Battlefield Dev: Anti-Used Games Tech Isn't "Evil" or "Stupid"

[80Maxwell08]

Used games are making developers struggle? Even a game that didn't sell well typically makes a profit.

I think what prevents a game from making a profit is not valuing a games price point and a game being shit.

Skyrim: 5-60 hour game that has loads of play methods, replay value and lots of things to do: 60USD

Vanquish: 5-7 hour game that has no multiplayer, real replay value or gamplay options: 60 USD

Which would you look at buying? And don't say neither because you're not into the games, that's not the point >:L

Vanquish because I like platinum games's work and don't care for TES games. Also I'm dead serious since this is exactly what I did.

 

[GonzoGamer]

If it wasn't for used games sales I wouldn't have bought many sequels NEW and there's LOTS of DLC I would have never paid for.

Same here. I don't think they realize that gamers who buy used games do sometimes buy new games too as well as dlc. They also get new games as gifts.

If it weren't for used games, I probably wouldn't have gotten back into gaming. Not on the consoles at least; and I buy a lot more games for the console than I do the PC. When I did get back into it, I didn't have that much money. For a little while most my games were used until I started anticipating new gamescoming out. Now I don't really buy any used games partially because Gamestop has gouged the prices of the used game market so they're only $2 shy of new but also because I can afford to buy a game when I want now.

I believe the term is "penny wise and pound stupid."

 

[Kae]

-Snip-

Very much this. I've recently been purchasing some hidden gems for my old Xbox that I failed to pick up on first time round. Games like Armed and Dangerous, Otogi, etc. All these games are out of print, meaning I had to buy them second hand. If the Xbox had come with anti-used games software, there'd have been no way for me to experience those games at all.

Not to mention you'd be blocking access to them by future generations, it's a horrible idea, and I mean it's not like games don't already become rarer over time but this kind of thing would accelerate the process way too much and these games would only be owned by those people that collect games only to have them on display but never play them, that is horrible games are meant to be played, I can imagine that poor little game sitting on a shed to never be used because it's the last playable copy of the game, how sad.
[sub]A movie about this would totally be the first movie to make me cry.[/sub]

 

[Orange12345]

"The only thing I know is that people are not doing it to be evil and stupid, it's about trying to create some benefits for consumers."

Your right its not about evil or stupidity its about greed and control

Captcha: battle royal (idk kind of relevent)

 

[SilverUchiha]

(yeah, thought I'd join in with a laugh too).

Here's a question to the industry. If you are saying the problem with used games is that it eats your money, forcing you to make shit games, why not look back at used games being bought that people seem to really like and make games based off that? If a lot of people are buying second-hand copies of Silent Hill or Viva Pinata over the newest Call of Duty (not actually happening, just a fictitious example) then maybe use that research to make more games like the former and less like the latter. If anything, it sounds like you're just passing the blame to Gamestop, but more to the consumer for making the choice to buy used in the first place.

Here's an idea. If we really are going through this whole no-discs, no-used games digital distribution method for consoles (not the worst idea in the world if implemented properly) then do it like steam where thing are at a decent price or drop in price much faster than their physical disc counter parts. That way I'm more inclined to buy your games earlier or ever. Give me a reason to give you my money, and stop taking good reasons or methods to buy your games away.

 

[Khravv]

Let's see how blocking used games would pan out:

Company A blocks used games
Company B doesn't
Company B's console sells many millions of more units the Company A console
Company A, now in a tight squeeze, disables used games blocking, sales go up, we all learn a valuable lesson

You know what, I really really hope this happens. Because seeing them learn this lesson that way, the hard way, would be great. I would just love to see the press release explaining why they decided to allow pre-owned games and trying to cover their butt from the "we told you so" remarks.
This is something I love about competition, differences allow consumers to let their money talk for them, provided the industry doesn't just cooperate and agree to all block used games.

 

[tmande2nd]

Oh whatever.

I really hate people who treat me like an idiot and expect me to take it.
No it does not work that way, and no I dont believe in your artistic integrity.

God when will companies treat us like customers and not like potential pirates or exploitable resources.

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

Used games are making developers struggle? Even a game that didn't sell well typically makes a profit.

Totally and utterly incorrect. Most games lose money. A small percentage break even. A smaller percentage make a decent profit.

 

[viranimus]

"The only thing I know is that people are not doing it to be evil and stupid, it's about trying to create some benefits for consumers."

If you think anyone is actually going to believe for a second that this is being done for CUSTOMER benefit, you are stupidly evil.

It is evil because it is undermining in born consumer foundational structure. Its stupid because all it can potentially accomplish is making devs and pubs less money because there is no regulatory agent that forces prices to be competitive.

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

If it wasn't for used games sales I wouldn't have bought many sequels NEW and there's LOTS of DLC I would have never paid for.

Finally, a rational argument for used games.

The "wah, publishers are evil because all they want to do is make money, wah wah wah" 'argument' is ridiculous because of course that's what they want to do. They have to make money or they go out of business. And much as many people on here hate publishers, I'm sure they hate not having games more. ;-)

However, your DLC argument is a legitimate benefit that first parties and publishers can get from used games. I doubt, sadly, that the developers will get much, if anything, from DLC sales... depends on how smart they were with the contract...

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

"The only thing I know is that people are not doing it to be evil and stupid, it's about trying to create some benefits for consumers."

And yet this is exactly what I picture you doing as soon as you get back to the office after the interview.
Honestly, if you are going to bullshit me, try a little harder.

 

[Azuaron]

Secondly, games would become more rare (since you can't resell them). And last time I checked, rare items don't really go DOWN in price.

This is not how economics works. I mean, it is for free market commodities, but that's not what we're talking about.

