Retailers Warn "Project Ten Dollar" Will Hurt Consumers

[Wicky_42]

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

Used game resale is practically piracy.

Yeah, except, like, not even remotely.

OT, I tried to trade in a pair of shite Wii games that came bundled with the console (wow, that was a suprise - even still in their wrappers Game only gave me £5 for both off the price of another purchase. I turn around and see a rack of used games for £20+. So I say fuck the 'used game' market, it's a load of bullshit profit mongering, sheer barefaced customer exploitation.

When I can by the game for less new online than I can pre-owned in s store, I don't need to worry about high street sellers. Sure, for peeps unable to afford games without being able to trade older ones in, tough luck. But maybe you could wait a few months for the prices to go down rather than get them at release? Or if you really want it, pre-order it and save yourself £10!

Plus, of course, nowhere does PC trade-ins anymore. The console crowd didn't give a shit about that, when PC games began registering keys online and so preventing the returning of PC games. Now look at all the fuss, even over something that DOESN'T stop console game resale, but just devalues it.

 

[pneuma08]

You seriously know stores that allow you to read an entire book or a series without asking you to buy the God damn book or gtfo? Let me know when they go out of business.

Barnes and Noble's been a round a while now, and they seem to be doing pretty well.

See this is why games and "products" can't be compared. When you finish playing a game, you have technically consumed it. The knowledge about the story, every boss fight, every cutscene, everything.

Not literally. It still exists. You can "consume" it again in that sense if you want. Someone else can consume it, and in a different way. Therefore, it is not literally consumed.

The non-literal consumed works with other things as well. When you're playing a guitar, you're consuming it, then you can hand it to someone else and they can consume it as well.

I know what you mean, but just because something can be "completed" doesn't mean that it loses all value, unlike "completing" the consumption a sandwich (in both senses of the word).

Gah. Also, virtual data =/= physical data. If you destroy a DVD of a game, you have all the rights in the world to torrent it, you already paid for it to the developer once.

Mmmmm...no on both accounts. "Virtual data" is physically stored somewhere, whether temporarily in your computer's registers, in grooves on a plastic disk, or ink on a page.

Beyond that is the question of if you are paying for the medium as much as you are paying for the data itself. This is a complicated digital rights issue, and the real problem is that publishers try to have their cake and eat it too by trying to make it into a contractual service instead of a product. This is BS, because no one is providing any service at all; if and when EA no longer exists, you can still install (certain) untampered EA games and consume them as if they were new.

No, they make money by selling copies of the data. You buy a copy, you sell a copy. Copyrights serve only the right to make new copies, which is why your second assertion is wrong. Unless you have permission from the publisher (which you don't unless you are manufacturing for them), you can't copy the data, whether to replace a lost copy or otherwise, including torrenting the data.

Because of a thing called EULA. You may not sell, rent or borrow the copy. You may not use it to make money without permit.

And according to some EULAs you can't swear on the internet without revoking your copy of the game either. (This is real, I swear. It's in the Command and Conquer: Renegade one.)

EULAs are of questionable legality at best. They can't revoke basic rights from you just because you clicked a button.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Huh. I thought Project Ten Dollar would be an attempt by EA to sell cheaper and less costly-to-make video games during this poor economy, since Steam has shown how willing people are to part with cash for little inexpensive fun titles like Plants vs Zombies.

Turns out it's just another game developer shooting themselves in the foot by hurting the profits of the people who sell their games. Not everyone likes buying online or digital copies of things, you know. And there's nothing to stop a company like GS from carrying your product if you cut into their profits enough. Or maybe they'll carry ONLY used copies, just to spite you.

And don't get me wrong-I hate Gamestop. Absolutely. But there are other ways of buying and selling used games without the middleman and his obnoxious markup. And so often, people use a worst-case situation in order to say that an entire system (one as old as time) should be eliminated. GS sucks, but so does EA. So I say that whoever gets wrecked out of this deal, I win.

