Slashdot Mirror
Buy Second-Hand Games, Stifle Creativity?
Thanks to GameSpot for its 'GameSpotting' editorial discussing why buying second-hand games could have a negative effect on videogame creators. The author points out: "You know, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft must have a real love/hate relationship with stores that stock used games alongside their new games [since buying used games doesn't give] the game developers, or the game publishers a thin, red cent. Instead, the retailer is enjoying a nice, fat profit margin, where the markup is in the neighborhood of 200 to 1000 percent." He goes on to argue: "Buying used is equivalent to the game not selling at all in the eyes of developers and publishers, and when games don't sell, they don't get sequels and excellent concepts and, therefore, opportunities are lost."
Why are business-types so colossaly stupid? The success of used games should indicate that selling games for two thirds of what they cost now would dramatically increase their sales. Instead of complaining, they could just take advantage of that trend. Losing 33% of your per-game revenue is irrelevant if you double total sales -- and since per-unit production costs are negligble, that's a pretty reasonable scenario.
if you sell used games you get money to buy new games. so simple.
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
Yeah, and when I buy a used couch, the couch manufacturing companies don't get my money either. So what? I wanted a couch, and the guy selling it didn't, so I bought it. That's how a free market works. Of *course* they'd rather I bought a new one!
Duct tape, XML, democracy: Not doing the job? Use more.
Perhaps game publishers could provide a microsoft style EULA that makes it ilegal to sell used copies of OEM windows.
And like microsoft, they can choose not to honor any of their obligations in the EULA (RE refusing promised refund mentioned if you disagree with the EULA, forcing opensource buyers to buy windows with their laptops)
This was settled in court ages ago. What are you going to do? Put Ebay, Blockbuster, flea markets, Goodwill and used car lots out of business as well? It's pretty much a consumer's right to sell, trade in or do whatever he wants to his purchase. It's not like game publishers also don't get into this as well. How else do you explain the collector's editions, multiple covers, numbered boxes and special editions? Sorry, but the crying towel for this subject was used long, long ago.
I see the publishers points in this, and I cry bullshit. I understand how they might be losing sales due to reselling old games, but they're more or less "losing" sales the same way that the RIAA "loses" a sale every time someone downloads DJ Ed'z new Spin CD (or whatever).
The used game market is also a viable way for collectors to build and exchange rare titles, as well as to find good, cheap games that are no longer available. This is just another example of how over saturated the market today is, even saturated with good games. When it comes down to it, why should I pick up New Game Series #3 when I can enjoy a solid title I'm sure of from days gone by for a fraction of the price.
Many publishers release repackaged versions of their games a year or so after the original release, usually priced $5-$10. If they can profit from that, new games are way overpriced. If they cannot profit from that, someone buying a second-hand game a year after its release doesn't cost them a cent.
used books, used cars, used houses...all of that creativity stifled!
That you don't live in Japan, where the software developers have been known to not only take a dim view to retailers stocking second hand software, but also actively clamp down on it.
Community support goes a long way to getting a sequal made. Prince of Persia: SOT sold pretty poorly overall, but because of the tremendous buzz surrounding it the Prince of Persia line is suddenly revitalized. It's never about how well this game sold, it's about how well people think the next game will sell. Part of that is based upon sales numbers, but a large part of that is based around the size of the community around the game. Used games greatly foster community.
Furthermore, the reason used game prices are so high (besides EB's fat profit margin) is that not enough people sell their games. People become attached to them, like good books or movies, and don't want to give them up. Also, because they retail for 50 and sell for 5, people understandably are shocked by the depreciation. If you want to support gaming as a hobby, go third party. Sell back any games that you don't play anymore, and sell them to the smaller local stores that haven't been gobbled up by the major chain.
Cry no tears for Nintendo. It is true that their profits were cut in half this year, but that was cut in half to a half billion dollars. Used games are necessarily a diminishing-returns phenomenon. Most games launch at a rediculous price, and are quickly reduced as demand subsides. Very few people resell their games, and the few that do generally plow that money right back into the hobby of gaming. Does that mean the copy of Metroid Prime you picked up used for 20 bucks from a local mom-and-pop videogame store doesn't pay Nintendo a penny? Yes, but the same could be said of reselling movies, cars, furnature, or anything else in life. Nintendo made their money. Sony made their money. Microsoft made their money. If the person who paid for that game wants to sell it to plow even more money back into their hobby than I can't see how this hurts the gaming ecosystem.
As a game developer, I welcome the practice. Heck, I own a used copy of one of the games I helped develop, which I picked up for 11 dollars.
The ______ Agenda
That's the bottom line. Ebay, Gamestop, EB Games or local independent game shops, it's all good. Saves me money and allows me to buy more games. If they want to sell more copies of newer titles, I see two options:
1. Make the game worth $50
2. Make the game cost less than $50
When people trade in a game that at 5$, and the store sells it for 20$, they're making a healthy profit. Even if the game companies go ahead and decide to drop prices of their new games by 1/3rd, the used stores can still absorb that easily because they're paying about 60% to as low as 2% of the final price of a used game to take it in.
