Volition Dev Vs. Pre-Owned Games

[Falcon123]

I get what you're saying as a PC gamer since the price point tends to be effected by the console market (because otherwise sales across the consoles-including PCs-would be too uneven), but I think your argument stems from an overly optimistic view in which developers are more willing to drop their prices simply because they should , and I don't think your logic on pricing holds up.

See, right now, developers have to compete with the used games market. If used game sales drive the price down, the developers have to lower their prices as well so that there's still some chance that people will buy the game new. I mentioned earlier that I bought Enslaved Odyssey to the West for $20 about a month after it's release. This is largely because it's a single player only game, so people kept trading it back in when they had fully completed it since there was nothing else to do, dropping the price for both the used and new versions since you can't sell a game for $60 new when the used but still perfectly functioning game is $20.

But let's say the used games market isn't there. Single player only games no longer lose their value as they are completed since no one can trade them back or loan them to a friend. There's no incentive for the developer to lower the price point after a month because the game is still just as valuable as it was on day one, and if people want to buy it, they have a monopoly on the price point since no one can undercut them. The price will stay higher longer, doing the opposite of what you predicted.

But what about multiplayer games, you ask? The good ones are not traded in because people keep playing them, so the used game market for them is made insignificant. Gamestop and other used vendors can't resell the game for much less than full price because they don't have many used copies since gamers who buy them are satisfied with the product, therefore making the used games price point minimally lower, but not enough to deter the average individual from buying new and getting the warranty and everything else that comes with new games. Those that are bad would be traded in far more often, thus driving the price point down in the used games market to the point where it should belong given it's quality, and again, to compete, new games must lower their price point as well. Without a used games market, both games would only be able to judge whether the game price should drop by pure sales data, so reaction would be far slower.

So, on the principles of basic economics, having the used games market actually lowers the price of both new and used games due to competition more quickly, and removing it would remove the incentive for game developers to do so.

I'll admit, it's a little different on the PC games market because of Steam's relative monopoly on virtual downloads allowing them to save gamers money in massive ways through well-timed sales, but when you're buying physical copies, you just can't do it. Steam can offer a nearly infinite number of downloads, therefore making it capable of selling copies of the game at the lower price point across the board to all regions it desires simultaneously. Could you imagine Microsoft and Sony trying to coordinate EVERY STORE IN THE COUNTRY to do the same? It's a pipe dream at best. Expecting consoles to keep up with that kind of policy is unfair.

The used games market doesn't hurt prices; it helps. So the next time you try to blame used games for higher prices, remember how economics works and thank Amazon for your lower price points

ahah but surely economics backs the statement that they can accurately plot price point/demand in a world where there are no pre owned games, and thus lower it over time. I stand by the fact that their businesses and should strive to earn the most from their IP and this would be the way to go without the abritrary undercutting of used games lingering around.

As for your multiplayer argument i have another, in a world where used games don't exist the market trend of tacking on mp where it doesn't belong (which exists to act as a first hand measure currently) will be less prevalent and a true split can occur where both types of games are sold as what they are, rather than some hybrid (the hybrid may work sometimes, but who touched the sp bit of mw3 or bf3, and similarly who really played the crysis 1 multiplayer).

Theres pros and cons to this argument. But to me the pro's outweigh the cons. Without one of their major bugbears the industry would have to look inward and change things like the fixed and unmoving price point.

I definitely understand what you are saying, and in a perfect world, you're absolutely right, but by removing the used games market, you've created a monopoly in which they don't have much incentive to lower prices until they absolutely have to, and I doubt that they will. See, in the current system, publishers sell the game to retailers at a fixed price, thus creating a range of prices at which those retailers can offer the game to maximize profit. The cycle by which a publisher can receive data, analyze it, respond to it, sell versions of the same game to retailers at the newly established price point (if there is one), and have those copies hit the shelves is far longer than it is on a digital market. If the whole of games was a digital market (and you could make a good case for it), I would agree with you, but as of right now, response time is far too long for such a thing to occur.

