Heavy Rain Dev Says Pre-Owned Sales Cost it Millions

[wulfy42]

What next?

Video game rentals are the new biggest threat to the video game industry?

Did you all know many libraries are now loaning video games out as well?

Honestly programs like Gamefly are probably a much larger drain on profits then used games sales are...especially with so many specials etc on new games. Quite often you save 10-20% at most buying a used version of a game...but if you wait till a sale is on (amazon especially...but even at Gamestop etc) you'll save 40%+.

Meanwhile many people just rent from redbox now....or if they really want to invest money they use Gamefly. Redbox costs a whole $2 to try any game out and see if you like it. Even I have been using it now to see if games are worth purchasing. Warhammer, Duke Nukem, Dead Island etc all are available at over 10 different red box kiosks near me and I can order it online before even going to the store to pick it up.

If I like the game but it doesn't look like it will take to long to finish it....I can just keep paying $2 a day till I do (a whole week would only cost $14 for me to finish a new game easily).

If you wanted to use a combo of Red box and Gamefly you could pretty much play every game you want for less then $20 a month easily. Now that would quickly kill video game sales.

Used games? Not so much. The best deals are rarely for used games since gamestop etc just wants to rake in as much money as they can with them. Best used game deals I have seen is buy 2 get 1 free pretty much.

Meanwhile there were a ton of NEW games last year sold by both Amazon, Toys R US, Gamestop etc that were only $10...that are still selling for twice that used right now. If you want for holiday specials etc...you'll get far better deals on new games then used...and your still supporting the producers of the game.

So yeah....don't complain about used game sales. Improve your games so people actually want to keep them. I keep all the games I really enjoy (often to play again many times in the future). I also always purchase games I think are really good.

Heavy Rain sure didn't fall into that category for me.

So Waaaa....your nitch game that only a percentage of players will enjoy and many won't even finish lost alot of sales because people bought it used. Don't you think the focus should be on WHY so many people sold their copy of the game in the first place? If half of the copies bought were later bought by someone else...there is a serious problem with your game (And thats not including copies that were brought back and not sold yet....if your estimate is even true). I rented Heavy rain just to try it (had some decent review but isn't my type of game) and I was very happy I only rented it. I would have been quite sad to even spend $10 on that game...as it just wasn't enjoyable to me.

Game companies are going to have to change with the times because between demo's, Redbox, Gamefly etc people can tell if they like a game or not before purchasing it now. The age when a crap game can sell a ton based on false advertising or hype is almost over...and so only the better games are going to sell alot of copies anymore. Borederlands 2 for instance isn't going to worry about used game sales much etc.

If you are worrying about it....look more towards your own game then at the customers purchasing choices. Just be glad in this day and age ANYONE is purchasing games new anymore. I do it only to support the gaming industry and companies I think produce good games. There is really no other reason to do so anymore.

 

[ViciousTide]

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!

 

[Hisshiss]

The industry being in danger from it could be argued as a valid point, but what always bothers me about this complaint is two things, first of all, they assume everyone can afford and is willing to spend 60 bucks on their shitty games constantly. 4 out of 5 games I buy at full price end up being a waste and getting traded in two weeks later anyways.

The other, and more glaring one, is the sense of entitlement, I can't think of any other industry that sells physical products that feels entitled to used sales. It's like wal mart complaining that you sold a chair you bought from them at a garage sale, and that they deserve royalties for that, they got their money for that copy of the game already, when the retailer bought it from them, what happens after that isn't their business, regardless of whether its hurting them or not.

The carrot on a stick approach, although sometimes frustrating, is their only real responsible outlet right now, because anything else is just being overly entitled or just plain childish. Plenty of other physical products get resold, and those people don't complain, because they know nobody will listen, why is this any different?

Wanting money that your not entitled to isn't the same thing as being stolen from, they assume every single person who bought a game used was going to buy it new if that wasn't an option. Most if not all of the games I buy used, I do so because they just aren't good enough for me to pay full price for.

Edit: And honestly, when has crying like a child about how people don't want to give you all their money been a respectable way of doing business? Who do these people think they are? It's business, they spend all day trying to be as cut throat as possible to make profits, and then expect us to shower them in our cash just because they say life is hard for them? It's not that complicated, if people refuse to spend 60 bucks on your game, then your game ISNT. GOOD. ENOUGH.

