Retailers Warn "Project Ten Dollar" Will Hurt Consumers

[Jabbawocky]

I'm cheering for EA on this. They have the right idea.

Used game resale is practically piracy.

Jesus, you just crapped that right out didn't you? Some people cannot afford video games brand new on a ragular basis. Incase you can't tell they are quite an expensive form of entertainment. Pre owned is the only way some gamers can even get games. If it was PRACTICALLY PIRACY as you say then it would be taboo, illegal and not a major element in major video game retails stores today.

On the subject of Project Ten Dollar however I have no problem adding free dlc on lauch day fro buying new providing it takes nothing away from the gaming experience.

 

[xDHxD148L0]

It doesen't really matter to me since i buy all of my games new anyways, but it does help the develpers, who pretty much get the shaft when it comes to used games sales.

 

[fundayz]

Hmm? Whether it has been used or not is irrelevant so long as the condition is the same. Strictly talking about bonus content.

The used video game market IS still available with this bonus DLC plan in effect. The publishers are offering incentive to buy new, and there is nothing wrong with that. The only thing wrong here is with retailers treating these used games as incomplete, offering less for trade-ins.

While sometimes the stores check the state of the game before you buy, many do not or do a very shoddy job of it. The fact remains that in general buying an used is not the same as buying a new game.
And you are correct that the used game market still remains, BUT the truth is that publishers are basically making part of the game online distributed only, and therefore unable to be resold(without being piracy); this is something that is not immediately obvious. Do not be fooled into thinking that because some content is labelled as DLC it is a true 'bonus', the biggest proof being the pricing. Do you think that publishers are giving this DLC, which costs them time and money to create, out for free? The price of it is included in the retail price, which makes the DLC NOT a bonus but JUST A DOWNLOAD-ONLY PART OF THE GAME.

THE BOTTOM LINE: By making 'bonus' DLC a new-game only feature they are not rewarding people who buy new games, but rather punishing those who want to sell their used games(by not being able to resell parts of the game bought)and those who buy used games(by forcing them to buy new or resort to piracy).

Edit: for clarity.

 

[Salonista]

@fundayz and mogamer: +1 each.

I'm cheering for EA on this. They have the right idea.

Used game resale is practically piracy.

Doctrine of First Sale is written into US copyright law. Says purchasers of copyrighted materials can do as they will with those materials as long as they don't violate copyright law (make and/or distribute unauthorized copies, for example).

Your statement would make libraries "practically" guilty of copyright infringement. Or giving a DVD you got for your birthday to a friend after you've watched it. Or playing songs you bought for you and your family to listen to on a long car ride. There's no money involved in those second-hand scenarios, but the same principle applies: those that purchased can then do as they wish with their purchases, including selling them on, without interference from the rightsholder nor any more renumeration due to the rightsholder, since the rightsholder already got paid for it the first time - when they sold it to you (or the gift-giver).

Actually, trying to eliminate or curtail used game sales with such as this Operation 10 Dollar thing might send some folks *to* piracy as they look for ways to get the most out of their used purchase? Pure speculation on my part, but based on observation of certain game comms where DLC is easily found outside of official channels. Talk about devs not getting a cut...! I find it sad but really not very surprising; first day DLC kind of gives the appearance of things held back from a release and doesn't sit well with some because of that suspicion.

I'm all for pubs developing new and better reasons to buy, but I wish they'd get out of this strings attached mentality that makes potential buyers have to study up or overthink a purchase. True value like hard goods (trinkets or collector's items or cool packaging), services (trade-in system on their own turf would create competition w/the likes of Gamestop if done right), support (pubs are all about protecting their IP, best way to protect it is to make it the best it can be), *showing* customers that they are valued instead of just saying so - that's what will save them more than anti-piracy measures, DRM, or end-running around the First Sale Doctrine. The costs might even be the same as implementing DRM schemes that backfire and create ill will and actual lost sales.

But I'm a simple person.

 

[DayDark]

I love the free DLC, I think it's great, I couldn't give a rats ass about retailers really, it's nice that you can sell you're games, but I'd rather support the developer than the retailer.

 

[Cody211282]

Angry? I love this free DLC.

Who doesnt, and I since I play on my comp its not like I can buy used game, so all I get out of it is free stuff

 

[Worgen]

really the problem is that publishers are charging too much for games and thats what makes used to tempting since 60 bucks is pretty overpriced for games, really if they want to destroy the used game market then they should start making new games like 40 at most since I think most ppl would rather have a nice new game then a used one but at current costs most would rather save 20 bucks

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Angry? I love this free DLC.

Who doesnt, and I since I play on my comp its not like I can buy used game, so all I get out of it is free stuff

Oh, did I say free? It actually costs a piece of you life energy.

 

[Cody211282]

Angry? I love this free DLC.

Who doesnt, and I since I play on my comp its not like I can buy used game, so all I get out of it is free stuff

Oh, did I say free? It actually costs a piece of you life energy.

Eh oh well I dont use it that much anyway

 

[geldonyetich]

You may have noticed how recent EA releases like Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins feature launch-day DLC that was comes free with new copies of the game but must be purchased separately by anyone who buys them used. That's Project Ten Dollar in action, an attempt by EA to take back some of the revenues it's losing to the pre-owned market by offering an incentive to buy new - or, depending on your perspective, a punishment for not.

Is that what's been driving DLC lately? Clever! I could see the same applying to those who rent (e.g. GameFly customers).

Really, retailers got bigger worries. As direct digital distribution becomes more and more accessible to the average gamer, the publisher/retailer is in danger of being circumvented entirely. Steam is servicing over half the PC market, by some estimations.

 

[rees263]

Stop charging like £60 for brand new games and then. Even around £40 I'd be able to afford to buy most games I want brand new.

Where are you buying your games? I don't think I've seen a title released this gen that at least one company wasn't selling for £40 or less.

 

[Nalesnik]

I think that videogame companies are taking the wrong route in addressing used video game sales. Instead of trying to abolish them they could just compete with the retailers:

Publishers could start trade-in and resale programs to costumers. Print out and assemble a mailing slip, put your used game in the mail, receive publisher credit and/or money(paypal, cheque, etc). Not sure how much the mailing would cost the company, but it must be doable if others liek Netflix can do it. This would basically cut out the middle man, taking those hefty re-sale profits away from the gaming stores without significantly affecting the customer.

That's... actually a good idea. They could also save some money in CD manufacturing too. Instead of making 1 million CDs, they make half a million, and still be able to cover the same market. Also I don't see how an industry giant like EA would have much difficulty is setting this up. This sort of competition always benefits customers.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

EA and the like don't need to COMPETE with retailers... they just need to outlast them.

If you can run the used retailers into the ground, then there is no one left to compete - you can charge whatever you like, and there is no one left to complain about it. It looks like DLC is going to be around just long enough for the previous generation of games to fade away.

 

[mogamer]

Well, not every business can survive. That's life. You win some, you lose some.


They don't just make games in one batch to go for one run of profit. Each game has a development cost to cover, and some games get VERY limited runs, meaning that every game not bought new cuts into profit, or even prevents them from making profit in the first place. That's how game companies die. Games cost a lot to make these days. Why do you think this "indie game" craze has caught on with the advent of digital distribution?

It's amazing how you can make the first statement and then make the second one with a straight face.

It is legal to sell something that you own. I just don't get why video game developers feel that they are above the basic rules of commerce that other industries have learned to live with.

 

[The Thief]

While sometimes the stores check the state of the game before you buy, many do not or do a very shoddy job of it. The fact remains that in general buying an used is not the same as buying a new game.
And you are correct that the used game market still remains, BUT the truth is that publishers are basically making part of the game online distributed only, and therefore unable to be resold(without being piracy); this is something that is not immediately obvious. Do not be fooled into thinking that because some content is labelled as DLC it is a true 'bonus', the biggest proof being the pricing. Do you think that publishers are giving this DLC, which costs them time and more to create, out for free? The price of it is included in the retail price, which makes the DLC NOT a bonus but JUST A DOWNLOAD-ONLY PART OF THE GAME.

Edit: for clarity.

As far as I understand it, the DLC included in both Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 was created after the game had been finished, but before it was released; To include the DLC in the original game would have forced the publishers to delay the release date. The original game price is not affected; It costs the same as games without first day DLC. Publishers make up the cost for the DLC through an increase in new game sales, and the $10 downloads from used game sales.

As somebody who has played both games and has all DLC, I can safely say it is purely bonus content and not a missing part of the game. Though the parts added don't necessarily feel tacked on, they are not seamless, and they have no impact on the rest of the game.

 

[pneuma08]

I really don't think this will work too well. I work at a store that sells used games. I was curious about the cost for some new titles that came out. The cost for my company to buy a new or used version of, let's say Mass Effect 2 or Dante's Inferno:
New: $50.82
Used: $10.29
And we usually sell a used copy for about $50. So, there's about $40 dollars of profit per used game. We could drop it by $30 dollars and still make a profit.

Deceptively wrong. It's not as simple as that.

Each title sold has to pay for:
Salaries
Boxes, stickers, etc.
People stealing stuff
People losing or breaking stuff
Returns
Store space
Stuff bought and never sold
Store maintenance (heaing/cooling, lighting, displays, etc)
Marketing
Many other things not on the top of my head

I don't know what you have access to, but I'm not in a position to take an accurate accounting of all this stuff to say it's profitable. Even more confusing is that even if you are making a profit (let's say on average week-to-week) it may not be economically sustainable.

Not to mention that model assumes that EVERY copy of Mass Effect you buy will sell at the current price. Very, very wrong. If people don't buy it at $50 and you have to drop it to $40 or $30, suddenly you're not making a profit at all.

Back on the original topic, I'd say this is an excellent point. People who sell games do so to have more money to buy games, and taking a crippling the secondary market hurts them more than anything. That said, it's not a guarantee that retailers need to price down their stuff, and by how much. People buying used are trying to get a bargain, and as such may be willing to forgo premium content to save a few bucks.

It also assumes that consumers are logical in their decisions, and we all know they aren't.

 

[Jabbawocky]

I'm cheering for EA on this. They have the right idea.

Used game resale is practically piracy.

Jesus, you just crapped that right out didn't you? Some people cannot afford video games brand new on a ragular basis. Incase you can't tell they are quite an expensive form of entertainment. Pre owned is the only way some gamers can even get games. If it was PRACTICALLY PIRACY as you say then it would be taboo, illegal and not a major element in major video game retails stores today.

I said practically; not literally.

Think about it. Used retail gives zero profit to developers and publishers, but someone's getting a game and someone's making money. Only the retailer benefits, and the cycle is strengthened. Just like piracy.

The circulation of used games between customers through these retailers is akin to peer-to-peer file sharing through a torrent tracker; Piracy. And with the tracker charging money too.

By reselling, potentially everyone could have access to developers' IP without giving them a cent. Piracy.

Some people cannot afford video games brand new on a ragular basis. Incase you can't tell they are quite an expensive form of entertainment. Piracy is the only way some gamers can even get games.

See what I did there? The can't-afford-it excuse is used by pirates too.

What's the difference? There's no stray copies lying around, that's for sure, and that's why it's not illegal. But the method, the scale, the excuses, the damage is exactly like piracy.

Except for a game to become second hand some has to have bought it in the first place. Hence the company has already made money from a sale. Once the game has been bought it no longer belongs to the developer, at least in the UK, the game is to do with as the consumer wishes as long as he doesn't break any copyright laws (such as produce a counterfeit copy).

Yes I agree the can't afford it excuse is used by pirates. But the difference is Piracy is not part of Free Trade. The right to sell what I buy. Piracy ensures no money goes into the system. With a second hand purachse someone has already paid for it at some point.

We also have to take into considereation some of the modern problems we have in video games. One is that they are rising in price yet less is being given back. For example a lot of games are roughly £40-50 now. Games are not the epics which used keep you going through the month until the next big release. Games used to take ages to complete, now most can complete them in ten hours if that. Also the replay value is waning in games. Very few demand the need for another run. We are getting less for out money.

Ironically by pushing out the second hand market, they are pushing people to pirate games instead. Initially its is the cost that makes sure people don't pay for new games. If the lower price isn't there, they cannot afford the higher one still, where they going to look?

If the publishers were really concerned with the threat of second hand games they would make more reasonable demands of their consumer base and release games cheaper in the first place. Be competive not destructive.

 

[Abedeus]

How the hell does this hurt consumers? You mean leeches, that rent games for $15 instead of buying them, then returning after 3 days? And developers get what, $2-5 for every "consumer" instead of $50-60?

This actually helps, in a small way, in fighting piracy and used games market.

My friend runs a small used games store. This is going to screw him over. There is no margin in new games sale for him as he can't buy in the bulk required to make a profit.

Well, so what?

What makes him more important than the developers of games who deserve to earn a profit for their work?

Well it means he could go out of business if such schemes catch on.

Aww, poor him. Maybe he should, I dunno, tell the customers they won't get DLC for free and that they are free-loaders?

snip

What a load of bull.

Except for a game to become second hand some has to have bought it in the first place. Hence the company has already made money from a sale. Once the game has been bought it no longer belongs to the developer, at least in the UK, the game is to do with as the consumer wishes as long as he doesn't break any copyright laws (such as produce a counterfeit copy).

No, sorry, that's completely untrue. You can't sell games without permit. No, even trading isn't technically legal. Why?

You pay $50 for the first time. Developer gets $50. One person gets the game.
You sell the game for $25, someone else pays you $25. Two people get to play the game (one after another, unless you made an .iso image for yourself beforehand), developer still has only $50 instead of $75.
That person sells for $25 again, three people have played it, developer has only $50 instead of $100. And it goes on and on.

Yes I agree the can't afford it excuse is used by pirates. But the difference is Piracy is not part of Free Trade. The right to sell what I buy. Piracy ensures no money goes into the system. With a second hand purachse someone has already paid for it at some point.

So instead of losing $200 on every 4 customers, they lose only $150. Sweet deal, right?

We also have to take into considereation some of the modern problems we have in video games. One is that they are rising in price yet less is being given back. For example a lot of games are roughly £40-50 now. Games are not the epics which used keep you going through the month until the next big release. Games used to take ages to complete, now most can complete them in ten hours if that. Also the replay value is waning in games. Very few demand the need for another run. We are getting less for out money.

Then don't buy games when they cost so much. Also, I have yet to see a game that costs over 40 pounds...
Or don't buy games if you think they are not worth your money. I don't go complaining that the new Fiat car is too expensive and burns too much fuel and they should make it cheaper.

Ironically by pushing out the second hand market, they are pushing people to pirate games instead. Initially its is the cost that makes sure people don't pay for new games. If the lower price isn't there, they cannot afford the higher one still, where they going to look?

So, people instead of buying a second hand copy from a private person, they pirate it... Developer doesn't see any money either way. Only from the first purchase. Again, don't think it's worth buying? Don't buy, don't complain.

If the publishers were really concerned with the threat of second hand games they would make more reasonable demands of their consumer base and release games cheaper in the first place. Be competive not destructive.

Oh please.

"I would buy Diablo 3, but it costs $60, I would buy it if it was $50..."
"Oh man, Dragon Age is awesome, but $50 is too much.. I would buy it for $40 for sure."
"Ah geez, Mass Effect is great, but come on, $35 for a game? Make it $20 and we've got a deal."
"Torchlight? Yeah, it's okay, but not worth $20. How about $10?"
"World of Goo? Pay whatever I want? How about $0.01, that's my final offer."