And tacked on multiplayer will always be a feature because it will increase sales no matter what is going on, therefore increasing the amount of time that mostly single player games will take before dropping to the next price point.

On a digital market like Steam, you're absolutely right. In the retail market in which console games currently exist, your theory is far too flawed without a dramatic overhaul of the system, which isn't what's being proposed by this policy.

thats not what a monopoly is. A monopoly is where one company has complete control of the market (the closest real world example right now is actually steam). The incentive to lower prices is the same for any free market product, to compete with opposition companies. Things like Indie games and the app store are proof that theres a market for lower price point shorter quality titles. All it takes is one convincing economist in one of the big companies to give this a try and it will stumble. (our last chance failed , which was section 8 prejudice btw, so anyone moaning about a fixed price point who didn't buy that gem should be ashamed) but it will be tried again in the future. Hopefully its more successful that time.

Companies follow the money, if it can be proved that our market wants this it will happen, now getting that initial proof may be tough, but one of the big boys will try again. Its too big of a concern to ignore.

Perhaps my use of the word "monopoly" was a bit vague. You're right, one company does not have complete control of the market, and in a world where there are a variable number of distinct price points and each game comes out at the corresponding value, you'd be correct in saying that that my monopolistic forecasts are incorrect.

But we can only model after the world in which we currently exist, and this world is the world in which this policy may be passed. As it stands now, there are two major price points in the console market, with minor deviations on the XBLA: $60 for a full retail purchase, $15 for an XBLA game. This is mostly because of the gamer culture's inherent belief that if it costs less, it must be worth less, and therefore not be as good as the $60 game. That's what's happening right now , and if it changes, then I'll be inclined to agree with you...

...But right now, it won't. Even if a major economist of one company (as you put it) decided a $50 price point, or $40 or whatever, was a better option for a specific game, the sample size would be far too small to make any generalizations that would impact the whole of gaming. It will take years, likely decades, before a system like the one currently on PCs that takes into account a far greater number of price points, was accepted in the console gaming market. It's the type of change that will occur slowly and gradually as more and more companies eventually try it, and that's if it's a good idea. The console gaming market is different than that of PCs, and I'm not well-versed enough to know that it is the best plan moving forward (though again, even if it is, it will happen slowly)

So what do we have now? Publishers all working together selling games at the same price point. While it's not an actual monopoly, it still operates like one , at least as far as sale to retailers is concerned. The used games market provides a much needed variable that, at least for now, is necessary to accelerate change.

If you want to make a policy like this make sense, you need to find a way to make a Steam-type program available for console gamers to do what PC gamers already do, allowing more room for experimentation, accelerating price changes due to far quicker feedback, etc. Do you trust Microsoft to do that after the fail that is Games for Windows Live? Do you trust Sony to do it after they've been continually hacked and just had a major leadership change? Because I don't, and thus, given the current console retail culture, have to react as negatively to this policy as I am.

 

[Falcon123]

Perhaps my use of the word "monopoly" was a bit vague. You're right, one company does not have complete control of the market, and in a world where there are a variable number of distinct price points and each game comes out at the corresponding value, you'd be correct in saying that that my monopolistic forecasts are incorrect.

But we can only model after the world in which we currently exist, and this world is the world in which this policy may be passed. As it stands now, there are two major price points in the console market, with minor deviations on the XBLA: $60 for a full retail purchase, $15 for an XBLA game. This is mostly because of the gamer culture's inherent belief that if it costs less, it must be worth less, and therefore not be as good as the $60 game. That's what's happening right now , and if it changes, then I'll be inclined to agree with you...

...But right now, it won't. Even if a major economist of one company (as you put it) decided a $50 price point, or $40 or whatever, was a better option for a specific game, the sample size would be far too small to make any generalizations that would impact the whole of gaming. It will take years, likely decades, before a system like the one currently on PCs that takes into account a far greater number of price points, was accepted in the console gaming market. It's the type of change that will occur slowly and gradually as more and more companies eventually try it, and that's if it's a good idea. The console gaming market is different than that of PCs, and I'm not well-versed enough to know that it is the best plan moving forward (though again, even if it is, it will happen slowly)

So what do we have now? Publishers all working together selling games at the same price point. While it's not an actual monopoly, it still operates like one , at least as far as sale to retailers is concerned. The used games market provides a much needed variable that, at least for now, is necessary to accelerate change.

