56% of American Gamers Don't Buy Games

[Irridium]

PC games most certainly do not have a longer shelf-life. Hell, PC games are lucky to even get a place on shelves these days. The PC market at retail is largely dead, and now far more digitally focused thanks to services like Steam, Impulse, Gamersgate, Origin, ect. And they still have the same prices as their largely irrelevant retail counterparts. They are not reducing prices. They're reducing costs, but not prices.

And the initial sales thing is just what I'm talking about, it's a strong focus on short-term gain without looking at long-term effects. Here's the thing, if there's a lot of used sales, then perhaps it would be a good idea to find out why people are trading them in. Perhaps if publishers put more effort into why people are trading in games and fueling used sales, they might find a way to actually do something about it, which would lead to long-term benefit for both the publisher and the consumer. Instead they just focus on getting short-term profits from used buyers. A strategy that apparently isn't making them that much money [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112877-EAs-Not-Getting-Rich-Off-Online-Pass].

When talking shelf life it isn't just physical. Its digital as well. Shelf life is how long its selling for the publisher. Things on Steam are on the shelf.

I cant find Mass effect 1 anywhere original for a console, yet I can find it as an original for the PC. That is longer shelf life.

Then if you can't find a new copy of the game anywhere, how is a used sale cutting into profits? There's no way it could be bought new, so there's no way they lost a sale.

 

[Irridium]

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.

Well, when the likes of Valve [http://www.next-gen.biz/features/valve-are-games-too-expensive], EA [http://www.destructoid.com/electronic-arts-thinks-videogames-cost-too-much-i-know-how-weird-that-sounds-51989.phtml](who said it in 2007), Todd Howard [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/314236/games-are-too-expensive-but-skyrim-isnt-argues-lead/], and David Jaffe [http://www.examiner.com/video-game-news-in-national/david-jaffe-provides-more-specific-details-as-to-why-twisted-metal-was-delayed], and others believe that $60 is too high(EA and Valve said it in 2007 and 2009 for fuck's sake!), perhaps it's time to fix that. But nobody is. Not even EA, who is in the best position to do so with their own store. In fact, they've raised prices by now charging $60 for PC games.

This isn't about entitlement, it's about basic business sense. If people aren't willing to buy your product for the current asking price, you either A) provide a better deal, or B) reduce the price. Neither are things anybody is doing.

They may have to to take a hit at retail at first, but in the long run it'll be better for everyone.

 

[SoulSalmon]

Hell, don't Australian's get payed more then American's? Perhaps you can work out a way where you get payed less and they lower the price of games. Sound good?

Actually last I heard the average US citizen is payed about 8k more per year.
Though, that stat is back from 2008, things could well have changed recently with the Aus dollar rising and the US one crashing.
Also our dollar is higher then yours at the moment, a $60 dollar game in your currency is currently $55 to us, and our $120 games are $130 to you. thats a nice chunk more then double the cost.
But, this doesn't really matter to me, this console gen failed miserably and if I want PC games I use Steam or get freeware ones.

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

56% of American Gamers Don't Buy Games

A new market study has indicated that "swapsies" is the most popular game of 2011.

Although game-sharing isn't a novel concept in any sense, new research conducted by games market research firm Newzoo [http://www.newzoo.com] has shown that games are now more likely to be shared amongst friends and family than to stay with the original user. Consequently, according to Newzoo's report, more than half of the 82 million gamers in the United States don't actually have to spend money on games. Out of all customers who buy games for PC, Mac or Console, 85% say they regularly purchase pre-owned titles.

For a quarter of game-buyers, almost half of their budget goes towards pre-owned titles. In total, the report says, the average American gamer spends 23% of their gaming budget buying pre-owned.

The report then expands on the ballooning DLC market, which is expected to become worth $960 million in US sales alone this year. In total, 12% of the money spent on games in the US goes towards DLC, and Newzoo estimates that American and European gamers combined will spend $1.7 billion on DLC in 2011.

Taken as a whole, this information reads as a primer on why big publishers have developed such a fondness for DLC and online passes in recent years. AAA titles are expensive and it often makes sense for regular gamers to either wait for a new copy to appear in the pre-owned section or just borrow it from a friend - but doing that cuts out any profit for the developers and publishers, unless they add on DLC or see a major boost in early sequel sales. Though many gamers are irritated by "day-one" DLC and the concept of online passes, it's hard to see how publishers can avoid these methods without seeing a marked decrease in their profits.


Source: GameSpot [http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6343451/56-of-console-gamers-dont-pay-for-games-study]







Permalink

1: Students to kids, CANNOT AFFORD the day one release bar the ones they really really long for because then they will have saved and scrounged like a madman to get the money down for the game
1.B : Either stop Pumping out Triple A titles like you are now game companies and invest more time in better games, or stop complaining that people buy used, we cannot afford Modern warfare 1 through 20 every day
2: payed day one DLC is a first buy deterrent
Why buy a game when you have to pay extra anyway for all it's features to come along
it's much better to wait for the GOTY
2.B: If you can't get your head round that go back to point 1
3 : nobody is barring you from cutting percentage deals over used sales
3.B: Also nobody is barring you from not joining in together and telling your programmers it's been fun and all but the economy is receding and they could cut back from say 100.000 dollars a month to 80.000 dollars a month
4. Get that stick out of your arse
4.B: No really do
5 3 words 15 letters : League Of Legends
5.B That game is free to play and still sustainable

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH SHIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET

 

[Zenn3k]

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

Can't get used games without someone buying them new.

Also, standard piracy response - "Its not a lost sale, the people that buy used, likely would not have bought new if it was there only choice"

 

[joshuaayt]

I buy what's there- often, the "Games that can be bought new" and the "Games that can be bought preowned" lists don't really overlap, at least in Australian stores. But I can pretend to be in a position to choose:

I'll start feeling sorry for publishers when they respond in a manner that *doesn't* treat the consumer as the cartoonish villain with the twirly black mo'. I'm sick of being likened to a criminal for taking the logical choice- you aren't giving me much reason to *want* to buy new.
"Hey, be nice to us, you fucking asshole" is all I'm getting.

Let's try something different, publishers: Let's *not* overcharge on our games.
The "problem" (Which I maintain is not actually a problem, because every other fucking market has to put up with the same thing) will never go away, but I can assure you that if games did not put such a dent in our wallets, we'd be more inclined to buy new. Hell, I'd say most people would rather a new game- nice, crisp manuals, no chance of those tiny scratches messing anything up... sounds nice to me! I'd rather that copy than the shitty one I borrowed from a friend or bought at a more reasonable price.

We aren't evil for taking the better option- just cautious. I get that publishers are trying to maker theirs the better option, but maybe if they could do that in a less hostile way, we'd all hate them less.

 

[Flames66]

Buying used does not equal not buying. It is just not buying from the publisher. I buy games used because it is better value for money than being overcharged by the publisher.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Legally speaking, there's nothing wrong with buying used. Legally speaking, there's nothing wrong with sharing games.

Ethically? I look at it this way:

If Person A buys Publisher B's games used, or plays Publisher B's games by borrowing them from a friend, and then that publisher goes belly up, Person A doesn't have the right to complain about because Person A didn't support that business.

Take me for example. I like Ubisoft's Prince of Persia and Assassin's Creed games, and I own several of them, but I've bought them all used. If Ubisoft went bankrupt tomorrow, I would accept that I was part of the reason because enjoyed their product without supported their business. If I were to piss and moan about how disappointed I am that they're gone, I'd be a hypocrite because my buying habits contributed, in a small way, to them getting there.

And, this principle works another way too. If you don't like a company, but you want to play a game they make, you can intentionally avoid buying new so that you can play the game without supporting the company.

Again, take me for example. I don't like Activision. If I were to buy an Activision game, I'd intentionally buy used to avoid giving Activision my money. If Activision went under tomorrow, I'd feel sorry for all the honest and hard-working people throughout the ranks, but I wouldn't feel bad for the corporation as a whole, and I'd be laughing at Bobby Kotick for a week.

So, by all means, I say buy used and share games if you want, but if the company that made those games goes under and can't make any more of your favorite games, you have no grounds on which to complain. You did nothing to support the business, so you were part of the reason they went under.

 

[Deathninja19]

Also how did the games get to be pre-owned, someone must have bought them so the publishers are getting money.

So, if I hypothetically bought a membership card to a club, and sold it to another guy, that guy would have paid the club?

That was not what I was saying at all, what I meant was even if over 50% (which I think is an Over exaggeration anyway as that number is hard to quantify and even if you bought just one game that would exclude you from this percentage) the publishers are getting money from the original sale so it's no real loss as that pre-owned game is no longer theirs just as a car is no longer the manufacturers after it leaves the car lot.

The thing is there are plently of ways to attract new customers, sell new IPs at a lower cost, make single player games last longer than 6-8 hours, create DLC that is actually worth the money spent and so on. It's all ok for the games companies to complain about pre-owned games but the simple fact is they are not meeting their customers half-way and making it worthwhile to buy new games.

PS I almost always buy new the above is from the point of view from the pre-owners.

 

[Spacecat-V]

At the time, it was around 2008 so the idea of it being on psn for dirt cheap didn't exist yet.

Also, i'm not comparing games to condoms, I'm saying the term "pre-owned" should not be a euphemism for used. That's a different topic.

But I do agree once the money is spent on the game, its yours through & through. The problem I see is that I don't good game companies going out of business because no is buying them or they're waiting for it to be used. Clover Studio probably would of been around still. Though I think its a matter of customer interest as to why clover never got any real recognition.

 

[M920CAIN]

Makes sense to me

 

[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. I believe 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.

Well, when the likes of Valve [http://www.next-gen.biz/features/valve-are-games-too-expensive], EA [http://www.destructoid.com/electronic-arts-thinks-videogames-cost-too-much-i-know-how-weird-that-sounds-51989.phtml](who said it in 2007), Todd Howard [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/314236/games-are-too-expensive-but-skyrim-isnt-argues-lead/], and David Jaffe [http://www.examiner.com/video-game-news-in-national/david-jaffe-provides-more-specific-details-as-to-why-twisted-metal-was-delayed], and others believe that $60 is too high(EA and Valve said it in 2007 and 2009 for fuck's sake!), perhaps it's time to fix that. But nobody is. Not even EA, who is in the best position to do so with their own store. In fact, they've raised prices by now charging $60 for PC games.

This isn't about entitlement, it's about basic business sense. If people aren't willing to buy your product for the current asking price, you either A) provide a better deal, or B) reduce the price. Neither are things anybody is doing.

They may have to to take a hit at retail at first, but in the long run it'll be better for everyone.

I respectfully disagree with your assumption. To me if people are willing to not support the industry in order to save $5 on a used copy right now, I see no reason why the same people would still not buy the game used at $36 if they reduced the new game price to $40. I still believe $60 is a huge bargain for any AAA multiplayer game that you intend to play online, or any single player games that you can easily spend over 50 hours in. Games like Bulletstorm or even Bioshock (despite how good they may be) probably should not cost as much as the aforementioned games considering their length, but I guess it really depends on development cost for the publishers - not game time.

 

[Briney-]

I'd like to see day of release rebates for new games. For example, if a game is going to sell for $60 (regular price), offer it for $45-50 on day of release. Hell, maybe throw in some rebates on DLC on top of that. Give customers a reason to buy new.

 

[cefm]

Doesn't mean a goddamn thing unless you include a side by side comparison of annual sales figures.

This is a natural consequence of the current generation of consoles and games being around for a while. Until the new platform comes out, there's a HUGE pool of wonderful games out there that you haven't played yet, so used is a viable option.

 

[108Stitches]

I lent BF2 to a buddy of mine, because he heard all the upcoming pub for BF3 (this was weeks ago) and wanted to get a feel for the game before going out and purchasing it.

Because I "swapped" my game with him, EA got an additional sale of BF3...but of course, I'm sure that went unnoticed with the other 5M sales it received.

 

[Irridium]

I respectfully disagree with your assumption. To me if people are willing to not support the industry in order to save $5 on a used copy right now, I see no reason why the same people would still not buy the game used at $36 if they reduced the new game price to $40. I still believe $60 is a huge bargain for any AAA multiplayer game that you intend to play online, or any single player games that you can easily spend over 50 hours in. Games like Bulletstorm or even Bioshock (despite how good they may be) probably should not cost as much as the aforementioned games considering their length, but I guess it really depends on development cost for the publishers - not game time.

They won't support the industry to save $5 now because games are $60. And as plenty of people have already said, including people in the industry, $60 is too much to charge people for games these days. With the popularization of the iPhone and iPad, which offers thousands of games, quite a bit are high quality, for only $1 or even free, asking people to pay $60 for a game is slowly becoming outdated.

And if people still won't buy new if you reduce the price, then they'll never buy new, and are not lost sales, which means you are losing no profit from them buying used.

But yes, price isn't everything. As I said to the other guy, publishers need to start offering incentives to buy new. Customers have no obligation to buy from anyone other than the guy who offers the better deal. Right now Gamestop is offering the better deal.

I point to piracy on the PC. Why do people buy from Steam when they could get the game for free? Because Steam offers a better deal.

Offer a better deal than Gamestop, and people will buy from you. If they still don't buy from you, they will never buy from you and aren't lost sales/profit.