Bungie thinks game companies should pocket money on used game sales

[diskoboy]

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/09/26/bungie-game-companies-should-pocket-money-from-used-sales/

Interesting thought. But I'd have to say I'm against it. I think in the long run, it would probably hurt consumers.

Discuss.....

[alexkidd2000]

Why are gaming companies so fucking special? Does Ford get a cut of used car sales? Does Toshiba get a cut when you resell you TV? Well those are all cutting into new sales. These guys need to get a grip on reality.

[TheRealist50]

thats just greedy, if its a used game that means it was bought new at one point which they already got money from. That means they want extra money if its sold again but this time used? uh...what?!

[Half Japanese]

They seem to be confusing royalties with retail. Unless you can give me a solid reason why you should get a cut every time someone sells to someone else what they originally bought from you, you're just another greedy twat in a world overfull of them. This is the kind of thinking that launched and subsequently buried Divx and keeps people with a brain from buying DRM-laden media.

At some point this does eventually turn the used marketplace into a buyer's market, which is why used DVDs are pretty much worthless. Herein lies another giant hole in this half-assed 'theory': The game market has essentially 'reset' itself every 5 years or so for the past two decades, and while pundits might argue otherwise for the future, wait to see what happens. I don't think anyone at Bungie's eating baloney sandwiches out of necessity.

[chrisbid]

used game sales allow kids without much money to buy new games


these idiots have no idea how their customer base buys their products

[otoko]

Yea.. I have to give them a swing and a miss on this one too. I figure that not only are they being ridiculous, but it'd be almost impossible to ensure they'd get money from every sale. Unless they... wait... better not get into that dark place.

[exit]

So they already got everyone who bought their games money and now they want the money of the person that buys the game second hand? Talking about coming back for seconds, I hope Bungie realizes that something like this will never happen.

[swlovinist]

If it wasnt for used game sales, many less people would know about and play Halo

Making big budget games is getting harder to do, but cutting out used sales will backfire on the market

I see the market going to all digital to "curb" the used game issue, but there will always be a market for used games.

[Mianrtcv]

This is the type of greed that is crippling our economy. Too many executives and corporations set unrealistic growth forecasts and them become enslaved to the ideas and will do anything to "succeed". Their "success" may make them rich, it also may cause their company to crumble thus sacrificing 95 % of its workforce. Then it leaves the vacuum of failure behind it.

Epic Fail

[otoko]

Epic Fail

Agreed..

I wonder who let this person release those comments outside the company and to the general press in the first place. Such a bad thing to say.

[Clownzilla]

1. Consumers complain about rising prices of games

+

2. Piracy of games is at an all time high


How do we bring in more LEGAL PAYING customers? MAKE THE GAMES EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE THROUGH USED GAME RESIDUALS! BRILLIANT!

[noname11]

given that most PC software is "licensed" to us, this idea isnt too far off. as we tread into the world of digital downloads, these type of ideas might limit our ability to resell our consoles.


imagine 5 years from now, selling a wii with about 30 VC or wiiware games on it on ebay. And having nintendo kill the auction because the software was licensed to you and is non-transferrable!

[swlovinist]

1. Consumers complain about rising prices of games

+

2. Piracy of games is at an all time high


How do we bring in more LEGAL PAYING customers? MAKE THE GAMES EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE THROUGH USED GAME RESIDUALS! BRILLIANT!

Consumers are tired of overhyped bullshit

Consumer have more choices than they ever have had before

Consumers are tired of paying for a game that half is not on the media disc only to be milked with additional micro transactions

If the game companies want to bring in more customers, they need to stop short selling customers with half baked ideas, sequels that don't need to be made, and shovel ware that is purly made for profit and not quality.

I agree that third party companies are in for a rough ride right now, with high dev costs and fierce competition. The easy money of the game industry is pretty much gone, but I feel that a correction is more than overdue. While I dont put bungie in this same category necessarily, they are far from perfect and could use a little wake up call.

[exit]

Let's not forget that our economy is slowly turning to shit, so while we're here waiting to see what happens, Bungie is worried about the sales for some garbage game at Gamestop. This type of thing drives me away from buying any game that they develop, not that they've developed much besides outside of Halo, so they wouldn't be getting my money regardless.

