Heavy Rain Dev Says Pre-Owned Sales Cost it Millions

[bakan]

If you sold your game for $5 instead of 60$, no one would sell back the game, and people could afford to buy it new! Complaining won't help you make billions. Only innovation and persperation!

Many innovative games have sold poorly in the past (Psychonauts, Beyond Good and Evil, The Last Express, Deadly Creatures, Okami). So no, hard work and good ideas don't necessarily equal high sales.

At the same time some of these games had bad advertising but cost the same as every other game, so there wasn't even a high chance for someone buying it on impulse

 

[svenjl]

I am Australian, and bought Deus Ex HR for $56 online in Australia. I have played it, finished, and tomorrow will trade it in for $42 plus 50% extra trade in value on pre-orders. That means that I will get $63 credit in store at Game which, along with other games I am trading in, will net me $146 of credit towards GoW3 and Batman Arkham City. Now that's going to make me happy. This is what I do all the time. Buy new online for cheap, trade in when done, and buy used games for $20-30 occasionally. I only keep the games that I feel I will continue to replay like Forza 3, Read Dead Redemption, Dead Space 2, DA Origins. If I buy 5 games new online totaling $300 I could play them, trade them all in and usually get 2 new games in-store. That's 7 new games for $300 as opposed to paying full retail price of $100 each and coughing up $700. If trading in and buying pre-owned games was stopped (unlikely) I think everyone would lose - devs, publishers, gamers and retailers.

 

[kingmob]

The sense of entitlement coming out of this industry is taking on disturbing levels. No, you do not get a contract saying you are entitled to this amount of sales when you start developing. No, people not buying your stuff new are not doing anything wrong. Yes, it means fewer sales for you, deal with it, just like practically every single other industry in the whole world.

 

[Gunner 51]

Cry moar. Those aren't "lost sales". They are customers for whom the price of your product was too high. If they can't buy your game used they would buy something else, or do without.

Also dude is delusional

he thought that there was a price point that would make everyone - from the consumers to the publishers to the retailers - happy.

This is of course totally wrong. Consumers want great products for free, retailers want to make infinite money while making no investment and taking no risk, publishers want infinite money and total, cradle-to-grave control over "their" products. These are zero sum calculations and there is no way to increase the happiness of one group without decreasing the happiness of another.

I can't wait for the future where all the parasitic middle men, by which I mean publishers AND retailers, die off and there is no longer a barrier between the creators and the customers. It is on the horizon and it will be glorious.

I think this is indeed possible via digital distribution. But I think the law should be softened to allow people to make a physical copy of the game in the event of the developer going bust.

But I'm of the opinion that the developers lost the right to ***** about money made their choice to go to the publishers. To me, the publishers are the fattest cats in Gametown.

Now that I've quoted your post, I'm in the mood to watch a bit of Judge Judy.

 

[Quellist]

Alright, a little bit of mathematics here:

3 million people played the game.

Only 2 million played it new.

Therefore, 1 million played it used.

Therefore around 1 million people would likely have traded it in.

Therefore, half the people who bought the game new decided to trade it in for another game.

Your're right there's a problem there. Make a fucking game good enough that half the people who buy it don't want to sell it fucking on. Don't go bitching about what certain people 'owe' you when you quite clearly couldn't make a game that kept people's attention!

Agree 100%

Certain games i have will never be traded away while i have the system. This game has zero replayability IMO (I think Yahzee pointed out a murder mystery that always has the same guilty party isnt really gonna shock you a second time) and is far too much about spectacle and 'oh look at all the useless crap you can interact with' with far too little emphasis on playability

 

[flare100]

Smallest violin Guillaume. Surely he couldnt have overlooked the fact that he made a game with little to no replay value.

 

[minuialear]

I can buy used books. I can buy used movies. I can buy used cars. I can buy used clothes. I can buy used panties from vending machines. None of these industries are going through a global meltdown.

