I fucking new it. All that DRM to combat "piracy" that also just happens to make it harder/impossible to sell them second hand. Cunts.
Used Game Sales are a "Bigger Problem Than Piracy"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh please, it is in no way hypocritical. Piracy completely circumvents any kind of payment whatsoever, whereas buying something secondhand requires that someone has first paid full price for the original game. There is absolutely no ground for comparison.Hopeless Bastard said:
The only way I can see any merit in the industry's argument is where new games are almost immediately available at used prices only a couple of weeks after launch. However, this is more to do with there being a flaw in the viability of Triple A titles than a conspiracy by the retailers to subvert the industry. What opponents of the secondhand market like to conveniently ignore is that in order for there to BE a secondhand market, enough people have to be bored of their games to return them. In many cases, publishers are often are paying excessive amounts of money to develop games that have little value beyond a single playthrough, and they expect to recoup those costs through steep retail prices. This means two things. Firstly, if the consumer feels unsatisfied with what they got for the price, they are naturally going to be inclined to try and recoup some of that by trading the game in. Secondly, the consumer whose expectations have been built towards believing a game to have little replay value will be unlikely to pay full price when a marked down copy is available.
Every form of art has a breaking point. When audiences could no longer afford the tickets to extravagant 18th century plays set on massive stages with elaborate machinery and sets, what followed was a gradual transition towards naturalism with smaller stages and fixed sets. Game publishers need to realise that if it costs too much to produce a game which gets traded in all too quickly, then such a business model is no longer effective, and no amount of DLC will keep it afloat. What they should be doing is scaling down graphical technology (c.f. Blizzard) to allow more resources to be allocated to gameplay content. Of course, what they are more likely to do is what they are doing at present: ie, blaming the secondhand market whilst firing off developers, forcing those that remain to produce games with even less content.
Perhaps this guy needs to focus more on his maths skills, if a game is traded in 4 times then it is enjoyed by 5 people and therefore the developer/publisher royalties are reduced to a 1/5th. If he's made such an easy mistake how can any of his other figures hold any bargaining merit?Andy Chalk said:
The used market is such a scam. It sounds good on paper. Lesser games would resell for cheaper, but games people actually want cost as just as much as new through retailers and an arm and a leg through ebay. Last time I checked for Shantae I saw a complete with box for $599.
On another point. I personally like sense of just owning a library of games. Sure some games stink up the place, but I don't need the $3 I'd get for them that badly.
On another point. I personally like sense of just owning a library of games. Sure some games stink up the place, but I don't need the $3 I'd get for them that badly.
Yes lets blame everyone but the game designers. If they would stop producing overpriced half finished crap. We might be a little less willing to trade that crap in.
Your not innocent, and you certainly aren't perfect, so quit blaming everyone but yourself. Blitz Games huh?, I shall have to remember to avoid them.
Your not innocent, and you certainly aren't perfect, so quit blaming everyone but yourself. Blitz Games huh?, I shall have to remember to avoid them.
Well here's a novel idea. How about developers stop slapping a 60 dollar price tag on games you can blast through in 4 hours. Or maybe they could stop belching out the same game over and over and over with minimal changes. Yeah Im looking at you Pokemon, Madden, Tiger Woods, Call of Duty, etc. I wonder how many of these game devs whining about used games are out there driving used cars . . . .
So exactly how do all those sweaty developer/publisher balls taste? Must be pretty good. Quit scolding people for not being able to/not wanting to spend $50-60 on a game that may last only 10hrs.rockingnic said:
Hey, here's an idea; instead of crying that people are trading in games.. why not just make better games instead of pouring out piles of garbage every year? How about giving games some replay value so people don't want to sell them back? Or give some incentive for only buying new?
I personally try to buy games new because I like knowing it's in pristine condition when I get it, but hell you go to Gamestop and even the "new" ones have already been opened half the time because they're using the case as a display. Why not buy it used?
If these guys want to stop the practice of "trading in" they need to give us a reason not to, not just scold us for not giving them their cut.
The issue of used game sales has only been a sore point to developers in the last few years because of the huge success of GameStop. The second hand market for games has been around since gaming started. The anger from publisher/developers is just pure jealousy because they waste so much money on crap games that don't sell, therebye reducing their profit margin.
It's amazing that second hand markets have been around since the dawn of commerce, yet one group of companies (software publisher/developers) feel that they should be excluded from this. An example of "My shit doesn't stink". The elimination of a second hand market would actually pervert the system. New game prices would stay high for unusually long periods of time. Just look at the market of downloadable games for an example. Those products hold their price a lot longer than retail because there is no second hand market to put price pressure for those products. The second hand market helps consumers to get used, or if they wait, new products at lower prices.
And no, second hand sales isn't the same as piracy because the second hand market is perfectly legal. When a publisher sells 1 miilion copies of a game, they made the money on 1 million sales. It really doesn't matter if the original purchaser owns the product or not. There are still only 1 million copies out there. Piracy introduces unlicensed copies. The publisher sells 1 million copies, but if 2 million copies are out there, the publisher is denied income on those additional copies. Those extra copies are stolen licenses, and illegal.
