Good example of this: PS3 Skyrim. That thing was broken for so long I couldn't get into it anymore. What a joke. If you ask me, Gamestop saved Bethesda on that one.
Why do Devs believe they deserve second hand sales? (srs)
- Thread starter CreateNowSleepLater
- Start date
I guarantee that the day you can take a car home and make a 100% perfect copy of it overnight, their return policy will stop.
Would it solve everyone's (dev/publisher) problems if there was a law that prevented the resale of games (any product) for something like 30 days?
I know GameStop doesn't list in their system the availability of titles that are within 30 days new to the consumer. Sure you can call the store to see if they have it used, but the abilty to search online is blocked. Does this even help the dev/publisher though?
I know GameStop doesn't list in their system the availability of titles that are within 30 days new to the consumer. Sure you can call the store to see if they have it used, but the abilty to search online is blocked. Does this even help the dev/publisher though?
GuitarAtomik
Member
How am I lying? Because the package is dented? The product you payed for (or at least the vast majority of people) is the game. If you buy the game digitally are you getting less of a game because it doesn't have the box and manual? The game you play used after the 100th time you played it is exactly the same experience as the first. The person who drives a car on it's 50,000th mile is not getting the same car the person who drove it on it's 1st is.
Besides the fact that you're not necessarily going to be able to return a used car 3 months down the line when it breaks down, this is a completely different issue that I never started arguing.
When have I ever said this? I'm only talking about the comparison to cars.
DryvBy
Member
Okay, then don't cry like a baby when I have choice B of selling their broken game.
Nobody is going to want to listen to your opinion when you preface your argument like this.
keltickennedy
Member
I don't believe a store should get 100% profit from selling a used game. I'm talking mostly about how gamestop has handles this practice. I have seen cases where they push trying to sell a used game instead of a new copy a day or two after a new game is released. I'm not for getting rid of used games by any means, but at least give a published/devs a little time to make some money back.
CreateNowSleepLater
Member
This. This is the entirety of the issue and the reason we are even having this discussion is due to the opportunity that Gamestop saw in the market and took advantage of. Period. The desire from devs, I would imagine, in getting a cut of used sales is that Gamestop is ACTIVELY selling a publisher's product against itself (telling the customer to buy a used copy vs. a new one at the POS). Not to mention the buy back conditions that still exist with many publishers and their distribution channel. Gamestop has figured out how to get enough product into its channel that they can continue to monetize it while cutting off new sales as quickly as possible.
Fantastic business for Gamestop, but comes at the price of overall health in the distribution channel.
A different discussion for a different thread, but this had less to do with abject greed than masking sure you present to the street what they expect. Unfortunately, when you are a public company you are at the whims of the market, analysts (who may not even understand the business you are in but still present and opinion or recommendation), and public perception. Not defending all big business, but it is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be
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.
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....
What Gamestop do you shop at? I can't walk into a store without them hounding me to pre order a new game. They have every single per order bonus ready to go. They sure as hell are no telling me to wait a month until it used. Gamestop pushes more new day 1 sales than anyone Midnight launches, you name it.
Who is crying? You asked a question with an obvious answer. As for reselling your own games? GO FOR IT! I believe that the right to sell a license (which is what you are actually getting) you paid for to someone else is 100% the right of a consumer. However, the beef with the used game market does not really sit on that side of the equation, now does it?
Yep, pre-orders lets them understand their carry and gets their inventory out as quickly as possible on launch day into a channel that they can convert. Go back to buy a game 3 weeks after launch and see what version, new or used, they recommend to you
Again, I completely understand why they do this and maximizing profits for shareholders is #1 on a public company's list. But there is a ripple effect felt in the distribution channel.Open Source
Banned
I'm against used games and all for the ability to return games because of defects or things that don't work as promised (Skyrim PS3 comes to mind). If you're just going to return it because it wasn't long enough or otherwise didn't live up to your expectations, and you couldn't be bothered to download the demo or read reviews or watch videos or read impressions, then tough. You don't get refunds for movies or music or books or shows just because they suck. $60 is a lot of money? Then it's enough money for you to do some goddamn research on your purchase.
How is that any different then a book?
coffeetable
Banned
But digital sales ARE their PPV and On Demand.
crazepharmacist
Member
That's really entirely up to the retailer. Costco allows you to return games if they are not to your satisfaction. There actually is no limit to the return period; it is lifetime. I believe Sams Club and a few others have the same policy.
Sickboy007
Member
Is a Dev not entitled to the second-hand sweat of his brow? 'No!' says the customer, 'It belongs to me.' 'No!' says the free market, 'It belongs to who can offer the smallest margin.' 'No!' says every Court on the planet, 'Just no, dude.'
I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... DRM, a platform where the artist would not fear the budget constraints, where the publisher would not be bound by petty consumer rights, Where the great would not be constrained by competition! And with the second-hand sweat of your brow, DRM can become your platform as well.
I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... DRM, a platform where the artist would not fear the budget constraints, where the publisher would not be bound by petty consumer rights, Where the great would not be constrained by competition! And with the second-hand sweat of your brow, DRM can become your platform as well.
When is the last time you purchased a book with the front and back covers torn off? If a used book from Amazon arrived that way, you would immediately return it. Right?
Well done sir/madam....well done.
Not quite. PPV, literally, means Pay Per View. The equivalent for games would be PPP (Pay Per Play). On Demand is just another branding for PPV.
Except that, while you can take a book from the library and make a copy of it on a copying machine, the result is less than optimal, more expensive than buying the book, and too cumbersome. That said, many libraries offer video games to check out, so there is that
coffeetable
Banned
But used games =/= opened, returned games, so no one's really making that argument.
People have, however, always enjoyed the right to re-sell their own purchased property as they see fir (it's part of the first-sale doctrine).
Open Source
Banned
This is ironic, because back before all that "anti-consumer" stuff on PC, the PC market was fucking stone cold dead, with marauding subscription MMOs roaming the barren landscape and a few FPS, RTS, and shitty console ports dotted here and there. Now we have a greater variety of titles that give better value for money than on any other platform. Did that just happen by coincidence? No. The problem is that a lot of people don't understand indirect consequences.
Is it great for everybody? No, there are always issues and occasional bullshit like always-online DRM and removal offline modes w/SimCity and Diablo 3, but that's why it's great to have a variety of platforms that do things in different ways. While I may not play games on Xb1, I think it's great if they handle used games one way and PS4 another way. And we'll see which ones people support with their money, and how that affects their gaming landscapes.
You didn't make a single point in all that drivel, other than "economics" and "look - Steam!".
Gamestop invests money for retail space and employees, and their goal is to make a profit. If publishers feel they should be getting a cut of used game sales then they are free to invest in getting the infrasctructure set up to buy and sell used games. If they don't want to do that then they can stop complaining.
Open Source
Banned
Hey, if Costco wants to pay for that as a perk for their members, then more power to them.
Open Source
Banned
They're also free to adopt a business model that prevents GameStop from reselling things. And there seems to be plenty of people complaining about that!
They don't, but GameStop doesn't either, someone else getting money for their work is an issue.
Obviously there's the cost of running the store and shelf space, but still.
I'd prefer if used games sales were done person to person, between friends, or even just borrowing games, I don't want to see an end to that.
Obviously there's the cost of running the store and shelf space, but still.
I'd prefer if used games sales were done person to person, between friends, or even just borrowing games, I don't want to see an end to that.
If someone purchased my game and was enjoying it, I would hope they thought I deserved some money for their entertainment. I see nothing wrong with devs or publishers feeling like they deserve a piece of the used game market revenue.
Games are getting more expensive to make, gamers want studios to thrive, producing a variety of software for us to enjoy, but people have an issue giving them money for used games? Doesn't sound right IMO.
Games are getting more expensive to make, gamers want studios to thrive, producing a variety of software for us to enjoy, but people have an issue giving them money for used games? Doesn't sound right IMO.
