Buying Used isn't Piracy
- Thread starter CaptOfSerenity
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You know what else cuts into video game sales?
Death
Thats right, soon video game pubs all over will start to try to stop you from dying. No more smoking, one night stands, reckless behavior or flying and we'll have to eat only healthy foods and vegetables. If you do die you can't buy their video games (new, of course) so your children and their children will have to pay extra money for video games (new, of course).
Because when you die you're throwing off their projected video game sales... you asshole.
Death
Thats right, soon video game pubs all over will start to try to stop you from dying. No more smoking, one night stands, reckless behavior or flying and we'll have to eat only healthy foods and vegetables. If you do die you can't buy their video games (new, of course) so your children and their children will have to pay extra money for video games (new, of course).
Because when you die you're throwing off their projected video game sales... you asshole.
Say a game costs 60 million dollars to make, not an unreasonable amount in this day and age, some can get up past 100 million.
Selling at an EB Games/Gamestop/other retailer selling at $60, publisher's make about $27 profit per game. That means that they need to sell 1.83 million copies, not hard for a major AAA, but what about the smaller games developed by these publishers- like L.A. Noire, or Psychonauts. Even at a 20 million dollar budget, you still need to sell over half a million copies. Every used copy is a lost sale, meaning that they have to sell one MORE game in order to succeed. And that's only to recoup the game, if they're owned by a publisher like EA or Activision, and they need to make a large profit in order to not be shut down.
With digital distribution, it's a 70/30 split, %70 going to the publisher, or about 42 dollars a game. That's why they prefer digital distribution. Furthermore, the reason they can't drop the game price in the digital store to about $38- the point at which they'd be making 27 dollars per sale- is because the physical retailers would be able to drop the price as well, costing the developers money per sale there. This is not what they want to happen, as I'm pretty sure more people purchase from a store like Gamestop/EB Games than from Steam, the purchases that they would get in the digital distribution would probably not outweigh the losses that they would attain from the sales made in the physical stores, a mere 17.1 dollars per sell.
So every used sale means a lost sale, which can be detrimental to smaller developers that need to make a big selling game in order to survive, yet aren't well known, and if they don't, they go the way of Team Bondi.
One more thing, during Desert Bus, James Portnow stated that there was a study that showed that people are conditioned to believe that $60 means quality, and there was less trust placed in the $40 game. Sadly, when I asked if he could share the data, he was unable to give me the survey, due to it being now unavailable. However, I am inclined to trust his word.
Selling at an EB Games/Gamestop/other retailer selling at $60, publisher's make about $27 profit per game. That means that they need to sell 1.83 million copies, not hard for a major AAA, but what about the smaller games developed by these publishers- like L.A. Noire, or Psychonauts. Even at a 20 million dollar budget, you still need to sell over half a million copies. Every used copy is a lost sale, meaning that they have to sell one MORE game in order to succeed. And that's only to recoup the game, if they're owned by a publisher like EA or Activision, and they need to make a large profit in order to not be shut down.
With digital distribution, it's a 70/30 split, %70 going to the publisher, or about 42 dollars a game. That's why they prefer digital distribution. Furthermore, the reason they can't drop the game price in the digital store to about $38- the point at which they'd be making 27 dollars per sale- is because the physical retailers would be able to drop the price as well, costing the developers money per sale there. This is not what they want to happen, as I'm pretty sure more people purchase from a store like Gamestop/EB Games than from Steam, the purchases that they would get in the digital distribution would probably not outweigh the losses that they would attain from the sales made in the physical stores, a mere 17.1 dollars per sell.
So every used sale means a lost sale, which can be detrimental to smaller developers that need to make a big selling game in order to survive, yet aren't well known, and if they don't, they go the way of Team Bondi.
One more thing, during Desert Bus, James Portnow stated that there was a study that showed that people are conditioned to believe that $60 means quality, and there was less trust placed in the $40 game. Sadly, when I asked if he could share the data, he was unable to give me the survey, due to it being now unavailable. However, I am inclined to trust his word.
then why are the major publishers the only ones working against used games (I'm talking to you ea)
Then why are the major publishers the ones using online passes.Berenzen said:
You know...in a twisted kind of way used game sales could be WORSE. Now stay with me here. Someone who pirates, may actually be doing it for demo purposes (I know many people say they do but don't actually use it as a demo but there are a few that do) and may end up buying the game if it's good. In the end the publisher/developer will get a sale. A used game buyer is buying the game at discount straight away. However, the publisher/developer is getting nothing for it.
