Support NeoGAF

[Doran902]

It's because retailers force feed used copies of their games to their fans 1 week after the game ships for a slight discount, like, 54.99 instead of 59.99. It should be illegal. They don't care if you go buy someones copy 3 years later for 10 bucks at a pawn shop or 5 at a yard sale. It's the monopoly corporations have on them that hurts dev's.

Many studios have closed and many people have lost jobs in this industry and this could be part of it.

I just wish there was a way to do it without hurting the consumer experience.

 

[truly101]

My biggest issue with game publishers is they approached this problem the same way cable providers and cell phone providers approach competition or loss of revenue with their customer base. They all ask the same question:

How can we limit the options our customer, how can we dictate our terms to them and leave them with no choice?

What they should be asking is

How do we make our products more palatable to consumers, how can we give them more value than the alternative?

Right now they give us nothing, 'cept maybe a free costume on DLC.

The music industry has blundered a lot of their post napster business model, but one thing they've done right is marking down their new releases at promo prices. Any time an artist I like is going to have a release, I'll check Best Buy, Target, Amazon, chances are that CD thats normally 13-14 bucks has a sale price of $7.99 to $9.99. That puts the CD in impulse territory to the average consumer.

Game publishers never do that, the closest they have are the pre-order promos with New Egg or some other company. If you didn't preorder, you don't get the deal, even if you want to buy it on release day. The price drops that happen a month or so after release just make the early adopter feel like shmucks.

Thats bullshit, and its a broken model. THe matter of truth is this. I am only dropping $60 on your game if I find it worth $60. Otherwise, I'm not going to buy it. If I can get it and a significant discount, be that used or sale, then thats what I'll do. If you're looking to push more product at the game's release, you need a new strategy.

 

[Photolysis]

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.

I disagree entirely.

Games should last more than 6 hours. And that doesn't mean you should pad it either.

I don't trade games in, but as a general rule I'd say the value for money I've gotten has gone down enormously over time. I still play the original Halo's campaign for example, which I can play in a bunch of different ways. Compare that to something like CoD where it feels more or less the same every time.

For too long the focus has been a checkbox mentality, and over the top cinematic bullshit rather than compelling gameplay and long term value.

DLC is presented as adding value but in reality most of it is overpriced shit, and recently there's been the trend of locking content on the disc to price gouge (see: Javik in ME3).

 

[weekend_warrior]

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.

 

[Raist]

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).

I personally think that consumer habits have changed, moreso than games not being as "good" as they used to. Apart from particular genres (RPG for instance) I really doubt games used to be so much better / longer before. It's the same kind of argument you'd see a lot of new games prices, when in reality, it hasn't increased that much at all over the past 20 years. It's like everyone forgot the price of a SNES cartridge.

 

[Mogwai]

Devs make a game which is the product they want to give to the customer.

The disk is just the remedy to deliver the product.

Can't blame devs and publishers to regulate how their products is channeled to the customers. Eliminating secondhand sales is pure logic.

 

[Ashes]

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.

I'd argue, at some prices, new games > used games, just as in the case of DVDs. At the right price, you're more likely to buy new over used.

 

[Can Crusher]

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.

Car depreciation > game depreciation? You're out of your mind if that means what I think it means.

I can buy the best selling game, or the highest rated game of last year for 5$/10$ second hand today. Let's forget car classes, their differences and their devaluation rate etc

That's like buying a car at between 3,5% to 14% of its selling price one year later. And it doesn't matter if you're buying a ferrari or a citroen...

The car comparison ONLY serves to provide good arguments to anti-used games. We are looking at things from an egocentric perspective, what's the best for us. Truth lies in the middle. In a more ideal scenario:

Games have price protection for 6/12 months, release at a lower price. But as always, there is no middle ground.

 

[Just_myles]

If the film/music/publishing industries had some kind of equivalent to Gamestop, I suspect there might be a similar outcry. Gamestop is a pretty viable competitor, whereas used shops for books and movies and music are not really viable either.

I would presume that is what publishers want. They want the video game industry to be like the music industry where a select few people outside of the songwirter,publsiher, and performer(raw end of deal) are paid. Sounds like the same song to me.