[Flack]

That article (and the comments below it) make a point I've been saying for a long time, which is, companies view second hand sales the way they view piracy. They don't make money from either one, so to them, they are one and the same. Seems bizarre when thinking about it from a consumer's point of view.

[kingpong]

What the game companies have an issue with, and this is what differentiates used game sales from things like used car sales, is that the vendors are effectively offering a lower priced item that has not depreciated in value. There wouldn't be much complaining if the used game sale took place 6 months after release, when only a trickle of sales is expected. The problem is all the sales close to release. As long as you don't mind buying a used game, if you buy a month old used game you're getting a new game. You only saved $5, but $5 is $5. You're happy about getting a new game and saving a few bucks, and the store is happy because it made more profit than it would have off a new sale. The only entity who loses out is the game company, and for what? It's not like the $5 off determined whether or not you bought the game. They've lost a sale and somebody else (the store) is making the profit the game company expected to make.

What makes the problem worse is perception due to the attitude of the stores - Gamestop is the obvious offender. Gamestop would love nothing more than to stop carrying new games. They want your pre-order so they can get some cash early and they can limit the risk associated with carrying new stock. Then they push used games on you because their margins are so much better than new games. If you're the game company this has to drive you nuts - the most prominent game store would rather not have to bother with carrying your new product. It is one thing to follow this business practice, but it is another to be so glib about it (like their commerical - over 150 games worth over $15, but they'll sell them back to you for at least $25 more than they pay).

An interesting comparison can be made to movies. For better or worse, these days all that matters for a movie is how it opens. Promote the movie for weeks before the release, then look at the first week box office results and decide if you're going to do a sequel. The promotions are dropped and the rest of the run doesn't matter that much. With a movie you don't have any choice but to see it in a theater if you want to see it when it is new. Imagine if a week after it hit the theaters you could watch it at home. Those "new" sales would drop dramatically. At least in the movie industry it is the movie company making the DVD and making money off of it - the way the used game industry works would be like the movie theater selling hand-cam copies of the movie for $1 less than the ticket price, but with no loss in quality.

Once the game has depreciated in value the gloves are off, but during the period the game can be considered new the game companies get hosed. Gamestop might as well be selling bootleg copies on the shelf right next to legitimate copies, as the end result is the same for the game company.

[Poofta!]

i think companies like gamestop should be legally obliged to pay royalties to game developers to the tune of 10-20% of the profit of each game resold for 2 years after the game's initial release. gamestop is making a killing off of this, and even try to push you to buy used. that is a fortune they do not deserve. when the difference in price is 5$, ill choose NEW any DAY. DEVELOPERS do not make much, most money goes to publishers. and if everyone here would like to bitch about expensive games, think of all the great development studios that had to close down and you still bitched (maxis, bullfrog, troika, ensemble, the list goes on) when a studio doesnt have firm sales, (for whatever reason) it is bought out, bankrupt, or closed down.

and to be fair, what was mentioned earlier is true, to companies, you kids with not a lot of money who buy used, might as well pirate the damn thing, youre all little shits in the publisher's eyes. having the lack of choice to ONLY buy new, would promote good games and studios, since youd be a lot more careful on what you bought. whether it was 60$ on release day or 40$ a year later.

im only against ENORMOUS firms a la Gamestop who make an absolute killing (did you SEE their PROFIT last year? OMFG) off of used games.

[Oobgarm]

that is a fortune they do not deserve.

So if you thought up this idea and made a huge profit off of it, you wouldn't deserve it?

[Rob2600]

Why are gaming companies so fucking special? Does Ford get a cut of used car sales? Does Toshiba get a cut when you resell you TV? Well those are all cutting into new sales. These guys need to get a grip on reality.

There's a difference. People don't sell their cars or TVs a week after buying them.

Stores like GameStop sell used copies of games a week after they were released, which affects sales of new copies.


thats just greedy, if its a used game that means it was bought new at one point which they already got money from. That means they want extra money if its sold again but this time used? uh...what?!