If EA doesn't want to pay for servers to host players using used games. Then why don't they put their games on the MS servers instead of their own dedicated servers? But then they wouldn't have a ready made excuse to try to make additional money from used games and also people wouldn't be forced to buy new games to enjoy online play, since EA closes down servers for "last years model" as soon as they can.
It's amazing that second hand markets have been around since the dawn of commerce, yet one group of companies (software publisher/developers) feel that they should be excluded from this. An example of "My shit doesn't stink". The elimination of a second hand market would actually pervert the system. New game prices would stay high for unusually long periods of time. Just look at the market of downloadable games for an example. Those products hold their price a lot longer than retail because there is no second hand market to put price pressure for those products. The second hand market helps consumers to get used, or if they wait, new products at lower prices.
And no, second hand sales isn't the same as piracy because the second hand market is perfectly legal. When a publisher sells 1 miilion copies of a game, they made the money on 1 million sales. It really doesn't matter if the original purchaser owns the product or not. There are still only 1 million copies out there. Piracy introduces unlicensed copies. The publisher sells 1 million copies, but if 2 million copies are out there, the publisher is denied income on those additional copies. Those extra copies are stolen licenses, and illegal.
If EA doesn't want to pay for servers to host players using used games. Then why don't they put their games on the MS servers instead of their own dedicated servers? But then they wouldn't have a ready made excuse to try to make additional money from used games and also people wouldn't be forced to buy new games to enjoy online play, since EA closes down servers for "last years model" as soon as they can.
The only reason I even walk in to a Gamestop is when waiting on the wife in another store... and all I ever do is to scan over the new releases to see what is out (or soon to be out), and to paw through the old PS2 titles for the rare gem. But I will NEVER lay down cash for a current-gen release (used or new) in that store, and don't get me started about their 'Pre-Order List' schemes...
This download-able market really concerns me actually. I'm a bit of a collector. I like my big rack of games. Most of them were new when I got them but there's some old stuff that you just can't find new anymore.. or if it is "new," it's a collectors item and you're paying $100+ for it just because it's still wrapped.mogamer said:
The only full game I've downloaded was Record of the Aragest War over PSN because the only way to get it on disc would be to own a 360, which I don't.
I know it's kinda nostalgic, but I prefer to have a game I can hold in my hand. Stuff like the PSP Go or the Digitial Console for the Wii, which only does downloads, really paints a dark (and extremely expensive) future in my opinion.
Another thing to look at is the advantages of buying used vs new. For this example I'm only using Gamestop. First they are cheaper obviously. If you get a scratch free disc with an original case and instruction book the only difference between the used copy and the new is the price and the lack of shrink wrap. Secondly (at least in my area) used games have a 7 day return policy for cash or store credit. New games you can only return for an identical copy. Looking at these two things it breaks down to either paying extra and being stuck with it or paying less and being able to return it within a week if you don't like it.
I'm sorry it's not up to me to reward developers for making bad, or short, or reskinned games. It's up to them to make a game I WANT to buy on release day and most of the big companies fail at that miserably. The only exceptions I can think of are Bioware and Blizzard. Blizzard more so than Bioware. Look at a game like the original Starcraft or Diablo 2, these are games that still have a HUGE following ten years after their release. My point being that if companies want to release games I feel I will get the kind of lasting appeal and value I got from Starcraft or Knights of the Old Republic then I will have no problems buying their games new and at full price. If not, well then I will wait and get them used.
I'm sorry it's not up to me to reward developers for making bad, or short, or reskinned games. It's up to them to make a game I WANT to buy on release day and most of the big companies fail at that miserably. The only exceptions I can think of are Bioware and Blizzard. Blizzard more so than Bioware. Look at a game like the original Starcraft or Diablo 2, these are games that still have a HUGE following ten years after their release. My point being that if companies want to release games I feel I will get the kind of lasting appeal and value I got from Starcraft or Knights of the Old Republic then I will have no problems buying their games new and at full price. If not, well then I will wait and get them used.
They're right, it's just so damn inconvenient that it's legal for other businesses to compete with them! Why, what has this capitalism come to where monopolies aren't encouraged and helped to dig in?!
What is it about companies in the creative industry... every problem with sales has to be resolved not by an action by the company to create genuine desire for demand, but rather by attempting to cage consumers and force them to make more profitable choices for the company.
Any industry that depends on customer duress to profit does not deserve to.
What is it about companies in the creative industry... every problem with sales has to be resolved not by an action by the company to create genuine desire for demand, but rather by attempting to cage consumers and force them to make more profitable choices for the company.
Any industry that depends on customer duress to profit does not deserve to.
So the logic is this:rockingnic said:
If someone buy a used game the developer gets no money.
So since someone cant afford to buy the game new they should not buy it at all?
You do know that in both cases the developer gets no money at all, right.
But if someone buy a used game they might like it, and then they might have a bigger incentive to buy the next game in the series new.
But if you never buy the game at all, because you couldn't afford the new one, then you might buy something else that is on sale or something, and what happens? No money for the developers of the first game.
All in all used games sales is a way to et the entertainment to more people, spreading the word so to say. But not buying games means you never get to see anything.