My opinion is seeing a game for 59.99 and 54.99 (used) is what the problem is actually, not so much on shelf space. How many 54.99 used copies do they actually have in a single store? I believe that is the issue publishers and some developers are having. It's when a new game is resold back to gamestop and resold at a marginally small discount (a few bucks) and is 'pushed' over the new copy of said game.

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.

**I disagree with this logic. When you work for a developer you are a paid employee. You are supposed to make money off the initial sale of the product like any other industry.

For example my last car was a Honda, I bought it for xx amount of dollars and after a few years I realized I wanted another car. So I sold it for xx amount of dollars and used that money for a new car. You mean to tell me that I should have to pay Honda xx amount of royalties for selling my car?

 

[Maxim726X]

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.

It amazes me when people have this view... there are no other mediums (that I can think of) which cut the original creator of the content a slice of the pre-owned pie.

Do authors receive compensation when a used book is sold? When a used CD is (was) sold? When a used DVD is sold?

Is their content somehow worth less than a game developer?

I can buy the best selling game, or the highest rated game of last year for 5$/10$ second hand today. Let's forget car classes, their differences and their devaluation rate etc

That's like buying a car at between 3,5% to 14% of its selling price one year later. And it doesn't matter if you're buying a ferrari or a citroen...

The car comparison ONLY serves to provide good arguments to anti-used games. We are looking at things from an egocentric perspective, what's the best for us. Truth lies in the middle. In a more ideal scenario:

Games have price protection for 6/12 months, release at a lower price. But as always, there is no middle ground.

Again, there is no precedence for something like this anywhere else. Tough nuggets. If developers feel like they stand to lose too much, then cut development prices. Make the games shorter... Something. Everything in the entertainment industry should be self-regulatory.

 

[tbro777]

I'd argue, at some prices, new games > used games, just as in the case of DVDs. At the right price, you're more likely to buy new over used.

I agree with that, generally i will buy new unless the price difference is at least $10.

 

[Apath]

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.

They've disclosed that 70% of credit goes towards new game sales. Or it could be 70% of sales... One of the two.

It's because retailers force feed used copies of their games to their fans 1 week after the game ships for a slight discount, like, 54.99 instead of 59.99. It should be illegal. They don't care if you go buy someones copy 3 years later for 10 bucks at a pawn shop or 5 at a yard sale. It's the monopoly corporations have on them that hurts dev's.

Many studios have closed and many people have lost jobs in this industry and this could be part of it.

I just wish there was a way to do it without hurting the consumer experience.

You argue that studios have closed because of used games, and not because of extremely poor business decisions?

 

[GuitarAtomik]

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.

I mentioned this before but not every game can be a game that you want to replay over and over. Hell, I almost never replay any games that aren't multiplayer.

There is an argument that they shouldn't charge full price for such games but that's a whole other issue.

 

[Pureauthor]

I mentioned this before but not every game can be a game that you want to replay over and over. Hell, I almost never replay any games that aren't multiplayer.

There is an argument that they shouldn't charge full price for such games but that's a whole other issue.

Well then those games probably shouldn't be the most expensive ones to make.

Yet, here we are.

 

[mrklaw]

It amazes me when people have this view... there are no other mediums (that I can think of) which cut the original creator of the content a slice of the pre-owned pie.

Do authors receive compensation when a used book is sold? When a used CD is (was) sold? When a used DVD is sold?

Is their content somehow worth less than a game developer?



Again, there is no precedence for something like this anywhere else. Tough nuggets. If developers feel like they stand to lose too much, then cut development prices. Make the games shorter... Something. Everything in the entertainment industry should be self-regulatory.

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

 

[unbias]

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

So I'm assuming you think supply was driving consumer demand, with video games, instead of demand dictating what stores supply?

 

[BlastProcessing]

Other industries never had a nationwide retailer that so insidously undercuts them at the point of sale though. Right next to a new game, there's a used copy selling for less that is arguably just as good. Gamestop devotes probably 50% more shelf space to Used titles than to new ones. You do not see the same thing for movies or stereos or books or music. The used car business is good for the auto industry, since their dealerships make quite a bit of money from used car sales.

If the film/music/publishing industries had some kind of equivalent to Gamestop, I suspect there might be a similar outcry. Gamestop is a pretty viable competitor, whereas used shops for books and movies and music are not really viable either.

