A take on how to solve the used game issue

[Keava]

I see promise in what Double Fine are doing right now: consumers directly funding the development of a new game. That way you're paying for something real again, instead of giving charitable contributions afterwards.

I'm still very wary of the whole idea. Sure it's nice that developers can get funding for projects that way, not having to go through the publisher machine, but how far will it go?

People donated 2 million for a project without knowing anything about it except that Tim Schafer said it will be amazing. Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see Double Fine do great game, but what if it's not? What will those people say then? How likely They will fund a different project? How much of moaning there will be because it's not Their dream game?
They raised the hope bar so damn high They can't afford to disappoint, not only for their own sake, but for sake of every other studio trying to pull the same thing. After all They got 5 times more than They wanted, which, by simple math means, They need to do 5 times better... (that's of course not entirely my view, but I can see some people seeing it as such)

Crowd funding is amazing, but with how entitled and judgmental gaming community can be it can go the wrong way very fast.

 

[xPixelatedx]

Considering that used and rented games have been available since the NES/SNES era, and that the video game industry has only flourish with them, I think it's safe to say they are not the problem. If people are in fact buying used more now, then it's because you are making products not worth the retail price you put them as. How about you go look at the games sold in the recent eras where used sales weren't a problem? See that thing games used to have? That 'variety' thing? Maybe you should start producing more of that. I don't mean new ideas or innovation, I mean the days where there was just as many fight/platformers/RPG's as there were FPS's. Over-saturation of anything ruins the market, that's a fact.
Maybe you might have to expand the scope of games outside of 'macho fantasy fulfillment simulators' and 'stubble ridden everymans' before you get people caring about these products again to the extent they once did.

Because as of right now many games are pretty much disposable and lacking identifiable characteristics.

Speaking of lacking identifiable characteristics:

 

[ohnoitsabear]

Why not this solution?

Leave used games the fuck alone publishers, you did fine before and you will do fine now.

The only people increasing the cost of games is yourself, we don't set your fucking budget. You don't see books with bloody DRM and chapter passes.

Also don't call them lost sales, that's the same as saying every book read in the library is taking money away from authors or the radio is killing musicians.

This. Seriously, people, the first sale doctrine is a legally protected consumer right. Quit being so quick to give it up just because the publishers ask nicely. You wouldn't do that for your civil rights, so don't start with it on your consumer rights.

Thirded.

Those publishers are sneaky devils, making us gamers antagonize ourselves over simply exercising our rights.

Fourthed

Fithified!

I am glad to see a thread about this topic were everyone is actually talking sense.

You know if we don't like the practice we could always get together and start a class action lawsuit against the publishers.

Sixthed.

The used game "problem" is an issue of games not being worth what the publishers are charging.

The rumors that the next Xbox will have things to prevent used games is seriously concerning.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I would get behind this if corps weren't already using DLC to get more money out of their games like all other media. People need to re-evaluate their use and definition of entitled. Not every gamer is an entitled brat.

 

[Epona]

There is no used game problem, there is a DRM problem.

 

[veloper]

Actually that is not to different from now, because I don't consider buying used a valid choice

Interesting. Please, if you don't mind, explain how you've arrived at that conclusion.

OT: I see the used game problem as I see other problems: It's a service problem. People simply do not wish to own games any more, and wish to sell them in order to purchase other games. Publishers do not provide this service, so places like Gamestop do.

If you had included in the quote the sentence that followed, you would have had your answer.

I'll elobarate on the zero value. The price of real (non-vitual) goods depends on scarcity. Digital data, including videogames, can be copied infinitely by publishers, gamers, anyone, so there's no production value.
A copy of the game manual, flimsy as it usually is, is still worth more than a copy of the actual game, because a color photocopy atleast costs paper and ink.
Replicating the game is easy and costs nothing. If you must also have it on a dics, then a couple cents for the disc. So if you're paying, but not even to support the devs, you are basicly throwing money at free stuff.
The prices that publishers set on games, movies, music etc. are all completely arbitrary bullshit, but atleast they have an initial investment to recoup. Used game sellers have a lucrative scam.

 

[Matt King]

surely (correct me if i'm wrong) a used game has to have been bought, then sold again, so surely if you just make a game that no one will ever want to sell or get rid of, then you have no reason to worry about 2nd hand games?

 

[Epona]

Actually that is not to different from now, because I don't consider buying used a valid choice

Interesting. Please, if you don't mind, explain how you've arrived at that conclusion.

