Pre-Owned Games Market Goes Digital
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
The issue with the used game market, compared to others, is that you're not buying anything physical, you're buying an experience. (Sounds cheesy, but it's the only way to say it.) You're not buying a 15 cent round piece of plastic, you're buying 50 hours of epic dragon-slaying. You sell that experience to someone else, they get the exact same thing that you did without any money going to the maker. You buy a game, play it, sell it, someone else does the same thing with the same disc and so on. After a few months, 20 people have enjoyed it, but the creator only gets credit for one.Matt_LRR said:
Other companies don't care because their products lose value over time and wear out. There is a huge difference between a new Ford Focus with 0kms on the odometre and one with 120,000kms and love stains in the back, there is a huge difference between new jeans and ones that had sweaty balls in them. There is a reason for the consumer to buy a new car or new jeans, but there is no reason for a consumer to choose a new game over a used game.
Imagine going to watch Avatar, liking it, selling the experience to a 3rd party who marks it up and sells it to someone else. Meanwhile James Cameron weeps because he can no longer afford to buy Russia.
I don't buy that argument at all. In the same vein, one could be said to be reselling the experience of not going naked, or getting from one place to another. It doesn't hold water. When you are buying a game, you are buying a product. That product has an experience associated with it, (50 hours of epic dragon slaying, as it were) but so does any other product you buy, (social acceptance for not making your friends look at your dong, the raw power of hurtling a 2-ton chunk of metal along an asphalt strip) - you're still buying the product itself, not the experience, and it's your right as the owner of that product to choose whether you wish to continue using it, or not and whether you wish to pass it on to someone else for them to use.EnzoHonda said:
The argument is especially weak when you consider the used DVD or CD markets, which go largely unprotested by film and music companies. You are, every bit as much buing an "experience" with those products, and the same principles apply. A DVD, for instance, is going to be used maybe a handful of times before it is sold off, and while I admit, its value declines more rapidly due to the rather transient relevance of particular films, there is liable to be even LESS difference between a new DVD and a used DVD on account of the fact that it sees less use than a game and is therefore less likely to be damaged. To gut the "declining value" argument, though, CD's are incredibly permanent media, great music stays around forever and almost never drops in price. A CD that was 17.99 when it came out in 1995, is probably STILL selling for 17.99 today - Indie music stores thrive on this - along with trade in rare and discontinued CDs - and the music industry rarely even considers it. But the used music market is vibrant and present virtually everywhere. (at least among those who buy their music). Further, I'd argue that games have a very specific shelf-life. They're a commodity with value as long as the system they play on is alive - after that the game's value is toast.
The fact of the matter is, that every person who plays a title, new or used, is a game buyer. Maybe they pick up a copy of gears of war 1 on the cheap, realize they love it, and rush out to buy GoW 2 and pre-order GoW 3. Exposure is still exposure, whether the manufacturer saw a dime of the sale or not, and used game trades fuel new game purchases.
Additionally, it's a fallacy to assume that every person who buys a game used is a lost new sale. The difference in price, a coupon, a trade in or bogo promotion, there are any number of reasons that a person might choose to buy a used game, but wouldn't have bought the same game new. It's the same argument that publishers use to claim lost sales on piracy. Not everyone who pirates a game and plays it would have bought it at full price (and in fact, with piracy, I'd wager that they majority wouldn't).
Even with used sales, publishers are selling tons and tons of new product - the sales figures of CoD:MW2 should prove evidence of that. Make a killer game, and people won't be willing to wait around for a used copy to float back in. On the flip side, if you let gamers hook themselves on a franchise months down the road, when they grab a game on a used deal, they'll be lining up to pre-order the next.
The anti-used sentiment of the games industry is a simple attempt to strongarm more money out of consumers. It's unnecessary, and frankly, it looks bad. The CEO of EA isn't going hungry tonight, no matter how many copies of Madden get traded in. And while, to be fair, the music industry and film industry are attempting similar things, (iTunes, Digital download, etc) at least they aren't begging for your sympathy and whining about how much money they're losing while bending you over the barrel.
edit: tl;dr - you have bought a product, that product has a value associated with it. as the owner of that product it is your right to use it, or at your discretion attempt to recoup some of your costs by selling it to someone else for whatever value you and they agree it still holds. This is a fundamental right of ownership. Corporations aren't the only things able to sell items in exchange for money, as much as they'd like you to believe they are.
When it comes to music/movies, there's a big difference. First, most films still make the big-bucks in the theater. Musicians and the music industry have concerts, branding, radio royalties, commercials, ringtones etc. No one has to buy the CD or DVD and they still make money. If no one buys a game, the company doesn't get money. There is no world tour for the next Final Fantasy. Also, the music industry had its run-in with people enjoying their product without getting money for it: Napster. That was the type of shit-storm that the games industry is now trying to fend off. People enjoying a product without any benefit to the company. Finally, these industries aren't complaining because I'd wager they've done the math and it's not hurting them. If they thought they were losing "Napster-like" money, they'd be all over it.Matt_LRR said:
The only difference (to a company) between someone who pirated a game and someone who bought a used game is that some 3rd party (Gamestop, a guy on Craigslist, whatever) gets money for a used game. Either way the company doesn't see money from the person who bought used or downloaded illegally.
Finally, the argument that a used sale doesn't equal the loss of a new sale doesn't matter. Companies want money for their product or they don't want people enjoying them. This isn't charity. It's a business and they have to protect it. It's cool for someone to enjoy a used copy of GoW1, then go buy a new copy of GoW2. You know what the company would like? Money for both. Yes it's greed. Welcome to capitalism.
I will mention one thing though: I like your argument that games have a shelf-life while music is more timeless. Is Splinter Cell a great game? Yep. Is it worth $60 today? Nope. Is a 90's album by "The Roots" still worth $15? I just paid that, so it must be. Interesting. You have given me something to think about.
(I'm enjoying this, it's been a while since I've had a real discussion on here. So, thanks.)
richtaur said:
Well, the thing is that the gaming industry ASSUMES that people who buy games used are people who would have bought the game new if the used games weren't availible. This is a false assumption. Looking at games on my "wait" list like "Bayonetta" the point is that they simply don't impress me enough to be worth more than say $20 or so. For someone who really liked the idea of the game, going out and getting it for $60 and then trading it in is reasonable. Just as it's reasonable for me to wait to get his cast offs for say $17.99 next Christmas. The lack of a used market simply means that I'm just not going to get the game at all. At least with the used game market, if I go buy a game used and decide I *LIKE* it, then there is always a chance that I will be interested in a sequel or whatever. Let's say "Bayonetta" blows me away despite what is currently a fairly "meh" reaction to it. Chances are in that case I might very well pre-order the inevitable sequel.
Of course we're mostly talking about PC games, which do not have much of a "used" market to begin with, unless you order through Ebay or Amazon. I have less fear of the console market going purely digital due to limited hard drive space (which will ALWAYS be limited due to a combination of increasing game sizes, and the need to keep the consoles themselves affordable). I myself do not like having to shuffle stuff around on hard drives to make room, and honestly as soon as I have to start doing junk like that with a console it begins to lose a lot of it's charm. The point for me largely being the fact that I can just pop in a disc and play without having to deal with installation, looking at possible hardware conflicts, and all kinds of other junk. Simply installing and uninstalling strikes me as annoying busywork to add to a console which should remain simplistic.
So I guess it comes back to my question of, why would we, as consumers, lend credence to a company's lust for wider profit margins over our own rights as consumers to own a product, and do with it what we please.EnzoHonda said:
The company can be as greedy as it wants - but we shouldn't be allowing them to strip us of our rights as the consumers of their products, and we definitely shouldn't be feeling sorry for them when they complain that their profit margins only rose 10% this year rather than the projected 12%. We have as much right to resell our own property to others as they have to sell it to us to begin with.
-m
What?!?! I can sell my downloaded games?!?! Oooooh not THOSE downloaded games. Although the people buying retail games would actually be trading up if they . . . . . Annnnyway this sounds like a novel idea and I hope it works out for them in this age of DRM's more restrictive than leotards on a fat chick and install limits
I usually just buy new games, but here's a few things that are wrong with this idea;
*A lot of people don't have massive download limits to buy games and sell them online.
*People buy preowned games for a reason: because new games are ridiculously overpriced in a lot of countries/areas and nothing is being done about it.
*People will buy and sell various goods to each other. It's a face of life. If these developers want more money, perhaps they should make better games, price them lower, and therefore sell more. If you sell a product, you get money. Simple as that.
EDIT:
*Also, the game developer isn't selling another copy of the game, therefore it isn't piracy. Someone else loses it as someone else gets it. If you don't want something anymore, it's your business whether or not you sell it, how much you sell it for and what you do with the money.
*A lot of people don't have massive download limits to buy games and sell them online.
*People buy preowned games for a reason: because new games are ridiculously overpriced in a lot of countries/areas and nothing is being done about it.
*People will buy and sell various goods to each other. It's a face of life. If these developers want more money, perhaps they should make better games, price them lower, and therefore sell more. If you sell a product, you get money. Simple as that.
EDIT:
*Also, the game developer isn't selling another copy of the game, therefore it isn't piracy. Someone else loses it as someone else gets it. If you don't want something anymore, it's your business whether or not you sell it, how much you sell it for and what you do with the money.
To be honest the only time I've ever sold a game was when I found it to be terrible. If I like a game I keep it.
I still prefer hard copies but seeing as digital distribution is inevitiable this helps to soften the blow. I hope this works as it says.
What are you talking about. The music industry are the biggest whiners of all when it comes to that stuff. Hell the guy who runs the RIAA even calls transfering a cd to your ipod a form of piracy because "its not the medium the way the artist intended it to be in" or some crap. I'm not disagreeing with the rest of your post but the music industry turned whining about piracy into an art form.Matt_LRR said: