The real issue here is that these Single Player offline games offer little to no replay value and are not worth the $60 (US). So, players economically rationalize the purchase by reselling or buying the games at reduced prices.
Pre-Owned Games Damaging Single-Player Development, Says Braben
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
The problem with simply "making games longer!" is that it pushes the casual crowd out of their potential buyers. I can't speak for everyone, but I know the primary reason I haven't gotten in to the Final Fantasy series is that putting 100 hours into a game seems like a stretch for someone who puts about 3 in every week. Spending 4 months to complete a game just seems like a waste. I prefer games like Rock Band and Madden where I can pick it up, play for 1 or 2 hours and get a load of fun without feeling like I'm missing 90% of the experience. Sure, I'll never make it to a leaderboard in Rock Band or be good enough to be on MaddenNation, but I have fun, which makes it worth the money.KiKiweaky post=7.71273.718828 said:
Also, I'm not going to spend $60 for Halo 3 on launch when I could wait 2 weeks and get it for $35 from the local used game store (even GameStop is expensive, it's still $50 used).
Look, this is the second time in as many weeks some dipshit developer has spouted off without looking at the history of the very type of product they are producing. If you produce physical goods, you only get to sell them once.
THERE IS NO DEBATE HERE. It's just bitching about the physical world and the inability for vested interests to expire physical matter the way they would like. If you make a physical product, you have to deal with the first sale doctrine. Period, end of story, no we are not going to change reality because you make games instead of books, cars, screwdrivers, hats, clothes, paperclips or nail clippers. If you are a developer complaining about the used games market, you are an infant and you need to find an different job.
Before you post ANYTHING in this thread, I recommend you review the history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale_doctrine
THERE IS NO DEBATE HERE. It's just bitching about the physical world and the inability for vested interests to expire physical matter the way they would like. If you make a physical product, you have to deal with the first sale doctrine. Period, end of story, no we are not going to change reality because you make games instead of books, cars, screwdrivers, hats, clothes, paperclips or nail clippers. If you are a developer complaining about the used games market, you are an infant and you need to find an different job.
Before you post ANYTHING in this thread, I recommend you review the history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale_doctrine
I guess that's why he sells his games on WiiWare. (Frontier made LostWinds) No resale value there at all!
I saw the most senseless things in my local 7-11 last month. They were DVDs that would basically self-destruct after watching them. So instead of paying $5 to rent a movie, you'd pay $5 to buy one and then throw it away after you watch it. (looked it up, it's called FlexPlay--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexplay)
I'm sure there's an EA or Activision executive sitting at his desk rubbing his hands together at the idea of doing this with videogames. Take that, resale value!
I saw the most senseless things in my local 7-11 last month. They were DVDs that would basically self-destruct after watching them. So instead of paying $5 to rent a movie, you'd pay $5 to buy one and then throw it away after you watch it. (looked it up, it's called FlexPlay--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexplay)
I'm sure there's an EA or Activision executive sitting at his desk rubbing his hands together at the idea of doing this with videogames. Take that, resale value!
It's kinda true, but then again... who really cares? We could hem and haw all day about buying games new, but in the end we all like being able to pay less for a used game, especially when it's only single player.
how the hell does that hurt single player development?? if anything, it allows for people to get titles for reasonable prices! Why spend 60 bucks on a game that takes saaay... 4 hours to beat when you can either wait, or find a used copy at a lower price like 50 bucks or so? It's why multiplayer is added in games. To increase the replay value/longevity.
Yeah and it's gonna stay that way until we get rid of that "First Purchase" right, where if you are sold something, IT'S YOURS! Put it on the internet, sell it to your friend, beat a person to death with it, etc.DamienHell post=7.71273.718621 said:
Well, I hate to actually inject logic or facts into an internet argument, as it generally upsets people, but...
The fact of the matter is that the money from used game sales is actually subsidizing new game sales for specialty stores. The margins on new game sales are very thin, thin to the point where surviving on new game sales alone isn't feasible for an EB. Accessories and other items help things, but the profit that comes off of used game sales is a fundamental part of their business model.
