56% of American Gamers Don't Buy Games
- Thread starter Hevva
- Start date
Yeah, okay what I said was more for dramatic effect then literally what I meant. Games are affected by supply and demand as much as film, music, cars etc.Baresark said:
However I will not agree with you that the game industry is somehow lacklustre in output compared to other industries. That is baloney. There are crap cars, crap songs, crap films and crap books (that sell really well). What each of these industries have is a unique conduit to make a profit (or at least break even).
*Music, as I said, has Radio (local/national) and Tours that rake in money. The former is public and would be taking massive risks in illegally reselling their music, the latter is a unique experience that is demanded by many, scalped tickets not even denting the honest festival/concert goer spending (don't forget all the branding and product placement that occurs here, Coca Cola and such has to pay to get their product in). In this case, outside of CD sales or Digital Downloads, Music still earns cash.
*Film has Theatre/Cinema, a singular experience that cannot be matched at home (unless you have a cinema at home). You constantly hear about films being "smash hits" or "breaking the box office". A good chunk of earnings from Theatrical releases go right back to the film industry. Films are also purchased by T.V stations and few other public services which also send money back to the film industry. There is also a notable degradation in quality for most pirated films (especially camcorder piracy during theatrical releases)
*Cars are not the same as games/film/music at all. Yes there are used car sales, but did you stop to note how rare it is to find a used 2011 car in 2011 (the first year, or months even, is where the future is decided for that specific product line/brand)? Or what people think when they see a used 2011 car in 2011? People buy cars usually with expectations of long term use. The Car industry also DOES NOT SUFFER FROM PIRACY. They may suffer from shoddy knockoffs coming from china/eastern europe, but they are not easily purchased.
ALSO, second hand sales of cars can still send money back to the manufacturers. How? Because sometimes people still need to get spare parts, or need some other service offered by the manufacturer of your used car. Also, Used cars can also be sold at the Named Retailers of the manufacturers (Toyota show rooms may have Toyota used cars.) They also sell cars (used and new) at incredibly high markups over the cost of manufacturing.
-Also as far as I know, cars are not made in surplus (like games), usually only a couple thousand units being built initially and future sales been decided based on how that stock sells globally.
*Books are the only other industry I can think of that share a similar Retail/Consumer/Producer relationship as games. But the cost of production is tiny in comparison and is pioneered by authors and not teams of people, so the mark up is more enticing for consumers (10-20 bucks for 10-20+ hours of reading is acceptable, unlike 50+ bucks for 5-20 hours of gaming as standard).
Where do games get the moolah? From single hardcopy/digital purchase by individuals in retail or online stores. There is no other method of note to earn their keep beyond DLC and other less favoured methods. Pirated copies are as good as the new products and sometimes even better with the removal of security features, there is no public outlet that offers a unique experience over home use and online stores like Steam and Origin (impulse and some others too) are the only outlets that are entirely run by the game industry, unlike Gamestop and Game who are a separate industry, though symbiotic (parasitic if you're feeling cynical) in nature with the industry.
I'm sorry, but what? You are saying that people are showing a disinterest in AAA titles? Really? Explain 2nd hand sales then (of AAA titles, since indie titles can't be sold 2nd hand), explain the successes of CoD MP and it's DLC and the likes of Gears of War, Halo, Battlefield, Mass Effect, Mario, Zelda, Batman: AC, GTA, Red Dead, L.A Noir, Fallout 3/NV, The Elder Scrolls, Half Life, Starcraft, World of Warcraft, Warhammer Online, Fifa (insert number here) NBA (insert number here) NFL (number), Gran Turismo etc. etc. etc.Athinira said:
-Please, also explain to me why someone would buy a 2nd hand AAA game for 2 euro/5 Dollars less then the New release over the new release that actually goes back into the industry rather then the retailer. The answer is really simple, lack of knowledge. Why invest in the distributor only at the expense of the supplier... logically that makes no sense at all.
Indie games? Minecraft, Meatboy, Plants v Zombies, Bejeweled (the biggest of the bunch) Angry Birds etc. All of which have sold really well that is true... but it does not mean a shift in demand.
People still want big budget fancy textured, HD 3D surround sound audio, A list celeb voiceovered, AAA games. The fact that 2nd hand sales are doing so well is PROOF of this. if people didn't want to spend money on something THEY WOULDN'T.