One of the main problems I have with the rumored Xbox One system (where you need a special machine to reauthorize games), is that it actually could give Gamestop a huge competitive advantage. It would destroy a gamers personal rights to second hand distribution (craigslist, ebay, lending to a buddy) and instead codify a system of officially sanctioned corporate trade ins.

 

[StalkerUKCG]

So Dev X is building a new game. Publishers predict sales figures from this and then segment all the return into Profit and Expenses.

The projected sales figures are $1Million for it to be a worthwhile investment production costs have to be no higher than $800,000. Lets say 200 people are working on this game. 200 people working 300 days and getting paid $7 an hour. That's $420,000 spent on wages along. That's before marketing and studio bills and licensing issues and all the rest of the jazz.

Now because the expected sales came to $1million (25,000 units) everything looks good. But wait whats this, Even though 30,000 units have been sold 10,000 of those units are preowned. So now publishers and losing out on money. The publishers only made $800,000 which is what the production budget was. Why would they go into business to break even?

Now when studio X is bringing out the sequel the publisher starts to question those sales projections. Development resources get cut. Not the Devs are only working for $5 an hour. Marketing has to stay the same to pull people in and bills are non-negotiable.

Remove the second hand sales and you get a more worthwhile return for your investment.

Now this is not always the case obviously but its a strong argument for no used sales. Ultimately the developers are the ones who suffer.

 

[DericLee]

I'm all for it.

Would go more into depth with my opinion.

But the people here?

Yeah, not worth the time, as the majority would take things out of context(Neogaf? out of context? waaaaaaa?!?!) and go on a rampage that makes no sense.

Publishers/Dev's deserve their cut of a sale, regardless of the disc being 'used', the game itself isn't 'used' to that player, it's a new game, and a new experience.

The car analogy is horrible, cars change over time, mileage, wear, and other factors have an effect on depreciation, where as a game is still the game, the disc either works, or it doesn't.

When you trade in a game you don't have to worry about a crack in a windshield, tire ware, maintenance history, body damage, ect, ect.

Further more, 99% of all your consumer auto sales go through a dealer, the majority of which are franchised.

Funny thing, if a car is traded in, and it's in great condition, then the dealer will certify it, which means that OMG the manufacturer is getting some money from their used car being sold?!?!?

Quick, somebody mobolize Gaf to stop this rip off of Certified pre-owned cars!!!!

 

[GuitarAtomik]

I'd argue, at some prices, new games > used games, just as in the case of DVDs. At the right price, you're more likely to buy new over used.

I agree with this too. It's also why I consider the comparison to books to be somewhat flawed as well. Most are already at price point low enough that the used discount isn't worth bothering for.

 

[Salamando]

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

Games are somewhat unique in that their prices start off real high and drop low fast. I can buy a game for $60, beat it, sell it for $45 to a friend, and then buy it back a year or two later for under $20. CD's/DVD's/Books, it makes more sense to just keep stuff as the odds of me being able to come out ahead by selling it and rebuying later are slim.

 

[TimeKillr]

It amazes me when people have this view... there are no other mediums (that I can think of) which cut the original creator of the content a slice of the pre-owned pie.

Do authors receive compensation when a used book is sold? When a used CD is (was) sold? When a used DVD is sold?

Is their content somehow worth less than a game developer?

It's not worth less, but as I have stated later, they have much more viable alternate revenue streams, not to mention their used market is really not as thriving as games.

Books deteriorate faster than games. Books also re-release for dirt cheap as paperback, which increases their revenue (it costs less to reprint) - this isn't true for games. The book business has these revenue streams they can count on.

Music is even better - there's revenue streams everywhere (radio, CDs, concerts, soundtracks, etc).

Movies also have alternate revenue streams (TV broadcasts, re-releases (because even if there's a yearly Fast and Furious movie, you still want to see the previous ones!)).

Try to build an effective business selling only used books/CDs/DVDs and see how long you last.

The Gamestop model works because they make *massive* margins on newly released used games (as in they'll give you 20 and sell it for 54.00 - all of that is pure profit).

