Used Game Sales are a "Bigger Problem Than Piracy"

[matt87_50]

I could not disagree more with this!

my argument has always been:

IF YOU DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO SELL THEIR GAMES: DON'T MAKE THEM SHIT!

fyi, I'm a game developer and work for a games company. but games should be just like everything else in the real world! people should be able to sell and trade them!

games companies seem to be sitting their thinking "its getting WORSE! we didn't have this problem before, but now we do! so it must be BAD now!" did you ever think that maybe you were just having it TOO GOOD before???

the BIGGEST problem with DD games is that you can't sell them, or - even worse - RETURN THEM!
at least they are usually cheaper...

the reasons for this whining now are clear: publishers spend like 10 times more on marketing than they do on actually developing games. all the marketing IN THE WORLD won't stop someone who has bought your game selling it because they got bored, or frustrated, or simply because ITS SHIT!


I mean... what a joke! you struggle to even get a demo these days?
so in the big companies dream world: they will do enough marketing to convince people to buy the game, because that is all they'll have to go on, no try before you buy or anything, then, once they bought it, thats it! we don't care about them after that cause there is NOTHING they can do about it anymore if they don't like it.

tell me, HOW DO YOU THINK THAT BODES FOR THE QUALITY OF GAMES IN THE FUTURE! if the company has already got all they want from you before you even fire the game up for the first time!

Imagine if you had to buy cars like that! or home loans!

I am so sick of people in the digital world trying to pretend like it is some how different than the real world... that is BY FAR the only true ignorance that persists amongst the mainstream when it comes to technology, they think this "new fangled internet thing" is this amazing new world! companies like Apple, the console devs, and all major consumer tech companies try to play on this belief for all its worth!

the internet is meant to make stuff BETTER, so if you find your self ever comparing something in the digital tech world to something in the old fashion real world, and going "why is it worse now?" I can guarantee you its because they are trying to take you for a ride!

 

[TurboPanda]

Saying that selling stuff second hand is big a problem to the industry is like saying Ebay is the Pirate bay and every charity shop in the world are drug dens.

Of course if the music industry is anything to go by eventually most games will be downloaded and those who aren't will have EA's stupid $10 on line fee for those who don't buy it new. Personally i only think this will harm the industry as I wouldn't have played half the games I had if it wasn't for friends lending them to me or me picking them up in a bargain bin 2 years after launch. Most gamers do not have enough money to buy every game they want new. This means gamers will be forced to only buy the games they know they will like and not take risks fearing that they will end up with something they never play and won't even be able to sell second hand. In other words gamers will stick to the same mainstream titles and original titles that try something different will end up in the same place as Okami and Beyond Good and Evil.

 

[LitleWaffle]

Okay, so now that this is out, everyone is just going to pirate games because they feel bad about buying used games.

Thank you, "logical" article!

 

[KaiRai]

Well Mr Oliver, you can either buy all my games, or go and fuck yourself stupid for a week.

I'll see you in a week, when you will inevitably be less intelligent than this week. Seriously though, who is this douchebag to tell me to not pick up a bargain? Games cost a fuckload.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

Most of the time, the used games I buy don't work. I only buy used if they don't have new games.

 

[Kingsman]

People seem to be under the delusion that because EA doesn't have enough money to add to its copious piles, it can't develop good games.

HAW HAW HAW HAW no.

No, no, no, no, no.

Look at Parker Brothers. They make games, and they do it by slapping colors on boards and spewing debris on them, and letting people have fun. They continue to make massive amounts on games that are DECADES old by doing it.

How? Because their games are FUN, and REPLAYABLE.

They do not ***** about any copies of their games that get passed from household to household, because not only do people like their product enough to hold onto it for long periods of time, they like to introduce new families to it to buy for themselves, so that while they buy their own, the original family keeps theirs. There is not a family in the U.S. that doesn't know about Monopoly, I can guarantee that.