Now this is just me playing devil's advocate. Personally I don't care about piracy or use game markets, I'm just being a jerk.
Now this is just me playing devil's advocate. Personally I don't care about piracy or use game markets, I'm just being a jerk.
To my knowledge the only game ot hit 100 Million to produce, distribute, market etc etc, was Grand Theft Auto IV.Berenzen said:
The next closest game being Shen Mue (Dreamcast awesome game series) which cost 70 Million to produce.
Also think about the fact that MW2, Black Ops, and MW3 make 1 Billion combined while their production costs where not even 20% of what they made in profits.
AFAIK the average production cost of a AAA title is between 40-60 million with indie developers and mid sized studios costing far far less to produce games as well.
They're trying to make money off of a lost profit. They're a business first and foremost. If they could I'm pretty sure that the Auto industry would try to make a profit off of their used vehicles, same with the literature industry and the movie industry- though they already make money off of both theatres and home releases. The video game industry is really the only one that can do so however due to the nature of the product.Joby Baumann said:
of course its not piracy, its just publisher being but hurt cause they aren't getting the money they only THINK they deserve. sorry publishers, but after its been bought its no longer yours, its mine, and i can do what ever i want with it, including sell it to some one else, and i am under no legal or moral obligation to give you a cut.
wanna up you profits and cut down on used sales?
wanna up you profits and cut down on used sales?
this is the kind of sage like wisdom that will go a long way in doing thatidarkphoenixi said:
I will tell you the problem I have with the current used game market that Gamestop has. RELEASE DAY used for 5 dollars cheaper. Is there time for someone to be able to buy the game try it and then return it just in time for the store to open up at 10 AM? I really don't think so and I have seen this multiple times at the Gamestops near me.CaptOfSerenity said:
Same thread, different day.
No. Buying used isn't piracy. That is established.
Is it wrong? Not really. It's a moral grey area. What we need here is more thought.
Gamestop buys 1 copy from EA. EA get's 60 Bucks, 10 of which is profit over a projected period (We'll say a year, just to keep thing's easy). Project 10 dollar for used games.... makes sense. Sort of.
Pretty much, the only way to continue getting those franchises you love, is to support the makers of said games, no matter how much you hate them. When comparing apples and oranges (new vs. used for 5 bucks less), I'll go for the new. 5 bucks over something that isn't a guarantee? is a fail.
Now, tangentially, no matter how good a game is made, if the used market is there, any gamer will use it, save for a few. Especially if the used game isn't really missing anything. I prefer the bonus over the whole buy parts of the game as well. I can do without multiplayer as well.
Which Ironically, I see that there is a direct correlation among those who don't care for multiplayer, and those that are willing to buy a game new, that is guaranteed to work.
Also, by the by, there are in fact hundreds of games created each year. Not every game is a Skyrim or First Person Brown Note Shooter with a loyal fanboy following.
just, think of things, and support the games you like.
No. Buying used isn't piracy. That is established.
Is it wrong? Not really. It's a moral grey area. What we need here is more thought.
Gamestop buys 1 copy from EA. EA get's 60 Bucks, 10 of which is profit over a projected period (We'll say a year, just to keep thing's easy). Project 10 dollar for used games.... makes sense. Sort of.
Pretty much, the only way to continue getting those franchises you love, is to support the makers of said games, no matter how much you hate them. When comparing apples and oranges (new vs. used for 5 bucks less), I'll go for the new. 5 bucks over something that isn't a guarantee? is a fail.
Now, tangentially, no matter how good a game is made, if the used market is there, any gamer will use it, save for a few. Especially if the used game isn't really missing anything. I prefer the bonus over the whole buy parts of the game as well. I can do without multiplayer as well.
Which Ironically, I see that there is a direct correlation among those who don't care for multiplayer, and those that are willing to buy a game new, that is guaranteed to work.
Also, by the by, there are in fact hundreds of games created each year. Not every game is a Skyrim or First Person Brown Note Shooter with a loyal fanboy following.
just, think of things, and support the games you like.
It seems like you kind of proved the opposite point right here.CaptOfSerenity said:
I know, I know, it's crazy. People actually wanting to be *paid* for the thousands of hours of work and (in the cases of the AAA titles) millions of dollars spent to make their game a reality.
Sorry, sorry. "Rah rah, down with developers, the greedy husks! They only want money for bread and rent and crap! Rah rah!"