 

[teisjm]

An unintended side effect of the program could be a reduction in new game sales, added SwapGame [http://www.swapgame.com/] CEO Marc Day, as customers suddenly find it harder to afford their habit. "EA's Project Ten Dollar move is aiming to stifle pre-owned games sales, but what they don't factor in is the damage this could have for them in relation to new sales," Day said. "The majority of customers who trade in for cash or credit do so to acquire new games they could otherwise not afford. Through trading in, we aim to help the customer make gaming more affordable, providing them with a way to buy new games."

There's a point left out here, Even if me not beeing able to trade in my old games for new games means, that i'll have less money to buy new games, it still means that whoever was gonan buy my old game from the pre-owned store will end up buying a new game instead.

I assume gamers will spend about the same amount of money on games overall regardless of whether or not they can buy pre-owned.
This will ofc mean that they get less games for their money, cause new games are more expensive than pre-owned, so for a set amount of money, i can get more pre-owned games than new games, but they'll usee the same total ammount regardless (this is my assumption, not a fact)

So seeing how sales of pre-owned games doesn't bring any money to EA or other publishers/developers, but the store (liek gamestop) does, this means, that some of the money used on pre-owned games end up on teh stores account.
These money are part of teh set ammount of money players will use, and the bigger this part, that has nothing to do with pubs/devs, th eless money pubs/devs make.
Every time money chanegs hands at a store, someones making money off of it, when it's pre-owned games, the dev's/pubs doesn't make anything.
Some of these money made will be spend on otehr things than buying new games from publishers, so they haev "disapeared" from the "total ammount of money spend on games" without the publishers making anything off of it.

If every game sold was a new game, teh publishers would make money every time money changed hands in a game-for-money trade.

So unless the existence fo pre-owned games cause people to spend more money on non-preowned games overall, it's not beneficial for the publishers.

Ps. This is just my thoughts, I don't have an economics degree or anything

 

[Master_Fubar23]

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

Used game resale is practically piracy.

not even close. so you buy a tv from say best buy and want a new better tv after you feel the need to get a new one are you going to keep the old tv? have it sit there not being used and pratically be usless once u have the new one? no, you sell the old tv and use the money gained from the sell to go towards the new one. anyone who thinks EA is right obviously have money burning in their pockets. as for me i have to choose between lunch for a couple weeks or a new game. although for a used game i only have to go without for one week. any way to increase profits for games makers will only hurt the customers who are already cash strapped which in turn will only hurt other establishments... it'll be like a chain reaction but nothing serious anytime soon

 

[Master_Fubar23]

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?

in his world? apparently not but then again people who say such things are generally the ones who have something to gain or lose from such things

 

[James Raynor]

I love the free DLC

I'm afraid you guys do not understand, they are cutting out parts of the games they put out to turn into DLC so they can be used as part of the project.

 

[Altorin]

Maybe I'm missing something, but how will this affect consumers negatively? A new game comes with bonus DLC, but a used game is still a full game. That feels like a positive affect to me, but I suppose it depends how you look at it. Some people might feel entitled to it, like they're paying for an incomplete game, but that seems selfish to me; You paid less for a used copy, and you expect the same bonuses earned as someone who pays full price for a new copy? That sounds the same as complaining about collector's editions having more bonuses than a regular copy.

I like this bonus DLC plan, and hope they continue with it.

the problem I see is when the used market don't properly adjust their prices for these games... Take Dragon Age for instance. If they buy it new to sell, it costs them 50 dollars, they sell it for 60 dollars.

the resale on dragon age SHOULD be lower, so they'll feel obligated to offer less for trade in, so if you'd get 15 for it, you might get 5 or 10.

Then they turn around and sell it for 55 used. I normally have no problem with used game companies doing that, except that they're basically stealing the value from the used game consumer, and then when the used game consumer complains, they tell them to blame the evil publishers who are bilking them for the 10 dollar DLC.

I've seen this happen.

I actually see this release as a threat to EA.. like an actual "If you do this, you will suffer, we'll see to it that you suffer".. and really, they probably could, but it's not fair.

 

[James Raynor]

Look at all the gamespot hate.

 

[dochmbi]

I don't understand why people buy used games from a store, or trade their games in. That seems to defeat the purpose as that way most of the value you would gain is instead given to the store.
I always buy my used games on a local online auction site.

 

[pneuma08]

I love the free DLC

I'm afraid you guys do not understand, they are cutting out parts of the games they put out to turn into DLC so they can be used as part of the project.

Unless they're using the time between the code going gold and the sell by date to work on additional stuff. (Point of reference: God of War 3 just went gold recently, not out until March 16th.)

Do you know what the dev's schedules are? Because I'd like to know that.

 

[pneuma08]

the problem I see is when the used market don't properly adjust their prices for these games...

I personally feel this is a misconception, actually. There is of course some markup above a bazaar-like market (see: Ebay) but it's pretty accountable. When you buy a game from Gamestop, for instance, you get additional services, like the ability to return a game. You also pay for selection and availability; sure there's cheaper secondhand retail stores (at least in my area) but chances are if there's a specific game I'm looking for, they won't have it. Gamestop also takes in crappy games that may not even sell on Ebay, too.

Not only that but the market tends to adjust itself. If people feel a game is too pricey, they don't buy it and when it doesn't sell the price (eventually) drops. Next time you're in a Gamestop, look at games that they have a lot of copies of. Watch as the price drops or there's a sale and those copies disappear.

I find, personally, that generally people are outraged when they feel they don't get their money's worth, regardless of what the market actually looks like.

 

[The Thief]

I love the free DLC

I'm afraid you guys do not understand, they are cutting out parts of the games they put out to turn into DLC so they can be used as part of the project.

I believe you're the one misunderstanding how this works. Here's a post by the Escapist's IT Director, Virgil, on the subject of the day-one DLC for Dragon Age: Origins.

Spoiler: It's a bit lengthy, but informative.

"I am always struck by exactly how ignorant many gamers are of how game or software development actually works. Let me try to explain this for you all:

First, any studio-developed game has a set time limit and budget for development. This should be common sense. All of the time that artists, writers, voice actors, programmers, and QA testers spend working on content is time that they are paid for.

Because of this, there is a set amount of content that can be included in a retail game (which pretty much has a fixed price). This is typically decided early on, and as the game development progresses things are added and removed depending on the difficulties the developer encounters. At each point, a decision is made as to whether X feature is important enough to increase the time/cost of the game development - if it's not, it can get cut from the game. Many of these features might be very cool, and developers can be sad to see them cut, but this happens with every game.

At some point in the development process, the designers have to stop adding new features and content. At this point, the programmers and QA become very busy testing, optimizing, and porting content. In the past, this is the stage where most of the writers, designers, and artists either get fired or get moved to another game.

Instead of firing the content creators, many newer games are deciding to instead have them make more content, to be tested and released separately from the game as DLC. This does not mean that the time that is used to create this is free, or that it is a part of the retail game. In some cases, the designers go back to stuff that was cut from the original game and rework it and fix the problems, because they really didn't want to see it removed in the first place.

While this is happening, the final "gold" version of the game is created. This is the version that first needs to pass the console manufacturers' certifications, and then need to be sent to manufacturing. This can take several weeks. During this time, the programmers and QA can test the DLC content that the rest of the team had been working on. Because they're working off the final version of the game now, and this is just extra content, this process goes a lot faster. It is easily possible that digital content can be tested and ready to be released before the retail versions of the game are even done being manufactured.

But all this time isn't 'free' - the assumption that the people working on this content would otherwise be being paid to add things to the retail game is just stupid. That game development time and budget has already been spent - they would either be working on something else entirely, or looking for a new job.

To create this new stuff, it has to be paid for somehow. For The Stone Prisoner, it's being paid for to see if it helps make up for used game sales - a particular problem for a mostly-linear story-based RPG. The Warden's Keep content, on the other hand, is a marketing promotion to sell the more expensive digital collector's edition (sans cloth map). If you aren't 'paying' for the content in one of those two ways, then you should expect to pay for it directly."

- Source [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.154083-Dragon-Age-Designer-Says-DLC-Not-Meant-to-Rip-Off-Players#3719305]

 

[Outamyhead]

If you don't want the DLC don't buy it, pure and simple, retailers are just pissed because they cannot sell the used DLC. Since they are ripping off the publisher with second hand sales, I think it's only fair for the publisher to sell the additional DLC for the people that didn't want to pay the developer/publisher for the second hand copy.

