Retailers Warn "Project Ten Dollar" Will Hurt Consumers

[DocBot]

I can't help but say I don't mind this. It's not the best solution but it's nice to see someone is taking a shot at Game Stop's crazy-stupid used game market. Though it is sad that smaller businesses get caught in the crossfire. But, I would like to ask a few question:

How many of you bought a used Playstation 1 game for $24.99 when the price for a shrink-wrapped new copy was $29.99?

How many people bought a used PS2 or Xbox game for $42.99 when you could get it new for $49.99?

And, when I went in to buy my copy of MAG, how much was a used copy? $54.99! That doesn't fly by me when a new copy costs $59.99. And, when I requested the new copy, they told me how "virtually indestructible" the Blu-ray discs are and how buying used is the same as buying new. Well, I told them where they could shove their used copy every one of the seven times they tried to pitch it and was met with snide remarks of how I was going to be shot in the face by roving bands of twelve year-olds who gang together to take out single players like me. Is this the kind of place I want to scratch their back? No. And, I won't anymore even though I've bought used and new from this particular store for years! I will now go to the Best Buy that's closer to my work than the Game Stop is because they won't harass me about used games and pre-ordering. Oh, and that used copy of MAG they were trying to sell me? That was available on February 12th! When they game came out January 26th. Which means they reason that particular copy went something like this:

Uneducated (but not stupid, just sort of naive in this case) Customer- Hi! I bought this game and didn't know it was online-only. Can I return it? Maybe for my money back, or even just for store credit?

Store Manager (I've dealt with this guy a few times in friendly transactions and he's still very easy to hate)- Oh, I'm sorry but we don't allow for new games returns after it's been opened. We do for used, you have 7 days to return those, but not new.

Customer- But you didn't have any used copies, and no one told me this was online-only when I bought it.

Store Manager- I'm sorry (he's says I'm sorry at the front of every sentence in these situations) but the most we can do is trade it in for partial credit.

Customer (seeing either they can be out the whole amount for a game they can't play or get a little back and cut their loses)- Fine.

Oh, and as for the small shops? In San Diego there's only really Luna Games which is more focused on retro gaming (everything from original xbox to Atari 2600 is their range.) Which is a market that if you can get in the right area will rake in HUGE amounts of revenue that Game Stop can't touch of get near and don't really want to. The rest of the county is littered with Game Stops, Best Buys, Targets, etc. So, we don't have anyone trying to go up against the new or used "next gen console" markets. If you are, I feel for you, I do. But, you are going to get shafted in project ten-dollar and it's shoving back Game Stop who has been telling developers for years what to do with their margins and desires for the used cuts. Has anyone tried to ask if EA would sell DLC vouchers for a certain price? Or, considering the price, is it possible to lower the price of the used game to make up for the DLC for the consumer? I know making money as an independent is rough but there are possible options to make people want to come back when they want to buy other games that may not have this Project Ten-dollar?

Okay and that brings me to the last thing I want to say. I know I've written a book but I have just one more thing. I have played games that I liked, but didn't like enough to keep. Maybe because of the story or the gameplay, but something made it so I didn't hate it but wasn't planning on ever playing it again. Or, recently I got sick of the four Xbox 360's I went through and Traded in all my games. none of these games are bad games, just for some reason I knew I wasn't going to play it again. So I traded them in to get a little bit of a throwback. But, what about the Clover or black Isle Studios of the world who are trying to push into popularity? The lack of profit margins on their good games that are being traded in and purchased without any money is hurting them more than any EA. They got screwed to closure. Who knows what they would've made.

In the end, Project Ten-Dollar has my support. Nice to see the big developers getting what's theirs.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

This isn't going to change Blockbuster's extortionate prices. If anything the pre-owneds might become cheaper.

 

[pneuma08]

Of course, that depends on the idea that the reason people are trading in their old game is because they can't afford the full price of the new one. I see it as far more likely that the reason people are trading in their old game is because they're getting the new one anyway, and this gives them a few bucks back on top of that.

If used game stores lower their price on what they charge for used games to reflect the missing DLC, then if they try to keep the same profit margin by lowering what they pay out for them it may have the opposite effect, making it so people don't think it's worth the bother to get rid of their old game when purchasing new. And since used game stores rely on getting those used games in, they'll have to increase what they pay out again anyway.

So the winner in this case is really the consumer, and the loser is the used game stores who will see lower profit margins on used games. Sorry, little sympathy here.

Actually, as the article points out, the individuals selling their goods lose more than the secondary market retailers. If anything, I'd guess retailers will simply narrow their margins slightly which results in the consumers getting less for their games.

Moreover, regardless of their intentions going into the transaction (of an individual selling their good), lower prices in that market means less disposable income for individuals, which means they ultimately spend less.

I'm not particularly for or against Project Ten Dollar, rather I think it's a novel idea and am interested to see how it shapes the market. It basically has the potential to alter the equilibrium of Publisher/Retailer/Consumer, which is neither good nor bad.

 

[Wigglyman]

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.

I litterally have no idea what the hell I was think when this was typed!

Yeah they are £40-45 released. Still can't really afford that every month tho. Sucks being a student at times!

 

[countzero1234]

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

Used game resale is practically piracy.

It is not even close to practically piracy. Even in the US with its heavy handed copyright enforcement the right to resell copyrighted works you've legally acquired is protected by law.

This scheme is all well and good when the added DLC is largely fluff. But what would the opinion be if MW2 had the online portion as a $20+ DLC? The companies have effectively made an end run around the right of first sale for PCs and the end goal here is the same. Eventually make buying a used game a risky enough proposition in terms of functionality that you just don't bother.

 

[capt.fodder]

The number of folks comparing used game sales to piracy is astounding. If this were true, I guess I've pirated several cars in my lifetime...

 

[Flash787]

My only question is this:

If there's DLC available at launch day, why is it not in the game in the first place? That's what makes no sense to me.

 

[DocBot]

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.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize a person who wants to sell their game used was forced to download the free DLC. Now that I know the company sends someone out to their home who puts a gun to their head and says, "Get this DLC so that people who buy it later need to pay us more" my stance is totally different.

Oh wait.. that's not the case? You mean they're not forced to and if they want a higher value for resale they can avoid using their copy to access the free DLC? Hmmm..

The problem is that you can't prove one way or another when you're selling the game that you haven't you haven't downloaded the content. It makes value an issue. I can't prove to you that I have an Apache helicopter in my backyard as much as I can prove to some guy at a store that I haven't downloaded some theoretical content that may or may not be there.

 

[Jack and Calumon]

Hurrays for project 10 dollar! I want more DLC for free! I loved my free Bewbs in The Saboteur!

 

[pneuma08]

Spoiler

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.

If I'm playing a game and hand the controller to a friend, they "have access to developers' IP without giving them a cent. Piracy."

Please explain how your world view accommodates for the right to own property and the right to sell what you own.

The complications here are digital rights and copyright. No copies are made when I sell my game, therefore it does not violate copyright; conversely, anyone who digitally pirates a game by definition makes a copy of it. The only complication therefore is that of digital rights, and if I own the game that I bought.

So what is the difference? Do I own what I buy or not?

 

[pneuma08]

Double post, darn internet wigging out on me. Apologies.

 

[Delock]

I actually played through ME2 without putting in the Cerberus Nework for no real reason. On my second playthrough, I had it in.
It really feels like a reward for you buying new and supporting the company. It didn't feel necessary or like anything was omitted, just that you got a little bonus in the form of armor, missions, and ally. I didn't suddenly have a huge advantage over my other playthrough (it was loading the ME1 Shepard that did that).
As for Dragon Age, Shale felt seemlessly inserted when you played with her, but that's the same for all characters in that game. You can be missing someone and it not really feel wrong. You get an extra quest that takes maybe 5-10 minutes, though it adds to the game.
(Blood Dragon Armor isn't really important until endgame, and all it probably means is that you can equip one more person in heavy armor).

On the other hand, things like Assassin's Creed 2, where stuff was left out (though after playing both of them, it was probably because of the fact that they weren't as polished as the rest of the game) isn't what I want for this new policy.

As it stands, I really don't see a problem. Sure game stores complain, but they also would rather all games be shorter and have less replay value so you buy more and trade in for the sake of helping them out.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

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.

I'm not sure where you to $75 from. That seems to suggest that the publishers should make the money from you selling your game...which is curious, because it's yours, and also because the publishers were never offering the game for $25...so this is hypothetical to the point of being meaningless.

Anyway, do you not feel that you should be free to do as you please with something you've bought? I have a guitar that is 20 years old, and likely had at least a few owners before me, does this mean that I owe Gibson money? No, they have no claim to a piece of wood with strings on, that they sold on for profit 20 years ago.

I won't argue for a moment that the used market isn't damaging the industry, but that's just too bad, if it means that developers go out of business...then it's sad. But, the second hand market is something that EVERY industry has to deal with. Ownership should mean ownership, it shouldn't mean that you pay full price for a lease with strings attatched.

edit- I apologise, I meant no disrespect. Just realised my tone(is that applicable in text?)may have been a little harsh.

I just recently had to sit through a meeting at work about wastage, and their profit loss projections were laughable...and it just annoys the hell out of me.

 

[pneuma08]

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

Wait, you're saying pawn shops are illegal?

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

That sounds the same as complaining about collector's editions having more bonuses than a regular copy.

You forgot the part where the normal copy has already been used...
The used video game market HAS to be available(not allowing resale of a game is the same as not allowing the resale of a painting or a book). That's why publishers are really being critiqued.

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.

i just hope it comes out on PS3 with all the DLC's in 1 package... that would piss off xbox gamers though...

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

My only question is this:

If there's DLC available at launch day, why is it not in the game in the first place? That's what makes no sense to me.

Usually, day one DLC is content that was developed separately for the game, but was not ready to be added in when the rest of the game was, so they used the time after going gold to polish the game, rather than delay it past the release date and need to repolish the game, delaying it for several months. Instead, they run beta tests and all that on the DLC while the game is getting prepared for launch, allowing it to be added on when it is ready.

 

[Abedeus]

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.

I'm not sure where you to $75 from. That seems to suggest that the publishers should make the money from you selling your game...which is curious, because it's yours, and also because the publishers were never offering the game for $25...so this is hypothetical to the point of being meaningless.

Okay then, let's assume each player must pay $50 to play the game.

First one buys, pays $50 to the developers, one player pays.

The other sells the game for whatever amount, the developers should get another $50, because two people play the game. So they should have $100.

It's actually even worse, if you put it that way.

Anyway, do you not feel that you should be free to do as you please with something you've bought? I have a guitar that is 20 years old, and likely had at least a few owners before me, does this mean that I owe Gibson money? No, they have no claim to a piece of wood with strings on, that they sold on for profit 20 years ago.

Digital and physical items can't be judged by the same laws.

You play through the game, meaning you finished it - it's like eating a sandwich. It was good, and you paid for it full price.

Now, someone else pays you to get that sandwich and eat it too. Impossible? Sure it is. Same as comparing a guitar to a video game, or a movie. By the same logic, you should be able to re-sell your movie ticket after you watched it at the cinema. Oh, wait, you can't? Well aren't those dirty cinema owners clever, making everyone pay for viewing the movie...

I won't argue for a moment that the used market isn't damaging the industry, but that's just too bad, if it means that developers go out of business...then it's sad. But, the second hand market is something that EVERY industry has to deal with. Ownership should mean ownership, it shouldn't mean that you pay full price for a lease with strings attatched.

Except that only markets that actually suffer are ones that are about:
- Music
- Movies
- Books
- Games.

Why? You sell someone your music CD - the songs are the same as you had, same package even if it isn't important. You sell someone your movie DVD - same movie. Book? Same content. Games? Same content.

But, if you sell someone a 20-30 year old guitar, he must first repair it a little. Change strings, pain it, tune it. Same with buying a car - making a new car license (for the car itself), engine checks, the works. Also it won't be the same car it was 20 years ago - it will be slower, not only by today's standards, but it will be just OLD. Guitar also won't be as fresh and pleasant as a new one.

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

Wait, you're saying pawn shops are illegal?

Again, games and things you sell at pawn shops are not the same.

Okay, how about this:

You go to a book shop. You see a book, let's say - new Pratchett book just came out. You want to buy it, but it's expensive - new release. So you take it, go into a corner, read it in 5-6 hours fast, and you put it back on the shelf. Oh, wait, why would you want to buy it now? You already read it. If you want to read it again, you can just come back.

Or why bother buying music CDs. Just rip things from youtube videos. Or go to a store where they set up kiosks with video games, play Assassin's Creed for 5-6 hours straight and be glad you didn't have to buy the console, pay for the game, pay for the electricity... Free world!

 

[Walkchalk]

I kinda like Project Ten Dollar. Normally I would buy a game used and then buy the DLC, but since I usually buy a game soon after its release its not much of a price difference. It seems like it would actually end up saving me a bit of cash.