I think that there is an issue that tends to get left out in this type of argument. The fact that not only are the prices ridiculously high, the price the publisher sells it to the retail leave very little room for profit on the retailer end. The profits off of new titles are very low to the retailer and I don't really blame Game Stop. This isn't giving them a pass though because I think they charge way to much for used games.
Bargains Are for Cheaters
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And not surprisingly, is the biggest digital distribution service for PC. People who want the game straight away just buy it at the base cost. People who don't care quite as much wait for the game to to hit the Weekend Sale or Midweek Madness. Heck, I personally have probably a dozen games that I bought purely because they went on sale for under $10. That's money those developers made which they wouldn't have if they didn't change their price.The_root_of_all_evil said:
I've always agreed with what the article says about how prices need to go down with time. Sure I can definitely see the logic in keeping them at $60 launch when you can easily put over one million sales on day one, but eventually the demand at $60 just isn't there anymore. You've recouped the development and advertising costs, so at this point every sale is just profit, so why not push for more sales at a slightly lower cost than fewer sales at the higher cost?
I also find it interesting how shops like Gamestop have been around for nearly 20 years, and yet just NOW developers are taking exception to them.
I've been wondering this for ages. Hell, I see this sort of thing too much. I recently acquired a PS2. Now, if I go to eb games (here in Australia) there's hundreds of games, all preowned, for less than $15. The really good ones, like God Of War 2, might be about $20. In the same store I browse these games I look up and see GTA San Andreas for $50 brand new! $50? Why? Hell, I could have bought Vice City, Liberty City Stories, and GTA 3 preowned (unfortunately San Andreas wasn't there preowned) for less than that. It makes no sense.
In fact, usually after a year or so any good game should have recouped the cost of production, which means the y should have no problem lowering the price. It just means, as you said, the people who are more or less indifferent to the game might pick it up and send a little extra money to the studio.
In fact, usually after a year or so any good game should have recouped the cost of production, which means the y should have no problem lowering the price. It just means, as you said, the people who are more or less indifferent to the game might pick it up and send a little extra money to the studio.
It's all about the game itself. Especially in today's economy. If I could afford to I'd buy as many games from the get-go on release day to play them ASAP. However, because they're 60 a pop, I can't, and therefor wait for the prices to go down. Games that I get excited for, such as FO:NV, I preordered as soon as I could so I could get a copy ASAP, same w/ GoW3.
I feel locking the players from the full game is a way to drain our wallets more in rough times, especially because if we bought 6 used games with the $10 DLC thing that EA has, that's a brand new copy of Halo Reach, or whatever. But instead we have to spend it to get the full experience of a game, punishing us for wanting to get good games we missed late or trying something new. I'd rather NOT buy a game with the extra cost when I could get a game that's maybe a point less on the rating scale and get the full experience without paying more
If we all had the money, the $10 DLC full exp. wouldn't exist, but because they want to get ahead, they squeeze our wallets. I understand gaming is falling on harder times than it used to, but again, it's just stupid. DLC as a concept should be used to FURTHER expand our gaming experiences, not punish us for saving up for a new release we can't wait for, and playing something we heard through the grapevine in the meantime.
If companies were smarter, release a full game, and use DLC as expansions to get that money back, but make it worth buying. 5 maps, 3 recycled for $15 is a bad example of DLC used correctly, $10 for a new area, or even the MW2 pack 5 less would be a good example. Halo ODST for 30 is a better example, DLC to add onto a campaign or levels, meaning that gamers who buy a used copy for 20, but spend another 20 to get the extra experience, means everyone wins. Gamers get a full experience from the get go with add ons to add to a what is hopefully already great time. Retail stores get money from used games and stay alive. And developers get to make their money back, get buzz about their projects, and get more content out quicker at cheaper prices. Everyone wins that way
I feel locking the players from the full game is a way to drain our wallets more in rough times, especially because if we bought 6 used games with the $10 DLC thing that EA has, that's a brand new copy of Halo Reach, or whatever. But instead we have to spend it to get the full experience of a game, punishing us for wanting to get good games we missed late or trying something new. I'd rather NOT buy a game with the extra cost when I could get a game that's maybe a point less on the rating scale and get the full experience without paying more
If we all had the money, the $10 DLC full exp. wouldn't exist, but because they want to get ahead, they squeeze our wallets. I understand gaming is falling on harder times than it used to, but again, it's just stupid. DLC as a concept should be used to FURTHER expand our gaming experiences, not punish us for saving up for a new release we can't wait for, and playing something we heard through the grapevine in the meantime.
