Treyarch: Beat Used Game Sales With Great Multiplayer

[John Funk]

Treyarch: Beat Used Game Sales With Great Multiplayer

Call of Duty developer Treyarch thinks that the best way for a publisher to combat pre-owned game sales is via quality and an excellent multiplayer mode.

In case you've missed it, the GameStop (et al) used game market has been a bit of a hot-button issue [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100797-THQ-Joins-the-Used-Game-Fight] in the industry lately. Publishers and developers complain that it cuts them out of the loop entirely, while retailers and many consumers say that it is their legal right to sell and buy pre-owned titles.

While some houses like THQ and Electronic Arts have started to include download codes that can only be redeemed once for extra content - or sometimes for the full multiplayer - in order to dissuade used-game buyers, not all developers agree. Call of Duty: Black Ops developer Treyarch thinks that developers should focus on producing a great game that players won't want to trade in rather than penalizing used game buyers with special codes.

Speaking with MCV last week [http://www.mcvuk.com/news/40797/Can-multiplayer-stem-pre-owned], Treyarch boss Mark Lamia said that if his studio did its job with Black Ops, gamers would want to keep playing. "I want to take [Project Ten Dollar et al] in the other direction and bring consumers really great reasons to keep their games, rather than trade them in," he said.

"Multiplayer is critical to the success of this series. It has such tremendous staying power - there are millions of people playing Call of Duty every day. It's entertaining people on a magnitude that's mind-blowing and we work really hard to make sure it's supported for a long time."

That support is the key, said Lamia - a developer can't just put out a multiplayer mode and forget it exists. "We have a team that continues to work on [the multiplayer] for World At War. We've done that for a long time and expect to do so for this game ... we're going to support the hell out of Black Ops. That will be our focus post-release: making sure we keep our fans engaged, and hopefully as a result, they'll want to keep playing our game and won't want to trade it in."

Will we see any pre-owned codes designed to limit access to multiplayer in the anticipated online shooter? Not a chance, says Lamia. "You won't see that for Black Ops ... the multiplayer comes with the game you buy - you don't have to do anything else for that."

That's not to say we won't see DLC [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/102628-Activision-Joins-the-Anti-Used-Games-Crusade] after launch, but I suspect the idea of paying for additional content creation will sit better with more gamers than getting locked out of key features for buying a pre-owned copy would.

(MCV [http://www.mcvuk.com/news/40797/Can-multiplayer-stem-pre-owned])

Permalink

 

[icyneesan]

So, there plan is to make... A really good video game?

I'm okay with this.

 

[Jonny49]

Good point if you ask me. Not having anything to do is the reason I trade many games in, no point keeping it if I'm not going to play it.

 

[Alandoril]

NOOOOOO! Not even more focus on multiplayer!

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

Yeah, I'm not interested in even more focus on multiplayer, but for some games it makes sense. For a game like Call of Duty, you simply aren't going to be able to make the single player so compelling that people want to keep playing it over and over.

 

[Worgen]

well, they arnt wrong I suppose

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

So, wait?

The plan is NOT TO HAVE THE GAME TRADED IN?

They're actually onto something.

No matter how much I know that I'm not likely to replay Mafia 2...I don't want to trade it in.

 

[Therumancer]

Actually the obvious solution would be for the game industry to lower prices, given that the major reason for the used game trade is the substantial expense. Used games help the original buyer reduce the cost of gaming by selling the game when they are done with it, and let others buy the game for a lower price when they couldn't afford the cost of a new game.

All of these ideas by the game industry miss the underlying reasons for the used game trade to begin with. No amount of "incentive" is going to put more money in people's pockets.

What's more, I think one of the big issues is that the game industry has gotten used to monster profits. Making more money than they spent is no longer the goal in of itself, they need to hit certain projected margins to consider something a success, and such attitudes are ruining the entire industry. Claiming you lost money because you projected 40 million dollars in profit and only made 10 million is frankly ridiculous. Of course part of the problem is doubtlessly bad management, with game companies borrowing against potential profits they may never see and creating desperate situations for themselves (like many businesses).

The big question here should be whether or not lowering the prices and the sales that would bring in would yield higher results than selling to a smaller market at the current prices. If it wouldn't, they might as well just leave things alone as they are.

