Which doesn't change the fact that your hardly in any position to ***** about a lack of new IP's why do you think they turn out so many sequels in the first place.Irridium said:
56% of American Gamers Don't Buy Games
- Thread starter Hevva
- Start date
Used game - 1 copy, can only be one at a time, over many months will be traded five or so times. "lost profit"Loonerinoes said:
Pirated copy - can be copied 1,000,000 times so 1,000,000 people can play at once. "lost profit" - $60,000,000
How in the FUCK are those both equally bad?
And yes, used sales are legal. Used sales are also the ONLY god damn perk consumers get in this industry and market. This is a market where EA can buy out and gut the likes of Westwood and Bullfrog, but keep and continue to profit from their IP's. Where Bethesda can buy the Fallout licence, licence it back to the original owner, and then sue them to get it back. Where publishers can sell all sorts of things to all sorts of people, where they can impose horribly anti-consumer EULA's on their buyers, where they can put in a clause that stops people from suing them no matter what. Where they can just stop refunding games(PC games at least). Where they can set up their own distribution service for their games so they can take 100% of the profits. Where they can treat their customers like complete shit and nobody can do a god damn thing about it.
And used sales are the ONLY thing we get in return.
Honestly, it's amazing at how well Publishers were able to get consumer to hate the only perk they have in this market.
Pretty sure this is a play on stats as well, rather than straight up facts. Consider the source, who's posting it, and the context.
And to the posts above, you're making the assumption that piracy or buying used games = paying customers converting to non-paying customers. MANY people buy things because they're either cheap or take things because they're free that they would otherwise avoid. (In all markets, let alone in economic hardship.)
And to the posts above, you're making the assumption that piracy or buying used games = paying customers converting to non-paying customers. MANY people buy things because they're either cheap or take things because they're free that they would otherwise avoid. (In all markets, let alone in economic hardship.)
You know, the lost sale doctrine has been so widely discredited, that many jurisdictions will refuse to entertain it in court.Irridium said:
But if they reduce their prices, then the retailers would just reduce the pre-owned even more. Remember in relative terms the cost of buying games has stayed stable or dropped which is a damn sight better then a lot of other forms of entertainment (or even a loaf of bread).Irridium said:
Can someone help me out here as my sarcasm detector is broken.Mcoffey said:
I'd be more likely to buy games new if the best parts weren't cut out right from the beginning to be sold back at a premium. Take Arkham City, for example. There's like six alternate Batsuits in the game. If this were 1998, you'd unlock a new suit every time you finished the game, or possibly after finding them hidden somewhere in game. Point is, they wouldn't be locked behind price gates.
I still bought Arkham City new, because I genuinely believe that great work should be rewarded, but I have to admit, my enthusiasm for modern gaming is waning fast.
I still bought Arkham City new, because I genuinely believe that great work should be rewarded, but I have to admit, my enthusiasm for modern gaming is waning fast.
Because sequels sell better than the original IP. And why do they sell? Because when everyone buys the new IP used, they love it and buy the sequel new.Normandyfoxtrot said:
This industry is so focused on short-term gain they fail to see the long-term affects. Used sales are perfect for building franchises. Used sales do transfer into new sales. It just doesn't happen quickly.
And again, people buy the new IP used because the publisher doesn't market it, charges the same amount as the huge sequels, and releases them at the same time as those sequels. Expecting them to sell well in that environment is just insanity. It's not the consumer's fault that publishers don't market their games, charge a lot of money for them, and release them at a time where the consumer's money will be put towards sequels. It's the publisher's fault for releasing it in such an environment.
Why would that be sarcasm? It's a perfectly reasonable statement. And one I heartily agree with.Plinglebob said:
No company is going to spend 2-4 years and in excess of 200million dollars on on loss leaders, not even one with lobotomized shareholders.Irridium said:
Not compared to any other industry. Every single industry in the world that sells something that isn't 100% a 'service' has to deal with resales. Why should gaming be any different?Yopaz said:
In short: Instead of worrying about it, factor it into your budget (or as Brad Wardell put it: Make games for your CUSTOMERS, not your users, because not all users are customers).