OT: I see the used game problem as I see other problems: It's a service problem. People simply do not wish to own games any more, and wish to sell them in order to purchase other games. Publishers do not provide this service, so places like Gamestop do.

If you had included in the quote the sentence that followed, you would have had your answer.

I'll elobarate on the zero value. The price of real (non-vitual) goods depends on scarcity. Digital data, including videogames, can be copied infinitely by publishers, gamers, anyone, so there's no production value.
A copy of the game manual, flimsy as it usually is, is still worth more than a copy of the actual game, because a color photocopy atleast costs paper and ink.
Replicating the game is easy and costs nothing. If you must also have it on a dics, then a couple cents for the disc. So if you're paying, but not even to support the devs, you are basicly throwing money at free stuff.
The prices that publishers set on games, movies, music etc. are all completely arbitrary bullshit, but atleast they have an initial investment to recoup. Used game sellers have a lucrative scam.

You seem to think places like Gamestop make their copies. No, they buy them from consumers. If I trade in a copy of Final Fantasy XIII-2, Gamestop will pay me $30 for it (until the game has been out a month, I saw a promotional ad). Gamestop now has $30 to recoup for that copy of the game. They will charge $55 for it but it probably cost Gamestop more to acquire that copy than it took the publisher to manufacture that copy.

 

[Keava]

Sixthed.

The used game "problem" is an issue of games not being worth what the publishers are charging.

The rumors that the next Xbox will have things to prevent used games is seriously concerning.

The "publisher" is charging You ~30$ on a game - that's the wholesale price. Rest is retailer markup, console manufacturer royalties, and in some cases distributor fee.

You seem to think places like Gamestop make their copies. No, they buy them from consumers. If I trade in a copy of Final Fantasy XIII-2, Gamestop will pay me $30 for it (until the game has been out a month, I saw a promotional ad). Gamestop now has $30 to recoup for that copy of the game. They will charge $55 for it but it probably cost Gamestop more to acquire that copy than it took the publisher to manufacture that copy.

Except that's exactly the same price They pay for new copy from the distributor/publisher.
Look at it this way:
- They buy a box for 30$ (-30$)
- Sell the game for 60$ (-30+60=30$)
- Then buy the game off You or 30$ (-30+60-30 = 0$)
- Sell it for 55$ (-30+60-30+55=55$)

Magical money making machine engage.

 

[Verzin]

Why not this solution?

Leave used games the fuck alone publishers, you did fine before and you will do fine now.

The only people increasing the cost of games is yourself, we don't set your fucking budget. You don't see books with bloody DRM and chapter passes.

Also don't call them lost sales, that's the same as saying every book read in the library is taking money away from authors or the radio is killing musicians.

^this. excellent point.

 

[veloper]

I see promise in what Double Fine are doing right now: consumers directly funding the development of a new game. That way you're paying for something real again, instead of giving charitable contributions afterwards.

I'm still very wary of the whole idea. Sure it's nice that developers can get funding for projects that way, not having to go through the publisher machine, but how far will it go?

People donated 2 million for a project without knowing anything about it except that Tim Schafer said it will be amazing. Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see Double Fine do great game, but what if it's not? What will those people say then? How likely They will fund a different project? How much of moaning there will be because it's not Their dream game?
They raised the hope bar so damn high They can't afford to disappoint, not only for their own sake, but for sake of every other studio trying to pull the same thing. After all They got 5 times more than They wanted, which, by simple math means, They need to do 5 times better... (that's of course not entirely my view, but I can see some people seeing it as such)

Crowd funding is amazing, but with how entitled and judgmental gaming community can be it can go the wrong way very fast.

If the new game sucks, Double Fine will lose reputation and can forget about trying this ever again. The upside is that this should be high incentive to try hard.
Publishers are already recouping failed games on the consumer even now, through the fat price tags on succesful games. Gamers end up paying anyway and the publishers make their profits.
The difference is that the risk is spread in the current business model. The downside is that the current pricing is way out there.

 

[veloper]

Actually that is not to different from now, because I don't consider buying used a valid choice

Interesting. Please, if you don't mind, explain how you've arrived at that conclusion.

OT: I see the used game problem as I see other problems: It's a service problem. People simply do not wish to own games any more, and wish to sell them in order to purchase other games. Publishers do not provide this service, so places like Gamestop do.

If you had included in the quote the sentence that followed, you would have had your answer.

I'll elobarate on the zero value. The price of real (non-vitual) goods depends on scarcity. Digital data, including videogames, can be copied infinitely by publishers, gamers, anyone, so there's no production value.
A copy of the game manual, flimsy as it usually is, is still worth more than a copy of the actual game, because a color photocopy atleast costs paper and ink.
Replicating the game is easy and costs nothing. If you must also have it on a dics, then a couple cents for the disc. So if you're paying, but not even to support the devs, you are basicly throwing money at free stuff.
The prices that publishers set on games, movies, music etc. are all completely arbitrary bullshit, but atleast they have an initial investment to recoup. Used game sellers have a lucrative scam.

You seem to think places like Gamestop make their copies. No, they buy them from consumers. If I trade in a copy of Final Fantasy XIII-2, Gamestop will pay me $30 for it (until the game has been out a month, I saw a promotional ad). Gamestop now has $30 to recoup for that copy of the game. They will charge $55 for it but it probably cost Gamestop more to acquire that copy than it took the publisher to manufacture that copy.

Well I don't. Just because a gamer sold the game to gamestop for X amount doesn't mean the game is actually worth X amount. Gamestop will find the greater fool who will pay even more for it.

 

[Kiardras]

If publishers made the games worth the money they charge to begin with, there might be a lot fewer being sold on second hand.

Games like ME, Skyrim etc, are to me worth £36 because they are so expansive, replayable, and long.

Games like MW2, even possibly BF3, are not worth £36 quid for a 4 hour single player game and an online function I might use once every couple of weeks.

 

[Epona]

Sixthed.

The used game "problem" is an issue of games not being worth what the publishers are charging.

The rumors that the next Xbox will have things to prevent used games is seriously concerning.

The "publisher" is charging You ~30$ on a game - that's the wholesale price. Rest is retailer markup, console manufacturer royalties, and in some cases distributor fee.

I read it was $48 and only $12 goes to the retailer.

 

[RuralGamer]

Personally, if used games are such an issue for the big publishers and devs, then maybe they need to consider making more of their games have proper replay value; in my books, that is a factor that separates a great game from the good games and makes me keep them.

 

[Epona]

Actually that is not to different from now, because I don't consider buying used a valid choice

Interesting. Please, if you don't mind, explain how you've arrived at that conclusion.

OT: I see the used game problem as I see other problems: It's a service problem. People simply do not wish to own games any more, and wish to sell them in order to purchase other games. Publishers do not provide this service, so places like Gamestop do.

If you had included in the quote the sentence that followed, you would have had your answer.

I'll elobarate on the zero value. The price of real (non-vitual) goods depends on scarcity. Digital data, including videogames, can be copied infinitely by publishers, gamers, anyone, so there's no production value.
A copy of the game manual, flimsy as it usually is, is still worth more than a copy of the actual game, because a color photocopy atleast costs paper and ink.
Replicating the game is easy and costs nothing. If you must also have it on a dics, then a couple cents for the disc. So if you're paying, but not even to support the devs, you are basicly throwing money at free stuff.
The prices that publishers set on games, movies, music etc. are all completely arbitrary bullshit, but atleast they have an initial investment to recoup. Used game sellers have a lucrative scam.

You seem to think places like Gamestop make their copies. No, they buy them from consumers. If I trade in a copy of Final Fantasy XIII-2, Gamestop will pay me $30 for it (until the game has been out a month, I saw a promotional ad). Gamestop now has $30 to recoup for that copy of the game. They will charge $55 for it but it probably cost Gamestop more to acquire that copy than it took the publisher to manufacture that copy.

Well I don't. Just because a gamer sold the game to gamestop for X amount doesn't mean the game is actually worth X amount. Gamestop will find the greater fool who will pay even more for it.

Ok whatever.

If your attitude is that games are data and data can be infinitely copied therefore games are worth zero, that's understandable but it doesn't have any discussion value in a thread about used games. Used games are bought and sold and money changes hands whether you think the game has monetary value or not.

 

[Xanthious]

Used game sellers have a lucrative scam.

The used game sellers I deal with treat me FAR better than any developer publisher does for buying their goods.

If I buy a used game at Gamestop I have seven days to bring it back for whatever reason I want and get a full refund. With a new game I get no such safety net.

For being a someone who buys most of my games used and is a member of their in store rewards program I get most of my games for buy 2 get 1 free on top of the 10% I save on everything I buy used. With new games I'm typically stuck paying full price except in the rare instances some store drops the prices a few bucks.

Furthermore, Gamestops have the ability to print up codes for things like multiplayer or DLC that's included with new games. Just recently I was given the DLC code for the Catwoman content on Arkham City even though I bought it used. The same with the most recent Madden. I bought it used and they ran off a multiplayer code from their sales terminal.

The only thing I don't participate in is trading in my old games. I don't find their prices to be fair. I find it's a far better option after my seven day return window closes to sell my old games on craigslist where I can recoup most of my money.

All in all Gamestop treats me far tter than any developer or publisher does. As a result I give them my money. Maybe when new game sellers start offering me the same type of service I get from buying my games used I will consider supporting them. However, until then they can go bugger each other for all I care.

 

[XT inc]

I think the only way to get rid of used is to respect your customer, and not rip them off while controlling what they do with the product.

They seem to be trying to turn games into a service, that they can shut off if you slight them.

There is also no point in buying used, because of how expensive all these passes and project 10 dollar's add up to.

Game stores tend not to factor in these things. So when you buy a game used for 49.99 and have to pay 15 bucks to get the basic content, you just spent more than retail.

The other problem is DLC, which has been wholly abused by this gen. They realized they could charge extra for all the cool bits, and did so. Used to be I would buy used, then buy the dlc and by the time that was done I had spent the cost of a new game. Now the dlc costs as much or more than whole games, because it lives in this bubble that these small chunks of content warrant such a price.

But hey that's just me, I feel slighted by these companies selling digital goods so high since they have so much less value than a physical copy.

Or make games so good that people never sell them.

 

[Keava]

Sixthed.

The used game "problem" is an issue of games not being worth what the publishers are charging.

The rumors that the next Xbox will have things to prevent used games is seriously concerning.

The "publisher" is charging You ~30$ on a game - that's the wholesale price. Rest is retailer markup, console manufacturer royalties, and in some cases distributor fee.

I read it was $48 and only $12 goes to the retailer.

It varies really and no one will get You definite data, other than only half of that game price is actual game price and rest are other fees That fall down on consumer (markup, royalties, licensing). Used to be distribution as well, but most major publishers these days have their own distribution chains set up so They don't have to pay extra.

4 years ago, when analysis was done for Gears of War 3, it was said at least 500k new copies must sell before new game makes profit, and in some cases the number goes up to 1million copies before the publisher actually profits 1$/box sold.

While to solution to the problem should be easy, as in digital distribution, people often don't realize that B&M retailers simply wallop the whole deal saying that if the game is sold cheaper through digital distributors (who take much lower markup), They won't stock the title. That's also why some retailers have those "promotions" and retailer exclusive content.

The bottom line is that it's mostly due to B&M retailers the common price point for games is between 50-60$ and it will take some time before it falls down. The recent situation with GAME/Gamestation in UK already shows the benefit of digital retail (like Amazon), who still provide You with physical copies while offering lower prices.

 

[veloper]

Used game sellers have a lucrative scam.

The used game sellers I deal with treat me FAR better than any developer publisher does for buying their goods.

If I buy a used game at Gamestop I have seven days to bring it back for whatever reason I want and get a full refund. With a new game I get no such safety net.

For being a someone who buys most of my games used and is a member of their in store rewards program I get most of my games for buy 2 get 1 free on top of the 10% I save on everything I buy used. With new games I'm typically stuck paying full price except in the rare instances some store drops the prices a few bucks.

Furthermore, Gamestops have the ability to print up codes for things like multiplayer or DLC that's included with new games. Just recently I was given the DLC code for the Catwoman content on Arkham City even though I bought it used. The same with the most recent Madden. I bought it used and they ran off a multiplayer code from their sales terminal.

The only thing I don't participate in is trading in my old games. I don't find their prices to be fair. I find it's a far better option after my seven day return window closes to sell my old games on craigslist where I can recoup most of my money.

All in all Gamestop treats me far tter than any developer or publisher does. As a result I give them my money. Maybe when new game sellers start offering me the same type of service I get from buying my games used I will consider supporting them. However, until then they can go bugger each other for all I care.

The same gamestop that won't let you return new games, only used games on which they make a much bigger profit margin.
Yes, they give you some scraps if you buy used from them, but only because you're giving them much more.