Slashdot Mirror
Why Game Developers Should Shut Up About Used Games
Ssquared22 writes "It may feel like a rip-off to some, but you've got to admit that paying $30 for Gears of War 2 sure beats paying $60! Game publishers and developers may not like it, but people are going to trade in used games for new games and those old games will be sold back to other people. There's nothing game developers can do to stop them, and companies like Gamestop continue to laugh all the way to the bank. In an article at Crispy Gamer, David Thomas dissects one of the most critical issues in gaming today: used games and merchants (online and brick-and-mortar) who specialize in this 'sleight of hand.'"
Let's say I buy $GAME second hand for $30. Perhaps I'll like it enough to buy the sequel $GAME_2 new, full price, when it comes out and not wait.
There's nothing stopping major game publishers from creating their own chain of used game stores, and contracting (or just buy a majority share in) gamestop to manage them for the publishers. This seems like a pretty easy fix.
moox. for a new generation.
Sony was going to have each game be locked to a single PS3 thus preventing the resale of the game.
Sony decided against it when the fans made a stink.
Lets not say that its "impossible" to stop the selling of used games. Its quite possible and they will do it when they feel they have to.
Unless I'm missing something, it seems the OP is missing something... game publishers don't care if a certain new game is paid for with a certain old game. They still get paid full price for the new game.
Sure, the publishers theoretically miss out on selling these old games to new people (b/c of the trade in), but it's been like that for some time - I would hope they'd be over it by now. This quick aging of titles is what contributes to such a fast development cycle on games, and is what pushes progress forward. Yeah, it's hard work for the publishers, but it doesn't push down their sales, or profit, on the new titles they create.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
Game companies should progressively lower prices of their games as time passes. This would eat up the used game market.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
because they more affordable product to sell. This means more exposure for the new game because they can place them together leading to hopefully sales of the sequels
Because I haven't found a big box retailer who has near the selection as local game shops.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
does Gamestop sell Battletoads 2?
Honestly, the argument against being able to buy used games is not one I understand. It's no different than buying a used car and as soon as someone suggested there be sanctions against reselling cars, there would be a public outcry. In both instances you can buy the brand new item for full retail price - or wait a while and get it in slightly worse condition and maybe not with all the extras that originally came with the item. In both cases the reseller (we'll say Gamestop and your local car dealership) make a profit over what they bought the used item for. In both cases the customer is paying more than they otherwise would if they bought it directly from the person selling it to the reseller. And in both cases you're dealing with shady, underhanded people.
Paying NOTHING for something that would cost $50 is a much more rewarding feeling.
It is a simple case of seller's remorse. They lure you to the table with the advertising that you are buying a product. A physical good you can re-use, re-cycle, trade, sell, etc. And they make you pay a premium price for that product.
Then they whine that you are trading, re-using, selling and undermining their sales. What they really wanted was for you to pay a product price ($60) for a license.
It's pretty clear that the free market (blockbuster) has established the value of a license at $3-$5 per week. But I don't think the game studios would be happy if they sold ten million physical copies on launch day for $5 a pop either.
These opinions guaranteed or your money back.
Anyone who describes selling used anything this way is clearly so out of touch with reality that their opinion on the subject isn't worth listening to.
The primary reason that game developers (and marketers) should shut up about used games? It's not because it may act as advertising for their future games, although that's a valid economic argument. It's because if you buy something, you own it, and it is yours to do with as you wish. Don't talk about "selling" people games if you're not willing to, you know, sell them. Rent them out, whatever. But when you agree to have your products on store shelves (store, not rental facility) or listed as "for sale" in online catalogs, you are giving up the right to control what people do with the physical media after they buy them. Period. End of story. Game over, man, game over.
Movie studios, music labels, book publishers: you too.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation of game consoles are download (non-transferable) game licenses only. Sound crazy? They are already phasing this in slowly with so much pay-for DLC content.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Maybe they should spend less time crying and more time innovating. Nintendo with Wii-ware (sp?) and Valve with STEAM seemed to have figured out a decent solution. Physical game media is no different than CD's. Just a matter of time before they are relics of the past.
It's idiotic to say game developers can't do anything about used games. There's plenty they can do.
Blizzard has some great strategies for making their games virtually unsellable: Make the multiplayer a central feature, then make it so the one and only key will be deactivated if multiple copies are detected, or make the whole game multiplayer.
Valve's steam, despite my love for it(There are no game stores where I live so being able to play a game without spending 16 hours driving to the city and back is very nice), completely eliminates the ability of users to sell games. The various console DLC providers, as well as windows live games do similar things.
Forget simple economics, this story has problems with simple logic and empirical data.
It's been a long time.
Personally I think there needs to be a better distribution network for games. Steam for example is great at what it does on the PC side. I can grab a game when it comes out right away, but odds are if I wait 2 weekends it'll be on sale. Or I can wait 6 months and it's lumped together with a few other games in a bundle pack. 90% of what I've bought on steam has come in a bundle pack that averaged out to less then $10 a game. If they had a system this slick for the console market I wouldn't need to buy used games.
But we need to be vigilant and make sure we get out and ACTUALLY VOTE for politicians who will keep it that way!
Rules out voting for most Democrats, then. Senator Disney - Fritz Hollings, is the biggest threat - and he's a Democrat.
I'm pretty sure that locks the game down to my steam account so there's no way I could trade it in or sell it.
I'm on the fence about it really. On one hand I'm not sure I like not being able to resell the game like I would [Insert Car Analogy] but on the other hand there are benefits as far as ease of updating or installing on other machines. Certainly better than locking down to the hardware. While I don't fault the companies for trying to find a way to force consumers to buy new products straight from them (every company would love to do this) I don't think they have any right to complain about people reselling property they legally own.
Developers and publishers are under the, mistaken, impression that they're missing out on huge revenue stream through used games. Let's assume that I buy a game for $60. Once I'm done with it, I sell it, either through Gamestop or Amazon for about $20 net. They take a $10 commission and sell it to someone else for $30. In this scenario developers seem to think that they've missed out on a single $60 from the person who bought it at $30 used, but that just isn't the case.
First of all, the person who waited for a used copy at $30 isn't going to spend $60 in the absence of a used copy. They're going to wait until the new copies are about $30 and buy it then. Giving them fewer choices of how to spend their money does not magically give them more money to spend. Also, the person who bought the game at $60, didn't just buy a game. They bought a game that they knew they could sell for ~$20. By stripping out the ability to resell the game you lower the value of the game to the initial buyer as well. So without the used option, the developer doesn't get two $60 sales, they get one $40 sale and one $30 sale. But they have to pay for all the production, shipping, packing, etc... costs for a second copy of the game as well. So at the end of the day the net gain is more or less zero.
"It may feel like a rip-off to some, but you've got to admit that paying $30 for a used IKEA couch sure beats paying $60! Couch manufactures and craftsmnet may not like it, but people are going to buy new couches and those old couches will be sold back to other people. There's nothing couch manufactures can do to stop them, and people who hold garage sales or use craig's list continue to laugh all the way to the bank. In an article at Cheap Buys, Dave Thomas, eating Wendy's burgers from the grave, dissects one of the most critical issues in furniture today: used furniture merchants (online and brick-and-mortar) who specialize in this 'age old practice of selling used items.'"
What does any of that have to do with the user once the software has left the developer's hands?
Copyright law allows people who own books, movies, music, or video games to sell them.
It's been a long time.