And god damn at that absolutely ridiculous used car thing. Car manufacturers make money as long as the car is on the road because they sell you parts and maintenance. So they would have zero incentive to block used car sales (hell they love them because the older the car is the more they have to sell parts and maintenance for them, up to a certain point).

There is a definite problem with lost sales on used games within the first month that are discounted by 5$. It's a problem because it's, in most cases, a verifiable lost sale. After new sales are done for (about a month or so in) then nobody gives a shit about used sales because it doesn't cost the industry new sales (typically then used games are worth less than new copies, if those are even available).

Nobody in the industry would bitch at used games 6 months down the road. They bitch at day-1 used sales crippling their ability to make money.

 

[Can Crusher]

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.

I've argued that prices should drop, at the same time value is complicated. Consumers demand high values, which means more spending from projects which means prices go up because truth of the matter is they are competing for the same 1 month window of success with a restricted user base. That restricted user base is even more troublesome at the beginning of a generation, which is one of the main reasons game prices go up in the first place.

Again, a middle ground should've been applied. Make games more expensive at the beginning of the generation and lower prices as user base goes up. It seems like common sense, but as always money isn't a common sense problem.

 

[Pennywise]

And god damn at that absolutely ridiculous used car thing. Car manufacturers make money as long as the car is on the road because they sell you parts and maintenance. So they would have zero incentive to block used car sales (hell they love them because the older the car is the more they have to sell parts and maintenance for them, up to a certain point).

In the game industry, it's called DLC

 

[Just_myles]

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

Exactly, and I would say that it was smart on the music industries part and get ahead of it and go completely digital. That way they can track who is playing their music and charged them accordingly or litigate. What makes it different from games is the entry price obviously !0-20 dollars for an album is not 60 dollars for a new game.

 

[WrenchNinja]

I have been going to EB games, Future Shops, and Best Buys for years, and not once has any of the staff or sales clerks pushed used games on me. It sounds like crazy talk when I hear all of these horror stories about annoying clerks.

 

[unbias]

It's not worth less, but as I have stated later, they have much more viable alternate revenue streams, not to mention their used market is really not as thriving as games.

Books deteriorate faster than games. Books also re-release for dirt cheap as paperback, which increases their revenue (it costs less to reprint) - this isn't true for games. The book business has these revenue streams they can count on.

Music is even better - there's revenue streams everywhere (radio, CDs, concerts, soundtracks, etc).

Movies also have alternate revenue streams (TV broadcasts, re-releases (because even if there's a yearly Fast and Furious movie, you still want to see the previous ones!)).

Try to build an effective business selling only used books/CDs/DVDs and see how long you last.

The Gamestop model works because they make *massive* margins on newly released used games (as in they'll give you 20 and sell it for 54.00 - all of that is pure profit).

And god damn at that absolutely ridiculous used car thing. Car manufacturers make money as long as the car is on the road because they sell you parts and maintenance. So they would have zero incentive to block used car sales (hell they love them because the older the car is the more they have to sell parts and maintenance for them, up to a certain point).

There is a definite problem with lost sales on used games within the first month that are discounted by 5$. It's a problem because it's, in most cases, a verifiable lost sale. After new sales are done for (about a month or so in) then nobody gives a shit about used sales because it doesn't cost the industry new sales (typically then used games are worth less than new copies, if those are even available).

Nobody in the industry would bitch at used games 6 months down the road. They bitch at day-1 used sales crippling their ability to make money.

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.

 

[Of All Trades]

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

Book, music and DVD retailers barely exist. My local mall has two Gamestops but FYE is gone, Suncoast is gone, Crown Books is gone, that other bookstore that wasn't Crown is gone, Tower is gone, etc.

The music and film industries simply don't care about the 2nd hand market because retail stores that carried a lot of used product simply don't exist. Books are a bit different but everything I've read about the publishing industry points to a model that I think most people really wouldn't want spread into anything else.

 

[Jake Tower]

One of the main problems I have with the rumored Xbox One system (where you need a special machine to reauthorize games), is that it actually could give Gamestop a huge competitive advantage. It would destroy a gamers personal rights to second hand distribution (craigslist, ebay, lending to a buddy) and instead codify a system of officially sanctioned corporate trade ins.

creates a used games cartel

 

[Doran902]

You argue that studios have closed because of used games, and not because of extremely poor business decisions?

I would argue that the casual market that shops at gamestop is unaware of these business decisions, when a mom walks in to buy her kid call of duty and the clerk says you can get this copy for 5 bucks less shes going to take it.

It's been like this for 15-20 years.

And I said this could be part of the reason some studios have closed or downsized, I'm not saying its the sole reason.

If a publisher tells a studio they need to sell 2 million copies to get the bonus / percent of sales and the studio sells 1.85 million but gamestop sold 200 thousand used games 2-3 weeks after the game ships for 54.99 I would says those are the cases that hurt devs.

If people could rent or buy used copies of a dvd a week after the movie is in theatres do you not think they would go that route? It's a poor comparison given the differences in the industry but something does have to change in the game biz in order for dev's to stay in business.

 

[Of All Trades]

I have been going to EB games, Future Shops, and Best Buys for years, and not once has any of the staff or sales clerks pushed used games on me. It sounds like crazy talk when I hear all of these horror stories about annoying clerks.

I've had mixed experiences at EB/GS, like literally random. One store I used to go to was great while the other smelled like paste and pushed every obnoxious thing like a religion.

Best Buy doing used is new-ish and pretty limited.

 

[unbias]

I would argue that the casual market that shops at gamestop is unaware of these business decisions, when a mom walks in to buy her kid call of duty and the clerk says you can get this copy for 5 bucks less shes going to take it.

It's been like this for 15-20 years.

And I said this could be part of the reason some studios have closed or downsized, I'm not saying its the sole reason.

If a publisher tells a studio they need to sell 2 million copies to get the bonus / percent of sales and the studio sells 1.85 million but gamestop sold 200 thousand used games 2-3 weeks after the game ships for 54.99 I would says those are the cases that hurt devs.

If people could rent or buy used copies of a dvd a week after the movie is in theatres do you not think they would go that route? It's a poor comparison given the differences in the industry but something does have to change in the game biz in order for dev's to stay in business.

Then whoever is in charge of budget and marketing needs to be fired(even assuming the assumption is correct, which is itsnt). If your project is caught unaware of a billion dollar industry, and cant recoup from such a miss...

Also, it doesn't matter what the consumer knows, I'm not sure why you think that is a factor at all.

 

[BlastProcessing]

I'm all for it.

Would go more into depth with my opinion.

But the people here?

Yeah, not worth the time, as the majority would take things out of context(Neogaf? out of context? waaaaaaa?!?!) and go on a rampage that makes no sense.

Publishers/Dev's deserve their cut of a sale, regardless of the disc being 'used', the game itself isn't 'used' to that player, it's a new game, and a new experience.

The car analogy is horrible, cars change over time, mileage, wear, and other factors have an effect on depreciation, where as a game is still the game, the disc either works, or it doesn't.

When you trade in a game you don't have to worry about a crack in a windshield, tire ware, maintenance history, body damage, ect, ect.

Further more, 99% of all your consumer auto sales go through a dealer, the majority of which are franchised.

Funny thing, if a car is traded in, and it's in great condition, then the dealer will certify it, which means that OMG the manufacturer is getting some money from their used car being sold?!?!?

Quick, somebody mobolize Gaf to stop this rip off of Certified pre-owned cars!!!!

Well if you are going to come at us with super accurate statistics like that, then your argument is obviously unassailable.

 

[Just_myles]

The car analogy is horrible, cars change over time, mileage, wear, and other factors have an effect on depreciation, where as a game is still the game, the disc either works, or it doesn't.

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.

There is a definite problem with lost sales on used games within the first month that are discounted by 5$. It's a problem because it's, in most cases, a verifiable lost sale.

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...

 

[mrklaw]

So I'm assuming you think supply was driving consumer demand, with video games, instead of demand dictating what stores supply?

I'm not making any comment about what I think is right, I'm just trying to clarify why a direct comparison isn't easy



My personal opinion is that publishers have no right to any money from used sales, and platform holders like MS certainly don't

I sympathise with them about stores like GameStop, and selling used prominently next to new isn't good for publishers. But this isn't the solution.

 

[truly101]

Then whoever is in charge of budget and marketing needs to be fired(even assuming the assumption is correct, which is itsnt). If your project is caught unaware of a billion dollar industry, and cant recoup from such a miss...