What's worse, you've suddenly made used game trade ins more valuable because they can get more new games or used games for the same amount of trade ins!
Natuarally, this is why providers are trying to move to a model where you don't own the content (online). I don't like that either. There are still game companies out there, though, that can make games that are worth enough that I'll hang on to them after I beat them, even if they have limited replayability (like Beyond Good and Evil, or Deus Ex: TIW).
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
This is like saying that people who don't upgrade to the newest versions of Microsoft's operating systems are stifling Microsoft's "innovation".
In fact, the reason a lot of us return to older, used or retro games is precisely because of the lack of creativity, originality and evolution in modern games.
Additionally, games are expensive. $50 is more than a handful of books, a couple DVDs or a few CDs. If I'm a young person watching my budget, I'm going to buy used rather than dish out $50 for something that may be buggy, boring or otherwise disapointing. Or, like Far Cry and some other games I've played recently - great but without any player base and (as such) completely useless.
Like any other business, if you want customers to buy your latest and greatest, you need to keep your focus not just on the "latest" part of your development, but the greatest part, too.
Isn't the term "vote with your pocketbook"..kinda negates that huh?
In any case, there's no difference to the producer if you purchased a used game or stole/pirated it outright.
There is absolutly no difference. Now, I'm the first to say that's the way our economy works, tough tiddles and all that...
But at the same time, the sale of used media is a bigger problem for media producers than any amount of piracy could ever be. Personally, I don't think it's that much of a problem. But at the same time, if you're going to make a moral argument against one, you need to make a moral argument against the other.
It's just a matter of different price-points, really.
To say it again. It's not something that there SHOULD be anything done without..it's just I want to see producers of good things get rewarded.
Actually, what I really resent is the companies like EB and GameSTOP that make money off this shit, but I digress.
Game developers told me that the first three months after a game is released are crucial: that's when they sell the most of them. Everything after that period is nice, but if they didn't make a profit in the first three months, they never will. I am quite certain that in those first three months it would be rare to encounter a second-hand version of a game. Of course, you will find the warez-rip in the first three days after a game's release...
It is true that when someone buys a used game, the game company sees no money, but they saw money when the game was originally sold. Someone had to not like the game enough to sell it back so that it could appear on the used market. So the effect of the game appearing not to sell is partially true, the original owner would rather sie had not purchased the game. This means out of the 2 buyers of the game, only one would buy it if given a second chance. The company only receives one buyers money. This is fair {unlike the ridiculous markups on used games!}.
If people are selling games after playing through them, it is usually long enough after the release that these purchases would not affect the company's income very much. {Another case is that the game has little-no replay value, and here the company is paying for it.}
On the other hand, the author of the article makes good points and I do agree with him about supporting the companies {or local bands!} that one likes. Also, much of his arguements are about console games, which i feel have a larger used market than PC games {and I am almost entirely a PC gamer}.
"Trigonometry is good for your soul"
-The Mathematicians
done
I dont think i've ever seen any relatively RECENT games for sale as a used game. I see lots of crappy used games I wouldn't have ever paid full price for.
Its the same as seeing that movie preview on TV and saying, "I think I'll wait until that is out on DVD".
Look, that's not what's being argued here. The problem is when a retailer sells the same game used that it is also selling retail.
This is not about games that are no longer in release.
The retailer knows that it can make a lot of money by placing title "XYZ" used for $45 next to "XYZ" retail for $50, while only giving the seller of the used title a pittance in exchange. That markup is pure profit for the retailer, which helps neither game producer or player.
Here's my test to know whether your money is going to the right place:
1) If a used game is being sold for more than 75% the retail price, STOP, buy the game retail.
2) Ask the clerk how much the store would give you if you SOLD them a copy of that game. If the difference between that price and the used price is more than 50% of the retail price, STOP! Buy the game retail.
3) If the game isn't available retail, then it doesn't matter, buy it used.
The tests in 1 and 2 make sure that the store isn't ripping you and the publisher off. You'd be better off looking through ebay listings for that kind of markup.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
be thankful you have the copyright monopoly that Congress so kindly *chose* to create.
If selling used games is so lucrative, why don't game companies get enter the secondary market themselves?
It's such a silly argument anyway. If one dude is willing to pay $50 for a game, and another dude is only willing to pay $30, and the game costs $40, guess what's going to happen....
You might as well have two people play the game and get $50, then have one person play the game and still get $50. Maybe the guy who bought it used will buy the sequal. Or maybe your game just isn't worth the money you're charging for it!
Message to copyright whiners: Okay, I call your bluff.. if it's so tough to work at games or music or whatever, then please follow through on your threats/complaints and exit the market.
Wouldn't it be awesome if all the big record labels just stopped producing music for one year? Not only would you be able to get all those CDs you never got around to buying, you'd also see just how much good indie music is out there, much of it sold at a loss anyway.
Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft could always include in the license for all games, a clause that you may not resell the product. That would probably stamp out most of the trade, although there's no way in hell it would stop direct sales.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Price markup isn't imaginary. Just look at the price differences between new PC games and console games. It depends, but it can be a $20-30 difference. I know that they aren't paying THAT much to Nintendo/Sony/MS.
If it's creativity you're worried about... what are the companies paying more for when they release a title? We'd all be better off if they'd spend a little less on a license, and concentrate more on making good games, period.
bleh ... and why does everything REQUIRE a sequel? isn't this the opposite of innovation? they should get it right the first time.
The used game market actually works to not only increase the total entertainment value of each individual game but also to IMPROVE the overall quality of the games in the market.
When a consumer eventually sells the video game that she/he purchased, they signal that they've exhausted all the entertainment value for themselves in the game and have chosen to use the money they've devoted to that game into another product that gives them more happiness. However, if the game is made well enough that the consumer will find value in it for years to come, they will most likely hang onto the product. If the game lacks long-term value, however, it will be passed onto another consumer and deliver additional entertainment value that way.
The used game market gives producers greater incentive to continually produce quality games by making them innovate to meet the true market demand, where consumers only pay for the games as long as they have a present interest in the game (which is vocalized by their purchases).
The game companies ought not to complain about used games - they are the ones fixing the prices! Fifty dollars standard, with retailers not allowed to discount in any significant way except with sanctioned sale offers. David Sheff's "Game Over" looks at how Nintendo did this in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and Sony and Microsoft are happy to continue doing it today. In a price-fixed environment where demand is elastic, demand will seek a better deal anywhere it can be had... such as with used games.
It's not my fault if someone's dodgy business model doesn't work within the law and socially accepted behaviour.
In a price-fixed environment where demand is elastic, demand will seek a better deal anywhere it can be had.
That has nothing to do with the price elasticity of demand or price-fixing. Rational consumers will always choose the "better deal," period.
Just like the music industry, the artists (developers) should be bitching out the publisher for ripping them off. Publishers make most of the money and do the least amount of actual work. Not saying they don't do much work. Everybody involved does a lot of work, but they have by far the largest payoff.
Let's face it. You don't get into the software publishing business because you want to be creative and make something really great. You get into the business because you want to make a lot of money.
Take note that the publisher is going to make their money regardless. They get their cut first, before the developer, exactly the same way it works in the music and movie industry.
If the PUBLISHER wanted something really great, something creative, THEY can make that happen with funding, but they're content to put out crap titles that are underfunded and released too early just so they can make their guranteed buck, versus taking the risk.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
When the fuck did it become the gamer's duty to subsidize a skewed pricing tier? This reeks of "if we don't rape you for $16 for every CD, you won't get to listen to the inspired strains of the Backstreet Boys, oh hell!" RIAA shill.
First, creativity will always exist. If it flounders, an opportunity will emerge. There will always be people for whom the "work" is more akin to "love" and will do it not only cheaper but better than the competition. Linux*cough*linux.
Second, if old games were $15 and new games were $25, would this problem exist?
Believe it or not, I'm fairly tolerant of self-indulgent Slashdot posts. But this one takes the cake.
My
Limekiller
The intro to this article is kind of misleading.
Thanks to GameSpot for its 'GameSpotting' editorial discussing why buying second-hand games could have a negative effect on videogame creators.
It's a column, not a staff editorial, and author is only a guest writer (read: free lance). The viewpoint might not necessarily be that of Gamespot.
That has nothing to do with the price elasticity of demand or price-fixing. Rational consumers will always choose the "better deal," period.
But most consumers are not rational - if they were, MacDonalds would have gone out of business years ago when people took the rational path and trained themselves to like healthy food.
Now, I don't see much evidence of price-fixing near where I live - one store might have the game for GBP 34.99 and the next might have it for GBP 29.99, no "amazing offer!" stickers in sight, and I'm sure you can guess which gets my cash. But you know what? Because I can get that feeling of having found a bargain just by shopping around in the "new games" section, I rarely go looking for used copies. Why bother? I've already saved money, and I'm getting a nice shiny copy, not some battered box with some unknown idiot's scratched CD inside.
People want to buy new. But if new looks equally expensive anywhere, they won't buy it. That's why price competition, among new games, will reduce the second-hand market.
Vote not Bush in 2004
Not to be totally OT here, but isn't simply saying "not Bush" what went wrong in 2000? Don't get me wrong, I like the Libertarians and the Greens a lot, but if the real liberal-minded individuals, extreme or otherwise, want to free the country of Bush, shouldn't we all resolve to vote "Kerry"?
He goes on to argue: "Buying used is equivalent to the game not selling at all in the eyes of developers and publishers, and when games don't sell, they don't get sequels and excellent concepts and, therefore, opportunities are lost."
He goes on to argue: "Buying books is equivalent to the game not selling at all in the eyes of developers and publishers, and when games don't sell, they don't get sequels and excellent concepts and, therefore, opportunities are lost."
Seriously, where is the complaint? You are buying something that they aren't selling... Uhhh, yeah, that's got to be stopped.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
You know, I'm a Poor Student. This is not an excuse to buy second hand games, but rather, the fact that I can't afford all games I want every month is. Why?
