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

[PROTOTYPE]

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..

[PROTOTYPE]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Just playing the devil....

[Tupin]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.