Slashdot Mirror


Used Game Market Affecting Price, Quality of New Titles

Gamasutra is running a feature discussing the used game market with various developers and analysts. The point has been raised by many members of the industry that used game sales are hurting developers and publishers even more lately, when they're already beleaguered by rising piracy rates and a struggling economy. Atari executives recently commented that used game sales are "extremely painful," while GameStop's CEO unsurprisingly came out in support of resales. We've recently discussed a few of the ways game designers are considering to limit used game sales. David Braben, chairman of UK-based developer Frontier Development had this to say: "Five years ago, a great game would have sold for a longer period of time than for a bad game — which was essentially our incentive to make great games. But no longer. Now publishers and developers just see revenue the initial few weeks regardless of the game's quality and then gamers start buying used copies which generates money that goes into GameStop's pocket, nobody else's."

22 of 384 comments (clear)

  1. Boo f*cking hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In other news, used car sales are hurting car manufacturers even more lately, when they're already beleaguered by rising petrol prices and a struggling economy. Ford executives recently commented that used car sales are "extremely painful," while eBay's CEO unsurprisingly came out in support of resales. David Braben, chairman of UK-based car manufacturer Frontier Development had this to say: "Five years ago, a great car would have sold for a longer period of time than for a bad car â" which was essentially our incentive to make great cars. But no longer. Now manufacturers just see revenue the initial few weeks regardless of the car's quality and then gamers start buying used cars which generates money that goes into eBay's pocket, nobody else's."

    1. Re:Boo f*cking hoo by MadKeithV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it would make sense if the depreciation of a used car was practically zero. That's obviously not the case.
      The "problem" the industry sees with used game sales is that, given enough patience from the gamers, a very limited number of copies could conceivably be passed around the world LEGALLY for everyone to play in turn. Newer games end up on the used shelf in days, so not that much patience is needed.
      The proper solution (as mentioned in other posts) would be to make games that take longer than a few days to get bored of. I'm still playing Civ4 regularly.

    2. Re:Boo f*cking hoo by Anenome · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These developers, etc, are completely ignorant of economics to even think of making this claim. The fact is that resale value in the mind of the buyer is a major portion of the original purchase price (whether he knows that consciously or not). If you make resale illegal or difficult enough to kill it off what will happen is that gamers will find the same approximately $60/game prices to be even less worth-it than before, since you've destroyed the intrinsic resale value the game had and there's now no way to dump a game that isn't worth keeping to recover a portion of your investment. If the resale value of a game is worth ~$20 then the entire game industry will have to lower their prices by that much on average to see the same buying activity, because a $60 game is now only worth about $40. But they aren't imagining they will have to do that. If the consumer thinks your game is overpriced they will not buy it. And making resale impossible will contribute to that perception. The result of this will be even more conservative behavior when gamers shop for games. Meaning that only triple-A titles will do well, and the A-material games will have fewer buyers and the B-games will probably price themselves out of the market. I'm sure Detroit's auto-industry and many other manufacturers would love to outlaw buying used cars to force you to buy new, but that's not how it works. That would only create a black-market for goods. So, think about this a second time, developers and publishers. You got your cash up-front when you sold that game brand-new and part of the reason buyers paid your price is because of the intrinsic resale value, you have absolute zero claim to second hand sales and the existence and ability to sell game second hand actually results in buyers taking more chances on new games and therefore more people buying new games. In fact, if your game does well second hand it's usually because your game is doing well in any case among first buyers. The answer isn't restricting 2nd hand sales. The answer is to get off your a$$es and make f***in' better games the people want to buy in the first place.

      --
      "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
    3. Re:Boo f*cking hoo by KDR_11k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When I buy a game, I play it and sometimes beat it the day I bought it.

      Wouldn't you say that's more of a price-value disparity? You paid ~50$ for a game and only got one or two days of enjoyment out of it. That sounds like the game fails to deliver much for its price.

      Also, if you beat the games that fast, shouldn't you try renting? That's about 1.50$ per day rather than 30$ per game.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    4. Re:Boo f*cking hoo by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The price has remained the same, but remember that back in the days of yore a lot more cost of the game was involved in it's medium. The ROM chips (and sometimes additional processors, batteries, etc) used in cartridges way back when were orders of magnitude more expensive than the CD's and DVD's that games ship on now (which cost maybe $0.15 per disc to produce). So yes, development costs have gone up, but that's the only reason prices should remain the same. Without that games would logically cost half as much as they do now given the reduction in media cost.

