PDA

View Full Version : What, Duh: "Second hand games and the rental market needs to be stopped..."



geelw
06-21-2013, 04:44 PM
With all this new-gen floop and whee flapping around, that quote above is the tone on a few game industry sites these days, ladies and gents. The quote is from this thread:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-06-20-xbox-180-microsoft-pulls-back-from-the-brink

and it's been the feeling of quite a few folks on the developer and publisher side for a while. I won't add my four cents here, as I'm tired of reading this and other comments (such as people who buy used games being called "WORSE than pirates" or "thieves" for what many of us do on a daily basis. Feel free to chime in with thoughts. Me, I'm tied up in tinkering on my dinky lil' site (fanboydestroy.com), so I'll only pop in from time to time and check out what you're thinking.

Fire away (but don't shoot the messenger!).

Oh, and HI. I'm (kind of) back...

EDIT: Derp-ola: fixed my site link... heh. Stupid "b" key is acting up again. Er, come up and see me sometime?

Bojay1997
06-21-2013, 05:04 PM
With all this new-gen floop and whee flapping around, that quote above is the tone on a few game industry sites these days, ladies and gents. The quote is from this thread:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-06-20-xbox-180-microsoft-pulls-back-from-the-brink

and it's been the feeling of quite a few folks on the developer and publisher side for a while. I won't add my four cents here, as I'm tired of reading this and other comments (such as people who buy used games being called "WORSE than pirates" or "thieves" for what many of us do on a daily basis. Feel free to chime in with thoughts. Me, I'm tied up in tinkering on my dinky lil' site (fanoydestroy.com), so I'll only pop in from time to time and check out what you're thinking.

Fire away (but don't shoot the messenger!).

Oh, and HI. I'm (kind of) back...

Honestly, this topic has been beaten to death over the past six months or so with rumors of the next generation being all digital or used games going away for good. Microsoft got the closest to making it reality, but ultimately they backed down. I just don't see what else there is to say about this as whether or not used sales negatively impact developers and publishers or in fact help new sales like Gamestop and others contend is not something capable of objective determination.

PreZZ
06-21-2013, 05:12 PM
Gamestop has become too big, I just dont understand why people buy there I hate it. I know i wouldnt buy a game for 5$ less than a brand new one, and I wouldnt sell it for 8$ 2 weeks later.

kupomogli
06-21-2013, 05:13 PM
Used games doesn't hurt the industry as much as piracy does, and now days it hurts the industry even less than it did in the past. Rental stores like Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, etc, while still around in small numbers and are mostly a thing of the past. Gamefly doesn't have adequate numbers for all people who want the game day one, plus slow shipping. Developers see how much money Gamestop is getting for being a middle man for used software and they're jealous. That's all it is.

If developers didn't mismanage their funding, throw out ridiculous sales predictions, and take an entire generation to develop one game that is probably not going to even come close to their expectations, then this would not even be an issue.

EA is complaining about it, but evidence points at Square Enix not having a clue what they're doing as a business. If a game like Lords of Shadow can exceed sales expectations at 1.5 million, then why did three very high selling games from Square Enix flop?

Atlus only localized the game, but they predicted 3D Dot Game Heroes to sell 25,000. While it far exceeded that amount, they didn't have ridiculous expectations that the game is going to sell which is probably why the company actually made money from it and all their money wasn't tied up everywhere with three million unsold copies floating around in stores. Atlus has reprinted games that have exceeded expectations. You don't need to make all that money all at once, if you make a little bit and find out that it's selling well, then print and ship more. Losing a little money on additional shipments is a lot better than losing money on unsold copies.

Falcom has supposedly never lost money once on a game.

Poor management or lots of money isn't enough money. Plus with CEOs and higher ups making one million to 20 million a year. Instead of passing out all these bonus' before your game actually meets the goals, how about basing your salary on how much income the company as a whole makes? Wouldn't that make more sense.

The Adventurer
06-21-2013, 05:17 PM
Pure digital is an inevitable conclusion for both PC and Console gaming. And with the end of the need for physical media the traditional used market will disappear. This isn't necessarily a BAD THING(tm). But there have to be a lot of industry practices changed if its going to take. Some kind of easy transfer of digital goods between parties would be a nice start, and more aggression toward offering discounts to costumers directly so they don't want to buy secondhand.

But that won't happen if publishers control sales. There has to be a 3rd party sales source to make all that work. Like Valve. Or even Gamestop (who will need to change fast if they don't want to be the next Blockbuster Video)


There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a digital only system. Its no more valid or invalid as physical media. Its how its handled by the industry to consumers that matters. This is a delicate time as all media transitions away from individual physical packaging. Some sectors are getting it right, some are struggling, but overall things are looking generally up.

thegamezmaster
06-21-2013, 05:47 PM
Does this mean anything in the world shouldn't be able to be sold second hand? I don't think so.

WCP
06-21-2013, 07:27 PM
The easiest way to solve all of this, is to have a 60 day waiting period. No used game sales are allowed within 60 days of a games release. Once a game has been on the market for 61 days, you can sell, trade, etc, etc.


This way, the publishers and developers can get the vast majority of their sales in the books before any used game market affects them. Gamers would still retain their rights, they just have to wait for two months before they can do anything with the games.

The only part of this that really sucks, is for people that buy a random game, realize that the game sucks balls, and then have to sit on the thing for 60 days before finally being able to dump it. Also, I'm sure the publishers would actually want a 90 day period, instead of 60, but I think 60 is decent.

The Adventurer
06-21-2013, 08:38 PM
Nice idea, but how would you enforce it? Publishers would need to make individual deals with the major resellers (GameStop, best buy, etc...), and the retailers will want something in return, since recently released used games are a big money maker for them.

And then, that's still only for the major retailers. Nothing can stop individuals from swapping Mong themselves, selling on eBay, or small business shops from dealing in recent used games.

FieryReign
06-21-2013, 09:51 PM
The easiest way to solve all of this, is to have a 60 day waiting period. No used game sales are allowed within 60 days of a games release. Once a game has been on the market for 61 days, you can sell, trade, etc, etc.


This way, the publishers and developers can get the vast majority of their sales in the books before any used game market affects them. Gamers would still retain their rights, they just have to wait for two months before they can do anything with the games.

The only part of this that really sucks, is for people that buy a random game, realize that the game sucks balls, and then have to sit on the thing for 60 days before finally being able to dump it. Also, I'm sure the publishers would actually want a 90 day period, instead of 60, but I think 60 is decent.
Fuck that. If I pay hard-earned money for a game, I will do with it as I please, when I want. No company has any right to stop anyone from selling a used copy of their own game, within any timeframe. If developers don't want their games being sold used so quick, or hitting the bargain racks, THEN TRY PRODUCING A BETTER PRODUCT. Not the same repackaged sports games or sequels to over-hyped FPS games.

The 1 2 P
06-21-2013, 10:18 PM
EA is complaining about it, but evidence points at Square Enix not having a clue what they're doing as a business. If a game like Lords of Shadow can exceed sales expectations at 1.5 million, then why did three very high selling games from Square Enix flop?

Ironically the answer to that question can also be found at the same site thats listed in the OP:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-05-28-square-enix-it-is-necessary-to-review-the-definition-of-aaa-title

Although I will still agree(even after reading that) that there should never be an instance where a game can sell 4-6 million copies and still be considered a failure that didn't hit it's sales projections.


The easiest way to solve all of this, is to have a 60 day waiting period. No used game sales are allowed within 60 days of a games release. Once a game has been on the market for 61 days, you can sell, trade, etc, etc.

I like that idea since it's akin to how movies are first released in theaters and then get dvd releases much later on(I'm going to ignore all their other release methods for a minute). But I still don't see why the publishers themselves don't just release used copies of their games. They could make a contract with Gamestop or whichever retailer that states that(similiar to what you already said) any used copies of their game that get traded back in to the store within 60 days of release have to be sold directly back to the publisher at a cost of $30(or some number they both agree to) and then the publisher can sell used copies directly from their website or in-store kiosks for $50 used. They'd have to work out the specifics of course but they should atleast try out a used model instead of constantly complaining about Gamestop and customers who buy used games.

Bojay1997
06-22-2013, 12:44 AM
The easiest way to solve all of this, is to have a 60 day waiting period. No used game sales are allowed within 60 days of a games release. Once a game has been on the market for 61 days, you can sell, trade, etc, etc.


This way, the publishers and developers can get the vast majority of their sales in the books before any used game market affects them. Gamers would still retain their rights, they just have to wait for two months before they can do anything with the games.

The only part of this that really sucks, is for people that buy a random game, realize that the game sucks balls, and then have to sit on the thing for 60 days before finally being able to dump it. Also, I'm sure the publishers would actually want a 90 day period, instead of 60, but I think 60 is decent.

Two major problems with this leaving aside the fact that this would probably be a situation where first sale doctrine would apply and the 60 day waiting period would not stand court scrutiny. First, a game that is 60 days old is far less valuable than one a few weeks old where the servers are still well populated and everyone is still hyped for the game. Second, subsequent used sales would still impact new sales negatively because someone spending money on used doesn't have the same amount of money after the purchase that someone who didn't buy the used game does. As such, that used sale theoretically impacts that person's desire and ability to buy another game for a period of time. Ultimately, as some other forum members have noted when we have had this same exact discussion in many other threads, no matter what developers/manufacturers/publishers do, at some point they are going to run out of schemes to pull more profit from each release and they will either have to make cheaper games or simply accept less profit which may not sit well with shareholders.

kupomogli
06-22-2013, 01:45 AM
Ironically the answer to that question can also be found at the same site thats listed in the OP:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-05-28-square-enix-it-is-necessary-to-review-the-definition-of-aaa-title

Reading this it states they broke even. The game will continue selling and the company will eventually make a profit off of it, but reading this article there's where the problem lies. $120 million budget in advertising in 2012? Wtf? Did they do all their advertising during the Superbowl? I'm sure that advertising only partially means advertising, "paying off journalists for a good review" is probably its double meaning for over half that amount. They shouldn't be spending that much in advertising and if your game is actually good enough, you wouldn't have to pay off journalists to give you a high rating for your piece of shit title. Tomb Raider I'm certain is a good enough game to get the review scores it got without pay offs, but Final Fantasy 13-2 is the kind of game that probably got higher ratings than it should have because money changed hands.

Regardless for their reasoning, if they didn't advertise the games at all, I'm sure the company would have received more money than if they did. Journalists are going to still do their job and find out about the new game because gamers want that information. It doesn't have to be bought. Having exclusive gameplay and interviews shown on a gaming website means that people will go to that website to see it. But like I said in my post above. Poor management is the reason why they're losing money if they're even losing money.

Gamereviewgod
06-22-2013, 10:03 AM
Used games have been a fantasy problem this generation. When everything else they complained about didn't work, publishers saw an opening with irrational GameStop hate and jumped on it. Remember when Nintendo sued to prevent rentals and lost? The industry didn't implode. It grew.

For as much as publishers hate GameStop, they rush to their storefronts wit exclusives, standees, and posters. Why? There are billions of dollars waiting in trade-in credit. That's more valuable than trade-in credit from anywhere else, including private sale, because it stays in the industry. The only reason the $60 price point is workable is because of the used market. Take it away and you have less purchases and less risk taking.

And, the swirling idea that MS would drop magical price dropping fairy dust on a closed Xbox One ecosystem is a laugh. There is no incentive to lower prices. The used game market forces price drops, which is why Tomb Raider can be had for $20 used on Amazon (It's $50 on Steam) and BioShock Infinite is $40 new at GameStop ($60 on Steam). Free market creates a necessity to drop prices, and that's healthy.

This industry saw explosive growth, but only in certain areas (Call of Duty). Suddenly, budgets skyrocketed and now they're in a bind blaming the consumer. That's insulting.

BlastProcessing402
06-22-2013, 11:47 AM
Gamestop has become too big, I just dont understand why people buy there I hate it. I know i wouldnt buy a game for 5$ less than a brand new one, and I wouldnt sell it for 8$ 2 weeks later.

If you get on a buy 2 get 1 free sale, you can save a lot more than $5.

Also, GS's return policies on used games is a lot better than any store's return policy on new games. Finish it in 1 week instead of 2, you can get your entire money back.

Icarus Moonsight
06-22-2013, 04:40 PM
They are trying to use a technology that primarily facilitates inexpensive, highly efficient exchange of data and ideas globally to control and limit said exchanges. Good luck, fascists.

JSoup
06-22-2013, 05:33 PM
I know i wouldnt buy a game for 5$ less than a brand new one, and I wouldnt sell it for 8$ 2 weeks later.