I *could* hypothetically say that because EA is trying to make a game only one person could play, their job is that much harder than Parker Brothers, but I can't anymore. If EA is anything like the other conglomerates of video gaming, they have online now, which means their audience can find anyone else they need to play a game from other hundreds of thousands of shut-ins like themselves.

The fact that EA is producing products that people don't care about enough to hold onto for even a matter of months and are willing to hawk to someone else is a demon of their own creation- one that is perfectly legal, and they have NO right to interfere in (although that won't stop those bastards from trying, I suppose.) For all their technology, graphics, and spackle, their games cannot hold the replay value of a colored board with junk on it.

I find that sad. Really, just pathetic.

 

[BonsaiK]

Oliver claimed that games can be traded as many as four times in their lifespan, effectively reducing developer and publisher royalties for some titles to a quarter of what they should be. "So while retail may be announcing a reasonable season, the money going back up the chain is a fraction of what it was only a few years ago," he said. "This is a much bigger problem than piracy on the main consoles."

It's an interesting theory but it doesn't ring true. Someone who buys a lot of used games at reduced prices would then logically have more disposable income in their pocket to also buy new stuff, than someone who bought everything new....

 

[Skinny_Ninja]

I have an idea? Maybe lower the prices to an acceptable range and people would probably opt to buy a new copy rather than a used one. With the rise of certain free unlockables obtained by a code in a new game case (Battlefield: Bad Company 2's VIP code for example) is a damn good counter measure against the selling of used games. Pay 1600 Microsoft points for 2 map packs plus the newer ones which will be coming out amounts to paying more for the game in the long run. If you would have just bought the game new and gotten the code you probably would have saved some money.

This really does piss me off about developers though. They're just too daft to realize people have been buying and trading used books but the market is still thriving. Same goes to comics, movies, and just about everything else besides non-recyclable perishables like food.

It all amounts to a bunch of whiny greedy bastards. In the end they're still making more than I, the consumer, so they need to shut their traps.

 

[AhumbleKnight]

This is crazy. I don't really play EA games cos they don't appeal to me(they are shit).

I do so love Valve's aproach. Make a good product. Sell it at a good price. Provide extra content for free. Once you own the game, you own it! regardless of system type (Mac or PC). It is of note though that you can not sell your steam purchased or activated games second hand. But considering that you probably paid less for them to begin with and buying a new game is cheaper through steam than anywhere else I know of, I honestly have never felt the desire to.

See TF2 or L4D as good examples of valve service. Free DLC is still comming out and it has been years(more so for tf2 than L4D2 but still the best value for money on a game I ever spent)!

Valve have the right idea. EA have it as far wrong as you can get.

 

[SamStar42]

I buy games pre-owned online for two reasons.

a) It's more convenient, plus I can buy eighteen rated games without needing my parents with me at the store and

b) Usually, it's really really cheap.

I'd gladly pay money for something I think is worth £40, but why should I when I can get it for cheaper somewhere else? It's the logical thing to do. I'm not going to buy a game that I can rent/buy for 1/4 of the price online that I think I might complete and be done with in a few days.

 

[CAW4]

...this little shit-streak just wants multiple payments for a single item. In essence, he want a cut of every single sale after the first. Fuck him. Fuck him in the ear.

Except what he's saying makes sense. In essence, it's one person at a time piracy where you have to pay the pirate for the game.

Kinda easy to say trade ins are worse then piracy, as piracy numbers are complete bullshit anyways.

Remember kids! piratedownload=/=lost sale.

What? So if I walk into a store, grab some stuff and walk out it's not a lost sale for them?

 

[dududf]

Kinda easy to say trade ins are worse then piracy, as piracy numbers are complete bullshit anyways.

Remember kids! pirate download=/=lost sale.

What? So if I walk into a store, grab some stuff and walk out it's not a lost sale for them?

How the heck didja get that out of pirate download=/=lost sale?