Market forces conspire to determine who gets what cut of the money that games generate. The publishers/developers would like to push the retailers completely out of the picture, but as long as they're selling physical boxes they need somebody to provide that service and they're not going to provide it without making a profit.
What I'd really like to see- and I don't understand why it doesn't exist- is an online retail store run directly by the publishers. There have been times where finding a new copy of a game- even online- has been exceedingly difficult. Psychonauts had good word of mouth, but good luck finding a copy of it (even while it was still in print). There are plenty of publishers who are more than large enough to run this type of operation, so it seems like a natural business expansion to me.
The fact of the matter is that the money from used game sales is actually subsidizing new game sales for specialty stores. The margins on new game sales are very thin, thin to the point where surviving on new game sales alone isn't feasible for an EB. Accessories and other items help things, but the profit that comes off of used game sales is a fundamental part of their business model.
Market forces conspire to determine who gets what cut of the money that games generate. The publishers/developers would like to push the retailers completely out of the picture, but as long as they're selling physical boxes they need somebody to provide that service and they're not going to provide it without making a profit.
What I'd really like to see- and I don't understand why it doesn't exist- is an online retail store run directly by the publishers. There have been times where finding a new copy of a game- even online- has been exceedingly difficult. Psychonauts had good word of mouth, but good luck finding a copy of it (even while it was still in print). There are plenty of publishers who are more than large enough to run this type of operation, so it seems like a natural business expansion to me.
You know, if I turn around right now and sell my '93 Chevrolet Cavalier to someone, Chevrolet doesn't get a single penny. Why should they? It's not still Chevrolet's car, it's mine. I have the title; I am the owner. It is my property to do with as I please. I don't hear Chevrolet complaining that the used-car market is damaging new-car sales.
A game, on a physical disc, is exactly the same. I can sell, trade, or give that disc to whoever I want. The game's publisher has absolutely no right to tell me what I can or cannot do with that physical disc. If you want to tie down the game itself with DRM, to where I'm the only person who can ever play it, go right ahead- but you can expect that to seriously hurt your sales. And please, PLEASE do not try to impose a "rental" license on me- you'll never get a dollar from me. When I buy a game, I expect that game to be mine for as long as I wish to keep it- not as long as you wish to let me have it.
And someone please explain this to me:
Here's a thought, Mr. Braben. If you want me to keep your game, rather than sell it to a game store, MAKE THE GAME GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME TO WANT TO KEEP.
A game, on a physical disc, is exactly the same. I can sell, trade, or give that disc to whoever I want. The game's publisher has absolutely no right to tell me what I can or cannot do with that physical disc. If you want to tie down the game itself with DRM, to where I'm the only person who can ever play it, go right ahead- but you can expect that to seriously hurt your sales. And please, PLEASE do not try to impose a "rental" license on me- you'll never get a dollar from me. When I buy a game, I expect that game to be mine for as long as I wish to keep it- not as long as you wish to let me have it.
And someone please explain this to me:
Who says they can't still get an original? And if they can't (because the game is too old and the publisher no longer wants to press copies) then WHOSE FAULT IS THAT? That's right! THE PUBLISHER'S! Obviously it's not important enough to them to do another production run, or even (as BloodSquirrel pointed out) make the game available for purchase online, so why should they make extra money if I buy it from Joe Blow who's sick of the game? (And hey, if I'm stupid enough to buy a used copy for nearly the price of a new one, when new ones are available- well, a fool and his money, hm?)
Here's a thought, Mr. Braben. If you want me to keep your game, rather than sell it to a game store, MAKE THE GAME GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME TO WANT TO KEEP.
