56% of American Gamers Don't Buy Games

[Xannieros]

How about lowering prices of new games? When PC games made that jump from $50 to $60, I stopped buying new. Or at least I wait until a sale. I love you steam sales.

 

[RJ Dalton]

So, I notice that in all these studies that people do, they never tell you how the study was done, how large their sample was, where they got their sample, how randomized and all sorts of things that you need to know in order to determine if the study is valid. I'm starting to think that these "studies" are manipulated to give the people doing them the answers they want.

 

[Conza]

Interesting, it doesn't work too well for PC games (unless they are pirated, but then they weren't purchased originally either).

I suppose there are fewer PC gamers than I thought? No, I don't think so, I think this poll must'nt take them into account, or if it does, it is saying that almost all PC games are pirated...

 

[Pandabearparade]

The 60$ is there for a reason.

Your point, summed up, is "making games is expensive stuff!"

I agree. That doesn't justify a $60 price tag logically. The cost of the game isn't in the disc, it's entirely in production. Cutting the price of new games would significantly increase the market for said new games. I will put a lot less thought into a game that costs $40 than one that costs $60.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Hunh...

I dont think used games are so much to worry about as publishers think they are or make them out ot be. You already collected the price on that new game. Publishers seem to forget that you cant have used without new, and I'd be willing to say that a good portion of bought used games are bought past the point where the publisher has to worry about making mad cash off it to justify development.

EDIT: then again the last time I paid full price on a new game was Catherine, and thats only cause I wanted to support the Persona team and SMT so much.

 

[Warachia]

OK, I call Bullshit, and thanks to Matthew Anderson in the Facebook comments who said everything I was going to say:

"This story is INCREDIBLY misleading. Try actually reading the datapoints.

56% of console gamers who play games do not buy them, and it includes active sharing of games in families and friends. What does this actually say? Very little actually, because there's no control for people who buy games for other people, say for example, a parent buys games for his kids to play who aren't old enough to play games. If the parent plays too and there's 3 kids, that's one paying gamer and 2 non-paying. If not, then it's 0 paying gamers and two non-paying. That skews the data A LOT.

Furthermore, THIS STORY OUTRIGHT LIES. the "85% buys a significant number of pre-owned games" is from a different population then the 44% that buy games. It includes MAC, PC, and console gamers, not console gamers. This is relevant because console games are much easier to share in a unit.

This is even more misleading because it's directly stated that from the 44% who pay for console games, 65% of that is spent on brand new games, 23 % is on used, 12% on DLC. So a net 77% of money spent on video games is being divided up in a way that includes money going to publishers and developers.

The first point is horrible data interpretation, the second point is shameless lying or not reading the report, both are completely shameful. I guess I know not to trust escapist, gamespot actually bothered to break down the numbers in their article."

Thanks.

 

[mr.mystery]

I bought batman new and loved it. I bought RAGE new and regretted it. Some games are worth it. Like the Hardened edition of MW3. some arent like Bulletstorm.

 

[SelectivelyEvil13]

Hunh...

I dont think used games are so much to worry about as publishers think they are or make them out ot be. You already collected the price on that new game. Publishers seem to forget that you cant have used without new, and I'd be willing to say that a good portion of bought used games are bought past the point where the publisher has to worry about making mad cash off it to justify development.

EDIT: then again the last time I paid full price on a new game was Catherine, and thats only cause I wanted to support the Persona team and SMT so much.

Isn't that the craziest part, though? Any reasonable person can understand that a second hand used market is created by the existence of a first hand one selling new. Publishers act like used games pop out of an inter-dimensional wormhole into Gamestops across the country because they haven't appeased the Publisher Gods by burning more money and putting that cost back on consumers who do buy new. And those customers are happy little clams who hold onto their copy of Black Ops with the disc and manual clutched firmly against their hearts. The title itself is inaccurate because obviously someone must have lamentably bought that dust-collecting game sitting on the Gamestop Used Shelf, or it would still be in its wrappings up for full price.

As others have mentioned, there is no longer any flexibility in video game prices. Sixty dollars is the U.S. standard, like it or not in the eyes of the publishers. I don't see what gives them bitching rights about "losing" sales when there are many games that do not warrant the $60.00 price tag. Yeah, the video game industry is hurting. Well tough t's, so is everything and everyone else. A full-priced rendition of last year's experience isn't justifiable to everyone out there. Publishers need to learn that not everyone who buys a video game prioritizes their product the same way considering it's basically a hobby expense at the end of the day, not electricity, water, food, or even internet.

 

[punipunipyo]

ok... this is going to be tough...

Personally, I don't own ANY pre-own games... simply because I don't pay for "used toys"... with that out of the way... I did have 2-3 titles that I played that are from a friend... thank god for console games... and also I had played several games at friends' because I don't own a X-box, or my computer wasn't good enough to run them... but when I OWN a title, they are new...

Back in the old days, we copy games, we trade games, we even just re-install games on to another computers, it wasn't a problem back then... why is it suddenly "sharing games" are wrong (as in borrowing friend's game)? I think it's the demand from the companies that makes the games now days, they need more money in return to make up for the production, there for when the games don't sell as they expect, they point to the "pirates", "pawn shops", or "sharing gamers"... I just don't buy more than 3-4 titles a month, and there is just too many games out there I want to "try" and only got so much on me to support (what I think) the best projects... that's all...

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I think developers should get a percentage for any used game they developed. At least between 20-30% for royalties or something like that. This might hurt used game sales but it won't hurt too much that we the consumers can still use it and trade in old games to buy brand new games.

You are aware that even under Droit de suite, which gives money to someone if their product is sold, the most they get is 5%? And that's if a single item sells for millions of dollars. Hell, video games would only qualify for 1% of a new sale, AT MOST, under Droit de suite. The First Sale Doctrine, however, means they get nothing. And at least in the states, the latter is law. Why should video games get a major exemption?

 

[renegade7]

What's wrong with sharing, exactly? Are they going to try and make that illegal too?

 

[Frostbite3789]

Yeah...but...what about books, and movies. They don't whine like this. Or at least as much. I'm really sick of the whole subject.

Books and movies audiences are people who have eyes and can read, then have a TV/DVD player. I'm going to say the number of people who meet these requirements as opposed to the requirements needed to play a video game is much higher! It's almost like they have a bigger consumer base to start with, so you can't compare them at all! GASP! It's magical what logic can do.

Meanwhile it costs about as much to create a AAA game as it does a blockbuster film and far more than it does to publish any book. While having a far smaller base audience that can even enjoy your product in the first place.

So saying, "HURR MOVIES AND BOOKS DON'T HAVE THIS PROBLEM" is asinine and ridiculous.

 

[Mr C]

The thing that always bugs me is people complaining that they don't make enough new IP's but then won't buy new IP games new, they rent them or buy them used.

Totally agree. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the big games too, I'll get the new Modern Warfare (didn't bother with Black Ops)but I go out of my way to buy new IP that shows promise. Enslaved, Catherine, Conan, Alan Wake and Dead Space (sales of the original were very slow) are all games I bought fresh out of the gate. I fully enjoyed them and wish more gamers would take risks too. I'm keeping my eyes open for what surprises are going to be worth it at the end of this year.

 

[Double A]

And yet people will come here and say that used sales don't cause the publisher any reason to worry...

Of course they don't! After all, used sales are *legitimate* ways in which the developers/publishers don't get money, whereas piracy is bad because it's *illegitimate*. What matters is the principle of the thing, not the, ya know, actual effect being virtually the same damn thing in the end.

/end sarcasm

Someone legally purchases the game after it is sold to Gamestop or Amazon. Please explain to me how getting something for free and buying it are the same.

Publishers like to stress that people buy a license to the game, so we're just helping to enforce that by passing that license around.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Yeah...but...what about books, and movies. They don't whine like this. Or at least as much. I'm really sick of the whole subject.

Books and movies audiences are people who have eyes and can read, then have a TV/DVD player. I'm going to say the number of people who meet these requirements as opposed to the requirements needed to play a video game is much higher! It's almost like they have a bigger consumer base to start with, so you can't compare them at all! GASP! It's magical what logic can do.

Meanwhile it costs about as much to create a AAA game as it does a blockbuster film and far more than it does to publish any book. While having a far smaller base audience that can even enjoy your product in the first place.

So saying, "HURR MOVIES AND BOOKS DON'T HAVE THIS PROBLEM" is asinine and ridiculous.

Alright then, what CAN video game be compared to? Can they be compared to anything?

Again, let's also look at the money these publishers took in (Net Profits)

EA: $677 million
Ubisoft: ?89.8 million
Atlus: ¥437 million
Nintendo: ¥77.6 billion
Activision Blizzard: $418 million
Take-Two: $137.9 million

I could go on, but I think you see my point. They aren't really starving, now are they?

 

[Zeriah]

Hey, publishers, if SO MANY PEOPLE aren't buying new, and one of the big reasons is price, perhaps it'd be a good idea to reduce your fucking prices already. You know, like what any other business would do.

Especially you EA, who said that the $60 price was a problem way back in 200-fucking-7, and still have done NOTHING to remedy this despite now having your own store where you can charge whatever you want.

Publishers are so quick to blame so many things for the loss of money, but I would bet that their own broken-ass business model is the biggest reason.

Valve has proven [http://www.geekwire.com/2011/experiments-video-game-economics-valves-gabe-newell] that the less you charge, the more you make. Perhaps you should try that.

The thing that always bugs me is people complaining that they don't make enough new IP's but then won't buy new IP games new, they rent them or buy them used.

Well when the publisher doesn't market them, charges $60, and releases the at the same time as the next big Modern Warfare, Assassin's Creed, Halo, Battlefield, Elder Scrolls, and/or Fallout game, can you really blame them for not wanting to risk their money on it?

Would you risk $60 on a game you've never heard of, when instead of it you can buy the sequel to a series you already know you love?

So if they did this and reduced the price to say $40, you think this would stop gamestop from being able to take a few percent off on a used title and sell it for $36? That's very naive right there, it would barely change the amount of people buying used at all. It only saves them a few dollars right now and apparently 85% of people are making that choice. Think about this - I'm sure in an ideal world if they were assured that reducing the price of games to $40 made it illegal to sell them used, they would take that option in a heartbeat.

I happen to think that $60 is an incredibly small price to pay for a game that can sometimes last up to 100+ hours anyway (like any multiplayer game and a large portion of RPG's). How entitled can you be to think otherwise? Think about how many DVD's/Blu-rays or movie tickets you would have to buy to equal 100 hours.

 

[Spacecat-V]

Well this is disconcerting. I recall working at gamestop & hearing a fanboy complaining that capcom should make more games like godhand as he's BUYING a used copy. Irony.

By the way, ITS USED, NOT PRE-OWNED. There should be no euphemism for buying people's sloppy seconds. How does pre-owned condoms sound?