Slashdot Mirror
What Happens To Your Used Games?
silentbrad writes "GameStop's bosses are obviously tired of hearing about how used games are killing gaming, about how unfair they are on the producers of the games who get nothing from their resale. One astonishing stat is repeated by three different managers during presentations. 70 percent of income consumers make from trading games goes straight back into buying brand new games. GameStop argues that used games are an essential currency in supporting the games business. The normal behavior is for guys to come into stores with their plastic bags full of old games, and trade them so that they can buy the new Call of Duty, Madden, Gears of War. GameStop says 17 percent of its sales are paid in trade credits. The implication is clear — if the games industry lost 17 percent of its sales tomorrow, that would be a bad day for the publishers and developers.'"
to stupid people that ask dumb questions
Just as used car sales are bad for auto manufacturers, and home resales are bad for builders, and garage sales are bad for retailers, ... and ..., ... and ...
I'm tired of hearing it as well - because other businesses with narrower margins have survived some form of First Sale Doctrine for literally centuries at this point.
When people buy stuff, sometimes they sell it. You don't get that money, because you already sold the product. Suck it the hell up.
Gamestop does not make 100% of game sales, so losing that would in no way be NEAR 17% of all sales in the gaming industry.
Don't all these Games players have infinity deep pockets and can all afford to buy new and just throw away?
... bears really do shite in the woods.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Artists and companies both share a toddler's idea of ownership: "if I thought about it, it's mine."
The syllogism goes something like:
1. Someone, somewhere, is making money from something I am tangentially involved in.
2. Therefore, THEY STOLE IT FROM ME!!!!!!
The economic notion that you can't capture all the value you create if you want to maximise your take appears a bit complicated for them.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
70% of nothing is still nothing. The complaint is that Gamestop is making fat wads off of used games by paying out nothing and selling them for only slightly less than the new price, while pushing used games sales instead of new ones. No one cares what Joe Gamer does with the pittance that he makes.
Of course, while Gamestop's behavior here is contemptible, leveraging its monopoly to undercut the very industry that supports it, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with used game sales in general. No more so than used books or other media. The real shame is that this is the direction that the big publishers are trying to push the debate into - blaming used game sales for their declining profits, to justify more and more DRM.
Just as used car sales are bad for auto manufacturers, and home resales are bad for builders, and garage sales are bad for retailers, ... and ..., ... and ...
This is a fairly poor analogy in the same way that calling file sharing "theft" is a poor label. The value of the game isn't the physical cartridge or disc on which the game comes -- sure, the manual and external artwork to the packaging may have some value to you and especially to collectors. But the real value of a game is that copyrighted information and artwork and writing stored in a digital manner on whatever medium.
I still think you should be able to sell secondhand copyrighted information, I really do. But I also think it's a poor comparison when the value of the car isn't so much the intellectual property but more so it's got X lbs of steel and other materials specially arranged to get you from point A to point B. Games are artwork, not vehicles.
Better comparisons are books and DVDs. Of course, I'm sure those industries want secondhand sales abolished as well to keep their sales up and I totally disagree with that considering how much I shell out for said objects.
Me, personally, I've learned my lesson. I sold my Ocarina of Time collectors games a while ago and now truly regret it (I had thought that one day N64 cartridges would be as unplayable as NES cartridges but they appear to work for much longer). So I maintain a library next to my books and movies. Sure you might think it looks "tacky" but I think that attitude will change in the near future. I played my dad's pong game, my kids will probably play my Zelda games.
My work here is dung.
A used games market allows effective price discrimination, because some people couldn't justify buying a new game unless they knew they could recoup some of the costs after using it.
In this market, price discrimination is a good thing. It allows publishers to still sell copies (and thus get something) to those who can't afford to buy a game at full price. They could have cut Gamestop out of the loop by doing this themselves, but that would demand realistic discounts on older/less popular games, something the publishers appear unwilling to do.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
In 2010, the video gaming industry made 66 BILLION. Saganesque billions and billions and they can't turn a healthy enough profit?
The business model for gaming has failed. The answer isn't digital either. Digital distribution only makes it easier to fail in the market place and do it faster too.
The problem is management. Management is failing in a big way. Even with Valve, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Google and Apple's pound of flesh, there's no way in hell margins so thin that used game sales threaten it can be considered "healthy." Even in volume. Maybe especially considering the volume that some games sell at.
Where the fuck is all that money going? Is it a matter of creative Hollywood accounting or is there bigger costs involved with pushing pixels through silicon?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
No, see? If used games were not resellable, those 17% would be paid in extra money that all gamers have an infinite amount of. It couldn't possibly result in a loss in sales due to reduced disposable income.
I'm tired of hearing it as well - because other businesses with narrower margins have survived some form of First Sale Doctrine for literally centuries at this point.
Of course, some of them have not. And, crucially, that's a good thing, too.
If they get rid of the used games market, they better be prepared to charge less money for games. Right now Batman Arkham City is thirty bucks on PSN. The game of the year edition is the same price on Amazon (which I think has all the DLC included). Amazon is also offering 15 dollars to buy the used version back.
If they're going to sell a less complete version of the game that can't be resold or brought over a friend's house, takes up a ton of hard drive space and doesn't have to be manufactured and shipped, I should think they could pass at least some of the savings on to me.
...we cannot have people reading copyrighted material for free!
Seriously where is this sort of BS going to stop?
Well, the counter argument to this is that the, let's call them 'informational', goods don't depreciate with use like a tangible product does. A (pressed) game disk will be just as functional in 5 years, though your, say, lawn mower will probably be all gunked up with grass, rusting a bit and have some wear on the engine.
Of course, we all know this is pretty bunk. Game disks get scratched fairly easily, or the booklets/cases get lost and there are plenty of physical goods that keep their value as. Computer are such a thing: aside from a possible aging hard disk, they pretty much run just as well as when they were new. Still, there's only very limited used computer market. Why? Simple: New computers offer something more than used computers; usually they're faster and/or draw less power. Intel spends their time making better chips and exploring new markets, rather than complaining about how unfair it is that people trade used computers or don't every one released. Game companies should do the same. Offer something worth buying and people will buy it. Don't shovel out a new revision of the same old crap and complain when people are content to swap the old version and skip the new one.
Well, the counter argument to this is that the, let's call them 'informational', goods don't depreciate with use like a tangible product does. A (pressed) game disk will be just as functional in 5 years
And so will a book. In fact, a book will easily outlast CDs and DVDs. That doesn't mean that if I sell a book I have read, I steal from the author (or his publisher's grandchildren, more likely).
First sale. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.
No-resale, DRM, always-on etc. is fine by me. I license something, I don't buy it. I don't expect to be able to transfer my license to anyone and I don't even expect to be able to play the game myself in a few years. So a game for me is 1-2 years of entertainment, without resale. If the price of a game feels to steep for what I'll get, I'll just NOT buy it. If it turns out I can resale in a few years from now, or that the game will be open sourced or DRM/always-on removed, then that is a BONUS, and something I didn't expect when I bought it.
As long as the seller is upfront with what I'm paying for, I can choose to not buy it. The unforgivable failures on game producers behalf is when they have DRM servers not working, or *hidden* caveats such as no-resale licenses, always-on requirements and so on. As long as I can make an informed decision I'm happy.
More to the point, anyone trying to claim a portion of the proceeds from every resale is just engaging in rent-seeking. You sold it, it's not yours anymore, and you should have no say in what they do with it after.
I am officially gone from
Suck it the hell up.
That is indeed a question of principle. Lots of consumer regulation are not (should not be) thought with the business in mind, but with the customer in mind. You cannot sell dangerous product, make false advertisement, lie in the ingredient list, and ... you cannot profit from your product resale. There is no point arguing if this is good for business or not, that is beside the point.
Of course, we may open the discussion if first sale doctrine is still actually relevant, but the profit margin of game studio and there relatively insignificant impact on economy compared to cars and house market and nobody seem to complain about those ones.
GameStop says 17 percent of its sales are paid in trade credits. The implication is clear — if the games industry lost 17 percent of its sales tomorrow, that would be a bad day for the publishers and developers.
Is GameStop now the only place that sells games in the world? Losing 17% of GameStop sales is not equal to losing 17% of overall sales. Also, GameStop has this nasty habit(which I have seen countless times myself) of taking pristine used games and selling them as new. They often only cut ~$1 to $5 off a recent used game's price, which is ridiculous for a $60 game. If someone already had that game, and used the crap out of it, it is no longer worth $58. They already paid the premium to the distributor and the developer, so that becomes pure profit that goes right into their corporate pockets.
There's also the issues of $60 for a disc-only game without manual or proper case, and totally chewed discs that they won't accept returns on, but will instead try to make you pay the difference for a new copy. They are slimy as hell, regardless of why people don't like them.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
They know damn well that trade ins fund new games. What they really want is a cut. Well, guess what. Gamestop makes money off used games so that's a huge "NO" from them and if they pursue legal means, well, that's a dead end. Autodesk (makers of AutoCAD) attempted to stop everyone from reselling their software after its initial purchase and completely and utterly lost that court case. They must have thought they were some sort of magical exemption from a free market economy.
Most people who buy new cars do so when trading in their old one.
Imagine if people couldn't trade in their old car and had to keep it forever or have it scrapped/recycled?
Or, imagine that if they sold the car, half the features on the car stopped working.. say, because the radio required a non-transferable licence key which expired when sold, so requiring the new owner to buy their own.
Depreciation of used cars would be even worse than it is now, and the reduced sale price of used cars would fall and people would be hold onto them longer. New car sales would also fall significantly in response, and either manufacturers or dealers would reduce their prices to try and boost sales, or simply that there would be a big shake-down and manufacturers and dealers would go out of business to allow the survivors to maintain volume and margins.
In the meantime, "piracy" would increase as people found work-arounds to renable or retrofit features to their cars to add and restore features "stolen" by official dealer network. There would be a boost in jobs for people to repair or maintain older cars, and cost of spares would rise, and thus growth in third party components, and a backlash from manufacturers trying to copyright, patent or trademark spares to prevent that loss of revenue to unauthorised parts manufacturers.
Game publishers price in a way that pretty much demands a secondary market. The path to make used sales irrelevant is easy: lower prices so there isn't appreciable profit to be had by trying to facilitate a used market. People don't wan't to pay $60 on a game they'll, on average, maybe play for a week before being done with it. This is the most effective strategy that can possible be done.
On gamestop's end, the delta between the money they give for someone trading in and the price they put on it is huge. That delta is likely the bit that the game industry finds problematic. Percentage wise, it's far more severe than other used markets get away with (a used car sees maybe 15-40% markup between trade-in and resale, gamestop is more on the order of 100-300% from what I understand).
If publishers decreased their price just enough and not too much, they'll be able to get as much, if not more, overall revenue in the gaming industry without leaving room for a secondary market. If revenue is flat compared to the current circumstances, at least Gamestop's markup would be going to publishers/developers instead of Gamestop.
Incidently, if they *did* succeed in eliminating the secondary market without taking steps to adjust pricing, revenue would take a potentially sharp dip. It might be tempting to think the money spent would be constant, that people would just buy one new $60 game instead of 3 used $20 games. However, people tend to get more careless with their spending when spending in small chunks, so they may be more rulectant to even buy one $60 title than five $20 titles spread out over a bit of time.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Every single industry that sells tangible products
- yeah, but in some cases it's not the industry that prevents tangible products from being resold. How is that secondary market for used condoms doing?
You can't handle the truth.
The problem is the time it takes for people to think about selling their games. Each new generation of games might be 'better' (yes I know only the graphics improve with most other things getting worse and worse), but a new game from a series will be released once a year at best, while the customer will be thinking about selling the old game in a couple of weeks.
Game maker should be thinking about ways to keep players playing the games they buy, rather then preventing them from selling them.
If people would rather pay $50 for Final Ghost Warfare Ball 2011 than $60 for Final Ghost Warfare Ball 2012, then maybe you should write some original games once in a while instead of serving up re-heated leftovers as haute cuisine.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Most used games end up in landfills, polluting our water supply and threatening our air quality. But a disconcertingly large portion of them are shipped to low wage countries like India, China or Phillipines. There rag pickers with no protective equipment, no purify, no bounds checker, not even a basic UMR checker pick them apart and make piles and piles of code. Toxic code, with no input validation, teeming with buffer over runs, wild pointers, Freed Memory Reads/Writes, spaghetti code, with tons and tons of long jumps and GOTO calls, at some instances code with even COME FROM calls are being pulled and recycled. Please take care of your used games and recycle them properly paying some attention to Mother Earth.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Perhaps we are seeing a change in the business model towards pre-purchasing that open the field with a lot of possibilities and enhancements. The traditional market won't dissapear but the cheese has moved and it hurts to some companies and distributors.
Thus, projects that in the past would never see the light (like DayOne) now can get a niche of followers and collaborators.