The new games don't stay on store shelves long enough!
The game retailing seems like an extremely cut-throat thing. There's zillions of new games coming out all the time and the stores just won't keep up long.
I recently wanted to buy one (just released) game. It took a few months for me to scrape up the money for it. Went to the store. "Well, we had it a few weeks ago, not anymore..."
If I find a game that's even slightly more marginal and not immediately mega-popular, I may as well forget trying to find it two months later from anything besides the very largest of the large shops. They do, however, sometimes show up in bargain bins and especially the second hand sections.
So, a little bit of an advice: Make fewer games, and better; keep them on sale for a longer time.
Increase the replay value of your games!!! I know that it isn't possible with some RPG games but... If the games have replay value after a year, 2 years etc, then people will be a lot less willing to sell them used. I know that I will never sell my copy of monkey ball, mario kart, or mario party for the gamecube because those games have so much replay value. I get together with my friends and still have a blast every time we play them.
Game companies have no right to complain because their game gets boring after the first time through.
when games don't sell, they don't get sequels and excellent concepts and, therefore, opportunities are lost.
For every one "Deus Ex" (Not TIW), "Beyond Good & Evil", or "Castlevania: SotN", they bury us in steaming, greasy piles of rehashed "Starwars: Episode 3.14159 Racer", "Final Fantasy 34", "Super Mario Strip Poker", and the "[sport name] [year]" EA crap.
Add to that underestimating demand for a game (Suikoden II, anyone?), a general "Screw the customers" attitude (That's right, SquareEnix, I'm talking to you, bitches), and you've got a right mess. Boo hoo. Stop trying to fleece me for $50 for a 10 hour game, and I'll stop buying it used.
That's not exactly what it said, though. "Not Bush" is put forward as one choice; he doesn't say "don't vote Bush". Voting Nader is obviously not voting "not Bush.".
The publishers should think of making games with more replayability instead throwing together a subpar script, an outdated engine, attaching a sticker which says "40 hours of gameplay", and calling it a game.
I can finish some of those games in 10 hours. Are they going to repay me the 75% of the price I payed?
I think the publishers are to blame here paying the developers to make the same game over an over again, instead listening to the new ideas that I'm sure the developers have.
Because you can sell a game used, it makes the game worth more. Someone had to buy the game new in order for it to be used (duh). For whoever that person is, that game becomes cheaper (net: new price - used price = net price). As any student of economics knows, the effect of decreasing price on any object is to increase units sold. Note that this decrease in price occurs without either the store or the gaming company having to make less money on the initial sale.
As for the enormous markup, that's what the free market is all about. EBGames in no way has a monopoly on selling used games. Mad about the markup? Go on EBay or a different store. As long as people buy used games at these prices, they will continue to cost as much as they do. It's EB's job to try to maximize its profits.
In conclusion, because you can resell a game, it ultimately makes the game worth more without changing the price and therefore increases sales of new games.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
If I buy a game, and I know that I can get X% percent back by selling it second hand if it's crap etc. Then I'll buy more *new* games!
Plus most people I know sell their games in order to buy new ones. It's a win win situation!
The video game industry says not buying a game stifles creativity.
Seriously, how does this stifle creativity? If X people want a game, and want to continue playing it then X people will do so.
All resale prevents is from a game selling wildly upon high expectations, and not backing it up with long term playability. It sounds like it actually encourages creativity, because it makes them need to have an actually solid game
A developer should really look at themselves if they see that there are a whole lot of copies of "Random blow the crap outa something" game on the shelves at their local EB.
.. they already sold it once.. if its being sold used there is a reason somebody wanted to get rid of it... and that onus is on the game developer.
.. it sucks ... or if its an iffy title that not as many people will like .. than they're not gonna get a skewed view of how many copies sold.
.. half the time its cause some game sucked ass. I'd rather stick it to them by getting somewhat of my money back for the time that they stole from me for playing their horrid game. So many come to mind its mind boggling.
.. thats life .. if you're a sucky game developer .. at least keep in mind just by your existance you're forcing a good developer to keep on their game.. you're doing a public service .. but further than that if your game sucks, it sucks, and its not supposed to sell.
I could care less if they make a profit on it
If the game sucks
In my own opinion only the game developers hurt themselves with used games... if the game was that kickass, then there would be no reason somebody would wanna sell it back.
In fact i'm glad some game developers lose money cause i sell back games or buy used games
Businesses fail
Who makes you Sig?
After all, everybody knows what happened to the book market when people started selling used books.
And stuff and stuff.
When I add the numbers, I get
Original Revenue = 10,000 * $60 = $600,000
New Revenue1 = 15,000 * $40 = $600,000 (0% increase in revenue)
You have more customers, but no more revenue. Considering production/distribution costs per unit, the overhead of the 5000 additional units means you probably lose money.
"Microsoft has made computing accessible to a population who would otherwise not be able to use computers" - B. Kernigha
Is it time to stroke the advertisers again?