      In reality though, games, like all things, are worth exactly as much as people are willing to pay for them. That was, and still is, $50-60. What the publishers don't realize though is that the price that people are willing to pay for an item often has resale value factored in. If I can resell a game for $20-25 dollars after a week, then I might be willing to pay $60 for it. If that option wasn't available, my threshold for the initial purchase might be a lot less.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    5. Re:Boo f*cking hoo by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The price has remained the same, but remember that back in the days of yore a lot more cost of the game was involved in it's medium. The ROM chips (and sometimes additional processors, batteries, etc) used in cartridges way back when were orders of magnitude more expensive than the CD's and DVD's that games ship on now (which cost maybe $0.15 per disc to produce). So yes, development costs have gone up, but that's the only reason prices should remain the same. Without that games would logically cost half as much as they do now given the reduction in media cost.

      $50-60 today is not the same as $50-60 in 1985. Adjusted for inflation, game prices are decreasing while production costs are increasing...

      Yeah, I hate that argument too - it annoyed the crap out of me when the oil companies used it to defend rising gas prices. Nonetheless, there is some truth to it.

  2. Does this mean? by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We should bail out the game industry?

    After all, if it goes under, we'll get a lot of people, who spend hours gaming, not gaming anymore. This means less soda and junk food to snack on, which in turn, means the junk food industry will be hurt, which, in turn, means more layoffs.

    1. Re:Does this mean? by Xugumad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm frequently amazed the games industry doesn't just stand up one day and go "Y'know, we talked it out between us, and we've had enough. We're going to all get jobs with fewer hours and better pay in something dull like spreadsheet programming."

      So far, all I'm seeing is that their business model makes neither side happy. Game developers, at least starting out, get insane hours for little pay. Games are released at price points that are uncomfortably expensive for most of the target audience. That sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, to me.

    2. Re:Does this mean? by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 4, Informative

      The new American businessmodel :

      1. start a business
      2. "almost" go bankrupt
      3. get your income from tax dollars instead of, you know, those horrible clients
      4. profit !

    3. Re:Does this mean? by gfxguy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh... My... God... you've solved the next to last step! YOU ARE A GENIUS!

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    4. Re:Does this mean? by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So far, all I'm seeing is that their business model makes neither side happy. Game developers, at least starting out, get insane hours for little pay. Games are released at price points that are uncomfortably expensive for most of the target audience. That sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, to me.

      You forgot the third side, who is quite content:
      The suits:

      • pay the developers next to nothing.
      • gorge themselves on the gamers' money
      • Greenlight any derivative crap that comes down the pipe as long as it's close enough to an extant blockbuster

      Unfortunately, that group is the one with all the money, and as such, all the say.

  3. Hmm.. by AlterRNow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If making a game is always resulting in a loss, it wouldn't make any sense ( business or otherwise ) to continue making games.

    Therefore, I can only conclude that making a game is *still* profitable ( despite everything ) and would just like to say:

    Be happy you are making profit and stop whining about how much.

    That goes for **AA too!

    --
    The disappearing pencil trick. Let me show you it.
  4. When I read... by liegeofmelkor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that the used game market is affecting price and quality, my first response is GREAT! Market forces at work are driving new game prices down and quality up as developers are forced to compete with a robust substitute good: the used game.

    Then I realize its more of the same FUD campaign put on by the mega-corporations to prep us for invasive mechanisms inserted into games with the end goal of bilking us for more $$$. I think I'll avoid supporting this industry and stick to indie games until they have an attitude shift.

  5. Uhuh... by FinchWorld · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...yes yes, its all ther nasty consumers fault! You bundle crapware drm and we don't buy it, uhuh, thats my fault. You release the game for £50-60 quid, and somehow, especially in the current economic crisis, I find that I'd rather pay for food and shelter over GENERICFIFASPORTGAME-2009. Im even more evil for thinking that second hand at £20-30, I might just be able to afford it without sending you more money after its first sale.

    Oh, I also apologize when i decide not to buy your £50 game, because you decided you could, infact, split it into 3 seperate games and sell it that way for more than £100, for pure greed (Hi Starcraft2!). Im so very sorry. Also, do forgive me when i refuse to buy your game at all, because you decided that buying the game second hand means im njot entitled to the full game, because I also decided you weren't worthy to survive as a games company anymore (GOW2).

    And "Five years ago, a great game would have sold for a longer period of time than for a bad game-- which was essentially our incentive to make great games. But no longer. Now publishers and developers just see revenue the initial few weeks regardless of the game's quality and then gamers start buying used copies which generates money that goes into GameStop's pocket, nobody else's."

    No Im sorry, games just aren't as good as they were, because I recall buying and trading in games for second hand games more than 5 years ago. So that hasn't changed, must be the games eh?

    --
    "I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
    1. Re:Uhuh... by NexusTw1n · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Games with replay value don't get sold, gamers want to keep them to play again later. With no second hand copies available, people will have to buy new.

      Games that are good enough get relaunched at half price as Platinum Games, which will see another boost in revenue as 20 quid is a price point where most gamers are prepared to buy new.

      Games that have a long completion time - eg 30+ hours, or excellent online gameplay, result in gamers keeping them for quite some time before being sold back to game stores, which keeps that initial sales stream lasting longer than normal.

      Games that have a short single player experience, or turn out to be not as good as the paid for review claimed, get sold back to the store as quickly as possible, and the publisher's revenue stream dies.

      Gamers sell games to buy more games, they know you always get a better store credit price than cash price.

      Gamers who buy second hand games, can't afford to drop 50-60 notes on the latest games. If these poorer gamers weren't keeping the second hand market strong, the price the richer gamers would be getting when they sell their games, would drop. This would mean they'd have less money to buy new titles.

      50 - 60 notes is a lot of money to most people, even those that can afford it, can only justify it, because the game retains value and some of the cost can be reclaimed by selling it.

      The market is working correctly, and any attempt to try and grab more market share by the publishers will back fire.

      --
      It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. --Albert Einstein
    2. Re:Uhuh... by Fred_A · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I find it rather strange that numerous $randomSlashDotPosters can figure this out and that almost none of the game companies can.

      Don't they hire, like, market dudes or something ? Or are we specially gifted around here ?

      What's wrong with all those companies that keep on acting like divas all the time... "waaah, I've been obnoxious and painted myself in a corner, it's all the fault of my nasty customers, of p2p, of unmetered access, of sunspots, of the falling market, of terrorism..."

      [/rant]

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
  6. works both ways by samjam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Two facts:

    * The high price of game creates the 2nd hand market.

    * The high price 2nd hand market helps people afford new games, by selling their old games.

    Putting up the price of new games isn't going to change those facts, in fact it will raise the price of 2nd hand games making the market more lucrative and increasing the amount of trade in 2nd hand games.

    Preventing games from being sold 2nd hand will reduce what buyers can afford for new games.

    Folk only have so much money to spend on games, after all!

    I used to regularly spend about 1 GBP ($2) a week at charity shops buying books at 10-20 pence each. (They'd go back to charity shops to be re-sold when I'd finished with them)

    Then the shops went "up market" and started selling at 50p - 1 pound each and now they don't get any of my money at all.

    Games industry is going the same way.

    Sam

  7. Re:Newsflash by Xugumad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Between you, and a game publisher, I think I know whose numbers on sales I'm more likely to believe.

    You may not buy crappy games, because you read reviews first, but I think the message here is fairly clearly that there's enough people who buy games based purely on refractive index of the box cover, to make even the worst movie tie-in sell.

  8. A load of bollocks by gurkmannen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is just plain fud. Being able to sell a game once you've played it increases the reason to buy it. Especially when the game is short, possibly bad or has no replayability value.

    --
    aka Gardener, aka ollej
  9. What a load. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The used market helps sell new games.

    Some subset of early-adopter gamers are not going to buy new games at brand new prices unless they know they can turn around and sell the game to get back some of that value. This is especially true since early-adopter gamers are the ones taking the risk on the games. In this capacity, the used market actually helps you.

    The used market is not the money factory you claim.

    If there was truly so much money to be had in the used market you would drop your prices without hesitation in order to compete. If there was that much money you should have no problem making up for lowered prices with increased sales. The fact that you do not do this illustrates very clearly that there is not that much money being 'lost'.

    David Braben, you are a remarkable idiot.

    Not only have you stated that money is your "essential" motivation for creating great games - which leads me to wonder if your firm is capable of making a great game - but you have made it very clear that your firm has no incentive (read: plan) to create great games in the future.

  10. Re:Marketing lies by MadKeithV · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's exactly the same BS the various recording industry associations are trying to feed us. They want to be liberated from the shackles of the free market, so that the extremely elastic demand and highly competitive market for games (music, movies) is turned into an inelastic demand government-sanctioned oligolopy.

    To which I'd say "buzz off and go into a different business if you don't like it.". Note: I am a musician and a software developer. I still don't think the market should be controlled.

  11. really? painful? by DragonTHC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    first, I've been playing PC games for over 2 decades.

    Quality has dropped drastically. Technology increased which gave the illusion of high quality. Games today are a horrendous value compared to just ten years ago. Content has dropped from an observed average of 25 hours of gameplay to around 6 hours. Half the budget is blown by publishers on marketing. Publishers have also gotten quite complacent about their position in the industry. When you have more than 3 sequels, it's easy to forget about innovation.

    Since games are so short these days, people go through them faster. Thus they go to the retailers what sell used games.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.