Maybe the other members of your household should just man up and spend the ten bucks, which is still way less than the cost of buying the whole game.loch belthadd said:
...I just don't understand what possesses people to sell back those almost-new games less than half of what they paid in the first place... you'll see used copies of games on the shelves of Gamestop two days after release for $55. When those sell, it's easily $30 in pure profit for the place (on top of the initial profit of the new sale). How people can stand to keep such an exploitative business model going is beyond me.
I honestly see nothing wrong with the used games market... it's the consumers who are allowing it to exploit them. Therein lies the problem.
I honestly see nothing wrong with the used games market... it's the consumers who are allowing it to exploit them. Therein lies the problem.
of course not.
what i don't get is why publishers don't try to get in on the action, people want used games and not jumping up and down is not gonna solve this.
Why not cut the store-price in half and using the project ten dollar thing to have people pay another 25 to unlock something(let's say MP). This way you cut the price a little, increased your profit margin(i think) and forced gamestop to be the ones to pull customer-unfriendly dick move.
i know this is not viable for a lot of AAA titles since only about half of console owners are buying DLC(and would most like not pick up that game) but why does nobody ever try something like this with a smaller title
what i don't get is why publishers don't try to get in on the action, people want used games and not jumping up and down is not gonna solve this.
Why not cut the store-price in half and using the project ten dollar thing to have people pay another 25 to unlock something(let's say MP). This way you cut the price a little, increased your profit margin(i think) and forced gamestop to be the ones to pull customer-unfriendly dick move.
i know this is not viable for a lot of AAA titles since only about half of console owners are buying DLC(and would most like not pick up that game) but why does nobody ever try something like this with a smaller title
You're right, they aren't the same; Piracy isn't nearly as bad as buying Used Games. When you pirate, you get for free something someone provided for free; when you buy used, you're providing money to those people who perpetuated the used games industry, who spend the money on advertising to make the cycle continue. Pirating a game is a single crime; buying (or selling) used makes things progressively worse. Save the industry. Pirate instead of buying used; save your money for new games.
Well said Boshi. That's pretty much how I feel about the matter as well. I don't condemn the developers/publishers for trying to improve profits, but I do feel that my role as a consumer is being taken for granted with things like "Project $10".burningdragoon said:
Buying a used game isn't piracy.
A game is a piece of media, the same as CDs DVD, video cassettes, books, etc. If anyone claimed that you couldn't resell them they would rightly be ridiculed. In all of these instances the used market cuts down on sales, but it's accepted because it's fair. Not everything that cuts down on profits is wrong!
When it comes to digital downloads it's a little more complex, purely because you can't resell WITHOUT unauthorised reproduction.
But with itunes for example, the albums are cheaper, so in my mind it kind of offsets it (and I know how much itunes is loathed). I still prefer to buy physical albums, but that's more out of habit (and I like the little booklets that come with them
) than dislike of the system itself.
Frankly I think that charging for DLC (the ones that are more like bug fixes anyway - I've got no problem with expansions, though they are overpriced) is outrageous, but if they start REMOVING parts of the original game and then charging for it, then that's pathetic. Games are expensive enough now anyways. If you'd told me in 2002 that games would be £40 on release, I'd have laughed at you.
It's just going to encourage more people to pirate (and I really don't like piracy, but in that case I'd kind of understand), which is a shame because then the games industry will go the way the music industry is going now.
EDIT: Spelling corrected
A game is a piece of media, the same as CDs DVD, video cassettes, books, etc. If anyone claimed that you couldn't resell them they would rightly be ridiculed. In all of these instances the used market cuts down on sales, but it's accepted because it's fair. Not everything that cuts down on profits is wrong!
When it comes to digital downloads it's a little more complex, purely because you can't resell WITHOUT unauthorised reproduction.
But with itunes for example, the albums are cheaper, so in my mind it kind of offsets it (and I know how much itunes is loathed). I still prefer to buy physical albums, but that's more out of habit (and I like the little booklets that come with them
) than dislike of the system itself.Frankly I think that charging for DLC (the ones that are more like bug fixes anyway - I've got no problem with expansions, though they are overpriced) is outrageous, but if they start REMOVING parts of the original game and then charging for it, then that's pathetic. Games are expensive enough now anyways. If you'd told me in 2002 that games would be £40 on release, I'd have laughed at you.
It's just going to encourage more people to pirate (and I really don't like piracy, but in that case I'd kind of understand), which is a shame because then the games industry will go the way the music industry is going now.
EDIT: Spelling corrected