On one hand, they want to act like "the thing" is the media upon which the games are distributed. This is why they don't want to replace media that has been damaged at any reasonable cost. On the other hand, they want to act like "the thing" is also the software license and not the media itself and so they want to deny the license to resell the media by asserting that users are not allowed to transfer the license to use the software and data within.
You can't have it both ways. If the media is the thing, then they don't need to replace my damaged disks for a reasonable fee but they can't prevent me from selling them either. If the software/data contained is the thing, then they should offer media replacement services at a reasonable cost FOREVER or at least offer a means to back up the data and to play the backup copies. (They should not be allowed to back out of this by saying a game is discontinued and replacement copies are no longer available... they can just print more! And any company that buys the original company and copyrights to the software/data should ALSO be required under the same licensing agreement...) and then they can disallow the right to resell the media.
At the moment, the paradigm appears to be in favor of the media being "the thing" as the behavior of the game publishers and the console makers seem to bear this out. (That is to say, no backup copies are playable and no replacement guarantees are available.) And since the media is the thing, they can't restrict what I do with it and damn the DMCA as it is an unjust law and I will violate it every time it gets in the way of my fair use.
Digital distinution, like Steam makes it already impossible to resell your used games. I guess you could sell your whole account, but no one that I know of is doing that. Steam has shown that this can be wildly successful, and the myriad of competitors (Direct2Drive, etc.) that have sprung up indicate huge momentum in this direction.
As we move towards digital, and not physical methods of owning our content this is only natural. Take music, in the past I could sell a CD when I got bored of it. Now that's impossible, I either buy it from iTunes and am unable to sell it in the future, or I just pirate it for free. The second one is much more popular. Game companies trying to alienate people that actually buy their product are just setting themselves up for future piracy.
A Magic the Gathering Article and Forum Aggregator
can you imagine just how much money companies like Atari, Sega and Nintendo would be if this sort of thing were getting started in video games?
If the publishers (and back then, the console manufacturer was the publisher) all got a cut of the profits each time the game was resold? They'd all be swamped with the income from eBay alone!
Of course, we must also consider the opposite side of the scale - if by law, the publishers always had to have a cut of the money when the game was resold, then I suspect there would have been a lot less places willing to specialise in games, or at least accept used ones. It would become virtually impossible to discover games from previous generations.
Game developers don't have to develop games. If they don't like the conditions they could get another job. Federal law says that game companies can demand their worker drones put up with these conditions - if you want to make a change here, fix the employment laws, but don't tell game buyers to "shut up" ;)
The law? I AM THE LAW!
Er...yeah. Hey, wanna go get a burger and a pint? No? Ok, I'll get me coat.
Sent from your iPad.
the same has been true of used books for some 10 generations. But the digital world will soon make that a thing of the past. Then once only digital books are available they will be printed in ASCII, no in Rich Text, no in PDF, no .docx no Kendel reader no....in a standard that will LAST for another 10 generations! or not...
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
What does any of that have to do with the user once the software has left the developer's hands?
You did read the title of the post, right? It says "game developers should shut up". They won't, because the law says they can do it and it's a revenue stream. Nevermind the logistics, the social impact, or anything else -- it's legal. All the complaining and finger-pointing in the world won't change the fact that as long as a corporation CAN legally do it, they will, because the marginal cost of doing so will almost always be outweighed by the net return when your product is an intangible (a video game).
Game developers aren't the problem; The law is.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
If the game does not have any replayability and can be
completed in 20 hours, why would I pay $60 for it
instead of $30? And if I pay $60 for the game what would
be my incentive of not selling the game to someone else
and get at least some of my money back?
In what world is Gears of War 2 sixty dollars? IT IS NOT $60 NEW. Also, at least where I live, GameStop prices their $60 games at about $55 if they're used. I did not RTFA so maybe I missed something?
You can't "sell" just one digital copy of anything, since each digital copy can be reproduced AND distributed at essentially zero cost to anyone. The concept of buying and selling goods applies only to tangible goods with a fixed lifespan. How can you "sell" just one digital copy of something and have it retain a tangible quality? You can't. The idea that a used game can sell for anything says that the economy is strong. If piracy really applied to digital media, then there would be no used market whatsoever. Furthermore, the tangible item (a disc) is exactly why game makers shy away from digital distribution -- DD removes the only tangible good they are selling and destroys the ability to control any of the distro rights (i.e. the main income stream).
stuff |
I can't stand places like gamestop. $60 game (brand new). They buy it back for $10 to $15. They resell it at $55. No wonder they are laughing all the way to the bank - they are ripping off their consumers.
Craigslist/Ebay and other similar sites is the way to buy used games.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
>people are going to trade in used games for new games and those old games will be sold back to other people. There's nothing game developers can do to stop them...
Exactly! Nothing they can do at all! They should just stop complaining about it and move on.
On a completely unrelated note, can someone please post instructions on how I can resell the games I've downloaded for my Wii and Xbox 360? Also, I've got some downloaded books for my Kindle that I'm tired of and want to sell. I know I can do these things because, like the summary says, there's nothing the publishers can do to stop it. Thanks in advance!
EA themselves used to release "Classic" versions of their games for around $20. What happened?
If they had any brains at all, they could cut off the used market rather quickly. Just sell the games for cheaper and cheaper amounts, online or otherwise. In other words, let the market function properly.
If their new games were priced lower than used games at GameStop, how many people would buy used?
It reminds me of the Canadian Government complaining about a black market in cigarettes forming because they jacked the taxes up. There was more incentive to buy black market cigarettes than retail, because it was just so much cheaper. They created the black market by ignoring the demand.
Publishers, stop ignoring the demands of the market, and you will make more profit. Is it that hard to understand?
The entities complaining that used game sales are costing them money need to do the same thing as all whiners - face the reality, and do something that actually has a shot of working.
Enough with this trying to cherry-pick the characteristics of physical and non-physical products that suit your current business model the best.
In the case of used game sales, they simply need to get in on the action. Forget resale of discs; that's a lost cause. In the near future, even where those items still exist, they'll be linked to an account anyway.
They need to get in on resale of digital purchases. Say I'm done with a game I bought on Steam. I put my "copy" of the game up for sale, for some percentage of the current "new" price. Some other user decides to buy it, and pays that price. I get a substantial chunk of it in credit - at least half. The rest gets split between the publisher and Steam. The publisher and the developer can then work out what they do with that bit.
Mind you, eventually I'd like to see an end to paying for individual games at all. Instead, I pay a monthly subscription, and play whatever games I want. In turn, the developers for those games get a percentage of my subscription fee, based on how much I (and other subscribers) play their game.
I like being able to sell my older games and get my money back. It could be weeks, months, or even years but it does not matter because I owned the game to begin with. The game industry continues to complain about this while I am still able to buy and sell used books, cars, dvds, and anything else that can be listed on Craigslist or eBay.
By taking that buying and selling power away, it gives much more power to the publishers and less as an actual consumer who paid their own money for something.
As a gamer who almost never plays single player story games more than once trading in is a HUGH savings to me since I will only play the title once it just gathers dust otherwise.
Purchase new title at full price $60
Finish the title in two weeks - one month
Trade it in at high value (still new and popular) get $40
Purchase another title that was used for $50
Total cost for two single player experiences $70
If game developers had their way it would cost me $120 for the same single play through experiences.
For REALLY short single player games renting is even better.
EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
I hear GM, Chrysler and Ford are making the same complaint -- that the used car market is eating up their profits.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Anyone who buys used games from Gamestop and their ilk is a sap. Anyone who believes they're sticking it to developers and publishers by doing so is an even bigger sap. Used games from these retailers is one of the biggest sucker deals I've seen in years, $5 to $10 off games with battered, dirty cases, missing instruction manuals and worn, scratched discs. Even more ridiculous is how little they offer customers for used games.
I can't count the times I've seen used games at Gamestop going for more than a new copy at Target. If you're a truly discerning shopper concerned with saving money you'd go online where the best deals, by far, can be had. I don't think waiting a couple of days for delivery is going to kill anyone.
This is not to say I have some kind of problem with used games. Not at all. But if you're buying used games for a deal, which I presume most people are, then you should be shopping on eBay because that's one of the few days to find a good deal. And even better option is to just the game.
But the fact is that there are such good deals to be had online that there's virtually no good reason to buy a used game. Even new games can be had for about $5 off, at least, which is how much Gamestop is charging for the same game used. The way I see it, if a person is so impatient that they have to have a game immediately then they really aren't all that serious about saving money. If I don't think a new game is worth $60 then I don't buy it. I wait until prices have dropped.
The only people being screwed by used game sales are the consumers themselves but only because they allow themselves to be screwed. I remember as a kid collecting a bunch of old Atari 2600 games we had laying around and taking them to various pawn shops to make a few bucks to that in turn I could buy some Sega Master System games. I went from shop to shop trying to find a good deal, but in the end I gave up a decent number of good Atari games to end up with a single, average SMS game. Live and learn.
So let me get this straight -- you're trying to tell game developers they don't deserve the money they're lawfully entitled to?
They're not lawfully entitled to used-game sales. Once they've received the check for the games they sell to retailers, their deal is done. They got their money. The game DVD is no longer property of $Game_Developer. That property was sold. The developer still has the rights to print the game, and make more copies, but they don't have the right to harvest cash after they've already received full compensation for the property.
Second, if they charged less, the games would suck badly enough that they'd no longer be worth even a slashdot post lamenting the lack of availability.
How much mercury did you drink before you started believing this? Until developers have access to time machines, retail price of a game will NOT affect the development process. NBA Jam for the Genesis sold for $100 retail. Shenmue had a budget of $70M and turned out mediocre. Too Human had a budget of about $100M, and was received even worse. You said yourself that price is not indicative of value, but it's an indication of what the game developer feels they "deserve" for their contributions to a superfluous entertainment industry.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
If you want to make a change here, fix the copyright laws, but don't tell game developers to "shut up", because they're the ones pulling doubles every day for months at a go, foregoing the comforts of a significant other, basic hygiene, and possibly their sanity--simply because that's what they love doing and don't mind being underpaid for it.
All I can say is...suckers!
Because it would be just your luck that they'd do exactly that, and then you'd be forced to do something other than masturbating to your level 80 elf huntress.
Fine with me. There are enough good games out there already that I could probably play for the next 25 years or more and not get bored. I also have other hobbies. If developers want to alienate people like me (late 20's/early 30's, married, good income) by taking away our ability to resell or take a game over to a friend's house, they can go ahead. I promise it will hurt them a lot worse than it hurts us.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
There's something that game developers don't seem to understand:
Let's say for the sake of argument that there are 100 copies of said game sold for $60/copy. Those 100 copies get sold for $6,000 total. Of those 100 copies, 50 get sold in the used games market for $30. Let's suppose further that there's no Gamespot and buy and sell price is the same. Thus, $1,500 was made in the used games market.
Now, let's suppose that the game developers suddenly come up with some foolproof DRM to tie the game to the specific console it's played on, but still sell the game for $60 a pop. What do you think will happen?
Well, it's fair to say that anywhere between 40 to 50 of those initial 100 copies don't get sold. In fact, I'd say it's closer to 50, since I'm sure that those buyers would refuse to pay $60 for the game knowing that they won't be able to recoup $30 of it. Given the realities of free market economics, this will drive down the price of the games to, say, $45. This would bring in 25 buyers who would otherwise buy used games.
I know I'm making up the numbers from the top of my head, but the idea is to illustrate a point: There's no way they can force used game buyers to pay the existing full price for a new game unless it's one of the best games of all time, and even then it probably won't work.
The game developers' notions of opportunity cost are fictitious.
This space left intentionally blank.
Let's say Santa Claus is real and brings me the game that he had his elves construct in his workshop. Then no one gets any money at all, but are you really against Santa Claus?
DRM and Downloadable games dance all the way back!
Did you read the rest of the title of the post?
"Why Game Developers Should Shut Up About Used Games".
I have trouble working out what you're refuting. You seem to be arguing that game developers can charge what they like for a game, which is a fair point but not one that anyone actually disagreed with.
You seem to be completely failing to agree or disagree with the point about used games.
Its silly for the game companies to concern themselves with this. Buyers at all points in the market are more likely to buy/pay a higher price since they can have confidence that their investment will retain value due to a healthy secondary market. GM discovered this more than half a century ago when Harley Earl et. al. invented the annual model change.
If anything, they should, as some suggest above, get into the used game market themselves.
-- My apologies if the above facts contain any opinions, or vice versa! --
So let me get this straight -- you're trying to tell game developers they don't deserve the money they're lawfully entitled to?
Game developers are lawfully entitled to money from second hand sales? Which law is that?
First, federal law says they can charge whatever they want, and they've got the rights to the work for the life of the developer plus a couple hundred years after that.
You know what else Federal law says?
"Copy" in this case refers to any medium that is not a phonorecord. So this applies to computer programs.
If you want to make a change here, fix the copyright laws, but don't tell game developers to "shut up"
Are you misunderstanding something here? At least when it comes to First Sale, copyright law is fine. It's perfectly fair to tell game developers to shut up when they're whining about perfectly legal activity.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I'd like to see the sales figures of games that have been out for awhile vs. games that have just been released. I could be wrong but I have a feeling on most games sales drop off fast. I wouldn't worry about used games because it keeps people busy creating new games.
Shenmue had a budget of $70M and turned out mediocre
Hey now, Shenmue was fucking awesome.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Only somewhat of a point though. I agree with pretty much everyone here that people should have the right to sell their sued games (as long as they do not try to play the game after selling it). And naturally other people should have a right to buy them.
But I agree that Gamestop is going over the line here. They do not merely sell used games they freaking push used games to the exclusion of anything else. So imagine you are game developer -- your main retail outlet is not even trying to sell your product (new games) but is instead using your product as a draw for customers so that they can sell them older, battered, dirty and maybe malfunctioning versions of your product that you make no money out of.
This of course results in two things (i) developers make less money and (ii) customers get pissed off at developers as they curse at the missing manuals, scratched CDs etc. of the used game they bought.
So here gamestop is acting like the classic monopolist. After becoming more or less the only specialty game seller and thus capturing the market they are trying hard to fuck over both their suppliers (the developers) and their customers. And believe me, their customers are getting screwed too considering the price the used games are sold for in game stop (especially compared to the price game stop buys these games for).
But this is ultimately the developers' fault. They should have never let game stop become the only chain. They should have made it clear to them that if they get too large, their wholesale prices will rise in comparison with independent shops and smaller chains. This is the same idiocy that resulted in other giants, such as walmart, etc. A smart producer knows that they have to keep their supply chain healthy and diverse, otherwise their suppliers will strangle them.
as if big game corporations couldn't get their fingers in enough cash....
Maybe the game publishers should start including a netflix style envelope with their games. When you're done with the game, send the disc back for a $15-20 discount on a new title. The discount would need to be more than the gamestops are willing to pay to compensate for the lack of instant gratification you get from trading games in at gamestop and for the fact that you'd be limited to selecting a game from the publisher's catalog. However, I do think that the company would win in the long run by getting used copies of their games off the shelves.
We willna be fooled again!
There is only so much money that is available. By allowing trade in second hand games people who can't afford to buy the full price are contributing something to the games market without devaluing the actual full price. Allowing people to trade games in towards new ones keeps new product coming into the market just like with trading in cars for example. Sure, a game may not degrade the way that a car does but in reality a cutting edge game when new looks a lot less good a few years on. Take GTAIII for instance. Massive hit but would you buy it today?
If the game companies do switch to digital distribution they will have to lower their prices or accept that there will be less money coming into their business, not more. Imagine if people couldn't sell their old car to contribute to a new one. Far fewer new cars would be sold. Same goes for games and other forms of entertainment like movies, books, music and so on.
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
I used to have all the systems and buy everything new when I was younger and had the 'rents to buy me stuff. I soon came to my senses however and I currently only play new games on my PC and a Wii. I only buy AAA Nintendo titles (Mario, Link, and Metroid type games) for the Wii, and I pirate everything on the PC except the occasional game that you would want to play multiplayer on. (I have just been burned WAY too many times by companies doing shitty port jobs, and just mangaling what should be great games when they release them on PC.
I also sell my old games that I don't want anymore, but I sure as hell don't take them to a gamestop or any similar store. That shit is stupid, its a total rip off. What I do and I don't know why more people dont is when I am done with a game I simply sell it on Amazon. You can get more for your money, help out fellow cheap-ass gamers, and cut out the middleman and annoying trip to the mall. It was my understanding that this is the behavior the game companies wanted to stop. The selling from one consumer to another of second hand titles. There is no profit for anyone in that scenario except for Amazon and eBay type sites. If they don't want consumers selling their old games to help pay for new ones, they sure as hell better lower the prices of those games and stop with the whole anti-piracy treat everyone like crooks bs they have been doing.
So far Steam is the best example I can point to as a model for the rest of the gaming industry. Affordable prices and convenience make up for the fact that you cannot resell the titles for some people anyway.
I got Quake4 at Amazon for 20 euros a couple of years ago.
Actually after playing the torrented version to the end. Decided i liked it and so i bought it.
Well, very much the same thing i already did with Doom1 (except there werent any torrents back then).
Game Developers expected all kinds of royalties to be paid. Do they expect Used Games to be sold as new? Doesn't make sense.
What also doesn't make sense is; a car and a game are nothing a like. Sure you can buy a brand new car/game but you can't wait and buy a degraded version of a game(only a car.)
A Video Game doesn't degrade, I mean sure it can if the disc is left outside for 3 weeks. But really, if you buy a game, used or new. They're pretty identical. Minus maybe a manual and original box/case. But who cares?
Point being, Game Developers need to kiss ass and be glad people still buy their 3-4 year old game. In some cases more than 5.
So why should they shut up?
They can complain all they want, and it might even dissuade people from buying used games.
In fact, the tech generation now explicitly considers how the creators will make money when deciding to purchase something or not. I bought MC Frontalot albums because I figured the artist would get the majority of the cash compared to buying an Eminem album, for example.
It's been a long time.
Eight hours from the nearest city? Where could this be?
Game developers don't complain about used games. Game publishers do. That's like confusing a musician, with an RIAA lawyer.
But I agree that Gamestop is going over the line here. They do not merely sell used games they freaking push used games to the exclusion of anything else. So imagine you are game developer -- your main retail outlet is not even trying to sell your product (new games) but is instead using your product as a draw for customers so that they can sell them older, battered, dirty and maybe malfunctioning versions of your product that you make no money out of.
You might as well throw craiglists and ebay in there as well because they support the sale of used stuff. Imagine the sales the lawn mower industry is losing because people are buying used mowers. Detroit might not need a bailout of we forbid the sale of used vehicles and force everyone to go to the dealer for car work. I say screw the game developers if they don't like it, it is the nature of the business, they do not have any expectation or right to assume they should get to sell a fresh copy for everyone that wants it. Find something else to do for a living if you don't like it.
If you are a game publisher, don't offer new games to Gamestop then. Oh wait, then that guarantees people will going in there will be buying a used one then huh. Damn, that sucks for them. What is going to happen is publishers are going to make the games hard to sell, maybe something like Steam or you buy the right to download the game, not the actual game. That is not very consumer friendly either.
I can't speak personally about Gamestop because I'm not in the US, but over here in the UK, the main games store is "Game" with a few other smaller chains of CD/game/DVD exchange stores.
I only really buy PC Games (we have a Wii also but the missus just uses it for Wii fit and we drag it for the occasional party game with friends) which are different to console games in that they tend to come down in price a lot quicker and "last longer" due to the fact that for most of them you can download mods and other community-created stuff that extend their playing lives anyway.
But it does amaze me that, in general for console games, the difference between the new and used prices never seems to be very much, and I would be interested how much these exchange shops pay for used games compared to what they sell them for - I guess the margin is at least 100%.
However, I think the reason the used game stores can capitalise on this is because the majority of console gamers are youngsters in the "must have it now" generation; otherwise, they'd take the time to go buy their games invariably a lot cheaper online, or just wait a few months until the actual retail price drops.
These stores are just taking advantage of an opportunity - if (like me most of the time) you don't like their prices then don't pay them; on the other hand, a kid who has to pay for his games out his pocket money probably welcomes the opportunity to sell a game he's finished so as to put some money towards his next purchase.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
1) What would a game cost today if the cost of a game were to rise with inflation?
2) What does it cost to make a game today vs. the cost of making a game in the past?
3) What if the used market also went up with inflation?
4) For the price you actually pay today for the game and the cost of making the game the consumer is getting a great bargain.
5) What does it cost for 1 person to go to the movies a few times a month compared to a game?
6) What does it cost to fill your gas tank in your car?
It takes time, money, and labor to develop and distribute games. It takes more of this than it did in the past, yet the cost of the game has been fairly stagnant. How is the game developer supposed to make up this cost?
90% of the publishers treat their customers with hostility (with CD checks, rootkits, etc). I refuse to pay people who treat me like shit.
I like that question. Insightful.
I tend to try games out before I buy them. Most of the time, I play it two or three times and decide I don't like it. I never play it again. So yeah, I just pirate them.
If I like the game (and it runs on my PC) and I'm going to keep playing it - I want to buy it. So, for example, last week I decided to download GTA IV to see if it was any good. It sucked balls. I read about it, and it was so bad at release that they actually gave customers their money back. It's was a giant, steaming, pile.
I'm glad I didn't buy it.
After that, I tried GTA III - San Andreas. And I love it. It's a good game. I want to support the company that made it. If I buy the game used, off e-bay or at some game-trading store; does any of that money get back to the company? It sounds like it doesn't. Once a game isn't on the shelf at Best Buy or Walmart - how can I buy it and support the company?
I saw a direct download website that was selling the game. I figured that'd be the best way to go?
Certainly there is something publishers can do to kill the used-game market: download-only consoles. Without an object to give to the store (like a cartridge or disc) you have no way to sell your old games, and if you can't sell them, other people can't buy them. That's how you kill a market.
The PSP GO is the first step. If the market tolerates it, there will be more. The answer is simple: don't tolerate it, and persuade as many other people not to tolerate it as you can.
Well, the develops could exclusively release the game for the PC where they can implement draconian DRM that pisses everyone off...that seems like a good solution...they could probably even do that on the consoles if they wanted to alienate customers the way PC customers are alienated by phone-home DRM...so I guess the problem is the same...so nevermind.
I guess PC is only better for developers because there arn't as many resources for buying/selling used games as there is for console. Its just that pirating is so much easier. So I guess that point is moot too.
I guess I would choose the console market after wall given that used games sales is the "lesser evil" compared to pirating.
Oh well...So developers I say: choose your poison! But you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
is instead using your product as a draw for customers so that they can sell them older, battered, dirty and maybe malfunctioning versions of your product that you make no money out of.
That is FUD. They offer a 100% replacement warranty if a used game does not work and some places will give 100% credit for a few days on a different used game.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Alice has $90.
Bob has $30.
No used:
Alice buys Gears of War.
Money given to studios - $60
With used:
Alice buys Gears of War.
Alice sells GoW to Bob.
Alice buys GoW2
Money given to studios - $120
Used stores allow people who don't have enough to buy games new or don't want to buy games new to funnel their money to those who do.
Additionally it exposes more people to games sowing the seeds for future full price purchases when their spending habits and/or income changes.
I find being offended by me offensive.
http://xkcd.com/606/
"The cake is a lie!"
I bought a PS2 around 6 months ago - now I have almost 30 games, purchased for $5-$20. that's as much as I'm willing to pay. If they used game market goes away, I go from propping up game stores with my used game purchases to download+mod chip.
Considering they sell game systems at a loss, I'm not sure they want to push me that way. Because I'm the tech guy among my friends and if I go around spreading the mod chip gospel it's not just me going to update. Sure that's illegal, but I'm willing to do the civil disobedience bit to make sure I can use a game system however I want, including putting in a mod chip so I can program it myself. The downloads haven't happened yet so no use arguing with me about that part.
Civ IV Complete is $40 and Includes CIV4 + Warlords + BTS + Civ4:Colonization
...I'm not bothered at all by the existence of a used games market - I buy used games myself, otherwise I'll typically wait for the 'greatest hits' version to come out at $30. I'm married with kids now and I just can't afford to play the latest and the greatest games at full $60 retail.
What I DO have a problem with is that the market for used games is so grossly inefficient that the *ssholes at GameStop and EB are raking in so much money on it! Buy a used game from a kid at $5, resell it to his friend for $55 - WTF?! That's a damn good racket if you can find it. While I'm ambivalent about digital game distribution in general, thinking about putting sleazy retailers like GameStop would be nice...
Let's say Santa Claus is real...
Are you saying he's not?
Then no one gets any money at all, but are you really against Santa Claus?
Just what kind of twisted person are you?
I have often wondered about the wisdom of corporate and legal endorsement of the copyright, trademark, and patent infringement being perpetrated at the north pole. It seems to me that the public approval of one pirate provides the fundamental incentive for others to emulate him.
"The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
Game companies should progressively lower prices
They actually do, with their re-releasing of hit titles for about half price. This actually started partly to curb the used game market.
But why isn't anyone asking why games are so expensive in the first place? If supply and demand are suppose to govern the market price, then where there is unlimited supply, there should be aggressive price competition to lure in business. Yet, with games (and music), you find indifference.
I thought this was called price fixing and was illegal.
Retail game prices are fixed, and so are used game prices at most retail stores. If you are looking for new titles, always buy from eBay.
eBay is the only place where real economics is at work, when it comes to the game market.
Anywhere else, you are dealing with dark forces influencing the prices.
Just make sure you buy from someone with 100+ feedback, and always pay by credit card.
Transfer of license is neither illegal nor criminal. What IS criminal and SHOULD be illegal is trying to make it so.
The root of the problem with reselling has never been the company doing the reselling - it's the pricing of the product that allows, and even encourages the purchase and sale of used products.
A new game will set the consumer back on average $60-$70, regardless of whether it is single player, multiplayer, or moddable and any combination of these two. Why do we pay the same price for a single player game as we do for one with technically unlimited gameplay? Or for one with multiplayer that allows potentially unlimited permutations of unlimited gameplay?
Feature-based pricing with a far lower base rate would benefit everyone. Even just lowering the standard price on games to around $40 flat would allow them to -almost- be impulse buys, would easily cover packaging and shipping, and still allow a healthy profit margin that would encourage greater sales. If packaging is really that huge a concern, why not take efforts to reduce cost of packaging, like the smaller format boxes we saw appear recently, reduction of included inserts in favor of digital documentation (I read the manual, but how many of you do? I'd give it up gladly for a drop in price), or maybe even (yes, go ahead and groan) included advertising inserts to generate revenue to counter it?
$40 also gives a whole lot less "wiggle room" to the used game market, and resellers would be making $10-$30 less profit per title at the new release stage. The temptation to wait for a title to drop in price or hit the used game store's shelves at a lower price would likewise lessen greatly at a more accessible price point. Length of time before a significant price drop would, likewise, increase which would encourage further sales at the initial release price. Even so - only twice the cost of a movie for interactive entertainment? Sign me up.
It would, however, be -more- intelligent to set a standard price at something like $30 and then do feature-based pricing. Cars do it - more seats? Costs more. Convertible? Ditto. More powerful or newer engine? Same deal.
Apply to games: Multiplayer? Costs $10 more. Built-in mod support? Costs $5-10 more. Brand new game engine? Costs a little more.
You'd get a market with varying prices and incentive to make games last longer and be more interesting. It would probably even encourage innovation.
Don't get me wrong - I actually want the developers to get -more- money to better support the industry. I just think that charging more and netting less first-purchase sales is the wrong approach, and restrictive DRM is a draconian approach that avoids addressing the real problem.
What they REALLY want, is to both sell you product, with all the copy protections that can be associated with it, and then ALSO, license it, so that they can control how you use it and resell it too...
I.e. they want to have their cake and EAT it too!
They want to BOTH sell AND license a product AT THE SAME TIME.
OF course, the above should be TOTALLY illegal, since the laws governing both are separate and distinct, though copyright law CAN apply to both, but only in certain ways for either.
For instance, if I buy a license for the information (that just so happens to be distributed on the disc), then a) the disk itself means nothing - (since I've licensed the information directly) - b) I HAVE to be able to make back-up copies, since it's my DUTY to keep working copies available for the license agreement, and c) there has to be a recorded agreement between the actual licensee and licensor. If any of the above isn't true, then it's NOT licensed, and probably illegal.
However, if I buy a product, then, yes, they can stop me from copying the information on it, but they have no right to control what I may do with the product itself, including reselling it etc..
The problem is that they're literally getting away with both...
'Stupidity is an often fatal disease' - R. A. Heinlein
Hey, why cant we buy & sell games? They have always compared intelectual property with material stuff. So If I can buy a new BMW and sell it for half the price 3 or 4 year later (like US$20-30 thousand dollars less) Why cant I sell my 70 dollars game for 30, after 3 months, or maybe a week if I just dont like the game. If they dont want us to sell the game, maybe they should improve replayability.
Besides, Music stores used to do the same with music so, whats the difference with games?
I buy the game, I own the game, so I can sell it to whoever and at the price I want.
I seem to remember the music industry being not to keen on used record and tape sales a few years back.
The older I get the more I realize that the rest of you humans are just spinning in silly little circles.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
They should be able to buy the games back themselves, destroy them, and only sell used. Since they're going to get the new cost for every game they buy back, they should be able to outbid Gamestop and others who have to sell the game used.
Wait, you say, Gamestop is taking a risk that nobody will buy the game that they have bought used. Well, that's the way of the world, rewards might go to those that take risk.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
The only problem I see here is that me and my friends will whoop your ass at L4D because you don't know the maps the way we do since we've been playing from November. Sure you'll be fine against a group of no-mics, but me and my 3 friends will beat you and your 3 friends, hands down, every time, for the next few months... It's the same reason I wouldn't get into WoW now...I don't know what any of the shit does or how to effectively use it...
I guess I'm repeating the same mantra over and over again when saying that a game worth playing and keeping won't make its way to Gamestop's shelves. However, I have two concrete examples: Operation Flashpoint and its successor Armed Assault.
OFP with its expansions had a total of three campaigns. Towards the end I found the missions repetitive. Luckily Bohemia had one ace up their sleeve: their creation was almost endlessly moddable despite some shortcomings. Nobody in the community would have sold his disks because skilled modders had created thousands of single addons and dozens of total conversions and were pushing out new stuff years after the initial release.
ArmA was basically an updated version of OFP with a poor campaign. Still people didn't sell their disks because they already knew the possibilities the game would offer.
Like there are any.
The Demopublican Party in the US is owned by its largest contributors, not the voters. Both wings of the party are, therefore, fully invested in "preserving intellectual property rights".
Since, unlike places where your vote might count (Germany, for instance, with proportional representation in the Bundestag), the Demopublican Party has managed to set up gerrymandered districts across the US to be sure that no new party can obtain a significant presence in any legislature, nor can enough independent legislators be elected to have significant input to the process.
Good sir your argument is moving and I may stea^H^H^H^Hborrow it at a later date yet to be determined.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
Situation: Used games are selling like hotcakes; new games, not so much.
Publishers' Problem: Publishers want people to buy expensive, new games and keep them forever to keep them off the secondary market. (*cough*DeBeers*cough*)
Gamers' Problem: New games are expensive, and most AAA titles do not provide long-term interest.
Solution: Eliminate Publisher from the transaction. Steam, Sony and Microsoft figured this out ages ago. As internet connections and digital distribution become more ubiquitous, the consumers will resolve this situation themselves. Prices should be much lower and will make developers and gamers much happier.
I like computers... I make my living fixing them... I thoroughly enjoy video games... But I really hate what digital media has done to the concepts of property and ownership.
Used to be that I'd buy a book, or a record, or a board game, or a deck of cards - and nobody would question for a moment that I owned those things. They were my property. I could do with them whatever I wanted. After I finished reading the book I could donate it to the local library, or hand it off to a friend, or sell it to a used bookstore. If the original author of that book showed up at my garage sale and complained that I was selling his book he would have been laughed at.
These days, however, we don't actually own anything. We've just been given a temporary license to use the thing. And when I'm done playing my video game, or done reading my ebook, or done listening to my MP3, I'm not really able to do much with it. Sure, I can sell a video game to someone else... But the DRM involved is making it hard just to re-install the game on your own computer, much less transfer ownership to someone else.
The worst part isn't that this is happening... Of course a company is going to do everything they can to make money - that's what businesses do. So I don't blame EA or Microsoft or whoever for trying to prevent the selling of used video games. The worst part is that it is being allowed to happen. Nobody is laughing at these guys. Their arguments aren't being rebuffed. They aren't being thrown out of court. These folks are claiming that the $60 I paid for a video game didn't actually buy me a video game, and everyone just kind of shrugs and nods and goes along with it.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
Couldn't agree more. This is just like hint guides and walkthoughs. Originally the game publishers tried to put a stop to it, but realized it was largely futile, so they decided to get in on the action. That was a very good move -- game guides are a goldmine.
Game publishers need to stop whining and instead
Still, as available bandwidth numbers rise, more and more games will be distributed digitally, probably downloaded securely and directly from the publisher into your Wii-Box 3.
When that happens, Gamestop will go out of business. Like Blockbuster's retail stores, Gamestop is a technological dead end.
Don't buy stock.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Don't get me wrong - I actually want the developers to get -more- money to better support the industry.
Bingo! And you're right... I'd rather buy 2 games for $60 than 1. I like the idea of games at Best Buy being "impulse buys". There *is* a big deference between $60 and $30 and game developers aren't seeing it.
With the higher prices, I am forced to only give my money to the game that will provide more long term benefit.
They can totally stop this by requiring online activation that ties the game just purchased to hardware. The activation code would be contained in the packaging and could only be used to activate the product once.
. a game design issue. I wouldn't trade a game if I kept playing it. Games like World Of Warcraft will last you a lifetime.
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
Yeah... Full disclosure, I work for one of those big developer/publishers you all like to rag on.
Think of it this way. We spend twenty to fifty million dollars making a game. We have hundreds of people working on it, for two or three years. They work hard, sometimes ridiculous long hours in order to try and make the game as good as possible. Then a large chunk of the sticker price goes to the retail outlets, and we have to sell literally million of copies of the game (new, at retail, for that $60-70 that you all are too cheap to pay) to even make money on it.
So then players turn around and sell it to GameStop for $15, and GameStop fobs it off on another guy for 5 or 10 dollars cheaper than our price, and GameStop keeps all of that money. The people who worked so hard on it, get nothing.
THAT'S why we complain about used games. It has nothing to do with gamers, or first-sale doctrine, or any of that. It pisses us off that GAMESTOP makes more money for a used sale, than we make off a NEW sale, and only because the paying customers are cheap bastards who would rather reward GAMESTOP for making it $10 cheaper for them, than reward US for all the blood and sweat and effort to make the damn thing in the first place.
This is my personal opinion and not that of my employer, thanks for listening, hope I don't offend anybody too much!
There's nothing game developers can do to stop them
The developer can move to a much tighter integration of on-line and off-line content and services.
He can migrate to a pure subscription or rental model.
You can still sell your disk -
but all you really have to offer is the unregistered shareware demo that expires in three weeks.
The first three episodes of Commander Keen.
Sure, there is; they can stop distributing physical media altogether, and use download-and-activate distribution exclusively. Sure, it can be less convenient for the user (especially if the game needs to "phone home" at launch), but its quite possible for game companies to give you nothing "used" to sell.
OTOH, its not clear to me that game publishers should be worried about used sales at all, sales of used games transfer funds from the price conscious buyers that aren't as concerned with getting the latest and greatest new to the people that want the best now, and thus give more money to the people who are buying new games in the first place. Killing used game sales might just result in the price conscious people only buying the "classic" games that have had their price dropped because they are old, while the people who are willing to pay full freight for new games won't have as much cash to do it, resulting in the game companies taking longer to pay off the development costs of new titles.
I buy games brand new, beat them after a week or two, then trade them in for store credit while they are still worth semi-close to new retail. Then I wait until they are released under the greatest hits type label, or when the used copies are in the 15-20 dollar range. This habit worked out really well for me. I get to play the latest games, but recoup as much as I can by trading it in promptly after release, then pick up the cheap copy a year later and it feels like a new game all over again.
There is NO comparison between a pirated game and a used game.
A used game was bought as a new game legally, and sold to a new owner legally. Its called the doctrine of first sale. It works the same way for games or dvds
If the game company wants to make their $60 xbox 360 games not re-sellable I just wont buy their games.
Sell the games in a way that they cannot be resold.
iTunes did this, and they were good and sneaky about it too. It took me about 100$ of tv shows before it occurred to me that when I was buying the physical DVDs, I was paying 15% more up front, but then selling them on craigslist for 50% of face value, therefore saving money in the end.
I can't resell my iTunes purchases. Heck, I can't even lend them to a friend (without giving them my account or iPod). These both make the medium pretty restrictive -- however, it's convenient and cheap and really convenient. So, I keep buying.
If more vendors move to this model it would help them keep more of their revenue. However, I would hope that they would pass on some savings to consumers. It would only make sense to get them started. $60 in the store, or 45$ on our website.
This seems to be the way some people are moving - with the app store, or steam, as distribution channels.
Huh?
"Portal" is an inexpensive, very fun, innovative game, which received rave reviews from countless people who played it, and won numerous awards. However, "Portal" also a relatively short game. It would certainly not keep you entertained for three whole months, unless you're a very strange duck, indeed.
In your world, "Portal" is "the same old crap," and those shameful developers deserve to have their game resold on the secondary market, simply because it can't keep you entertained for three months.
Replay value is not the only thing that gives a game value. It is only one small part of a bigger picture.
This is rediculous. If any other product said that you can't resell an item they would be laughed at. You know that Lazy-Z boy recliner you bought 8 years ago? No, you can't sell it to anyone. I don't care if they make up a bunch of crud that you don't really own the software - that's just dumb. If they are going to somehow *own* the software after I spend my money on it then they better send me updates and upgrades when my hardware upgrades. As soon as they start fixing all the software I 'leased' in the 80's and 90's then I might think about not reselling it.
Greed is greed - no matter how you label it.
BTW - I write software for a living.
I bought a broken xbox360 (RROD) console off fleabay really cheaply, fixed it up using a heatgun and the Team HYBRID x-clamp fix. I've got about half a dozen games for it now, (e.g. Bioshock, GoW, GoW 2, Assasin, Lego Indiana Jones) ALL of them are pre-owned. I have absolutely no intention of ever buying a new game. Why? They are too expensive, and frankly *not* worth the money new. They need to halve the price of new games before I'll consider buying a new game. Same with the xbox 360. Why waste money a new xbox360 for £170 when it will break after a year, when you can get a broken one off eBay for £35 including postage, fix it in a couple of hours and for minimal cost? I do not have a live gold account, as I have no intention of playing online - why should I pay? To play online with the wii costs nothing.
Best thing about this, Microsoft haven't received a penny off me. So what are they gonna do, try and stop people reselling their poorly designed crappy little consoles? Haha I'd like to see them try... ;)
To game developers out there who may be reading this: LOWER YOUR PRICES. You charge too much. The fact that pre-owned games are selling so well is symptomatic of this, so wise up, what you are seeing is a market correction ;)
-- Fuck Beta
The only time one can complain about used games, especially PC based ones, is when they sell a game which offers no DRM. The ethic is that with a DRM based game, you don't have the original, you can't play your game. So, truly, for those games that are heavily DRMed.. well, it shouldn't be a problem for one to sell his game used. He can't play it.. So, what's the big deal? it's like selling music CDs, etc.. Like anything else, in these days where all is cash strapped, everyone tries to milk as much from the system as they can.
That's why I hate steam. Try yourself to sell a used game that is curently registered in your steam account (like Half Life 2)....
-- dnl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
Any studios arguing that copyright rights prevent sale of a used game are just plain WRONG.
Uh, not quite right homey....from your own link, computer games (also known as COMPUTER SOFTWARE) are a fuzzy legal area:
Computer software
The first-sale doctrine as it relates to computer software is an area of legal confusion. Software publishers claim in their End User License Agreements (EULA) that their software is licensed, not sold, thus the first-sale doctrine does not apply to their works. Courts have contradicted. Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell and Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus are two related U.S. Supreme Court cases.
Basically, he says he likes the way the system works. Therefore, those that don't like the system are screwed. Because its the system.
I was hoping for some more insightful commentary as to why the current system might be more beneficial to those that don't like it than a system that they say they really want.
Nope. I think I can just about always count on slashdot comments to be more insightful than any story on any video game. Scary.
You did read the title of the post, right? It says "game developers should shut up".
Did you read the title of the story. It says "Why Game Developers Should Shut Up About Used Games".
This is not at all about piracy (where you'd have a point). This is about the basic right of first sale. Gladly, there's no law under which authors can forbid resale of copyrighted works (though nothing stops them from trying to prevent this by technological measures; for example, Steam does that).
I really think trying to quash the secondary market for games is going to end up costing them more new sales than used games ever could have. If someone can buy a brand new AAA title and get at least a portion of that money back then they might be willing to take more of a chance on a given game and go ahead and buy it, knowing that if they end up not liking it they can recoup some of their money. Eliminate this "insurance policy" as it were, and gamers are going to be much more fickle when it comes to how they spend their money. It just ends up with people buying fewer and fewer new games than before. Do you really think half the shovelware that gets released would even be bought by one person if gamers were unable to foist such garbage onto some other sucker?
Developers aren't the problem. People keep saying 'developers' in this thread when they mean 'publishers'. Developers write code and debug physics engines, they don't set prices or worry about second tier markets.
You are thinking of CEOs, who are whiny bitches regardless of the industry they are in...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
But if they don't blame the Used game market, they will revert to blaming "piracy."
...and while it may be true that not all big-budget games result in good entertainment experiences, it is certainly true that on the average, over time, the more money available for development the better the game. This is simply incontrovertible.
To the degree that used game sales diminish the revenue of game developers (and they do, despite some of the juvenile attempts business modeling here), overall game quality and variety ultimately suffer. We plow nearly all our profits back into new game development; if the money's not there, we can't spend it on making better games. It's pretty simple, really.
So, if you're the type of gamer that likes top quality entertainment, then you should probably be in favor of limiting or eliminating resales -- let the people pay the developer/publisher for the entertainment rather than the intermediary, whose profit in no way benefits the creative development process of future games.
I hope someday everyone who thinks entertainment should be virtually free gets what they're asking for -- the quality of entertainment that people are willing to make for free. It's time to be honest with yourselves about video game value and stop bitching about it -- a movie costs $5-10 per hour of entertainment (more if you consider the inflated costs of concessions). If you play a video game for 20 hours, your cost is $2-3 per hour, much less if you play for longer. At full price, when compared with nearly every other paid entertainment form (movies, amusement parks, plays, concerts, bowling, go cart racing, paintball, etc.), video games tend to offer one of the best values per hour.
GameStop sucks -- I'm surprised game publishers put up with their behavior at all. Barnes and Noble doesn't rebuy books at a low price and then attempt to sell you a used book when you come in looking for a new one. This monopolistic behavior will eventually result in a well-funded competitor or a complete switch to digital distribution (most likely with the next gen of console hardware). And then, once and for all, this argument will be laid to rest.
If you don't think there's good value in video games, don't buy them; if you can't afford full price, wait until the price drops -- it always does. And just know that whenever you buy used, you're only benefiting GameStop shareholders, not the creative team that built that game or (more importantly) your next game.
"There's nothing game developers can do to stop them."
Really? How much are you selling your used copy of Battlefield 1943 for? About the same amount you sold your used copy of Castle Crashers for, right?
This rant is years out of date. Game publishers are already figuring out all sorts of ways around the used games "problem". Rather than pursue the legislation red herring, they're trying market-driven approaches: lower prices; downloadable games; free content for registering; purchaseable downloadable content; long-lived multiplayer modes; "freemium".
Strangely, by pursuing market-driven solutions instead of lobbyist-driven solutions, it looks like both the publishers and the gamers will benefit. Weird.
Reasons for buying used games is the lesser need for high-end hardware. http://www.xkcd.com/606/
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
If something is tied to one thing and another that means you need both to make it work. What you should have said is:
"the purchase is tied to the gamertag as well as the console". You could also use "in addition to".
