Analyst: Used Game Boom Correlates With New Sales Decline

[Jandau]

I've said it before, I'll say it again - PC has Piracy, Consles have second hand sales. Debate morality and legality all you want, but both have the same effect on a publisher's income. This analyst's findings are something I've been pretty sure of myself. It also coincides with statements of intent from several major publishers (Microsoft, Activision) regarding a return to supporting PC gaming more.

Overall, I'd say the industry is starting to understand that the grass isn't that much greener in the console market...

 

[fenrizz]

I've said it before on similar threads:

'Good Lord! It's almost as if there is some kind of recession on and people are trying to save money'

What?
That is clearly a lie, there is no recession.

And this analysis is a lie.

It's the damn, filthy pirates I tell you!

/sarcasm

 

[Sebenko]

Maybe if games weren't so damned expensive to buy new.

Seriously, I wanted Mass Effect 2, but there's no way in hell I'm paying £35, when I can get older games for less.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I wonder if they still think that raising the price of games for the HD consoles this generation was a good idea. I know about inflation and rising dev costs and everything but people are used to technology getting cheaper and better. Not getting more expensive and arguably stagnating creatively.

 

[Seldon2639]

I can't wait until they start airing PSAs proclaiming that "buying a game used is the same as murder."

Wow. Only three people so far jumping on the pants-on-head-retarded "nurr, if they don't like piracy, they must think used games are evil, too" bandwagon. I can deal with this. Maybe I'm making an impact... maybe not.

The difference between piracy and a used game is that one is legal and the other isn't, kind of like the difference between "aspirin" and "methamphetamine". Yes, both are a way to play the game without paying money to the original producer, but the sale of a used game represents the transfer of an individual copy of a game from one owner to another; kind of like how I can sell a used car without stealing it from the lot. Once I own a copy of a game, I can do with that copy whatever I like. That's how property rights work.

The difference is significant, and you do a disservice to the debate over the issues of piracy when you try to imply that there are any similarities aside from "neither gives money to the producers"

Remember kids, when you spend $60 on a new game, the publisher and your beloved developer get most of the revenue. When you spend $45 on a used game, all the money goes to Gamestop. You might as well just pirate the fucking thing and go whole hog.

Also, you want to save money? Become a PC gamer and learn to love Steam.

No sane person who doesn't work for a games company who is against piracy is talking about how piracy is bad solely because its money the developers don't get. What makes piracy worse than a used game sale is that piracy is in direct violation of copyright law.

It also represents another copy of the game in distribution (for free) which diminishes the value of the extant game supply, but I digress. Please don't relate the two concepts, nor defend piracy because it isn't "worse" for the game company than used games.

"Piracy is bad because it doesn't involve giving us money" Solution: BAAAW about it in the propaganda machine and bribe judges to outlaw it.

I'm really hoping you aren't an American, or if you are that you've never been within a ten-mile radius of a copy of the constitution. Copyright protections are enshrined in the bloody constitution itself (seriously). They're not propagandizing (at least, no more than it's propaganda for fishermen in the Gulf to sue BP for damages), and they don't have to bribe anyone to outlaw piracy?

Want to know why? Because it's already against the law

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

The publishers need to put their foot down and refuse to sell wholesale to any outlet that sells used games.

In a relatively few years we will be 100% digital and gamestop will wither and die like they deserve.

 

[JustTriMee]

Being the cheapskate that I am, I refuse to buy even USED games from GameStop. Everything's cheaper online anyway.

 

[fix-the-spade]

... what? As long as I can remember, new games have always been $50-$60. From the n64 carts, to high profile disc games.

Which means, if anything, games have actually gotten cheaper due to inflation...

So... seriously, what?

Yes N64 carts did cost that much, part of why the N64 failed (comparatively) was that it's cartridges were sold for almost double what PS1 games went for. PS1/2 games went for $30-40 except for the big multi disc boxes like Final Fantasy games, they tended to cost more but had 3 or 4 discs in them. PC games cost the same except for the simulators. Cube and Xbox titles also cost the same, it was the pricing norm.

Playstation Platinum/Greatest hits/whatever they call them now were $20. More people bought Playstation games pre 2006 than for any other platform, prices have gone up since the 90s/early 2000s by quite a large amount.

 

[JEBWrench]

Fine, but did he take into account first hand prices of games going from $30-40 to $50-60+ in that same period of time?

... what? As long as I can remember, new games have always been $50-$60. From the n64 carts, to high profile disc games.

Which means, if anything, games have actually gotten cheaper due to inflation...

So... seriously, what?

Yes "what?" as in "what are you smoking?" No way new games were 50/60 in the N64 generation, I clearly recall games being in the 30-50 range at that time.

They were in the 70-90 dollar range where I was.

Games are cheaper now than when I was younger.

Also, adjust for inflation. Even the NES era was more expensive.

See, project $10 doesn't mean your getting $10 worth of free content you wouldn't be getting otherwise if you bought used. In a practical sense it means that once you redeem the code once, the game will thereafter be missing an integral piece. That means you can't lend it, and of course you can't get much value out of trading it in (which is the idea). So basically if some dude buys a game for $60 to kill a weekend (blowing through the 12 hours of content) he can't expect to get much value off of the trade in towards a game for the next weekend.

By integral, you mean completely optional and not necessary, right? Because to my knowledge, no essential aspects of games have been affected by Project $10 yet.

 

[Naheal]

Correlation does not equal causation.

 

[akmarksman]

People forget that the most expensive "standard" videogame(StarFox 64 for the Super NES) was $89.99.I remember seeing it advertised for that price and I thought "what the hell"
Im not talking special editions,legendary editions,I'm talking box stock..

I have been buying a few of the new release titles for $59 for the 360,but I did trade in GTAIV so I could get World At War for $30..and later on I bought GTA IV at blockbuster,used for $14.99 and The Orange Box for $9.99.
Keep in mind that this is a small town that I live in,the local Blockbuster is franchise owned,the one "major" video game store sold all his games and converted to a "lazertag" style place and the nearest Gamestop is Anchorage,150 miles away through the mountain roads.

I can get brand new games on release day because they just opened a hugeass Wal-Mart in the next town over(that is only 7 miles away) and they are open 24 hours a day. Before Wal-Mart opened,I bought games at the local Fred Meyer/Kroger.

If EA and other outfits are going to start charging for pay per month ala WoW,then I won't be playing their titles online. I always talk to my friends on LIVE and figure out which games I'll be looking into giving a rental,purchasing or just staying away from.

I knew Red Dead Redemption was going to be epic and I knew Splinter Cell Conviction was going to be a good game,I have yet the money to purchase either title outright,but Blockbuster offers me a discount on game rentals..to the tune of I only pay roughly $4 for 5 nights and now BB is starting to offer game rentals through their online service(which Im a long-time subscriber)

I already pay enough for cellphones,blockbuster online and a couple of small monthly expenses,throwing in a "online rental" service to play their game is just BS.

 

[Tiswas]

The only new games I even buy these days are Nintendo's, JRPGs and other games that last more than 20 hours and are thus actually WORTH buying brand new.

£40 for the likes of Uncharted or Bioshock which can last you about 10 hours or so (if that) is a rip off. A pre-owned price of £10-£20 isn't so bad.

 

[Sparrow]

GameStop itself sold $403 million of used games in 2003, and $2.39 billion in 2009.

Bugger me. They've done well haven't they?

And don't even try giving me any of that "PCs are expensive" bullshit.

...wait. PC's ARE expensive though. I'm definately missing something here. How can you write all that and go into all that detail, then just handwave the main reason people don't do gaming on the PC?

 

[brunothepig]

Do we really need an analyst to tell us this? More people are buying secondhand games. We believe this means they'll buy list games brand new. Seriosuly, am I the only one who though "well duh?" It's simple math.

 

[Sparrow]

And don't even try giving me any of that "PCs are expensive" bullshit.

...wait. PC's ARE expensive though. I'm definately missing something here. How can you write all that and go into all that detail, then just handwave the main reason people don't do gaming on the PC?

No they're not, the main reason why people don't game on the PC is a) because they're misinformed, b) because there's no "party" directly holding up the PC flag and pumping massive amounts of money on marketing and c) because they think/it is too complicated in regards to "put disc in drive and pick up controller".

Check this article from one year ago (about a 500$ PC) being able to play everything, including Crysis at framerates of above 40FPS: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2346481,00.asp

In the meantime hardware has gotten even cheaper... if you want a PC on par with the performance of a console you can get them for 250-300$ already (Low-Medium Settings, Sub-par resolution of 720p or under, no Anti-Aliasing etc.). High-End PCs cost a lot of dough, but you don't need one of those for gaming, especially if you don't need to max out every Option...

Try saying that to casual gamers though. They'll look at you go, "Yeah, but it's so much easier to just buy a console! Duh!"

I PC game from time, but for me, it's not my style. Even with a controller in my hand it all just seems a bit off. Yet all the time I'm being told to build my own PC. People give me big numbers and long names for parts, and I look at them and go, "Or, I could buy a PC."

There's just a cut off point of expertise and effort that most people have.

 

[Optimus Hagrid]

LOL, or maybe "modern" games have regressed/stagnated in their gameplay mechanics, and are primitive in comparison to somewhat older, last-gen titles. In other words, the new games may look nice, but they play like crap for the most part (exaggeration, sure, but there's truth to it). maybe, MAYBE that has something to do with people not wanting to shell out the cash for a new game?

Personally I feel that a lot of new releases nowadays are just plain crap and not worth the money when they are new.

Also, I'm cheap.