Jimquisition: Fighting The 'Problem' Of Used Games

[Jimothy Sterling]

Fighting The 'Problem' Of Used Games

For the past two episodes, Jim Sterling has railed against publishers and their war on used games. In the concluding part, he praises those tactics that he does NOT find obnoxious, and would like to see further encouraged. Rather than punish used gamers, companies need to reward new ones. Pretty simple ... you'd think.

Watch Video

 

[warfjm]

Rewarding people who buy new? What a concept!

 

[Volothos]

Great mini series jim. For a second i thought you were going to talk about the opposite >.> the beginning surprised me

 

[random_bars]

But... Alright, hang on a second. I don't get this. How is it that Locked Away Content A is being taken away from used buyers, but Locked Away Content B is being rewarded to new buyers?

Why couldn't you equally say that systems like the one Rage has are terrible because they mean that people who buy the game new are locked out of some content because publishers are dicks and all that, but online passes are a great alternative because they reward the new buyer for their allegiance, etc etc?

 

[Swifteye]

I honestly don't think any game is worth 60 dollars. DLC or not I would never buy a game at that price and only on holidays would I possibly buy a game in the 50s. I know how expensive it is to make games these days but I have other things to spend my money on. If you asked me publishers and developers should be looking at more ways to make there games more cost effective.

 

[Jaebird]

Final Fantasy IX music makes this the greatest video on the internet, regardless of content, by default.

 

[veloper]

I don't see a difference between giving free DLC only to new buyers and not giving some DLC to used buyers.

What's the difference between taking a part of a game and calling it DLC or making a slightly smaller game and adding DLC? Would we even know?

I can see the value of not putting the DLC right at the beginning and allowing players to put in the code at any time in the game, but I don't see why the bonus has to be small and insignificant.
More appreciation for the loyal fans paying full-price is a bigger bonus?

 

[Shadowkire]

But... Alright, hang on a second. I don't get this. How is it that Locked Away Content A is being taken away from used buyers, but Locked Away Content B is being rewarded to new buyers?

Why couldn't you equally say that systems like the one Rage has are terrible because they mean that people who buy the game new are locked out of some content because publishers are dicks and all that, but online passes are a great alternative because they reward the new buyer for their allegiance, etc etc?

Because Locked Away Content A is a significant part of the game, like multiplayer, while LAC B (in theory) would be some sort of added bonus for buying new, like special items or abilities for use in game. The difference being that a used game without access to LAC A would be half a game, while it's LAC B counterpart would be a full game without the cherry on top.

 

[Yopaz]

But... Alright, hang on a second. I don't get this. How is it that Locked Away Content A is being taken away from used buyers, but Locked Away Content B is being rewarded to new buyers?

Why couldn't you equally say that systems like the one Rage has are terrible because they mean that people who buy the game new are locked out of some content because publishers are dicks and all that, but online passes are a great alternative because they reward the new buyer for their allegiance, etc etc?

Because online passes usually unlock content that was already on the disc, such as the multiplayer function for Dead Space 2.

I agree with most of the stuff he said, though it only affects me in a small way since I buy 70% of my games for PC.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

But... Alright, hang on a second. I don't get this. How is it that Locked Away Content A is being taken away from used buyers, but Locked Away Content B is being rewarded to new buyers?

Because with online passes and the like you are not able to experience a BIG part of the game because you bought it used. With stuff like Rage the part you wont experience is a very tiny part that doesn't really offer any game changing rewards and will probably be skipped over by a lot of people who even by the game new. Whereas online passes just put a big barrier in front of one of the main game modes.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

All those pricks need to do is make good games. If they make shitty games they have no right to demand more money for them. I loved that you put MGS3 in the video because that's a prime example of a game I want to be buried with. Even if it has a few idiotic dialogues between Snake and Eva in that fuckin' cave.

 

[Adam28]

Dark Souls wasn't mentioned

Well, as I said in another thread, Dark Souls is giving away a soundtrack, artbook, DVD and complete guide (downloadable), as well as the limited edition case if you preorder. In my opinion, although many people won't care for that stuff, it's great fan service. Of course the problem with this is that all of the bonus stuff can be sold but the fact that you are receiving a special edition of the game may be more appealing to fans.

Anyway, I think that is a good example of how to get in more sales to combat used games.

Popularity is the only real way to deal with the fight against used sales though, well at least make a good amount of profit in the long run (greedy companies who aren't maximizing their profits will just have to stick to fair preorder bonuses if they already have popular franchises). Either create a lot of hype like Dead Island did (I don't know if it sold well but the trailer definitely got a lot of attention for the game), make the game stand out and worth getting new (Much harder though, Demons Souls didn't even get to a million sales worldwide. Minecraft isn't an example having no used sales) or make a sequel (in my opinion, the best way to deal with used sales, think about how many gamers will be buying Skyrim new on release).

Then of course there are the options to go download only or make the game a lot cheaper. Used sales don't necessarily apply to Minecraft and the game is cheap so people will carry on buying it due to it's rising popularity.

 

[mjc0961]

Exactly. This is what they should do. Give bonuses to people who buy new (I still never understood why so many people hated EA's Project Ten Dollar, which was not base game content withheld to used buyers, but free DLC for people who bought the game new), proper DLC (good pick using Red Dead Redemption for that, they did a nice mix of free and paid add-on content for that game and it kept people playing for quite a long time), and having the balls to lower the price of your game when you know it's not worth $60 (thank you again for selling 3D Dot Game Heroes for $40, Atlus).

Now if you'll all excuse me, I need to get on the Xbox Live Marketplace and buy Jim Stering's Motherfucking Mantis Pack. I don't know what game it's for, I just know with a title like that, I must own it.

 

[M920CAIN]

This episode was stupid... seems to me like Jim was forced to make this episode cause it contradicts what he said in the others... I call bullshit.

 

[TheDooD]

I honestly don't think any game is worth 60 dollars. DLC or not I would never buy a game at that price and only on holidays would I possibly buy a game in the 50s. I know how expensive it is to make games these days but I have other things to spend my money on. If you asked me publishers and developers should be looking at more ways to make there games more cost effective.

I think the developers want to do this, yet we know a certain group of publishers want to money grub and we know this doesn't work. I think developers want to sell their games a bit cheaper so they can get more sells out of it. They want to make a lot of DLC and not have to worry about starting on a sequel as soon and the first week's earnings come in. So they can have a sequel done by next year. It's the dumbass publishers that in my opinion don't know how money works because all they want is more income with less input which doesn't work. How they expect to make money when they churn out crappy overpriced games and then get angry when it doesn't sell well or more people bought it used. It takes money to make money when these guys stop being pussies and let the developers do what they do best instead of hounding them like slaves. That's when they will see the money they "deserve".

 

[Draconalis]

I like the "Make your game cost efficient so you can stop charging so god damn much" Idea.

 

[sir.rutthed]

I give the current attitude towards used games five more years tops. It's just so stupid and inane to suggest that used games are a bad thing! I can't see this attitude lasting much longer, nobody's gonna buy into it for long. Jim's suggestions are great, and I really think that rewarding new buyers is where the market will end up.