Edit: And just to clarify, I'm an avid PC gamer. The only console i own is an old Xbox (not the 360). All my games are pretty much bought on Steam or some other digital service. I don't purchase pre-owned games, but i respect people that do.
For every game a person swaps between friends there's always the other games that said people involved have bought brand new, you can't just say these people always buy pre-owned or these people always share... Also how do you ask half of 82 million people a question? Survey says: generalization.
This article is fear mongering and look at the comments, its working.
These company's over priced themselves right out of the market and now there blaming there customers for not buying as much as they used too... That's a great business model.
This article is fear mongering and look at the comments, its working.
These company's over priced themselves right out of the market and now there blaming there customers for not buying as much as they used too... That's a great business model.
True, but they should stop punishing the consumer for doing the financially smart thing, and instead go after Gamestop and others like them for not sharing the profits on used sales.Yopaz said:
I do think Used sales hurt the industry, but I don't think publishers are fighting it the right way. Instead of trying to force players to buy new, they should be finding ways to get money from used sales.
Maybe if new games weren't so freakin' expensive, this sort of thing wouldn't be as big a deal. $60 is well out of impulse-buy range.
There's a lot more going on in the market, but I honestly think this is one of the biggest reasons gamers are buying used and swapping games more than buying new. And also one of the reasons Steam is doing so well.
There's a lot more going on in the market, but I honestly think this is one of the biggest reasons gamers are buying used and swapping games more than buying new. And also one of the reasons Steam is doing so well.
$60 per game NEW, stacking hyped games on the same month, week and or DAY it's fucking sickening. They DARE think gamers are suppose to be a fucking money tree. They make it seem it's wrong that I can borrow a friend's game, more so roommates or family members SHARE 1 copy of a game instead of buying 2+. Also fuck the publishers sitting on your high horse just because you have money flying out your ass that doesn't mean everybody else does you stupid, shithook bastards. They think gamers don't need to pay bills, buy food, take care of themselves.
First off publishers stop spending MILLIONS on a game when it just gonna be for multiplayer. Advertize more online since its cheaper and please don't use a stupid ass songs that'll cost you too much money to license. I got 99 problems and crooked ass publishers are one, I always wonder why in the fuck publishers take the big cut when it comes to the game sell. They overall did nothing warranting their payment amount the big cut should be going to the developers that did all the goddamn work in the first place. Plus why do a majority of new games have to be at the $60 price point I remember in the PSX - PS2 generations new games were $20-$50. So when a game wasn't hyped and it costs $20-40 they'll still get tried out if they were cool.
Yet it's the GAMERS that are causing all your problems. Really publishers, really...
First off publishers stop spending MILLIONS on a game when it just gonna be for multiplayer. Advertize more online since its cheaper and please don't use a stupid ass songs that'll cost you too much money to license. I got 99 problems and crooked ass publishers are one, I always wonder why in the fuck publishers take the big cut when it comes to the game sell. They overall did nothing warranting their payment amount the big cut should be going to the developers that did all the goddamn work in the first place. Plus why do a majority of new games have to be at the $60 price point I remember in the PSX - PS2 generations new games were $20-$50. So when a game wasn't hyped and it costs $20-40 they'll still get tried out if they were cool.
Yet it's the GAMERS that are causing all your problems. Really publishers, really...
Share holders or more precisely the mutual funds and banks that manage those shares for holders aren't going to listen or give a damn about that reasoning and you and I both know that.Irridium said:
First Sale Doctrine. Look it up. But hey, what to consumer rights matter in this case? Oh wait. THEY MATTER A WHOLE G'DAMN LOT! That's what this whole issue is: Corporation profits vs consumer rights. And you're siding with the former.Loonerinoes said: