Heavy Rain Dev Says Pre-Owned Sales Cost it Millions

[Silenttalker22]

I liked the idea in the one post of incremental price dropping over a few months. The crux of the matter is people that bought it used thought $60 was too much, and didn't want it that bad.
To say nothing of the fact that the games stay at $60 for a drastic chunk of their life, like more than a year, which doesn't make much sense either. Nothing that isn't made of some kind of precious stone is still worth it's release price after two years.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

To be expected. They themselves said that people should only play through Heavy Rain once. At which point you trade it rather than letting it clutter your already cluttered home.

I have said many times in these kinds of threads that alot of games are too expensive for what they are, nice to see someone in the industry agrees with me. When you drop £40 on a game and then realise you'll never play it again after a couple of days...of course you want to recoup some of that cost.

Cheaper games means I'm happier to throw money around and take chances, it also means the trade in value is significantly lower too, which encourages hanging on to your games.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

Wow, this entire thread is full of people too cheap to shell out an extra $5 - 10 for a new copy.

I am disappoint indeed.

I would hope one does not prove a hypocrite in such an inflamatory statement, and does not ever wait until sales in retail stores, go to garage sales down the block or ever picked up any item from the "used" category.

If one does the above while stating such, I am even more disappoint indeed.

 

[The Random One]

Man, I wrote a book, but there are thousands of people reading it for free on libraries. Libraries are the number one threat to the literary industry.

 

[Snoozer]

I hate how game producers make second hand games a proplem. People bought used games since video games existed, so why is it a problem today? I doubt that numbers changed that much and even if they did, then is it probably the industries fault, because that would mean that price and/or quality aren't apropriate. I for example would never give away any game title I really enjoyed.
And Heay rain? Well I never intendet to pay 70? for that and after I finished the game I was glad I didn't buy it at full price. And that is how I feel about most games today.

 

[gphjr14]

Make a game worth buying brand new and you'll see your profits. You can't appeal to everyone's sensibilities to the point they just have to have your game ASAP, so you might as well accept this instead of whining over a game sale you already made an initial profit on. An online pass (for MP) isn't outlandish since the price goes towards that aspect of the game; however something like Heavy Rain that is a 1-2 time experience with really nothing extra isn't worth brand new for someone who's curious but is more interested in FPS and Hack n Slash games.

 

[Lunar Templar]

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 like where this post is going,

although my initial reaction to the title was 'so?'

 

[Irridium]

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.

This is a term I'm unfamiliar with, what are "customer benefits"?

Suppose benefits wasn't the best word. Meant more along the lines of "customer rights", but both are pretty lacking in the games industry.

Anyway, customer benefits are essentially benefits you, the consumer, get when you buy a product. These may include low prices, convenience, special deals... basically they're incentives to buy something from someone.

Say you want me to buy something digital instead of retail. A good way to do that would be to lower the cost of digital products. Now I have a greater reason to buy digital over retail on top of the convenience factor. If you wanted to still buy retail, then you'd get the benefit of being able to re-sell the product when you're done. Benefits, for every consumer involved. The seller then gets money from all parties involved. Happy days for all. Basically, the more benefits you offer, the more likely people are to want to buy from you.

Sadly that is not how things work now. Where retail/digital are the same damn price(or digital is even more in quite a few European countries). And that price is high(something EA said was a problem back in 200-fucking-7), they're trying to shut out used games, and basically trying to control everything about games, retail and digital without much thought for benefits for the consumer.

Customer rights, on the other hand, are things every other industry has. Mainly out of respect for basic human decency. Though some are considered law in some states/nations under their consumer protection laws/acts. These are things like:

Being treated with courtesy and respect.
Right to a timely support if you have issues.
Right to return a product that doesn't work.
Right to expect a complete and functional product at purchase.
Right to re-sell a product when you're done with it.

Basically, it's that list Stardock made a while ago: http://www.gamersbillofrights.com/

You can pretty much find the basic "rights" of that list in every other industry and company policy outside of the games industry.

