Bargains Are for Cheaters

[keserak]

If I don't buy a new game off of a Gamestop shelf, the developer loses nothing. Gamestop already paid the developer for the game in order to put it on the shelves. Half of the argument is invalid from the get-go.

The point is that with used games, via one purchase over the life of that particular disc via used game sales, it could have 2-5 owners. So while there are 2-5 people who'd like to play the game, only one copy is ever actually sold by the store/publisher. Publishers want to make it so each of those 2-5 people each buy a copy of the game.

Also, as for the argument that gamestop bought the game from the publisher already. If gamestop sells all the new copies it has, it will order more, bringing even more money to the publisher.

That argument is invalid. The problem is Hicerion makes a not only invalid, but completely impossible assumption: that for every game, everyone who seeks to play it would buy it at the publisher's price. Shamus just finished saying that full price is unacceptable for many games and literally millions of people agree -- else rental wouldn't be such a big part of our culture. In effect, this assumption allows the publisher to blame the consumer for the publisher's incompetent marketing scheme. It would be like Toyota saying it was the drivers' damn fault that Toyota couldn't make cars that could stop accelerating after the gas pedal was released.

Every person playing the game is NOT, and I can't believe this still needs to be said, NOT a potential sale. This is because:

a) Many, many games suck ass and are played in order to discover whether or not they suck ass.
b) Many games market themselves poorly -- and it's no coincidence that many of these poorly-marketed games suck ass. Corporations play bait-and-switch and deceptive games with customers in every field; it would be incredible if video games were an exception. What is the consumer response? Rental and used sales.
c) Many games aren't worth buying even if they aren't failures. As has already been noted, many games aren't worth the initial price but are worth a markdown price.
d) Because of the inane pricing scheme, old games aren't carried by major retailors, with rare exception.
e) Many gamers don't have a lot of money and the current prices are extroardinary considering the game content.

What each of these elements have in common is that they are the exclusive purview of the publisher to manipulate, but this entire "used/rent = piracy" insult is a pathetic and cowardly retreat from that fact. Customers have no ability to directly control how games are advertised to themselves or their pricing schemes, but customers are to blame for publisher failures in those areas. Goodness, this sounds a lot like the resentment towards customers displayed in the DRM issue. Why, it's almost as if there is a common theme here. . .

You know the real cheaters? Those damn gamers who borrow stuff from the library! . . . Why do you think no one raises a stink about free media from libraries?

You know, that's an interesting point. I've never heard anyone complain about this.

Actually, there are people who do complain about libraries. No, seriously. I remember a library going up in TX once got some richer residents pissed off (their perspective: "if you want books, you could just buy books"). Again, there are people more than selfish enough, and more than arrogant enough, to manifest this as a legitimate political perspective.

 

[Geoffrey42]

Forgot one point I wanted to make: the comments from THQ which sparked all of this were overly bitter and combative. And, the overall sentiment that the used market is persona non grata to the developers and publishers is silly. Just because you missed a gamer with the original purchase, there is still value to be extracted: subscriptions, DLC, licensed products outside of the game, and assuming you can please them enough to get them hooked on your brand (or your studio), a possible original retail purchase of the sequel and any other spin-offs. Just because someone can't necessarily afford to buy new today, doesn't mean it isn't worth turning them into a lifetime customer.

 

[oranger]

A. The Project Ten Dollar punishes Gamestop, albeit in a roundabout, delayed fashion. By removing value from used games, publishers/developers can succeed (in the long run) in lowering gamers perceived value of used games, which will lower the price point that the market will bear for used games. Long-term, if it is widely enough accepted, and consistently enforced, they'll succeed in reducing Gamestop et al.'s margins on used games, while extracting at least a portion of that money for themselves (obviously not everyone still buying used will be interested in paying for whatever lost functionality there may be). I think the biggest loser in the Project Ten Dollar scheme is the renter (or the library loaner); they're already interested in the lowest investment way to enjoy a game, and having to pay 10 dollars to get to the full thing (which is typically a far larger investment than the rental itself) just means they're likely to be completely locked out of that content.

B. While games don't have the up-front low-cost one-time option like movies, I feel like they DO have price reductions over time. There are exceptions, like Modern Warfare, but they are exceptions. Most other games, 1-2 years later, while still incredibly relevant and enjoyable gaming experiences, tend to be 50-75% cheaper (new) than they were at release. $20 is the sweet spot, as far as I'm concerned, and I don't buy used. While it's worth arguing that the individual exceptions would be better off if they followed a faster discount model, and that the market as a whole could do with accelerating their discounting given the relatively short hype window and lack of secondary release window (like movies do with "Now available on DVD" ads), the idea that the games industry does NOT engage in this kind of practice is blatantly false. And, as many people have pointed out, the PC market for digital distribution has been engaged in an accelerated form of this practice for quite some time (and my Steam library is chock full because of it).

I've raged about game prices too, Why can I still find Halo 3 for 50 bucks? The game is 3 years old. I'll repeat this for emphasis THREE years old.

Ummm... I can also find just about every game ever, still being sold for its MSRP, by shady dealers on Amazon. But the highest asking price for a product is not reflective of the market. Halo 3 is $30 or less, on average, and if you had access to the right Target, $7.48. [a href=www.cheapassgamer.com]Cheapassgamer.com ftw[/a].

C. Just have to throw in that I find Gamestop's argument for how used game sales actually help absolutely hilarious. They say that people trade in old games to purchase new games, and therefore the used games sales boosts new games sales. This argument is so incredibly myopic (by viewing that sale of used games TO gamestop and the subsequent new game purchase independently from the cashflow represented by the sale by gamestop of the used game TO other gamers), I can't help but laugh.

Damn straight. I hated being guilted by developers just for being a smart shopper. I'm not pirating the damn game. I'm still putting good money down to play it. Gamestop is, meanwhile, making a killing, and you're blaming the people who would pay your price if you just made it a few dollars cheaper?

Somehow I find it hard to believe that, if the release price were the same as the current used game price, you would be perfectly happy to buy the game new. You obviously wouldn't find the exact same discount equally worthwhile in purchasing the used copy, at the newly discounted price off of the lower retail price. I.E. $60 new, $50 used "Oh, heavens, if only the new copy were $50, I would buy it instead!". Bam. $50 new, $42 used. You're telling me you wouldn't still buy used? Moving the price point down increases the market size (by making the cheapest point of entry even cheaper), but it doesn't change the value proposition of new vs. used, and it doesn't change Gamestop's business model.

This assumes that there is no absolutely reasonable price point, that there is no price where gamers will say "Oh, that's not too expensive, and the (new unit) box comes with shiny stuff!"

 

[Greenansatsu]

My question is, if publishers are upset that the used games market is making money, why don't they themselves get into the used games market. Set up a program so that a game player can send in a game back to the publisher and get a 10% coupon off on their next purchase on that publishers game, or 500 Microsoft points card or something. Then take the game and disc give a light buffing and repackage it, put a guaranteed new-used game sticker on it, and send it back to the retailers for 20 dollars off. On a standard $60 dollar game they've just sold it twice for $94 dollars, $100 if the game player is like me and loses the coupon, yes its not the $120 they could have gotten but its better than only $60, and $45 in Gamestops pocket.

 

[Geoffrey42]

Damn straight. I hated being guilted by developers just for being a smart shopper. I'm not pirating the damn game. I'm still putting good money down to play it. Gamestop is, meanwhile, making a killing, and you're blaming the people who would pay your price if you just made it a few dollars cheaper?