If pre-owned sales are killing your industry, your industry is too dumb to live. Find out how all the other rich old bastards are playing the game so well and steal their playbook. If blatantly-illegal price-fixing, a five-year planned-obscelescence cycle, robber baron wage slavery, and a hype mill and the kind of frothing, blind consumer loyalty any other industry would kill for are not enough to keep the coke dish half-full, you have a few things to teach the federal budget drafters about throwing money down a mineshaft.

and books cars have low development costs
films have THREE income streams rather than gamings ONE (box office, tv reruns, and physical media) Comparing these things shows a lack of understanding of the economics surrounding the issue.

You're missing the point. The point is that all these other industries, regardless of costs, have found ways to deal with the inevitability that people will want control over their own products, which may include reselling them to other people. They largely accept the nature of the free market and have adjusted accordingly. The game industry is one of the only industries that is filled with producers who continue to act like they ought to always have full control and full profit margins over everything they produce, even after a consumer has paid full-price for the product, and refuse to believe otherwise.

 

[individual11]

Quick dose of reality to developers and publishers:

I am not going to pay full price for an interactive movie.

I'm sure I'm not alone in that sentiment.

 

[blasmeister]

Tough shit. I dont see car manufacturers whining that half their cars get bought pre-owned...

That comparison doesn't work. Used cars and used games are not the same, and neither are the industries behind them.

Try used DVD sales then.
Or music.
Or books...

Okay, I will. DVDs and book sales both exist in the realms of industries with multiple viable revenue streams. Movies make money in various ways from domestic theater screenings to international screenings to associated merchanising to television rights to, yes, DVD sales (not to mention the almost guaranteed multiple editions of DVD release for larger pictures). Price and time are also major considerations regarding used DVDs. Used DVDs cost much less than new DVD and aren't always available in number shortly after initial release.

Books also have multiple releases, hardcover, softcover and pocketbook as well as many being optioned for movie rights. If a book is successful, it will also be reprinted numerous times, possibly with different covers and additional content, each release also possibly being released in multiple formats. There's also the major consideration that often used books don't cost anywhere near as much as new books (my local used book stores sell copies for 1/3 to 1/2 of cover price). Someone who buys a used book may well not be willing/able to buy it new. Time is an issue here as well.

Music is much the same given that CDs have long essentially just been seen as advertising for the real revenue maker: live shows. And then merchandising, multiple releases, special edition releases, etc.

Games, as things stand at the moment, have one viable revenue stream: a new copy sale. If a game doesn't make money based on new copy sales, generally within a month or three of release, then it doesn't make money at all. Time is a major factor when you consider that used copies of new games are on the shelf days after initial release, generally for prices that do distract from new sales. If someone can buy a game for $55 then there is little doubt they could have purchased it for $60, and just as likely would have if the option wasn't so readily available. DLC is all well and good, but it doesn't make a lot of extra money if it's considered the worthwhile sort of DLC that actually sells well simply because it takes just as much time/money to produce as the base game.

It's rather obvious why the games industry would take a harsher stance on used sales than other industries if you just look at the facts.

Quoted so more poeple will hopefully read this and quit with all the moronic 'cry some more, this isn't an issue you greedy publisher evilman' we've got in this thread. geez. Not sure what the correct solution to the problem is, and while resellers are certainly partly to blame for this (though with the margins we let them make off it, can you blame them?), the game companies are too for making this option so viable, and we are for taking the marginally cheaper option without thinking about what it costs.

 

[FallenMessiah88]

I agree. They made the game so they deserve the profit. At least as much of the profit as they can possibly get. And no, "Make a good game. Then we'll at full price" is not a valid argument.

They do get the profit.

If I choose to sell the game that I bought, it's none of their business.

It's not like they are willing to buy the game back from me either, so what's a fellow to do?
Fortunatly Gamestop (or similar stores) are there to fill that void for me.

It's called free market capitalism.

No one is denying them the freedom to set up their own damn used game franchise.

I agree. Im really just lashing out at everyone on these forums who seems to take an almost perverse pleasure in denying developers their "reward" or what have you.

 

[orangeban]

Frankly, as a customer I see it as my right to sell my shit and buy it cheap later on. Every other industry has no problem with this, be it cars, movies, books, zepplins, whatever.

