Bargains Are for Cheaters

[Cynical skeptic]

So... which development house would you like to see end so EA can open it's own digital distribution service?

EA already has one.

If you're talking about that single storefront in [god know's where], please slap yourself, as I can't reach you.

making billions... billions... billions... billions... billions... making billions

The problem is "billions" are split between hundreds of companies with gamestop taking the largest portion. Just because they aren't all starving, doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

I don't see book publishers bitching about libraries.
QED

I've never seen a book that cost even one million to write.

 

[onelifecrisis]

Go Shamus!!!!

 

[Plurralbles]

*checks the date*

Wow... what a novel idea, an idea everyone has had since the beginning of time and have been trying to take advantage of for their entire lives.

See, "greatest hits". That was a program way back when where the PS2 sold games that were popular at a large discount after they sold enough.

This is nothing new. I'd wish you'd say so instead of pretending it hasn't been tried before and pretending that for some reason teh gaming industry wasn't doing it for ages. Sure, tehy might have stopped, but then you can't say, "pick up what the film industry has done" no, it's, "continue what you were doing, we liked that".

 

[MDSnowman]

"Publishers would rather make nothing than let me have it for $10 a few years after release."
Reminds me how Psychonauts went on sale on Steam for $2 and earned Double Fine more money then some AAA games on steam that month. Because for $2 a lot of people instantly bought it.

DLC is a valid strategy though. For example, I've bought Dragon Age Origing for PS3 new, but pretty cheap, on sale. However later I've bought all DLC and Awakening from PS store. It seems to me that most publishers will go for DLC primarily.

I did this with my PC recently. I bought Dragon Age; Origins, new for $30 a week or so ago. Since then I've dropped another $25 in Bioware points buying DLC for a game I'm now obsessed with. Bioware has already made nearly $60 on me buying a "marked down" game. I'll likely shell out for even more as time goes on, and since I only paid $30 to start (and got shale for free) I'll feel like I still got a good deal.

Of course that's a slightly older game.

When I bought Fallout 3 for my PS3, the price was still $60,despite te fact it'd been out for several months at the time. Since then I bought all the DLC on the Playstation store, that's a whopping $120 spent on one game. As much as I loved Fallout 3 when I look at the money I put into it I can't help but feel I got taken a little bit even if I ultimately end up spending more on Dragon Age (which, given Awakenings and Witch Hunt I still might) I'll still feel like I got ripped off by Fallout 3.

 

[powell86]

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

nope. most of the games are actually on consignment, meaning gamestop doesn't pay the developers until the games are sold. Furthermore, some developers actually have to PAY gamestop to allow their games to appear on their shelves.

 

[SlothfulCobra]

You always get the impression that game companies must be kinda hard up for money from the way they try to squeeze as much money as possible out of consumers.

I mean, even if they are, that's at least partially their fault for dumping a million billion dollars onto every game they put out. I'm sure that they could do better if they didn't keep on trying for the same scale of success every single time.

By the way, Shamus, you're kinda wrong about your assessment of used products. Used games are just as indistinguishable from the originals as used furniture or automobiles, especially since Gamestop is known for not checking for quality.

The whole business of "potentially lost sales" is fuzzy as hell anyways, in this case, because of the fact that, unless there is some ridiculous sort of commission business, the publisher doesn't get the money that the consumer puts out; they get the money that the store pays for the games, and the publisher would do better if there either was more market scarcity for the store or if they could somehow undercut the store.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRGH BUSINESS

 

[SlothfulCobra]

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

nope. most of the games are actually on consignment, meaning gamestop doesn't pay the developers until the games are sold. Furthermore, some developers actually have to PAY gamestop to allow their games to appear on their shelves.

Didn't see this--who the hell would agree to such a deal?! Who-why-how?! These are the worst businessmen! The worst!

 

[Deacon Cole]

I do think that people bashing used game sales is just as ridiculous (probably a bit less) than people bashing libraries. If you see all my other posts in this thread, used games sales do no harm to the developers because of price thresholds on used game consumers. They're not going to buy a $60 game under most circumstances, whether they want it or not. They're going to pirate it, borrow it from a friend, go in on it with somebody else, get it on craigslist, or something. But they're not going to pay $60 for it.

Libraries are places to store the knowledge and history of our world. Games are part of that knowledge and history, and if the library wants to buy a game and rent it out, that's their prerogative. You have to deal with some things though like a reservation waiting list, people not returning them on time, etc. If you go rent the game from the library, the developer got paid for that product, and it's just as if somebody passed it around to their friends afterward or sold it to Gamestop used. If you get your games from the library, you're a smart consumer.

So your argument is special pleading?

 

[Zerbye]

its somewhat ironic that thq is whining about this when they have some of the most agressive pricing Ive seen, meaning they seem more then willing to cut down the price of a new game or to put stuff up on steam sale or give consumers more shit for free then really almost anyone else

Maybe because aggressive pricing isn't working for them? That's got to be frustrating.

lol? i hope you know it costs then less then $1 to create each CD and less then $0.05 to let you download it

If anything they should be giving out games for 15$ they would get much more business

I agree $15 games should spur business. However, we're not talking about selling blank CDs or downloading empty files. Their aggressive pricing (even in the $15 range for specials) isn't helping their margin much if they're still whining. That or they just want more of your money.

 

[Zerbye]

You know the real cheaters? Those damn gamers who borrow stuff from the library! Both developers and Gamestop don't get a dime from them. Play all you like for free? Libraries are a threat to game developers, book sellers, the movie industry, and record labels! Burn 'em down!

Sorry for the hyperbole, but really. 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.

You know why? Because it's ridiculous. That's why.

In all earnestness, why is it ridiculous? I can get access to games legally without paying the developers a cent from used game sales and the library. What makes one ridiculous and the other not? Aside from making the developers look really bad, that is.

I do think that people bashing used game sales is just as ridiculous (probably a bit less) than people bashing libraries. If you see all my other posts in this thread, used games sales do no harm to the developers because of price thresholds on used game consumers. They're not going to buy a $60 game under most circumstances, whether they want it or not. They're going to pirate it, borrow it from a friend, go in on it with somebody else, get it on craigslist, or something. But they're not going to pay $60 for it.

Libraries are places to store the knowledge and history of our world. Games are part of that knowledge and history, and if the library wants to buy a game and rent it out, that's their prerogative. You have to deal with some things though like a reservation waiting list, people not returning them on time, etc. If you go rent the game from the library, the developer got paid for that product, and it's just as if somebody passed it around to their friends afterward or sold it to Gamestop used. If you get your games from the library, you're a smart consumer.

Absolutely agreed. I like how you opened with equating the ridiculousness of arguing for "lost sales" based on the used game market and libraries. Based on principle, you'd have to say both are bad or both are good. Assuming that libraries are good (hard to argue against that), that tips the responsibility to the developers to compete with the used market. They can say what they want, but their ability to make money is their responsibility. If they try to legislate to make used game sales illegal, let them try. Games are a tough industry, as we already know. The people with the most time to play them usually don't have the money to buy all the games they want. That's a tough crowd to justify these prices to.

 

[lockeslylcrit]

If you're talking about that single storefront in [god know's where], please slap yourself, as I can't reach you.

Apparently you've never heard of the EA Download Manager [http://eastore.ea.com/store/ea/html/pbPage.welcome] (EADM) or the EA Store.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

Actually this debate is useless because most people involved in it have no idea what they're talking about. I say used games, you think "bobby selling/giving his copy to jimmy," and the entire thing spirals into stupidity.

The issue is a handful of large retail chains controlling a large majority of the secondary market. Market control is wrong, illegal, whatever. But because of the first sale doctrine, they get a free pass. Gamestop's is the worst offender. Their used game model places used copies between consumers and new copies. Their every sale of a used copy is a lost sale of a new copy. Every dime they leech away from the industry just goes to opening more stores.

If you're talking about that single storefront in [god know's where], please slap yourself, as I can't reach you.

Apparently you've never heard of the EA Download Manager [http://eastore.ea.com/store/ea/html/pbPage.welcome] (EADM) or the EA Store.

Nope, never had.

You remember all the houses EA sacked the last couple years?

 

[Galbraith]

Pardon me if this has been said before, I didn't read the whole thread.