If you want to make a policy like this make sense, you need to find a way to make a Steam-type program available for console gamers to do what PC gamers already do, allowing more room for experimentation, accelerating price changes due to far quicker feedback, etc. Do you trust Microsoft to do that after the fail that is Games for Windows Live? Do you trust Sony to do it after they've been continually hacked and just had a major leadership change? Because I don't, and thus, given the current console retail culture, have to react as negatively to this policy as I am.

Definitely some food for thought, unfortunately because i see the way the world is going used games will be redundant when this switch over happens (its happened for music, its happening for movies and television as we speak) it's a matter of waiting. So while you raise some strong points it becomes moot when faced with that reality. (and to my mind direct downloads create a great equalizer that shelf space is no longer a given).

And the optimist in me kind of hopes it changes the fall heavy release schedule we have atm, he drought periods suck and there are clearly better times to release weaker games.

I see what you're saying. In ten years, when a service like that has been accepted across the board, used games will simply cease to be and there won't be a need for a policy like the one presented here. That being said, I'm far more pessimistic about us getting there as quickly as you do, if only because AAA titles, the ones that really run this industry for better or for worse, are seeing sales that are better as ever, making the need to rush the switch unnecessary.

When the time comes where used games have become such an unnecessary redundancy that it makes no sense, I'll jump right on board with you, but it's not coming today, tomorrow, or before this next generation of games comes out, and as things are now, it just won't work. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Royas]

Piracy =/= about who pays or who doesn't. Piracy can also involve money payments, but none go to the original creator.

Your seriously going to say piracy and buying used games are the same. That's what your seriously going to do?
I do not even know where to begin on how wrong you are. If people actually think this, you and they deserve all the crap corporations currently and are going to dump on you.

News flash, they are. Fact of the matter is your desire to buy a game used, or the purchase in itself, did not in anyway influence the original buyer to purchase the game new. The guy that bough the game brand new would have done so even without the used games market, he is the customer and would have been regardless.

In the end of the day when you buy a used game you do not contribute any money to the industry, even if the copy was at one point brand new.

pirates = used games buyers

Only problem with this is, the law says different. First sale doctrine, fair use rights and consumer rights and the capitalist system itself say different.

 

[Jaythulhu]

Pre-owned is the only way to get any value for money here, unless you're a pc gamer exclusively, in which case you can either wait 6 - 12 months for the bollocks price to drop or pirate the damn thing.

Or open your eyes and not shop at shitty retailers like GAME, GameStop and all those who sell overpriced used games.

I don't generally respond to trolls, however, I'm bored & I have a few minutes left at work so I'll answer your nonsense anyway.

A) My choices for game retailers are limited to EB games or whatever the K-Mart in the town 4 hours away gets. Open your own eyes. Not everyone lives in a city with ready access to the internet and plenty of retailers.

TES V: Skyrim, got it on the second day as hard copy for 30? (Amazon is my friend), Saints Row 3, got it two days after release for 20? (hard copy), Batman Arkham City and Serious sam 3 both for half price one month after release (sweet Steam sales).

Yeah, the only way to get lower price games as a PC gamer is to wat 6-12 months or pirate...

Bully for you, would you like a potato chip? Amazon is not my friend. Skyrim pc is still full price, Saints Row 3 was so damn boring it led to my post. Amazon is not my friend, I'll never use them again after being ripped off for quite a bit of money, and buying things from steam is.. well... read on.

I don't download games because when I lay down my cash I want something I can hold in my hands. Even if I was willing to just accept virtual stuff in exchange for my real money, the cost of downloading a typical game (6gb) would cost somewhere in excess of 1200$AU and take about a month to complete as the only net access I can get is pay per mb ($0.2/mb) for shitty satellite.

Maybe, just maybe you console gamers would not have to pay 60$ for your new games if you would not support business models like GameStop, who rely mostly on used games [heh, a distributor who relies on the sales of used products from an industry that relies on this distributor to sell their products actually new] to exist and thus allowing console games to get cheaper.

C) Who are you, exactly, to start flapping about names like "console gamers" as if it's a derogatory term? You're not the messiah mate, get over yourself. And get a few facts before you spout inflammatory rubbish. I own a pc, only a pc, and only play games on a pc.

However I acknowledge that, as a consumer, the used console game market is much better value for money than purchasing new games. The publishers may not like it, but it is still the best way to purchase games at retail (for our lucky console kin).

Honest, I have no love for used games. They get the same product as people who buy new, without actual loss of quality (a used game plays the same as a new one... if you actually inspect the disc before buying), give their money to the worse kind of fatcats and then whine about every step of publisher / developer to actually reward people who give them money.

What on earth are you trying to say here? Of course used games play the same as new ones, what do you expect? Some little magic internet gremlin running around deleting code from discs and downgrading texture and mesh quality?

 

[A Satanic Panda]

sniper

Bully for you, would you like a potato chip? Amazon is not my friend. Skyrim pc is still full price, Saints Row 3 was so damn boring it led to my post. Amazon is not my friend, I'll never use them again after being ripped off for quite a bit of money, and buying things from steam is.. well... read on.

sniper

What on earth are you trying to say here? Of course used games play the same as new ones, what do you expect? Some little magic internet gremlin running around deleting code from discs and downgrading texture and mesh quality?

And of course today of all days Skyrim gets a 33% discount on Steam.

Spoiler: What if all old games had amazing graphics, and Internet gremlins have been slowly making them worse and worse?

 

[DanDeFool]

Well, it's a little more complicated than that, Jameson.

Named after a brand of hard liquor. Makes sense, I guess...

Erherm. As I was saying, you're forgetting about the fact that many people who sell used games use the proceeds to buy new games, but that's really neither here nor there.

Maybe you could go with the Steam model: i.e. offer users more games, faster, more conveniently, and with frequent financial incentives to buy. This model allows you to maximize your earnings from both your new properties, and your old ones. Maybe Jonny Mc. JRPG-Smith isn't too interested in buying Saints Row 2 at $59.99, but if you offer it to him a year later with ten other games for $90, maybe he'll decide to pull the trigger.

You could stop focusing so much on licking Microsoft's balls by consistently exploiting top-of-the-range graphics hardware to its maximum potential. Because honestly, who really benefits from shilling all that high-powered hardware? Here's a hint: It's not you. Maybe you could spend all that art design money on things like better game design, larger amounts of content, and more refined gameplay. Hell, you might even save money that way. There's nothing really wrong with PS2-era graphics, and you've got the tools and talent to pull that stuff off in your sleep.

And you might also invest in better project planning and improving work/life balance for your employees. Up-front planning, if done well, can dramatically reduce the overall costs of any major project, and maybe if your dev teams weren't too burned-out or too laid-off to work on the next big project, you would be able to benefit from their experience in the form of faster development and fewer problems.

But I guess you were too busy fantasizing about sticking a giant Microsoft-branded spkied dildo up your customer's asses to think of any cost-saving or revenue-generating alternatives that don't involve screwing us out of stuff that we paid for and making us want to call you nasty names on the Internet. Se la vie, I guess.

 

[AsurasFinest]

Piracy =/= about who pays or who doesn't. Piracy can also involve money payments, but none go to the original creator.

Your seriously going to say piracy and buying used games are the same. That's what your seriously going to do?
I do not even know where to begin on how wrong you are. If people actually think this, you and they deserve all the crap corporations currently and are going to dump on you.

News flash, they are. Fact of the matter is your desire to buy a game used, or the purchase in itself, did not in anyway influence the original buyer to purchase the game new. The guy that bough the game brand new would have done so even without the used games market, he is the customer and would have been regardless.

In the end of the day when you buy a used game you do not contribute any money to the industry, even if the copy was at one point brand new.

pirates = used games buyers

Just wow.People actually think this.
I hesitate to use the word stupid, but I honestly can't think of any word more accurate and fitting for people that actually think this.
I guess buying a used car is piracy as well!!Same with buying a used book, movie or any other commodities that are passed around used.
Your logic is flawless and clearly not wrong on every single level.

You clearly have no knowledge about how the market works, what the market is and what your rights are as a consumer and how devs like Volition want to erode them. Since you clearly don't understand, stay out of all conversation regarding used game sales, since anything guys like you say only helps to hurt us as consumers.

You are the fool for trying to assume that all commodities are created equal. Digital media is not the same as physical media, and even among each category the market functions differently.

I find it funny how you go through great lengths to overtly call me stupid without saying so while trying to compare a car purchase to a game purchase. Dear god the amount of silliness is overwhelming. To begin with a car is not even the same type of merchandise as a videogame. Games are a luxury but for most, cars are a necessity. What this means in economic terms is that when one sells a used car they will most likely be buying a new one, as the item itself (like a house, or microwave, or TV, or refrigerator) is necessary for daily living. This is not true for games. And this is just one of the implications.

Lastly I never once said or implied that buying used games is in anyway wrong. You just assumed it. I was just trying to illustrate that from a developer and market perspective there is no significant difference between pirating a game or buying it used.

You call used game buyers pirates and then try to back out of the statement. Classy.
Its written there black and white, clear as crystal. You accused legitimate buyers of being pirates, you didn't say that only devs consider it piracy(they are also wrong for thinking this).

AS for the car purchase, I was using your example of how buying used equals piracy, as did many other commenter's did after reading your post, because apparently everyone understands the failure in logic you presented except for you.

Simple fact is, used games and products are here to stay. They are a cornerstone of our market and are necessary for it to survive. No amount of bitching by you or greedy publishers is going to change this. They try and you might as well just kill the videogame market now, instead of waiting for the inevitable collapse that trying to fight them would bring.

 

[A-D.]

These Guys are trying real hard to get blacklisted by me. In effect basicly going out and telling me to my face "Dont buy our Stuff. Like ever..dont do it because..you shouldnt!" And yes that logic and response is basicly about how much sense the whole Used Games are Bad Debate makes. Your Game sells for 60 Bucks? Fine. Its only 10 Hours long? Okay. It has no replay Value on top of that, is rushed out, buggy as hell or entirely just not fun to the Consumer? Not okay, in fact im entitled to return it.

In fact if i wanted to, i could mail it back to your Dev Headquarters..or to your Publisher, with a Letter attached stating every Reason as to why the Game sucks and where you can stick your Game. Oh and because you're of course right dear Devs, i would also include proof of Purchase, meaning you are holding a Used Game in your Hands that someone else paid for. Im sure you dont mind screaming like little Girls now thinking you caught some weird Disease.

But thats beside the Point, if i buy something, anything, that does not work as advertised or my expectations were not met, or its a faulty Product. I can return it within a set amount of Time and get my Money back. Isnt that logically the same Thing? The game was used, just because i didnt basicly sell the Game back to the Store for Credit or such doesnt change that Fact. The Store cant really just put a new piece of plastic around it and sell it new, well i suppose they could, but probably too much effort.

The trick to avoiding the Used Games market? Make games that People will keep. If the Games are so awesome nobody wants to trade them in? Well guess what, they wont be traded in. Dont see how that logic is so hard to grasp. Course some People will anyway, there's always those few that buy a Game, play it through and return it, cant help that, that will always be there. But a Used Games Market with only a few Games is better than a market with tons of Games, dont you think?

So here's the Deal Volition, and any other Dev and Publisher listening. Make your Games worth our Money. If they arent worth the 60$ Pricetag you slap on them, People wont buy them until they are cheaper. If people arent entertained by your Product, they will return it, some way or another. How is that Logic hard to grasp? Oh and..while we're at it, evolve with the Market, otherwise you will get left behind and cease to by for your lack to adapt to changing Situations. The Market isnt what it used to be 10 Years ago, its different now, adapt or die. Its that simple. Dont try and make the market adapt to you, the Customer feeds you, without them, you are nothing.

And on that note..Microsoft wont do this. Think about it, every major Decision they did that was actually bad? People spoke out about it and Microsoft felt the backlash, they arent stupid enough to try, they'd prod and poke first, test Reactions, before they would even consider something like this.

 

[Kinguendo]

IF this was done, I wouldn't buy that console.
IF all current game consoles had anti-used game software, I would sit out that generation and hope the next one corrected said mistake.

Not EVERY game is worth 60USD, SEE:
# Red Faction: Armageddon (2011)
# Saints Row (2006)
# The Punisher (2005)
# Red Faction II (2002)
# Summoner 2 (2002)
# Red Faction (2001)
# Summoner (2000

HEY! While I dont agree with what is being said about Anti-Used Games I can say this... Saints Row is awesome and Summoner is one of my most favourite games of all times!

"I... I'm attacking the darkness!"

 

[DanDeFool]

Well, it's a little more complicated than that, Jameson.

Named after a brand of hard liquor. Makes sense, I guess...

Erherm. As I was saying, you're forgetting about the fact that many people who sell used games use the proceeds to buy new games, but that's really neither here nor there.

I am gona go ahead and call BS on this part (the rest of the post is well done though!)

When I worked at GS you know what the vast majority of people who sold their games back bought? More used games. Especially the new ones that had been out for about a week had had between 5-10 dollars off the new version.

Most consumers who buy used will continue being cheep and buy used again if they have the chance.

Unless you can find unbiased statistic that show that my store was the one with the anomaly, I am going to go ahead and mark this sentiment down as wishful thinking of those attempting to defend something that, in the eyes of the developers and publishers, is as bad as piracy.

Yeah, I can see your point. I guess Gamestop's business model has worked for a reason, and I'd imagine the situation you describe is that reason exactly.

And the uber cheap (like me) are even worse, because they only like to buy games that are 5+ years old. By that time, the used market is just about your only option. All the more reason why the Steam model is a good choice: I'm perfectly happy paying the publisher $20 for a five-year-old game instead of some used store on Amazon Marketplace, but with retail I usually don't have that option.

Of course, that's one of the reasons this whole "Ban Used Games" thing pisses me off. It's like if every five years or so, Ford or Nissan went out into the world, rounded up every one of their older cars that people were trying to get rid of, and burned them all in a big pile. Good for new car sales? Yes. Stupid and wasteful? Also yes.

 

[azurine]

This is a bad idea.
This is a REALLY bad idea.
I kinda wanna see this pass anyway though, because if it did, and people just never touched the next console, the dev's reaction would be priceless. Because you just know they're going to loose so much money over it, and when they do, they'll try and come up with something even worse.
I wanna see that happen.
I'll also stop playing video games if it becomes the norm, but if it makes a statement, I'd say it's worth it. I'll just go become a writer, or a doctor, or something like that.

 

[DanDeFool]

Well, it's a little more complicated than that, Jameson.

Named after a brand of hard liquor. Makes sense, I guess...

Erherm. As I was saying, you're forgetting about the fact that many people who sell used games use the proceeds to buy new games, but that's really neither here nor there.

I am gona go ahead and call BS on this part (the rest of the post is well done though!)

When I worked at GS you know what the vast majority of people who sold their games back bought? More used games. Especially the new ones that had been out for about a week had had between 5-10 dollars off the new version.

Most consumers who buy used will continue being cheep and buy used again if they have the chance.

Unless you can find unbiased statistic that show that my store was the one with the anomaly, I am going to go ahead and mark this sentiment down as wishful thinking of those attempting to defend something that, in the eyes of the developers and publishers, is as bad as piracy.

Yeah, I can see your point. I guess Gamestop's business model has worked for a reason, and I'd imagine the situation you describe is that reason exactly.

And the uber cheap (like me) are even worse, because they only like to buy games that are 5+ years old. By that time, the used market is just about your only option. All the more reason why the Steam model is a good choice: I'm perfectly happy paying the publisher $20 for a five-year-old game instead of some used store on Amazon Marketplace, but with retail I usually don't have that option.

Of course, that's one of the reasons this whole "Ban Used Games" thing pisses me off. It's like if every five years or so, Ford or Nissan went out into the world, rounded up every one of their older cars that people were trying to get rid of, and burned them all in a big pile. Good for new car sales? Yes. Stupid and wasteful? Also yes.

Honestly I think there could be a good compromise with the system that stops used games.

Say they do it like this; as the games will have to authenticate online (only really way I can think of the system working)they will only allow one console per game, until (this is the important part) the game stops its production run, then when the game attempts to authenticate, it can tell the game is out of print.

That way it makes sure the people that put the work into the game get payed for their work, yet it doesnt screw over collectors or people behind the curve?

Though I am far more fond of the Steam method, just a few weeks ago you could pick up Skyrim for 33% off, as well as any number of older games for a reasonable price. (I am always finding games on there to buy)

It's a reasonable idea. I suspect there might be some technical problems with it (for e.g., how would the game know whether or not the time limit has expired for sure if the authentication server is ever taken offline?).

Personally, given how many people use emulators to play pirated games from the olden days (even as late as the PSX), my preferred solution would be to let developers have their "No used sales" period, until they stop making the console. Then, either add emulation to the new generation of consoles, or sell an emulator that runs on desktop computers, and get rid of the DRM completely or sell digital copies for $5-$10 each. I mean hell, if the games are so old that neither the publishers nor the hardware manufacturer are going to make any money off of them any other way, why not make money off the people who want to keep playing their old games and want to keep their collections in working order?

Seriously, if CS students can design functional emulators for the PS2 in their spare time, why can't the system manufacturer do it? And you don't even have to drive any FoxConn workers to suicide to distribute a piece of software.

 

[FamoFunk]

http://maggiebaggy.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/*****.gif

Is this guy for real?

Very few games are worth the £45 price tag on release, and I will carry on waiting until they're either cheap on pre-owned or in a big sale (I picked SR:3 up for £20 in a massive sale a week after release, like I'm gonna pay full price)

Anti-everything on next gen will hurt them more than pre-owned copies are apparently hurting them. It would be hilarious to see them cry over it though.
Maybe they should start listening to the gamers more if they want money, rather than try every trick they can think of to try and make more money.

 

[Ben Lurkin]

I play console games on the PS3. I buy both new and used games, and never sell any of them once they are on my shelf. My latest purchase happens to be Skyrim. I only purchased it because my friends hounded me for weeks with "Dude you gotta get Skyrim it's so cool"-type comments, so I rented it from Redbox for a 1 day. I bought the game new the following day. I otherwise would not have and was prepared to go without ever playing the game until I rented it, and started getting curious about the story. Many of the new games that I buy, have similar stories behind them. They start out being rented, borrowed, or on occasion demo'd first, then turn into a sale.

Most of the games that I buy used, are impulse buys while I am at the store to get the new game. They are typically games that I would never buy new (and some quite frankly I would never miss if used games didn't exist).

The point I'm trying to make is:

1) Without the ability to play used games, I would not have purchased the large majority of my new games due to the uncertainty of whether I am going to like it or not, leading to less revenue for the publisher/developer.

2) The used games that I buy are not titles that I would ever consider buying new. I'm usually looking for that gem that nobody knows about, including myself. They are the games that have the 6 price labels on top of each other that have been in the store so long that they are probably costing the retail store money by taking up a spot that a good game could be displayed. They typically turn out to be games that had good reason for sitting there so long. They are the games that are basically individually packaged shiny coasters. They are the games that would have never translated into money for the developer or publisher, because I would have never bought it except "Hey, why not? I've spent more on a cup of coffee". I see my used game purchases having little effect at all. Maybe you can take some comfort in the fact that I just took a used game off of the market, to sit on my shelf forever.

I realize that this isn't the circumstance for every person that buys used games, and that some people are going to buy/trade used games exclusively, because they are cheaper. (The good or popular ones don't seem to be that much cheaper though.) This is probably not the situation with even the majority of used game buyers. It is my situation, as a casual gamer. I have to believe that there are many more casual gamers that would skip the console experience altogether (or stick to the ones we currently have) if the Non-used game console ever happened.

You know what the saddest part is? It probably will happen .... eventually. Then, even if all of the gamers united and boycotted the console(s) that implemented it, the publishers and devs would probably just use the other scapegoat to explain the lost sales. The Jolly Roger! And SOPA, the "Stop On-line Privacy Act" will resurface in one form or another...yet again.

 

[Wicky_42]

Say, Volition man, you know what else hurts game sales and developers? Red Faction Armageddon. Remember? It?s that stinkfest you suckered me into buying because Guerrilla was awesome.
If you?re saying I can?t sell it, to get at least part of my money back, I?m going to come to your house and hit you over the head with the game disk, until I feel that the 60$ dollar entertainment value is satisfied.

Sincerely,

A sucker

Welcome to the reality PC gamers have to deal with all the time. And we don't get rentals. Wonder why it's the most pirated platform... It's not just because it's the best (trolololol

 

[Chairman Miaow]

@ Zom-B

Dude I still play and love my Sega MegaDrive games. My ps2 gets played on more than my 360, I buy a game I buy it for keeps. I don't see the point in spending money for something you are not even allowed to keep. Hell I almost lost all my dlc for my xbox and I did nothing wrong, all I did was return a faulty unit to the store and get a replacement console, had I transferred my dlc to the faulty console I would not have been able to transfer to my new console in till one year had passed. This drm bullshit is getting out of hand.

That's all well and good, and I know you guys are out there, but you are a minority. Most people do not replay old games over and over.

Oh really?

 

[Monkeyman O'Brien]

Oh really?
*pic snip*

Not to mention.

... Ahh sonofabitch. Caught myself with that one. *reinstalls VTMB*
Which btw I bought again just recently. Used.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

Oh really?
*pic snip*

Not to mention.
snip

... Ahh sonofabitch. Caught myself with that one. *reinstalls VTMB*
Which btw I bought again just recently. Used.

I never managed to get that to work on any of my computers. Any advice for getting it to run on 7?

 

[Kopikatsu]

I notice that a lot of responses in this thread are 'PC gaming master race' and 'I'm staying on the PC if this happens'.

'Cause the PC has a thriving used game market, amiright?

 

[Eventidal]

Simply put, without the used games market and with developers charging $60 for a game no matter what the content (and/or tacking on unnecessary padding or multiplayer to make it seem more worth the money) I wouldn't buy their games. I honestly don't care that much for 90% of AAA games. They're worth playing if I get the chance, but I'm not really itching to dive into every Mass Effect or Gears of War. They're repetitive experiences, gameplay-wise. I can get better on the Wii or DS if I don't mind not having polished visuals, a clever story and immense battles. And most of the time, I don't.

Some games deserve a $60 buy. Most don't. Uncharted is just a movie to me. It's intense and packed with action and a good story but I wouldn't pay more for the game than I would an Uncharted Blue-ray movie, which is to say $15 or so at the most.

Developers and publishers need to take a look at Steam and how they handle sales. I'm almost certain that a retail game released $20 or $30 cheaper than normal would drum up sales (in $ made, not copies sold) much higher than they would get at $60. If the next CoD were $30, imagine how many more people would be all over that? If it were such a price, would that not convince some of you to spend the extra money you "saved" on Elite or a map pack or two? When a game is cheaper than those around it, it gathers some attention. As little as $10 can be the difference between a gamer going from on the fence to day 1 purchase/preorder.