WHY are used video games bad?

[Auxiliary]

As a Dutch European I was quite shocked by the statements of used games being so terrible for developers and decided to find out a little more about the issue. Since I have never really seen retailers sell used games in this country.

I found some interesting links such as:

http://www.destructoid.com/gamestop-the-root-of-all-evil-29866.phtml
http://www.gameinformer.com/blogs/members/b/subsaint_blog/archive/2010/07/13/is-gamestop-evil-part-1-of-2.aspx
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHVepwrFTLA

I found the last one the most interesting because of the top-ranked youtube comment: Just like zero punctuation, but devoid of humor

 

[Gindil]

It's cuts into the developers potential profits considerably if people are buying second hand because the money from the second hand sale obviously does not go to them

There's not one bit of evidence that supports if you take away the second hand market, the developer's profits would increase.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

The misconception is that there is an absolute monetary loss for a preowned sale, but that's not strictly speaking the case, in a similar way that a pirated game would not have necessarily equated to a full-priced sale had the preowned/pirated version not been available.

The premise is relatively straightforward however. When Person A buys a game new, the store, publisher and developer each make a profit (it is in fact the only way the publisher makes money (not including DLCs/expansions and such like)). If Person A then gives or sells the game to Person B, that is now two people who have played the game but only a single sale. If the game is sold preowned by a store, the store makes another profit but the publisher and developer make nothing. This is very lucrative for stores as they can make profit by effectively selling the same product twice.

eg. Store buys game new from publisher at wholesale price: $20 (revenue for publisher)
Store sells game to customer - $30 (store gets $10 profit)
Customer brings game back to trade in - Store pays $15
Store sells game preowned - $20 ($5 profit)

So in this process the results are:
Store spends $35 and makes $50 - $15 net profit
Publisher makes $20
Customer A - Played the game, no longer owns it and is down $15
Customer B - Owns the game, spent $20

The numbers aren't accurate or reflective but illustrate the process. Publishers are basically unhappy that they are losing potential sales because someone who wants their product is getting it through an avenue (legal though it is) that they see no return for. If both customers bought the game new, they would have made $40 revenue instead of only $20. The stores obviously love preowned sales and I believe a significant proportion of profits are made from them.

I can see their argument. The physical product is irrelevant, they *should* get paid for each access to the content. But I am a firm believer that if you buy something it belongs to you...not the right to profit from the IP nor to infringe copyright, but the physical copy of it and it is thus yours to give away or sell on. It is the same with clothes, books, DVDs and CDs. Unlike with any of those items however, developers have a unique ability to entice new sales by offering "first purchasers" additional/exclusive content (see Mass Effect 2 or Dead Space 2) because of the ability to use the internet to add new features.

My only gripe, which is perhaps unfair but is aimed at the stores who profiteer like this. Sell the game yourself on eBay or something for $1 less than the store would. You get more than you would by trading in, the buyer pays less than they would from the store and the store doesn't profit twice by taking advantage of the market.

 

[T'Generalissimo]

I don't mind publishers and developers trying to make money from used sales but I really wish they weren't so god-damn insulting about it. Please do not try and turn it into some moral argument when it's evidently an economic one. Piracy and second-hand sales are not synonymous and it actually isn't helpful from the developer's perspective to insinuate that it is, all it does is engender resentment and offend people that you should be trying to build a relationship with and turn into a customer. This goes double in an industry that's suffering under DRM; if they're going to start treating people who buy second-hand as thieves then I'm suspicious that they might start doing the same with their customers too.

Also, here's a suggestion for free, when you include a code that unlocks DLC, don't have it be for day one DLC. Day one DLC makes people think you're trying to rip them off, after a month or two it'll feel like you're rewarding them for being a customer. Plus, it gives the original purchaser an incentive to hold onto the game and cuts down on the games available to be bought second hand. A lot of energy seems to be put into trying to convince people not to buy second hand, when you'll build a better relationship with your customer by encouraging them not to sell it in the first place. Making better games in the first place will help a lot in this regard.

 

[triggrhappy94]

Im sure everyone else has already told you this, but if you buy games used all that money goes theo Gamestop and not the developers (that's why gamestop is always trying to get people to buy games used).
Also, the quality of the disc isnt always gaurenteed.

 

[XT inc]

I buy a lot of my games used other wise its a rental, I am sorry to developers for not paying your due, but your due isn't worth a dime to me.

I'm sorry if business models dictate you have your way with customers wallets and do everything in your power to be money grubbing douches, but that isn't my problem is it.

You catch more flies with honey but the AAA devs are content in serving lovely vinegar(High priced, content stripped games) Raid( 10 dollar unlock codes and dlc) and shit (DRM) to its consumers.

 

[Snotnarok]

Used games aren't bad. It's multimillion dollar companies upset you're not willing to pay 65 dollars for a game that typically isn't worth it.

Edit: This topped with most of the publishers dropping limited installs into their product to try to swindle more money out of your pockets, or requiring you to be online. I just don't care about those companies profits when they do this underhanded bs to get more money.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

No Offense

If Devs werent so worried about losing a sale to a used game...perhaps you should stop charging me $60 (+++ in other areas) for.....garbage...

or copypasta games (Madden/Call of Duty shit that gets released yearly)


Its sad that nowadays I label games as "Good,but not worth $60" and would rather wait and pay $20 used and not feel like I had been bent over and ream'd a new one for your mediocre parade...

Agree strongly.

An epic rpg or an online shooter is both worthy of the high price and not likely to be traded in within a few days of release. A 6-10 hour burst of a game that holds little-to-zero replay value on the other hand, will be traded in in great numbers by people who want to recoup a little of the expenditure on a game that'll otherwise collect dust on a shelf. But all of these games cost the same.

Parity in price, disparity in overall worth...and that's even ignoring the fluctuating quality.

Is it just because people are buying and re-buying old copies of games? Do the developers want part of that cash? Are they that greedy that they sold the game once, now they want to sell the game again and again and again?

...the hell? This is the moderator thing all over again.

Developers are not evil. They are not greedy, they are not the scum of society. They just want money for when you use the thing that they put their hearts and souls into.

Is that really too much to ask?

Answer me this: how is buying used games different to piracy, in terms of benefit to the developer?

How are either different to just borrowing a game from a friend? Is that wrong too?

Edit - I'll turn that into an open question for anyone who has posted something along the lines of "the developers are right to be annoyed that you have played but not paid" or equated anything other than purchasing new at retail with piracy. Do you seriously never borrow?

"Hey, friend/sibling. I just finished [insert game name here], do you want to play it now that I'm done with it/before I trade it in?"

"No, that would be wrong. Hard working developers deserve money from everyone who plays their creation."

To me...that's an extremely unrealistic correspondance.

 

[coderedge]

Greedy?

If people were using my product, of course I would hope that I actually saw the money from each person using it. That's not greedy, that's called wanting to be paid what you are owed.

If you're providing some sort of service, yes. (So a game with online features may as well charge for those features separately from the price of buying the game disc.)

But if you're creating an object to sell, and then you wash your hands of it, no.

When you sell your house, do you expect for the original contractor to make a profit on the resale?

Yeah. No.

 

[ShaqLevick]

If a developer sold a game from a website removing all of the fees charged by middlemen such as wal mart do you think gamestop could afford to remain open?

The problem is that these developers sell their games at full price when given cheaper venues such as the xbox marketplace, for more profit... well, I guess everyone is a little greedy.

Capitalism is evil by nature, a system where somebody always pays. So game developers need to stop bitching about the world they live in.

 

[kimba_lion]

Of course it's a money thing. Greedy bastards. My apologies for that outburst of aggression, It's just that all the games I buy are pre-owned.

and why wouldnt you buy pre-owned. in australia a newly released game is up to $120 where as in america they only pay $60 or so. there s nothing wrong with buying second hand, one its a hell of a lot cheaper and 2 if it works then YaY!!

the pub's and dev's are just greedy but if you think about it where else will the games be going if not sold??

the bin.. thats where, and guess how much money the P&D's get then??

.ZERO.

 

[coderedge]

"Answer me this: how is buying used games different to piracy, in terms of benefit to the developer?"

The original owner of the game already paid the developer.

Publishers need to look at used game sales as an opportunity.

They need to figure out three things:
1. When full-price sales begin to taper off. (Say 2 months after release.)
2. When used-market sales are at their peak. (Say 3 months after release.)
3. What a reasonable used-market price might be, and how much more the used-market buyer might be willing to pay to have a new product.

Then they pick a date between the full price taper-off and the used-market peak (say, 9 weeks after release, with the above example) and drop their price to a number that competes with used pricing (point 3).

That way they get the big take from the people willing to pay release-date prices, and are able to compete with used pricing later for some additional revenue from the game.

This is already common in the industry. It is what you do if you want to make money throughout your game's possible lifespan. Publishers who complain that the secondhand playerbase is eating their profits haven't done their homework. (Edit- OR perhaps they're ticked off at GameStop. Personally, I have no use for GameStop, but I see how they're not helping the industry out.)

