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."
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.
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)
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.
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
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...
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 $50, while only giving the seller of the used title a pittance in exchange. That markup is pure profit for the retailer, which helps neither game producer or player.
Here's my test to know whether your money is going to the right place:
1) If a used game is being sold for more than 75% the retail price, STOP, buy the game retail.
2) Ask the clerk how much the store would give you if you SOLD them a copy of that game. If the difference between that price and the used price is more than 50% of the retail price, STOP! Buy the game retail.
3) If the game isn't available retail, then it doesn't matter, buy it used.
The tests in 1 and 2 make sure that the store isn't ripping you and the publisher off. You'd be better off looking through ebay listings for that kind of markup.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
On the other hand, a price cut in the games would mean the company selling used games would likely have to make a reciprocal cut in their used game prices. I buy used games, but I won't buy used music. Why? I save enough money by purchasing the used games to make it worth the hassle, whereas saving 5-7$ on used music isn't worth it, IMO.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
It's a little different though.
The reality is, piracy doesn't actually take that much money away from the publisher, because people who pirate would generally go without instead of shelling out $99AUD for the latest cludged console converted catastrophy for PC. Much like the MP3 market where it's shown time and time again that if people don't pirate MP3's, it doesn't mean they'll buy more CD's.
But the person who walks into a game shop and shells out $99 for two used games would otherwise have spent that money on a brand new game and given that money to the publisher instead of the shop owner. Again the RIAA/ARIA are pretty livid about the second hand CD market. This market represents an even bigger threat to the RIAA than 2nd hand selling computer games... because SimCity 2000 looks awful by todays standards, but The Beatles still sound as good as they did all those years ago.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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)
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