Here! Let's say how bad people who buy used games are! They're as bad as.... Pirates!
Give me a break. This is the voice of pure greed. Nothing more. Second hand games have never stopped me from buying new games.
Sorry. Haven't had my morning cup yet... grrrr.
-- What's this '-r *' file doing here? -- Oh well, a simple 'rm' should do the trick.
Just think of the loss of incentive the carmakers have to produce new cars, and sequels of last year's model, when people would rather buy a used car than a new one! And those that sell used cars, those are the most immoral! They make a living destroying the new car industry!
I sometimes buy second hand games, but I do not do so because they are cheap, I buy them because they are discontinued and they can't be found new! I understand that second hand market of *new* games can hurt a bit developers, but you can't ban it altogether (like they are trying to do in Japan) because that way you scren game collectors who are looking for limited editions, non-platinum editions or just old games.
maybe if the game "new" wasn't $50 I wouldn't be so likely to wait 6 months to get the "used" at $20. because since I'm waiting anyway after the release (no way I'm paying $50) I might as well wait after the first few rounds of "used" pricing: $45, $40, $35 ... until it drops down about as low as it will go. The only game I buy at or near release is the NHL series from EA Sports, because I want to be playing all NHL season long.
But I still haven't picked up a few of the "really really good" games of 2003 and early 2004 yet. I'm ready to raid the bargain bin, heck, I'll wait until the next generation of consoles comes out and they start showing up at Wal-Mart new at 3-for-$20 or something. $50 games... the bloody console is $100 new (gamecube).
But I can see how this is a vicious cycle for the game developers and I hope they can come up with a solution which both gets us good games and keeps them in business. Maybe that solution is $35 games new, combined with giving resellers the ability to make a little more profit from their shelf space from their new games.
The other problem is that, especially now with 3 consoles in addition to the PC, there are just sooooo many good games. And I only play 1 at a time, 2 tops, and that 1 is usually the latest NHL game, so that leaves 1 slot every few months (I only play a few hours a week at most) which is quickly snapped up by the really excellent games (Zelda, Metroid, Eternal Darkness, upcoming Resident Evil 4, etc).
Not to mention that (on PC at least) there are more and more high-quality free games, like the America's Army games for example.
MORTAR COMBAT!
The real trick is to make games with replayability. Without that, no one wants to hang onto their games.
I remember back in the days of my Atari, before used game stores, you looked in the paper, and people were always selling used games in the classifieds. If it isnt in a store, people would still go about it this way.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Voting Nader is obviously not voting "not Bush.".
yet another AC with a brain. nice. you might enjoy The Fork in the Road: A Political Morality Play in One Act over on K5.
MORTAR COMBAT!
Couches are hardware. You can only use a couch if it's there, for you to sit/lie on.
Games, however, are "intellectual property", "IT wares", "bits and bytes", whatever you want to call it. It's streams of information, and information can be easily copied. Because of this, a videogame loses much of its face value when you tear off that shiny wrapper.
Also, Couches depreciate much slower then videogames, simply because a couch's resale value stays pretty good, as long as the cushions are still nice and cushy, and the frame isn't broken.
Disclaimer: IANAUFS (I Am NOt A Used Furniture Salesman), IANAHCG (I Am NOt A Hard Core Gamer), and finally, IANAL.
whew
"The most looniest, zaniest, spontaneous, sporadic Impulsive thinker, compulsive drinker, addict"
www.lonseidman.com
Instead of whining, publishers should work on making games that continue to be interesting after you've played them through once. Consider books, or movies, CD's. Although there is a used market for each, the market is not nearly as robust as the used games market. This is attributable to a couple of factors: first, the ridiculously high cost of games and, second, the fact that most games are worth playing only once if that. If games, like movies and books, were enjoyable to reuse and were not quite so expensive, people would be much less inclined to trade them in.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Even worse than used games is what is going on in the book industry! There's this building downtown that lets people borrow books for free! Just think of how many copies of books they could have sold if they would shut down these "libraries!"
Seriously though, the outcry on used games and piracy often assumes that if these options to get a game/cd/book at lower or no cost did not exist, then people would pay full price, which is a fallacy. I know that when I buy a used game, it is almost always because it is cheap. If it was full price, I would not buy it. Maybe I'm just cheap, but if I really want a game, I'll buy it when it first comes out, otherwise, for 90% of the games I buy I just wait untill they are around $19.95. I imagine that I'm not entirely alone on this. So when I buy a used game, the manufacturers aren't losing out on anything because I wouldn't buy it at full price anyway.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
How about evaluating the used market, figure out which games are re-selling the best, and why? There might be a few golden nuggets of information in there to be rooted out.
The publishers would prefer this as the price of games doesn't drop off too much other than the ones that don't sell well or are really old.
And another thought - publishers could come out with new versions every year. No one buys NFL 2003 after 2004 comes out and the inventory at EB becomes worthless.
if you bought OR sold the used game on eBay, is my point.
Used cars are one thing. Used books even. They take up space and you have to spend a lot of money up front. The seller also nets a SIGNIFICANT percentage of the market value for each of those items to nearly anyone they sell it to.