In the industry we're constantly sold buggy, unfinished games(most recently Dead Island), quite a few support channels are pretty weak, or just crap(though, this is true for most customer support centers, regardless of industry), you can't return PC games(if you buy from a publisher directly. Most retail stores allow refunds), and of course publishers seem hellbent on destroying the used-game industry.

This is where those things publishers refer to as "EULA's", which is their go-to thing for explaining why they can do most of the stuff they do, tend to be shown how little power they really have, since they'd violate quite a few laws.

As for many Consumer Protection laws, well every nation(and state, if you live in the US) have their own laws. For the US, at the federal level there's the Federal Trade Commission, which to put very simply, exists to stop unfair/deceptive business practices. Courts have identified three main factors that must be considered in consumer unfairness cases: 1) Whether the practice injures consumers. 2) Whether the practice violates established public policy. (3)Whether it is unethical or unscrupulous.

Perhaps retailers forcing publishers to keep digital prices the same as retail or else they won't stock the games could fall under this and be reason for investigation.

Of course, each US state has it's own variations and whatnot, with California being the most consumer-protective state.

The games industry seems to be generally ignored at a federal level, though. At least from what I can tell. Probably why it can get away with so much shit.

I am not that familiar with EU consumer protection policies(and if US states are any indication, I assume each EU nation has its own special set of consumer protection laws on top of EU Directives). But I DO know that if a buyer has to agree to a contract before purchase, but is not informed of all the terms of said contract, then said contract is null and void. This pretty much renders EULA's about as legally effective as me shouting "I'm king of the moon!" in European Union nations.

At least that was the case when I read about it about two years ago. Things might have changed by then, but I doubt it.

Essentially, going by various laws, policies, and comparisons to other industries, the gaming industry is pretty fucked up from all sides. Especially since many publishers seem to be trying to push games as both entertainment, and software services. Both with their own set of rules and crap. They seem to be wanting the benefit from both for their own gain, while trying to lock out all the good stuff consumers get from both.

Like I said, pretty much fucked up from all angles.

 

[Hexador]

So... basically this is an article about some guy most of us have probably never heard about saying something a lot of other guys have already said. Not denying it's important, but what is being done about it by publishers/developers other than Fondaumiere? I mean specifics, not short carrot-and-stick examples (IE: EA giving away free DLC in games like Mass Effect 2 / DA:O/DA2). Also, how has it worked out for them?

 

[RedDeadFred]

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!

Loads of people play games then sell them. I bought Fallout 3 2nd hand, and I would argue that that game holds peoples attention perfectly. There's only so much you can play a game. Let me guess, and Xbox fanboy?

I liked Heavy Rain, and now I feel bad cos I got it on ebay and I sort of wish I'd got it first hand. But it was cheaper, and I ain't rich.

He's not a fanboy, he's being realistic. Heavy Rain was great, but you really only needed to play through it once.
Games I bought first hand and still own:
Oblivion, Fallout 3, Halo Reach, Uncharted 2, Rock Band 2, Starcraft 2, Forza 3, Killzone 2, Borderlands, LBP 1 and 2, Gears 2, MW2, Mass Effect 1 and 2.
What do all of these games have in common? They are all really great and have lots of replay value.
Games I bought first hand and later sold:
Heavy Rain, Bioshock, Two Worlds, GTAIV, Assassin's Creed 1 and 2, Uncharted, Halo 3, Gears of War, GOW 3, COD 4.
These are all games that either (FOR ME) weren't that great, had limited replay value, had replay value only in a not so great multiplayer or were old installments in a series that had been updated.
I still thoroughly enjoy all of the games I currently own quite regularly although some will be sold when newer installments to their franchises come out.

 

[scorptatious]

I can kind of see things their way. I mean publishers and developers don't make money off of used game sales. On the other hand though, you can't blame someone for wanting to buy something at a cheaper price.