That being said, a lower price and digital distribution model works out fine for me. I only own like..5 physical games anymore anyways, all the rest went to gamestop, and the remaining 90% of my library is spread between xbox live, PSN, and steam.

And one last thing before I'm done venting, why the fuck do they complain about used game's sales, which is just basic bargain hunting, and not bring up piracy, which is just people flat out stealing from everyone. Seriously, make more DLC to sell, and then shut the hell up -.-. I'm tired of these poor million dollar companies leading a fuckin crusade against us just because they are butthurt about their profits.

 

[UnravThreads]

Fine, use books.

The two industries are highly alike, yet you don't hear book author's complaining about used book sales or how they're losing money to people sharing books amongst each other.

Uh, yes, you do. Sharing books? Not so much, because that person is likely to get off their arse and buy the other ones at some point, but used sales? Yup, you'll easily find authors not in support of them or who will explain why they're not so great.

What I would say cost Quantum Dream money is being dicks and releasing Heavy Rain on just the PS3. Hello, PC here, a platform made for adventure gaming with a strong pedigree of adventure history! Hello! We would buy Heavy Rain, and love to, but we can't!

 

[IndianaJonny]

Sell the games at a cheaper price, more people will jump on a $30-40 price tag than $60. If you sell it cheaper, more will buy it and you won't be bitching. There is a logical solution to this probably just the marketing suits want to see the numbers with a $60 price tag. It's not the consumers fault they want to pick up a game for $6-10 cause it was complete and utter trash at the $60 price tag, when the value isn't there the value isn't there you can't force someone to like your shit and pay for it on your price terms. After mindjack I stopped purchasing obscure games at full price. That game was maybe at best worth $20 and should have just been just downloaded format. All it takes is one ripoff to make a sour industry.

Can someone PLEASE tell Games Workshop this!

 

[oldtaku]

This game just wasn't worth full price. $60? Really? I know some of you will think it was well spent, but for most people this was not a AAA title.

And if the market was flooded with used copies, it's because you could 'beat' it so quickly and then what was left? Yes, in theory you could replay and replay it, but after a single play through I lacked the urge to repeat the experience.

So when you combine too high price with the quick play though time, that probably ends up with a lot of people buying it used, just renting it, or waiting for a deep sale. That's not a used game problem, that's your pricing problem.

 

[GiantRaven]

I'm curious as to what the respective time frames of the two different methods of sale are.

How long did it take for 2 million new copies to be sold and at what point did those sales drop significantly. The same applies to the used sales.

I imagine it would be easier to buy a used copy of the game today than it would be to buy a new copy.

 

[Hisshiss]

What next?

Video game rentals are the new biggest threat to the video game industry?

Did you all know many libraries are now loaning video games out as well?

Honestly programs like Gamefly are probably a much larger drain on profits then used games sales are...especially with so many specials etc on new games. Quite often you save 10-20% at most buying a used version of a game...but if you wait till a sale is on (amazon especially...but even at Gamestop etc) you'll save 40%+.

Meanwhile many people just rent from redbox now....or if they really want to invest money they use Gamefly. Redbox costs a whole $2 to try any game out and see if you like it. Even I have been using it now to see if games are worth purchasing. Warhammer, Duke Nukem, Dead Island etc all are available at over 10 different red box kiosks near me and I can order it online before even going to the store to pick it up.

If I like the game but it doesn't look like it will take to long to finish it....I can just keep paying $2 a day till I do (a whole week would only cost $14 for me to finish a new game easily).

If you wanted to use a combo of Red box and Gamefly you could pretty much play every game you want for less then $20 a month easily. Now that would quickly kill video game sales.

Used games? Not so much. The best deals are rarely for used games since gamestop etc just wants to rake in as much money as they can with them. Best used game deals I have seen is buy 2 get 1 free pretty much.

Meanwhile there were a ton of NEW games last year sold by both Amazon, Toys R US, Gamestop etc that were only $10...that are still selling for twice that used right now. If you want for holiday specials etc...you'll get far better deals on new games then used...and your still supporting the producers of the game.