As for your example that the Game industry shares the same burdens as other industries, read my response above to the other guy. But I'll break apart the things you mentioned too:
*Furniture: Aside from the average customer, where else would Furniture Manufacturers be able to market their stuff? Well, pretty much anywhere people would want to sit (go into town, look around... how many chairs do you see? Do you think they are all bought 2nd hand?). Add tables, light fixtures, desks, drawers, pressers etc. to these same areas and you can, hopefully, see where they make their earnings. That isn't to say it's a stable market, aside from the juggernauts like Ikea plenty of small manufacturers are just about breaking even and those that don't die off.
In this case, 2nd hand sales are not detrimental because there is always a need for specifically designed furniture (for themes) or modern designs (for offices, cafes etc.)... I also think furniture piracy is fairly weak in the grand scheme of things compared to film/music/games.
*Electronic Devices. When was the last time you bought a graphics card 2nd hand? Unlike games/films/music, something frivolous and forgettable more often then not and for more people then less, the devices we use them in are highly scrutinised. The 2nd hand market for digital products is extremely weak (people will not spend 80-90% of the "new" price on a 2nd hand device, 60-70% is the cut off... this is not the case for games). Honestly tell me this, aside from pawn shops and cash n' carry's (if your in the UK/Ireland) where is the equivalent to Gamestop, Game, Electronics Boutique, that offer BOTH the new items and the slightly cheaper new items. The only examples I can think of are dedicated 2nd hand retailers and are few in number and variety. When was the last time you bought a 2nd hand Sony device from a Sony Store? You didn't... ever.
2nd hand sales, again, is weak in this market. People also rarely share their devices with friends, though family exchanges (Phone hand-me-downs, unused appliances if moving etc.) aren't unheard of.
You can read what I said above from this point on... I'm too tired to continue with this.
I qualified the statement with the word 'most', so no. Some publishers produce games of sufficient quality to actually merit a new purchase without having resorting to measures like online passes or pack-in DLC (though I only seriously object to the former). Bethesda and Valve are two examples.Yopaz said:
I don't even object to companies like Rockstar putting bonus missions into their games, because I trust Rockstar to make the core game actually -good-.
Is anyone? If so, those people are idiots.
Yes and yes. I agree.
I didn't claim they shouldn't be able to (in the case of bonus DLC, at least), I said I wouldn't cry if they go bankrupt. I'm usually a new buyer, but I refuse to buy a game with an online pass packed in. That's capitalism. I'm not compelled to give a rat's ass about the welfare of a large corporation if they produce a shitty product like EA is so wont to do.
Dear games industry,
the cost to print a disc and inlay is prectically nothing.
sell those games cheaper from the start, many more peole will take a risk and buy new. Might even shift enough to have higher profits than $45/$60
Or stagger lowering the price in a regular the consumer knows when to expect it. if i knew a platinum edition will be released after 6 months at half the price, I'd wait rather than buy used
signed
A. Gamer
the cost to print a disc and inlay is prectically nothing.
sell those games cheaper from the start, many more peole will take a risk and buy new. Might even shift enough to have higher profits than $45/$60
Or stagger lowering the price in a regular the consumer knows when to expect it. if i knew a platinum edition will be released after 6 months at half the price, I'd wait rather than buy used
signed
A. Gamer
Normally i'd come to the defense of publishers and developers, but a motherfucking $60 for another motherfucking modern war shooter is going too far. If i feel a game is worth it's price then i'll trumpet it from the fucking rooftops, but as things are now, the asking price for new games is too high.
Wow. Someone who understands the free market? On this forum? You get a cookie.Athinira said:
What interests me is how 'new purchase' DLC doesn't necessarily create an increase in sales. Companies should be looking to slight price drops to help them out. Hell, even dropping ten bucks off a triple A title would spike purchases.
I think we can all agree that used game sales and sharing are cutting down on the profit a publisher makes. The disagreement comes from how much this effects the publisher and/or whether it is a bad thing.
What many people can agree on is that we, as gamers, do not need another One Shot Wonder 4: The Pursuit of More Cash. So if forcing a publisher to tighten its belt causes some game series to actually end I call it a win.
If publishers want to make more profit maybe they should stop hiring armies of apparently incompetent people to design their games. Think about it: take any first person shooter(or third person for that matter)series and compare any two consecutive titles in that series and answer the following questions about the latest one. Are the graphics better?(a little bit) Are there a lot of new guns?(a few extra) Is there a radical change in what you can do in the game or how it plays?(no) Is the writing and character dialogue more clever and/or more prominent and numerous?(no)
So given your answers to these questions answer this last one: Can you justify why the sequel has a development team as large or even larger than the previous game's?
