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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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