So yeah....don't complain about used game sales. Improve your games so people actually want to keep them. I keep all the games I really enjoy (often to play again many times in the future). I also always purchase games I think are really good.

Heavy Rain sure didn't fall into that category for me.

So Waaaa....your nitch game that only a percentage of players will enjoy and many won't even finish lost alot of sales because people bought it used. Don't you think the focus should be on WHY so many people sold their copy of the game in the first place? If half of the copies bought were later bought by someone else...there is a serious problem with your game (And thats not including copies that were brought back and not sold yet....if your estimate is even true). I rented Heavy rain just to try it (had some decent review but isn't my type of game) and I was very happy I only rented it. I would have been quite sad to even spend $10 on that game...as it just wasn't enjoyable to me.

Game companies are going to have to change with the times because between demo's, Redbox, Gamefly etc people can tell if they like a game or not before purchasing it now. The age when a crap game can sell a ton based on false advertising or hype is almost over...and so only the better games are going to sell alot of copies anymore. Borederlands 2 for instance isn't going to worry about used game sales much etc.

If you are worrying about it....look more towards your own game then at the customers purchasing choices. Just be glad in this day and age ANYONE is purchasing games new anymore. I do it only to support the gaming industry and companies I think produce good games. There is really no other reason to do so anymore.

QFET. As in, extreme truth. I've just grown tired of every single developer on earth using the same exact complaint word for word, it would be nice if they could at least mix it up and blame something else for the fact that their games are just not worth the money they charge for them.

 

[Enslave_All_Elves]

You're fucking shocked I don't want to keep a linear game where I'm done after one, MAYBE two play throughs (if it's good enough)?

That is assuming I would even pay a full $60 for this, which I wouldn't. Maybe a Gamefly rental or borrow it preferably, maybe wait til it is $20.

I'm so happy Hawhaw le Greypoupon is impressed with his game though.

I demand multiplayer because...

1) I grew up playing SNES and N64 with my friends. Like a normal sociable human being.

2) Playing against AI is about as fun as Solitaire.

3) replay value

Stop bitching about consumers looking out for themselves. Find a way to make your money. Perhaps a game like this would be more profitable with a downloadable temporary ownership, available at a fraction of the cost? I'll still pay you directly for your game and we'll cut out the middle man (aka Gamestop). You don't make full profit, but you still profit.

 

[Wicky_42]

Lol, I read that article initially as 'pre-purchased' XD much "wtf?!"-ing was had. Then I realised it was another generic moan about used game "piracy". But yeah, I have to agree with:

...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!

There's a good number of games in my Steam library I'd like to sell on, and that often makes me stop and not buy something new, just because on the PC there's no way to even make a tiny fraction of your investment back. As a result, I'm less inclined to make risky buys. Rather than protest about something that should honestly be a basic right to re-sell your property and subvert that by only selling 'licenses' to your software, harness that user behaviour, accept it, and make stuff that people will keep coming back for. Project $10 was an attempt at that, but why wasn't the option available for PC gamers?

 

[Harbinger_]

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!

I was wondering how to word this but you already provided it perfectly

 

[BlackStar42]

I hate all the bitching in the industry about this. Once somebody buys the game, they have every right to sell it on for whatever they can get for it as long as no copies are made. The buyer then has the legal right to sell it for whatever people will pay for it. This has worked very well for as long as markets have existed. Why is it that only games companies have a problem? SUCK IT UP AND GET OVER IT.

 

[Aprilgold]

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!

One simple debate I have: If you don't want Pre Owned game sales, stop making games on disks.

Its less about someone trading in a old part for a new one as it is about them being stupid and not allowing a digital download. Seriously, dvelopers are the biggest DERP to ever happen to anything.

Early Gaming.
"OH BOY, THIS IS SO AWESOME, LOOK, LOOK, WE MADE TENNIS!"
Playstation and Xbox along with N64 Era.
"Wow, this is still pretty cool. I MEAN, WE HAVE FACES NOW!"
Modern.
'Instead of just getting rid of disks, were going to whine about losing money because our costs are NOW larger then what we are selling it for.'
"Yeah, USED GAMES R WORS THEN SATAN!"

I'm sorry, but if we put more games to EXCLUSIVE download, it could shut up every developer in the industry and every publisher planet side. But UNTIL then, they can shut the holy fuck up for the good of the lord, because bitches DON'T COMPLAIN BACK TO THEIR PIMP!
I'm sorry, but still, they will have thy asses kicked for teh good of teh gaming gods.

 

[wulfy42]

Sell the games at a cheaper price, more people will jump on a $30-40 price tag than $60. If you sell it cheaper, more will buy it and you won't be bitching. There is a logical solution to this probably just the marketing suits want to see the numbers with a $60 price tag. It's not the consumers fault they want to pick up a game for $6-10 cause it was complete and utter trash at the $60 price tag, when the value isn't there the value isn't there you can't force someone to like your shit and pay for it on your price terms. After mindjack I stopped purchasing obscure games at full price. That game was maybe at best worth $20 and should have just been just downloaded format. All it takes is one ripoff to make a sour industry.

Can someone PLEASE tell Games Workshop this!

The actually way they could solve this problem is to drop the price on a regular basis after it is released instead of the way it currently happens.

Sell the game originally for $60.....including all pre-order sales (with some special bonus for pre-ordering probably). If it's a great game people are waiting for...most everyone will pay the extra money to get it right away.

After 1 month, drop the price $10. Used versions of games currently sell for about $5 less then new for the first month..and with the 10% discount at gamestop....that makes it 10$ less. So if you drop the base price to $50 after 1 month you'll destroy any reason to buy the games new (or force gamestop to give even less money for the used copies they buy back.....making it almost pointless (it almost currently is) to sell them games back.

After another month drop it $10 and leave it at $40 for another 2 months or so. Then drop it to $30 and keep it there as long as sales are still fairly strong.

Nobody will buy used versions of games at that point as they won't be available right away...and if you want the game cheaper you just have to wait a bit longer. The difference in price between new and used won't be large enough to make it worth it. Add in a code or two that comes with the game and unlocks content, bonus features etc but only once for each system.....and you'll pretty much eliminate used sales all together and probably make MORE money over all.

Currently this is what happens.

Everyone really interested in a game buys it new when it first comes out (or rents it but thats besides the point). That is where most of the income from a game is generated right now because after that point used games start to be more attractive then new for many people.

If on the other hand new games dropped in price fairly quickly....casual gamers would be more willing to fork out money for them...especially if good reviews came out for it.

 

[CrystalShadow]

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.

That's not entirely true. It's a zero sum game overall perhaps, but pricing in particular is an area where it isn't so simple.
And lowering the price can, in some cases definitely make everyone involved happier.

Now, this isn't easy to deal with in the real world because you have to guess at the results...

But let's say you're selling something...

If you sell it for $10, 100 people will buy it.
If you sell it for $5, 250 people will buy it.
If you sell it for $20, 10 people will buy it.

Now, which is the preferred option here for the person selling it?
And which is preferred by the buyers?

The second one is simpler. The buyers prefer it's $5, because it's the lowest amount.

But for the seller, at $10 they will get 100 sales, and thus make $1000.
At $5, they'll sell 250 copies making $1250
And at $20, they'll sell just 10 copies, making only $200.

So, in this case, selling at $5 is a win for the seller, but also for the buyer. (as long as it costs less than $5 to make, obviously)

Thus, this isn't a zero sum game in such a case - but mainly because there isn't a fixed number of buyers. If there were, it would indeed be a zero sum game.

Of course, for the seller life is more complicated than that, because they don't know in advance what effect messing with the cost will have.

Let's say you sell 1 copy at $1000, and 900 copies at $1 -
Now, suddenly, just selling the one, really expensive copy is better for the seller than lots of cheap ones.
(But chances are, selling it for $200 or something would work better overall.)

The problem with the games industry is that companies don't seem willing to experiment with the effects of lowering prices out of fear of the unknown results...

However, the probability of improving sales by lowering prices is a very real. And if it improves sales by a big enough margin, everyone would indeed benefit.
Consumers would get lower prices. And retailers and publishers/developers would get more sales, and, if they get the balance right, more money.