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Who knows, developers could learn from this and say "hmm, maybe the average gamer can't afford $60 for our generic crap-of-the-month we're churning out, maybe if it was $30 in the first place, there wouldn't be a need for a Used market"
You've not been to a Gamestop recently, have you...
New game: $60.
2nd hand: $55.
Platinum game new: $20
Platinum 2nd hand: $18
You're lucky if you get anything more than a 10% savings. They just know people would still rather have $5 in their pocket than $0. Many people, myself included, still pay the $5 to know they're getting an unscratched disc (warranties are useless when the pain in the ass of going back in to claim is worth more than the $5 I saved) but more than enough are happy with any perceived saving.
Whilst we can argue about whether $60 is too much... The simple reality that customers still pay over the last generation's $50, even for second hand, implies this particular situation has nothing whatsoever to do with games being overpriced. If you sold them for $1 and people had an option to get them for $0.90, most kids would still choose to keep that dime and the second hand market still wouldn't disappear.
Developers do not equal distributors. And it's always the distributors who rant about such things.
Because they are doing it mainly for the money. While we do it mainly for the fame. (Or why do you think we endure the crappy situation in those companies?) And even a copied game from BitTorrent adds to your fame.
Ok, I'm the exception, because I see making games as a service. If you have done your service, and got what you deserved for it, the game is essentially free for all, and payment is optional. (You can't stop file sharing anyway, just as you can't stop ideas and rumors from spreading.)
Also, the games that will survive and end up in the history databases of tomorrow, will be those that you can actually save, because they weren't under such a tight grip that they got lost.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
It's not a BS scenario. It's based on sound principals which when applied to a large population should generally hold true. The anecdote was just there to explain it to you since the OP was thoughtful enough not to assume you're an economics or psychology student.
The used game market means that the game is presented at multiple price points concurrently. This means that individuals with less disposable income will enter the market. People with more disposable income might buy less new games if there are used games available, and this should be accounted for when selected a product price, but someone has to buy it new to get the ball rolling. Generally it seems people won't resell a game for at least a few weeks, and a large part of paying the premium for a new game is being able to play it on or near the release date.
Game companies will eventually offer the product at a lower price, to reach those with less disposable income, but not immediately. The used market makes this price available sooner. Whether or not this is a good thing would be a matter of debate that would require some numbers, but this does mean that more people experience the game, develop brand loyalty, perform word-of-mouth marketing services, and so on. I wouldn't reject the OP's hypothesis without consideration.
I find it ironic that you criticized his use of a BS scenario to explain his hypothesis by making up a BS scenario. For an example of a "BS scenario" that actually describes a constraint (or rather a phenomenon) that does exist in real life, check out some of the standard two-good, two-country models used to describe the benefits of international trade and division of labor. Also, for the record, Bob's mom doesn't have all the money in the world and not everybody has a mom they can steal from. Scarcity is a constraint that exists in real life and there is an opportunity cost associated with every expenditure, monetary or otherwise.
This is *no different* to people selling used CDs or DVDs... or books...
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Using Germany is a really bad example. Because of the number of parties, the only way anything gets done is in coalitions - and therefore, the party you voted for is only giving some input into the agenda they'll be pushing.
http://xkcd.com/606/ - the downside to this attitude.
You're one guy, a generation behind, buying used games. They don't see a penny from you anyway, they're not going to lose anything if you modchip + downloaded games.
Also, being "the tech guy" of you friends generally doesn't translate to consoles. The friends you convince to do what you're doing now don't matter for the same reasons you don't matter. The friends of yours that are on the current generation and buying used or new won't have the same opportunity as you to go for downloaded games. While the current generation has been mostly hacked, the proliferation of modchips and downloaded games isn't nearly as bad as it was with the PS1/Dreamcast/PS2, mostly because there are safeguards against it like banning from Xbox Live and PS3 console updates that close holes while giving desirable new features. Besides, if they're already on the latest consoles, they're statistically more likely to prefer the added benefits of not stealing (being able to get online, get new features like new video streaming codecs as they're released, etc) than they are to listen to you. You might convince them to switch to PC gaming (as long as they don't mind shelling out another $400-1000 to get a rig that will play modern games), but guess what? Nobody sells used PC games. There are services like Steam, Impulse, etc where you can find older games at reasonable prices, but that's not the same as buying used.
tl;dr: You're not as important or influential as you think you are, and the game companies don't care about you.
I've seen people using "game developers" a couple of times when they mean publishers. Would these same posters replace RIAA with "musicians" as easily? It's insulting to game developers.
So I buy a game from one one these online services, I have no tangible product. I have no means to transfer ownership.
Surely I should have the right to transfer ownership of my license to use this game, for a fee.
Sounds to me like Sony / MS might be exploiting the laws surrounding this, bu *NOT* providing me a mechanism to do this.
As someone who wishes to be a game designer in the future, I must say I don't mind the sale of used games.
However, when companies like gamestop can buy the games for a ridiculously low price and resell them for highway robbery, that's when I believe the line has been crossed.
It's ridiculous really.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well, I loved the game so much that I even shelled an extra 10$ for the Gears 2 collector's edition on launch day. I'd say that this was clear publisher benefit from the used games market!
Oh no, a company is making money on people trading used items - I guess eBay must piss you off even more.
the children....sheesh what kind of monster are you? Probably some kind of member of organized crime that downloads kiddie porn, while sailing the 7 seas, looking for people who have decent rights and freedoms to terrorize...while on drugs.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I got Medieval Total War 2 for about 7 EUR a few weeks back - new. I've bought other games new for around the same. I have a huge stack of them that I'll play one day when I've nothing better to do. You can find them even cheaper when they're repackaged for the bargain bins, there a re a few publishers that specialise in this.
So you just have to wait until they're a bit old, if you get what I mean.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I agree with Flowsnake.. I buy used and if I like the product I'll buy other titles from your distributors at new price IF I CAN ADFFORD IT. Now then think economics of scale:- good product + lower price = much greater sales volumes = more profit for you.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The intended retail price DOES affect the development process. Video games are generally NOT built from scratch, completed, and handed to a marketing department which then says "Gee, what should we sell this for?" Publishers can have profit projections of what they intend to sell the game for and how many sales they think they can get before production even STARTS.
Those projections affect how much budget the publisher is willing to put up for the game.
Can you make games an awful lot cheaper? Of course you can, I'm an indie, shoestring budgets are my living. And shoestring budget doesn't always mean the game's no fun. But it does mean you're not going to get fancy physics engines and photorealistic 3d. A big budget doesn't guarantee that a game's any good, but it means that the company had the opportunity to put more Kewl Stuff into it.
I've gotcher 'Women In Gaming' RIGHT HERE!
I don't see why it isn't done with other used software. There are hardly any companies dealing in used software.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
People that are trying to white knight used games sales seem to be under the impression that developers are attacking them. The problem is not used game sales, but the practices of Gamestop. Developers have no problems with Jim selling Bob her old game. Instead they have a problem with their primary retail buyer discouraging the purchase of new games in exchange for resold games that make Gamestop more money. If Gamestop had the same markup for used games as they did for new games they would not be so aggressive in trying to push the used games. Gamestop is ripping off people that sell them used games. If Gamestop pays someone $20 for a used game then turns around and sells it for $40, the person that sold them the used game could have sold it themselves for $40 via craigslist, etc.
People that sell to Gamestop have no ability to negotiate a fair price and are taken advantage of because of this. They are no better than a pawn shop that has an air of legitimacy because of the small volume of new merchandise they sell. Anyone that sells a used game to Gamestop is an idiot, and they are preying on this.