Just because someone pirated it, doesn't mean they were going to buy it. And if they weren't going to buy it anyways, then they didn't lose money on that person as there was no money to gain at all.

If you're referring to the first part, then if you stole the used games then it doesn't effect the developer at all, just the retailer.

Actually, if anything stealing un-used games would be kinda good for the dev, as that counts as a sale for the store, as the store would have to buy a copy to replace the stolen one, funnily enough.

 

[Hiroshi Mishima]

I've traded in games approximately twice in my life (about 4 games between the two transactions) and I instantly regretted it each time. So no, I do not trade in games for likely many of the reasons others don't: lack of profitable return and suddenly wanting to play the game again as soon as it is gone.

So no, I can't afford to buy NEW games all the time. But whatever imbecile claimed "if you can't afford something you don't deserve it, get a job/life" sure has absolutely no idea what they're even talking about. Reminds me of how the people in Surf village treated Rudy and then profited from the Holy Berries he discovered, making themselves even less likeably and given me pause for thought to wish I could just razz the village to the ground...

Sorry, got off on a tangent there. For me, it's all about price, and it's the same argument for why people pirate games (more or less). The various reasons for pirating vs used games are different, but what drives them are the same: It is getting harder and harder to actually BUY new stuff these days. Even when the economy got to its lowest, the games industry never lowered their prices. That not only showed how little the companies cared for their consumers, but how far they were willing to gouge the masses for money. It's no surprise that so many gamers do not buy new games but instead look to used/second-hand/pirated material.

I'm not saying that it's the majority, but let's not kid ourselves here. I'd say that conservatively speaking, at least 1/3 of all gamers buy used games as their sole source of used games. I know that the majority of my games these days are used mainly cause I am still gaming on "supposedly outdated" consoles like the PS2, which I think is still a better console than the PS3.

 

[Crimson Cade]

*shrug*

I buy ALL my games used if I can. Or borrow them from my brother/friends and spend nothing on it. There is a small core of favorites I support, and some I buy when at a considerably reduced price (like 80% of my games on STEAM).

The entertainment business is not a charity. When you overcharge for a product, this sort of thing is bound to happen. Interestingly enough, when Valve cut the price for Left 4 Dead by 75% or so as an experiment, the influx in sales got them an net earning hike of 1500~% compared to full price.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Direct sale vs retail. Product control vs market coverage. Debated for the better part of the last century (at least) and a typical case of "dancing with the devil", or rather, the retail middleman.

And yet, the benefits of going retail far outweigh the drawbacks for the gaming industry.
I hope everyone realizes that while it may not be the optimal option (as evidenced by EA's recent readmission into the ranks of the Fortune 500) these publishers CAN go Direct-Market.

It will just cost them far more to set up than doing business with the existing retail market, however, the choice is still available, and theirs to make.

 

[vviki]

First off let me start that trading is mostly for console games, since they are not pirated, because no one cares about console games in order to pirate them. Second pc games can generally be pirated and the "Try before you buy" is what most ppl want, and most publishers publishing their next shittier than evarr game, don't want you to see more than the demo without coughing up the whole price. I understand that they need to have cash to cover their investment and win some for motivation, but pure greed is going to drive customers away. Now about the idea that they reinvest all their winnings is a bad one, because "the cocaine bucket" must never run dry and that takes a lot of cash to fuel. Now my suggestion using a simple example. If you want people to stop "robbing you" you should a) make a game WORTH paying for and/or b) make a game that is really hard to pirate (i.e. mmorpg/anything played online only). The example here are all Blizzard games since they are worth paying for and without an original key you can't use battle.net where most of the fun lies. Then there is wow, what you can't play without paying for every month. It is true that there are some pirated servers, but instead of flaming Blizzard took the right road (the Bill Gates approach to piracy) and used them to gather initial data to fix problems within the game overall (the more ppl there are testing it the better).