Somehow I find it hard to believe that, if the release price were the same as the current used game price, you would be perfectly happy to buy the game new. You obviously wouldn't find the exact same discount equally worthwhile in purchasing the used copy, at the newly discounted price off of the lower retail price. I.E. $60 new, $50 used "Oh, heavens, if only the new copy were $50, I would buy it instead!". Bam. $50 new, $42 used. You're telling me you wouldn't still buy used? Moving the price point down increases the market size (by making the cheapest point of entry even cheaper), but it doesn't change the value proposition of new vs. used, and it doesn't change Gamestop's business model.

This assumes that there is no absolutely reasonable price point, that there is no price where gamers will say "Oh, that's not too expensive, and the (new unit) box comes with shiny stuff!"

Actually, I was assuming that the possible range for reasonable launch game prices would still be in the ballpark of current prices (i.e. assuming that retail AAA releases will never be $15 2010 A.D. dollars), and that the remaining leeway between ~$5 (the used game seller's apparent tolerant point for value of game I no longer care about) and the resulting retail price was still sufficient for Gamestop to offer a discount equivalent to the value of "shiny stuff" found in the new version and still operate a profitable margin.

The point you're describing is not an "absolutely reasonable price point"; dollar value "absolute"s in an economic sense are silly. It's "price point at which the used game seller can no longer profitably provide a sufficient discount to entice the customer to forgo the shiny stuff". My assumption is that no such cross section exists within the current ballpark of pricing and margins.

 

[Deacon Cole]

Or you can just keep whining for gamers to pay extra in a bad economy when a cheaper alternative is readily available, while at the same time haranguing them with DRM and micro-transactions. I'm sure you can re-shape the long-understood consumer behavior of the average human being if you can just make them feel guilty enough.

Damn fucking skippy.

Anyone who is works for a publisher of any kind of media who does things like whine about the secondary market should be fired immediately, their homes taken away from them, and they should be forced to scrounge for food from a garbage can.

Anyone in any kind of business who thinks that guilt is a valid marketing tool should no longer be in business. It is not your customers' fault you are terrible at business, boys. Now grow up or get out.

Mark my words, if they manage to shut down the secondary market, by whatever means, then they will be cutting off their own legs and scrotums to scratch their ears. What this will do is cause fewer people to even bother purchasing game consoles in the first place because all the games will be full price and therefore too expensive. If they do this, then it is possible there will be another video game crash like in 1984. Then they will really have something to whine about as they sift through the contents of the dumpster behind a Chinese restaurant.

 

[oranger]

Is there a word for intelligent sounding troll?

 

[ASnogarD]

Question: Why is this always hyped as the DEVELOPER getting screwed out of cash, poor guy who slaved and bled over the game ... the likes of Kotick and his cronies havent seemed to have done badly for themselves ? You would imagine used sales would of made them equally poor as the poor developer, yeah ?

Lets be honest, the developer gets a fraction of the profits the publisher and its board gets, the majority of the dough goes to the suits end of, and THEY want even 'moar' thats why its a big deal.
Quit the bleeding heart routine, the suits want more and its a lot harder to 'market' rich suits losing cash than it is to portray the developers.

This is reality, the dev team get shafted by the publishers, a large portion of the team get laid off till the next contract / develeopment and the suits pick up the lions share... because they 'invested' in the developement.
Honestly the suit inflated the costs of develpment with costly over the top marketing, with too many managers ruling thier little domains, with insisting on using star quality resources whereas in house would of done equally well...

... I mean do we really give a toss that the actor in Star Wars voiced the NPC at winterdark and bought your rotten rats testicles ?

I dont buy used games as I dont have a console and PC used games market doesnt exist really... but I am sick of all this exposure to the evils of used games stealing cash out of the poor developers wallet, nearly as bad a piracy... bull fucking shit.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

I was under the impression that like any creative media, the original artists (in this case, the developers) are only entitled to something miniscule like 5% of game sales, and most of their revenue comes from direct cash advances from the publishers. The bulk of the money from game sales goes to publishers, hence, they, not developers, are the ones complaining about being hurt by used game sales. And to them I say cry me a river.

While it may be true that publishers take more than their fair share of income on a title, the publishers do still need income to pay developers to make more games.

I could wave my magic wand and wipe out the used game market, and I guarantee that publishers would not stop short-changing game developers: nor would they cease to look for any opportunity to cut their expenditure on development. I see this whole used-game fiasco for what it is: a bunch of developers attempting to find another way to increase their profits. If they had their way, you wouldn't even be able to lend games.

 

[Fearzone]

Yeah, that's funny. Game companies can always shame gamers into paying for their products. That's been working great for years.

 

[Andronicus]

Meh, brick-and-mortar stores in AU are beyond retarded most of the time anyway, so I usually only go there to look rather than buy; most of my purchases are either digital or from online stores, usually from Britain. Seriously, I've seen stores offering the used copies of games for more than what it would cost for a brand new copy. If this sounds good to you, factor in that Australia gets some of the most overblown prices in the world anyway, and all you have left are preowned games that don't even deserve the shelf-space.

Case in point:
I got Borderlands online for ~AU$35.
Brand new copy in store (one week later) costs AU$75
Preowned copy, same store, same time costs AU$95
I kid you not.

Edit: and by the way, that copy of Borderlands I got? Brand new.

 

[SirPumpkinLongshanks]

In the Playstation era many new games would go for around $40. That's my ceiling. I refuse to pay more than that unless it's a game I'm absolutely sure I'll love. I got a Super Nintendo in 1996; I'm no stranger to hopping on a technology right when it becomes obsolete and picking up everything that's worthwhile. Prices will come down, it's just a question of whether the developer will make anything off me by the time they do.

I'm lucky that most of the games pushing artistic boundaries today aren't big-budget 60 dollar titles. At least I can support innovation while still being a tightwad. Hell, I doubt I'll ever play most of the big blockbusters with the excess of shooters and linear 4-6 hour games. Games are a lot prettier but the gameplay options are far more anemic than they used to be. I like platformers, I like RPGs, I like strategy, I like side-scrolling shooters. I can find that stuff, certainly, but not in the quantity I'd like. There's a reason I haven't upgraded from the PS2. This is another generation where I'm gonna come in at the end and feast on the spoils. (And in the meantime borrow, borrow, borrow.) I don't see a worthwhile reason to do otherwise.

 

[L34dP1LL]

Shamus, you win. So much. I would hug you if you were here. You totally hit the nail on the head with this one. I should also point out that if you want to discourage used games, you better have a damn good recycling program. What am I supposed to do with that disc when I'm done with it? Throw it in a landfill?

Sell it directly to someone else, not a store. Cut out the middle man.

 

[Johnteerules]

Ben"Yahtzee"Croshaw

 

[Cynical skeptic]

Oh shut up. You got about half the issue and you're speaking out your ass on the rest, as usual.

Since they're inextricably linked, I'll just jump straight into piracy.

The only type of piracy the film industry cares about is pre-release stuff. Things that jump the lines of "graduated billing" you describe. Screeners released online before films are even in theaters, while they're in theaters, or before they're on DVD. They don't care much about cam and telesync releases, as the quality there is always near complete ass. So the quality loss fits within their graduated billing lines... whether they like it or not.

The reason film only really cares about one type of piracy is most of the money in film is in ticket sales. Always was, always will be. Even if everyone and their brother has bluray players hooked up to 7.1 systems and 60" 1080p screens, the theater is still a better experience... at least after you feel you've paid back that still pretty sizable investment to sitting on your ass.

Music also has a type of graduated billing. If you care about the band, you pay for concert tickets and merchandise. The labels aren't happy about it, but the rest of the music industry has accepted mp3s, cds, legitimate or not, are simply advertising for concerts. If someone pays, gravy. But what they're selling are concert seats.

