Exactly, used games bring in new players whether you like them or not. Hell because I love SOTC so much I brought the Soundtrack Album which equals more money for the people behind the games so to qoute Mr. Phenoix Wright "TAKE THAT!"buy teh haloz said:
Used Game Sales are a "Bigger Problem Than Piracy"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I'll throw this into the mix since it's bound to come up sooner or later on this topic.
How is buying a used book different from buying a used game?
How is buying a used anything different than buying a used game?
For those of us in college are we not happier buying a used cheaper text book? Surely the maker of that text book is getting zero money from it since it is used?
In the end the creator isn't getting money from you, so why is it that second hand sales are perfectly acceptable in other markets, but not in the gaming one? To say its an issue of price difference doesn't make any sense because there's a used car market.
Give me a solid argument as to why we should treat the games market different from all the others or anything else said against it is just spouting nonsense.
How is buying a used book different from buying a used game?
How is buying a used anything different than buying a used game?
For those of us in college are we not happier buying a used cheaper text book? Surely the maker of that text book is getting zero money from it since it is used?
In the end the creator isn't getting money from you, so why is it that second hand sales are perfectly acceptable in other markets, but not in the gaming one? To say its an issue of price difference doesn't make any sense because there's a used car market.
Give me a solid argument as to why we should treat the games market different from all the others or anything else said against it is just spouting nonsense.
the thing is, if you, as the guy in the article says many people do, trade in a used game to buy a new one then you are contributing to the game devs just as much as if you spent more money on buying it new. I have no proof other than my probably flawed reasoning, but i would have thought they make the most money on a game within the first few months of its release during which time the availability of used copies is limited and the price difference isn't worth buying used over new.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but a game company buys a load of games off the publisher to sell in their store. This is the money that goes to the game devs. The store then marks up the price to suit itself. The difference between the money aid to the publisher and the markup is money the company retains. If you, as a consumer, trade in one of your older games to make a new game cheaper then the dev company loses no money. His entire argument then goes sailing out of the window
I'm not sure how much of this makes sense, but it did make sense in my head XD
ANd if they want to stop people buying used, then make games cheaper.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but a game company buys a load of games off the publisher to sell in their store. This is the money that goes to the game devs. The store then marks up the price to suit itself. The difference between the money aid to the publisher and the markup is money the company retains. If you, as a consumer, trade in one of your older games to make a new game cheaper then the dev company loses no money. His entire argument then goes sailing out of the window
I'm not sure how much of this makes sense, but it did make sense in my head XD
ANd if they want to stop people buying used, then make games cheaper.
The difference is the source of the used movies vs. the used games.McNinja said:
Blockbuster's used movies are extra copies bought by the store while it was a must-have title. E.G. when Lord of the Rings came out, BB had entire walls of the thing - today, there isn't demand (or shelf space) for that many copies, so they sell the extras.
The *big* difference, though, is that Blockbuster spends something like $90 per copy because it is buying them in order to rent them, whereas a consumer copy of the same movie costs $15-25. So Blockbuster's used market isn't really anything like Gamestops - Gamestop buys its used titles for a pittance and sells them at only slightly below the cost of the new game. Frugal gamers opt to save $5, while Gamestop makes an easy $25-40 (compared to maybe $10 for a new title), and the publisher/developer doesn't get a dime.
Lowering prices means higher New sales, which means that the developers are likely to get *MORE* money over time, not less.rockingnic said:
Leaving prices as they are, or increasing them, means higher Used sales. The developers don't get any money from those.
That's capitalism. If you aren't willing to sell me your Thing at a price I'm willing to pay, I'll go find someone else who IS willing to sell at my price. If I can't find it, I might come back to you. Alternately, you can meet me in the middle - you get the money, and I don't have to go hunting around.
first it was the pirates,
after that it was the used games,
next it will be the rental games,
then, the dreaded scourge that is people that play games at other people's houses.
then...they'll blame the nice weather. If it's nice outside, ppl spend less time gaming...and that's stealing money from the gaming industry.
after that it was the used games,
next it will be the rental games,
then, the dreaded scourge that is people that play games at other people's houses.
then...they'll blame the nice weather. If it's nice outside, ppl spend less time gaming...and that's stealing money from the gaming industry.
I like this guy.RvLeshrac said:
I buy most things second hand, and not just games, 'cause it's the way I was brought up. Suck it up.
The only games I've ever brought brand new are SoulSilver because I really wanted it, and Arkham Asylum, 'cause oddly it was cheaper to buy it brand new. If I wasn't a student, could actually find a job and could afford brand new games as much as I buy preowned, then maybe I would buy them. But on the other hand, I would much prefer to buy a game cheaper and find out it was crap than having to pay £40+ and come to the same conclusion. The same argument could be given for piracy; which, granted, is illegal.
It's all down to personal preference; but if you want to buy things brand new and waste money the hard way, carry on.
it doesnt matter anyway even though i think this is an example of corporate greed, ALL games within 10-20 years are gonna go digital distribution as dependency on the internet grows. even console games with there extremely large harddrives are gonna have digital services. Thats why i use Steam ^_^
Here's the way I see it.
Gamer A slaps down 40 quid for a new game. That game is his now his personal property. (No different to buying clothing, which are just as re-usable as games but don't have all the legal crap that goes with games.)
As the game is his personal property, selling it is fair dinkums in my books. The resale money belongs in the gamer's pocket - not the publisher's or the devs.
But here's how the Devs and Publishers WANT things:
Gamer walks into his game store and pays to have permission to merely access the game rather than own it. If the gamer gets bored of it and wants to recoup some of that money - he's up a certain creek without a paddle.