To develop a game, let's say it costs $20 million. This is the sunk cost; no matter how many units they sell, this cost is fixed. This is the primary cost that publishers/developers are trying to recoup with game sales.

We'll assume it's a console game, so no digital distribution, and it costs $3 for the manufacture and shipping of each disc, case, and manual. This is the variable cost, it changes based on number of shipped games. And, since the game's going retail, the retailer is going to keep $12 from the sale. So, the developer/publisher gets $45 for each sale.

Now, 1 million people are willing to spend $60 on this game. Of those, half are willing to wait to buy used instead for $40. An additional 200 thousand people are willing to spend no more than $40 for the game. These people all buy used.

How does the profit break down? 500 thousand people buy the game new for $60, netting the dev/pub $45 per sale, resulting in $22.5 million for the dev/pub. 700 thousand buy the game used for $40 netting the dev/pub $0. 2 million people are non-contributing jerks who pirate, but that's a completely separate issue. The game has made $2.5 million more than it cost to produce. This game is a failure.

But, what if there were zero used sales, and the dev/pub sold the game for $40? 1.2 million people would buy the game new for $40. Cutting off the manufacturing cost ($3) and retail cut ($8), the dev/pub makes $29 per sale, resulting in a profit of $34.8 million. By cutting out used games and lowering their prices, game companies can turn a game that barely made it's money back to a $14.8 million home run. Of course, if they don't lower their prices they'll get $45 million (a $25 million "let's buy all the executives private golf courses").

Do I think they'll lower their prices? Of course not. They'll keep selling at $60, and we'll (well, you'll; digital distribution has solved this particular problem for PC gamers, heh) keep paying it. But with more money going to the developers and publishers, they will be able to take slightly more risk and buy private jets for all their executives.

Who loses with no used game sales? Retailers. And by retailers, I mean Gamestop. And, honestly, Gamestop can die in a fire. Well, several fires. All across the country. One at each store and office should be sufficient.

Anyway, this isn't a freemarket economy.

Actually, the used games market is: people buy and sell at the best deals they can get. (What did I say? I meant the best deals Gamestop will give them. So it's more of a "Gamestop economy" than a freemarket. Except on eBay.)

But new games aren't on a "market," their price is set by the publisher, and the publisher makes, ships, and sells a certain number of units at that price. If they need more, they just manufacture an additional million units and ship them out. There won't suddenly be a "scarcity" of units, and even if there were, the publisher isn't going to suddenly raise the price of that game in response to demand.

Which means, when a publisher raises their price, they aren't "responding to market forces" or any nonsense like that. They're just taking more of your money because they want it.

 

[Azuaron]

I doubt, sadly, that the developers will get much, if anything, from DLC sales... depends on how smart they were with the contract...

Why would the developers make DLC if they weren't going to get a cut of it? "Why yes, publisher, I'd love to put in additional work for which I shall see zero return." A developer's either receiving something from DLC sales, or their lawyers are complete idiots.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

How can anyone possibly know what would ultimately happen when used games get nipped in the bud, you can't just release statements saying this this and this will happen in the future. Just go back to swimming in money and shut up.

 

[Grunt_Man11]

"The only thing I know is that people are not doing it to be evil and stupid, it's about trying to create some benefits for consumers."

Oh my god... this is just such an utterly idiotic statement.

Here's an idea I think people should do. Send an e-mail to everyone of these game developers and publishers that go something like this:

`

Dear (insert developer/publisher name here);

Want to know how to deal with your so-called "used sales" problem? Want to do it in a way that doesn't piss off your customers, whom are the ones keeping you out of bankruptcy court?

Have a little talk with these guys.

http://automobiles.honda.com/certified-used/

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Still wondering what would happen to all my games if my system broke and I had to get a new one. If all my games are registered to my old system, does that mean they're all unplayable now? Because, they are used after all. There are some serious logistical questions that need to be answered here.

 

[WanderingFool]

You'd think a game developer would want us to buy as many games as possible.

Well, they do. Its just they want you to buy games from Them and not from the *Insert used game store that totally isnt Gamestop, but it is*.

I would only support the anti-used game system in future consoles if it means the death of Gamestop... cause I fucking hate that place.

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

I doubt, sadly, that the developers will get much, if anything, from DLC sales... depends on how smart they were with the contract...

Why would the developers make DLC if they weren't going to get a cut of it? "Why yes, publisher, I'd love to put in additional work for which I shall see zero return." A developer's either receiving something from DLC sales, or their lawyers are complete idiots.

Sadly, the development world isn't as simple as that. Developers only get a royalty after certain criteria have been met. Usually this is based on sales: once 'x number of units have been sold (in other words, when the publisher has recouped the development cost), then the developer will get y% of the royalties. Quite often this is a tiered rate so the more units get sold (after break even), the higher the (small) royalty percentage rate for the developer. This applies to games and DLC.

Why would a developer agree to do DLC if they were nowhere near the break even point in sales? One of two reasons: 1) they might be contractually obligated to do so. 2) they will (naturally) get paid by the publisher to do the work, so if they have no other titles, or they're hurting for money (like most developers) then they'll happily do the DLC so they don't have to lay anybody off. There's no guarantee they'll get any royalties from the DLC they produce.

And, the fact remains, that the majority of developers see very little, if any, profit from the games they make in the first place. It's not that their lawyers are complete idiots, but put yourself in the position of a studio head:

1) You have a studio of (let's say) 60 people.
2) You are nearly bankrupt
3) A publisher offers you a contract to do a game that you know isn't going to be beneficial for your studio for anything other than the short term 'keeping the lights on' thing.

What do you? Accept the contract that has unrealistic royalty thresholds and hope you can find a better contract for when this one is done, or make your entire studio redundant and close down?

Developers continued to get screwed, I'm afraid. I prefer your version of the world.