Again, stores like GameStop sell used copies of games a week after they were released, which affects sales of new copies.


What the game companies have an issue with, and this is what differentiates used game sales from things like used car sales, is that the vendors are effectively offering a lower priced item that has not depreciated in value. There wouldn't be much complaining if the used game sale took place 6 months after release, when only a trickle of sales is expected. The problem is all the sales close to release.

...

Once the game has depreciated in value the gloves are off, but during the period the game can be considered new the game companies get hosed. Gamestop might as well be selling bootleg copies on the shelf right next to legitimate copies, as the end result is the same for the game company.

Exactly.

[Kid Ice]

Again, stores like GameStop sell used copies of games a week after they were released, which affects sales of new copies.

So why does the $60 new game purchase only last a week?

I know the hardest of the hardcore are going to buy Game Sequel VI and do all there is to do in a week and bring the game back for a trade in. But will store shelves get flooded with used games this way?

The more likely scenario is the kid puts down his $60, finds the game sucks when he takes it home, and trades it in.

Is it reasonable for me to argue the games simply aren't good enough to be worth $60 in the first place? And if they are *that good* they won't show up used for a few months after release?

My answer is to make the games worth what they cost in the first place....which IMO applies to 3 or 4 games in a given month out of the 100 or so that are released.

[Clownzilla]

i think companies like gamestop should be legally obliged to pay royalties to game developers to the tune of 10-20% of the profit of each game resold for 2 years after the game's initial release. gamestop is making a killing off of this, and even try to push you to buy used. that is a fortune they do not deserve. when the difference in price is 5$, ill choose NEW any DAY. DEVELOPERS do not make much, most money goes to publishers. and if everyone here would like to bitch about expensive games, think of all the great development studios that had to close down and you still bitched (maxis, bullfrog, troika, ensemble, the list goes on) when a studio doesnt have firm sales, (for whatever reason) it is bought out, bankrupt, or closed down.

and to be fair, what was mentioned earlier is true, to companies, you kids with not a lot of money who buy used, might as well pirate the damn thing, youre all little shits in the publisher's eyes. having the lack of choice to ONLY buy new, would promote good games and studios, since youd be a lot more careful on what you bought. whether it was 60$ on release day or 40$ a year later.

im only against ENORMOUS firms a la Gamestop who make an absolute killing (did you SEE their PROFIT last year? OMFG) off of used games.

Customers are bitching about expensive games because $60 is $60! If a company chooses to go into massive debt because of game development then that is THEIR PROBLEM! Why does a studio HAVE to spend ridiculous amounts of $$$ on a game? Sure, it's cutting edge technology but that does not qualify the company to implement it. It's like GM taking their budget line of vehicles and putting huge engines, leather, and tons of bells and whistles because they think that it would be "sweet". If the budget car is $75,000 then that defeats the purpose. Doesn't it? If a game company want's to survive then they MUST make games withing their budget and not depend on BS policies that make the company $$$ where the cash is not actually earned. I think many gamers would be totally fine with games made with a much tighter budget. Many would not miss all the "fluff" that are in games now and would love a quality made game with quality made game-play and most importantly QUALITY FUN! To many, games are expensive and if the companies go under then that's their %$&%$ fault!

[RPG_Fanatic]

After I put $60 down on the counter to buy a new game I should be able to do what I want with it. Be it sell it, break it, or take a shit on it. It's mine not the company that made it.

[Rob2600]

If a company chooses to go into massive debt because of game development then that is THEIR PROBLEM! Why does a studio HAVE to spend ridiculous amounts of $$$ on a game? Sure, it's cutting edge technology but that does not qualify the company to implement it. ... I think many gamers would be totally fine with games made with a much tighter budget.

I agree. Part of why the Wii has been so successful is because plenty of good, fun games debut for only $20 or $30: Pinball Hall of Fame, Mercury Meltdown Revolution, The House of The Dead, Ghost Squad, Link's Crossbow Training, Endless Ocean, etc. I hope this continues.

It's too bad many gamers automatically associate "budget games" with shovelware. They're missing out on some good ones.

[swlovinist]

So why does the $60 new game purchase only last a week?

I know the hardest of the hardcore are going to buy Game Sequel VI and do all there is to do in a week and bring the game back for a trade in. But will store shelves get flooded with used games this way?

The more likely scenario is the kid puts down his $60, finds the game sucks when he takes it home, and trades it in.

Is it reasonable for me to argue the games simply aren't good enough to be worth $60 in the first place? And if they are *that good* they won't show up used for a few months after release?

My answer is to make the games worth what they cost in the first place....which IMO applies to 3 or 4 games in a given month out of the 100 or so that are released.


100 percent agree. The truth of the matter right now is that the game industry has been milking many sequels, cutting up full games and trying to sell them in chapters into "full games". I think that there are some games worth the $60 price tag, but they are few and far between. I think it just comes down to simple economics 101


Tons of new games coming out every month, few are original and many are just shovelware

There are a ton of games on the market that can be bought used for XX dollars less, having the same value of gameplay and only a minor difference in graphics

With people tightening their belts on spending, some that may have bought new, now buy used.

Bottom line is that there are too many sequels being made for too many games. The games that are trying to be original or of high quality get lost in the mix. Right now there are just many choices for consumers to be savy with their gaming dollars

If that means that there is a game industry correction, so be it, it has been a long time coming. I know that overall game sales are very strong, but I see the writing on the wall for a clash between game companies and huge game stores like gamestop



and to agree with some points that rob 2600 and clownzilla have made....there are SOME good games out there that are budget titles that offer alot of gameplay. I see the future of games being more price conscious, and see this holiday on a good time to pick up some great games new at reduced prices. As for us serious gamers, we can easily differ shovelware from a good budget title...Too bad it is more confusing for the average consumer.

[eskobar]

One simple example :


You buy a new game on gamestop :

Paying $ 60 usd gives you license to play it as much as you want. :D

If you sell that game, you cannot play it anymore.

If you did't keep the game or make a copy, you transfer that paid license to another person. :frustrated:


Instead of thinking about getting profit for used games, developers should do its job .... and we can also think of a way to stop shitty games to be produced and find a way to get paid when a game sucks so bad that can cause stress and the loss of our time playing shit.

[Kid Ice]

My answer is to make the games worth what they cost in the first place....which IMO applies to 3 or 4 games in a given month out of the 100 or so that are released.

Let me modify this before I get beat up over it....when I say "make games worth what they cost in the first place" I'm talking about games that cost 50 or 60 dollars (so my 100 or so released number is probably a bit much).

[maxlords]

So if you thought up this idea and made a huge profit off of it, you wouldn't deserve it?


Exactly.

However, I typically won't buy used from major stores. It's a rare day, and usually out of a bargain bin or a clearance sale that I pick up a used title from a store like GS or EB. When they're already losing money on it :) I'm atypical though. Most people trade in and get the next thing, heavily limiting the profitability of new sales for game companies. That's why it was illegal to sell games used in Japan for a while. It's just not feasible to try and control people's possesions after they've bought them though. The only thing you can go for is intellectual property protection, which doesn't help the game companies.

I'd expect that in the next 5-10 years, you'll see digital media that expires. Once expired, you have to repurchase it at full value. And it'll be non-transferable, a la Wii DLs. This is what Divx tried to do...but it was WAY too early. At the rate digital media sales are skyrocketing, I'd expect this to be coming.....and not later.

[DreamTR]

Wasn't there some law in Japan passed a few years ago with no more used games sales for a bit or something? I could have sworn there was something like that in place in Japan for the newer stuff for this very reason.


And wow, the ignorance of the people in that thread. Honestly, you can this about anything then. Why limit it to games? It would have to be everything. CDs, Books, furniture. Anything second hand. Such a stupid argument that should never have been brought up in the first place. Developers having a right to more on resale products. Sheesh. Aren't they all going digital download in 20-25 years anyway? Why bother to complain now?