I absolutely love this article. Shamus has hit on an excellent idea; in fact, the idea is so excellent that it forms an important pillar of current economic theory. For any given product (say MW2) there will be some (hopefully non-zero) number of consumers who are interested in it. Each consumer will determine the value of the experience they expect from MW2 (this is impacted by demos, videos, word of mouth etc.), and they will then purchase it when it hits the price they have set for themselves or lower.

By keeping games at 50-60 dollars forever the publishers are choosing to ignore this fact in favour of the fantasy that everyone will eventually get tired of waiting and buy their game. This fantasy is ridiculous because it's relatively easy to find a computer game similar to the one that's 50-60 bucks for much less. MW2 too rich for your blood? Maybe the 15 dollar Blacklight: Tango Down is more tempting (disclaimer: Blacklight might suck, I won't be buying it until it hits about 5-8 bucks on Impulse or Steam). This is the genius behind digital distribution: Steam or Impulse (or whatever you use) can sell a game for 5 bucks one day and 30 the next without people crying foul. It nails those parts of the demand curve that are satisfied by the 5 dollar price without exhausting the supply of people who value the game at 30.

Game publishers are going to have to grok this principle eventually, or they will lose sales to apathy as well as piracy.

P.S. I don't actually think the business majors at game publishers don't get this, I suspect it is instead the product of the industry changing too fast for the business model to catch up. Torchlight and Plants Vs. Zombies have proven that intelligent pricing can turn "bargain bin" games into an excellent source of profit for the developers (I bought both at full price and I will probably buy any forthcoming sequels at a comparable price without delay).

 

[matrix3509]

Has anyone else noticed that by Shamus' argument, its actually more moral to pirate a game than it is to buy it used? That way nobody loses a dime and nobody gains a dime. Perfect balance.

 

[Krakyn]

I do think that people bashing used game sales is just as ridiculous (probably a bit less) than people bashing libraries. If you see all my other posts in this thread, used games sales do no harm to the developers because of price thresholds on used game consumers. They're not going to buy a $60 game under most circumstances, whether they want it or not. They're going to pirate it, borrow it from a friend, go in on it with somebody else, get it on craigslist, or something. But they're not going to pay $60 for it.

Libraries are places to store the knowledge and history of our world. Games are part of that knowledge and history, and if the library wants to buy a game and rent it out, that's their prerogative. You have to deal with some things though like a reservation waiting list, people not returning them on time, etc. If you go rent the game from the library, the developer got paid for that product, and it's just as if somebody passed it around to their friends afterward or sold it to Gamestop used. If you get your games from the library, you're a smart consumer.

So your argument is special pleading?

You believe I am special pleading? Why? Ask me to clarify on any of points, and I would be happy to. Maybe it's that I said people who buy used games can't afford to buy new? I would cite the extremely sharp decline in new game sales after the first 1 or 2 weeks a title is released. The people who can afford to buy new do indeed buy new shortly after release. Nobody who really wants a game and can afford to buy it sits there for 4 months after release debating, then suddenly walks into Gamestop and buys the thing new.

 

[Krakyn]

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

nope. most of the games are actually on consignment, meaning gamestop doesn't pay the developers until the games are sold. Furthermore, some developers actually have to PAY gamestop to allow their games to appear on their shelves.

You know, I'm not exactly sure about this point. I have a friend who's a manager of a Gamestop, and I'm going to ask them about it. I figured they ran like any other stock/sell business.

 

[snowman6251]

its somewhat ironic that thq is whining about this when they have some of the most agressive pricing Ive seen, meaning they seem more then willing to cut down the price of a new game or to put stuff up on steam sale or give consumers more shit for free then really almost anyone else

THQ gave me Red Faction for free because I bought Darksiders.

That was pretty cool.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

Has anyone else noticed that by Shamus' argument, its actually more moral to pirate a game than it is to buy it used? That way nobody loses a dime and nobody gains a dime. Perfect balance.

People have been harping on that for a while. This debate has been running ever since gamestop start posting record profits and expansion, while the actual video game industry was laying off hundreds of employees and shuttering multiple houses.

Personally, I got tired of bringing it up because the counter was always 'but piracy is ILLEGAL' as if law is some sort of absolute.