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

[geelw]

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/article...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]

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/article...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]

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]

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]

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]

Does this mean anything in the world shouldn't be able to be sold second hand? I don't think so.

[WCP]

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]

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]

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]

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/article...n-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]

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]

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

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/article...n-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.