Used Game Sales are a "Bigger Problem Than Piracy"

[dannymc18]

Second-hand stores have been around for ages. What makes the video games business so special that it can complain about it when it is a system people have been living with and loving for a long time?

Indeed. Everything in the world (well, within reason) has a second-hand market. What makes games so special? Sure they have a shorter lifespan than most products, but that also means a shorter time for developers to make their money anyway, so after a while first-hand sales are pittance regardless.

 

[Lemon Of Life]

Well, it's the stores that implement that kinda of mindset, the buying of used games, so it's their fault, but it makes complete sense. Developers are trying to combat it using the one-use code, but it's not going to change things that much.

 

[Double A]

Okay, I know the price point argument isn't legitimate against piracy, but here, I have to wonder if this isn't an indicator that games are being priced too damn high.

Naaaaaaaah, they're only $60.

Oh wait.

 

[Ian Caronia]

Unholy shit, someone actually acknowledged something I've been barking about for two years?

Yeah, I noticed this was a big problem long ago when I first realized that the buying of used games gives no cash to the devs of said game. It's a useful way of sticking it to the publishers of a once great game who've butchered the title in some way (Yakuza 3), but it's also far too similar to piracy. The difference? What's acknowledged as "legal" and who the money goes to (if any does exchange hands).

 

[MetalDooley]

Why don't they make all DLC free then, and continue support for games beyond the initial experience so people won't want to trade it in?

This makes a lot of sense.If peoples choice was

Buy game new - Get all DLC free or Buy game used - pay for all DLC

then I'm sure most people would go for new rather than used.

Problem is it's not going to happen as the DLC market has proved to be incredibly lucrative

 

[rockingnic]

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.

This makes... almost no sense. I don't mean that your premise is flawed, just that I can't work out what you're trying to say.

If I'm hearing you right, you're saying that each copy of a game costs $55 to produce. That makes sense if you're looking at physical goods, but when you're talking about software, there's no need for a physical item. Additionally, it only makes sense if you can't produce an infinite number of an item - it doesn't cost me appreciably more to sell 10,000 copies of a word document - perhaps a few cents for the bandwidth, and another few cents for payment processing. It DOES cost me substantially more if I need to sell 10,000 copies of a check-valve, because I need to spend money on materials, energy, and time (employees).

The cost includes, new software and hardware, salaries of EVERY person working on it. Any costs of testing (yes it does cost to test), advertising, bills. Bungie has a whole room with hundreds of 360s (both new and old) to test run the games 24/7, seeing any overheating or other performance problems so there's hardware (the hundreds of 360 including newly bought ones), bills (electricity), and more. Basically everything that is required to create and sell a game, even each time someone opens up a soda can so they have the caffeine and energy to keep working in the night so they can meet deadlines. Don't also forget the benefits each person has (like paid vacations) so someone can enjoy coming to work on the game each day. Sure if you love games enough, you wouldn't need any other incentive to work on it but people do need vacations every once in a while so they can be at their best.

 

[RvLeshrac]

Yeah, and fuck you too, Andy.

Making sense is nice. Unforunately, you don't.

On Topic: I don't understand how someone not paying for a game at all is worse than someone who pays for it then trades it in. To, me some money is better than no money. I mean aren't there used movie stores? Blockbuster sells used movies, and you don't see Movie companies getting all in a huff.

You're apparently not old enough to remember when video, and later game, rentals were challenged.

Read through <a href=http://www.entmerch.org/industry_history.html>http://www.entmerch.org/industry_history.html, and pay special attention to 1977, 1982, 1984, and 1990.

Further, used rental copies of videos aren't "used" in the traditional sense. They're purchased from the industry, and are typically only unpopular or out-of-release films, as those are the only ones that a rental chain is willing to dispose of.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Second-hand stores have been around for ages. What makes the video games business so special that it can complain about it when it is a system people have been living with and loving for a long time?

Indeed. Everything in the world (well, within reason) has a second-hand market. What makes games so special? Sure they have a shorter lifespan than most products, but that also means a shorter time for developers to make their money anyway, so after a while first-hand sales are pittance regardless.

The fact that they have a shorter life-span is even more reason why it's good with second hand for games. I mean, how is a game with a 12-hour campaign is supposed to last you a lifetime?

 

[Gindil]

The funniest part of this...

EA shuts down servers after a few years, then they also want to destroy the used market, and then after that, they want to say that we're criminals through DRM.

Let's not forget that the first part is all on them, the second has been around for YEARS with books, and the third...

Ubisoft.

I got nothing else.

 

[Raithnor]

I had a long post planned out here but IE at it. The jist of it was:

"The large Dinosaur will always lose to the smaller mammals in the long run."

They're not "losing" more money they're realizing "potential lost sales" which never really existed in the first place.

My experience with PC games is that any game will lose $20 off of it's retail value in about six months to a year. Those are new games, not used.

 

[RvLeshrac]

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.

This makes... almost no sense. I don't mean that your premise is flawed, just that I can't work out what you're trying to say.

If I'm hearing you right, you're saying that each copy of a game costs $55 to produce. That makes sense if you're looking at physical goods, but when you're talking about software, there's no need for a physical item. Additionally, it only makes sense if you can't produce an infinite number of an item - it doesn't cost me appreciably more to sell 10,000 copies of a word document - perhaps a few cents for the bandwidth, and another few cents for payment processing. It DOES cost me substantially more if I need to sell 10,000 copies of a check-valve, because I need to spend money on materials, energy, and time (employees).

The cost includes, new software and hardware, salaries of EVERY person working on it. Any costs of testing (yes it does cost to test), advertising, bills. Bungie has a whole room with hundreds of 360s (both new and old) to test run the games 24/7, seeing any overheating or other performance problems so there's hardware (the hundreds of 360 including newly bought ones), bills (electricity), and more. Basically everything that is required to create and sell a game, even each time someone opens up a soda can so they have the caffeine and energy to keep working in the night so they can meet deadlines. Don't also forget the benefits each person has (like paid vacations) so someone can enjoy coming to work on the game each day. Sure if you love games enough, you wouldn't need any other incentive to work on it but people do need vacations every once in a while so they can be at their best.

That work is done with no profit, though. Only a promise of future profits. If the game sells exactly 0 copies, everyone still gets paid, because they've ALREADY been paid. They just might not get paid, or as much, in the future.

You also skipped my pricing argument completely, which was the entire point:

When you can produce an infinite number of something at only an incidental cost, you can dramatically increase profits simply by lowering your asking price. If you sell one copy of a game at $50, but you sell a dozen copies at $10, how is the lower price causing you a loss?

 

[Spinozaad]

Yeah. And second hand cars are the reason why the automobile industry is so shaky. And what about people who buy used houses? I mean, surely contractors, real estate agents and what not could get a lot more money if people were to buy newly built houses whenever they move, no?

Fucking pricks. I've really grown to hate the games industry. That's why I barely buy and play games anymore.

 

[Marmooset]

Price is a solution. So is re-playability. For instance, I'm a PC user, and games come and go - but nobody's gonna get my old D2 CD's until they're dust.

 

[Dottie]

This sucks for the evil empire companies 'cause gamers can put them out of business, and play their games. "But wait we'll cut content from the game and sell it back to you!" Says the publisher. "I don't give I damn about that level anyways as long as none of this goes to you assholes!" I reply.

 

[Flying Dagger]

This is like clothes stores complaining about returns policies. Make decent games that last and you won't have people taking them back.
If people couldn't take a game back, less people would buy them.

 

[Anti-Form]

The existence of a "Used Game" is little more than a testament to the fact that some one bought the game in the past, so I don't see where the problem is. If you pay to produce a product and set the price point so that you can turn a profit once it's bought, you make money when it's bought. Any further trading of the product in the future isn't taking any money away from the developer. Piracy on the other hand actually prevents consumers from buying the product in the first place buy giving them a free, outside alternative.

A game publisher wanting money every time a game changes hands is akin to Warner Brothers wanting to charge you every time you watch "The Dark Knight" on DVD.(I'm not saying anyone is making this case, it's just an analogy)

 

[Gaderael]

Oh cry me a bloody river publishers. Here's a reposrt published today:

Newzoo/TNS survey of 13,000 gamers 8 and over.

2009 GAMING POPULATION & SALES (Estimated)
US: 183.5 million / $25.29 billion
UK: 31.3 million / £3.78 billion ($5.61 billion)
Germany: 35.5 million / ?3.65 billion ($4.67 billion)
France: 25.4 million / ?3.57 billion ($4.57 billion)
Netherlands: 9.3 million / ?590 million ($754 million)
Belgium: 4.7 million / ?570 million ($729 million)

2009 GAME SALES - US
Console (including handhelds): 60%
PC: 16%
Game portals: 11%
Massively multiplayer online: 8%
Mobile (incl. iPhone): 4%

2009 GAME SALES - UK
Console (including handhelds): 63%
PC: 20%
Game portals: 7%
Massively multiplayer online: 5%
Mobile (incl. iPhone): 5%

2009 GAME SALES - GERMANY
Console (including handhelds): 42%
PC: 36%
Game portals: 12%
Massively multiplayer online: 5%
Mobile (incl. iPhone): 5%

2009 GAME SALES - FRANCE
Console (including handhelds): 68%
PC: 19%
Game portals: 5%
Massively multiplayer online: 4%
Mobile (incl. iPhone): 3%

 

[Nikajo]

The great thing about being able to trade in games is that if you buy a new game and it turns out to be a disappointment at least you can trade it in so it's not a complete loss.

I've always been under the impression that these new DRM scemes for PC games were more revolved around killing the second hand market than stopping pirating anway. Really hope they don't start pulling this crap with console games now, my 360 isn't even on the internet so being forced to use on-line activation would be a real pain in the arse.

It's like they are purposefully trying to piss us off or something.

 

[Notthatbright]

All I know is that I will never pay money for this DLC. Ever.

 

[Phyroxis]

I think EA has the right idea with this Project Ten Dollar thing.

Instead of dicking over customers by attempting to destroy trading, they're being proactive in drawing additional revenue. People love exclusive shit, so I could see it paying off. Plus, it helps the reputation of the company, so long as they don't horribly gank games and then sell the ripped-out chunk as "additional content."