See, the problem with the entire used-game crusade, is that developers make the false assumption that if used games were not there, those people would be buying new copies for the full price. That logic is faulty to the extreme, serious gamers with the money are going to buy the games they want as soon as possible. Those who wait for games to drop in price in a used bin typically can't afford to buy games hot off the presses, and no amount of DLC or Multi-player passcodes are going to change that.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Whilst I believe a focus on quality rather than quantity to be no bad thing in and of itself I find myself agreeing with:

NOOOOOO! Not even more focus on multiplayer!

The single player experience has already been severely neglected by the industry in favour of multiplayer, and this approach by Treyarch will only make matters worse.

 

[Meggiepants]

I think this is why Halo 3 was still getting so much used in places like Gamestop a year after it was released. People are reluctant to sell back a game they are still enjoying.

If you make a game people want to hang onto, then you are less likely to lose money to used sales. Not only that, but you are likely to be able to sell more DLC.

I don't think it only requires multiplayer though. I think that is just one way to do it. Making a great replayable game also works well, as does promising support for that game via excellent forthcoming DLC. I know I will hold on to Fallout New Vegas forever because I love the game and because I hope some great DLC will come out later.

 

[SNIPERFOX ft. Harry P.Ness]

the plan is to make i good game.









well, thats awsome.

 

[Daveman]

I don't know where I stand as I only ever buy games that are pre-owned or in a steam sale. I also therefore never trade in any games.

Frankly I think they just need to realise how fast games depreciate in value. There is no way MW2 should still be selling for only about £5 less than what it was originally worth, especially with a NEW game just about to be released. It should by now be about half price, that'd make me want to buy it new rather than pre-owned.

 

[Irridium]

Or they could just reduce the price of games at regular intervals. That would cause more people to buy the games, and put the squeeze on the used games market.

But don't ***** about consumers trying to save as much money as they can in a bad economy. Games are expensive, so don't ***** when people are buying new to save money. Reduce your prices at regular intervals, and more people will buy new.

Of course thats logical and smart so it'll be ignored.

 

[Serving UpSmiles]

Or they could just reduce the price of games at regular intervals. That would cause more people to buy the games, and put the squeeze on the used games market.

But don't ***** about consumers trying to save as much money as they can in a bad economy. Games are expensive, so don't ***** when people are buying new to save money. Reduce your prices at regular intervals, and more people will buy new.

Of course thats logical and smart so it'll be ignored.

People will still want to buy second hand games if it promises a lower price.

 

[tk1989]

Or they could just reduce the price of games at regular intervals. That would cause more people to buy the games, and put the squeeze on the used games market.

But don't ***** about consumers trying to save as much money as they can in a bad economy. Games are expensive, so don't ***** when people are buying new to save money. Reduce your prices at regular intervals, and more people will buy new.

Of course thats logical and smart so it'll be ignored.

Why drop the price on a game which is still selling loads at its full price point? Dropping the prices of games at fixed intervals isnt that great an idea; dropping the price is useful once the product sales drop, when a competitor is released, or when the market starts to saturate. Dropping the price of a game if its still selling loads just doesnt make sense; look at all these nintendo games which keep selling well week after week, or even the Wii itself, which i still dont think has undergone a price cut.

 

[Irridium]

Or they could just reduce the price of games at regular intervals. That would cause more people to buy the games, and put the squeeze on the used games market.

But don't ***** about consumers trying to save as much money as they can in a bad economy. Games are expensive, so don't ***** when people are buying new to save money. Reduce your prices at regular intervals, and more people will buy new.

Of course thats logical and smart so it'll be ignored.

People will still want to buy second hand games if it promises a lower price.

Yes but people don't really like dealing with Gamestop. If the new copy keeps getting lower, more people will end up buying it new.

Or they could just reduce the price of games at regular intervals. That would cause more people to buy the games, and put the squeeze on the used games market.

But don't ***** about consumers trying to save as much money as they can in a bad economy. Games are expensive, so don't ***** when people are buying new to save money. Reduce your prices at regular intervals, and more people will buy new.

Of course thats logical and smart so it'll be ignored.

Why drop the price on a game which is still selling loads at its full price point? Dropping the prices of games at fixed intervals isnt that great an idea; dropping the price is useful once the product sales drop, when a competitor is released, or when the market starts to saturate. Dropping the price of a game if its still selling loads just doesnt make sense; look at all these nintendo games which keep selling well week after week, or even the Wii itself, which i still dont think has undergone a price cut.

Dropping the price also causes insane amounts of the game to sell, if Steam sales are any indication. Team Fortress 2 repeatedly made back the amount it cost to make when it was put on sale. Same with plenty of other games that went on sale.

Yes its a business and the goal is to make money. But this is life in a tough economy and people are trying to save money. If the price is low either at launch or lowered over time, more people will buy it, and they will have more money which they could use to buy more games.

 

[tk1989]

Or they could just reduce the price of games at regular intervals. That would cause more people to buy the games, and put the squeeze on the used games market.

But don't ***** about consumers trying to save as much money as they can in a bad economy. Games are expensive, so don't ***** when people are buying new to save money. Reduce your prices at regular intervals, and more people will buy new.

Of course thats logical and smart so it'll be ignored.

Why drop the price on a game which is still selling loads at its full price point? Dropping the prices of games at fixed intervals isnt that great an idea; dropping the price is useful once the product sales drop, when a competitor is released, or when the market starts to saturate. Dropping the price of a game if its still selling loads just doesnt make sense; look at all these nintendo games which keep selling well week after week, or even the Wii itself, which i still dont think has undergone a price cut.

Dropping the price also causes insane amounts of the game to sell, if Steam sales are any indication. Team Fortress 2 repeatedly made back the amount it cost to make when it was put on sale. Same with plenty of other games that went on sale.

Yes its a business and the goal is to make money. But this is life in a tough economy and people are trying to save money. If the price is low either at launch or lowered over time, more people will buy it, and they will have more money which they could use to buy more games.

Team Fortress 2 was being sold through Steam however, which is run by Valve, maximising profits making it easier to get the money back. It also cant be resold, as its a digital download, meaning that valve get money for every copy sold regardless. Valve also have a great deal invested in Steam as a whole, so they will frequently drop prices in order to bring in new customers.

The digital downloads market is very very different to that of retail, and your analogy is unfair. Granted, if the price of a game in a shop drops from £40 to £20, sales will undoubtably increase. Why would a company do this however if the sales of the game are already pretty high? You were saying that prices should be lowered at regular intervals, but why do this if sales are already very high?

 

[Autofaux]

Treyarch boss Mark Lamia said that if his studio did its job with Black Ops, gamers would want to keep playing. "I want to take [Project Ten Dollar et al] in the other direction and bring consumers really great reasons to keep their games, rather than trade them in," he said.

Lamia does realise that in order to play his studio's fantastic wonderful multiplayer (hrm), millions will buy it used. Making a great game doesn't stop people from wanting it for less money...

Project Ten Dollar, and new copy DLC are a better alternative, and GameStop's "great" used deals are a joke anyway. Five dollars off is not my idea of a good deal.

 

[Irridium]

Or they could just reduce the price of games at regular intervals. That would cause more people to buy the games, and put the squeeze on the used games market.

But don't ***** about consumers trying to save as much money as they can in a bad economy. Games are expensive, so don't ***** when people are buying new to save money. Reduce your prices at regular intervals, and more people will buy new.

Of course thats logical and smart so it'll be ignored.

Why drop the price on a game which is still selling loads at its full price point? Dropping the prices of games at fixed intervals isnt that great an idea; dropping the price is useful once the product sales drop, when a competitor is released, or when the market starts to saturate. Dropping the price of a game if its still selling loads just doesnt make sense; look at all these nintendo games which keep selling well week after week, or even the Wii itself, which i still dont think has undergone a price cut.

Dropping the price also causes insane amounts of the game to sell, if Steam sales are any indication. Team Fortress 2 repeatedly made back the amount it cost to make when it was put on sale. Same with plenty of other games that went on sale.

Yes its a business and the goal is to make money. But this is life in a tough economy and people are trying to save money. If the price is low either at launch or lowered over time, more people will buy it, and they will have more money which they could use to buy more games.

Team Fortress 2 was being sold through Steam however, which is run by Valve, maximising profits making it easier to get the money back. It also cant be resold, as its a digital download, meaning that valve get money for every copy sold regardless. Valve also have a great deal invested in Steam as a whole, so they will frequently drop prices in order to bring in new customers.

The digital downloads market is very very different to that of retail, and your analogy is unfair. Granted, if the price of a game in a shop drops from £40 to £20, sales will undoubtably increase. Why would a company do this however if the sales of the game are already pretty high? You were saying that prices should be lowered at regular intervals, but why do this if sales are already very high?

It wouldn't be too smart to do if sales are high. However since most publishers are complaining about used sales, it seems sales aren't too high, which is why it would be smart for them to lower price.