GuitarAtomik
Member
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.
in reply to Mr. Jaffe's tweet, he asks why not put a plan in place for devs to get money instead of companies like Gamestop. In defense of Gamestop, they do put up the money to buy games from consumers, rent retail space, pay employees, and pay for overhead in order to sell these used games. If devs truly want a cut of the used games market, maybe they should start some kind of game buyback and resell the used games themselves.
edit: beaten by this guy
edit: beaten by this guy
The predominant reason gamers buy used games is cost related. Steam seems to aptly compete with the used games market, by competing on price. Devs get money from steam sales no?
So devs/publishers should either replicate steam sales or compete fairly on price with used games. Why not make $10 on your game that is sitting on a virtual shelf making next to nothing?
DjangoReinhardt
Thinks he should have been the one to kill Batman's parents.
Given that publishers and platform holders continue to supply Gamestop with new hardware, new software, and pre-order bonuses of their own volition, the histrionics about Gamestop ruining the industry come off as disingenuous at best. If I'm being generous, this is only a case of treating the symptoms rather than the disease instead of a cynical, anti-consumer cash grab spearheaded by a corporation with a long history of anti-consumer practices. The fact that there is such a robust market for used games provides a strong indication to me that:
1. There are serious flaws in the industry's pricing model for new software.
2. Developers are failing to produce games that provide enough value to dissuade consumers from reselling in significant numbers.
If the videogame industry can't comply with the same laws that protect consumers as every other entertainment industry in order to remain viable, then it's probably time for some creative destruction. Corporations aren't entitled to a business model being viable in perpetuity.
CreateNowSleepLater
Member
Very critical point. Gamestop always asks you to pre order when trading in and even offer increased value towards trade in. How many new games would not be sold if people could not trade in?
This is a beautifully succinct and spot on assessment. While there is certainly enough issues on each link of the chain, you are correct in that the industry needs to change in order to remain viable. And we are seeing them try, nothing has been successful quite yet, save Steam.
I'm entirely with you here. I've received royalties for writing a book, and my opinion is exactly the same as yours. Every time I see the word "experience", I cringe. They're trying to change real products into ephemeral experiences and that's the real insidious thing about how this debate is being framed.
We had a debate about this last summer, and my opinion has not changed one whit:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=40503231&postcount=134
I always see this argument waved around, but this is complete bullshit. What are they supposed to do then? Create games that take 600h to beat?
The situation is actually even better than, say, 10 years ago. Back then, people had even less reasons to keep their games. Now many devs have included MP in what used to be SP franchises. And then you have DLC, which prolongs a game's life by adding new, cheap content.
DryvBy
Member
Lol, and again, like movies and books that I can't return, I can sell. So my point still stands.
Beerman462
Member
Why don't they price more competitively? I bought Black Ops 2 for 360 when it came out. I was going to trade it in and use that cash towards the PC version. It's still $60 on Steam.
..I'm sorry, but at this point the game is 100% profit. In fact if they lowered the price to say $30 they could sell some more copies and more DLC in the process. In a world of digital downloads used games could easily be undercut, so why aren't they.
..I'm sorry, but at this point the game is 100% profit. In fact if they lowered the price to say $30 they could sell some more copies and more DLC in the process. In a world of digital downloads used games could easily be undercut, so why aren't they.
Can Crusher
Banned
Shortest answer? Competition.
Fair answer? Let's run with the car analogy for a second... When you buy a 30.000 car, is the car put on sale in its 2nd month? And is it worth only 10.000?
That's the problem right there. I can see how Publishers and developers included, feel like they are facing a losing battle when you can buy their game for a third of the price, the month after or two months after it launched.
Le's get real for a minute here, and just call that piece of business for what it is... absolute bullshit. Games don't have the box office, or the inability to be downloaded, or anything close to price protection.
And that is the no fat truth.
Fair answer? Let's run with the car analogy for a second... When you buy a 30.000 car, is the car put on sale in its 2nd month? And is it worth only 10.000?
That's the problem right there. I can see how Publishers and developers included, feel like they are facing a losing battle when you can buy their game for a third of the price, the month after or two months after it launched.
Le's get real for a minute here, and just call that piece of business for what it is... absolute bullshit. Games don't have the box office, or the inability to be downloaded, or anything close to price protection.
And that is the no fat truth.
That doesn't really address my point. I agree that new games should be at a more competative price, imo 60 for a new game is way too much but to address your point if they try to make prices competative then the used game price will still undercut the new lower prices.
My point was that if the devs want a cut of the used games sales, then they should invest in an infrastructure that would allow them to be able to buy and sell their games.
Version 3.0
Member
You know very well that if I buy a DVD of that show, and then sell it later on, you don't get a royalty. Royalties only come from commercial use. That doesn't include yard sales, flea markets, pawn shops, the used section of a movie store, and it doesn't, and shouldn't, include any of the outlets that sell used games.
And, as I said, you know this perfectly well.
I hate gamestop but this is the correct answer. It is amazing some people think sales will increase if they get rid of used games and leave gamers with less cash to spend on games. I have been doing buy/sell/trade/renting for 25 years or so. If not gamestop people would find another store that would. Gamers see very few games worth 59.99 so with trade/sell that game becomes 30-50 dollars depending on how long they keep it. It is basically making games 10-30 dollars more expensive than right now. When prices go up people buy less even on essentials let along on a hobby.
Want to get rid of used game drop the price of most new games to where gamers think they are valued at simple supply/demand. If gamers think games are really worth 29.99 for the most part price them there and used market goes away over night.
Pureauthor
Member
Those bells and whistles don't help when the core of the gameplay is designed as a quick, one-off experience. So many HD games these gen are designed as a six-hour ride, comparable to a Hollywood summer blockbuster, and consumers usually treat them as such (disposable entertainment).
Tertullian
Member
Point of interest: here's a recent supreme court case dealing with resale of copyrighted works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirtsaeng_v._John_Wiley_&_Sons,_Inc.
It's not the exact same issue, of course, but it's clear that even in the United States the right to resell something I bought is pretty fundamental and well-protected. Game publishers have no more right to meddle in the resale of physical disks than those greedy textbook publishers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirtsaeng_v._John_Wiley_&_Sons,_Inc.
It's not the exact same issue, of course, but it's clear that even in the United States the right to resell something I bought is pretty fundamental and well-protected. Game publishers have no more right to meddle in the resale of physical disks than those greedy textbook publishers.
This is one of things that has always baffled me. I never understood why the video game industry thinks its so special compared to the publishing industry, the movie industry, and the music industry.
All of these industries at one time or another have fought legal battles to stop used books, movies, and music, and they've all lost every time.
I remember back in the early 1990s, many prominent music artists of the day went on a tirade against the sale of used CDs. I specifically remember Metallica and Garth Brooks, 2 of the biggest selling musical acts of that era, speaking out vehemently against used CD sales and even going so far as to try and blacklist certain retailers by trying to block them from being able to sell their latest CDs. It all blew up spectacularly in their faces and they lost. Their argument was, "yes, we've made our millions, but the songwriters get cut out of the deal and make nothing from used sales". They tried to paint a picture of massive layoffs at record companies, the poor single mom secretary working at the front office of the record label would lose her job because used sales would kill the industry. Well its 2013 and the music industry is still around last time I checked.
The video game industry knows they would lose the legal battle, so they have slowly stripped away consumer rights little by little over a long period of time. They have, and continue to do things that stack the deck in their favor and now with this new round of consoles looming, they are going to try and go for the knockout punch against the consumer. Remember when you bought a game and could install it on your PC, or just pop it into your console and play it? In some cases you still can, but if you want to play online or get game updates or have any type of ongoing relationship with the gane publishers, you have to digitally sign and agree to a 15,000 page EULA that nobody reads, and much less understands, and it strips away most of your rights and stacks the deck completely in their favor. So the strategy here is that we know we can't legally stop used game sales, so we are going after the consumers directly, right in their living rooms and right in their faces. And they are betting that most of us are so addicted and so in love with this hobby that we will take it lying down.