So I don't know where to stand on this issue. Although from what I heard, some publishers tried out certain tactics that very few people on here seem to approve of. Such as paying extra for multiplayer as the OP has stated. So they aren't winning my favor at the moment.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

You mean like, make a long-term multiplayer shooter or an MMO instead of well... anything else?
Because those (along with multiplayer strategy games, but those aren't possible on consoles) are the only games with some longetivity to them.
Very heavily story-based games (or as in this case Adventures) and a lot of "Single Player" genres can factually not offer that kind of experience, and it doesn't matter how "good" they are, they'll be played and sold on.

Or add replay value. I won't ever sell my copy of Dragon Age: Origins because of how much content there is in that game.

And didn't you say in a thread past (Or perhaps I'm confusing you for someone else) that 90% of sales are made within the first month? Beyond then, why should devs/publishers really care? They've gotten the Lion's Share of what they'll get for that game.

That said, as I mentioned in a lot of these topics before, this will be a non-issue very soon, some publishers (like EA, Ubisoft, CapCom, SONY etc.) can't even wait that long and made their own "key-services", where you have to unlock their games online.
But at the latest when the new console generation rolls around in a year or two, be sure of it that Microsoft and SONY (and several dozen publishers and devs) won't sit idly by and let some parasitic retailer eat their profits and will introduce mandatory keys for a large amount of games (like on the PC) or support services like Steam or Origin on their consoles instead.

Wait, are we talking keys to play single player? If so, I think this industry need another crash at this point. To show that "Just like any other form of media" comes with great things, but also conditions.

 

[Reaper69lol]

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!

WINNER! I have nothing else to add really. You good sir, basically said it right there.

 

[Roamin11]

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.

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.

Thank you, that's the best comparison I've heard yet.

But its not, a author doesn't spend that much money on writing the book, and the publisher is the one who fits the bill for production and then the author get's what's left from the sales.

But a game company spends so much more money and man power on producing a video game, and still have to wrangle with a publisher.

There isn't a good comparison.

 

[dragongit]

I bought the game, beat it, got bored and sold it. The better investment was giving it away.

 

[thePyro_13]

I'd say he didn't lose that money, he never had it in the first place.

If he maker a better game, then half the people who bought it won't sell it again two weeks later.

 

[Giest4life]

I don't understand that why should I treat videogames different than any other consumer product? Here are some solutions to the "problem", developers/publishers. 1)Make better games so that people find it worth getting a new game, or not part with their existing copy. 2)Find better, more efficient ways of making your games so you can lower prices and sell more copies.3)Don't lose your business to Used Games retailers bye letting people register their copy online and letting them sell that copy (or the license to it--possible DRM problems here)to someone else and get the major cut of the profits.

Basically, they need to stop bitching and start working harder on solving the problem.

 

[Closet Superhero]

From an economic point of view, the fact that 1 million people bought it pre-owned doesn't mean you would get 1 million more first-hand sales if the pre-owned market didn't exist. First, the 1 million people who traded it in may have bought it new only because they knew they could later trade it in. Second, the 1 million people who bought it pre-owned may not have bought it at all at full retail price.

I think it's reasonable that entertainment products try to restrict the 2nd-hand market. Especially with movies and single-player games, almost all the value is contained in your first viewing or play-through. But they also need to restructure pricing to reflect that diminishing value.

 

[Upbeat Zombie]

My thoughts are that out of the extra million people who played it used. Most would not of played it at all if they had to buy it full price. But the extra million people who got to play it might now be big fans of the series, or of the developers and buy future games from them.

My example would be Dead Space before I got to play it I didn't care about the franchise. But after I bought it used, I loved it. So when Dead Space 2 came out I went and bought it new for $60 the day it came out. Which I wouldn't of done if I didn't get the first one for cheap.

 

[Arkynomicon]

So what? As a consumer I will always pick the option that is beneficial to me and games are ridiculously expensive over here in Sweden anyway. Since the industry seems hell-bent on screwing over the consumer with the whole online pass rubbish I feel obliged to screw them back by buying used games when I see something I like.