Video gaming... can't really have any sort of graduated billing. Theres nothing comparable to theaters or concerts, the products aren't very long (and still aren't priced at ~$7 an hour, like new DVDs or $15 an hour like some blurries), and don't depreciate in any form. A game is as good the day it's released as 20 years later. Collectors editions are mostly bullshit sold at the wrong end of the "care" schedule. Demand for the things increases as the IP gains popularity, so the guys who bought them early and don't want them anymore sell them for 2-4 times what they paid on ebay. Kinda like music, in that respect. So logically, collectors editions should hit the shelves after people already love the game or just not hit the shelves at all in the case of some games.

Basically, the entire video game business model is a confused mess taking all the wrong cues from music, film, and television. As far as that "price reduction" where does that come from? It sure as fuck isn't going to come out of the retailer's end. They'll just laugh, raise prices, and act like you're the asshole (not saying thats what happened with activision, but...). So that means either the publisher or the developer has to take a smaller cut... while the retailer gets the same amount of money. Theres also no guarantee the retailer will actually pass on their savings. So everyone who matters gets even less money, and the retailers are just "honest businessmen"...

But one thing isn't confused. Gamestop. Any dealing with gamestop benefits only gamestop. Consumers lose, publishers lose, developers lose, traders lose. They are currently in the bussiness of "heads I win, tails you lose" and doing extremely well for a completely cancerous parasite sucking the life out of the industry.

You can also stop bringing up any other "used" product. Doing so simply makes you look stupid. Car manufacturers make most of their money on maintenance. Selling "official" parts to "official" dealerships for people's massively overpriced maintenance/repair calls. Not to mention, used cars are regulated. A car must pass inspection before it can be sold. Getting cars to that point means buying parts from manufacturers. So manufacturers make money no matter what. Anything else... I've got an old trinitron sitting on my desk. I bought it for $20 five years ago. If it loses power or signal for any (and I mean any) length of time, I have to break out a hair dryer and heat up the back for 20-30 minutes. I know its only got one or two power failures before it never turns on again.

 

[tunderball]

I recently bought Dragon Age Origins, my friend had been going on at me for ages saying it's the best game ever you have to play this. Suddenly I find myself with a gap in my life over the summer so I think what about that Dragon game I've heard so much about so while I'm in town I decide to pop into my local GAME and check it out.

£45 they wanted for it and I'm not being funny but thats a lot for a game that's been out for a while, but the worst thing is in the same shop is a pre-owned copy for £9.99. Which am I going to buy?

 

[Rad Party God]

I was simply dissapointed the very moment I ran up my 360 for the first time. I bought it from a friend and I bought the games on my own, the only "new" games I had were Gears of War 2 and Sonic's Ultimate Genesis Collection. I got bored of it (the 360) and I needed money pretty bad, I was cornered to selling my 360 and I did it. Now, I still need money, but not as badly as the past week. I even borrowed a couple of Steam discounts on the way.

I'm not cheating on Microsoft or anyone else, It's just business and I think (in my case) even the need for the money.
I'm on a strict diet of (cheap) PC (Steam) and NDS games right now and that's all what I need (plus food, washing my clothes, paying my rent...), until I get a new job.

 

[mjp19xx]

This article is absolutely right. If you want to beat used game sales, you have to cut down the profit potential. I have bought a lot of games that were heavily discounted on Steam that I would have never purchased at their retail price. I didn't pay much, but the developers and publishers made money they never would have otherwise. Developers are not the problem, consumers are not the problem and retailers are not the problem. Publishers are the problem.

 

[StarCecil]

As a console gamer for whom Steam is simply not an option, I love used games. I can get a game I want for half or less. I've never bought a game when it first came out. I wait, see if it's any good, if it has anything I want, then I buy it.

As far as that goes, I don't owe the Developer a damn thing. I only owe me. I'm the consumer, I'm the one they want to buy the game. If they want me to buy it new, they need to give me a reason. I don't care about "supporting the developer". I care only about getting the best deal I can.

If I pay $60 for something I could pay $30, I've wasted thirty whole dollars. Likewise for movies, books, even cars. So if THQ wants to me to buy a game new then they need to give me a real reason to.