I see this come up a lot in anti-GameStop discussions and it's the one point that I never understood. Sure, people do that, but if CheapAssGamers (for example) is any indication, it's hardly the majority of shoppers. More often than not, you find gamers (like me) waiting until desired games drop from $50 to $20, as the price mixes in with my perceived level of enjoyment.

BHvrd
06-22-2013, 06:17 PM
Nah, the major problem is they think they can keep shoveling crap and people will just eat it, doesn't work that way.

It's like when you go to see a film directed by Steven Spielberg, you have "expectations", same basic principle with gaming, someone has to take responsibility but these days they hide behind multiple corporations and under many different brand labels as so to avoid criticism and the fact that you will never buy "whoever made that" crap again. Problem is we don't know who it is making our games.

People aren't as dumb as they wish, that's what they are really saying.

Az
06-23-2013, 03:33 AM
Used games have been a fantasy problem this generation.

My thoughts exactly. The current rally against used games holds about as much water as the last flap of reasoning that every pirated piece of software is a lost sale. Pie in the sky bullshit I think.

People don't buy use games because they're used, they buy them because they're cheap. Most people have no problem dropping $55 on a disc only game shoved in a generic case because $55 is $5 less than $60, and they're only looking at the bottom line in their wallet. To make the assumption that the dude that bought 10 used games at Gamestop last year is suddenly going to buy 10 MSRP full-priced games this year because of some newly implemented DRM is inherently flawed. People have a finite amount of money.

If I decide my budget for X-Mas this year, I don't say I'm going to buy 6 games, I say I'm spending a set dollar amount and will buy whatever I can within that amount. If the industry views me as a dick for squandering my money on frivolous things like heat, clothing, or food, I have broad enough shoulders to carry that burden.

JakeM
06-23-2013, 06:55 AM
Gamestop treats its employees badly, so people should really go to local used game stores that will happily take the games too.

Not liking used games is just greedy/elitist of people.

kupomogli
06-23-2013, 11:32 AM
My thoughts exactly. The current rally against used games holds about as much water as the last flap of reasoning that every pirated piece of software is a lost sale. Pie in the sky bullshit I think.

Except piracy and used games are nothing alike. Piracy is duplicate copies of one game while used games are leaving one owners hand and going to another owner. There are also going to only be as many used copies as people trade in, so there are going to atleast be a portion of initial sales before people can purchase a game used. Finally, the fact that a used game is a purchase and usually one that's only $5 less at somewhere like Gamestop, there is the chance that people will also buy new. People who sold a game used may want to buy that same game back in the future to play it again, or they may have purchased DLC for the game that can't be passed over to the other user.

Piracy is stolen and usually results in the loss of a sale. While there are people who will download every single game just to keep them, most people aren't going to download a game they have no intention or no interest in playing. The excuses that they're only playing the game to see if they like it then they'll buy it is such a load of bullshit. Or the I never would have bought the game anyways excuse.

Used games do hurt sales like used books, used movies, etc, but legal ownership is being passed from one person to another. The right of sale of the publisher was given away after the first sale. Used games aren't even close to how much piracy hurts a sale though. It's hard for used games to hurt sales too much when there are less than 100,000 copies of a game sold, in comparison to the same game that's been pirated over two million times.

PROTOTYPE
06-23-2013, 11:44 AM
OK, take Time and Eternity coming out for ps3 this week, the reviews say at best a 5 out of 10...Now are you going to pay 50.00 t0 60.00 on this? No,you will wait till you can buy it used or reduce big time. The masses will buy new if the game is worth the money period!!! There was a game crash before because they kept flooding the market with crap games and they also wanted people to pay 50.00 to 60 then too.Also if the game sells big time used, they can go back as they did already and do a reprint...Now the biggest way to kill the used game market is like the PSN store, where you can get ps1, ps2, ps3 cheap. Game over..:ass:

PROTOTYPE
06-23-2013, 11:58 AM
Yea, that is sad.. but people think file sharing is OK, but we all of know its really a form of stealing deep down....Give Microsoft credit for trying to stop it this, but at the cost of the buying public.They have to slowly start doing this, not all at one time:(

TonyTheTiger
06-23-2013, 12:27 PM
Yea, that is sad.. but people think file sharing is OK, but we all of know its really a form of stealing deep down....Give Microsoft credit for trying to stop it this, but at the cost of the buying public.They have to slowly start doing this, not all at one time:(

If people want to do business in the world they have to adapt to the realities of it. I don't seek to excuse piracy or justify it, but it's as much a reality of the world as anything else, something that should be accounted for in whatever financial wizardry a publisher does to arrive at a reasonable budget. You can't calculate budgets as if piracy doesn't exist and then when you don't sell 10 million copies start to cry "piracy!" as if you were taken by surprise. (And for the record, I don't think most of these games would hit their target even if piracy didn't exist.)