I've often said that if publishers were smart, instead of fighting the pre-owned market they'd jump into it with both feet. Gamers get what they want, retailers get to keep their margins up without taking heat from the industry and publishers get a slice of the pie too. Maybe not as big a slice as they get from new sales, but it's more than they're getting from the used market now - which isn't going to shrivel up and blow away just because they want it to - and they get to keep the customers happy in the bargain. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game.
I suppose that the idea was, before attacking the second hand retail, to make games stay longer on shelves.arrr_matey post=7.71273.718965 said:
It's hard to keep a game exposed for several weeks when it's past its own short marketing time, if it had any, and still wait there to be sold full price.
Hmm. My article this week is partly about this issue, so I'm going to jump in here with some semi-random thoughts.
First, there has never been any stable business model for selling video games. Imagine if someone put together an ulta-slick gaming rig that played Crysis and only Crysis, at an investment cost of $25 k or so. Who would pay so much as a quarter to rent play time on this machine?
But that's the initial video game model. Hardly anybody makes real money from it anymore.
Consoles seem to be well-established as a model, but let's not forget that the console market collapsed completely for a couple of years in the mid-eighties and Nintendo, which revived the market has had a roller-coaster ride since then.
Plus, Nintendo has survived as long as it has through the hand-held market, which few publishers paid any attention to until relatively recently.
Microsoft and Valve obviously want to push the download model, probably eliminating both consoles and used-game sales.
Sony doesn't know what the hell it wants to do.
The video game industry is in flux again, after roughly twenty years of semi-stability with the console model.
This history ought to caution us against sweeping generalizations.
Now, to used games.
Braben's argument is that used game sales take the place of new game sales. That may not be true, as others have pointed out above. I wouldn't take a risk on a $60 new game without the assurance that I can recuperate my losses when the game sucks. Used sales may encourage new sales.
Braben also argues that, if prices are pretty close between new and used versions of a game, the customer will buy new (at least, if he's the customer). I don't see why that would be. Five bucks less is five bucks less. If you have a problem with the idea that someone else's germy paws have touched a game, then you're buying new no matter what.
He does recognize that rentals don't really make any difference, because the publisher doesn't necessarily receive any part of the rental fee.
My answer to the problem is this: cut prices and include more content.
Movies make most of their money from DVD sales these days. Movies cost more to make than video games, but DVDs still cost less. They also feature lots of extras, in addition to the film. But you don't hear studio execs complaining about used DVD sales.
Perhaps if games cost $25 or so, Braben's argument would hold true. The used price wouldn't hold deep enough of a discount to draw sales.
There is a problem, however: the myth that video games make more money than movies. Revenues from games do exceed revenues from ticket sales, but they lag way behind revenues from DVDs, which is where movies make most of their money these days. The game audience is stall far smaller than the film audience.
I doubt that game publishers could double new sales by halving their prices. They might convert those who usually buy used to buy new, but the market may still be too small.
I would guess that downloading will eventually push out the disc model of game distribution, but that would still shrink the market. People would be more cautious about buying games without the safety net of a resale market and not enough people have the on-line capability or system memory for downloading a library of games.
Maybe the whole thing will collapse!
That's my top-of the head thinking, anyhow.
First, there has never been any stable business model for selling video games. Imagine if someone put together an ulta-slick gaming rig that played Crysis and only Crysis, at an investment cost of $25 k or so. Who would pay so much as a quarter to rent play time on this machine?
But that's the initial video game model. Hardly anybody makes real money from it anymore.
Consoles seem to be well-established as a model, but let's not forget that the console market collapsed completely for a couple of years in the mid-eighties and Nintendo, which revived the market has had a roller-coaster ride since then.
Plus, Nintendo has survived as long as it has through the hand-held market, which few publishers paid any attention to until relatively recently.
Microsoft and Valve obviously want to push the download model, probably eliminating both consoles and used-game sales.
Sony doesn't know what the hell it wants to do.
The video game industry is in flux again, after roughly twenty years of semi-stability with the console model.
This history ought to caution us against sweeping generalizations.
Now, to used games.
Braben's argument is that used game sales take the place of new game sales. That may not be true, as others have pointed out above. I wouldn't take a risk on a $60 new game without the assurance that I can recuperate my losses when the game sucks. Used sales may encourage new sales.
Braben also argues that, if prices are pretty close between new and used versions of a game, the customer will buy new (at least, if he's the customer). I don't see why that would be. Five bucks less is five bucks less. If you have a problem with the idea that someone else's germy paws have touched a game, then you're buying new no matter what.
He does recognize that rentals don't really make any difference, because the publisher doesn't necessarily receive any part of the rental fee.
My answer to the problem is this: cut prices and include more content.
Movies make most of their money from DVD sales these days. Movies cost more to make than video games, but DVDs still cost less. They also feature lots of extras, in addition to the film. But you don't hear studio execs complaining about used DVD sales.
Perhaps if games cost $25 or so, Braben's argument would hold true. The used price wouldn't hold deep enough of a discount to draw sales.
There is a problem, however: the myth that video games make more money than movies. Revenues from games do exceed revenues from ticket sales, but they lag way behind revenues from DVDs, which is where movies make most of their money these days. The game audience is stall far smaller than the film audience.
I doubt that game publishers could double new sales by halving their prices. They might convert those who usually buy used to buy new, but the market may still be too small.
I would guess that downloading will eventually push out the disc model of game distribution, but that would still shrink the market. People would be more cautious about buying games without the safety net of a resale market and not enough people have the on-line capability or system memory for downloading a library of games.
Maybe the whole thing will collapse!
That's my top-of the head thinking, anyhow.
A great single-player game with a static story is still worth keeping around, just like a great book is worth keeping around. You'll want it around to show to other people, to revisit some other time, or just to collect stuff you like.
I haven't played Torment in years but I've still ended up buying three copies because various friends keep losing it.
If people truly are reselling Assassin's Creed and BioShock en masse it kinda implies that, at least for those players, the experiences weren't quite memorable enough to justify keeping the games around.
-- Alex
I haven't played Torment in years but I've still ended up buying three copies because various friends keep losing it.
If people truly are reselling Assassin's Creed and BioShock en masse it kinda implies that, at least for those players, the experiences weren't quite memorable enough to justify keeping the games around.
-- Alex
You're right. But it's perfectly legal for them to do this. Just bc publishers/developers may want to stop this doesn't mean they have any right to. I mean EB are bastards for charging $55 for a used game that sells at $60 new, but that's their right I guess. Just like it's my right not to shop there.BloodSquirrel post=7.71273.719555 said:
I'm sure book publishers would rather that libraries didn't exist, but too bad for them. Tough titties.
Well, Psychonauts is available for download on GameTap and Xbox Live Classics.BloodSquirrel post=7.71273.719555 said:
I agree with you though. Take for example all of the old LucasArts adventure games. Why they haven't put these up for download at like $10 a pop blows my mind? They'd surely make enough money to justify it. And imagine if they put them on WiiWare? I think the publisher execs just aren't ready to think outside the box... literally.
I'm with arr matey above, surely, if you've got the rights to old games, have a look online to see if there's any demand for them, and if so, get em on Steam for $5 or $10, I don't know what Steam charge to host them, but I'm guessing its partly based on size and old games don't take a lot of space up.
Any money has to be better than no money, so if there's any demand if has to be worth the risk of the initial steam setup cost.
Any money has to be better than no money, so if there's any demand if has to be worth the risk of the initial steam setup cost.
Uhm, my copy of Elite on tape wasn't exactly original....
And anyway, given that certain games are completely unavailable to get from the shops, come out bugged to high hell and have ludicrous anti-pirate measures on them, what does he expect?
And anyway, given that certain games are completely unavailable to get from the shops, come out bugged to high hell and have ludicrous anti-pirate measures on them, what does he expect?
OMG. http://store.steampowered.com/app/1620/ . GET IT! GET IT!SenseOfTumour post=7.71273.727493 said:
