Poll: Do you hate the used game market?

[Yopaz]

Does anyone have an explanation for why video games should be treated differently than every other commodity in existance basically?

The difference between buying a used game and a used car is that a car cost enough to replace a lot of what went into making it, a video game cost several millions to make and each game replace about 30 dollars of what went into making it.
However, I don't have anything against used game sales as long as the seller isn't ripping you off. I've seen GameStop selling used games for the same price as Xbox games on Demand is going for, sometimes it's even been cheaper on demand. More commonly though I find them cheaper on my trusted electronic store (new) at half the price of GameStop's used games. Often they even advertise "We can't be beaten on price" on those games. It pisses me off because I can get the same game new, why would I want it used?
So no complaints on used games, program 10 dollars is a good idea and I am glad they started that, but expensive used games... stop ripping me off, GameStop.

 

[Katana314]

I certainly think much worse of a game pirater than I do of a used-game buyer. I'm mostly fine with the latter. But eventually, I really do hope for them to realize the impact they make; because as mean as it sounds, their effects are just the same as piracy.

I'd like to stop the car argument here because I don't see it as so comparable; for every single individual car that goes out the factory doors, there is a large cost associated AS WELL as the research and redesign costs. Plus, that car company is not maintaining the roads for you.

So a possibly more comparable concept is candy. Let's say a nice, 6-hour singleplayer game were like a delicious candy bar, except it costs $50. You pay the $50, chomp it down, and it's very satisfying. For you, though, that candy bar is now useless; in a singleplayer game there's not much point to going through it all again.

Now what if you could take that "expired" candy wrapper, and hand it off to someone else for $45? They too would get the gooey, creamy center, and all the enjoyment of an unopened candy bar, but for a lesser price, and only one person has paid the price of the candy.

The problem here is that the only real cost associated with games is the design and production cost; making one more box, disc, and manual, is pretty much incomparable to all the work and possible debt they went into making it. The end morality is clear: This disc is a token to enjoy our game. If you like our game and play through it, we deserve to have YOUR money.

A candy bar is consumed once. A game can be used over and over and over. A car can be used over and over, but is certainly more consumable than a game. And like I said, designing a car is assuredly more expensive than designing a game. AND THEN they have to pay per unit. It is much harder to start producing a car and make money than games. This is why you don't see many indy car companies.

The game manufacturer isn't maintaining the internet, or the console, so why are roads even mentioned here?

The fact that the fixed costs are basically all the costs involved with marketing a game is kind of the point. Since they can make unlimited copies for next to nothing, it is much easier for them to recoup.

Product A costs $40 to produce, and sells for $50. Fixed costs for the company equal $50 million.

Product B costs $1 to produce, and sells for $50. Fixed costs for the company equal $50 million.

Who do you think is gonna have an easier time making their money back?

I was referring to a singleplayer cinematic game, so in that case I was assuming a game cannot, or has no point in being consumed over and over.

As for maintenance, there ARE maintenance costs. The game's servers must be up at all times, especially if there is some kind of DRM. Multiplayer must work, and it must undergo maintenance if you need to scale it up. You must provide timely updates in the event of bugs. You have to provide support in case of someone who can't run the game.

I think your overarching assumption is that it is incredibly easy to make money creating games. I don't know if you realize, but a lot of games and game companies simply crash and burn. Not enough people buy their games, and they go under. If someone wanted to just make a bankload of money, I don't think the automatic assumption is "Make games! They're cheap to design, and sell for a lot!" That is simply NOT the case. It's a budding industry, but the majority of people here are doing it because they enjoy it as opposed to any other job. There are definitely the ruling successes like GTA4 and Call of Duty, but remember: They are a tiny minority in the field of games.

 

[Hungry Donner]

I don't have a problem with used games per se but I do have a problem with retail outlets relying on them so heavily, and being so pushy about it. If you have used copies two days after the release retailing for 95% of the original price it feels like you're cheating the customers as much as you're cheating the developers.

The move towards bundled DLC codes bugs me as well but not as much as a pushy retailer.

 

[Cheesus333]

At least with used games it's just the one copy being redistributed, rather than the actual source being copied and recopied from a single purchase (if that, I'm not entirely sure how pirates get the games in the first place).

 

[MartialArc]

I certainly think much worse of a game pirater than I do of a used-game buyer. I'm mostly fine with the latter. But eventually, I really do hope for them to realize the impact they make; because as mean as it sounds, their effects are just the same as piracy.

I'd like to stop the car argument here because I don't see it as so comparable; for every single individual car that goes out the factory doors, there is a large cost associated AS WELL as the research and redesign costs. Plus, that car company is not maintaining the roads for you.

So a possibly more comparable concept is candy. Let's say a nice, 6-hour singleplayer game were like a delicious candy bar, except it costs $50. You pay the $50, chomp it down, and it's very satisfying. For you, though, that candy bar is now useless; in a singleplayer game there's not much point to going through it all again.

Now what if you could take that "expired" candy wrapper, and hand it off to someone else for $45? They too would get the gooey, creamy center, and all the enjoyment of an unopened candy bar, but for a lesser price, and only one person has paid the price of the candy.

The problem here is that the only real cost associated with games is the design and production cost; making one more box, disc, and manual, is pretty much incomparable to all the work and possible debt they went into making it. The end morality is clear: This disc is a token to enjoy our game. If you like our game and play through it, we deserve to have YOUR money.

A candy bar is consumed once. A game can be used over and over and over. A car can be used over and over, but is certainly more consumable than a game. And like I said, designing a car is assuredly more expensive than designing a game. AND THEN they have to pay per unit. It is much harder to start producing a car and make money than games. This is why you don't see many indy car companies.

The game manufacturer isn't maintaining the internet, or the console, so why are roads even mentioned here?

The fact that the fixed costs are basically all the costs involved with marketing a game is kind of the point. Since they can make unlimited copies for next to nothing, it is much easier for them to recoup.

Product A costs $40 to produce, and sells for $50. Fixed costs for the company equal $50 million.

Product B costs $1 to produce, and sells for $50. Fixed costs for the company equal $50 million.

Who do you think is gonna have an easier time making their money back?

I was referring to a singleplayer cinematic game, so in that case I was assuming a game cannot, or has no point in being consumed over and over.

As for maintenance, there ARE maintenance costs. The game's servers must be up at all times, especially if there is some kind of DRM. Multiplayer must work, and it must undergo maintenance if you need to scale it up. You must provide timely updates in the event of bugs. You have to provide support in case of someone who can't run the game.

I think your overarching assumption is that it is incredibly easy to make money creating games. I don't know if you realize, but a lot of games and game companies simply crash and burn. Not enough people buy their games, and they go under. If someone wanted to just make a bankload of money, I don't think the automatic assumption is "Make games! They're cheap to design, and sell for a lot!" That is simply NOT the case. It's a budding industry, but the majority of people here are doing it because they enjoy it as opposed to any other job. There are definitely the ruling successes like GTA4 and Call of Duty, but remember: They are a tiny minority in the field of games.

Of course it isn't easy, but it is easier. How many new car companies have cropped up in the last 50 years? A bunch died, can't think of many new ones. New game studios are born weekly, and many die too. A car company usually provides a warranty for a while after they sell a car, so they have to pay for that. We're up to 10 years now? How many games provide managed servers for 10 years, if they even do at all. Most don't, at best some kind of master server to relay you to servers that someone else is paying for. Car companies have recalls to deal with, as do many other industries. And shit, how many studios compeltely suck at fixing bugs anyway? Any cost you can come up with for selling a digital product is significantly less than costs associated with a physical one. Literally millions of small businesses go under trying to market their new product. There are no tears for them.

It is absolutely easier to make money selling a digital product than a physical one. One guy has a hope of making some bucks on some software he writes. You are not going to manufacture something by yourself with just a time investment. You will need equipment, storage, probably help. Software can be done with free tools, and you can even grab some pro software for under a grand. All businesses are incredibly fragile when they are young and they die very often.

 

[Skratt]

There is ZERO reason that the publishers should get money from used games. Nike doesn't get any money from 2nd hand shoes or t-shirts, nor does any other company for that matter.

We get it. Games cost a lot to make. That is still no excuse to charge and charge again for a game.

That is really my only reservation about Steam. I love steam, but I can't trade in my games. I don't collect games, so not being able to trade them in really sucks. I only use Steam because the way I see it - if I bought used, I would save $X. If I bought new and traded it back in, I would also save $X. If I wait and buy it on a discount, sometimes I save $X plus a bit more.

See what I am getting at publishers? I'll pay for new games in digital format as long as I don't have to pay retail price. I'll give you a hint - it's a win win.

 

[katsabas]

You kidding? ME2 with 35 euros. What's to hate about that? Plus, Blu-Rays never get scratched.

 

[Tenky]

I am against a market that claim to save money, when a brand new 60$ game is sold 55$ used... saving 8.25% off a game... isn't much savings. seeing they rake in about 30$ profit with those titles by buying them back at about 20$...

In other words, I support used game, not through used store assholes... buy from amazon or ebay sellers... you'll give money to decent people, they'll make a profit and you'll get it way cheaper than a used store!

 

[Skratt]

No becuase i cant afford to dish out £40-£30 for a new game. The money already went to the developer when someone else bought it so, how exacatly are they losing out?

Because when you buy used, that's money they aren't getting, for the same number of people buying their game. How do you not see where they lose out?

If a game sells 1 million copies, if they were all new, they made $60 million. But if half buy them used, then they make only $30 million. $60 million > $30 million.

Not buying new hurts developers. It gives them less money to spend on development of future titles.

I'm not saying buying used is bad. Even I buy used occasionally. But saying it has no effect on the industry is asinine.

Do the developers really see any money above the publishers set purchase price? I mean doesn't the music industry work much in the same way - the artist (dev) is typically paid a flat rate and the publisher gets paid based on sales?

 

[PettingZOOPONY]

Gamestop is just wrong for any gamer, used games are good just not from them. Why in the world would anyone ever sell a game to gamestop when you can just sell them yourself for a shit ton more. Anyone who would use a broker to buy and sell used games and letting them take 80%of the profit is pretty much a moron.

 

[Bearjing]

Never understood how some people love to attack pirates but still support used games. Either way the developers don't see a dime.

But at least pirates don't support gamestop.

 

[MartialArc]

No becuase i cant afford to dish out £40-£30 for a new game. The money already went to the developer when someone else bought it so, how exacatly are they losing out?

Because when you buy used, that's money they aren't getting, for the same number of people buying their game. How do you not see where they lose out?

If a game sells 1 million copies, if they were all new, they made $60 million. But if half buy them used, then they make only $30 million. $60 million > $30 million.

Not buying new hurts developers. It gives them less money to spend on development of future titles.

I'm not saying buying used is bad. Even I buy used occasionally. But saying it has no effect on the industry is asinine.

Do the developers really see any money above the publishers set purchase price? I mean doesn't the music industry work much in the same way - the artist (dev) is typically paid a flat rate and the publisher gets paid based on sales?

Dunno, but I imagine there would be some trickle down anyway. Less profit for publisher = less money they are willing to throw to dev teams.

 

[jonyboy13]

...how in the name of Cthulhu would anyone hate the used game market at all?

Rich qqing people it seems.

I mean come on, not everyone can afford freakin 60$ for a game. In my country, it even gets higher, to about 80-90$.
40 used games = 5 full price games.

 

[TheEvilCheese]

I buy used games when they are not in 'print' (as it were) any more. I also bought a US copy of Chrono Trigger because it's like half the price of the EU version. Generally I buy games 'new' but I almost never pay full price (amazon is 95% of all my purchases) and I often buy games months after they come out, usually after I have played them at a friends' house.

 

[WorldCritic]

I don't mind the used games market. Hell I'm the kind of person who goes back and plays games I missed out on in previous generations and getting them used is pretty much the only thing to do, and I don't mind because I've bought some of my favorite games used.

