Heavy Rain Dev Says Pre-Owned Sales Cost it Millions

Richard Eis

New member
Oct 5, 2009
35
0
0
Funny how this wasn't a problem 10, 15 or 20 years ago. If you can't turn a nice profit on 2 million units sold, you need to have a good hard think about your business model.

Also why should i pay full price, when full price is so bloody expensive. Have these people checked the state of the economy these days?
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
SHrink the over all market by banning used sale shrinks new game sales. Though I am in favor of putting a levy on used IP sale of 10% or so that way the same can be done with digitized IP.
 

Hungry Donner

Henchman
Mar 19, 2009
1,369
0
0
Richard Eis said:
Funny how this wasn't a problem 10, 15 or 20 years ago. If you can't turn a nice profit on 2 million units sold, you need to have a good hard think about your business model.

Also why should i pay full price, when full price is so bloody expensive. Have these people checked the state of the economy these days?
This is largely a problem now because retailers decided to really push used game sales, previously it was a small part of their operation. I'm not saying that game publishers haven't contributed to the current problem, but I think it's places like GameStop that instigated it.
 

ksn0va

New member
Jun 9, 2008
464
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Alright, a little bit of mathematics here:
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!
Not a valid reason.
 

OtherSideofSky

New member
Jan 4, 2010
1,051
0
0
Really, guys? This is just ridiculous. We have used markets for literally everything else and no one's ever complained about it before, what makes games so special that they need to infringe on their customers rights (it is a right in the US) to stop it? They make all these claims about used sales killing them, but the industry keeps reporting huge growth every year. On top of that, talking about a used sale as a "loss" is just ridiculous. Sure, they're totally within their rights to provide incentives for people who buy a game new, but acting like people who buy used copies are doing something wrong is just absurd. I mean, this is exactly how they talk about piracy, which is a crime.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
What "threat" is being posed here? It's only a threat if they are saying that "Heavy Rain" didn't make a profit. That extra million sales is simply them looking at them and saying "wow, imagine the money we could have made if those people all bought the game new". Of course the flawed assumption here is that those people could have afforded the game new and would have bought the product. It's also assuming that the people who purchused the game new would have still done it if they couldn't have traded in the game.

This is pure greed, and there is no way to sympathize with it. The gaming industry is making billions of dollars, and has grown to the point it is at now largely because of a business model which has included things like game trade ins.

In general when a game company sells a product, they are promising to support it for the life of that product. Even the arguement about someone who didn't buy a game new demanding support doesn't hold any weight, since there is no differance between a guy who bought the game demanding support for 10 years or whatever, and a series of new users demanding the support over the same period of time.

The game industry might be able to deal with the used game market to some extent by lowering their prices and trying to make it up through volume sales, but that isn't an option from their greed-crazed perspective. In general we only hear about the industry saying "whelps, we really need to raise prices, increased development costs... which means increased demands for pay and perks from developers and producers, are leading to us to want more money to meet those needs. Bobby Kotick isn't content to just have one private Jet, he wants to have a fleet of private helicopters and support facilities in the major cities he regularly visits so he doesn't have to drive to meetings like a normal person and can show off... and that means we need to raise prices to meet that new goal".

I mean stop and think about that with the prices of video games. I'm all for capitalism but at the same time I think it can get ridiculous. Activision has been one of the companies spearheading more expensive games, and crying about rising development costs, but they have been making buckets of money. Bobby Kotick really does have a private jet, and was involved in a sex scandal (of sorts) with his personal stewardess. This is a guy who is involved in video games, not some real estate mogul or Rock Star or whatever... whenever you hear this "woe is us, we need more money" garbage keep that in mind.

Of course to be honest a good part of the problem is us gamers, as a group we do not have the willpower to just slam on the brakes and say "enough" while ceasing to buy overpriced games. If Bobby was to demand the price of the next "Call Of Duty" go up $10 so he actually could buy helicopter fleets (perhaps with bungee harnesses underneath because he can't bother to fly to meetings like a normal person in the seat), gamers would complain but still buy the game in unprecedented numbers saying "well, it's a good game". I think gamers need to look at the business practices and the overall problem and understand that something being a good game is not enough, and the prices, and gimmicks like going after used sales, and "project $10" garbage, and of course draconian DRM, are just going to get worse if people continue to spend the money.

While a side point, let's say you hate Ubisoft's DRM... the guy to blame for that kind of thing, and other companies supporting it, are those who bought their products while continueing to complain. "Assasin's Creed" made enough money to justify a continuation of the frachise and it's protaganist becoming increasingly iconic, this in spite of the DRM that everyone hated and complained about. Complaining, while you buy a product, does absolutly nothing, and leads to the industry figuring "ahh well, gamers will complain but do whatever we want and give us their money"... and be correct in that assessment. We're the ones who have been supporting "Project $10" gimmicks, always on DRM, and services like STEAM becoming absolutly nessicary to access our games.
 

Raioken18

New member
Dec 18, 2009
336
0
0
Ummm... what? How does this even make sense?

Consider that most movies still cost much more than games to produce, they are effected worse than games in terms of piracy, they lose much more overall in terms of lost revenue to secondhand sales and dvd sharing.

I consider the gaming industry to be selfish for restricting games to that degree, you can share a book, you can share a dvd, you can share a car, or even a handbag! What they don't want you to share are games, most games require you to join them all onto a user account such as steam and now origin, meaning that you can only play one of your games at a time and are unable to share your games between accounts... still that's PC gaming.

Let's take this back to oh I dunno boardgames, if you buy a board game you physically own that set. Once you buy it from the store you can do anything, you can burn it, you can sleep with it, you can give it away or sell it to someone else. Once you buy a game that's when that property becomes yours. Doing this would be like saying, hey once you buy furniture, if you ever sell that furniture to someone else you need to pay a second set of royalties for that product.

It is just... so dumb.

Also if you are going to claim that it doesn't matter, if you claimed that something didn't have replay value... it would. Like I'm not going to sell Monopoly or RISK, but if I gave a friend Monopoly, I should still be able to play RISK. Dammit went back to PC gaming.

This whole post is kinda incoherent... but it displays a few of my ideals about why the gaming industry needs to wake up.
 

Jason Fayers

New member
Jul 8, 2011
53
0
0
I see five options:

1) Rewards for buying games new.

2) Set up there own game shops. Like the whole Steam thing, sell it cheeper and deny the ability to resell or resell it to you.

3) Negotiate better deals with distrabuters.

4) Cry about it to governments until they force game shops to give you a percentage of resale.

5) Take it out on the consumers.
 

GameGoddess101

New member
Jun 11, 2009
241
0
0
Lowering the price point could be a good start, but you know what could work? Make some worthwhile games. No one wants to pay full price for a 6 hour game!!! Seriously, "buy it for the multiplayer" and "it's a really GOOD 6 hours" will never make me buy a brand new game. There's a reason I kept my PS2 around and I only have 3 games for my PS3 (Little Big Planet, Arkham Asylum, Catherine... SEE A PATTERN!?!?)
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
they havent lost anything. the potential 5 million worth of sales wont ever be sold if second hand wouldnt exist. people simply wouldnt play it. well sure some would, but thats very few. same thing for piracy. people dont pirate because they like to steal, they pirate because they wouldn't afford it anyway.

how about creating games people wouldn't want to sell away the next day but instead want to play again, or perhaps even game long enough for a person to play more than 1 day?
 

minuialear

New member
Jun 15, 2010
237
0
0
blasmeister said:
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.
But that's the thing. Those other industries have different revenue streams because, rather than only b*tching about the fact that people were selling their paperbacks to their friends or were relying on their family members to sell them their old movies, they also bothered to make different ways of getting revenue, and in doing so found ways to both earn more money and respect a consumer's right to actually own the product (s)he purchases (a right that ought to include the right to sell one's own property).

Game companies aren't stuck only selling games one way. They could choose to sell games in different packagings like books, with some being less costly than others (o hai digital vs hard plastic games). They could emulate how film studios get royalties showing films on TV by choosing to offer games that can be played through, say, cable subscriptions via special hookups (which they could also charge for), such as special controllers that connect directly to the cable box or something.

They have options. They're just stubborn. I can't have sympathy for a bunch of producers who claim consumer rights need to be trampled upon just so that they can earn more money, when they could do plenty themselves to achieve the same goal.
 
Jan 22, 2011
450
0
0
so people wanted a cheaper version, not everyone can afford 60dollars day one on game. In all honest I hope the game industry crashes soon, they are so full of them selves that it's not even about playing or sharing your work anymore.
 

Inkidu

New member
Mar 25, 2011
966
0
0
Well it's not like Heavy Rain was actually a game. So I don't see why he's arguing. Seriously though. Second-hand sales happen. Get over it. You still had good sales from all I can tell. The only thing that stopped me from buying Heavy Rain was the fact that I didn't own a PS3. If you want more money go multiplatform.
 

RedEyesBlackGamer

The Killjoy Detective returns!
Jan 23, 2011
4,701
0
0
One, I need a source for those estimates. Otherwise, they mean nothing.
Two, First Sale Doctrine says cry some more.
 

Redout9122

New member
Jul 8, 2011
30
0
0
Irridium said:
Oh fuck you.

The gameing industry is so behind on customer benefits/rights it's just disgusting. And they seem to keep trying to take away the very few that we actually have left.

What's fucking more disgusting is that they seem to be convincing gamers that what they're doing is right. And people are actually believing them.

Just fucking horrifying.
This. Just a whole lot of this.

I too am pretty tired of childish devs who are convinced they should get all the goodies just because they made something that works on a console. Sorry but just making a video game doesn't impress us anymore.
 

PissOffRoth

New member
Jun 29, 2010
369
0
0
Irridium said:
Oh fuck you.

The gameing industry is so behind on customer benefits/rights it's just disgusting. And they seem to keep trying to take away the very few that we actually have left.

What's fucking more disgusting is that they seem to be convincing gamers that what they're doing is right. And people are actually believing them.

Just fucking horrifying.
Yeah, this medium is still so infantile and being run on principles of other mediums. Next they'll be complaining about game rentals.
 

BiscuitTrouser

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
rembrandtqeinstein said:
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.
This. So much this. I dont understand why we need middle men. I hate them. They tend to confuse everything. The artist wants us to see his art. We want to see his art and are willing to exchange money for it depending on the quality of the art. No issue! Or so there shouldnt be. How does a relationship as basic as this get screwed up by people Who think it is wrong to sell something after you buy it or other wise pass it on WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?! Serial hoarders?!