THQ Won't Punish Gamers Who Buy Pre-Owned

[Interference]

Project Ten Dollar was the better way to go if a games studio wanted you to buy new: it rewarded you for doing so. THQ's strategy of taking OUT features if you don't, thereby punishing pre-owners and offering absolutely sod all to new purchases is a disgusting little shambles.

Anyone who's swallowing this bullshit about pre-owned denting clearly hasn't seen the astronomical sales figures from the last ten years (if you're interested: http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Video_game_industry ). Sales have more than DOUBLED and the pre-owned sector is having far less of a negative impact than these money grabbing bastards are letting on. And that's not even taking into account the fact they're ignoring things like:

* People who sell their old games to buy new ones. How many of you traded in MW1 for MW2? Or Last year's football game for this year's one?
* People who wouldn't buy particular games new even if that was the only option. I mean, would you buy Two Worlds new? Or Alone in the Dark if it was more than £2 quid? No.
* The revenue generated for games shops based on second hand sales. Honestly, I doubt a lot of them could survive without it.

No other industry with a huge second hand trade complains about it. The music industry doesn't care that you buy old records, the housing market doesn't mind that your house has had several previous owners, and Ford certainly don't care that your Mondeo is 10 years old and used to belong to a grandmother from Durham.

How on EARTH THQ think that they're angle that this is good for the buying public is going to wash is completely baffling. Last time piracy was the big bad, now it's second-handers. Really. REALLY? No. Fuck right off.

 

[sosolidshoe]

...but THQ is at least trying to make it as reasonable as possible.

"I may be forcing you to eat my faeces, but at least I'm trying to make it nice by mixing in some fresh bananas."

Once sold to a customer, the game and all associated services are owned by that customer, and they have the right to resell it with all features intact. Selling my TV doesn't void the warranty. Selling my games shouldn't void the multiplayer access. Game companies are making millions, in some cases billions of dollars, "Project Ten Dollar" and their ilk are naked money-grabs at the expense of legitimate consumers, nothing more.

 

[Interference]

Lets say there are 10,000 people who would buy your game, so 10,000 sales to be made.
Lets say only 1,000 people actually buy new, the remaining 9,000 wait for used.
Lets say your game sells for £40 new, of which £15 is mark up by the retailer, £15 is publisher, and £10 is developer.

Lets say over its life, the average used price is £15.

You as a developer made £10,000
You as a publisher made £15,000

The retailer makes £15,000 (new) + £135,000 (used).

And you wonder why they're mad.

(all figures are purely for illustrative purposes, but not that far from the truth)

Boy is that some hokey maths. That hasn't taken into account:

1. That there are only 1000 copies floating around for 10,000 people. What if half the first 1k don't part with their copy? Or some of the other 9k get tired of waiting for someone to relinquish theirs? Or there's a price drop on new?

2. You're assuming that the one retailer handles ALL sales of the game. In reality, this profit would be spread much farther. While the developer makes £10k, an individual retailer -- even somewhere like Game -- would make a fraction of that £150k.

3. You seem to have completely missed the money handed over to the seller of the second-hand copy. That £15 quid probably only makes 5 - 10 pounds of actual profit.

4. There is absolutely no way in hell the average game's second hand price will stay anywhere close to £15. Most game's second hand prices vary enormously depending on their demand. In the case of the more expensive titles, they're nearly the same price as new. In those circumstances, a lot of people just say to hell with it and buy new anyway.

 

[Lovelocke]

This must be a phenomenon with people born in the last 18 years: Not until *this* generation of consoles have I ever had to settle for an incomplete game when buying used. The more people who "agree to do it" will set a precedent, and an extremely pricey one at that. I understand it costs a ton of money to produce a title, but at the same time, I feel like Gamestop should pay a fee for selling used titles, and they should simply roll that fee over into the price tag.

Wouldn't $2 extra per used copy of every game a developer has ever made eventually bring in more cash than the few people who buy a particular title, go online, and wish to have DLC (which, no DLC has ever come close to selling as many copies as a basic game unit). Think about it, you buy ten used games, pay the $10 fee, its like LOSING A WHOLE TWO GAMES just because you wanted three extra maps to freakin' Deathmatch on.

