Volition Dev Vs. Pre-Owned Games
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
perhaps you are the one who needs to be educated. can you tell me a single other medium that actively prohibits the buying and selling of used products?
can you imagine if you had to pop in a code every time you wanted to watch a movie or hear a song?
how the hell did developers (and publishers) get this delusional? or is it just greed? i cannot fathom what kind of sleazy people actually feel these draconian measures are justified
what the hell happened to "the customer is always right" philosophy? when i buy something no matter what it is i want to be able to do with it as i please.
Piracy i agree is a problem and a serious issue, but there is not one conceivable situation where used game sales are going to affect profits, newsflash the used games were once bought brand new? if you dont want people to re-sell their games than its a simple matter of making them worth keeping period Granted gamestop's practice of taking in used games and selling them for almost the same price, is also sleazy, but that is a separate deal that needs non of you involvement.
The only way people will accept this is if games become cheaper as a result. That's how Steam works, that's how this system should work too.
Only reason you see anyone going after used games is because going after piracy proved to be far more trouble than it's worth. Less than a decade ago you had Nintendo's official response to buying games they weren't putting into production was to go to second hand stores and the internet.
Used games ain't taking food outta your family's mouths, quite to the contrary in the middle of a recession the gaming industry repeatedly reported record sales. Used games were not killing this. Ultimately used games are a boon to developers and publishers alike because it can be the best way to gain exposure for risky titles. The alternative is a very ugly slope where consumers just stop buying games new because they know in a matter of months the price will drop. I mean, unless they seriously want to start a dialogue about how there's absolutely no reason for games to be sticking to the obsolete 50$ / 60$ price point publishers want to demand.
Used games ain't taking food outta your family's mouths, quite to the contrary in the middle of a recession the gaming industry repeatedly reported record sales. Used games were not killing this. Ultimately used games are a boon to developers and publishers alike because it can be the best way to gain exposure for risky titles. The alternative is a very ugly slope where consumers just stop buying games new because they know in a matter of months the price will drop. I mean, unless they seriously want to start a dialogue about how there's absolutely no reason for games to be sticking to the obsolete 50$ / 60$ price point publishers want to demand.
@ 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.
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.
Gotta love the communist approach 
It's ok people they know what's best for you, just let them decide.
It's ok people they know what's best for you, just let them decide.
Its pretty hard to put into words how utterly outrageous ths idea is and not to mention utterly stupid. Why don't game developers understand that the majority of us do care about their work and the only thing shit like this achieves is making it harder for us the honest paying customer to access their product.
But its possible to look at it from a slightly different angle, used game sales actually fulfill a great purpose in our industry...... it keeps old games alive. It would be impossible to pick up a new cartridge of an N64 game today, without used game sales classics that changed the industry would be forever lost.
But its possible to look at it from a slightly different angle, used game sales actually fulfill a great purpose in our industry...... it keeps old games alive. It would be impossible to pick up a new cartridge of an N64 game today, without used game sales classics that changed the industry would be forever lost.
To be honest, I really hope this does happen, just because I'd be fascinated to see who breaks first: will the consumer give in and adhere to the new business model or will the developers realise the huge mistake they've made when they lose millions of sales and all have to commit ritual suicide.
Personally, I think I'll dust off my PS2 when the rapture comes; Timesplitters 2 still totally holds up.
Personally, I think I'll dust off my PS2 when the rapture comes; Timesplitters 2 still totally holds up.
good. very good. people will move back to PC.
also, this would efectively end the money train they are getting, as people wouldnt uby that console.
also, please explain to me how does the fastest growing business in the world can break apart if it wont remove used games sales?
also, this would efectively end the money train they are getting, as people wouldnt uby that console.
also, please explain to me how does the fastest growing business in the world can break apart if it wont remove used games sales?
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.AsurasFinest said:
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.
I'm not saying that the game industry is no different than the other industries. I'm saying that the other industries have adapted to the existence of a second-hand market, and gaming should follow suit. Is it more difficult for gaming to adapt to the second-hand market? Sure. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't have to adapt.bahumat42 said:
If I buy a book/DVD/hard copy of a video game, then it is my property. I have the right to sell that property at my discretion. Thus, the secondhand market exists. Developers want to believe that they're not selling a copy of the game, but a "liscense" to play that game and that the trasferability of that liscense is under their discretion, not mine. Currently, that's not how the law works.
Unless the laws change to create a MASSIVE regulation to take away consumer rights and give more power to businesses, the consumer's right to resell their property will continue to exist and thus the secondhand market will exist. I'm against such a transfer of power. Businesses and corporations have enough power as it is.
So, in the end, a business must adapt to the secondhand market or perish. That's the principle of evolution, and it applies to the free market. Is a "no used games" console an adaptation? You bet it is. You can also bet that I won't be buying something that impedes consumer rights.
I could go on eBay right now and find hundreds, if not thousands, of items selling for more than they ever did at retail.bahumat42 said:
Comic books, art, vintage bicycles and parts, classic cars, Nike Air Jordans and 1st edition books are just a few of the things I can think of off the top of my head that have more value now, than they did new. Developers like this goofball in the article want to take away some of the value of the products we buy. Imagine you had a huge collection of NES games and your NES console broke and all those games could only be played on that console. Your collection of games has just become worthless on the collector market without it's console.
Used doesn't always mean "used". It can just mean pre-owned, but still in good condition, or collectible or vintage or classic. Not just used up, ruined and janky.
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.RevRaptor said:
I agree that DRM is getting out of hand and digital games and DLC pose problems, but I think a lot of them are overblown and in the "sky is falling" realm of things.
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.bahumat42 said:
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
Sweeping generalization alert!Zom-B said:
I'd argue that nearly every friend I have that games has at least a few games they play over and over again. Anything that prevents that is breaking the point of having a game (ie. enjoying it as much as you can). Limiting play with harsh DRM is basically limiting the utility the product can give you, thus decreasing your desire/willingness to buy it, thus hurting both the consumer and the developer in the process. No one wins.
Without a competing product, there's very little incentive for a company like a games publisher to lower their prices and it's naive to think they'll do it out of the goodness of their hearts or to benefit the consumer.bahumat42 said:
A perfect example is Nintendo's first party titles. Finally, last year Nintendo adopted the "best sellers" strategy and finally dropped the price on some of their titles. Until last summer, Twilight Princess was $60 with used copies at $55. A game that was released in Nov 2006 did not see a price drop until summer 2011! That's insane. That's almost 5 years and Nintendo clearly didn't feel the need to lower the price for a long time. Same with Mario Galaxy, NSMBWii and a host of other Nintendo games. Those prices never, ever came down.
Without competition from the used market, prices do not go down. If we always had to wait for a sequel for game prices to drop... well, we'd probably see less sequels, which some might look at as a good thing, but would just meant that economic reality for a lot of people would mean buying less games.
I understand the thinking that a used game sale isn't another game sale for the publisher, but it's wrongheaded to think that a used market is anything but beneficial to both the consumer and the producer. Used sales allow more people to experience games at a cheaper price point, expose more people to more games and give consumers the security to know that if they can't afford a game "right now" maybe in a month or two there will be some used copies cheaper. Which then forces the publishers to look at sales and pricing and determine if a game needs a price drop. If the game is still selling well at $60, then clearly it makes sense to keep the price high. But if sales drop off sharply, that's a signal that maybe your game is too expensive, or too old (relatively speaking) to compete with newer releases and it's time to aim for a lower price point to generate some new sales.
I think a multiplayer game like MW or CoD could exist as a solely mp experience now, but publishers are still scared to go that route. MAG proves that it can work, as it's still being played actively now. You'd actually think that the developers of games like MW could shift the resources used to create the single player mode to further refine the multiplayer and players would probably be stoked if it resulted in a better game. There's enough single player FPS campaigns that a juggernaut like MW doesn't even need to cater to the single player campaign demographic. Those guys will go to another game for that and still come back to MW for online play.
Regardless, cheap used games lower the entry point into gaming, which publishers should love. Like many hobbies, when people start up they don't want to have to make a big financial commitment until they are sure about it. I think lots of gamers will buy a cheap game to start, and when the next comes out will buy it new. That's what I and a lot of others did with Demon's Souls. I didn't buy it until it had hit $40 (and yes, there were cheaper used copies available, but I paid the extra $5 for new). After playing that game, I knew I would buy Dark Souls at full price, which I did. Had Demon's Souls never dipped below $60 I might not have taken the risk, but I'm glad I did and so is From Software because I was more than happy to shell out $60 to a developer I was confident in.
In the end, abolishing the used market won't cause the games industry to look inwards and adjust prices down. With a market that's held hostage to a "pay $60 or don't play at all" environment, the industry would have very little reason to change unless sales dropped precipitously. I think that enough gamers would suck it up and keep buying that the publishers of major franchises would be happy overall, but I think we'd have far less people buying new IPs and lesser known games and Japanese imports than we do now, which would be harmful to the industry as a whole.
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.bahumat42 said:
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.
Well looks like I'll stick with my PC exclusively if that because the case. Because I play a lot of "low key games" that don't get big numbers shipped and I don't always get them on day of launch. For example if Atlus releases a Shin Megami game and I wait a few months to get the money and no new copies are available what the hell do I do then huh? At least we PC we don't have to worry about that problem.
If a console maker ever pulls that, I will refuse to acknowledge their existence, much less buy their products.