 

[Klepa]

So if I buy a new game for 45e, I get GAME + A BIT MORE GAME.
If I buy a used game for 35e, I get GAME.

I pay more, I get more. I don't see how this is hurting me. I can only see it hurting the retailers. And those retailers want me to think that it's bad for ME, so that I'd be against it, and buy more used games, thus giving them more money.

I couldn't care less about retailers. Why should I?
If it was possible, I'd just skip the middle man, and buy it straight from the devs. A retailer is basicly just a delivery boy, you pay him a bit extra, he'll get your product for you, so you don't have to.

 

[RooksEye]

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.

Yes yes, there's all that, but I try to keep my posts short and sweet.

 

[D.L.390]

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.

Exactly. They're simply too expensive new. Developers are basically saying "F**k you, you will pay what we tell you to pay.".

And gamestores offer you an alternative, buying the game second hand. It's cheaper, and therefore lots of people play a game they otherwise wouldn't.

Car companies don't complain about used car sales! The games industry is just full of cash grabbing jerks who are drunk on anti-piracy.

 

[Fioyl]

It isn't too big a deal to me, though I like how some companies will release cheaper bite-sized DLC. What I don't like is "reserve the game to get something totally stupid, like two multiplayer skins. Or a baseball bat."

Instead of focusing on superfluous gimmicks, how about they focus on tidying up unfinished products, like splitscreen co-op in Bioshock 2, or console updates for Team Fortress 2 instead of rereleasing Left 4 Dead in New Orleans.

On the other hand, stuff that actually provides content, like Battlefield BC2's extra mode seems like a good idea.

 

[rees263]

- snip -

That's utter bollocks - to say that the developer has any right to something I have bought makes a mockery of property ownership. Provided I don't infringe any copyright laws (you know, the laws that are already in place to protect intellectual property), then a game/movie/book etc that I buy is mine to do whatever I want with it, including sell it.

If not then I would be renting it, not buying which is a completely different system.

That seems to be under the assumption that you would be paid for the extra DLC. I promise that if you walk into a Gamestop and said "The extra content has never been used" and miraculously they believed you, they would still give you the same amount you would get without the DLC.

Was this a misquote?

- snip -

That's utter bollocks - to say that the developer has any right to something I have bought makes a mockery of property ownership. Provided I don't infringe any copyright laws (you know, the laws that are already in place to protect intellectual property), then a game/movie/book etc that I buy is mine to do whatever I want with it, including sell it.

If not then I would be renting it, not buying which is a completely different system.

You don't understand, do you?

10 people play their game, all of them finish. They should get $500 in total. But they get only $50 from the first guy.

You seriously don't see the problem? How about you work for 30 days, and get paid for 3 days?

Yes, I do understand what you're saying, I'm just saying that it's wrong.

In your example if the 9 guys who didn't pay wouldn't have bought the game anyway then the company has made no loss in that respect. The first guy has also decided that after playing the game it was not worth keeping. So clearly for these 10 people the game wasn't worth $500 between them, and the company has misjudged it's target market.

Now this seems to be a trend in the gaming industry much more so than in say the film industry which is a little odd. People seem to amass huge collections of DVDs in my experience but there is a massive market for second hand games. Maybe it's because games are much more expensive, or maybe it's because games become 'out of date' that much more quickly (exacerbating the increased cost). I am happy to replay a game just as much as watching a film I have already seen, but it seems this is not the case for all people, and certainly not all games.

Whatever the reason, this "Project ten dollar" seems to be EA's answer to this, and fair enough. It is the developers prerogative to sell their product however they like, and if consumers don't like it then their response should be to not buy it.

Going back to the perishable vs unperishable point, they are now selling a perishable DLC bundled with their unperishable game (essentially anyway), so assuming the DLC is "consumed" then it cannot be sold on, however the game can (and probably will) be sold on and it is up to the buyer to then decide how much they would be willing to pay for it, just as has always been the case.