What many people can agree on is that we, as gamers, do not need another One Shot Wonder 4: The Pursuit of More Cash. So if forcing a publisher to tighten its belt causes some game series to actually end I call it a win.
If publishers want to make more profit maybe they should stop hiring armies of apparently incompetent people to design their games. Think about it: take any first person shooter(or third person for that matter)series and compare any two consecutive titles in that series and answer the following questions about the latest one. Are the graphics better?(a little bit) Are there a lot of new guns?(a few extra) Is there a radical change in what you can do in the game or how it plays?(no) Is the writing and character dialogue more clever and/or more prominent and numerous?(no)
So given your answers to these questions answer this last one: Can you justify why the sequel has a development team as large or even larger than the previous game's?
I don't know about everyone else, but the reason I don't buy new is because I can't afford to. basic economics says that you won't sell a product if people aren't willing to pay for it. focus on the cheeper aspects of game creation like story, creativity, things to do besides shoot people, etc. and less on the super powerful expensive graphics and cut the price a bit and new game sales will skyrocket. I know people who are failing my first year economics class in college who could solve this problem.
Because they don't have the money, that's why.Ragsnstitches said:
If you had actually understood my post, i very clearly explained that customers have a limited amount of disposable cash available. I didn't say people were disinterested in AAA titles. I said there just wasn't a demand for it. In economics, "demand" is NOT the same as "interest". I'm sure there is plenty of people who are interested in owning a speed boat that they can impress chicks with. That doesn't mean they can afford one.
Bottom line is that the game industry is pumping so many money into making big-title games, that they have to sell those games very expensively. And when all you give the consumer is $50-$60 games, then it's obvious they can't afford them all, and it makes it harder for you to break even because everyone else and their dog is also spitting out AAA titles. Result: The consumer spends some of his money on some cheaper games (indie games, possibly old AAA titles that are now on steam sales for 25% of their original cost), and gets your brand-new $60 AAA title through piracy or resale.
So what I'm essentially saying is that if the game industry hopes to make more of a profit, they need to start spending so many money on making the games. Yes in some ways this sucks for us, the consumers, too, because games on a cheaper budget are often less technically impressive. But at the end of the day, we simply can't afford all of the AAA titles, so if the companies want to make more money, they need to lower their expenses, because we (the consumers) certainly aren't going to increase our income out of the blue, and to us, the goal is to get as many games as possible for as cheap a price as possible. Sure, some AAA titles will float, and you mentioned a lot of them (CoD, Battlefield etc.) but for every one of them, there is another AAA title that just managed to break even or was a financial fiasco. When the customer is out of money to buy, the only way to increase your turnover is to decrease your expenses.
That isn't even close to a realistic, average example and you know it.Draech said:
Yeah no. Publishers have dealt with the same issues for decades and are only now deciding that it's a problem. At present they are making more money than they have at any point in gaming history. It's just greed and lack of long-term perspective.
You assume people who buy used will buy new if they can no longer buy used. This will most certainly NOT happen.Draech said:
Yeah Valve doesn't have to deal with used sales, but they do have to deal with piracy, which is far, FAR worse. With used sales there's 1 copy, and only one going between a few people in the span of months, maybe years. And the publisher already got paid for that copy. With pirated copies, 1 copy can be copied millions of times to millions of people, in a few hours, and chances are they didn't get any money from that one copy since most are leaked before release. Valve managed to make Russia their second largest market in Europe, a country seen by many as pirate-heavy. They beat it by offering a better deal, something publisher's are not doing with used sales.
Why should people buy from Valve/Steam when they could get the pirated copy for free? Because Valve offers the better deal.
Why should people buy console games new? There isn't a good argument for why they should buy new.
Lowering the price would be a good reason, but there are lots of others. Like giving repeat customers benefits. Giving new customers benefits. In other industries, these are known as "customer benefits", and are used to keep people buying from you. These could include anything from coupons for reduced prices for future games, special codes to redeem on their own service(like, say, Origin. Buy Battlefield 3 new, get a code for one free game from Origin). You know, give people reasons to keep buying new, or from you personally.
Perhaps the industry should look into this.
Just like you'd share a book or a film when you've finished it, then.
I wouldn't read too much into this. It's normal behaviour, just an indication that games have become more socially widespread. Sharing things you legitimately own is not a crime. Or do publishers intend on criminalising that, too?
I wouldn't read too much into this. It's normal behaviour, just an indication that games have become more socially widespread. Sharing things you legitimately own is not a crime. Or do publishers intend on criminalising that, too?
...oh fuck, this is going to help the industry validate its' horrific methods to stop used games