 

[Ranorak]

If people are willing to pay less for a used game.
Then you should take the hint a see that they will probably pay YOU money for a new game if you lower the price as well.

 

[Plan10FromSpace]

I made the decision a couple of days ago to purchase all my anticipated games new, by this I mean old cheep games, or stuff that was reviewed poorly ill still grab second hand, but anything that looks great such as Skyrim or Child of Eden, I will purchase new.

Its a big change for me as Im not rolling in cash and the second hand games market has always offered me an affordable way to play games. I decided to change my ways when the thought occurred to me that buying a game second hand is almost the same as pirating music, the developer and publisher receive no money and its taking massive amount of money away from video games. The difference is of course im still paying for it, so in other words im paying up to £40 to rip people off and help kill the games industry, considering you often get bonus content for buying the game new, it just seems like the right thing to do.

 

[Vivi22]

So one man writing a book of the period of the year is on the same cost levels as a huge development team?

People on internet are seriously deluded.

The ones who are deluded are the developers who complain honestly. Yeah, I'm sure it hurts their wallets when a person buys a game they would have otherwise bought new, for $5 less used instead. But used sales aren't a new thing. You could possibly argue that they're easier than they used to be, but still not a new phenomenon. If developers are spending into the tens of millions or more developing titles, banking on multiple millions in sales to earn that back and not getting what they hoped for then it's time to reevaluate the business model they're using.

Is there an engine they can license instead of building their own that will do the job? Are there ways they can avoid big hiccups in the development process that slowed down the last title? Should they look at scaling back the budget and working on smaller titles? Should they consider dropping the price sooner after release to bring in more new sales?

But you never really see developers talking publicly about these things. They'd rather just blame something else, rather than a business model where costs have been increasing significantly, while sales for the most part haven't.

 

[Dark Knifer]

I can totally see what he means, especially in the long run of losing profits, however, I can't help but completely agree with:

Alright, a little bit of mathematics here:

3 million people played the game.

Only 2 million played it new.

Therefore, 1 million played it used.

Therefore around 1 million people would likely have traded it in.

Therefore, half the people who bought the game new decided to trade it in for another game.

Your're right there's a problem there. Make a fucking game good enough that half the people who buy it don't want to sell it fucking on. Don't go bitching about what certain people 'owe' you when you quite clearly couldn't make a game that kept people's attention!

That profit's only lost because of this and it's the developer's own fault when it really comes down to it. That being said, if it weren't for preowned sales, the developers would probably end up losing more if you think about it. Preowned tends to be a wee bit to quite a bit cheaper compared to brand new games (though I did get "Little Big Planet" the other week for just a fiver, brand new and all) which encourages people to actually buy the game at all. If that makes sense? I'm probably wrong somewhere but hopefully you'll see where I'm trying to come from, lol.


x

Especially where I'm at. I live in Australia. A brand new game is $100 to $120 depending on how big the release is. I can buy preowned games online for a laughably smaller amount. If they cut off preowned markets here then they really would lose a huge chunk of it's market. A price cut would help us out quite a bit though...

 

[MadMikey]

Oh wwaaaahhh!!

These guys should be happy anyone even played their game once...I can guarantee you that 90% of those who buy a game used, do so because they wouldn't shell out the cost of buying it new....the items already been produced...it's not like they stole it from the store...someone who obviously did think it was worth the exorbitant price these wankers think their junk is worth did pay for it...and someone else has now subsidized that mistake for them. I can tell you one thing..if these guys were charging $10 or $20 for their games, they'd move a lot more product and would see a much smaller used market. But as long as they keep charging more than it cost me to feed my family for a week...I'm not buying every stupid title they generate! They get paid to design games for a living...which seems to me would be a helluva lot more fun that what most of the rest of us have to do to make ends meet! Maybe they should be thankful they even have a job and quit sniveling!

 

[Battenbergcake]

The only reason their are used games is because PEOPLE BOUGHT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, why do you think their are truck tonnes of modern warfare2 floating about?
Umpteen million copies don't just vapourate after you're done with them afterall.

Besides it's the sale of used games that keep retailers open, without used games we'd only be buying them in eletronics stores and supermarkets.