he can't resell their game.

Fuck you Les! You've missed out on this generations best games.
 

Davidion

Member
Noshino said:
You mean to tell me that sane people supports GameStops practices?

Not only getting profits for new games, but also getting about 20% or more off the original prices from pre owned games?

Persuading customers to sell their games, claiming that their prices are the best they can get?

Persuading customer into buying used games instead of new ones, at times even persuading customers to even change the title because they didn't have a used copy of the other one available?

Um, yes. Stores sell things to earn revenue and profit. Boy, how dare gamestop make a sales pitch, huh? I would like you to find me the store where the salespeople make it a point to tell people that their store DOESN'T offer the best price.

And as others have said, I've never, ever been sold a used game at Gamestop, and I've regularly frequented six Gamestops in my area. Maybe you should go and complain to your local salesmen.

Here's an idea that'll please everyone. Since it's just unfair that Gamestop is making so much money off of used game sales, we should all promote Goozex so that instead of selling back to gamestop, game owners can just trade with each other. This way, gamestop doesn't get as much consumer dollars, and we'll all stop complaining since it'll no longer be ripping off the customers, right?

That's good compromise? I thought so. I'm sure a solution like this will please everyone and someone like Jaffe can now feel that a large game retailer is not ripping them off.
 

Mutagenic

Permanent Junior Member
Raist said:
So who did you buy your car from?
Why would that matter at all? A private seller, a dealership...whoever owns the place sees the profit. The manufacturer doesn't. That's how used works. Anything else?
 

Raist

Banned
Segata Sanshiro said:
True, but that's probably because people aren't as unhappy with the value proposition in other culture/entertainment products.

Probably, but the question is, why? Is there any logical explanation to this?
Personally I don't see any, but maybe there are.
 
What makes any of you think that publishers aren't going to simply keep the profit they make by cutting big box retailers out of the picture? When was the last time you saw any corporation pass along savings to consumers as a goodwill gesture? The free market is as Utopian as Communism: someone always gets greedy.

Your Nike shoes for example cost roughly the same amount they always have despite the fact that a sweatshop worker sews the seams for a fraction of a dollar per day and the cost of raw materials is even lower in some cases. It costs the corporation $10 they charge you $100.
 
Ranger X said:
-Start by cutting you cost and making shorter but better games.
-Retail them at 40$
-Create "Game Theaters", a modern concept similar of arcades and release every game there as demos or 30 mins play sessions.
-Release the games for home 6 months later with incentives bonuses and announce DLC.
-Sell every digital game in retail as a download card.

If you really are "customers first", you shouldn't want to prevent used sales (that can happen in alot of places anyways). You should also provide the same convenience with digital products as retail does. This means I should presently be able to sell Calling All Cars to someone right now. I can't. See? This is where shit hits the fan.

At that point it only become a matter of money and customers are simply bending over. WELL, I disagree. Time change and it's BUSINESS that need to adapt to people and not the other way around. If you fear to lose too much money on the retail side? How come there's no new videogame retailers popping around? One you're associated with? You could simply stop shipping your games at the other retailers that you hate!

There's millions of solutions and yes many would take some money invested and time and logistic.... BUT DON'T YOU CARE FOR REAL? So why is there's still a cold with Gamestop and therefore our right to sell what we buy?

At least be smart and tell us we RENT the games. Tell us on the box we only purshased a liscence to use the product but that we don't physically own it. End of the question, Gamestop would become illegal if he buys a game from us!

I mean, there are a multiple tons of solutions of any kind and even tons that woudn't affect the customer and yet we hear those publishers complaining. SHUT UP AND MOVE YOUR GOD DAMNED BUTTS. Have public consultations with gamers out there if you care for us, talk with governments, etc.

Right now they all look silly like Warner brothers crying over MP3s in the late 90s WHILE THEY WEREN'T SELLING ANY MUSIC DIGITALLY. Ain't that short-sighted? When there's money sleeping on the internet, you open an internet store.

The issue is that the way things are set up now, this option isn't a very viable option.
Come 'next gen' you might very well see this. I hope we do.
Right now we're in a transition stage and the way consoles work the transition isn't moving because consoles "cash in" on a particular time in game evolution and sticks with it till it dies and we move on to a new console that again takes a stamp on technology and says "ok, let's focus on now." "Now" is a crappy time to be a developer unless you're a huge fish with enough money to survive. The next "Now" will hopefully be much better for everyone except the used game market. If not, i hope you guys enjoyed gaming while it lasted.
 
Raist said:
Probably, but the question is, why? Is there any logical explanation to this?
Personally I don't see any, but maybe there are.

Well, the problem either lies with the consumers or the products. Possibly both.

Take a wild guess which one the game developers has more influence over.
 
Top Bottom