 

[Necator15]

So if I sold a CD to a friend of mine, they should have to go online and pay a fee to get the last song to work?

How about a movie? If I sell a DVD to a friend, should they have to pay a fee to get the last fifteen minutes to actually play?

When I buy something, I'm allowed to sell that same something to someone else without having some arbitrary hit in performance. This is nothing better than just trying to get more money out of an industry that is already paying you out the arse. Stop it.

 

[Weaver]

Maybe if publishers stopped taking 70% profits and giving multi-million dollar self-initiated bonuses to the lazy CEO's at the top the developers would see more money too.

You know what games industry? I'm getting really fucking sick of your shit.
We're the people who keep you alive. If you're like me you probably spend thousands of dollars a year on the games industry, and what do we get for it?

Not a fucking thing. We just get told "Waaaaahhhh I want more money! Waaaahhhhhhh you aren't spending enough." Go to fucking hell.

You know, even at a sub shop if you buy 12 you get one free - publishers need to do more to REWARD consumers not fucking juice them for every god damn penny. Maybe the size of the gaming population just isn't enough to sustain the industry how it is. In that case, I guess you're shit out of luck here.

If you lowered prices more people would buy your games and you would PROBABLY make more money. Valve saw sales increase by about 10,000% in some of their reduced price experiments, maybe people should actually be paying attention to this. They're doing the hard work FOR you - they're collecting data and taking sales risks and it worked. Gabe even gave a presentation about this at GDC about how games just cost too much money; is no one fucking listening?

What about the stories I've heard from the Rockstar Texas office? With the manager who came back with prostitutes and several thousand dollars worth of expensive wine to his office in a new car while the devs worked their 8th 90 hour week? This industry is rotting and it's rotting from the fucking top. Remove extraneous and bad management, trim ALL the fat from the publishers and give the developers the proper time and money to make their games with the proper incentives upon sales.

 

[sosolidshoe]

Maybe if publishers stopped taking 70% profits and giving multi-million dollar self-initiated bonuses to the lazy CEO's at the top the developers would see more money too.

You know what games industry? I'm getting really fucking sick of your shit.
We're the people who keep you alive. If you're like me you probably spend thousands of dollars a year on the games industry, and what do we get for it?

Not a fucking thing. We just get told "Waaaaahhhh I want more money! Waaaahhhhhhh you aren't spending enough." Go to fucking hell.

You know, even at a sub shop if you buy 12 you get one free - publishers need to do more to REWARD consumers not fucking juice them for every god damn penny. Maybe the size of the gaming population just isn't enough to sustain the industry how it is. In that case, I guess you're shit out of luck here.

If you lowered prices more people would buy your games and you would PROBABLY make more money. Valve saw sales increase by about 10,000% in some of their reduced price experiments, maybe people should actually be paying attention to this. They're doing the hard work FOR you - they're collecting data and taking sales risks and it worked. Gabe even gave a presentation about this at GDC about how games just cost too much money; is no one fucking listening?

What about the stories I've heard from the Rockstar Texas office? With the manager who game back with prostitutes and several thousand dollars worth of expensive wine to his office in a new car while the devs worked their 8th 90 hour week? This industry is rotting and it's rotting from the fucking top. Remove extraneous and bad management, trim ALL the fat from the publishers and give the developers the proper time and money to make their games with the proper incentives upon sales.

Fucking bravo. I'm sick and tired of the gaming industry trying to paint the very consumers who support them as the problem.

 

[Cartographer]

Not to put it bluntly, but the pre-owned market is well on the way towards putting a sizable dent in the game production market.

talking out of your lower colon?
Give me proof then I will spend my time reviewing it otherwise the message is clear, you might as well start preaching to me that idea that Piracy has killed the gaming industry and all that BS which know-one can prove or at least provide reasonable evidence to suggest such thing.

If you can't figure out on your own that a practice that takes money from the people who actually create a product, is counterproductive to that product's creation, then I can't help you I'm afraid.
While it is impossible to prove piracy has caused harm (we're not able to look at alternate versions of our own universe, where different decisions were made instead), good luck trying to prove it has helped, or is anything other than simple theft, made easy by the annonymity of the internet.

In a world where either new games get made, or we just end up endlessly buying increasingly older second-hand games, I know which I'd choose.

meh, it all goes to the bargain bin eventually

Nice attitude.
If you don't care about the games industry, if you don't care about healthy competition and a thriving market, why even come to this site?

People need to comprehend that if they want new, innovative and interesting games, then they need to screw over the industry and pay for them.

*cough*
new??innovative???interesting???
those are big words.
is it me or am I seeing clones upon clones on today's market? not even the so "revolutionising" Deus Ex: HR cannot escape GoW's cover clone (from what been shown soo far)

So don't wast your money then, if it's all so bad and derivative, stop buying games and go use your time and money for something else. But simply put, without money from consumers, developers won't produce new games; without market data telling them so, publishers won't back new ideas, they'll just keep on rolling out the next year's iteration of whatever sports/guitar sim or fps they're on.

/snip)

Boy is that some hokey maths. That hasn't taken into account:

1. That there are only 1000 copies floating around for 10,000 people. What if half the first 1k don't part with their copy? Or some of the other 9k get tired of waiting for someone to relinquish theirs? Or there's a price drop on new?

2. You're assuming that the one retailer handles ALL sales of the game. In reality, this profit would be spread much farther. While the developer makes £10k, an individual retailer -- even somewhere like Game -- would make a fraction of that £150k.

3. You seem to have completely missed the money handed over to the seller of the second-hand copy. That £15 quid probably only makes 5 - 10 pounds of actual profit.

4. There is absolutely no way in hell the average game's second hand price will stay anywhere close to £15. Most game's second hand prices vary enormously depending on their demand. In the case of the more expensive titles, they're nearly the same price as new. In those circumstances, a lot of people just say to hell with it and buy new anyway.

I'm not going to bother answering your points, you're quite frankly being pedantic for no reason other than to make yourself feel big. I provided a simple example to illustrate a point in response to a question, the real-world one is significantly more complex (as anyone with two brain cells to rub together can figure out) but ultimately boils down to the same point; the actual producers of the game see very little of its profits compared to the publishers and the retailers. While there are many reasons for this, since the article relates to the pre-owned market, I limited the example to just that.

Fucking bravo. I'm sick and tired of the gaming industry trying to paint the very consumers who support them as the problem.

Oh my god...

The Humble Indie Bundle, a collection in indie games that individually would probably retail at ~$80, was offered, for download, with the consumer setting the price, all the way down to $0.01

25% of people still didn't feel the guys who wrote the things deserved anything for the bundle and downloaded it, off their server, without paying.
There is no way to look at other downloads on torrent sites etc naturally. However, from the data they could get, when 25% of consumers outright steal, that's a pretty big problem IMO.

 

[PatrickXD]

Now of course I'm no specialist in this, but wouldn't this sort of undermine the proft of the game retailers? I'm guessing a fair portion of their income comes from preowned games, specificaly because they don't have to give anything back to the dev's. (or publishers, or whatever). Maybe something like a small percentage of the preowned income goes to the dev's and most goes to the retailers. That would mean that for every single sale of the game, both sides would make money, and nobody would have to be a dick about it.

EDIT: Or the publisher could sell the game themselves, for whatever price they choose. That way they could make more money by not having to sell through retailers? I'm not sure, but I am sure that something other than this can be done. I just don't like the idea of missing out on stuff because I didn't pay the full price, I just can't afford it.

 

[Sebenko]

If you lowered prices more people would buy your games and you would PROBABLY make more money. Valve saw sales increase by about 10,000% in some of their reduced price experiments, maybe people should actually be paying attention to this. They're doing the hard work FOR you - they're collecting data and taking sales risks and it worked. Gabe even gave a presentation about this at GDC about how games just cost too much money; is no one fucking listening?

I'd like to agree with this, but some of that price is probably because of the sale effect.

 

[Interference]

Boy is that some hokey maths. That hasn't taken into account:

1. That there are only 1000 copies floating around for 10,000 people. What if half the first 1k don't part with their copy? Or some of the other 9k get tired of waiting for someone to relinquish theirs? Or there's a price drop on new?

2. You're assuming that the one retailer handles ALL sales of the game. In reality, this profit would be spread much farther. While the developer makes £10k, an individual retailer -- even somewhere like Game -- would make a fraction of that £150k.

3. You seem to have completely missed the money handed over to the seller of the second-hand copy. That £15 quid probably only makes 5 - 10 pounds of actual profit.

4. There is absolutely no way in hell the average game's second hand price will stay anywhere close to £15. Most game's second hand prices vary enormously depending on their demand. In the case of the more expensive titles, they're nearly the same price as new. In those circumstances, a lot of people just say to hell with it and buy new anyway.

I'm not going to bother answering your points, you're quite frankly being pedantic for no reason other than to make yourself feel big. I provided a simple example to illustrate a point in response to a question, the real-world one is significantly more complex (as anyone with two brain cells to rub together can figure out) but ultimately boils down to the same point; the actual producers of the game see very little of its profits compared to the publishers and the retailers. While there are many reasons for this, since the article relates to the pre-owned market, I limited the example to just that..

This made me chuckle: I disagree with your take on the logistics of game sale and, rather than a reasoned argument as to why I'm wrong, you just decided to insult me instead.

My issue is that your example is too over-simplified -- to the point where it's either completely useless, misleading, or serves only to pretend the market works in a way it doesn't in order to present a point of view as fact.

 

[Cartographer]

Boy is that some hokey maths. That hasn't taken into account:

1. That there are only 1000 copies floating around for 10,000 people. What if half the first 1k don't part with their copy? Or some of the other 9k get tired of waiting for someone to relinquish theirs? Or there's a price drop on new?

2. You're assuming that the one retailer handles ALL sales of the game. In reality, this profit would be spread much farther. While the developer makes £10k, an individual retailer -- even somewhere like Game -- would make a fraction of that £150k.

3. You seem to have completely missed the money handed over to the seller of the second-hand copy. That £15 quid probably only makes 5 - 10 pounds of actual profit.

4. There is absolutely no way in hell the average game's second hand price will stay anywhere close to £15. Most game's second hand prices vary enormously depending on their demand. In the case of the more expensive titles, they're nearly the same price as new. In those circumstances, a lot of people just say to hell with it and buy new anyway.

I'm not going to bother answering your points, you're quite frankly being pedantic for no reason other than to make yourself feel big. I provided a simple example to illustrate a point in response to a question, the real-world one is significantly more complex (as anyone with two brain cells to rub together can figure out) but ultimately boils down to the same point; the actual producers of the game see very little of its profits compared to the publishers and the retailers. While there are many reasons for this, since the article relates to the pre-owned market, I limited the example to just that..

This made me chuckle: I disagree with your take on the logistics of game sale and, rather than a reasoned argument as to why I'm wrong, you just decided to insult me instead.

My issue is that your example is too over-simplified -- to the point where it's either completely useless, misleading, or serves only to pretend the market works in a way it doesn't in order to present a point of view as fact.

You expect what exactly when you decide to word your disagreement in such a confrontational manner?
For me to take you seriously?

If your initial post had been the one I just quoted, clearly stating your issue in a polite manner, I may have been inclined to expand upon my example and provide real-world examples to satisfy you. Feel free to do the research yourself.

 

[ItsAPaul]

Not that I'm into wrestling games, but I'd pay the $3-5 extra to get it new every time. I still don't get why you people think used games are $20 less or something. You're not saving money on used unless the game isn't being made any more.

 

[sosolidshoe]

-snip-

Seriously, you're equating the legal and ancient practice of secondhand sales, with piracy?

Wowza, you usually only get people that brainwashed in the R&P forum during a Fox News debate.

 

[Moriarty70]

You know what games industry? I'm getting really fucking sick of your shit.
We're the people who keep you alive. If you're like me you probably spend thousands of dollars a year on the games industry, and what do we get for it?