If companies were smarter, release a full game, and use DLC as expansions to get that money back, but make it worth buying. 5 maps, 3 recycled for $15 is a bad example of DLC used correctly, $10 for a new area, or even the MW2 pack 5 less would be a good example. Halo ODST for 30 is a better example, DLC to add onto a campaign or levels, meaning that gamers who buy a used copy for 20, but spend another 20 to get the extra experience, means everyone wins. Gamers get a full experience from the get go with add ons to add to a what is hopefully already great time. Retail stores get money from used games and stay alive. And developers get to make their money back, get buzz about their projects, and get more content out quicker at cheaper prices. Everyone wins that way
Actually, about Modern Warfare 2's pricing:
The other day, I was strolling about at Gamestop, poking around in the used-games shelf. What does a used copy of Modern Warfare 2 cost? 599 SEK (~59 dollars, lazy conversion from swedish kronor to US dollar... it's probably more like 65 dollars, but shut up), and a few meters to the left of that... Mass Effect 2, which was released several months later (and, in my eyes, a FAR superior game) , at 229 SEK (~25 dollars).
So in the six months ME2 has been out, it has dropped to somewhere along half the price (plus project ten dollar, which is another 10 bucks), whereas MW2 has, in 9 months... dropped 10 dollars in price?... And these are the USED versions.
I stared at that pricing for a second, cheered at myself for not buying Modern Warfare 2 yet, put them back in the shelf and walked away.
The other day, I was strolling about at Gamestop, poking around in the used-games shelf. What does a used copy of Modern Warfare 2 cost? 599 SEK (~59 dollars, lazy conversion from swedish kronor to US dollar... it's probably more like 65 dollars, but shut up), and a few meters to the left of that... Mass Effect 2, which was released several months later (and, in my eyes, a FAR superior game) , at 229 SEK (~25 dollars).
So in the six months ME2 has been out, it has dropped to somewhere along half the price (plus project ten dollar, which is another 10 bucks), whereas MW2 has, in 9 months... dropped 10 dollars in price?... And these are the USED versions.
I stared at that pricing for a second, cheered at myself for not buying Modern Warfare 2 yet, put them back in the shelf and walked away.
I'm always puzzled as to why the games industry believes that it shold run differently to any other.
I understand that the primary concern is to recoup the loss made on developing the game and then make as much out of it as possible (DLC and so on) but (big one), once the game has been bought new then that's it surely? Game was made, game was sold, game now has nothing to do with them.
Using a different example, my car was bought second-hand for £2,000, obviously I'd prefer to have bought one brand new but I don't have the money for it. To my knowledge, the car manufacturer isn't expecting to make anything else from my car once it had been bought.
Why are games different?
I understand that the primary concern is to recoup the loss made on developing the game and then make as much out of it as possible (DLC and so on) but (big one), once the game has been bought new then that's it surely? Game was made, game was sold, game now has nothing to do with them.
Using a different example, my car was bought second-hand for £2,000, obviously I'd prefer to have bought one brand new but I don't have the money for it. To my knowledge, the car manufacturer isn't expecting to make anything else from my car once it had been bought.
Why are games different?
I play xbox 360 games for free* legally. How? Buy em used, sell em used, and no middleman like gamestop in between.
I'm just really confused about the Gamestop phenomenon, isn't there an online auction site in the US which you can use for free? Couldn't you just sell your game on say craigslist?
Maybe people just want to throw their money away, buying and selling at terrible rates.
I don't know about that stuff because I live in Finland and here I use a free auction site where I can convienently sell my game after I'm done playing.
*-shipping costs and slight devaluation over time
I'm just really confused about the Gamestop phenomenon, isn't there an online auction site in the US which you can use for free? Couldn't you just sell your game on say craigslist?
Maybe people just want to throw their money away, buying and selling at terrible rates.
I don't know about that stuff because I live in Finland and here I use a free auction site where I can convienently sell my game after I'm done playing.
*-shipping costs and slight devaluation over time
They put whatever price they seem fit on their product. You either pay, or you don't. Simple as that. That's how a market works.Sebenko said:
Whatever happens AFTER someone has bought their game, is none of their business until there's a law that says differently. That's my POV. How they deal with this is none of my concern. As a consumer my only means of control is buying, or not buying, so i'll make use of it as i see fit.
P.S.: Have they really caught all the illegal downloaders yet, that they're now going after paying customers?
This whole re-selling discussion really is the most idiotic "problem" of the year. You buy stuff, its yours, you can do whatever you want with it, eat it, burn it , re-sell it.
No one sais that people who buy a used car are criminal leeches, or second hand clothing, old books, used furniture. NO that's all normal, but the game industry has to double cash here. And it is double-cashing, because everything you can not eat, always was re-sold. You want it shiny and new , go get it more expensive when it comes out, you just want it some time , get it used when its out for some time.
Thats no new "problem" of this industry, its just normality.
If Volkswagen came to me when i sold my car, demanding 10% of the money, i would've kicked them out the door, with a massive boot of steel.