 

[Hisshiss]

You're fucking shocked I don't want to keep a linear game where I'm done after one, MAYBE two play throughs (if it's good enough)?

That is assuming I would even pay a full $60 for this, which I wouldn't. Maybe a Gamefly rental or borrow it preferably, maybe wait til it is $20.

I'm so happy Hawhaw le Greypoupon is impressed with his game though.

I demand multiplayer because...

1) I grew up playing SNES and N64 with my friends. Like a normal sociable human being.

2) Playing against AI is about as fun as Solitaire.

3) replay value

Stop bitching about consumers looking out for themselves. Find a way to make your money. Perhaps a game like this would be more profitable with a downloadable temporary ownership, available at a fraction of the cost? I'll still pay you directly for your game and we'll cut out the middle man (aka Gamestop). You don't make full profit, but you still profit.

I bought dead space 2 for the full 60, beat it in 8 hours, and then played the multiplayer for like..2, and then I had to return it, because there was no longer any reason to keep it. The multiplayer had like 4 maps, and there was no reason to ever play the campaign again, it was officially over. As you said, if they would add some damn replay value to their games, we would keep them.

Any game that takes less than 50 hours to be totally exhausted of everything it has to offer was not even close to worth its price tag.

Edit: for context, i bought Dissidia Duodecim for full price last year when it came out, and I still have it, almost an entire 12 months later, ynow why? Because Im about to break the 600 hours of playtime milestone on it, because it has Replay. Value.

And that's exactly what Im talking about, they are trying to say that the fact that normal human beings are trying to save money on entertainment is the reason they are going under, who really think's its okay to say that the fact that customers are thinking about having enough money to EAT next week is the reason for all their business woes?

 

[oldtaku]

What I would say cost Quantum Dream money is being dicks and releasing Heavy Rain on just the PS3. Hello, PC here, a platform made for adventure gaming with a strong pedigree of adventure history! Hello! We would buy Heavy Rain, and love to, but we can't!

I don't really blame them too much for that. If you're making a PS3 Exclusive, instead of a game you know will be cross platform, you're going to end up designing for its bizarre architecture. You'll get higher performance for much less effort that way. But you end up with something that won't port well to any other system in existence.

Trivia: Heavy Rain was initially intended to be a PC game (crossplatform, like Fahrenheit) but went PS3 exclusive pretty quickly.

 

[shrekfan246]

Oh fuck you.

The gameing industry is so behind on customer benefits 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.

I agree with you completely. I'm stunned by how many people actually support publishers doing everything they can to completely crush the actual consumers of their products. This whole "lost sale" crap is really starting to annoy me, as well.

First of all, developers, did you make a profit off of your game from sales? If yes, then stop complaining! If no, then stop complaining and make a better game! If we're going by their estimate (which I would find highly suspect in the first place), then Quantic Dream saw money from two million sales. At $60, that means they made ~$120,000,000 off of the game. Even assuming that their publisher (SCE itself) took a huge chunk of that money for themselves, they still probably turned a damn profit off of it.

From Wikipedia:

Sales

Heavy Rain ranked as the tenth best-selling game in North America for February 2010. According to NPD Group sales information, the game sold 219,300 units in the region that month.[67] Heavy Rain entered Japanese sales charts at number six, selling 27,000 units according to Media Create.[68]

In weeks 1 - 15 in 2010 Heavy Rain outsold all Xbox 360 games within the EU, ranking it number 10 in European software sales for consoles.[69] Heavy Rain debuted at number one on the UK sales charts for the week ending 27 February 2010, with higher sales than all multiplatform and single platform releases.[70] Heavy Rain has sold over 1 million copies worldwide, surpassing the developer's initial pre-release estimates of 200,000 ? 300,000. David Cage now expects the game to sell an additional 500,000 copies by the end of 2010.[71] At GDC 2011, Cage announced the title has sold over 2 million copies.[72]

All I can say is that at least they're honest with how greedy they are. It's not enough that they had the tenth best selling game in the US and the tenth best SOFTWARE sales in EU, no, they deserve all of the used game sales too, or the people who didn't have the money to buy it new just shouldn't have been able to obtain it at all. Disgusting.