[slip81]

really this seems to me like a case of bungie is mad that they can't make enough profit off their games because they cost too much to make in the first place.

hey bungie, maybe instead of trying to think up more ways to furthur alienate your customer base, find a way to cut development costs, you'll probably be surprised how much profit you can gain on a $60 retail game when said game doesn't cost you over $100 million to make.

[smokehouse]

really this seems to me like a case of bungie is mad that they can't make enough profit off their games because they cost too much to make in the first place.

hey bungie, maybe instead of trying to think up more ways to furthur alienate your customer base, find a way to cut development costs, you'll probably be surprised how much profit you can gain on a $60 retail game when said game doesn't cost you over $100 million to make.

I agree with this statement...

It's not the buyer's fault that the game industry has bloated to the point where it takes millions of dollars in development/licensing/random fees to make a game...

And I keep reading about this "used game in a store one week after launch" crap...

Who here really wants to buy a used game when it's only $5 cheaper than new? I sure as hell won't get a used game for $55 when it retails for $60 new...

Are people really buying these used one week old games in mass amounts?

Do game development companies really figure used sales into their budgets?

Come on...this is absurd shit. The game developers asking for more $$ after a game after it has been sold the first time is absurd...and I'm sure something to that effect is coming dow the line.















On a personal note...I say let them do it...let them gouge the end customer more than they already have...

...and watch their sales go down the toilet...

I hope they hang themselves with their own rope, only that way will help return things to a normal state...


Or...go digital like the Wii VC...and charge less for once. I don't mind "borrowing" a title for download if it costs a fraction of a hard copy...















Oh, and Slip...your avatar can eat a dick...:)

[rbudrick]

Well, the good? news is that they would only be targeting gamestop...or maybe a few mom and pops to set a precedent before gamestop. Next, eBay!

Folks, be careful...it may soon make us all pirates of non-pirated material to sell each other games.[/sarcasm]

-Rob

[Nature Boy]

The more likely scenario is the kid puts down his $60, finds the game sucks when he takes it home, and trades it in.

I agree. And they are pressured into selling it that first week because it's used value is as high as it's ever going to be. If you hold onto that sucker for six months you're giving away money!


Who here really wants to buy a used game when it's only $5 cheaper than new? I sure as hell won't get a used game for $55 when it retails for $60 new...

I'm with you - I think $55 for a used game is an absolute rip-off, and I don't touch 'em. But that still doesn't change the fact that it does happen.

Personally I'm not going to get in a huff about it anyway. Whatever happens, happens, and I'll speak with my wallet if and when it does.

[gum_drops]

I just picked up Deadspace at Gamestop and noticed they are trying out a new trade-in policy to increase trade-ins of new releases. I am not sure what percentage of gamestop stores are participating.

If you buy a new release game from GS within 1 week of its release date and trade it back within 1 month you get 70% trade in value on the original purchase price. Purchases must be made before 11/1/08.

[mailman187666]

It is things like this which make you wonder if another videogame market crash is on the horizon. How far are they going to go until there is no profit to be made? I think its either going to plateau for a while, or start to crash. Maybe thats why Nintendo had the right idea with the wii not going HD. They will still have a whole other generation where they can make an HD wii where as a new generation PS or xbox would have to make that extra step which would cost them more in develpment. By that time, HD may not be the newest thing, but it'll be affordable and an HD wii could help keep the industry from going down the drain....because its profitable, and affordable for consumers.

[tomaitheous]

Bungie's thinking doesn't surprise me at all. Companies in general are all about squeezing whatever last penny they can out of you. It's capitalistic thinking at it's best. Control and profit at whatever expense/cost to the customer.

What does surprise me is that there are people retarded enough to defend Bungie's argument. Man...

[Clownzilla]

Wasn't there some law in Japan passed a few years ago with no more used games sales for a bit or something? I could have sworn there was something like that in place in Japan for the newer stuff for this very reason.


And wow, the ignorance of the people in that thread. Honestly, you can this about anything then. Why limit it to games? It would have to be everything. CDs, Books, furniture. Anything second hand. Such a stupid argument that should never have been brought up in the first place. Developers having a right to more on resale products. Sheesh. Aren't they all going digital download in 20-25 years anyway? Why bother to complain now?