 

[sheic99]

I think a difference between the used car argument and the used game is that, if you get a used car, you get a used car. It's not as good as a new car (most of the time) because it is more worn. If you get a used game, it's almost exactly the same as a new game, and hence, the used game market is more attractive than the use car market (and hence, more of an issue).

Not really, a improperly maintained game is going to have problems much in the same way a used game will for the second owner.

It's a strange phenomenon that when anyone mentions pre-owned games everyone says it's developers just been greedy but if anyone says piracy then the developers have a legitimate claim to that money. I'm not for piracy here but it would appear one person torrenting a game is equivalent to one person buying it preowned from a developer/investor stand point. Each gives the developer nothing and each is effectively preventing one sale of a new copy.

Sort of, but not really. With a used game only one copy can be used at a time. Once the original owner sells or gives his copy of the game and new user can then play, but the original owner cannot. Whereas with piracy, the original owner can play the game and so can a potentially infinite number of consumers.

This in turns makes the online access code quite stupid. They charge second hand customers to access the online server, on the pretense that they're costing them money. When in reality, the "server spot" is the exact same one as the original owner. The second hand sale costs them no more than if the original owner continued to play the game.

 

[Flames66]

As far as I am concerned, they aren't. It is the same as buying a film, pair of shades, fishing rod, hat, rubber band gun or lizard and selling it second hand. There is no difference appart from games are a digital media, so the developers reckon they can force you to do it their way and make more money.

 

[Harbinger_]

There is a solution to this for video games. The developers just have to make GOOD games and you'll see far less of them showing up as used.

This is actually something in Steam's favor to be honest, it's really hard to find a pre-owned game there

 

[coderedge]

They charge second hand customers to access the online server, on the pretense that they're costing them money. When in reality, the "server spot" is the exact same one as the original owner. The second hand sale costs them no more than if the original owner continued to play the game.

Ye-esss, sort of. Except maintaining a server is an ongoing cost and realistically the first player would have stopped playing the game whether they sold it or not (seriously, when have you ever sold a game you've played before you're done playing it?). Regardless of the number of players using a "server spot," however, my big point here is that maintaining a server is an ongoing cost. If makers of online co-op type games are struggling to pay the bills on account of used game sales, I would counsel them to charge a very, very small monthly fee to support their servers. Like 50¢. VERY small. Believe me, it'll add up - and it will take care of their used game market issue. If they want to get some goodwill out of their customer base, they could give away a free month with each game CD, or even each new registration.

The bottom line is - if ongoing server maintenance is costing a publisher money instead of making money for them, they're doing something wrong, and it's not the fault of the used game sales market.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Is it just because people are buying and re-buying old copies of games? Do the developers want part of that cash? Are they that greedy that they sold the game once, now they want to sell the game again and again and again?

...the hell? This is the moderator thing all over again.

Developers are not evil. They are not greedy, they are not the scum of society. They just want money for when you use the thing that they put their hearts and souls into.

Is that really too much to ask?

Answer me this: how is buying used games different to piracy, in terms of benefit to the developer?

How are either different to just borrowing a game from a friend? Is that wrong too?

Yup.

By the way, while it's wrong, that's no reason why you shouldn't do it. Well... it's probably the main reason, but I was more pointing out the fallacy in the OP's argument.

I'll freely admit that I never pirate but buy used/lend others old games all the time.

The moral parameters are set in a fairly arbitrary fashion are they not?

It doesn't strike me as being wrong at all. Sharing the wealth with your loved ones is not only a decent thing to do but also an absolutely natural thing to do as well. Infact, refusing to let my brothers/friends borrow my games/films/albums is pretty much unthinkable.

The idea that used sales are iffy is laughable too, my games are mine alone until they end up in a landfill? Get stuffed.

To my mind the problem is that we're starting to let industry insiders preach morality to us, when in reality they have aren't in a position to do so {who is?}. If they're struggling for money(largest entertainment industry in the world, apparently...)then they would be better off levelling with us. "Support us or we can't do this anymore" is far less insulting than "what's wrong with you people, can't you see how evil you are?".

It's a monetary issue, not a moral one...

 

[Souplex]

They aren't.
Digital Distribution and Piracy on the other hand...

 

[Dorian6]

It's because when you buy a game used, all the money goes to the store you bought it at. The creators don't get a percentage.

It's understandable I guess. If I worked hard to make something that everyone liked, and instead of getting it from me, people started buying and selling it to each other, i'd want a cut of the profits too. I created that thing that everyone loves, and people are getting it without giving me my dues.

 

[goldendriger]

Probably after more cash. But if this is true, ill have to start illegally pirating my games over the internet, i mean i dont want to hurt devolopers and i cant afford £40 every week. Least i can do my part and just steal the game =)