Personally, I always buy first hand games. Nothing beats getting my clammy mits on a fresh game - and if it has some 'free' DLC with it - all the better.
Though this equation will also help clarify why I buy a new game.
1st hand + DLC = £40
2nd Hand - DLC = £35
I think games stores don't give punters enough money when they buy their games, but that's a separate matter between the shop and the gamer which doesn't involve the publishers or devs IMO.
Gamer A slaps down 40 quid for a new game. That game is his now his personal property. (No different to buying clothing, which are just as re-usable as games but don't have all the legal crap that goes with games.)
As the game is his personal property, selling it is fair dinkums in my books. The resale money belongs in the gamer's pocket - not the publisher's or the devs.
But here's how the Devs and Publishers WANT things:
Gamer walks into his game store and pays to have permission to merely access the game rather than own it. If the gamer gets bored of it and wants to recoup some of that money - he's up a certain creek without a paddle.
Personally, I always buy first hand games. Nothing beats getting my clammy mits on a fresh game - and if it has some 'free' DLC with it - all the better.
Though this equation will also help clarify why I buy a new game.
1st hand + DLC = £40
2nd Hand - DLC = £35
I think games stores don't give punters enough money when they buy their games, but that's a separate matter between the shop and the gamer which doesn't involve the publishers or devs IMO.
So Piracy is 90% of all lost game sales, and Used Games are bigger... That's at least 180% of sales...
Did these people ever take math at school?
Did these people ever take math at school?
Right... except no other industry is complaining about the secondhand market, probably because at least in the US, it's entirely legal! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine)
If there are market conditions that prevent you from maximizing profits, you don't whine, you try a different business strategy!
If there are market conditions that prevent you from maximizing profits, you don't whine, you try a different business strategy!
You do realize that games don't cost, to make, the same in the future than they do in the past. So before, games on consoles were $50, let's say it was $45 to make it and $5 profit margin. But with the technology today to keep up with the times (it's like updating a PC to the maximum each time something better comes out), the cost becomes (just for example, not saying it is) $55 and they make it $60 for a $5 profit margin. By that, they lose money and instead of having the rights to the game as an asset, it becomes a liability and they would close it immediately. I wouldn't be surprise if the cost for a single game and standard retail price, in the future, becomes $100, but in the future the value of a single dollar will drop, that's to be expected.RvLeshrac said:
We can argue a lot about whether buying games used is ethical or responsible, but what's going on here is different. This isn't about customers at all. When a game gets sold used the retailer takes all the revenue from that. The publisher and developer say "That's not fair, we made that. We deserve a cut." Since there's no legal ground for them to claim that cut and there's nothing they can offer in return for it (I'm surmising this from the fact that, to my knowledge, no publisher or developer has a profit-sharing deal with a used game retailer) they've just been living with this "loss" until now.
This plan is a way to forcibly take that cut from the resalers. Note that I didn't say customers. That's because the resalers are going to have this conversation with their customers:
Gamestop: Buy it used, it's much cheaper.
Customer: Only by $5, and then I have to buy the online pass, which costs $10, so I'm out $5 if I go with a used one.
GS: Ok ok, our used games will be $15 off now.
So basically the resaler accepts that used games re now devalued by about $10 and reprices accordingly, because used sales are still more profitable than new sales (though less so now) and sometimes the alternative ill be not making a sale at all, new or used.
It's a little more complicated than that, because this will also influence the trade-ins that resalers pay out, and some people will just decide they don't care about the online pass, but hopefully I've demonstrated the basic idea here, that this is mainly about EA forcibly taking a cut from resalers, and counting on them to eat the cost.
This plan is a way to forcibly take that cut from the resalers. Note that I didn't say customers. That's because the resalers are going to have this conversation with their customers:
Gamestop: Buy it used, it's much cheaper.
Customer: Only by $5, and then I have to buy the online pass, which costs $10, so I'm out $5 if I go with a used one.
GS: Ok ok, our used games will be $15 off now.
So basically the resaler accepts that used games re now devalued by about $10 and reprices accordingly, because used sales are still more profitable than new sales (though less so now) and sometimes the alternative ill be not making a sale at all, new or used.
It's a little more complicated than that, because this will also influence the trade-ins that resalers pay out, and some people will just decide they don't care about the online pass, but hopefully I've demonstrated the basic idea here, that this is mainly about EA forcibly taking a cut from resalers, and counting on them to eat the cost.
Good point.The industry is assuming that no used games=dramatic increase in new sales when there's no real evidence to support this.I reckon if there was no used market then there would just be less gamers as many people would just not buy games if they couldn't buy used/trade in unwanted gamesTherumancer said:
I personally don't buy many used games but there are several games I own that I would never have bought if I hadn't gotten them cheap used
Andrew Oliver is talking nonsense. If I see a game I want, I'll buy it after a week or 2, once the initial stupidly high price has dipped to a reasonable level. With today's games you can't leave the purchase until much later, as most noteable games now come with a significant multiplayer component, so buying a game pre-owned or in sales is cheaper for a reason - most of the value has been knocked off as soon as the multiplayer has died down. Take for example sports games; nobody accepts them as trade-ins after their year has ended, and people are only going to buy the newest ones otherwise there isn't really much point in having them. So is it really worth alienating potential future customers over a tiny percentage of sales? Like me - I was never interested in Crackdown, always thought it was arcadey and childish and whatnot, however just the other week I seen it going horrendously cheap pre-owned at Game so I thought why not pick it up, and now I can't wait for Crackdown 2.. something I wouldn't be buying if it wasn't for the pre-owned sales.