I don't know about the used game sales but I do know that Japan HEAVILY taxes a used vehicle after you own it for a few years. It makes your car way too expensive to re-register thus strongarming the customer into buying a new vehicle. I could see them protecting their game industry just as much. This crap is great for industry but bad for the customer.

[XYXZYZ]

"It seems to me that the folks who create and publish a game shouldn't stop receiving income from further sales." That's the word from Bungie audio director Marty O'Donnell.


Wait, some guy who works in the sound room says something stupid and it's news?

[Iron Draggon]

what I don't understand is, if all the devs are so pissed off at GS for selling used games, then why do they keep selling new games to them? the solution is simple, simply refuse to fill orders for new games placed by GS! if none of the devs will sell new games to GS, then GS won't have any new games to sell, and people will only be able to trade in their used games for other used games there! there's no law requiring anyone to sell anything to anyone! so just because GS places orders for new games doesn't mean that any dev has to fill those orders! have they never heard of "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason"? just don't sell anything to GS anymore!

[Mr. Smashy]

I have to wonder what a GameStop kind of store would be like if it were owned and operated by developers and publishers. It's a shame that publishers have done nothing to get a piece of the used game market.

Even if they wouldn't open their own stores, it might be a good idea if publishers would have authorized retail distributors for their products (like posters, shirts, soundtracks, toys) where these distributors would have an arrangement with the publishers when it comes to buying and selling used games. It can be a little baffling at times that some publishers whine about losing money on used game sales while offering pre-order exclusives and exclusive limited editions to the same company that's making money off of selling their used games.

[Rob2600]

go digital like the Wii VC...and charge less for once. I don't mind "borrowing" a title for download if it costs a fraction of a hard copy...

I feel the same way.

[SegaAges]

Customers are bitching about expensive games because $60 is $60! If a company chooses to go into massive debt because of game development then that is THEIR PROBLEM! Why does a studio HAVE to spend ridiculous amounts of $$$ on a game? Sure, it's cutting edge technology but that does not qualify the company to implement it. It's like GM taking their budget line of vehicles and putting huge engines, leather, and tons of bells and whistles because they think that it would be "sweet". If the budget car is $75,000 then that defeats the purpose. Doesn't it? If a game company want's to survive then they MUST make games withing their budget and not depend on BS policies that make the company $$$ where the cash is not actually earned. I think many gamers would be totally fine with games made with a much tighter budget. Many would not miss all the "fluff" that are in games now and would love a quality made game with quality made game-play and most importantly QUALITY FUN! To many, games are expensive and if the companies go under then that's their %$&%$ fault!

Alright, time for me to chime in...

This is actually helping your argument even more dude. When you equip a car, you buy leather, upholstery, metal, and all types of goods. Cras are made out of materials that are needed for that (and this is outside of paying the people to do it).

Let's look at a game.
You need a computer, licensed software, and a dev hardware unit. Let's see, high end computer ($4000-$5000 for something insane). Anybody that works with a computer at works knows the way it goes. you get a computer that is just good enough to do the job.
50 team members for a game (big team) and a budget of $2000 per computer (which for a huge supply like that in bulk, that should stlll get a sweet machine). Dev units are alsoup there. Yes, there is stuff to buy here as well.

What separates the car from the video game? Reusability. Even if the computer costs $5000, they can continue to use that computer for every single game that they make. Same with dev units and the licensed software. For a car, it is pretty much a 1 time use deal because of the difference between a tangible object and digital goods.

It does not cost 1mil to make a f'ing game. It may costs $750,000 to line the employees pocket books and $250,000 for advertising (or however you want to split it up), but it sure as hell is NOT COSTING THE COMPANY 1mil, they are paying out others with that money. Where is all the money going for that crap? I can hate all I want on salaries, but I am not exactly a millionaire, but 1 of the highest paid programmers at my company (one of the highest means top 50 programmer out of about 500). I know the programmers are not seeing more money if the game makes more money. That is the real world for you. A game makes 500 billion and the programmers are still only making 40,000-75,000 a year while CEO's are getting fatter and richer by the day.