Also used games sales, means the game has been sold new at least once, and resold maybe 4 times.
Piracy: One sale means thousands of "resales"
PS: I don't buy used games myself, I prefer my discs to be clean. But I do think Piracy is worse for the industry than used games sales.
When I got a gaming PC, I figured I'd probably buy fewer PC games since I couldn't reap the proceeds of trading games in. I was wrong. Instead it's turned into a cycle where I buyer fewer new games and huge numbers of steeply discounted games that came out six months to a year ago. That is pretty much the inverse of the way I buy console games, which is to quickly beat new games and sell them off to finance the proceeds of more new games.
All this leads me to wonder if, given my own patterns, the industry is really going to gain more sales as everything increasingly switches to digital distribution. Because it seems to me the used games market is, to an extent, subsidizing the massive early sales numbers every publisher wants.
All this leads me to wonder if, given my own patterns, the industry is really going to gain more sales as everything increasingly switches to digital distribution. Because it seems to me the used games market is, to an extent, subsidizing the massive early sales numbers every publisher wants.
Feel free to explain to all of us what is stopping these publishers from entering the used game market. What makes them so inept that they cannot enter that market? It is the height of unreality that you expect my heart to bleed for a corporation that refuses to capitalize on a market that exists. If these companies are so hurt by used game sales why do they continue to offer Gamestop exclusive content deals which just drives business towards the evil used game seller?Hopeless Bastard said:
I used to own a comic book shop so I'm going to use this as an example.
I had thousands upon thousands of back issues of different series for sale. Oftentimes Marvel, DC or Dark Horse (Image wasn't a player then)would produce trades collecting a series of comics that they sold new. The companies got a royalty if I bought the trades to sell but got nothing if I sold the back issues. Even if I never sold the trade they had their money because of the way the distribution was-they would sell their products to Diamond or Heroes World and I would buy from Diamond or Heroes World, there was no middle ground I was the one taking the chance on selling it.
Perhaps it's time for gaming to use the same method. Instead of selling in an almost consignment like fashion of "Here's the new games, what doesn't sell, send back to us" they make it so the stores order less and pay up front for them but have a longer print run that allows for reorders, yet allows the stores to sell the games based on the price they get for the number they order. That way everyone makes their money and the retailer has more say so on what the prices of games are.
I realize that it does unfairly handicap the smaller retailers who can't compete with the larger stores, but it also makes it so that discounts can be given to loyal customers who preorder. I used to give a discount of 10% for preorders up to 10 books, 15% for 11-15 books and 25% on 16 and up. It keopt costs down because I didn't over order or under order books for a month, it made a lot of people order extra books because they essentially got some free for getting 6-10 more and it saved the customers money.
Getting back to the back issues, according to this guy however, he feels that the peoploe that sold Action Comics #1 and Detective COmics #27 a few months back for over a million each owes DC some of the profit since they were the ones that produced them. I made a LOT with used sales, but by having a copy of Amazing Spider-Man 300 (that Marvel didn't see a penny from) someone was looking for usually brought them back in to get the newest issue of Dark Horse Presents and order the Superman pewter paper weight from Diamond.
I had thousands upon thousands of back issues of different series for sale. Oftentimes Marvel, DC or Dark Horse (Image wasn't a player then)would produce trades collecting a series of comics that they sold new. The companies got a royalty if I bought the trades to sell but got nothing if I sold the back issues. Even if I never sold the trade they had their money because of the way the distribution was-they would sell their products to Diamond or Heroes World and I would buy from Diamond or Heroes World, there was no middle ground I was the one taking the chance on selling it.
Perhaps it's time for gaming to use the same method. Instead of selling in an almost consignment like fashion of "Here's the new games, what doesn't sell, send back to us" they make it so the stores order less and pay up front for them but have a longer print run that allows for reorders, yet allows the stores to sell the games based on the price they get for the number they order. That way everyone makes their money and the retailer has more say so on what the prices of games are.
I realize that it does unfairly handicap the smaller retailers who can't compete with the larger stores, but it also makes it so that discounts can be given to loyal customers who preorder. I used to give a discount of 10% for preorders up to 10 books, 15% for 11-15 books and 25% on 16 and up. It keopt costs down because I didn't over order or under order books for a month, it made a lot of people order extra books because they essentially got some free for getting 6-10 more and it saved the customers money.
Getting back to the back issues, according to this guy however, he feels that the peoploe that sold Action Comics #1 and Detective COmics #27 a few months back for over a million each owes DC some of the profit since they were the ones that produced them. I made a LOT with used sales, but by having a copy of Amazing Spider-Man 300 (that Marvel didn't see a penny from) someone was looking for usually brought them back in to get the newest issue of Dark Horse Presents and order the Superman pewter paper weight from Diamond.
Can some one please (a) explain the difference between selling a used game and selling a used car, or (b) explain why I should not be able to sell my car since the money would not go directly to the manufacturer.
Well it probably does go directly to the manufacturer in most cases. Unless you buy a car off someone on the street. But really there is no significant difference that would require us to treat games differently with respect to used sales.puffenstuff said: