Just gonna say this, games have always been around the 60 (USD) mark since the 80's from what I can remember. So I wanna know how come game prices didn't go up when the used sale market boomed?
Used Game Sales "Killing" Single Player Titles
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
They weren't officially $60 until this gen. The MSRP this gen went from $50 to $60. I have heard people say they paid $70 for SNES and N64 games, I never paid more than $50 at Wal Mart.BoredRolePlayer said:
You are right about the used market though, it has been here all along and the industry has grown.
There's a really simple solution to combatting used sales: compete.
If there's nothing to seperate a used game from a new one then why the hell would you not go for the cheaper one? If you want to sell new games you can A. Make them worth buying new in the first place or B. Lower the prices of your new games to make them cheaper, or as cheap as used games.
Given that B is highly unlikely, mystery third option is to compete with digital distribution. When a new game is released the difference in price between new and used will be negligible (that is, if I see I can get a new copy of the same game for an extra £2-3 then I will). So after a game has been out for 12 months look at the price that shops are selling used copies for and release it on PSN or XBLA for that price or more. Really what have you got to lose at that point? You cut Sony/Microsoft/Valve a percentage, but the rest of that sale all to the publisher.
And it's not like our machines can't hold all of these titles. I'm not sure about the 360, but my PS3's got a 500GB, that's plenty of space for game installs.
If there's nothing to seperate a used game from a new one then why the hell would you not go for the cheaper one? If you want to sell new games you can A. Make them worth buying new in the first place or B. Lower the prices of your new games to make them cheaper, or as cheap as used games.
Given that B is highly unlikely, mystery third option is to compete with digital distribution. When a new game is released the difference in price between new and used will be negligible (that is, if I see I can get a new copy of the same game for an extra £2-3 then I will). So after a game has been out for 12 months look at the price that shops are selling used copies for and release it on PSN or XBLA for that price or more. Really what have you got to lose at that point? You cut Sony/Microsoft/Valve a percentage, but the rest of that sale all to the publisher.
And it's not like our machines can't hold all of these titles. I'm not sure about the 360, but my PS3's got a 500GB, that's plenty of space for game installs.
This is just another developer blowing smoke up our asses. While the industry has a legitimate competitor in the way of used sales, they are not keeping prices high. In fact the opposite is occurring. Over the past decade when used game sales really became popular, the cost of new games went down (at least in Canada) from the usual $69.99 to $59.99. This isn't a coincidence.Greg Tito said:
If there is no used games market, think about the consequences. There would essentially be a monopoly. That has never led to a price drop, but it has to price increases.
This would definitely let me clear up the backlog I have. Also, against whatever Grey Day of Elcia said about not liking me because I buy or sell used games, I'm okay with. I don't like him/her either because he/she is uninformed. I own 241 Xbox 360 titles, and I bought about 70% of them new, which means I bought over 160 titles new. The ones I bought used are usually because I can't get the older games anymore or I just refuse to feed a company whose business practices crap all over the consumer. But that is another story.Crono1973 said:
Umm... just no. My collection, assuming 5GB per title, would require a 1205GB drive. Microsoft makes that prohibitively expensive and doesn't allow anything over 320GB. I got my console when it was 120GB as the maximum. And what if that drive fails? I would lose my games. And what about my bandwidth? Hell, what about those who don't want to waste hundreds of dollars a year on high-speed internet? I prefer a physical copy because it makes life simpler.Azure-Supernova said:
Now the thing is that there are many sides to this argument and all of them have varying degrees of validity. The problem is that there is no real solution. The industry is actually in a giant state of balance. Drastically changing one thing, will affect another thing and may actually cause a lot more problems.
Some single player experiences don't make it but I don't think that used games are the only problem they are facing. We are in a state of super-saturation where many games are just not going to make it because there is just too much competition. Look back on last fall. I still haven't bothered picking up Skyrim or many of the other games because there just isn't time for all of them.
Many games will be victims of the industry's overall success. Take a game like Vanquish as an example. Rated pretty well, although a bit short on the campaign side of things. I think its a great game but most people will never play it because it got swallowed in the deluge of AAA titles.
And lastly, the nonsensical argument of "the companies would be okay if they got a share of the resale". Any dev/publisher who says this should go fuck themselves. They don't deserve a dime of it. Not one dime. The reseller takes all the risks. They take trade-ins and price them. They have stores, and employees, and bills to pay just like the rest of the companies. But if a used game doesn't sell initially, then the reseller has to take the hit of the loss and hope to sell it, or get stuck with it indefinitely. If the dev/publisher doesn't chip in, why should they get any of the reward?
Wow, way to ignore everything I said. My solution wasn't to go solely digital download, which would need at least a 1TB drive, but to offer the option as an alternative to used. If you even bothered to read the rest of my post it suggested that if developers and publishers wanted to compete against used games, they should make their less recent titles available for digital download at a competative price. For the average gamer, who buys most of their games as physical copies, cheaper digital versions are a good alternative and it might shut publishers up a bit.FoolKiller said:
Actually I did read all of it. And I'm sorry if it sounded like I didn't appreciate the rest of it. I did. It wasn't a bad idea, unfortunately it couldn't work. And in fact, the only way to compete digitally with prices like that would be to go completely digital, which would eliminate the point of this discussion.Azure-Supernova said:
Let's take Mass Effect 2 in Canada as an example:
Scenario 1
Game A (new) retails for $29.99
Game A (used) sells for $19.99
Game A (digital) now comes on the market for $19.99
Person wants Mass Effect 2 for the lowest price
Person will choose Game A (used) for several reasons.
1. It can be resold later, so Person will make money back thus worth more than the digital one.
2. It's simpler not to have to have hard drive space, high speed internet etc.
3. Something one of my professors called emotional logic. It feels right for Person to get something physical.
So in this case, digital didn't really help if Person thinks logically. But how can Game A (digital) get this sale?
Scenario 2
Sell the game even cheaper.
Game A (new) = $29.99
Game A (used)= $19.99
Game A (dig) = $9.99
Person wants Game A at the best price. At this point, all the reasons for buying the used copy vanishes except for one. If Person can get the used copy for $9.99 by waiting.
But let's assume Person really wants to play now and buys it. And as you pointed out, there is nothing different between the new and the used/digital copy. Then why would anyone buy the new one.
At this point, the retailer is wondering why they bothered stocking the game if the publisher is competing directly with them using a digital distribution version. The publisher relies on a good relationship with the retailer. If that is harmed by doing undercutting them and making them a less valid option, then the retailer will no longer want to carry the new copies of any game.
And thus, the game will end up going solely digital if this trend were to continue.
QED
I didn't really look at it from a wider scope. I'm looking in at the console market from a rather alien perspective, being primarily a PC gamer. PC games are usually cheaper than console to start with, then there's that I can choose between buying retail or one of the many digital distribution prices.FoolKiller said:
I like the choice, but regardless I was actually thinking about slightly older games, where new copies aren't readily available from retail outlets. I spent months looking for a new, physical copy of Mass Effect and The Witcher and couldn't find either in any local outlets (what few there were) and ended up settling on getting it on Steam for £2.97.
I'm beginning to think I really didn't get my idea across properly the first time:
Azure-Supernova said:
I remember SNES game that were boasting about how many megs they used cost 60-80 bucks (Earthbound was 80 bucks when it came out, cause of a players guide in the box). I had friends who remembered paying a lot for his rpgs in the 90'sCrono1973 said:
Earthbound was a little higher because it came with a strat guide. If you paid more than $50 for SNES games (that weren't in oversized boxes with a strat guide) then you should have shopped around. Regardless, games were officially $50 until this gen when they officially went up to $60.BoredRolePlayer said:
That some retailers charged more doesn't change the MSRP.
It's the same way they get broke ass Americans to vote against their own interests and elect a republican every now and again. Make us money and we will be kind to you, it will trickle down, you'll see.Baresark said:
It's a load of pure shit in this situation too.
I'm gonna talk for a few minutes about my own personal situation with video games, console & computer inclusive. Please hear me out.
I have been gaming since the Atari 2600 and Commodore 64 days. If I wanted used games, I'd go to yard sales, friends, and so forth.. and trust me, many games I owned in those days almost exclusively came from second-hand sales. Even the two consoles in question, although my later incarnations of the Atari were typically bought in stores, as were a handful of games.
In the NES days, games were expensive. If I didn't like a title, I'd have my mother take it back and say it didn't worked. Eventually places like Toys'R'Us, Circuit City, and so on no longer accepted games that had been opened (only exchanged for the same product or a different game of the same price), or it had to be within a certain timeframe. At this point, I discovered I could rent games. If I was absolutely certain I'd love a game, I bought it, if not.. I rented it. I rented a lot of games as this was not a very well developed skill.. yet.
In the SNES days, I frequently rented AND bought games. I never, ever returned games I bought unless there was a genuine problem (it happened once or twice). Money was tighter, however, and so I continued to rent more often than buy. Still, as the years wore on I found places like Game ADAX which specialized in USED games from Atari to Genesis, and was able to purchase quite a few titles which had eluded me due to rarity or price.. such as Secret of Mana or Final Fantasy II (aka FF4).
By the N64, PSX, and generations beyond, I had greatly developed a sense of what I would, or wouldn't, like and have never returned a game I bought, except once.* I continued to rent because it was still cheaper and even if I had to check out an RPG two or three times, in the long-run I still saved money. Then I would lament that I couldn't afford to get the games I really liked and it would not be until the days of GameStop and Electronics Boutique that I truly began to start buying used games more often.
However, I am very stubborn on the issue of "used" and actually don't like doing it. If I can afford it "new" then by gods I was gonna get it "new". I don't care much for Digital Distribution if I can get an honest-to-gods case and manual in my hands! Unfortunately, the prices continue to rise and newer games continue to disappoint me. I've rented fewer games in the last 5 years than I did in the preceding 5 years.
More and more I've turned to "used" games because I am so disenchanted with games being released these days that if I don't buy them used, I can't buy them at all. GameStop, Amazon, and so forth are my only sources of older console games.. apart from emulation, of course, which I whole-heartedly support for Playstation 1 and older, when my actual consoles (or the discs/carts) no longer work.
I have owned over 300 games in my lifetime as a gamer (approximately 10 games a year, given my age). Almost exclusively single-player games, I never trade-in** or sell them off. I replay most of them, or did when I knew where they were or when they worked. I highly enjoyed them all, and then some.
Do not try to tell convince me that "Used Game Sales hurting Single Player Titles", because I'll take a quick, furtive glance at the last 30 years of my life and the lives of friends and family.. and I'll have to concede that yes, you are an utter and complete pillock, thank you for pointing it out.
Now, I cannot claim that there's plenty of people who think Multiplayer titles are better, or that a single player game is only worth a few achievements and then returning. I wish I could, particularly the latter, but I cannot. This is not my fault, nor is it the fault of the tens millions of people who regularly purchase, and keep, their games. Please, do remember that there are well over 300 million people in the United States alone, and as I've said in the past, when you start getting into really big numbers and taking into account just how many people out there DO play games (hint, gamers range from age 3-50, and up, these days) you must also realize that many of those numbers don't matter a fetid pair of dingo's kidneys.
* The one single game I returned the next day was "Cate West: The Vanishing Files". Despite its interesting storyline and appealing character designs, the back of the box did not describe it as a Hidden Objects game. The back of the box, in fact, didn't appear to have any pictures of gameplay at all, except for some of the dialogue sequences or character artwork. I did what any gamer would do when they realized the game they'd bought was a lemon: I doggedly played through to completion over night (even if it meant lost sleep) and then returned it the next day for a full refund. I believe I told the person at the store (GameStop, I think) that if I'd known what genre the game actually was, I would've steered clear of it like one would dog mess on the sidewalk.
** I actually did trade in, against my better judgement, three SNES games towards the purchase of Final Fantasy VII. I'd finished it as a rental a year or so before, but foolishly still wanted my own copy for some reason and was short on cash. The titles in question were Star Fox, Star Trek: The Next Generation, and Young Merlin; two of which I'd gotten for my birthday some years earlier. Within a week I had regretted my actions as I actually quite detested FF7, but this was during my "Square is a great company" phase that lasted the entire 1990's.*** To make myself feel better, I went and bought Symphony of the Night a week later. At least THAT was a good and enjoyable game I could replay endlessly.
*** I would slowly come to realize otherwise after FF9, Chrono Cross, and a couple other games which left me less than satisfied and stopped supporting them around 2002 after they unveiled X-2. I've not looked back, except to mourn now defiled franchises and remember the "good old days". It was, in fact, the beginning of my slow decline of faith in the game industry in general.
tl;dr I say, that was most refreshing and I felt like I got a lot off of my chest. Back to snes9x I go.
EDIT: As if this wasn't long enough, I noticed a post I wanted to comment on. I actually did see games going for $50 or more in the older days. In fact, most RPGs easily went for $60 or more, regardless of what they came with. However, in the PS1 days it was not uncommon for me to pick up a game NEW for less than $30. With the exception of the occasional expensive RPG (or other big name title), it was fairly simple to find fairly cheap NEW games. I thought the industry has started getting it right. Then the PS2 and Xbox 360 days came, and the prices went back up again, particularly this gen.
I really don't buy the "rising production costs" cause I've seen games come out of indie developers or even just small, relatively unknown people, that look/perform as good or better than AAA titles for a fraction of the price. There was something to be said of games that had credits for maybe a few dozen people, tops.
I have been gaming since the Atari 2600 and Commodore 64 days. If I wanted used games, I'd go to yard sales, friends, and so forth.. and trust me, many games I owned in those days almost exclusively came from second-hand sales. Even the two consoles in question, although my later incarnations of the Atari were typically bought in stores, as were a handful of games.
In the NES days, games were expensive. If I didn't like a title, I'd have my mother take it back and say it didn't worked. Eventually places like Toys'R'Us, Circuit City, and so on no longer accepted games that had been opened (only exchanged for the same product or a different game of the same price), or it had to be within a certain timeframe. At this point, I discovered I could rent games. If I was absolutely certain I'd love a game, I bought it, if not.. I rented it. I rented a lot of games as this was not a very well developed skill.. yet.
In the SNES days, I frequently rented AND bought games. I never, ever returned games I bought unless there was a genuine problem (it happened once or twice). Money was tighter, however, and so I continued to rent more often than buy. Still, as the years wore on I found places like Game ADAX which specialized in USED games from Atari to Genesis, and was able to purchase quite a few titles which had eluded me due to rarity or price.. such as Secret of Mana or Final Fantasy II (aka FF4).
By the N64, PSX, and generations beyond, I had greatly developed a sense of what I would, or wouldn't, like and have never returned a game I bought, except once.* I continued to rent because it was still cheaper and even if I had to check out an RPG two or three times, in the long-run I still saved money. Then I would lament that I couldn't afford to get the games I really liked and it would not be until the days of GameStop and Electronics Boutique that I truly began to start buying used games more often.
However, I am very stubborn on the issue of "used" and actually don't like doing it. If I can afford it "new" then by gods I was gonna get it "new". I don't care much for Digital Distribution if I can get an honest-to-gods case and manual in my hands! Unfortunately, the prices continue to rise and newer games continue to disappoint me. I've rented fewer games in the last 5 years than I did in the preceding 5 years.
More and more I've turned to "used" games because I am so disenchanted with games being released these days that if I don't buy them used, I can't buy them at all. GameStop, Amazon, and so forth are my only sources of older console games.. apart from emulation, of course, which I whole-heartedly support for Playstation 1 and older, when my actual consoles (or the discs/carts) no longer work.
I have owned over 300 games in my lifetime as a gamer (approximately 10 games a year, given my age). Almost exclusively single-player games, I never trade-in** or sell them off. I replay most of them, or did when I knew where they were or when they worked. I highly enjoyed them all, and then some.
Do not try to tell convince me that "Used Game Sales hurting Single Player Titles", because I'll take a quick, furtive glance at the last 30 years of my life and the lives of friends and family.. and I'll have to concede that yes, you are an utter and complete pillock, thank you for pointing it out.
Now, I cannot claim that there's plenty of people who think Multiplayer titles are better, or that a single player game is only worth a few achievements and then returning. I wish I could, particularly the latter, but I cannot. This is not my fault, nor is it the fault of the tens millions of people who regularly purchase, and keep, their games. Please, do remember that there are well over 300 million people in the United States alone, and as I've said in the past, when you start getting into really big numbers and taking into account just how many people out there DO play games (hint, gamers range from age 3-50, and up, these days) you must also realize that many of those numbers don't matter a fetid pair of dingo's kidneys.
* The one single game I returned the next day was "Cate West: The Vanishing Files". Despite its interesting storyline and appealing character designs, the back of the box did not describe it as a Hidden Objects game. The back of the box, in fact, didn't appear to have any pictures of gameplay at all, except for some of the dialogue sequences or character artwork. I did what any gamer would do when they realized the game they'd bought was a lemon: I doggedly played through to completion over night (even if it meant lost sleep) and then returned it the next day for a full refund. I believe I told the person at the store (GameStop, I think) that if I'd known what genre the game actually was, I would've steered clear of it like one would dog mess on the sidewalk.
** I actually did trade in, against my better judgement, three SNES games towards the purchase of Final Fantasy VII. I'd finished it as a rental a year or so before, but foolishly still wanted my own copy for some reason and was short on cash. The titles in question were Star Fox, Star Trek: The Next Generation, and Young Merlin; two of which I'd gotten for my birthday some years earlier. Within a week I had regretted my actions as I actually quite detested FF7, but this was during my "Square is a great company" phase that lasted the entire 1990's.*** To make myself feel better, I went and bought Symphony of the Night a week later. At least THAT was a good and enjoyable game I could replay endlessly.
*** I would slowly come to realize otherwise after FF9, Chrono Cross, and a couple other games which left me less than satisfied and stopped supporting them around 2002 after they unveiled X-2. I've not looked back, except to mourn now defiled franchises and remember the "good old days". It was, in fact, the beginning of my slow decline of faith in the game industry in general.
tl;dr I say, that was most refreshing and I felt like I got a lot off of my chest. Back to snes9x I go.
EDIT: As if this wasn't long enough, I noticed a post I wanted to comment on. I actually did see games going for $50 or more in the older days. In fact, most RPGs easily went for $60 or more, regardless of what they came with. However, in the PS1 days it was not uncommon for me to pick up a game NEW for less than $30. With the exception of the occasional expensive RPG (or other big name title), it was fairly simple to find fairly cheap NEW games. I thought the industry has started getting it right. Then the PS2 and Xbox 360 days came, and the prices went back up again, particularly this gen.
I really don't buy the "rising production costs" cause I've seen games come out of indie developers or even just small, relatively unknown people, that look/perform as good or better than AAA titles for a fraction of the price. There was something to be said of games that had credits for maybe a few dozen people, tops.
Used Game Sales "Killing" Single Player Titles -
True The numbers don't lie. Used sales are 'mad bank' for retailers, but hurt both pubs and devs. I can't bring myself to blame the consumers, though. At least Gamestop / EB has invested in Impulse and realize they can't stop the future.
New game prices would have dropped long ago if publishers got a piece of the re-purchase. -
Untrue Businesses don't charge less if they don't have to. Retail prices for games all jumped $10 around 2006 for the 'next gen' experience and never went down, well before used games sales were a popular topic of ire. The same sorta thing happened with Compact Discs, with labels saying the initial price would drop, but didn't for about 15-20 years. This statement is only a semantic bit of "business politics".
True The numbers don't lie. Used sales are 'mad bank' for retailers, but hurt both pubs and devs. I can't bring myself to blame the consumers, though. At least Gamestop / EB has invested in Impulse and realize they can't stop the future.
New game prices would have dropped long ago if publishers got a piece of the re-purchase. -
Untrue Businesses don't charge less if they don't have to. Retail prices for games all jumped $10 around 2006 for the 'next gen' experience and never went down, well before used games sales were a popular topic of ire. The same sorta thing happened with Compact Discs, with labels saying the initial price would drop, but didn't for about 15-20 years. This statement is only a semantic bit of "business politics".
I think part of the problem is simply that some people don't KNOW that no used game sales go towards the industry. If they found that out, maybe a good amount of them would try to buy new games instead.
Although I also believe that the fact that games go at $60 is as much of an issue, if not a bigger one.
Although I also believe that the fact that games go at $60 is as much of an issue, if not a bigger one.
I think part of the problem is, firstly, that we've got to the point where $50 million seems like a sensible amount of cash to invest in making a new game.
Secondly, whether it's $50 million or £50,000 to make a game, they seem to come out for $60 bucks anyway.
There's something about Steam, they tend to charge silly money for new releases, but I, and I expect many people, only buy games from Steam on sales. Steam seems to have managed to just about survive on this. (Obviously I don't have their sales figures, but I'd be curious to know just how well a new release does.)
I don't believe they've built their business model to entirely hang on selling games for full price in the first week of release however. I think they've realised a balance between the 'early adopters' and those who'll wait as long as they have to for a game to hit a certain price point.
It does still amaze me how well GAME and their type have done up to now by knocking a fiver off full price for preowned games however. I'd certainly buy new if that's all they're going to discount me for second hand.
Secondly, whether it's $50 million or £50,000 to make a game, they seem to come out for $60 bucks anyway.
There's something about Steam, they tend to charge silly money for new releases, but I, and I expect many people, only buy games from Steam on sales. Steam seems to have managed to just about survive on this. (Obviously I don't have their sales figures, but I'd be curious to know just how well a new release does.)
I don't believe they've built their business model to entirely hang on selling games for full price in the first week of release however. I think they've realised a balance between the 'early adopters' and those who'll wait as long as they have to for a game to hit a certain price point.
It does still amaze me how well GAME and their type have done up to now by knocking a fiver off full price for preowned games however. I'd certainly buy new if that's all they're going to discount me for second hand.
I think the main problem here is one of arbitrage. We've all more or less internalized that a new shrink-wrapped game is going to cost us 60 USD. The main difference is that the publishers are going by a 1995 view of "brand new" (less than a year old), while we the gamers have a 2012 view of "brand new" (Yahtzee hasn't said it sucks yet). So by the time they think dropping it to $40 or $30 might be a good idea to keep sales up, we're throwing around $10 used copies like frisbees.