Publishers have it wrong

[cookyy2k]

So reading the words from a member of the volition developer re used games a particular sentence sprung out at me;

People often don't understand the cost that goes into creating these huge experiences that we put on the shelves for only $60.

We get this from fans, publishers and the dev above.

(I'm switching to GBP from here on out since I know the value of the £ better than that of the $)

But here's a thought the publishers and the above quote seem to be missing. Something is only worth what people are willing to pay for it, if people wont pay the £40 for the game then guess what, it's not worth £40 no matter how much you spent on it.

If I was making say cupcakes for a bake sale and decided I wanted them to be the best cupcakes ever, then went out buying all the very best ingredients. If the cupcakes when they were done came out at costing me £10 a cake, so to make a profit I'd be charging say £12.50 a cupcake. Would I hardly sell anything and make a loss, you're damn right I would because no matter how much I spent making the cakes they aren't worth £10+ because very few would pay it.

So do I go the publisher route and spout off at people for not paying it then condemn that couple that bought one then shared it instead of buying two, or do I realize my business model sucks and rethink it.

The publishers need to realize that when they go on DRM crusades against pirates, condemn used buyers and moan about people sharing the game between friends, things that have always existed in the industry, now apparently killing the industry they're admitting to us all that their business model sucks.

I feel no obligation to buy a game new or to not borrow/lend with friends. There is a simple reason why; the companies are NOT my friends, why should I prop up their failing business model? Due to some misplaced feeling of loyalty? Hell no, I'm not loyal to any of them. They make a good game great, I'll play it. They make a shit one I won't take to the internet to defend it rabidly or flame it.

I enjoy gaming, are they worth £40 to me? In 80-90% of cases no, occasionally yes. If EA, Ubisoft and all the other big publishers fail to adapt why should we subsidize them to keep them in business? If they can't adapt they should die out and others can take their place, maybe games will be smaller budget and not as concentrated on graphics etc but I'd be very happy with that and the mistakes of the past (DRM, project $10 etc.) might not be repeated.

Companies in every industry die out through failure to adapt, others are swallowed up by bigger companies who did adapt. In the games industry for some reason they've latched onto the concept of playing the "help us" card to get those who feel some sort of loyalty towards to company to save them, this can only cause stagnation.

 

[Vault101]

if I want a game then it is worth full price to me, I have no problem paying that

but it just seems thease people are like young kids throwing tantrums because they dont get their way..well TOUGH I dont pirate, I pay for my shit new or used (and I pay very well thankyouverymuch) Ive given plenty of money to the publishers so if they want to start telling me I cant buy used games or I have to jump through hoops and max out my internet cap to play their fucking game then I will simply say

"fuck you....no seriously, fuck you"

 

[cookyy2k]

if I want a game then it is worth full price to me, I have no problem paying that

but it just seems thease people are like young kids throwing tantrums because they dont get their way..well TOUGH I dont pirate, I pay for my shit new or used (and I pay very well thankyouverymuch) Ive given plenty of money to the publishers so if they want to start telling me I cant buy used games or I have to jump through hoops and max out my internet cap to play their fucking game then I will simply say

"fuck you....no seriously, fuck you"

The problem is I often want a game but know it's not going to be worth full price, a game with a grindtastic single player that lasts 6 hours is not worth £40 to me.

I like you don't pirate, I ALWAYS pay for the game so I agree that no one should be complaining at me for it. Someone offered the same product cheaper (true the book/box may be damaged but that comes into the the value equation) so where do you think I'll buy it publishers?

 

[Vault101]

if I want a game then it is worth full price to me, I have no problem paying that

but it just seems thease people are like young kids throwing tantrums because they dont get their way..well TOUGH I dont pirate, I pay for my shit new or used (and I pay very well thankyouverymuch) Ive given plenty of money to the publishers so if they want to start telling me I cant buy used games or I have to jump through hoops and max out my internet cap to play their fucking game then I will simply say

"fuck you....no seriously, fuck you"

The problem is I often want a game but know it's not going to be worth full price, a game with a grindtastic single player that lasts 6 hours is not worth £40 to me.

I like you don't pirate, I ALWAYS pay for the game so I agree that no one should be complaining at me for it. Someone offered the same product cheaper (true the book/box may be damaged but that comes into the the value equation) so where do you think I'll buy it publishers?

true

though I have this weird kind of logic, if Im not willing to pay full price for somthing then I dont want it at all..kind of thing

because even if I only spent $20 I still feel ripped off in a way (if that makes sense) if the game is too short or just really bad (again thats just me)

Im probably the kind of customer publishers love, I dont often buy used (I buy quite a few games at full prce) BUT I still hate the Idea of my options being taken away

 

[senordesol]

I think the word 'customer loyalty' has been skewed in recent years. It now seems to be something that is assumed, rather than earned. Look at what EA and Activision are doing: Can't play our game without installing our spyware. Won't accept a penny under $59.99 for what amounts to an expansion pack even if you pre-order (nevermind, also, that we'll be charging the same for a boxed copy as a digital copy).

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I agree.

And I think the place to start is for companies to do 2 things:

a) Stop pouring billions of dollars into their games. Yeah, having ridiculously good graphics is nice...but if they're inflating your budget to ridiculous levels, then take a step back and ask yourself if they're worth all that money.

b) Stop expecting games to sell MILLIONS of copies. Especially if they're part of an already super-filled niche (say, Military FPS games). ESPECIALLY ESPECIALLY if they just put out a very similar game the year before.

Honestly, how many of us REALLY, on a fundamental level, care about the fact that one game has a few more dust particles than another? I mean...in the middle of a firefight/set piece how many people actually STOP and admire the textures (unless it's Skyrim)? Practically no one. When you are in the "zone" and kicking ass, you tend to not care about the graphics unless they're incredibly jarring. You'd be too busy trying to stay alive.

So basically, I 'm saying that large companies shouldn't throw gigantic budgets at games just because they can. By spending LESS money making the game, they can sell the games at LESS price, and thus make MORE sales, generating them MORE money, and causing LESS pirates!

TLDR VERSION: Companies need to lower their budgets, so they can lower the price of games. That way, they can make more money off the increased sales, and worry LESS about piracy.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Snip

Just for reference, last I bothered to check, 1 USD was about 0.6 GBP.

Anyway, I never thought of it that way, and you make some good points. Personally I don't see why game developers and publishers complain about the used market. I mean, you don't see authors moaning because people bought their books second hand, now do you?

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Most definitely.

A game like MW3 is incomparable to a game like Alan Wake in terms of play time for money spent, but they cost the same.

I get that Activision would likely interpret that as me condoning them attempting to charge more for their game...I'm not. I'm saying that Alan Wake costed too much. £40 for a game that'll last you 6 hours isn't great, especially when you consider that the industry thinks you're an asshole if you trade these games in...of course you trade these games in and attempt to recoup the cost.

Games that I own, that I'll never play again...are just litter, that's how I see them. The funny thing is, the 6 hour games that are a blast to play through are often my favourite games. I just don't buy many of them because they are shitty value. Price 'em at 15-20 quid new and I'd own 'em all.

 

[Dandark]

I agree. Games companies now have a terrible buisness model. They inflate their game with huge budgets and then annoy the hell out of the customer and treat them like a criminal just for trying to pay for their game.

Thne they will complain about customers pirating or buying used, it's getting really damned annoying and I await the time when a crappy big company like EA or Activision is taken down so that then all the others realize that they need to change their buisness model already.

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

if I want a game then it is worth full price to me, I have no problem paying that

but it just seems thease people are like young kids throwing tantrums because they dont get their way..well TOUGH I dont pirate, I pay for my shit new or used (and I pay very well thankyouverymuch) Ive given plenty of money to the publishers so if they want to start telling me I cant buy used games or I have to jump through hoops and max out my internet cap to play their fucking game then I will simply say

"fuck you....no seriously, fuck you"

The problem is I often want a game but know it's not going to be worth full price, a game with a grindtastic single player that lasts 6 hours is not worth £40 to me.

I like you don't pirate, I ALWAYS pay for the game so I agree that no one should be complaining at me for it. Someone offered the same product cheaper (true the book/box may be damaged but that comes into the the value equation) so where do you think I'll buy it publishers?

Indeed, Vault 101. I also regularly advise the companies to engage in self-copulation.

Cookyy2k (BTW, what does your name reference?): Why don't you just wait a bit and buy it when the price drops? I don't have to money or the inclination to pay for multiple games on their opening weekend, but I treat myself to games on my birthday and Christmas (luckily placed 6 months apart) that came out earlier, sold their first printing, and are now $30-40 Canadian cheaper. That way, I still get to play the game, support the developers rather than Gamestop (who are the bigger leeches in my book) and I don't have to sell a kidney.

 

[Something Amyss]

But here's a thought the publishers and the above quote seem to be missing. Something is only worth what people are willing to pay for it, if people wont pay the £40 for the game then guess what, it's not worth £40 no matter how much you spent on it.

Unfortunately, millions are willing to pay for it. In fact, one of the dumbest things about this whole ordeal is while the companies are complaining that they're losing money from used sales, and costs are high, they're making record money (overall, a couple companies are suffering, but they are not the norm).

If I was making say cupcakes for a bake sale and decided I wanted them to be the best cupcakes ever, then went out buying all the very best ingredients. If the cupcakes when they were done came out at costing me £10 a cake, so to make a profit I'd be charging say £12.50 a cupcake. Would I hardly sell anything and make a loss, you're damn right I would because no matter how much I spent making the cakes they aren't worth £10+ because very few would pay it.

So do I go the publisher route and spout off at people for not paying it then condemn that couple that bought one then shared it instead of buying two, or do I realize my business model sucks and rethink it.

The problem with this analogy is that, as I already mentioned, profits are up. Games are selling well. This is not their problem.

I know you're addressing their specious claim, but still.

why should I prop up their failing business model?

Not failing.

Due to some misplaced feeling of loyalty? Hell no, I'm not loyal to any of them. They make a good game great, I'll play it. They make a shit one I won't take to the internet to defend it rabidly or flame it.

"Loyalty" is a two-way street anyway. Used to be, faithful customers were rewarded. Now they're the status quo, and often punished. They're treating their fanbase like crap, and expecting loyalty in return. That's not how it should work.

Take THQ, for example. I've bought a ton of their games. The only one I can recall ever buying used was Saints Row. Now, Saints Row quickly became a favourite for me, and I purchased the next two in pre-order form. Pre-order/first day/early sales are the most important for a game. Without the first title, I might never have bought the other ones at all. They actually had a loyal, paying customer until they started adding online passes to all their games. And even then, I probably would continue to buy Saints Row titles if they hadn't cut the game in half and sold the balance as on-disc DLC. I think this is especially apt, since it's a Volition guy who said the controversial statement in the first place.

Saints Row The Third was a major success, and a huge deal for THQ/Volition, and they're still complaining about used sales.

But here's the problem: We can talk about their business model all we want, but that's not why they're going after the fans.

The corporate model in general is obsessed with increased figures every year. And they need to match the obscene figures they got the last year. They're reaching a point of saturation and can't simply expand, so they're looking for other methods of coercing money from us. DLC's part of it, but attacking used sales is another way.

There's a larger problem nobody wants to talk about.

 

[HardkorSB]

maybe games will be smaller budget and not as concentrated on graphics etc

All the expensive hardware and software becomes cheap really quick these days so it's only a matter of time before the not so wealthy independent game makers will get their hands on that technology.
Besides, gameplay is more important than looks in a game. You re-release "Pong" on cell phones and you make a lot of money, despite the fact that it's just a dot bouncing off of 2 lines.
When the combined costs of producing, advertising and distributing a game are so high that you NEED to sell 10 million copies, just to get your money back, you're doing something wrong.

 

[Zen Toombs]

But here's a thought the publishers and the above quote seem to be missing. Something is only worth what people are willing to pay for it, if people wont pay the £40 for the game then guess what, it's not worth £40 no matter how much you spent on it.

Science[footnote]Well, Economics Fact, but calling it "Science Fact" is much funnier so deal with it.[/footnote] Fact of the day.

Also, while videogame publishers are doing fine,[footnote]As [user]Zachary Amaranth[/user] pointed out[/footnote] if "used game sales" are truly causing so many problems for them, I have a

novel

idea: said publishers should buy old copies of their game, and sell them used just as companies like Gamestop do.

Spoiler: Don't destroy a market, capitalize on it.

 

[Valanthe]

This is why Steam does so well, it is Consumers voting with their wallet and telling game companies that no, we don't think your Gritty McBrown's Shooter 2011 with it's two hour single player 'campaign' is worth sixty bucks, we're going to wait until the game goes on sale for $20 and buy it then.

Also I love your cupcake example, I don't usually go for analogies... but when they involve delicious baked goods... well..

Though I would like to say one thing about the Used Games market, there is something wrong with it. And while I am not about to stop cruising the bin at my local Gamestop any time soon, I do not agree with the Developers not getting anything for the game. But that's not a customer problem, -that- problem is between Publishers and retailers, and the Publishers need to get that through their heads and stop alienating their own revenue source in their delusional quest to try and plug the holes in their sinking ship.

 

[evilneko]

I just only buy the good stuff that'll last me a while. I bought Fallout 3 for 40 bucks. And I'm still fucking playing it. At this rate it's gonna be right up there with Diablo (the good one, not the shitty sequel) for me.

Come to think of it I'm having a hard time thinking of a game I actually bought that I haven't spent many tens of hours on (even the aforementioned shitty sequel, til I realized I was only playing it because my friend was). Oh wait--there is GalCiv 2, but I'm sure that'd swallow up a hundred hours or so too if I ever got around to installing it.

Oh yeah, the Initial D game. Ugh, the ValuSoft label should've warned me off there. But hey, at least I can say I played it. XD

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

I think the only types of games I'd be willing to spend $60 on are RPGs I know will last a long time, a really good shooter, like a Timesplitters sequel, or something like Guitar Hero. If I can complete a game in less than...maybe 10 hours, I'm not going to shill out $60 unless there's some insane replay value or amazing multiplayer experience to it too.

 

[Grog289]

I am very fond of my used games, and like many they're what allowed me to become a gamer. I also understand publisher's frustration with used game sales, and the next console generation got me thinking about this. Its no secret that Gamestop is the main leacher of sales in the used games business, and to be honest I don't have anything against them other than their ridiculous buy back prices. But given that the next console generation might not be able to play used games it seems like it would be in everyone's best interest if Gamestop were to offer to pay a little back to publishers and developers for the used games (in hopes of preventing the next gen from only using new games). Surely losing a little profit is better than having that entire portion of their sales collapse because no one can play used games anymore.

 

[Storm Dragon]

Snip

Just for reference, last I bothered to check, 1 USD was about 0.6 GBP.

Anyway, I never thought of it that way, and you make some good points. Personally I don't see why game developers and publishers complain about the used market. I mean, you don't see authors moaning because people bought their books second hand, now do you?

Actually, books are an even better example than you are taking advantage of. One word: Libraries.

 

[Strain42]

I do enough research into games before I buy them to decide if they're worth my money when they're first released and brand new.

To use an example, there is a game coming out called Lollipop Chainsaw. I'm actually really looking forward to this game. It's basically what we'd get if Suda51 tried his hand at Buffy the Vampire Slayer. However, from what I've seen, the game is not worth 60 bucks to me.

I don't plan to pay that. But I also know that I won't have to because within a year the game will most likely drop to 40, 30 or even 20 dollars.

I'm still going to pay to play the game, and I'm going to buy it new because even though it's not always some sense of loyalty or friendship, if I'm paying for a game, it probably means the developer has done something I like or am interested in and I want to be a part, however small, of helping to make sure they can keep doing it.

Every single game I buy new on launch day is for at least 1 of 3 reasons

1. It's a game that I just really want to play as soon as possible (duh)

2. The game may become hard to find down the line. Most MegaTen titles fall under this, but they usually fall under number 1 anyway.

3. The game won't be getting a price drop. Some games just don't. Pokemon Diamond and Pearl came out about 5 years ago and I've still seen them for 34.95 new.

I don't really buy a lot of video games, It's easily less than 10 per year, so when I do, I want to make sure I'm getting what I want to pay for. If there's a game I want to play, I'm fine with waiting for a price drop if it means saving up to 40 dollars.

Basically I'm a combination between picky and cheap

 

[FallenMessiah88]

I agree that publishers and developers should stop whining about second hand sales. When you buy a copy of a game, you own that copy and thus you have every right to do whatever you want with it. Yes, that also includes reselling it to someone else.

I also agree that the overall price for games should be lowered. It may then be that publishers do not earn as much on each copy, but they might sell more of them. If this means that they might have to cut down on the game's budget then so be it, unless of course it hurts the overall quality too much.

I do not, however, agree that a game like Alan Wake should be cheaper than a game like say, Modern Warfare 3. The reason for this is that I can not stand the mentality that says that a game's value depends on how many hours you can spend on it, because of the term "quality over quantity".

It may be true that I can spend 100+ hours on Modern Warfare 3 and only 6 hours on Alan Wake. However, if those 6 hours are some of the best 6 hours I've ever spent with a game, then I believe that it deserves to be priced just the same as any 100+ or even 40+ hour game.