Slashdot Mirror
Fable III Dev: Used Game Sales More Costly Than Piracy
eldavojohn writes "A developer working for Lionhead, the studio behind Fable III, told Eurogamer that piracy is 'less problematic' than used game sales, from a business perspective. Mike West, the lead combat designer for the latest Fable, said, 'For us it's probably a no-lose even with piracy as it is. But, as I say, second-hand sales cost us more in the long-run than piracy these days.' So downloading a game is bad, but apparently stopping by a second-hand store to pick up a licensed physical copy of the game ends up hurting them even more."
A retailer gets the used game sale money and the developer gets nothing unless they have DLC for sale.
You got the touch!
Ford, Toyota, etc. would LOVE it if the only option was to buy new.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
"So downloading a game is bad, but apparently stopping by a second-hand store to pick up a licensed physical copy of the game ends up hurting them even more"
No, they're saying that more people buy it second-hand than pirate it. It's equally bad for them if you do either one.
But the used games give you cooties.
SCOTUS needs to address this, badly.
Can't they make more pure profit by selling the rest of the game... I mean wait.. "DLC" in the marketplace?
A winner is you!
...but the second-hand market for games is legal.
It is very likely that the people who are pirating the games are the same people that wouldn't be able to buy the game in the first place, or who are unaware of how well/poorly the game will play and forgot that demos exist. I do appreciate Lionhead's rationale in that the only way to stop pirates is to just talk to one and help them understand why this is a problem. At least they aren't trying to cover up everything in some crazy anti-piracy DRM that ends up causing more of a hassle than it's worth it to play the game. Of course, this is why some people champion systems like Steam, where it is much harder to pirate games.
As much as I hate to say it, physical media is largely dead. Digital only, with all titles being tied to your personal information, thus letting corporations tailor advertisements to you, is going to be standard very shortly.
I think the next gen will still be physical, but after that it is very unlikely.
Game developer good at developing games, not so good at understanding economics.
But fuck Molyneux and his Fable franchise. Promises the sun, moon and Jupiter claiming you can do anything and LOL you can't do anything unless it's already scripted. Plus these Fable games are at best 4 hours long and they demand $60 a pop?
I'll buy used and watch them go down in flames while Valve continues to show the industry how it's done right.
People only sell games that aren't good enough to play after playing through once. Thus the used game market only damages bad games, enabling the consumers to express their opinion after they bought the product.
The summary doesn't account for the very real possibility that a much higher percentage of used game buyers would have bought the game than pirates, had neither had a choice.
In other words, if you look at 100 pirates and 10 used buyers, and stop the piracy and used market, maybe 5 used buyers would pony up, but only maybe 3 pirates. But I'm just pulling those numbers out of the air - you can't say either way without hard numbers, and they're' not being presented here.
But I think we've all figured out at this point that a high piracy rate doesn't have to translate into a lot of lost sales. Every time we hear the "industry" cry the pirates are costing them money, they're conveniently counting every pirated copy as a lost sale, which is so far into fantasy land that it crosses clearly into insulting our intelligence.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Isn't this true of any industry? If I buy a used couch instead of buying it from the manufacturer, don't they take the same "loss"? It's amazing that now used games sales are being considered "loss" in the same manner as piracy.
Time to make that illegal then.
I can really see this being true. Game piracy does nothing more than get your game's name out there. People are playing it, talking about it, etc. Pretty much no one (statistically) who pirates a game intended on ever purchasing it and thus aren't lost revenue.
People buying used games intended on purchasing the game, but bought used to save $5. They did nothing wrong, but they were a potential source of revenue for the publisher that is lost.
I don't know of a good "fix," because I don't support limiting your right to resell, but at the same time the scale that EB/etc do it causes issues.
In my mind, morally, it's a bit like piracy itself. Me sharing an mp3 rip of an album I've bought with 3-4 friends is not "wrong" in my mind. Were I to rip an album and then sell it on the street for $5 a copy it would be a different story. How you legislate intent and morality, without killing genuine "sharing," is tough.
Make sense, as those who pirate usually wouldn't be paying in any case, while those who buy used actually have some cash.
But it's also a problem with shorter games without replay value, I'd never sell X-Com, Fallout 1/2, etc. because they can be played again and again, while many games are just 'unlock the next cutscene' with a static plot and outcome.
And that Sir, is exactly what DRM was thought for.
atleast not from a developer whose job is to design and write the game mechanics; not count the money.
I dont know any devs personally, but i'd expect them to be on the payroll/contract for a game. That sort of stuff should be built into the budget for a game. They get paid if the game sells 100,000 copies or the game breaks record sales.
Libraries.
Sorry, kids, but the bullshit that piracy is going to be the death of the industry is just that - bullshit.
'sides, if the industry - industries, really, if you count music, movies and games separately - keep growing in terms of revenue. Cry me a river about the purported doom that copyright infringement causes.
this guy from lionhead is trying to convince his bosses that their game did not sell because it was terrible, it is because of some boogieman out there they have little control of.
The problem is that when you plunk out your money to buy the shiny new, it is not a sale. Legally, you're buying a "license" to use the game, which gives game companies the ability to dictate and/or change the terms of those license at their will.
It's not really SCOTUS that needs to address it, it's Congress. We need a law that basically says, "If it looks like a sale, acts like a sale, works like a sale, then it's a sale." Software shouldn't be able to be licensed except in very specific circumstances, none of which apply to individual end users purchasing entertainment software.
If SCOTUS did take up the issue, they need to basically rule most EULAs unconscionable.
At any rate, I doubt any of that will happen any time soon. People are too addicted to that hot new Xbox/PS3/PC game to worry about little details like consumer rights.
Used game sales have been around forever, and it has never been a problem. Ever.
I would love to know the factors that somehow make used game sales such a negative force now. I suspect it is a lot of hand waving by the industry who would rather screw over customers by making them buy poor games at full value.
Sell the games too cheap to make used a good deal. Or make games that people never want to sell.
Really it is just too bad.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Wouldn't more reasonable prices for new games take the wind out of the huge second-hand games business?
how many more people suddenly become interested in pirating?
This is nothing more than rent-seeking.
Hey Lionhead: Provide more content that people are willing to shell out money for. Either that or close up shop and get the hell out of the market, because obviously you are a bunch of idiots.
Somehow the creators of content just want to create once and never work again. Sorry, but this is not how life works in the real world. Continued rent-seeking will make people avoid your new products, and with good reason.
What a bunch of whiny cunts.
--
BMO
Of course, we all know the used games market has an expiration date. It may not be the next generation of consoles, but surely the one after that. That's right; it's when things go all digital. Either through game streaming (like OnLive) or digital sales (Steam, Impulse, PSN, etc), all game sales will eventually migrate to digital distribution. At that point, the used games market will be completely gone. So, while used game sales do hurt game developers more than piracy, it's a problem technology will inevitably erase.
Just a thought.
p.s. Kudos to Gamestop for realizing this and picking up Impulse.
It IS bad for developers because retailers like Gamestop and EB will put used copies on the shelf immediately on launch whenever they get them in, and for a few bucks less. They get a 100% profit, with none of the proceeds going to the developer (which is fine, but it's important to remember that you're not their customer by buying a used copy of a game). It cannibalizes initial sales during the most important time of a game's release, especially when you consider that frequent used game buyers will opt into things like Gamestop/EB's Edge card system, getting an additional 10% off the sticker price.
If the motion picture industry let retailers rent/sell copies of movies at the same time as theatrical release, then the financial bottom would be eaten out from under the theatrical aspect of the industry, which is usually the most important and most profitable portion of a film's release. This is the reason why the motion picture industry delays home video releases of new films, and this is what should be done with games, too.
I've heard arguments against that, people saying "Oh, well, I should be able to sell it if I want to", and that's fine, really; What needs to be regulated is not people selling games back or trading them in, but the amount of time needed before used copies start showing up on retail shelves alongside new copies. The only problem is, retailers are unlikely to agree to something like that unless forced to, since they can sell a $70 game for $65 for 100% profit. Waiting until later gains them less. Which is sort of why the game industry almost needs a standards board for this kind of thing... Something, though I shudder to say it, like the RIAA/MPAA (because, besides suing people for downloading media, that's part of what they do).
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
Epic, as in Epic Megagames (sorry, forgot they dropped the mega).
Just got 1 copy of Bullet Storm. We have 2 XBoxes. Only one player at a time can load the game in their personal Xbox. However, to access any of the online play features the second player has to purchase a $10 "online pass". Hint: XBL is largely a peer to peer network, hence "Selecting New Host" -- We're not playing on their dedicated servers, only the player's own XBoxes and the MS sponsored matchmaking is needed -- both I've already pay for twice (once for each player in the house). Granted, some in-game stats & ranking may be an excuse to run a separate server and charge for hosting -- but an additional mandatory $10 just to play online? Inexcusable (note: MS servers store the achievements).
From MS Game Studio Docs:
Any matchmaking scenario involves the creation of a network session. Network sessions give XNA Framework games access to profile data on all the gamers in a potential game.
Perhaps they don't use XNA, and roll their own instead -- whos fault is that?
Seems like a non-issue to me as long as this type of XBL lock-out extortion racket is allowed (Even moreso a non issue for me since I've added Epic Games to the list of abusive companies I boycott).
> downloading a game is bad, but apparently stopping by a second-hand store to pick up a licensed physical copy of the game ends up hurting them even more
No, it's just that they think it used sales happen more often than piracy.
He might want to try working on a game that holds a player's interest for more than a couple of hours if the used games market is a problem for his wares. I own films that have given me more hours of entertainment than Fable 3 managed. They didn't cost me forty bloody quid and have their in-game butler character nagging me to spend more on poxyDLC either.
Game developers and marketing executives have determined that playing games is bad for the gaming industry.
"We're not like any other industry." said developer Nertlebaum Q. Tinkerbottom, lead designer at Poopsock Games "If we produce an inferior product, we still expected to get paid as if we had made a best-seller. Honestly, if gamers would just buy our games, and never play them, the industry would be in a much better position."
Fookyu Baka, chairman of Nintendo's Games Marketing division echoed the sentiment, saying "In perfect world, Nintendo would produce new systems every four quarters, and utilize already developed properties to generate sales. Our development efforts could have ceased in the mid-80s and we would realize continuing returns on, at most, six properties."
"Unless you sit down and meet a pirate face to face and have a conversation about what it does, I don't think anything will stop them."
... so we'll make the legit version of the game harder to pirate because we all know that annoying customers makes them spend more money!
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
To put it yet another way, why buy "new" games? Especially console games.
Brand new games cost roughly $60 here in the US. If you are looking to buy used, a store like GameStop will often re-sell a used copy for just under whatever the new price is, thus a customer can potentially save 5-10 dollars on the used version vs the new version. GameStop (last I checked) also has a decent return policy on their used games, it can be returned up to a week after purchase for a full refund.
First scenario, a friend of mine will simply buy the game used, play it, beat it, and if he really enjoys it he keeps it. If not, he returns it for a full refund. Awesome. I'm sure that loophole will be closed at some point, but whatever.
Second scenario, is that games always get cheaper over time. I rarely play console games, but a game came out last year I had my eye on. It wasn't a great game, and the reviews clearly pointed out that it wasn't worth the $60 price tag. I agreed, and waited the price down to $30, and I actually wanted to own the game (hence I didn't go with scenario one).
In other words, people are flocking to used games because the time/fun to money ratio just isn't working for most people. $60 per game gets expensive, especially with some of the games being of poor quality/time versus other options. I have no problem paying more for a truly in-depth game, but these days many games are "copy-paste" jobs that end up being sequels or knock-offs of other games trying to charge full price when it really isn't worth it. You would think by the third time a company is about to release, effectively, the same game for the third time they would figure that out.
"So downloading a game is bad, but apparently stopping by a second-hand store to pick up a licensed physical copy of the game ends up hurting them even more."
The point was that stopping by a second-hand store to pick up a licensed physical copy of the game gets a developer zero revenue, as opposed to stopping by a first-hand retailer to pick up a licensed physical copy of the game. Piracy can gain you legit buyers because it's a zero-cost advertising medium, but it gains you nothing when the consumer is already going to buy a copy and the issue is whether their purchase will benefit the developer at all or just GameStop.
If a game costs 10 bucks new, not much of a secondary market. At least none that a Gamestop like company would have enough wiggle room to bother with. There might be a craigslist here and there, but no business in trade-in games. If you planned at doing $50 at your volume moves up by five-fold, revenue wise it's a wash, your game is more popular, and given the margins in software distribution your profit is probably the same too.
Similarly, the relative hassle/risk of pirating a game isn't appealing if you can just get legally licensed for a trivial sum.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
They fail to take into account people who trade in used games and use the money to buy new games. Take away that trade and you lose a sale.
2nd hard market hurts more than piracy, not because they think more people buy used than pirate, but rather the willingness to pay for the full retail value is higher among people who buy used, vs those who pirate.
The future is DLC, it lets people pay how much they are willing for the game. We will probably see most non-MMO games go to free to play (with possibly ads) with the micro transactions there to those that are willing to pay.
I'm also willing to bet we will soon see DLC for TV as well in the form of bonus scenes.
if a game is pirated no money exchanges hands. if a game is passed down no money exchanges hand. if the game is sold then resold, ad nauseam, then it is still a viable asset in the economy. the same goes for books. the only reason games are looked at differently than books is because the industry had created this bullshit belief that their content is somehow more holy.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Yeah, just like used car sales.
Isn't it unfortunate that every time someone sells their old car the auto maker doesn't see it?
A real shame.
Yeah. I said it. Fuck off. Let me repeat something I've said multiple times already: You are not entitled to my money. You sold it once, you got paid what you asked for; now shut the fuck up. Think that copy is worth more? Then ask for more when you sell it. Think you're not getting your fair share? Who the hell are you to determine what your fair share is? This isn't a free market that you're after, that's nothing but "Give me money because I said so" highway robbery.
At least the cat's out of the bag now. The problem that creative types (music, film, software) have with piracy has actually nothing to do with whether something illegal is taking place around the fruit of their sweat and blood. It has everything to do with them feeling that they're not making as much money as they think they could. It's a pure money-grab, nothing else. The only difference between the people who complain that the second-hand market is ruining them and basic robbery is that the first group hires government agents to do their bidding. The second group has at least the decency to do their own dirty work.
To that, I say Fuck You. Don't like it? Fuck you, with a chainsaw.
Peter Molyneux, I have great respect for you. You created Populous, which by itself gives you a near eternal free pass to be a dick. But any interest I have in Fable III will now be satisfied by buying it second hand. I might even write you an email, showing you my original copy, the second hand sticker on it, and a big middle-finger across it. Yeah, I know, you didn't offer up these sentiments. That was one of your underlings. Then get your underlings under control. The same goes for every other entitled asshole who feels that just because they made something pretty, they deserve to be paid in perpetuity anytime someone looks at their work, or creates something that vaguely resembles it.
And just in case anyone missed my point: Fuck you. I'm going to the flea-market.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I buy a tshirt. I make a copy and give it to a friend. Then I sell my original used one. There's no problems here? Tshirt manufacturers and designers arent whining. The same thing can be said for basically every other industry. Why then does the digital media industry think they should get protection from copying and resale?
Why do these companies complain about used games and then offer pre-order bonuses from GAMESTOP. Basically the only company that sells used games on a mass market.
The conclusion seems misleading.
Misleading conclusion:
Buying a used game doesn't hurt more than pirating the game.
More accurate conclusion:
Companies lose more money to used game sales than to piracy.
Why did I ever reduce my threshold...
I know people hate it but this (the first sale doctrine) is the kind of thing DLC's and exclusive unlocks are designed to combat. Exclusive content with one-time codes that you have to repurchase if you bought used usually makes the game itself cost more since $price_used + $price_unlock > $price_retail. Similarly, if you use the game as a platform to publish DLC content that is considered an essential part of the game then you're fighting the used game market on two fronts. In the first case, a used copy will not come with the DLC content so it's perceived value is less. In addition to that if you have staggered DLC releases, a customer is more likely to hold on to their copy and keep it out of circulation in the used gaming market. I've sometimes wondered about companies adopting an episodic model where the game is very cheap, but the main content is in the form of DLC episodes released on a staggered schedule and only available from the publisher directly. Maybe an hour or so of content for a single-player type game per episode and something like $10 to $15. After 4 or 5 episodes you've collected about the same amount of money as a retail copy of a game for about the same amount of content with the bonus that the content isn't transferable. Even if someone buys the game used, they'll still need to pony up for the DLC content.
I think I read that Gamestop and the like do get more revenue from ' previously used' software than with the ones in mint condition. Something like 5$ from new games and more than 10$ from used ones. Where I live many shops promote buy used.
Maybe if they hadn't dumbed down Fable 3 to be little more than a guided button masher then people might have told people to go buy a copy instead "hey want to buy mine for $10?"
That's like saying "the lack of people who give me $100 bills for no reason is really hurting my bottom line".
This developer is wrong. Second hand sales cost them nothing. Not making a sale to someone isn't a monetary loss. This sense of entitlement from copyright holders - that somehow it is their moral right to get paid, not on the basis of units shipped, but whenever anybody looks at their creation - needs to get stepped on, hard.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Developers complain about pirating on the PC, so they make console-only titles, then they complain about used game sales. I would have purchased Red Dead Redemption on Steam, had it been available -- instead I bought a used copy at GameStop for $20. Sorry Rockstar. Eventually all games will be delivered digitally, and the producers will need to have a more sane stance on pricing. Not every game is worth $60.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
I bet Ford and GM feel the same way. Perhaps they should stick something in the contract when you buy a car that requires you to destroy it when your done with it and to never sell it second hand to anyone. Then they should install software in the vehicle that allows them to remotely disable it if someone other than you trys to drive it. And if you think this comparison is ridiculous, let me assure you that I've seen purchases for software in the corporate environment that BY FAR exceed the value of any car you could buy and had these very restrictions on it.
What is keeping them from selling more is pricing too high. If they dropped game prices down to about $20, they would kill the used games market and sell games to people who wouldn't even think about whether or not they would like the game at all.
I just love how game makers always blame everybody else for bad sales rather than the fact they screwed the pooch on this game! I bought mine new and traded it in week later because it's horrible. I'm a huge Fable fan and loved the first 2, but they took a winning franchise and ruined it.
You would want to keep Fable3 more than a day anyway.. trade it for The Witcher 2 right now!
Used games
... deal with it
App store $2 price point
Online free entertainment
Welcome to DVDs Vs VHS, there's a paradime shift is upon them
Ahh, I see, now that they've pretty much given up trying to fight piracy they're setting their sights on the LEGAL sales of previously-owned games. Hey douchebags, why not just make great games and sell them at a reasonable price? No one wants to spend $60 on a steaming pile of horse turd, which is over 90% of the shovelware that publishers are putting out these days. Most of them aren't even worth buying used. And then they are totally flabbergasted why no one wants to buy their shit.
Make games people want to replay and they won't resell them, however judging by the reviews of Fable III it seems they are struggling to make games people want to play once.
True that. Besides, lower the price a lousy $20 for most games and I'd buy new all the time. I NEVER pay over $40 for a game.
So the market loss they THINK they are taking is not NEW retail but USED retail price assuming everyone can agree where they would buy new instead of waiting for used price to drop within person price threshold
Personally, I find the point very interesting (although perhaps not in the same way as the original commentator). If you account for all potential usage of your product without purchasing it new as conceptual lost revenue, then it's probably fairly accurate: used game sales "steals" more revenue from the company than piracy. However, you could easily extend the argument; for example, if only 3% of customers purchase DLC (a figure recently quoted by EA), then customer failure to purchase all the DLC probably "steals" even more revenue from the company.
I think the game companies are missing an opportunity to lobby Congress here. If you can outlaw "stealing" by not purchasing all of the DLC, no matter how worthless you might perceive it to be, game companies could make tons more money. I'm sure the total "lost revenue" from people not purchasing all the DLC is an impressive number, and if you could translate that into hypothetical "created or preserved" jobs, you could probably get the idiots in Congress to go for it. A decade ago, I might have said the idea was ludicrous, but in today's world, where government mandates to purchase things are justified, and people can just make up whatever figures they want to justify ludicrous policies, it just might work...
SCOTUS needs to address this, badly.
I believe the problem is economic not legal. The business model of dozens of industries are obsolete, as charging money to trade for infinitely-supplied and infinetely-reproduced goods, such as ideas, just isn't going to work anymore. We need a new economic model. What we have now is better described as a "wastonomy" instead of an "economy". It depends on many people buying and wasting lots of things over and over. And doing lots of mindless tasks producing these things. Waste goods, waste labor, waste resources, stimulate the economy-waste-onomy. Perhaps the infinite-ideas-circulation is going to transform labor and currency forever. They can fight and wiggle all they want - ideas and information of all kinds will circulate everywhere more and more. And where scarcity of ideas dictated any kind of rules, those rules slowly become obsolete.
So used cars should be illegal in order to prop up new car sales? Not happening.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
maybe if fable had a decent replay value they wouldnt have an issue of resale...
So what I'm getting from this is that if I want to harm the industry financially, the best tactic would be to steal games from second stores, yes?
Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
Homefront does something to try and counteract this. They make you put in a one-time use code for the game. When you give/sell it to someone else, that code doesn't work, and you have to go through the publishers who sell homefront and buy a new code.
Yet another reason why I will never buy Homefront (that, and it isn't that fun for me).
Sounds like someone is not realizing they are pricing their product too high..
The company that makes (publishes) the game gets payed once for each copy sold/being used in the wild. If two people want to be able to play the game, then they get paid twice.
The companies that resell used games get payed once for each time they help transfer ownership of one such instance of a game from one person to another.
Admittedly, its slightly more complicated than that... but I don't see what possible issue can be raised by game companies without the same issue being applicable to any product that has a physical representation that's all that's required to use it, ie one that can be resold.
One person with a copy of the game per copy sold is fair. End of story.
Because no one wants to pirate their crappy game.
[GameStop has] enough retail power that if they didn't carry something it's sales would be badly hurt.
GameStop is not the only retailer with power. Imagine a timed-exclusive distribution arrangement with a well-known nationwide retailer that doesn't carry used goods: "Dirt Bags 2. Get it this Tuesday only at Walmart stores and Walmart.com."
If the motion picture industry let retailers rent/sell copies of movies at the same time as theatrical release
You know, several years ago there was an "arcade window" comparable to the "theatrical window" of motion pictures. How did this die?
Please tell me how a secondary stream of income, effectively selling the same unit twice, is hurting them more than illegal copies they get nothing at all for. Also please say why the original buyer gets no resale rights or rights to just give it to someone else. What's next? A game console that scans your DNA and destroys the game if you aren't the original purchaser?
when new games cost $60, which at many times has been all my expendable money for the month. buying new games is not a priority.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Okay let's see the typical cost to produce a video game in 2010 was $20m (US). Fable 3 sold (er... sorry licensed) 128,895 copies in the UK in the first week alone. Games cost (to make the math easy) about $40 each. So in the UK alone that's $5.15m in the first week alone. Fable II sold 3.5m and Fable 3 is estimated to be around 5m. 5m * $40 = $200m. That leaves $180m in gross profit. Now let's say it takes $100m to market the game. That still leaves about $80m in profit, and even accounting for taxes it comes out to about $52m in net profit! $52m/5m buyers = $10.40 profit per game sold.
I'm not against the video game industry making money, but come on, we all have seen how it works the BEST games go for the most money, with new games costing close to $60 per game. And at $60 the games are turning about $30 in profit per license sale.
I ONLY buy used games, because it's ridiculous to buy new games at that price structure. Sorry Peter, but gamers are more mature than when you released Populus, we have bills to pay, rent, mortgages, car payments, children medical expenses food etc. Average US worker income is $26,146/year for 2009 (the last year I have a figure for). That's $2,178/month. All together the average US worker makes about $2,178/month, of which $1,984/month ($800 rent + $378 car payment + $160 food for single male + $51 water bill + $22 phone + $88 electric bill + $260 health care/insurance + $330 gasoline + $106 clothes + $174 retirement) is already spoken for. That leaves only about $194 per month to put towards both entertainment (in all forms) and emergencies! Please note that I did pretty thorough research and I'm listing ACTUAL averages and not mere conjecture on my part. And that's for a single male living alone without kids or pets
So if I have $194/month to spend and used games cost say $10 and new games cost $60 I can buy 19 used games or 3 new games, what would Mr. Molyneux do if he was in my shoes? Sorry bro, but it's rare that I'll even buy a game used, let alone pay $60 for it. $60 is fine if your a highschool kid mooching off your parents living rent free with disposable income dripping out of your nose, but I think most people find $60 to be too high a price now
I'm gonna guess they know which price point at launch, and which pricepoints at which times after launch yield the largest sales volume.
Why start at $20 if you can start at $60, and capture the $20 crowd two or three quarters later?
I bought a few games in my teens. Even back then, games were so damn expensive and often the games themselves were so damn disappointing I quickly decided I'm not wasting hard earned cash on games and started pirating. In my 20's I mostly pirated, played and deleted. I would buy the occasional new game, but only after pirating it and find it too damn addictive.
Then I got a life and a gf who didn't play games (does now ) and she put an xbox in the lounge so I'd stop disappearing into 'the study' for days on end. So now I'm buying second hand games only - and a couple of years behind new releases. This is for two reasons. First because the successful game franchises release every couple of years and the previous game in the franchise drops price considerably when the new one comes out (eg from ~$90 AUD to ~$30) and second, because the stand out games that offer high replay value take ages to reach the second hand shelves. And when they do, there's only a $5 difference to the new game.
Here's the irony. GF got addicted to the Fable franchise and we bought 3 new. Doing so makes me consider modding the xbox and going back to my piratical ways. Compared to 1 and 2, three was a steaming pile of excrement in that it was buggy and it really brought nothing new to the table. The game play was clunkier than 2. There was no real strategy to it at all. Almost no re-playability to it at all. It was a choose your own adventure, in as-beautifully-as-Fable-2 rendered graphics. For the same price we could have purchased 3 or 4 older titles and had much better value for money.
Maybe game authors continuing a franchise should consider making their next instalment better than their last and think about playability and re-playability if they want their games to stay out of the second hand market for longer.
The higher the cost of the intail purchase price of a good the more likely that when some one is done with said good then they'll try and get a return for it. Right now in my local Games store new release titles cost $110 AUD. With the current exchange rate that's $116 USD. I NEVER buy new games nor from Digital Stores. I wait till the game is in the bargain bin. I don't play online so I'm in no hurry for the latest release. I only buy when I finish the previous game I bought. If the inital sell price was more realistic then I'd probably buy the latest titles. $50 AUD is what I would be happy to pay but us Aussie's have been rorted by foreign software companies for far too long.
The people who really suffer from used is the automobile industry. I'm surprised that they're even still around with the large and seemingly legitimate used market built around that industry. People who buy used cars ought to be ashamed of themselves, robbing the innovative car companies who can barely afford to put out a new model each year.
Basically what I see from the discussion so far, is that the solution is for game companies to lower their prices on new very quickly.
Say, they release the game at $70 on monday. By wednesday there will be used copies in circulation (for most titles), so they need to scale down the prices to used game prices at the same time. And keep them declining as the used retails cut those prices as well. It may not make them as much money per unit, but they will HAVE money instead of the second hand retailers.
Game companies effectively have 4 choices:
1) Make games that CANNOT be resold (eg bound to online accounts)
2) Make games that users DON'T want to resell
3) Kill first sale doctrine (or something similar)
4) Price compete with the used game sales. Just think of it as yet another version of pricing to the market. (just like region locking)
So far I haven't seen any retailers go with option 4. The price always drops 6-12months after release.... by then no one is buying, not even used.
Used books make a huge dent in an author's profits - way more than any piracy. It's relatively easy for authors to see how big the dent is, too, since used sales count on amazon, but don't show up in royalty reports. This is one reason authors are really happy with the locked eBook platforms like Kindle and Nook. I would imagine that game writers are similarly enthusiastic about locked-down platforms like Steam.
They are hurt by the fact that often you find in game shops the shelves with old/used games directly besides the shelves with new games. So a customer who is willing to pay money will be distracted to spend less money.
Piracy cant be regulated, but if they manage to pass a law which requires game shops to change that, they could easily find new customers.
In the old days, people would buy used because it was cheaper for them, and then the profit from that would go to an independent retailer.
Now, people can't buy used (not for most PC games anyway), so they will buy *new* only if the price is the same as used, and then the profit will go to the original producers.
It's the gaming industry's choice - keep prices how they are and expect lost used sales and/or lost overall sales (because people will want to pay less for something they can't sell on again later), or lower prices overall, or very quickly after release, so that you destroy the used sales market and reap their profit instead.
Either way, the used sales market will die (I would argue that it's already dead for PC, but console is still alive and well). But customers aren't suddenly going to start spending more money than they already do. If you are expecting them to pay more for their games overall, you're probably in for a shock and will see huge drops in sales. But if you drop to a decent price and, like you've able to do for DECADES, make used games sales unattractive, then you could take a share of profits that they used to enjoy instead.
I've started to see this on Steam - some big-name games are going to silly prices quite soon after launch. But it's still not really emerging enough.
It's simple. People allocate X% of their income to games and other entertainment luxuries. You can try to do business in a way that copes with that (i.e. stealing more of that X% than you normally would by taking over from the used sales yourself) or you can try to pretend that people will pay more and more and more over and above natural growth just because you asked for it and the game's been hyped in the press. To me, one's a good business strategy and the other's the sort of thing an eight-year-old says (and your primary gaming market now is 18-30, if not older, not children).
I don't think I've ever bought many games used anyway. I certainly can't remember doing so despite owning many computers and consoles since the ZX Spectrum. All my Spectrum games were new (most were budget because I was a child!). All my Nintendo console games were new, from the Gameboy to the Wii. 99% of my PC purchases were new. Before Steam, I used to buy old DOS titles on eBay but literally that was about the same time as they were either being made freeware (e.g. C&C) or becoming unavailable (and most of which you STILL can't buy on any of the digital download services). I now have several of those old games on Steam anyway, where I basically paid a pittance for not having to faff about with DosBox!
Used games are dead. You can either suck up their slack by pricing effectively, or you can convince yourself that in times when people can't afford to get to work (if they're lucky enough to have a job), they'll be splashing out more on games just because they are "new" and pretty. To somehow compare it to piracy (which IS also a problem exacerbated by pricing policies, a cause of huge - and wasteful - DRM investment, but one which you'll never eradicate) is ridiculous.
Sort your pricing out, and the used market won't be an issue - it will be YOURS.
I had fun with Fable 3 (bought second hand of course), but it is ridiculously short. It's not all that open-ended either, you basically choose to play good or evil.
You can finish the game in 12 hours, and complete absolutely every side-quest in maybe 30-40 hours (many of which will be spent tediously looking for garden gnomes).
It has almost no replay value, why should I not sell it?
Buying software is NOT analogous to buying car/couches/etc..
When buying a car, a big part of the price is the cost of material put in the car itself, when buying a software, almost no money was spent for creating the CD.
In other words, when buying a car or any other item, you pay for the car, not the development of the car blueprints. When buying games you pay for the development, and not the CD. That's why car dealers should be paid per car and software dealers should be paid per user.
...is to make a game worth KEEPING.
Let's break out the 5 whys.
Game developers aren't selling as many copies as they'd like
why?
They have to compete with their own games at lower prices used.
why?
Because consumers like a deal (obvious) and there is a large supply of used games for sale even right after release.
why?
Because consumers are eager to trade in their games for maximum value, and that means trading them back as soon as possible. This drives up volume without selling any new copies, nor putting any additional money in the devs' pockets (much of this extra values goes to Gamestop)
why?
Because games do not usually hold their value very well.
why?
Ah! This gets to the heart of it.
Copies are not scarce.
Games are over-hyped and sold for much higher prices than eventual market value. (and these first sales are tightly price-controlled, without much profit for the retailer)
Games contain mostly "consumable" content that isn't of high enough quality to warrant the amount of time it takes to slog through a second time. Novelty of the content is the only reward in many cases, and that isn't there the second or third time.
[tangent:]
Books are entirely linear experiences, and so are films. Each are forms of media much more often re-enjoyed by their audience than games are. One of the reasons, I suspect, is quality. The stories and the craft with which they are presented are so much more important than the binding of the book or the resolution of the movie. In games, developers are so much more focused on high quality "graphics" than on high-quality artwork. They are more focused on making games with lots of content than with making games with *great* content. This seems so obviously backwards, yet they continue to listen to players' complaints about "short" games being an issue. No. Movies are not better because they are longer. Books aren't better because they take more time to read. The best books, the best movies, are well-paced and provide enjoyment throughout, so that EVEN IN A MEDIUM THAT IS THE SAME EVERY TIME ONE READS/WATCHES IT, one wants to re-read or re-watch the best experiences many times over.
[/tangent]
Summary: Books and movies don't have this problem, and they are the same every time you experience them. That's because it's the feeling we get from a certain experience that makes us come back for more, not just the novelty of new experiences. Good games are more replayable than bad games, regardless of the amount of content. Replayability as a quality is a myth. I don't care how many different endings your game has if it is tripe to begin with. Replayable==good game.
Good game==Valuable game==Game I will keep, and will not re-sell
In other news, artificial controls on markets allow firms to extract an economic rent. Full story at 11.
Also, buyers eager to recoup losses for bad goods. Market floods, prices drop as a result. Full story at 11.
Do you realize how many people are out there who are *not* paying me $100 a day? This is outrageous and is costing me a lot of money! Something needs to be done about this, because everyone should be paying me $100 a day!
So let me get this straight. They're concerned that they're losing money because there exists a sizable segment of the gamer base that will only buy games at a reduced price - and they aren't getting a piece of that action. Gee, I wonder whatever they could do about that problem.
Nope, I just can't come up with any reasonable solution. I guess their only option is to legislate.
The difference with games as compared to other used markets is that software doesn't degrade. People have a reason to buy a new car or a new couch because it's in better shape and lasts longer. With games there is traditionally no practical reason not to buy a used copy to save that $5-$10 bucks off the new one. The developer calls it lost money because a large percentage of customers will walk into a store and see two identical versions and pick the slightly cheaper used one where the money goes entirely to the retailer and the developer gets nothing.
What has an even larger impact on the bottom line of Developers than Second Hand Games, or Piracy, is Distribution Restrictions which can cause both of these issues.
If you live outside the United States, Canada and Mexico currently there is NO WAY to get a digital copy of Fable III. That means the other 6 BILLION people in the world have no way to get this outside of waiting for the game to reach their stores. Maybe. (I'd be waiting a long time where I live, since there really are no major chains that support PC Gaming).
So I can SEE that the game is available on Direct2Drive, Steam (actually steam hides games that are geo-restricted from you). And I have the Credit Card, and the money to make the purchase...but I cannot.
But I do have 100Mbps internet available to my doorstep. So what do you think myself and other 6 Billion people are going to do after being bombarded by marketing online and at major game review sites on the internet? Charge me a dollar extra if you want to, to compensate for the bandwidth it would take you to beam the game to us rejects out here?
So in my view the Developers and Publishers can shove it. They create a situation, create a problem and then complain about it, and the RIAA and the MPAA ram legislation and onerous copyright laws through courts; and attach rider agreements to Trade Agreements demanding changes to Copyright Laws in poor and developing countries.
This doesn't get into the "special" business arrangements that Developers have with their customers, where they want to "license" their products. Why we put up with this unfair and onesided arrangement is beyond me.
All the Licenses in the world didn't help me when Sony got hacked and my Credit Card and personal information ended up in the hands of hackers did it?
But Lionhead wants to prevent me from selling my game to a friend or to a store when I'm finished with it because it is "Licensed" and not "owned"?
There was a time when Customers had rights. I could record a song off the radio and put it onto a tape and play it in my car. When I was finished reading a book, I could keep it on my shelf and give it to my little brother, or hand it to a friend. Developers, Publishers and the Cartels which represent them are taking those rights away through Technology. DRM, DMCA laws etc.
Did I mention they could go shove it?
-Gel214th
Games should drop in price faster to counter this. Otherwise what these guys are asking for is that you should have to pay full price for a game forever. That's the only reason people go used, because the price is more attractive. Have sealed-box games match the value depreciation of used games and we'll be fine. Movies drop in price, games should too.
Here's my thinking. I buy a new game. I play it until I'm done. Then I sell it. What might I do with that $10 I just made? Maybe put it towards the next game I'm going to buy. I have no numbers to back this up but I suspect the used game market helps the new game market.
eldavojohn writes "A developer working for Lionhead, the studio behind Fable III, told Eurogamer that piracy is 'less problematic' than used game sales, from a business perspective. Mike West, the lead combat designer for the latest Fable, said, 'For us it's probably a no-lose even with piracy as it is. But, as I say, second-hand sales cost us more in the long-run than piracy these days.' So downloading a game is bad, but apparently stopping by a second-hand store to pick up a licensed physical copy of the game ends up hurting them even more." first off, hats to you all at Lionhead and all of your achievements. it takes alot of work to make a great title, however... in order to get rid of the second-hand store maybe you should try making the game worth playing, last fable was outdone by its outstanding ~10 hour Single player, and its glitched out multi-player. you can consider a network of gamers watching the commercials for fable, heavy anticipation, then release day... my facebook blows up with everyone very content with their ~60$ purchase of fable III... (consider most gamers who would stay true to fable be at the midnight release)... next day comes, people are still talking about fable, seems like things are looking good. when all of the sudden, the game is over with less then 10 hours of single player. (like MOST games that get spit out like hot cakes, most obvious genre would be the FPS) Ok, well the single player was awesome... lets check out the multi-player, oooo was dat? its glitches... well, now its time to see how many different ways i can beat single player(not many). now, WE ALL KNOW THE NEXT STEP. turn it in for less then half the price, because its replay value diminished after 2 weeks given time. a lot of games today dont have high replay value because competitors are keeping releases on high demand, and im sure it cuts away from the time and care the people who actually make the game take to reach its potential. i honestly believe this game had everything it need for the exception of replay value, and what killed it was the short story.
What about public libraries? They lend books for FREE!