Used Game Sales are a "Bigger Problem Than Piracy"

[FoolKiller]

The math is still bad.

If you buy it used the extra content we give for free will cost you 10 dollars. Fine, I will buy it used when it is 19.99 and get the content for 10. Still better than the 70 I would have to pay for it otherwise.

And there is nothing wrong with second hand. Why shouldn't we have it that way? Try finding an older game brand new. How am I supposed to find less popular good games without the used market. I haven't seen games that are 2 or 3 years old for sale except in a store that sells used. I don't have time to play everything when it comes out even if I could afford it.

 

[bificommander]

I only own a PC, and there is no real second-hand PC gaming market, so I'm unaffected by this. But I do disagree that there's something wrong with secondhand games. I'm sure the car industry would also make a lot more if there was no second-hand trading of used cars. But there is, and it's legal. The makers sell their product to someone, and once the first owner no longer wants or needs it, he sells it to someone else. It's fair.

To Andrew's credit, he does't claim second-hand trade is evil or wrong, he just states it as a reason they don't get more money. To his discredit, he makes use of the piracy-profit-loss-calculation: A game has 4 owners during its life, so we only get a quarter of the money. Because if there wasn't a second hand market, all 4 of those people would have bought our game for the full price, obviously. Not only is it doubtfull the last 3 would fork over the whole amount, it isn't even certain the first guy would have bought it if he knew he wouldn't be allowed to sell it.

 

[thenoblepenguin]

Am I the only one here who's curious as to what game is depicted in the graphic of this article? Call me a n00b for not recognizing it, but I slogged through this entire thread looking for someone to ask the question I'm asking, but no one has. So please, sate my curiosity and tell me from what game the screenshot is taken.

As for my opinion on the whole thing, I think that second-hand gaming is perfectly fine (zero percent of my 360 library was bought by me personally; I either borrowed my games from friends or received them as gifts) since it's legal, present in any market anyway(e.g. cars, books, furniture, etc.) and, as has been said before in this thread, can retroactively add new potential buyers for future games by developers of otherwise overlooked titles. I must say, however, that I dislike the opinion that if I can't afford to buy every single one of my titles new that I shouldn't buy games at all. Obviously, not being able to shell out $60+ dollars every week is indicative of not socioeconomic factors compounded with the costs of going to college (without a cent of help from my parents due to their own financial troubles) and living on my own for the first time but of my obvious incompetence as a human being. Thanks, WASPs. I wasn't at all expecting to feel personally insulted by the time I got my simple question answered.

 

[Gvaz]

I might consider not buying used games if used games weren't so cheap.

Conversely, I might consider buying new games if games weren't so expensive!

 

[Alar]

I suppose it's nice that the game developers are throwing in these one-time-use goodies rather than, say, trying to completely ban the sale of used games. I would have expected them to try something like that, personally.

 

[SimuLord]

I like EAs idea of offering incentives to buying the game new, and fuck trading games.

I'm with you on this. If you're going to buy used, you might as well pirate it (or spend the extra five or ten bucks for new). Same net effect for the publisher---in fact, one could argue that piracy is BETTER for developers than used games because if retailers can't sell used games, the model will die out.

What the hell is everyone talking about? Buying used games is absolutely fine. If you buy used you might aswell pirate it? What the hell are you talking about?

If a game is pirated the developer and publisher receive no revenue from the sale. If a game is sold on the secondhand market? Ditto. The retailer (Gamestop or whoever) gets the difference between the sale price and the buck-fifty they paid the poor sucker who traded the game in. The developer and publisher who made and published the game don't get squat.

And it's worse than piracy because someone was willing to pay for the game and STILL didn't generate any revenue for them! Pirates, as we all know, don't count. They wouldn't be customers even if they could legally acquire their games---fercrissakes even a "choose your own price" game that could've cost them one cent got pirated widely!

Point of the matter is that used games take a bite out of real sales. That's what makes them worse than piracy.

 

[The Hungry Samurai]

I'm not sure why so many are taking this so personally. The villain in this situation are the ones selling the used games, not the developers or the gamers.

I'm going to pull a few ideas out of my rear but IMHO the gaming market is unique when compared to other companies with a thriving used market. By the time a car, or house is put on the market a second time, the original seller has usually already made sufficient profit on his product and is moving on to his next project or model. DVD sales I'd imagine are usually just supplementary to the box office profits, and are usually dropping in popularity before they are commonly available in the used market, and even people who buy college text books new will use them for an entire semester before putting them back on the market (usually with a good amount of wear and tear that will give a new copy the next semester an advantage that may be worth the extra sales)

In the gaming market I'd imagine that the most important profits are earned during the 3 month quarter in which a game is released, and most non MMO games have a lifespan of about 2-days to a month. Therefore, when a game like Beatles: Rock Band is released in September in hopes of making profit for the holidays, it's sales will be harmed by the many players who have beaten the entire game within a day and sold it back to Gamestop who push the used copy over the new one as soon as they can get it onto a shelf.

Not to mention the fact that gamestop is buying those games back to you at a fraction of what they sold it to you for in the first place, AND what they're going to resell it to the next guy for.

I'm sure enhancing re playability in an ideal world would fix the problem but it is INCREDIBLY difficult to make a game that will hold the average gamers attention span for more than 3 months without providing some of DLC or additional content. Since additional content is not free to make I doubt it will ever come without extra fee's or some form of monthly charge.

Providing bonus content to first hand buyers is a perfectly good method to regain that edge and I think we will only benefit from the developers competing to match the unfair system resellers have set up in the gaming market.

Again IMHO when games developers make more money it will either A. keep them satisfied thus preventing the price of games from going up. or B. Give the developers more budget to work with on more innovative future projects.

In the long run we all win when gamers buy games new and keep money going to the developers.

 

[paketep]

After seeing Blitz Games' entry on Wikipedia, I really don't understand who would buy their games, used or otherwise.

Want people not to buy used games?. Lower the price of your original games.

 

[Silver Patriot]

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.

If money is a problem then I bet you have much more concerns then playing the next game, like paying rent/mortgage/bills, buying food and other basic needs. Honestly for all those who buy used games and complain that developers aren't doing their job right, go whack yourself in the head with a crowbar because you're probably why that happens.

F.Y.I. This doesn't go towards those games that you can't by new and used is the only option, like N64 games, etc.

I like to start off with I buy my games new. I just feel better about it and I am a game collector so I don't trade them in, but if my game gets scrached or damaged I am not going to buy a new second copy if I can get the game without a case or anything for a lot cheaper. It makes no sense to me.

 

[Silver Patriot]

The math is still bad.

If you buy it used the extra content we give for free will cost you 10 dollars. Fine, I will buy it used when it is 19.99 and get the content for 10. Still better than the 70 I would have to pay for it otherwise.

The point is to make a return, they are not making as great a return but they are getting something out of it.

 

[esperandote]

Poor them, they are making millions when they could be making millions x 4. We can't deny that avery single game copy will be sold second hand [/sarcasm]

 

[Kamehapa]

Make games with longer replay value, and people won't want to trade them in =.=

People who are saying it is the same thing as Piracy are just wrong... you had to buy the original game being resold... not just buying one and making thousands of copies after a crack; you also lose your copy of the game when you resell it... BIG differance there

 

[PapaJupe]

I never buy used games, but I do trade many of my games in towards the purchase of whatever I am buying at the time.
If game companies don't want me to trade my games in, than give me some great games that I may actually want to play multiple times (and not just to try to get useless acheivements).
I will never trade in games like Borderlands, Dragon Age, or Mass Effect (1 and 2). These games make me want to play multiple times due to amazing gameplay, great stories, or the desire to see it all again as a different character type. I may go months at a time not playing the really great games, but I always know that I am going to want to pull one out on a rainy day.

So yeah, you don't want me to trade in/sell my games, then make better games.
Because you give me 10 medicore hours of gameplay or 30 hours that feel like a chore (screw you FFXIII), I am trading you in for some store credit.

 

[esperandote]

you know what even worse, second hand pirate games.

 

[Eggsnham]

So... What? Are they going to try and get people to stop buying used games?

Because that'll solve all your problems! For about a week, then everybody's going to pirate even more! Do you want that, gaming industry? Do you really want that?

 

[Brotherofwill]

I like EAs idea of offering incentives to buying the game new, and fuck trading games.

I'm with you on this. If you're going to buy used, you might as well pirate it (or spend the extra five or ten bucks for new). Same net effect for the publisher---in fact, one could argue that piracy is BETTER for developers than used games because if retailers can't sell used games, the model will die out.

What the hell is everyone talking about? Buying used games is absolutely fine. If you buy used you might aswell pirate it? What the hell are you talking about?

If a game is pirated the developer and publisher receive no revenue from the sale. If a game is sold on the secondhand market? Ditto. The retailer (Gamestop or whoever) gets the difference between the sale price and the buck-fifty they paid the poor sucker who traded the game in. The developer and publisher who made and published the game don't get squat.

And it's worse than piracy because someone was willing to pay for the game and STILL didn't generate any revenue for them! Pirates, as we all know, don't count. They wouldn't be customers even if they could legally acquire their games---fercrissakes even a "choose your own price" game that could've cost them one cent got pirated widely!

Point of the matter is that used games take a bite out of real sales. That's what makes them worse than piracy.

So you're saying that stealing a product is better than buying it second hand because in both instances the makers don't get a cut? It's stealing. Think about that.

Everything is sold used. Cars, houses, household appliances. It's a fact of life. If people are this eager to trade in their games after a week or so then it's the game's fault and not the person that's selling it. Who cares if the developers aren't making as much money as they could?

Imagine if there weren't used sales. If people didn't have the oppertunity to regain part of their money if they thought the game sucked. What then? Renting would increase. People would take even less chances with purchases and rent everything, thus rendering most game sales obsolete. I'm doing that. Why aren't movie companies complaning about used movie sales? Because most people that buy a movie will likely buy it for their collection. If they only want to check it out, they'll rent it, give it a go and then return it. The same will happen with games unless they start to have more replay value.

 

[asinann]

Stop making shitty games and people might not mind buying them new. I'm not going to risk my money on a new game that has a chance to be complete and utter crap. If I buy the game used and it's crap, I can take it back and get my money.