"But piracy changed everything!" Yeah, well, television changed everything. The VCR changed everything. Cable TV changed everything. Cell phones changed everything. The Internet changed everything. And various forms of business have been forced to adapt or die as a result with each and every one. Hell, video games are actually in a better position than most. Because at least good video games don't have to cost $100,000,000 to produce. Meanwhile the print media industry is inching its way to extinction with not many options left at all.

needler420
06-23-2013, 02:30 PM
My thoughts exactly. The current rally against used games holds about as much water as the last flap of reasoning that every pirated piece of software is a lost sale. Pie in the sky bullshit I think.

People don't buy use games because they're used, they buy them because they're cheap. Most people have no problem dropping $55 on a disc only game shoved in a generic case because $55 is $5 less than $60, and they're only looking at the bottom line in their wallet. To make the assumption that the dude that bought 10 used games at Gamestop last year is suddenly going to buy 10 MSRP full-priced games this year because of some newly implemented DRM is inherently flawed. People have a finite amount of money.

If I decide my budget for X-Mas this year, I don't say I'm going to buy 6 games, I say I'm spending a set dollar amount and will buy whatever I can within that amount. If the industry views me as a dick for squandering my money on frivolous things like heat, clothing, or food, I have broad enough shoulders to carry that burden.

Comparing used games to piracy means you don't understand creative control nor the fundamentals of piracy.

JSoup
06-23-2013, 04:11 PM
Comparing used games to piracy means you don't understand creative control nor the fundamentals of piracy.

Being that you have such insight for both, why don't you help us to understand, hm?

needler420
06-23-2013, 06:22 PM
Being that you have such insight for both, why don't you help us to understand, hm?

To simplify it.

Used games=legal

piracy =illegal

Ed Oscuro
06-23-2013, 07:13 PM
Fuck that. If I pay hard-earned money for a game, I will do with it as I please, when I want. No company has any right to stop anyone from selling a used copy of their own game, within any timeframe. If developers don't want their games being sold used so quick, or hitting the bargain racks, THEN TRY PRODUCING A BETTER PRODUCT. Not the same repackaged sports games or sequels to over-hyped FPS games.
I like this.

Used games are good for the industry. Jack Tretton agrees - I'll take his word over some blinkered view coming from failing shareware-era developers who can only imagine the business models they've already used.

Az
06-23-2013, 09:16 PM
Except piracy and used games are nothing alike.


Comparing used games to piracy means you don't understand creative control nor the fundamentals of piracy.

Where did I say that used games and piracy are the same?

I agreed with the previous poster that used games are a "phantom problem", a boogeyman made up by game publishers that I feel is used as a scapegoat to avoid addressing the real causes of their problems. I then said that is about a similar scapegoat technique as their previous assertion that all pirated games are a lost sale.

The idea that people who download full retro-game ROM sets, dozens of 360 iso's, or a DS flash-cart jammed full of ROMs would all waltz out to their local retailer and buy every single thing they've downloaded and the only thing keeping them from doing that is a failed copy protection routine is a bit absurd. I don't know a single person who owns a device that will play copied software, whether it be PC emulation, flash cartridges, MAME cabs, or modded systems, that has only a tiny hand-picked selection of software running on it.

duffmanth
06-25-2013, 09:26 AM
Studios need to look at WHY people buy used games instead of trying to combat them. The fact is that most games are not worth anywhere near $60 for a whole host of reasons from being too short, having no replay value, shitty or no multiplayer, or just being the same crap with a different package. Studios need to start making QUALITY games that people will spend $60 on, not trade in, and feel they got their $$$$ worth. They need to get their budgets under control to, whether that's done buy execs taking pay cuts or whatever. Studios need to look at THE LAST OF US and see what a $60 game is all about.

Bojay1997
06-25-2013, 11:10 AM
Studios need to look at WHY people buy used games instead of trying to combat them. The fact is that most games are not worth anywhere near $60 for a whole host of reasons from being too short, having no replay value, shitty or no multiplayer, or just being the same crap with a different package. Studios need to start making QUALITY games that people will spend $60 on, not trade in, and feel they got their $$$$ worth. They need to get their budgets under control to, whether that's done buy execs taking pay cuts or whatever. Studios need to look at THE LAST OF US and see what a $60 game is all about.

I disagree. People buy used games for one simple reason, it's cheaper than new and it's basically the identical product. That will always be the case, as long as people have the option to buy used. It doesn't matter if MSRP on a game is $60 or $5. If someone can get essentially the same thing for even a dollar less, they will make that choice unless they are collectors or otherwise don't like used products.

duffmanth
06-25-2013, 11:42 AM
I disagree. People buy used games for one simple reason, it's cheaper than new and it's basically the identical product. That will always be the case, as long as people have the option to buy used. It doesn't matter if MSRP on a game is $60 or $5. If someone can get essentially the same thing for even a dollar less, they will make that choice unless they are collectors or otherwise don't like used products.

I know people buy used cuz it's cheaper, all I'm suggesting is that studios should create more value for the consumer for their games, and make sure their game warrants a $60 price tag, and maybe people wouldn't be so inclined to save a few bucks buying used. Just because the video game industry as a whole decides on a $60 price point for games, doesn't mean every studio out there should automatically think their game(s) are worth $60 and charge that. Ironically here in Canada, $60 for a new game is actually a deal. Ten years ago during the PS2 era, most games were $75-80 new. Back in the NES and SNES days games were high as $90-100. I guess the U.S./Canadian exchange rate was pretty out of whack back then?

Bojay1997
06-25-2013, 12:16 PM
I know people buy used cuz it's cheaper, all I'm suggesting is that studios should create more value for the consumer for their games, and make sure their game warrants a $60 price tag, and maybe people wouldn't be so inclined to save a few bucks buying used. Just because the video game industry as a whole decides on a $60 price point for games, doesn't mean every studio out there should automatically think their game(s) are worth $60 and charge that. Ironically here in Canada, $60 for a new game is actually a deal. Ten years ago during the PS2 era, most games were $75-80 new. Back in the NES and SNES days games were high as $90-100. I guess the U.S./Canadian exchange rate was pretty out of whack back then?

Having spent some time in Gamestop recently, I can say with some confidence that very few people would be influenced to buy new simply because a game is great. Most consumers don't think about supporting a publisher or developer or even who gets the money as long as they get the best possible deal on what they want. I mean I have literally watched someone pass on a new copy of a game to save $1 at Gamestop. I have also seen people trade in a massive stack of games and still barely get enough to buy even a cheap used game. Frankly, that puts developers and publishers in a bad position and while I don't agree that they are entitled to a share of used sales, I do understand their belief that they are the ones who made the entire investment in the development and publishing of a game, as well as the burden of funding development and maintenance of the servers for multiplayer. I can understand how it would trouble them that some other company (i.e. Gamestop) is reselling and profiting from a game 4-6 times and the publisher/developer is stuck with the added cost of all of those new players each time with no real source of additional revenue. I suppose that's why DLC and on-line passes continue to be huge and will only grow in the next generation.

YoshiM
06-25-2013, 02:57 PM
Wasn't there some quote from a publisher stating their opinion that "used games is the same as piracy"?

In the publisher's eyes, their game being purchased used IS like piracy because they are not getting a cut of that sale. Hence thoughts like the quote mentioned above. That used sale means no new copy was purchased, meaning they don't get the cash AND it hinders the sales rate of their game. It can skew the numbers on how the game was received and could affect budgeting and such for future titles. And probably support terrorism :-P

Just playing the devil....

Tupin
06-25-2013, 03:28 PM
Why can't more companies have Nintendo's stance of "we'll just make games you don't want to sell in the first place" instead of these childish rants from low-level PR on Twitter that result in a disaster for the company they represent?

Bojay1997
06-25-2013, 03:31 PM
Wasn't there some quote from a publisher stating their opinion that "used games is the same as piracy"?

In the publisher's eyes, their game being purchased used IS like piracy because they are not getting a cut of that sale. Hence thoughts like the quote mentioned above. That used sale means no new copy was purchased, meaning they don't get the cash AND it hinders the sales rate of their game. It can skew the numbers on how the game was received and could affect budgeting and such for future titles. And probably support terrorism :-P

Just playing the devil....

They're not wrong. Well, except about the piracy part, although the economic effect is probably even worse because the people buying used may have actually purchased the new copy if they had no other legal choice where I suspect most pirates probably wouldn't buy much of anything even if it was incredibly cheap. Having said that, the used thing has been part of recorded media since the beginning, so the publishers and developers are the ones who need to adapt and whether that means creating lower budget games or extending franchises through licensed merchandise or movies or creating game expansion DLC (rather than garbage like character skins or stuff that was already part of the main game and cutting it to sell DLC), they do have some avenues to explore with regard to creating profits without going after used sales. As other forum members have noted, even if used sales were totally killed, it would only be a temporary solution because eventually developers would grow their budgets to encompass that new income and they'd be faced with the same issue once again.

Bojay1997
06-25-2013, 03:35 PM
Why can't more companies have Nintendo's stance of "we'll just make games you don't want to sell in the first place" instead of these childish rants from low-level PR on Twitter that result in a disaster for the company they represent?

I don't think there's much evidence that the retention rate/new vs. used sales rate is different on Nintendo consoles compared to other consoles. In fact, every time I go into Gamestop, I see people trading in stacks of 3DS and DS games and buying used 3DS and Wii or WiiU games. Nintendo has just squeezed more profit out of hardware over the years and refuses to reduce MSRP on its first party titles until they release Player's Choice or similar versions, so they make a better margin on their games, especially since there is very little third party competition on those platforms.

duffmanth
06-25-2013, 04:12 PM
Having spent some time in Gamestop recently, I can say with some confidence that very few people would be influenced to buy new simply because a game is great. Most consumers don't think about supporting a publisher or developer or even who gets the money as long as they get the best possible deal on what they want. I mean I have literally watched someone pass on a new copy of a game to save $1 at Gamestop. I have also seen people trade in a massive stack of games and still barely get enough to buy even a cheap used game. Frankly, that puts developers and publishers in a bad position and while I don't agree that they are entitled to a share of used sales, I do understand their belief that they are the ones who made the entire investment in the development and publishing of a game, as well as the burden of funding development and maintenance of the servers for multiplayer. I can understand how it would trouble them that some other company (i.e. Gamestop) is reselling and profiting from a game 4-6 times and the publisher/developer is stuck with the added cost of all of those new players each time with no real source of additional revenue. I suppose that's why DLC and on-line passes continue to be huge and will only grow in the next generation.


Oh I know how cheap people can be, as I use to work in a game store. I actually had people go to the Walmart down the street to save 93 cents on a $70 game.

ThatMan
07-09-2013, 11:17 AM
Gamestop has become too big, I just dont understand why people buy there I hate it. I know i wouldnt buy a game for 5$ less than a brand new one, and I wouldnt sell it for 8$ 2 weeks later.

I don't see your point.

The alternatives aren't that much better (at least in my view!). Best Buy and Wal-Mart have issues with trading things in (I'm not even sure you can do that there) and using E-bay and Amazon is very unpredictable and requires up to (at most) a month of waiting.

The fact that you can't trade in PC games really sucks, though.

But hey, all major stores suck to some noteworthy degree.

Buyatari
07-11-2013, 01:31 AM
Used games will go away or will require a new activation every time they trade hands.

Not this gen it seems but it is just a matter of time. Some gamers can refuse to play along but when the new gotta have it titles are bought up by the general public these game companies won't even notice those who refuse to play along are gone.

It sucks that cosoles will become glorified cable boxes but that is how it will play out.

Just a matter of when..

Nature Boy
07-11-2013, 08:33 AM
The easiest way to solve all of this, is to have a 60 day waiting period. No used game sales are allowed within 60 days of a games release. Once a game has been on the market for 61 days, you can sell, trade, etc, etc.

When I read this at first I thought it was stupid, as I immediately thought 'how could you possibly enforce that'? (Even before I saw the post immediately after).

Digital sales only for the first 1-3 months, maybe a year? Then release a hard copy, maybe at a lesser price like they do anyway after a game has been out for a year.

I'm sure they've thought of it. Heck it happens now really, just not with the so called 'AAA' titles. I've bought at least 2 games like this (The Journey collection, and the Walking Dead Collection), both of which sold well in their digital form but couldn't be traded in, and are now available on physical media, but won't earn the Gamestops of the world much in revenue even if they sell a few.

It would be a stopgap until they go all digital - you know, like a way to ease the market into becomming more and more comfortable with digital only sales.

Bojay1997
07-11-2013, 12:01 PM
When I read this at first I thought it was stupid, as I immediately thought 'how could you possibly enforce that'? (Even before I saw the post immediately after).

Digital sales only for the first 1-3 months, maybe a year? Then release a hard copy, maybe at a lesser price like they do anyway after a game has been out for a year.

I'm sure they've thought of it. Heck it happens now really, just not with the so called 'AAA' titles. I've bought at least 2 games like this (The Journey collection, and the Walking Dead Collection), both of which sold well in their digital form but couldn't be traded in, and are now available on physical media, but won't earn the Gamestops of the world much in revenue even if they sell a few.

It would be a stopgap until they go all digital - you know, like a way to ease the market into becomming more and more comfortable with digital only sales.

Actually Nintendo just did this with the Super Luigi WiiU release. It's already out on digital, but if you want the disc, it won't be released until the end of next month.

PreZZ
07-12-2013, 10:44 PM
I think a big part of the problem is publishers re-releasing the same game on 2 and 3 differnent skus(goty, dlc, collection) you know that when you buy a AAA title the day it comes out its gonna be worth 10$ by the end of the year of its release when they release more "complete" editions. Whats the value of borderlands 1 on consoles? 2.99? I wouldnt even pay a dollar for it. Publishers should look at Nintendo to keep the value of their games high, not mass selling them at 19.99 or less new. Last month I have bought brand new sealed games at my local Microplay gamestore for ridiculous prices
Resident evil 6 ps3 9.99
street fighter x tekken vita 4.99
aliens colonial marines ps3 9.99
syndicate ps3 4.99
transformers fall of cybertron 360 9.99
shadows of the damned ps3 4.99
final fantasy XIII-2 ps3 4.99
spec ops the line premium edition 360 9.99

I bought all these games that are fairly recent and a lot of them less than a year old for 60$, the price of a single release. 8 games for the price of one. I cant recall a generation of consoles with such low prices and value, maybe the fact that this generation has been going on for 8 years now (and still going on for at least 2 years) is part of the problem. In the first 3 years of ps3\360 there wasnt a single game selling for less than 49.99 on sale, and you can bet your ass that next gen will be the same for the first years.

Bojay1997
07-13-2013, 01:26 AM
I think a big part of the problem is publishers re-releasing the same game on 2 and 3 differnent skus(goty, dlc, collection) you know that when you buy a AAA title the day it comes out its gonna be worth 10$ by the end of the year of its release when they release more "complete" editions. Whats the value of borderlands 1 on consoles? 2.99? I wouldnt even pay a dollar for it. Publishers should look at Nintendo to keep the value of their games high, not mass selling them at 19.99 or less new. Last month I have bought brand new sealed games at my local Microplay gamestore for ridiculous prices
Resident evil 6 ps3 9.99
street fighter x tekken vita 4.99
aliens colonial marines ps3 9.99
syndicate ps3 4.99
transformers fall of cybertron 360 9.99
shadows of the damned ps3 4.99
final fantasy XIII-2 ps3 4.99
spec ops the line premium edition 360 9.99

I bought all these games that are fairly recent and a lot of them less than a year old for 60$, the price of a single release. 8 games for the price of one. I cant recall a generation of consoles with such low prices and value, maybe the fact that this generation has been going on for 8 years now (and still going on for at least 2 years) is part of the problem. In the first 3 years of ps3\360 there wasnt a single game selling for less than 49.99 on sale, and you can bet your ass that next gen will be the same for the first years.

I think it's interesting that Nintendo keeps coming up in this thread despite the fact that the WiiU has sold very poorly and the software has sold so poorly that Ubisoft is no longer releasing Rayman as an exclusive and won't do a sequel to ZombiiU. Nintendo may maintain MSRP on its games for longer than other publishers, but it sure hasn't helped them with the WiiU.