No one sais that people who buy a used car are criminal leeches, or second hand clothing, old books, used furniture. NO that's all normal, but the game industry has to double cash here. And it is double-cashing, because everything you can not eat, always was re-sold. You want it shiny and new , go get it more expensive when it comes out, you just want it some time , get it used when its out for some time.
Thats no new "problem" of this industry, its just normality.
If Volkswagen came to me when i sold my car, demanding 10% of the money, i would've kicked them out the door, with a massive boot of steel.
I mostly buy new games.I really don't trust used ones; I've seen how some people treat their games.
I really see no problem with the used game market, save one; the people who actually trade in their games.
With all this talk about fiscal responsibility, you are being ripped off.
Even when it was 3 for a new game you were being ripped off, but what is it now? Each game gives you $10 off?
I am reminded of that story of the kid who got a dollar, then traded it for 2 quarters, then 3 dimes, then 4 nickles, and ended with 5 penny's.
What I'm saying is if you want to get rid of your game, don't use gamestop, use E-Bay.
I really see no problem with the used game market, save one; the people who actually trade in their games.
With all this talk about fiscal responsibility, you are being ripped off.
Even when it was 3 for a new game you were being ripped off, but what is it now? Each game gives you $10 off?
I am reminded of that story of the kid who got a dollar, then traded it for 2 quarters, then 3 dimes, then 4 nickles, and ended with 5 penny's.
What I'm saying is if you want to get rid of your game, don't use gamestop, use E-Bay.
Very good article Shamus, although I think you missed a reason why stores such as GameStop, GAME, GameStation, HMV and CEX (these are in the UK) offer used games to consumers. It's the same reason that Cineworld charges £4.50 for popcorn and £3 for a drink - the need to survive. As cinemas receive next to nothing from ticket sales, they have to generate income from other sources, hence why food is insanely expensive.
I don't know what % of a games price goes to the retailer, I'd hazard a guess and say that it's a very small cut - probably less than £5 for a £45 game; and as consumers start to buy more of their media online, high street retailers need to find a way to generate income to stay in business and used games bring in cash just for the retailer, it the only way to survive for a lot of stores - although GAME is currently in liquidation which acts as an indicator as to the fine line that retailers are operating on.
Instead of pointing fingers at each other, retailers and publishers need to start working together to find a mutually beneficial solution, preferably one that doesn't involve blaming consumers who are simply trying to find value in the games market, we're not made of money!
I don't know what % of a games price goes to the retailer, I'd hazard a guess and say that it's a very small cut - probably less than £5 for a £45 game; and as consumers start to buy more of their media online, high street retailers need to find a way to generate income to stay in business and used games bring in cash just for the retailer, it the only way to survive for a lot of stores - although GAME is currently in liquidation which acts as an indicator as to the fine line that retailers are operating on.
Instead of pointing fingers at each other, retailers and publishers need to start working together to find a mutually beneficial solution, preferably one that doesn't involve blaming consumers who are simply trying to find value in the games market, we're not made of money!
What Shamus says is common sense, and it amazes me how many responses I've seen of the kind "Awesome idea Shamus". It's simpple, really. When a customer wants something, he pays for it. If he's not that interested, he won't, or will find alternative, chaper ways to get it. If he does get it and he's displeased (and that's the product and the producer's fault), he sells it. And so on and so forth.
When you see masses of used games these days, it can only mean one thing. Masses of disappointed/disinteressted customers. Why not stop spending untold millions on crap then developers? Used games exist since the start of the phenomenon, it's only bugging them now and this is the reason. They make expensive, crap and incomplete games which people get bored easily. People buy but mostly don't want to buy or might buy it if it was cheaper. And they're saying that in the end it's the consumer's fault. The Gamestop crap is just a facade because simply, they can't tell you, the customer, that you're a thief and a scumbag. But they can attack a successful enterprise. As for you and me, they say it indirectly, by applying additional fees.
When you see masses of used games these days, it can only mean one thing. Masses of disappointed/disinteressted customers. Why not stop spending untold millions on crap then developers? Used games exist since the start of the phenomenon, it's only bugging them now and this is the reason. They make expensive, crap and incomplete games which people get bored easily. People buy but mostly don't want to buy or might buy it if it was cheaper. And they're saying that in the end it's the consumer's fault. The Gamestop crap is just a facade because simply, they can't tell you, the customer, that you're a thief and a scumbag. But they can attack a successful enterprise. As for you and me, they say it indirectly, by applying additional fees.
As I said in my other posts, there is a price threshold for used game consumers. They won't purchase a $60 dollar game. They'll pirate it, borrow it from a friend, get it on craigslist, go half-sies with someone, something. I remember typing more options yesterday, but I don't feel like looking it up.raskyred said:
Thus, the developer makes no more money, and Gamestop loses money. So there is only a loss, no gain.