Also, it doesn't matter what the consumer knows, I'm not sure why you think that is a factor at all.

There are a few people that will want to save $5 and do that by any means. There are also many people, me included, that if I'm prepared to pay full price, then a miniscule discount is not enough to dissuade me from just buying the product new in the first place.

I'd love to know the volume of sales GS gets from its used new release pricing structure vs the older games that have a larger used discount price.

 

[Ashes]

Car depreciation > game depreciation? You're out of your mind if that means what I think it means.

I can buy the best selling game, or the highest rated game of last year for 5$/10$ second hand today. Let's forget car classes, their differences and their devaluation rate etc

That's like buying a car at between 3,5% to 14% of its selling price one year later. And it doesn't matter if you're buying a ferrari or a citroen...

The car comparison ONLY serves to provide good arguments to anti-used games. We are looking at things from an egocentric perspective, what's the best for us. Truth lies in the middle. In a more ideal scenario:

Games have price protection for 6/12 months, release at a lower price. But as always, there is no middle ground.

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.

 

[hamchan]

Reading Jaffe's posts in the first two pages, he makes the most sense I've seen a game dev have. Devs/pubs are certainly allowed to try and rip us off in whatever fashion they desire as long as it's in the law. Ultimately it's the consumer that has the power in this situation, so anything we don't like we can tell them to fuck off by not buying their consoles or games. If we buy it begrudgingly anyways then yeah, we're all addicts.

 

[FyreWulff]

It's because retailers force feed used copies of their games to their fans 1 week after the game ships for a slight discount, like, 54.99 instead of 59.99. It should be illegal. They don't care if you go buy someones copy 3 years later for 10 bucks at a pawn shop or 5 at a yard sale. It's the monopoly corporations have on them that hurts dev's.

Many studios have closed and many people have lost jobs in this industry and this could be part of it.

I just wish there was a way to do it without hurting the consumer experience.

Retailers selling used copies for 5$ less and cutting games by 20$ a week after a launch and being successful at it has been a continual hint to the games industry that maybe the 60$ price point is not sustainable, and it's constantly ignored.

 

[Apath]

I would argue that the casual market that shops at gamestop is unaware of these business decisions, when a mom walks in to buy her kid call of duty and the clerk says you can get this copy for 5 bucks less shes going to take it.

It's been like this for 15-20 years.

And I said this could be part of the reason some studios have closed or downsized, I'm not saying its the sole reason.

If a publisher tells a studio they need to sell 2 million copies to get the bonus / percent of sales and the studio sells 1.85 million but gamestop sold 200 thousand used games 2-3 weeks after the game ships for 54.99 I would says those are the cases that hurt devs.

If people could rent or buy used copies of a dvd a week after the movie is in theatres do you not think they would go that route? It's a poor comparison given the differences in the industry but something does have to change in the game biz in order for dev's to stay in business.

What does the casual market being unaware of poor business decisions have to do with anything? Expecting a game to sell millions when it's just another generic game in a saturated genre is a poor business decision.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Games are somewhat unique in that their prices start off real high and drop low fast. I can buy a game for $60, beat it, sell it for $45 to a friend, and then buy it back a year or two later for under $20. CD's/DVD's/Books, it makes more sense to just keep stuff as the odds of me being able to come out ahead by selling it and rebuying later are slim.

Publishers would do well to actually pin down why that is. If gamers aren't seeing persistant value in a product the solution probably isn't to remove more value be destroying the second hand market.

Certain games don't drop in value btw, Nintendo games keep their prices quite well for instance.

 

[Doran902]

Retailers selling used copies for 5$ less and cutting games by 20$ a week after a launch and being successful at it has been a continual hint to the games industry that maybe the 60$ price point is not sustainable, and it's constantly ignored.

I agree with you.

My point about dev's being hurt isnt trying to justify these decisions, 99 percent of the time the dev's have no control over anything and its all the publishers.

I could want to sell my game for 29.99 on xbox live day 1 and give free dlc but microsoft will say, no, shut the fuck up, 59.99 and dlc has to have a price.

 

[lenovox1]

I just wish there was a way to do it without hurting the consumer experience.

They could simply stop supplying to GameStop if that was the biggest issue.