In conclusion I would love to see one day one of the shitty games coming out and having number of sales to 0 or 1 because of piracy, so they can finally understand that no one cares if the game is not good (that goes for most annual releases including everything from EA). If it is, people WILL pay for it.

 

[ideitbawx]

If you can't afford a new game, then either:

A: Get a job.
or
B: Don't buy as many games because you don't need to play every game.

don't tell me you're one of those "there are two sides to everything but only two sides and only my two sides" kind of people. hate to break it to ya, but there's more to life than assuming everyone should be in the same boat as you.

aaaaaaaanyways, my real comment:

Let's see... assuming games are generally traded in at least once, and developers are taking a 50% cut in revenues...

I'm really not sure why they can't do the math, and figure out that lowering prices dramatically will drive up Day 1 sales and gut the second-hand market.

why not? with music sales, the price generally goes up as the cd's get older and sell less copies, not the other way around. but, seeing as how business men like to think with their wallets, they mark everything up until it sells X amount of copies, and then they bring the prices down to sell it to the rest of the consumer base. in a way it's smart, because especially with big franchises like mario, the die-hards will buy it for any price; it's like musicians who release "special edition" vinyl (yes, they still cut vinyl records) that are intentionally made in limited numbers and sold at ridiculous prices, to try and make them more "collectible", even though no-one will likely buy them (i'm looking at you, omar rodriguez-lopez!).

but, in the long run, developers fail to see that they're just alienating their income source by giving them no incentive to buy when they keep pulling the same stunt over and over. going back to music, in the early 2000's, it was no surprise to pay 20 bucks for a cd that you couldn't even guarantee you'd like. that's a part of why napster took off like it did. so, in a risky business move, the band godsmack released their latest album at the time--for 10 bucks! it sold like fuckin' hotcakes, and helped cement godsmack into pop-metal history.

then everyone saw how redundant "pop-metal" was, but that's beside the point.

it'll just act like the stock market: people at the top make some money, but want more, so prices go up; demand goes down due to consumer retaliation, prices go down; repeat ad nauseum.
or
people at the top make some money, but want more, so prices go up; demand goes down due to consumer retaliation, but people at top still want more, so prices go up; demand keeps going down, people at top still want more, so prices go up; repeat until collapse ensues.

i feel there's a third option i'm missing, but can't think of it right away.

 

[ideitbawx]

I have an idea? Maybe lower the prices to an acceptable range and people would probably opt to buy a new copy rather than a used one. With the rise of certain free unlockables obtained by a code in a new game case (Battlefield: Bad Company 2's VIP code for example) is a damn good counter measure against the selling of used games. Pay 1600 Microsoft points for 2 map packs plus the newer ones which will be coming out amounts to paying more for the game in the long run. If you would have just bought the game new and gotten the code you probably would have saved some money.

This really does piss me off about developers though. They're just too daft to realize people have been buying and trading used books but the market is still thriving. Same goes to comics, movies, and just about everything else besides non-recyclable perishables like food.

It all amounts to a bunch of whiny greedy bastards. In the end they're still making more than I, the consumer, so they need to shut their traps.

amen
/thread

 

[Tetsuhara]

I said it before and I'll say it again, all these schemes to deal with perceived loss of income for producers of video games seem to only punish the people that actually buy their games.

DRM for PG games? It doesn't work. Most so-called 'pirates' are people that didn't do much more then open BitTorrent and go 'Ooooh, shiny!' and click on the game they searched for and download it. Only people that paid for the game has to slog through the DRM requirements, no matter if it's having a physical disk in the drive or being connected online the entire time you're playing the game.

As for console games, pricing seems to be the main issue. I have a friend who just bought Mass Effect 2 and Modern Warfare 2 new this weekend because they were both on sale. He said he wouldn't have touched them otherwise at $60 apiece, but once they dropped under $40 he got interested.

Encourage your customers to buy new, increase your quality control, and stop finding ways to blame the consumers for everything that goes wrong and I think you'll see sales improve. Like with every other business in the world.