But used video games?
You rarely get more than 2/3ds the market price, and usually the only reason why a gamer would sell a game is to get money to buy more games, usually at the same establishment. The retailer is cashing in on the buyers' laziness. That's what's dumb about it.
If you can't exchange 3 good, old games for 2 new ones (and maybe five bucks in cash), you're getting ripped off. You can buy 2 new TEXTBOOKs for what you get back for 3 used ones. What makes games so high risk that they deserve a 100% markup for a used sale? That's fucking crazy!
I'm not against secondhand sales. I'm against uninformed customers.
Don't give the retailer any more money than they deserve. They are just a free rider on the secondhand game market.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
How could you like both a whole lot? They tend to stand on opposite sides of the equation. One os a left wing group who does things on the opposite end of the political spectrum than the other. One tends to be anti-freedom (hello Ralph Nader) and the other tends to be freedom-at-any-cost. I'm afraid when you take both of these parties apart and look at what they're all about, you'll find that the party creedos are completely incompatible with each other.
What a stupid statement.
It's quite possible that having the ability to sell a game as used makes an increased (but difficult to measure) value of a game, and could lead to increased sales. For example, if I buy "Parappa the Rappa 2", I know that if and when I get sick of the game, I could turn around and sell it used. In other words, resale value, just like you would see in a house or car, but of course on a much smaller scale. That hidden value makes me more likely to purchase the game in the first place. That's all part of a huge web of micro economics in the used game realm, complete with its own multi-layered supply and demand systems, probably worthy of an academic paper.
_______
2B1ASK1
However, the issue is that GameSTOP/EBGames, etc. charges $30 to mitigate the transaction between the first and second user. The second user is only saving $5, the first user is only getting $10 towards his next game. The retailer gets the plum.
The game does not factor in a $30 second-hand markup. The original retail markup is at least $20. For a $50 game, that's all calculated markup, and no profit (!) Not good.
In that situation, nobody wins, when compared to online auctions or smaller boutiques that have smaller margins.
I'm not saying it should be illegal, it's just that potential buyers need to be better informed and know that GameSTOP is not the best venue for secondhand sales.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
but maybe you should focus on reading comprehension.
There's nothing wrong with the secondhand sales market.
What's wrong is choosing EBGames as your marketplace.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Ho hum. This is just whining that should be scoffed at for the nonsense it is.
Buying used means:
* The original owner didn't find the story satisfying enough to keep
* The original owner sold it to buy a newer game
* The original owner's younger brother needed ca$h fa$t and those rich nigerian people with slight banking problems won't put out to a 12 year old
In either of the first two cases, the game publisher's shouldn't continue the series - it was good for a few weeks/months of game play, but wasn't a classic, or is not good for group play.
-Adam
The resale market serves a number of critical functions -- it support high release prices because many aficionados will get first-day releases, beat the game and resell. These resales will capture new game addict^H^H^Hfans.
About 3 days later I bought a new copy of the Tribunal expansion and I'm going to buy the Bloodmoon expansion this week. So the makers have got some money out of me, and they probably wouldn't have gotten any if I hadn;t been able to buy second-hand.
I think this internet thing sounds like a good idea
Nintendo already tried getting used game sales banned, long time ago.
RIAA also had some tizzies way back over used CD sales.
It's articles like this that make me WANT to say "screw you" and buy ONLY used... (damn greedy corporations)
1. Purchased new at one point. 2. Sold back to the store.
So, the game has to have been purchased new (note the article says nothing about clearance games) and the person who originally bought it had to tire of it and decide they didn't want it anymore or that it was mistake to buy in the first place. This should be obvious.
Now, if games were like the used car market, this might not be enough to destroy this argument. I drive a 1990 Honda Accord, and I'm not planning to upgrade anytime soon. It's still a solid car. So, at some point, with games, there might be enough floating around that no one would buy new games, in theory.
But this would ignore certain facts about games:
1. The console lifecycle: Used games for consoles that don't boast backwards compatibility have a fairly short effective lifespan. Basically, they have whatever time is left in the lifespan of the console to be a major threat, because when the next generation of consoles come out no one will want to buy them anymore unless they are too poor to upgrade or collectors. On the other hand, Playstation II and Gameboy Advance are backwards compatible because the positives (keeping control of their respective markets) outweight the negatives (that people will occaisionally choose cheap, old, graphically inferior used games over the latest offerings).
2. No marketing: Games are only marketted when they are new, and this include reviews except for the occaisianal "classic reviews" in magazines like Game Informer. This means that you have to already know that you want the used game and be able to research information about it before you decide to buy it. I recently decided I wanted to buy the game "Splatterhouse 3" for my Sega Genesis for nostalga purposes. Considering it is a rather average game it was fairly expensive and difficult to find. It isn't competition for the new Silent Hill game in any sense for anyone but monomaniacal game collectors like me.
Frankly, another thing that makes this silly is that isn't it just as damaging to creativity to buy games like Namco Museum for Playstation, Super Mario Bros III for Gameboy Advance or Megaman Anniversary Collection for GameCube Used or not? After all, none of those are anything but compilations of older, popular titles. Any money they make will be a sign to the game companies that people want rereleases of older titles and not new titles that "push the envelope." Actually, isn't it worse, since precious marketing and publishing funds are "wasted" on these rehashes which isn't the case for a mint copy of "Super Mario Brothers III" for NES.
Oh, and one last thing. I don't care if games are creative, I only care if they are good and entertaining for me. Maybe the author of the article wants to establish a NEA of games... that's his business.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
And this is exactly why you should always buy used CDs of bands you like. Legal music - and no additional money for the industry.
Too bad that most eBay CDs now come from powersellers who sell new ones.
Two Worlds - One Sun [Spirit]
Heh, it all depends on your definition of "creativity," doesn't it? To us, it might mean, "being able to come up with new, interesting, original concepts and mechanics that make games more fun than the games that came before," or something like that. To the publishers, however, I'm pretty sure "creativity" means "being able to make a game that makes us lots and lots and lots and lots of money."
YMMV.
;-)
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
I am sure that the car makers would like it if no one ever bought a used car. After all the car makers do not make a sent on a used car you buy but the dealer makes a good profit.
What about houses? You buy a used home and the builder does not make a cent off of it! It would be much better if when you got a new home you burned the old one to the ground.
Ummm... So what if they do not want you to buy or sell used games? If you no longer want to play a game why not sell it and get one you do want to play? It is the same with books, music, cars, houses, DVDs, or anything else in the world. TOUGH!
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
...our government is screwing publishers out of billions of dollars each year by buying books for libraries. Funny how book publishers don't seem to mind too much.
I have a real problem with how some of these outlets sell games, especially EB. You purchase a new PC game and the person behind the counter casually whips out a cd from a drawer and inserts it into a jewel case. When I am paying new prices, I expect a new product, namely a sealed box. I have no way of verifing it is new this way, and I have recieved games with scratches on the CD itself. I get the feeling there is more going on there...This is why I no longer purchase software at such outlets.
Maybe being a little silly, it just seems dirty.
What you and everyone else here are ignoring is that this is exactly what happens! This pricing scheme is efficient in that it gets from each person what they are willing to pay for a given game. You will never pay more than you are willing to for a game, and the price of any release falls over time. Releasing Doom III for $20 would be a very dumb move on the part of id, but you can bet that before long you will be able to buy it new for about $20.
And yes, I bought a new copy of Diablo for $7 several years ago.
Lasers Controlled Games!
...whiners.
Welcome to the market, gaming industry.
Nearly every market of this kind "suffers" from this scenario. The gaming industry isn't _losing_ money; it just isn't making 100% profit. Poor babies. Used items for sale are just another matter of "overhead" that every company which sells a physical product has to deal with. (and I don't want to hear that crap about software not being such; piracy is a completely different issue.)
No one makes 100% profit. There's no reason for them to start complaining just because they have to play by the same rules as everyone else.
Imagine if the automobile industry started making the same claims, that used car dealers were not right because everyone should buy a new car. Gee, that makes sense.
People need to realize that the pittance they save buying a used copy of a recent game is a complete and utter screw job. It's just unbelievable that so many fall for it every day.
If the chains were giving a decent sellback price, it'd only be slightly more justified. But when I get $5 for game they'll resell at $45 next a new copy at $50? Fucking ridiculous.
The market is over-hyped. I could be in a store, about to plunk down $50 for game A, when I see an amazing ad promising how incredibly awesome game B is going to be... coming in 3 months. I put Game A back on the shelf, looking forward to game B, which gets delayed, feature-hacked, and released with bugs, so I don't get that one either. Some time later I go back and have game C in my hands, about to plunk down $50, when I see an amazing ad promising how incredibly awesome game D is going to be...
MORTAR COMBAT!
Take a game like Metroid Fusion, which retails for $30 and can be finished by a novice in around 5 hours. Sure, they've designed the thing for you to try speed runs and whatnot, but most gamers, myself included, A) don't care about shaving a few minutes off the completion speed and B) expect more value for the gaming buck than that. Why shouldn't I pay half price on EBay for a used game that I literally won't buy retail because I don't think it's worth what they're charging? If anything, I'm snatching up a deal that leaves one less used game out there that someone who actually WILL buy it new might otherwise have gotten.
The concern being that if the gaming public does not support a game it will not have follow-ups. In this, I think he is correct. The game publishers will not throw good money after bad to create sequels to games that failed. But I think the author is incorrect in blaming the used game market for this.
If a game does not generate the interest of the market, you cannot blame the used-game market for its failure. The used game market is merely giving the game an extended shelf-life in which more customers are exposed to the title. If, for some reason, a game fails in general retail release and then has an explosion in popularity in the used-game market, the publishers will take note. A sequel to the now-popular title is likely to ensue. However, if the title had been popular from the outset, a follow-up is virtually guaranteed.
The call to resist used games is much ado about nothing.
As for the used game vendor making more money... good for them. The customer and the vendor both make out better in the purchase of a used game. In many cases, new game vendors can send unsold copies of the game back to the publisher - they cannot do that with a used game. Take a look at that used game bin. How many titles in there are never going to be sold because they just plain suck... The games that sit in the bin for eternity are a complete loss to the vendor - they cannot be sent back. So they make up the additional loss on the titles that do resell well.
If you don't like the price that a reseller is offering for your used game, take it to eBay. But don't bemoan the reseller for making a greater profit WHILE he is giving you a lower price on the product.
jr
If you think the manual, casing, unscratched disk and general newness of an item isn't worth 5 dollars, then fine. The fact that you'll pay damned near that 'inflated' retail price to get a used item just proves how little you thought out your purchase and your stance on the issue.
Of course, the ban on used games didn't do much to curb the shrinking of Japan's game market, and was recently lifted. Too bad they didn't repeal it earlier; the stupid thing prevented me from acquiring a lot of classic games when I was there last year. Sigh.
I know that in some places, the selling of used games is effected by the pawn shop act, or similar laws. I'm not entirely clear on which areas have those laws, nor on in which areas video game stores are covered by them. However, I would imagine that it would be fairly simple to figure out, if one was interested.
I also recall seeing a story on slashdot about EB ignoring these laws and reselling items rather quickly. The woman who had her PS2 stolen, managed to figure out who'd done, get information from him on what he'd done with it, and went to the store, but despite a short period of time, her ps2 had already been sold.
If the publishers really want to take a bite out of used game sales, would it not make sense to locate and document violations of those pawn shop laws in areas where those laws apply, and then take the used game store to court?
I saw someone trade in all KINDS of stuff where I work that still had the original packaging and even wrapping for the games. They'd cut the cellophane open just enough to get the game out, and (like me) kept the boxes.
...Besides, how do you think those used games come into existence? They don't grow on the used games tree, y'know. *snort*
Game Boy Color games were priced at $80 and up. For Game Boy games -- and those have typically been cheaper than the 'TV Console' games.
Prices have dropped before, and the ones to go out of business have generally made poor marketing choices. Dreamcast, for example. Sigh.
Those that buy a used game for $44 instead of new at $50 because it's 'too much money' will say the same thing if the 'standard' for new games becomes $40 or even $30. They'll buy the $35 or $25 game and still whine about it. Heck, some of the people who've been playing since games were $80+ a pop are saying they're -STILL- too expensive -- but they keep buying them.
~Kyrthira Phelan~
I'm not made of money, and sometimes buying a used game, even one without a manual, for really cheap is exactly what I need for my gaming habit. At least I'm not "stealing" the game by copying the disk and paying almost nothing at all. Just be happy that I'm helping the game store stay open in these days of Amazon.com et. al.
The game developers really need to understand that the revenue generated from used game sales is not revenue that would otherwise go to them. Well, it might if they sell their new games for $15, but they don't. IMO, they are just a bunch of whiners who sound like the losers from the RIAA: "But but were losing 15 quadrillion dollars in sales to these people too cheap to buy our new expensive games!" Give it up, guys.
Vote in November. You won't regret it.
1. Release good old games on new platform (Example - Zelda Promotional Edition)
2. Have people pay for nostalgia.
3. Profit
You lose.
No, of course not. They don't care that half the new PS2 games I've bought I wouldn't have bought if I couldn't have sold them a few months later to someone who would never pay full price for that game.
The day I have to pay subscription costs to buy a video game is the day I stop buying video games.
Shoot Pixels, Not People!
Oh wait..
Prince of Persia: SOT sold pretty poorly overall, but because of the tremendous buzz surrounding it the Prince of Persia line is suddenly revitalized.
Please, please, please can everyone stop spreading this nonsense. While it is true that PoP sold pretty poorly upon release, strong word of mouth and reviews really built up its sales (especially post-Christmas). It ended up selling over 2.4 million copies as of April. Considering the rest of the series (including the numerous ports!) has sold a total of only around 3 million copies in the last decade or so, the newest Prince of Persia is actually quite a smash hit.
(Amazing how survivable an old meme is.)
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
You know, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft must have a real love/hate relationship with other companies that make games alongside their new games [since buying other companies games doesn't give] their game developers, or the game publishers a thin, red cent. Instead, the other company is enjoying a nice, fat profit margin". He goes on to argue: "Buying from another game company is equivalent to their game not selling at all in the eyes of developers and publishers, and when games don't sell, they don't get sequels and excellent concepts and, therefore, opportunities are lost."
I never thought I'd read an article proposing that we give up resale rights!!! And the exact same argument you make regarding video games could apply to ANYTHING!!!
When you buy a used car, the original manufacturer doesn't get any money, thus they cannot innovate. Those old clothes you're trying to dump in a yard sale, those poor clothes designers will be out of work, as they don't get a dime from your yard sale. And don't even think of buying a used house. It should be mandated that old houses get torn down and new ones built, just to keep architects employed.
You're essentially arguing that we should never really own anything!!! Is that really the world you want to live in?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.