56% of American Gamers Don't Buy Games

[Soviet Steve]

I was about to make my first purchase of a newly released game today.

I've been looking forward to stronghold 3 for a while now, and was about to add it to my shopping basket on Steam when I got the idea to check at the forums to see what (inevitable) problems there were.

For anyone not familiar with it the game is a medieval village sim where you build a fortress and hold it against enemies and so on.

Problems:

* Clicking anything is very glitchy
* Units move through walls
* Bears, wolves and COWS climb ladders
* Walls refuse to connect with each other and this leaves unfixable gaps in the defences
* No skirmish mode
* Units on walls receive defensive penalties rather than bonuses
* Several meter thick walls can be brought down by two stabs from a pikeman
* Total of 4 maps in multiplayer
* No chance of coop in multiplayer

Pricetag: ?49.99

Game developers?

KISS THE DARKEST SPOT OF MY HAIRY WHITE ASS, I WILL NEVER BUY NEW AGAIN.

 

[Guilherme Zoldan]

You know. I dont think waging war on the second hand market is right. But if the publishers really want to get people to buy new, maybe they should actualy give incentives to new purchases, not punish used ones.

 

[Nurb]

Companies have been telling people to "fuck off" if they don't like what they do, maybe they're taking the bastards' advice?

We're supposed to have sympathy for them too, even though by their own arguments they deserve to die off. Piracy is killing the PC market, but the response to any legitimate complaint is to stop buying PC games if we don't like it. If we act rationally and refuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater and download a game, we?re killing them. What would they rather have us do? "Talk with our wallets" and not play the games at all, and certainly don?t buy them. Which would also kill the industry, but that?s somehow the more moral solution. Either way the industry is basically daring us to kill it.

Most people are talking with their wallets, which is why the market is shrinking. And what message does the industry take from that? That they should do something different? Nope. The message is that they should simply move to consoles due to a shrinking market they surely can?t be responsible for. So even when we do follow the "moral" way, nothing changes. So the decision, from our view, is between "No Games, Dead Industry" and "Pirate Games, Dead Industry".

In other words, if the industry isn?t going to get the message no matter what we do and is going to die either way, why should we deny ourselves the few good games that get released? Should I feel sorry for Ken Levine not getting paid for a good game? Nope. The industry doesn?t care about screwing us over in the name of unproven piracy damages, so I don?t see why we should care if a few decent developers get crushed in the name of taking down an industry that could not possibly care less about doing proper business with us.

 

[shrekfan246]

snip

I didn't say they need to give me a damn thing. It's just they need not to ***** when I choose to buy their game used when it was too damn expensive for me to buy it new. If Publishers want people to buy new they need to sell cheap and stop treating those that buy used, rent, and or share games like they stole money out their pockets.

Just for curiosities sake what price do you think a Triple A title should go at you know with the mulit-year development and total costs being over 500million dollars?

Stop. Right now. I'm calling bullshit on you, because there is no game that has been made in the history of ever so far that, even with advertising costs, has been that expensive. The average cost right now, in 2011, is roughly $30 million for development, the most expensive game (that has had financials released) was Grand Theft Auto IV, which ended up being $100 million with advertising. Halo 3 only cost $50 million because of advertising. Gears of War 1 & 2 combined cost $22 million, or, the same amount as the first Assassin's Creed cost to make.

This:

According to Ea's last major budget report their development costs average around 208million and spend up to 300 million on advertisement, Transformers 3 got 530million just for shooting prior to advertisement.

is their budget for development of all games they've published in a fiscal cycle, not each individual title.

 

[ChillShark]

Maybe if the game developers make games that have better replay value, and not try and make a cash grab on a lame dlc, then people will not sell/swap their games. I don't swap or sell games out of principle, but I also don't buy games that I know don't have good replay value.

I like to keep my games in good condition and I freak out if there is a micro scratch on the disk or finger prints on the manual. I guess that's another reason I don't buy second-hand games.

Maybe if they stop asking $60 for a $30 game people might buy more and swop less. What I am saying here is that the developers need to quit making dumb'd-down games that are called AAA but aren't half as fun as some indie games.

 

[KelsieKatt]

Considering how short, simplistic and generic games are these days.

I have no intention of buying the vast majority of modern games for $60. Fuck that.

The only games recently I've played that I actually liked enough to drop $60 on them each was Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Dark Souls. (Which I did.)

Outside of that, I'm waiting for a price drop on some of the other titles I want.

As it is, when Skyrim comes out, assuming I like it I'm not touching it until they release the GOTY edition later on. Those DLC packs are way too expensive separate.

 

[Guardian of Nekops]

The sixty dollar price tag that publishers charge just offers WAY too much room for Gamestop to undercut the publishers and still make a profit. If Gamestop can charge 15 dollars for a used copy when the company charges 60 that becomes a real no-brainer... and adding on charges via DLC so that the full game costs 80 dollars or more new is not the answer. Escpecially when much of the DLC is stupid, like hats or single pieces of equipment that add nothing to actual playtime.

Now, if they sliced the price down to the 30 dollar mark and added a 15 dollar DLC, suddenly Gamestop's margin to undercut them shrinks dramatically. They still get 45 dollars for a new game, but suddenly they're getting 15 for a used purchase, too. Just make sure that the original game is worth 30 bucks, and that the DLC is another full half of the game... more than worth the purchase price, so that everyone wants it. And at some point, the five or six dollars that Gamestop saves you with a used copy stops being significant... but if I can get four games from them or one game from you, and they're the SAME GAMES? Yeah, sorry, that's not going to work.

Extra Credits suggested all this long ago, of course, in a much better voice than mine.

Oh, and for the record I AM one of the people who buys games new. Until recently, I had the money to burn, and I did... still had no interest in paying 5 bucks for a digital hat, mind. But there's a point where the shiny newness of your copy is just not worth the extra price, and a 45 dollar price hike for the new copy is well above it.

 

[Fayathon]

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?

Way to post everything I was gonna say in the thread man.

OT: Just to rehash, drop the prices on new games already, I'm happier spending my cash on a new copy of a game simply because it means it's in pristine condition, I get the fancy little booklet (which is sadly dying from what I've seen) and a nice case to display. I don't like buying used, but when it's cheaper to buy all of the games I want second hand or in a Steam sale than it would be to pick up a drug habit there is something seriously fucked in the pricing scheme.

 

[Jake Mosher]

Hard to believe because i love my games and usually don't trust friends enough.

 

[DoctorFrankenStein]

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

Well they don't. As you can see, more than 50% of Americans don't buy games, yet the video game industry is turning mad profit! What do you think is going to happen if we let them destroy used games sales, or worse, make every game online only so that you can't even borrow games to friends? Do you think that will make people buy more games? Seriously? People are more likely to say "fuck it" and move on to other, cheaper hobbies. It seems like the gaming industry wants to make games a luxury product only to be enjoyed by the rich. Not a lot of people have the money to buy all those games new. Shutting down used game sales will hurt the industry in the long run. And it will increase piracy! Who has that much money to buy all of the games coming out new? And if you make people buy only new games, they will buy less games. And the less new games they buy, the more careful they will be about purchasing games, which will lead to less pre-ordered games. And if you buy one game and you don't like it, chances are you will not buy the sequel even though it may turn out to be 100x better than any game you played in your life. Because you don't want to spend money on something you may not like and can't sell. The problem is, gaming industry is being run by retarded greedy old people who can only see a big dollar sign in front of their eyes.

And let's not forget that buying a game used doesn't hurt developers or publishers. The same way that buying used cars doesn't hurt car manufacturers. Game developers and publishers are only doing this because they can. It doesn't make it right, and it sure as hell isn't justified. And if you're siding with the corporations on this one then you're really clueless. One day you'll look back at the consumer rights you used to have and you'll realize that you let them take away all of your consumer rights and freedoms. How can people be so fuckin' brainwashed?

This^^^ absolutely. It's unnerving how easily people can be manipulated into giving up their rights as consumers or otherwise.
But what it really boils down too is this-
1. The economy, at least in the USA, is in the toilet and most people can't afford new games.
2. If games were better/more interesting/longer overall people would have more incentive to keep them rather then swapping or re-selling them. And the people that do borrow would want their own copies for later replay.
3. People will share what they have. We learn it in kindergarten and it's good for society as a whole. Get over it.

Personally I don't like DLC because I don't trust hard-drives not to break or get corrupted. I want a real disk with an actual box dammit!
And as an addendum to #3- I'm not advocating piracy. But if I paid for something and I want to give it away, trade it, or even break it for giggles, that's no one's business but mine.

 

[Ariseishirou]

Yep, I can believe that. I share my games with my friends and my roommate (who hasn't bought a game for himself because of me in years because we have exactly the same tastes, lol) all the time because I make a lot more money than they do. I can drop $60 on a whim multiple times a month. For them it'd be their entire entertainment budget.

 

[Electric Alpaca]

When I buy new games, I wait about 8 months and get the new copy from Walmart. They tend to be like 20-30 bucks at that point. Still a brand new copy, just a hell of a lot cheaper XD Problem solved.

However, I did preorder Revelations. I'm a total sucker for that series.

Exactly my rule of thumb. I'm no longer as time rich as what I used to be, and am quite happy playing last year's big releases whilst the market is saturated with this year's big thing.

Especially considering the persistence of "All DLC Included" editions that would wind me up knowing I spent double what I would need to.

The same regarding Revelations as well, I even sprung for the Animus edition. The encyclopedia of all things Assassin's was far too much a draw.

 

[Rouzeki]

to echo an earlier sentiment...

when I can get good games from 3-20 dollars indie style, what good is a console to me, aside from its respective retro and indie content and a very few niche titles (curse you ThatGameCompany and Katamari Damacy!)

If they would kindly stop charging 60 dollars for 12 hours of content, I know id be happy. Ive logged over 80 chart-able hours on both Terraria and Plants versus Zombies before i fully exhausted them out, and each only cost me about 10 dollars apiece. I dislike most current triple AAA titles, and almost every title I've given a fair shake to has dissapointed me.

for people like me, its a simple question of money in, enjoyment out. I play MMOs because at 15 bucks a month, so long as I'm enjoying it, I can easily make the 15 count. when it comes to consoles i play mostly handhelds because it doesn't gouge as much, and often times i still get more hours out of it due to car rides or patches for PC games or whatever.

Digital distributors have proven time and time again that even a temporary price lowering helps bring in sales. its why my wallet is always much lighter around the time a sell breaks out on steam, because its a heckofalot harder in impulse buy Arkham City then say, limbo.

If its such a big deal then why doesn't one of the big triple AAA sets attempt this? if they wanna make more people by games, then throw us a bone and lower the prices once in awhile. id sure be more enthused amount the big console market. Especially if its from the bigger dev groups if they happen to be complaining about this mess. while i'm doing the crazy can-can, come on blizzard, Lost Vikings 3!

and Nintendo? Mother. NOW!

 

[idarkphoenixi]

Oh those poor poor publishers cant make that extra few dollars, I feel so sorry for them. Sorry no, not buying it. People will always get games second hand, just like everything else in the world can be bought second hand.

Second hand car dealerships are everywhere but you dont see Ford selling you the wheel for an extra $20.

The fact is excessive DLC and other add-ons is just a way to make more money. That's not to say they wouldn't make any if they kept their integrity and released games with all the content in them rather than chop up the full version and sell each piece at an added price.

 

[Nurb]

That's like saying car companies should get a cut of used car sales because people who wait a year to get the current model car is costing them money. They make a product and they sell it, they don't have any rights to money from third party sales, same as any industry. HP doesn't demand money from ebay when someone buys a laptop, even though they use the site's tech support and servers for driver downloads.

Companies need to stop whining and start making incentives for new purchases instead of hassling the customer with DRM, third party software, and day-one DLC or forced online connection for a single player game. Car companies know they compete with the used market, that's why they're using those business degrees to find ways to get people to buy new.

Uh.. hello, what do you think day-one DLC is other than making incentives for new purchases?

The difference between a used car and a used game is pretty obvious to anybody who's actually thinking. A used car is, well, used. It's measurably in worse condition than it was before. It has more miles on it. The belts and tires have more wear. Spark plugs and batteries only work for so long before they're kaput, and some of that use has been used.

A used game is in pretty much every way except the shrink wrap, exactly the same as a new one.

And trust me, HP doesn't demand money from ebay because they charge the customer for that support. Tell me, how long would a game company stick around if they charged you $10/call to report a bug in the game, and charged you the full cost of development for the patch that would fix it?

Uh hello, content developed with the full priced game and witheld to be sold for more money as Day-one DLC is NOT an incentive.

And I've worked in both the game and tech positions during college to know that used games are most often scratched and/or missing items like the instruction book, so no it's not just shrink wrap. Used systems are a huge gamble too. And as for tech support, you don't get charged. It's free on their site and you can call in so long as you have the correct code on the product. I've done it plenty of times when ordering stuff for customers and helping out friends and family.

You don't get to make money on a product after a customer bought it from you, that's how things are.

 

[Keepeas]

I don't think this is anything that should concern the consumer....
Publishers will find ways of making the money they need/want, they already are trying.
If you vote with your money they will get the picture eventually.

You can't afford the price of a new game? Don't buy it.
get it later as the price drops or as used-games appear.

You don't like Day-one DLC? Don't buy the game.

Used-games are part of free-market economics so publishers have to get used to it or get out.
Or in more recent cases, take advantage of used games with online passes.
You don't like online passes? Don't buy it.

This isn't even a problem on the PC because PC games can't be re-sold.(Piracy on the PC is another matter)
If publishers don't like used-games they could go with a PC-style approach where games can't be resold.... but that could cause them to lose a lot of the fan base...but more importantly the people who buy the game knowing that they can sell it later.

This isn't a problem for the consumer....so don't worry about it.
Buy what you want at the price you're willing to pay.

 

[Yopaz]

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

I haven't bought BF3 because of Origin (among other reasons, but this one was the buzz-killer) and I am not planning on buying used/borrowing/torrent it because I simply lost interest.
By your logic, I am hurting the industry too because I lose interest quickly.


The fact is, many people don't have a lot of money and won't buy all the games they want. If the "used" option was unavailable, they wouldn't buy the game anyway, so no "potential" profit is lost.




Also: car industry.
/thread

Really, if the car industry is the best you can come up with then you clearly don't know the first thing about the car industry.
A new car comes with a 5 year warranty to cover any defects on the car. That is actually worth quite a lot.
Cars got parts in them that wear with use and are limited to a few years of use. When you have to replace them who do you think cash in? That's right, the company that makes the parts that needs to be replaced, which by some odd coincidence is the car company. On modern cars these parts are made more and more specific so you can't get cheaper parts. If you drive a Mazda and your headlights go out you have to go to an authourized Mazda dealer to have it replaced.
Also cars decline in quality pretty quickly.