All of these industries at one time or another have fought legal battles to stop used books, movies, and music, and they've all lost every time.
I remember back in the early 1990s, many prominent music artists of the day went on a tirade against the sale of used CDs. I specifically remember Metallica and Garth Brooks, 2 of the biggest selling musical acts of that era, speaking out vehemently against used CD sales and even going so far as to try and blacklist certain retailers by trying to block them from being able to sell their latest CDs. It all blew up spectacularly in their faces and they lost. Their argument was, "yes, we've made our millions, but the songwriters get cut out of the deal and make nothing from used sales". They tried to paint a picture of massive layoffs at record companies, the poor single mom secretary working at the front office of the record label would lose her job because used sales would kill the industry. Well its 2013 and the music industry is still around last time I checked.
The video game industry knows they would lose the legal battle, so they have slowly stripped away consumer rights little by little over a long period of time. They have, and continue to do things that stack the deck in their favor and now with this new round of consoles looming, they are going to try and go for the knockout punch against the consumer. Remember when you bought a game and could install it on your PC, or just pop it into your console and play it? In some cases you still can, but if you want to play online or get game updates or have any type of ongoing relationship with the gane publishers, you have to digitally sign and agree to a 15,000 page EULA that nobody reads, and much less understands, and it strips away most of your rights and stacks the deck completely in their favor. So the strategy here is that we know we can't legally stop used game sales, so we are going after the consumers directly, right in their living rooms and right in their faces. And they are betting that most of us are so addicted and so in love with this hobby that we will take it lying down.
It's really absurd. It's the law of commerce. Do farms feel like they deserve a percentage of the profits that a restaurant gets for upselling their vegetables or their meat? Of course not. Buying and re-selling is how economies have always worked. The initial POS gets that first piece of the pie and that's it.
Jake Tower
Banned
well done
Car depreciation > game depreciation. It's something a lot of people have to value in when buying a car. Car reviewers do this. Brands are built on residual values. Buying new is the worst possible time to buy a car if taking this into account, because of bi-annual registration changes, atleast in the UK.
Look, cars are not a good measuring stick for games. I can understand that. But I'm not sure whether the comparison really does anti-used games sale any favours.
Regarding producers making things that their customers won't want to part with:
Think this through. No, customers don't require games that take 600 hours to "beat" any more than they require books that are so long that they require a lifetime to read through.
What producers should be doing is making games that customers want to come back to repeatedly over a long period of time, much like you do with your favorite books.
Think this through. No, customers don't require games that take 600 hours to "beat" any more than they require books that are so long that they require a lifetime to read through.
What producers should be doing is making games that customers want to come back to repeatedly over a long period of time, much like you do with your favorite books.
Version 3.0
Member
A tough market is no reason to do away with consumer rights. Also, when games are on sale, it's a good thing. Sales create profit. A good sale can create more profit in a week than a game has made in its entire lifetime. Games, unlike physical goods, have a very small per-unit cost associated with them, so game publisher enjoy a somewhat unique ability to price their goods very low, if they choose, and still make money.
Especially after the initial week or month's spike, when - if they competently managed their development budget - they have already recouped a significant portion of their sunk costs.
Tertullian
Member
I lol'd at "Just no, dude."
Why do you think games in general drop in price so fast. It is not that hard to see the answer people don't see them worth 59.99 plain and simple. In todays world of cheap entertainment console gaming is way over priced and needs to be adjusted. For the price of 1 game you can get 7 months of Netflix unlimited streaming. Also the industry had 8 god damn years to use online DD to help combat this. Their stance on DD prices shows their true intent. They want every game to basically be 59.99 for years at a time. Not all games are worth the same and this 1 pricing model fits all is stupid as hell in todays world.
They need to adjust to the new reality in entertainment just like the music industry before it.