Not a fucking thing. We just get told "Waaaaahhhh I want more money! Waaaahhhhhhh you aren't spending enough." Go to fucking hell.

If you're buying games new then something like this doesn't apply to you. They aren't talking to you at all, ignore it and move on. If you're buying your games used then you're not supporting the game development industry, you're supporting game retail industry. So it's either a moot point or you missed the point all together.

 

[Niccolo]

...but THQ is at least trying to make it as reasonable as possible.

"I may be forcing you to eat my faeces, but at least I'm trying to make it nice by mixing in some fresh bananas."

Once sold to a customer, the game and all associated services are owned by that customer, and they have the right to resell it with all features intact. Selling my TV doesn't void the warranty. Selling my games shouldn't void the multiplayer access.

SNIP

Wrong - at least, in PC games' case. If you've ever read the EULA of a game, it generally mentions that you own the disc - not the data on it. You effectively pay for an unlimited rental of the game, and they're free to give you a big "screw off" whenever they want - except doing so would result in annihilation of their fanbase.

I don't know what the EULA for games is like, but I imagine it's similar. The companies hold the rights to the data contained on the disc.


In another track, I like this idea. Especially considering this $10 comes with the first DLC - that offsets the whole "pay out your ass for online" stuff everyone here is up in arms about.

Not that I ever play online, anyway. Live is populated mostly by people who annoy the hell out of me, plus my internet connection may as well be a pair of carrier pigeons flying back and forth.

 

[Druyn]

I wonder what I'll they do with Saint's Row 3's DLC...SR2's DLC was shitty, but had infinite rocket ammo, so I didn't really care.

My stance on project ten dollar and it's ilk (like this): I like it. I encourage it. I want EVERY publisher to do it.

Im pretty sure thats the reason that everybody bought that. Fuck everything else, I just wanted the ammo.

And I agree with you. I think that publishers and devs should follow THQs idea. Ten dollars seems fair, encourages TLC with profits, and this way makes it feel worth it and not like a punishment. I think that they did a very good job throwing in little bonuses for used games, and I dont think I would have a problem with other developers following. At the very least, it would discourage overpriced DLC, because then people would go buy used, pay the fee, and get the DLC for ten instead of I dont know, 40.

Am I happy about this new "used game fee" as a whole? No. But it doesnt look like this is going away soon, and if it sticks, I think Id prefer this to the other ideas in effect out there.

 

[Doo Doo Johnson]

Who do you think pays the developers' salaries, bills, marketing, packaging (do I really need to go on) and assumes ALL risk of dev teams creating a piece of crap that never sells? That would be the publisher... who in these cases, usually OWNS the developer.

Independent devs ink their own deals. If they aren't receiving dollars post-launch, it was agreed upon. Bottom Line.

People are losing sight of the issue here. Gamestop and revenue. This has nothing to do with DLC, lock codes, or gamers.

No publisher, developer, or ANY party involved in the creation of the video game receives a single dime when Gamestop sells used. Until publishers and retail (Gamestop) can figure out their OWN deal in regards to sharing revenue, gamers will continue to feel punished.

It's impossible to blame anyone. Gamers ARE getting screwed... so are publishers. Unfortunately, Gamestop has every right to continue their VERY successful used game model; thus publishers AND developers will continue to create ways to sway consumers to buy new, not used.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

Provoking the (pre-owned) consumers or even treating them like a animal in a cage, they will find a way around the system be it legal or illegal.

Who cares if they do? Publishers cannot make less money from that market segment than they do now, as they currently get $0. People who buy videogames used right now are simply not their customers - measures like this, ham-handed or otherwise, are attempts to change that, and as plans go it's pretty foolproof. After all, what are consumers buying used games now going to do if they don't like it, not give publishers any money some more? They're already doing that!

The fact of the matter is that if you only buy games used, you might as well be boycotting the companies that make them - they have nothing to lose by potentially annoying you whilst in the pursuit of making some money off of the very large segment that currently does not give them any.