 

[Doran902]

What does the casual market being unaware of poor business decisions have to do with anything? Expecting a game to sell millions when it's just another generic game in a saturated genre is a poor business decision.

yeah your right, i looked back at what i said and it doesnt make sense as to what i was trying to say before. sorry about that

 

[Sothpaw]

because people don't like seeing work they did used to profit others w/ no benefit returned to them?

was this concept just invented today?

Apparently to some. Once they get used to daily DD deals they won't complain as much.

 

[Myshoe]

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)

 

[quest]

So Dev X is building a new game. Publishers predict sales figures from this and then segment all the return into Profit and Expenses.

The projected sales figures are $1Million for it to be a worthwhile investment production costs have to be no higher than $800,000. Lets say 200 people are working on this game. 200 people working 300 days and getting paid $7 an hour. That's $420,000 spent on wages along. That's before marketing and studio bills and licensing issues and all the rest of the jazz.

Now because the expected sales came to $1million (25,000 units) everything looks good. But wait whats this, Even though 30,000 units have been sold 10,000 of those units are preowned. So now publishers and losing out on money. The publishers only made $800,000 which is what the production budget was. Why would they go into business to break even?

Now when studio X is bringing out the sequel the publisher starts to question those sales projections. Development resources get cut. Not the Devs are only working for $5 an hour. Marketing has to stay the same to pull people in and bills are non-negotiable.

Remove the second hand sales and you get a more worthwhile return for your investment.

Now this is not always the case obviously but its a strong argument for no used sales. Ultimately the developers are the ones who suffer.

That case only works if gamers had unlimited money. In reality take away value of the game and people buy less games. It is pretty simple if a person can't trade/sell game they will buy less games period. They also will become a lot more picky since the cost to play went up. So basically any new IP will be DOA since gamers won't want to risk 59.99 on a game. Right now with trade/sell the risk is really 29.99 or so. It also screws over gamers who buy a broken game. They are stuck with a 59.99 digital code that is worthless.

If you think parents of kids will just go along with this and not buy the kids tablets with 1 dollar games when they find out every game is 59.99 with no option to sell/trade/rent. It is already happening. This anti-used games will only speed this up. This policy only hurts the industry in the long run. It makes console games a lot less accessible to the young who are future paying customers.

Instead of actually fixing the real problem of why there are so many used games out there. They are going to crash the industry and it will never come back. It be as stupid as Nintendo raising the price of the Wii:U. People don't think most games are worth the money so what are they trying to do? Double the price of a new game real fucking smart.

 

[CreateNowSleepLater]

There is one thing Gamestop does, it sets the market price for second hand sales. If I dont like it I can go to Ebay, Amazon, BB etc and I have a choice to make more or give it to a kid if I want to.

If the Pub/MS is control of the DRM how would that work? Why would they ever set the market value of that used game to benefit the consumer. Simple, they won't.

 

[quest]

Apparently to some. Once they get used to daily DD deals they won't complain as much.

What deals? Even in games that don't see retail the prices of XBLA and PSN are a complete rip off. You can't blame fear of retailers when that free or 99 cent tablet game is 9.99-14.99 on a console. There will be no deals on a closed platform on a console like you see on the PC. There are many places you can get a DD PC game so 1 shop can not set prices and keep them there unlike a console. The prices on PSN and XBLA are downright insulting most of the time. Prices up 10x as much as other platforms.

 

[rbanke]

I think the major issue is that there are some highly organized chain companies out there which can be viewed as taking quite a bit away from new sales. That being GameStop & other companies like them in other countries.

What other products are resold used? Cars, books, furniture, clothes are about all I can think of that have some sort of organized system behind selling the used variant. All of those have something uncommon with video games, that being the used version of them is altered from the new version. This is what I think the core of the problem is. If used cars were identical to their new cars, and a chain of dealerships that were in almost every city bought the used car for a third of the new price, but sold it for only slightly less than the new car, a huge huge amount of people would be buying that used car rather than the new car compared to today, and I would offer a guess that Ford would be SUPER pissed about that.

I don't necessarily think that Devs/Pubs have a legitimate claim to used sales revenue, but I think this is why they might think this way, or rather they might not think this way if companies like GameStop didn't exist.