I agree with what some people say. Tell Bungie to go to hell. If your game had enough replayability, it would not be back at the store in a week. I don't care how hardcore somebody is, if you have a game that you don't mind replaying, you will replay it. Maybe if Bungie is worried about it, they shouldn't have released Halo 3 with such a short story line. They shouldn't try to push 2 more halo games out the door right next to each other. Maybe they should try to not flood our faces with Halo, because lets face it, it is a fun game, but it is not all that great. It is just another fps in my eye (and yes, Unreal Tournament is way better than Halo).

No, they make no money off of it and they are losing sales, but then why the hell are they losing sales. Maybe they should ask us gamers why we are taking our game back within a week of buying it. See, these CEOs don't give a f'ck about you. They don't care if the game sucks balls as long as they continue to make 7 figures a year it doesn't matter to them. They don't care. They could make Halo 4: Trouble on Hello Kitty's Adventure Island and the CEO would promote that nasty piece of crap.

Then when people buy it, find out it sucks a big fat <insert your own crude statement here> and take it into gamestop to get $10 towards a $60 pre-order, then it is a revolving cycle of suck ball popsicles. A game sells 500,000 units of a crappy game for $60 a piece. They find out the game sucks, so one fifth of the people take the game to GameStop. GameStop Gives you $20 to be nice, so two thirds of the price just went to GameStop for free. GameStop just bent you over and asked for buttermilk and you poured them a glass. Now, lets say the game is still popular (which happens alot). 2 weeks into this, there are 100,000 copies of the game selling for $55 and people will see it at $5 cheaper and buy it. What they didn't know is that the game sucks, so they take it back to GameStop for another $20 credit. At this point, off of 1 game, GameStop has just made $75. If you can seriously tell me that scenario is not possible, you are lying.

Now let's compare.
1 sealed game = $60 (company makes that money)
1 new game = $75 (GameStop makes that money)
(if you want to call it used, go ahead)

I don't support the move that Bungie made, but you know, it also sucks because I can see their side.

Also with cars, how often is a new car brought back within a week? There is no such thing as a hardcore driver who buys a new car just to see how fast he can go and then turn around a week later and take the car back and lose two thirds of the money that he paid for it. That does not happen.

[mailman187666]

maybe game companies should buy thier old games back from the consumer and sell them on thier own website for people to order from them. I don't see how they couldn't make a profit from doing so. I'm sure if you dug real deep into a company doing this, you may find some negetives with the idea, but overall, it should be a good compromise if game companies really started wanting a cut from the used sales of thier games.

[Nature Boy]

maybe game companies should buy thier old games back from the consumer and sell them on thier own website for people to order from them. I don't see how they couldn't make a profit from doing so. I'm sure if you dug real deep into a company doing this, you may find some negetives with the idea, but overall, it should be a good compromise if game companies really started wanting a cut from the used sales of thier games.

I think that's an interesting idea. The problem as I see it is that they'd likely piss off *all* their retailers, and totally kill their sales.

The answer probably lies in digital distribution though, as much as people hate it here.

[Rob2600]

Alright, time for me to chime in...


It does not cost 1mil to make a f'ing game. It may costs $750,000 to line the employees pocket books and $250,000 for advertising (or however you want to split it up), but it sure as hell is NOT COSTING THE COMPANY 1mil

So $750,000 to pay employees plus $250,000 to pay for advertising doesn't equal $1 million?

It must be that new math I've heard about.

[Chickenpuppet]

Ok, since really the only benefit of being old is having a long memory, lets see if i can make an interesting comparison from history:

Back in 1984 or so, I remember There was an attempt to shut down the video rental industry based on exactly the same sort of thinking as this article describes: The Movie Industry claimed that people were profiting in a secondary market which infringed on their intellectual property rights. All the same arguments were made. In the end, they (obviously) lost their case, at least partially. When you buy a media (be it a video cassette, dvd, game, book, CD and whatever) you own that piece of media and may do with it what you please (with some small exceptions, such as movie theatres not being allowed to just buy/show DVDs and charge money for tickets, but I digress..). You don't, however, own the content on that media, so you are not allowed to copy and resell the content.

Of course, no amount of history can predict the future. As others mentioned, the computer software industry is is trying to turn this around by requiring you to register software so that you can't resell it. However, I think that my point still stands: I still own the hardcopy and am entitled to resell it. The only seeming difference is that if I do resell it, the sucker who bought it won't be able to use it. they haven't changed my rights over the hard copy, they have only removed the any value it might have in the secondary market.

I doubt 'Bungie' actually plans to follow up on this idea, more likely some honked off developer is being quoted as if he or she were speaking for the company.

[Chickenpuppet]

maybe game companies should buy thier old games back from the consumer and sell them on thier own website for people to order from them. I don't see how they couldn't make a profit from doing so. I'm sure if you dug real deep into a company doing this, you may find some negetives with the idea, but overall, it should be a good compromise if game companies really started wanting a cut from the used sales of thier games.

Interesting, but if we are going down that road, it occurs to me that outside of food or underwear, video games are about the only thing I can think of that I can't just return to a store if I am unsatisfied with the product. Buy a game that you hate? Too bad, you are stuck with it. But if they allowed people to return games that they hate for full credit or refund (within a reasonable amount of time), there might be less used games on the market. Heck, developers might even consider not releasing inferior games!

[Rob2600]

it occurs to me that outside of food or underwear, video games are about the only thing I can think of that I can't just return to a store if I am unsatisfied with the product. Buy a game that you hate? Too bad, you are stuck with it.

How about opened CDs, DVDs, or magazines?

[Chickenpuppet]

How about opened CDs, DVDs, or magazines?

I've returned CDs and DVDs to Walmart for exchange w/ receipt (not refunds). Magazines? Not sure I see how this one applies.

However, CDs and DVDs is trickeir... I know many places won't refund/exchange on open DVDs and Cds, but then generally, if i am buying music or movies, then I have generally at least heard it or seen it before laying out my money.

But my original point was just that if you want to reduce the number of newer used games on the market, then allow people to exchange things they don't like...

[SegaAges]

So $750,000 to pay employees plus $250,000 to pay for advertising doesn't equal $1 million?

It must be that new math I've heard about.

Nicely taken out of context sir, very nice.

No no, by that, I meant that it does not cost a game company 1mil to make a game. Expenses are going elsewhere.

My appologize, i will ensure that the next time I put something in, I clarify a little more clearly.

Basically, I know that the employees get the shaft (to clarify: employees do not get paid what they deserve)

So game companies can suck a fat butthole if they think i am giving them any extra change for that (to clarify: I do not like to support video game companies that make money from a game and much of that profit is not given back to the employees).

hehehe, i am putting that at the end of every single sentence I write in this thread to ensure that nothing is taken out of context (to clarify: when I have a huge post and one sentence is grabbed, it very easily taken out of context. To prevent that, I will ensure that I clarify everything I say to help ensure that what I type is not taken out of context)

touche sir, touche on the burn for my math (to clarify: thank you for pointing out that math error on an example I was giving off of the top of my head)

Full context:


It may costs $750,000 to line the employees pocket books and $250,000 for advertising (or however you want to split it up), but it sure as hell is NOT COSTING THE COMPANY 1mil, they are paying out others with that money


Uh oh (to clarify: Oh No)

What does this mean? (to clarify: Please allow me to explain)

Uh, that sentence meant that you can splitup that money all you want, but paying out others goes in with advertising. You can split up that amount however you want and I used 1mil because it is an easy number to use. It is not costing 1mil to make the game. (to clarify: I put in parenthesis that the United States dollar amount of 1 million can be split in any way you would personally like to split it up, but in the end, the game company is not spending the United States dollar amount of 1 million to make the video game.)

[esquire]

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/09/26/bungie-game-companies-should-pocket-money-from-used-sales/

Interesting thought. But I'd have to say I'm against it. I think in the long run, it would probably hurt consumers.

Discuss.....

Someone should tell him such a economic structure already exists. It's called Amway.

[garagesaleking!!]

the game companys making money on used game sales is complete bullshit. End of Story.