 

[PettingZOOPONY]

...how in the name of Cthulhu would anyone hate the used game market at all?

Rich qqing people it seems.

I mean come on, not everyone can afford freakin 60$ for a game. In my country, it even gets higher, to about 80-90$.
40 used games = 5 full price games.

I hate the used market the gamestop has, I'm going to go get DA2 for 360 from a private seller for $20 instead of gamestops $55. Before gamestop came around you could go to used game sellers and get used games for 50% of new and they were 2 weeks old and may not come with a manual or box.

 

[Bakuryukun]

The used games market is broken because people are stupid enough to buy a game used even if the used copy is only like 2 bucks less. That crap needs to stop. Only buy used games if they are actually a good deal.

 

[Ewyx]

No, because it's legal.

This might sound a bit dickish, but that kind of reasoning is why we can't have nice things. People should always find a way to criticize their governments and the legal system. Blindly accepting something because it's marked as 'legal' or 'illegal' leads to being a docile citizen which will accept everything their leaders throw at them, which is the reason corporations are having such an easy time lobbying for strict laws that take away freedom from the consumer and into their hands. This is terrible from several standpoints, since it hinders creativity and innovation. This means corporations can spew out average crap, without any worries, as long as they can pay off the FDA and other similar organizations, because people will consume without any thought to what's actually going on.

Not to say that this sentence represents your whole mentality, it's just one of those things that send me into a rage.

 

[Bakuryukun]

...how in the name of Cthulhu would anyone hate the used game market at all?

Rich qqing people it seems.

I mean come on, not everyone can afford freakin 60$ for a game. In my country, it even gets higher, to about 80-90$.
40 used games = 5 full price games.

hahaha no. That's not how it works at least not in North America, no you see if a game store thinks they can make money off a game used, they will sell it near full price, and yet if you sell a game to them, unless it JUST came out, you'll get like 2 dollars for it. I haven't seen a fair used game pricing in quite a long time. Now I just get used games off of Ebay or Craigslist, or find the occasional good deal at a store, but that option is by and far the rarest of the three.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

No becuase i cant afford to dish out £40-£30 for a new game. The money already went to the developer when someone else bought it so, how exacatly are they losing out?

Because when you buy used, that's money they aren't getting, for the same number of people buying their game. How do you not see where they lose out?

If a game sells 1 million copies, if they were all new, they made $60 million. But if half buy them used, then they make only $30 million. $60 million > $30 million.

Not buying new hurts developers. It gives them less money to spend on development of future titles.

I'm not saying buying used is bad. Even I buy used occasionally. But saying it has no effect on the industry is asinine.

Do the developers really see any money above the publishers set purchase price? I mean doesn't the music industry work much in the same way - the artist (dev) is typically paid a flat rate and the publisher gets paid based on sales?

The industry-standard contract tends to work like this:

Developer A goes to Publisher B and says "Here's our game idea. It will take 3 years and $30 million to make. We have a production schedule and have divided development up into 6 phases of 6 months each, with each phase costing $5 million and ending in a milestone for the project."[footnote]Obviously, in the real world the prices and times for each phase/milestone will vary rather than being equal chunks, and not all the numbers will be so easy to work with.[/footnote]

Publisher B says "Ok. Here's $5 million to get started. Call us when you hit the first milestone."[footnote]Publishers tend to be more involved in development, but you get the idea.[/footnote]

Developer A says "Ok, we reached the first milestone, things are looking good. Yada yada." Publisher B says "Great, here's your next $5 million." (obviously, there is usually issues with adjusting deadlines, increased budgets, etc. But I'm trying to keep this simple.)

This continues with the publisher giving money every milestone until the game is finished. (This way, if something happens and the project falls apart, they've only paid for work completed, rather than paying the full cost up front and having half the game get finished before its scrapped.)

Once the game is done, the publisher sells it, and the developer get 15% of the sales. (In some cases, 15% doesn't start coming in until the publisher makes back their investment, but the former case is what developers tend to push for.)

So the developer only sees a profit from game sales.