Support NeoGAF

[Vinci]

I don't like Pachter much (or his persona if thats what he's doing) but if the 4%/6% figure is reliable, then publishers need to STFU about used games.

I would like to hear his source for those figures before buying into them at all.

 

[iamshadowlark]

Let's examine this for a moment.

Let's assume, for this exercise, that the net dollars of new game sales remains equal, and used game sales go away. What you'll have is an increase of dollar sales in new games, but a decrease in unit sales - more money being spent on each game. And a very large net decrease in total unit sales, including the old used game sales.

So now you're a publisher who has made the same profit, but sold to fewer people. No problem - until you release a sequel. Now there are fewer people who have played your game, and therefore may have a heightened interest in the sequel.

How good do you think that is for sustaining your revenue? This is another largely ignored side effect of re-sales.

Again, unless prices come down at least to the point where the average price of a game is at least the same as it currently is (new/used combined), the removal of used games is almost certain to hurt, not help. Customers aren't trapped into this market. They have plenty of options where and how to play games.

I repeat again my assertion that publishers, facing falling sales after implementing anti-used tactics, will likely blame Apple rather than face the truth - that they drove their customers away.

Not everybody buys used because they can't afford new games. Alot of times, within the first week of a games life, you can get the used version cheaper and consumers don't rally care about the difference between used/new.

And again what are you basing the less unit sales claim from? Just because a game is outside of a consumers budget doesnt mean that it will forever be. Games drop in price all the time. Consumers could simply just wait till the price drops.

 

[JasonUresti]

Ok, if you want to focus on EA like publishers we can. Revenue has increased sure but so has the average cost of developing a game. In fact it has tripled in some cases. Looking at revenue is only one part of the equation.

Used game sales represent a significant amount of money in this industry and the parties who make the content are not getting a cut. Cutting used games is not the only answer but the opportunity cost is too large to not pursue those funds.

Do you not see the insanity of this? People are spending more money on games than ever, yet companies are still not making that much because they keep increasing costs internally. So, instead of taking a hard look and trying to find ways to lower costs, they simply are trying to manipulate things to squeeze ever more and more money from the consumers.

Gamestop has taken off with used sales because games aren't worth what the publishers charge for them. All entertainment industries have had used sales, used sales chain stores, and it never crippled them. It never did, because the value they placed on their product was far closer to what the market determined it was, unlike games.

Next console wave, when they have their anti-used systems in place, and yet find that increasing costs internally have once again put them in the red, what is the solution then? Will it still be the consumers fault, somehow? 69.99 dollar games, 79.99? Will games have an expiration, so that you can only play that console title for three months before you have to pay up again to reactivate it?

The games industry is sick, and deranged about the reasons as to why, at least on the big publisher end. It will take something drastic, something that ends up forcing them to eat several bowls of shit, before they realize this.

 

[iamshadowlark]

Not true. Data to that effect has been posted several times, even in this very thread if I'm not mistaken. There are a lot of threads on this topic, true.

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/111869

Edit: now, sorry, gotta go actually play games. My friends just arrived for "Game Night" (every Friday - and we often play the newest stuff, which will cease to be the case if we're stripped of our ownership rights).

This was in the OP of this thread and I already pointed out the fallacies and flaws of it.

Thats a poor article.

For one, comparing revenue is pretty silly when you consider the gulf between the price floor of a new game and an used game.

Secondly, what does it matter about what the Gamestop ceo said in 2009 as far as trade-ins go? We had a thread this year about gamestop's financial call and the ceo failed to provide hard numbers on the tie-in for used-game credit to new-game purchases. That lead me to believe that the actual numbers are not impactful as he was saying considering how they provided numbers on nearly everything else.

I also think Pachters numbers are simply estimates and unless Gamestop is providing his firm with numbers that they are withholding from their share-holders, its not much more accurate than what we could come up with.

And again, no data has ever been brought out because it hasn't been made available to the public.

Try again when you come back.

 

[iamshadowlark]

Do you not see the insanity of this? People are spending more money on games than ever, yet companies are still not making that much because they keep increasing costs internally. So, instead of taking a hard look and trying to find ways to lower costs, they simply are trying to manipulate things to squeeze ever more and more money from the consumers.

Gamestop has taken off with used sales because games aren't worth what the publishers charge for them. All entertainment industries have had used sales, used sales chain stores, and it never crippled them. It never did, because the value they placed on their product was far closer to what the market determined it was, unlike games.

Next console wave, when they have their anti-used systems in place, and yet find that increasing costs internally have once again put them in the red, what is the solution then? Will it still be the consumers fault, somehow? 69.99 dollar games, 79.99? Will games have an expiration, so that you can only play that console title for three months before you have to pay up again to reactivate it?

The games industry is sick, and deranged about the reasons as to why, at least on the big publisher end. It will take something drastic, something that ends up forcing them to eat several bowls of shit, before they realize this.

The software industry generally doesn't participate in the second-hand market and for good reason.

 

[Vinci]

Next console wave, when they have their anti-used systems in place, and yet find that increasing costs internally have once again put them in the red, what is the solution then? Will it still be the consumers fault, somehow? 69.99 dollar games, 79.99? Will games have an expiration, so that you can only play that console title for three months before you have to pay up again to reactivate it?

To be fair, some games could sell well at $69.99 and make far more money than selling at the current MSRP. But most couldn't.

In the end, the part of this that bugs me the most is that game makers are so damn lazy when it comes to such a vital component of their marketing strategy - pricing. Rather than actually make choices about what their games are worth and price them accordingly, they will shift the blame to anyone and everyone else, meanwhile turning their products into commodities with such little variation that it's no surprise when gamers don't want to pay full price for them or are willing to resell them at half what they paid within a week.

But I suppose if killing off the used game market is what it will take for them to behave like actual damn businesses, then let's do it. Let's separate the men from the boys. Should be fun to watch if nothing else.

The software industry generally doesn't participate in the second-hand market and for good reason.

According to Opiate earlier in this thread, you can sell your license to Photoshop and other software so long as they weren't included with the system but, rather, purchased by you directly.

 

[iamshadowlark]

To be fair, some games could sell well at $69.99 and make far more money than selling at the current MSRP. But most couldn't.

In the end, the part of this that bugs me the most is that game makers are so damn lazy when it comes to such a vital component of their marketing strategy - pricing. Rather than actually make choices about what their games are worth and price them accordingly, they will shift the blame to anyone and everyone else, meanwhile turning their products into commodities with such little variation that it's no surprise when gamers don't want to pay full price for them or are willing to resell them at half what they paid within a week.

But I suppose if killing off the used game market is what it will take for them to behave like actual damn businesses, then let's do it. Let's separate the men from the boys. Should be fun to watch if nothing else.

Part of that is the console makers fault. They have some dictation on pricing of titles. There will have to be some changes next gen in the pricing structures of games, thats for certain.

According to Opiate earlier in this thread, you can sell your license to Photoshop and other software so long as they weren't included with the system but, rather, purchased by you directly.

Thats a very specific example. I wouldn't say that is the norm at all, certainly not for games.

 

[Vinci]

Part of that is the console makers fault. They have some dictation on pricing of titles. There will have to be some changes next gen in the pricing structures of games, thats for certain.

But there are 'budget titles' released on all platforms. What dictation do the console makers have?

 

[legend166]

Ok, if you want to focus on EA like publishers we can. Revenue has increased sure but so has the average cost of developing a game. In fact it has tripled in some cases. Looking at revenue is only one part of the equation.

I...what...did you read my post? That's exactly what I'm saying.

And, to a large extent, the 'average cost of developing a game' is in control of the publisher.

 

[iamshadowlark]

But there are 'budget titles' released on all platforms. What dictation do the console makers have?

Not in retail boxes.

 

[iamshadowlark]

I...what...did you read my post? That's exactly what I'm saying.

And, to a large extent, the 'average cost of developing a game' is in control of the publisher.

The second paragraph was the point.

 

[Vinci]

Not in retail boxes.

I can think of at least several on the Wii. Do MS and Sony have rules that Nintendo doesn't?

 

[Tellaerin]

That fact was never in question. The question is to what degree does this happen? or How many people trade in used games to buy more used games?

How do you know people won't simply wait til prices fall/sales to buy new games? You don't.

Again you are talking about guarantees but you have no data.

If it was possible for those people to regularly purchase the titles they want, for prices comparable to the adjusted MSRP after applying trade-in credit, why would they bother trading in their used games towards new ones at all? The fact that they do implies that waiting for sales and price drops isn't a viable alternative for them.

So unless something else also changes (MSRP of new games drops dramatically, games go on sale more quickly and are more heavily discounted, etc.), it's still safe to say that eliminating the option to trade in used games toward new ones is guaranteed to reduce the number of new games purchased.

Your insistence on dismissing what other people here are saying unless they can point to numbers on a balance sheet comes off as rather pedantic.

 

[iamshadowlark]

I can think of at least several on the Wii. Do MS and Sony have rules that Nintendo doesn't?

Well I know sony sets pricing guidelines and Im sure microsoft does too.

 

[Vinci]

Well I know sony sets pricing guidelines and Im sure microsoft does too.

Okay, that's pretty moronic of them. If I were a publisher, I'd be giving them shit about that to no end.

 

[iamshadowlark]

If it was possible for those people to regularly purchase the titles they want, for prices comparable to the adjusted MSRP after applying trade-in credit, why would they bother trading in their used games towards new ones at all? The fact that they do implies that waiting for sales and price drops isn't a viable alternative for them.

Did you really just ask this? Really? No idea comes to mind?

So unless something else also changes (MSRP of new games drops dramatically, games go on sale more quickly and are more heavily discounted, etc.), it's still safe to say that eliminating the option to trade in used games toward new ones is guaranteed to reduce the number of new games purchased.

No its not. Not at all.

Your insistence on dismissing what other people here are saying unless they can point to numbers on a balance sheet comes off as rather pedantic.

Im dismissing people because they are making claims about facts and guarantees with no hard evidence, like you did above.

 

[legend166]

Did you really just ask this? Really? No idea comes to mind?



No its not. Not at all.

Im dismissing people because they are making claims about facts and guarantees with no hard evidence, like you did above.

Where's your hard evidence?

 

[Vinci]

Im dismissing people because they are making claims about facts and guarantees with no hard evidence, like you did above.

Isn't that a bit hypocritical? And also, when did I say that it was 100% certain or a fact? I've expressed my opinion and even was open to hearing your rebuttal of my suggestion.

 

[iamshadowlark]

Where's your hard evidence?

There isn't any real evidence, which is why I said:

I don't know what would occur, which is why I don't usually say one way or the other. The thing I take issue with is when people say such things as "new game sales are guaranteed to fall without used games". Its simply not a fact, and there is really no data available to make such claims.

Pay attention.

Isn't that a bit hypocritical? And also, when did I say that it was 100% certain or a fact? I've expressed my opinion and even was open to hearing your rebuttal of my suggestion.

How? Also, I wasn't aware that I accused you of anything.

 

[Tellaerin]

Im dismissing people because they are making claims about facts and guarantees with no hard evidence, like you did above.

Fact: People trade in used games to help defray the cost of new game purchases.

Fact: A statistically significant subset of those people have stated their reason for doing so is because the MSRP of new games makes them too expensive without some means to reduce their effective price.

Fact: The game industry as it stands today heavily front-loads sales. Retail shelf space is limited, and there are intentionally few evergreen titles. Other factors, such as online servers and other forms of support potentially being withdrawn by a publisher to make way for newer releases, place additional pressure on the consumer to purchase games as close to day one as possible if he intends to buy them at all.

Fact: Though sales and price drops take place at retail, neither are guaranteed for a given title. When price drops do take place, there is a significant likelihood that they will occur closer to the end of that title's effective shelf life.

These are facts.

So we have consumers whose purchasing pattern is to buy a game at release, play it while community and publisher support remains strong, and then trade it in to help purchase the next new title as support begins to wane. Eliminate that mechanism and they're presented with two possible options.

The first is to continue purchasing new releases on or around day one for full MSRP. With effectively less money to work with, they'll have to be more selective in their purchases.

The second is to wait for sales. The product they're interested in may or may not go on sale - there's no guarantee it will, or that it'll be significantly discounted if it does. If the price does drop significantly, it'll most likely happen when the game's community and publisher support are waning and something new's on the horizon. So there's pressure on them to not wait, and go with the first option instead.

Yet you'll take what we do know, discount the logical conclusions we can draw from it, and insist that nobody can state with certainty that sales of new games won't take a hit in that scenario. Really? It's good to think critically and not take things on hearsay, but logic and common sense deserve their due, too.

 

[faceless007]

Did you really just ask this? Really? No idea comes to mind?



No its not. Not at all.

Im dismissing people because they are making claims about facts and guarantees with no hard evidence, like you did above.

Are you this dense? The evidence is people posting in this damn thread saying that's what they would do. People are explicitly telling you that if they couldn't subsidize new game purchases with trade-in credit, they would buy fewer of them. That's a drop in new sales right there. So unless you are aware of people who would buy more games new without the possibility trade-in credit in order to offset that loss--and I can't imagine any possible circumstance that could be true--the effect is demonstrably net negative.

 

[iamshadowlark]

Fact: People trade in used games to help defray the cost of new game purchases.

Fact: People trade in used games to buy more used games. What is your point?

Fact: The game industry as it stands today heavily front-loads sales. Retail shelf space is limited, and there are intentionally few evergreen titles. Other factors, such as online servers and other forms of support potentially being withdrawn by a publisher to make way for newer releases, place additional pressure on the consumer to purchase games as close to day one as possible if he intends to buy them at all.

And part of that is because of the second-hand market and it would surely change sans second hand market. Pressure is there for some games but for the majority there really isn't.

Fact: Though sales and price drops take place at retail, neither are guaranteed for a given title. When price drops do take place, there is a significant likelihood that they will occur closer to the end of that title's effective shelf life.

Thats not a fact at all.They are guaranteed. You talk like games only receive one price drop. Most games receive 2 to 3 price drops in a shelf life.

These are facts.

Some of those are facts but none really help your point much.

So we have consumers whose purchasing pattern is to buy a game at release, play it while community and publisher support remains strong, and then trade it in to help purchase the next new title as support begins to wane. Eliminate that mechanism and they're presented with two possible options.

Now answer me this. What percentage of consumers do this?

Yet you'll take what we do know, discount the logical conclusions we can draw from it, and insist that nobody can state with certainty that sales of new games won't take a hit in that scenario. Really? It's good to think critically and not take things on hearsay, but logic and common sense deserve their due, too.

We know close to nothing. You can point out the different kinds of consumers and their buying patterns, but until we know what percentage of what consumers buys what and how they buy it we don't know shit. The only thing you people try to bring is antecedal evidence, which means jack shit when discussing the microeconomics of this multi-billion dollar industry. Common sense and logic would tell you that.

Are you this dense? The evidence is people posting in this damn thread saying that's what they would do. People are explicitly telling you that if they couldn't subsidize new game purchases with trade-in credit, they would buy fewer of them. That's a drop in new sales right there. So unless you are aware of people who would buy more games new without the possibility trade-in credit in order to offset that loss--and I can't imagine any possible circumstance that could be true--the effect is demonstrably net negative.

Excuse me?

People posting antecedal evidence is worthless. Absolutely worthless.

 

[Vinci]

How?

The fact that you're doing the same thing?

 

[Nealand Liquor]

Hmmmm, looks like I may be going PC Master race next gen. With prices of new consoles + addon coming close to the cost of a good enough gaming PC there could be no reason not to switch.

 

[Clear]

People posting antecedal evidence is worthless. Absolutely worthless.

Exactly.

What's worse is because the only people with access to hard data (publishers, retailers) are so heavily invested in the debate their views get summarily discarded as self-serving, this debate never really progresses beyond trading anecdotes and opinions.

The observable reality is that almost everyone expressing an opinion from within development and publishing (i.e. the people with big money and livelihoods on the line) say that used-games are hurting them.

The counter from the pro-consumer party is that they are all too stupid to understand their own business (not plausible), and basically all evil capitalist scum out to steal their rights in order to line their own pockets (a convenient generalization).

Like I've said before, the rational reading of this situation is that where there's smoke there's fire. If so many people in dev/pub circles are saying that are negative aspects to the current situation, Ockham's razor indicates there is a problem because that's a far more likely reading than everyone complaining being conveniently stupid/evil.

Not to mention that when all's said and done we're talking about non-essential luxury items here. Noone is being oppressed by having to pay a bit more for their toys, because the desire for the product is driven purely by value proposition, not neccessity.

 

[iamshadowlark]

The fact that you're doing the same thing?

What exactly am I doin?

 

[snap0212]

What's worse is because the only people with access to hard data (publishers, retailers) are so heavily invested in the debate their views get summarily discarded as self-serving, this debate never really progresses beyond trading anecdotes and opinions.

There has never been any evidence that used game sales do anything to the profit of the publisher/developer. Unless they provide actual evidence, any gamer's anecdotal evidence is worth just as much as the publisher's evidence that they've yet to back up with actual facts.

I'm not saying one doesn't influence the other at all, but I'm honestly sick of people always using the "anecdotal evidence doesn't count"-argument. Yes, it is okay to use because it's all we have. If there was actual research and data to back up their comments, these things would have been shared in the past (shareholders would love to take a look at that).

 

[iamshadowlark]

There has never been any evidence that used game sales do anything to the profit of the publisher/developer. Unless they provide actual evidence, any gamer's anecdotal evidence is worth just as much as the publisher's evidence that they've yet to back up with actual facts.

I'm not saying one doesn't influence the other at all, but I'm honestly sick of people always using the "anecdotal evidence doesn't count"-argument. Yes, it is okay to use because its all we have. If there was actual research and data to back up their comments, these things would have been shared in the past (shareholders would love to take a look at that).

Um what? The retailer receives 100% of the profit of the sale of a used game. Its not even debatable, they lose money on used sales.

And just because anecdotal evidence is all we have doesn't make it any more reliable and relevant. This is a multi-billion dollar industry spread across the whole globe, whatever may happen on your little corner of the world is moot. Until we get hard data its very foolish and illogical to talk in such absolutes.

 

[snap0212]

Um what? The retailer receives 100% of the profit of the sale of a used game. Its not even debatable, they lose money on used sales.

Do you have actual data that says people would have bought new if used games were not available? Because the fact that GameStop makes money off of used game sales doesn't prove that this money would have been spent on new games if GameStop wasn't around.

 

[iamshadowlark]

Do you have actual data that says people would have bought new if used games were not available? Because the fact that GameStop makes money off of used game sales doesn't prove that this money would have been spent on new games if GameStop wasn't around.

Do you have data to refute this?

.....


.....


.......


.....exactly.

 

[Pureauthor]

The observable reality is that almost everyone expressing an opinion from within development and publishing (i.e. the people with big money and livelihoods on the line) say that used-games are hurting them.

In which case that should be a clear sign that their business model isn't working and they should change it, instead of behaving as if videogames are a special snowflake that should deny consumers their right to trade in games they buy.

 

[snap0212]

Do you have data to refute this?

.....


.....


.......


.....exactly.

No, I don't. That's why I said there isn't any data to back up anyone's claims. There's no data to back up your claim and there's no data to back up anyone else's claim.

 

[iamshadowlark]

In which case that should be a clear sign that their business model isn't working and they should change it, instead of behaving as if videogames are a special snowflake that should deny consumers their right to trade in games they buy.

Special snowflake? The vast majority of software has clauses in the license agreements to prevent second-hand sales. I love how you obviously ignored the rest of his/her post.

 

[iamshadowlark]

No, I don't. That's why I said there isn't any data to back up anyone's claims. There's no data to back up your claim and there's no data to back up anyone else's claim.

Theres no data, but here you are saying the anecdotal evidence is just as good because its all we have. Thats what I'm challenging.

 

[snap0212]

Theres no data, but here you are saying the anecdotal evidence is just as good because its all we have. Thats what I'm challenging.

What you're challenging is when the gamer/customer uses anecdotal evidence (with no proof at all) to get their point across... while defending publishers when they do the very same thing.

Just a few posts earlier you were claiming that publishers are losing money. There's no proof for that – none. Now why is it okay for you to make these claims without any proof when you then go on and say 'Well gamer, your anecdotal evidence has no place in this discussion'?

 

[iamshadowlark]

What you're challenging is when the gamer/customer uses anecdotal evidence (with no proof at all) to get their point across while defending publishers when they do the very same thing.

Just a few posts earlier you were claiming that publishers are losing money. There's no proof for that – none. Now why is it okay for you to make these claims without any proof when you then go on and say 'Well gamer, your anecdotal evidence has no place in this discussion'?

What are you talking about? What are you not understanding? Publishers make 0 dollars on second-hand sale of their used game. Zero. Zilch. Nada. What proof do you need? You are making my head hurt.

 

[snap0212]

What are you talking about? What are you not understanding? Publishers make 0 dollars on second-hand sale of their used game. Zero. Zilch. Nada. What proof do you need? You are making my head hurt.

If you claim that used games cause the publisher to lose profit then you have to have proof that the people who have bought used would have bought new if used games weren't available.

If you don't have any proof for that then you're just assuming that these people would have bought new games instead. Where's your data to back that up?

Again: There's only a single situation in which the publisher would actually lose money to used game sales. And that situation is when people would have bought new if used games weren't available.

 

[iamshadowlark]

If you claim that used games cause the publisher to lose profit then you have to have proof that the people who have bought used would have bought new if used games weren't available.

If you don't have any proof for that then you're just assuming that these people would have bought new games instead. Where's your data to back that up?

Again: There's only a single situation in which the publisher would actually lose money to used game sales. And that situation is when people would have bought new if used games weren't available.

You're confusing things.

You don't have to prove what will happen when used games is gone because that is the future. You don't prove the future lol, thats not how this works. You guess.

The reality of today is that publishers/developers make nothing on a used sale of a game today. Thats not debatable.

 

[Pureauthor]

Special snowflake? The vast majority of software has clauses in the license agreements to prevent second-hand sales. I love how you obviously ignored the rest of his/her post.

There are multiple problems with pointing to software licenses as some sort of example, such as the fact that games are treated as entertainment first and foremost, the fact 'the vast majority' of software being unable to be resold does not change the fact that is still software that can, and the idea that software not being resellable is acceptable, and that it follows that games not being resellable is also acceptable.

And I ignored the rest of the post because it was irrelevant to my point. It really doesn't matter if it's because publishers are greedy or evil or incompetent. If they are losing money and is that is directly attributable to used game sales (something I do not personally believe to be true, but leave that aside), that's a big flashing red sign that something is very badly wrong with the business model.

 

[iamshadowlark]

There are multiple problems with pointing to software licenses as some sort of example, such as the fact that games are treated as entertainment first and foremost, the fact 'the vast majority' of software being unable to be resold does not change the fact that is still software that can, and the idea that software not being resellable is acceptable, and that it follows that games not being resellable is also acceptable.

And I ignored the rest of the post because it was irrelevant to my point. It really doesn't matter if it's because publishers are greedy or evil or incompetent. If they are losing money and is that is directly attributable to used game sales (something I do not personally believe to be true, but leave that aside), that's a big flashing red sign that something is very badly wrong with the business model.

Video Games are software first and foremost. I don't know what the hell you are talking about but games have been labeled software for at least the last decade and a half and have included software licenses. Read your EULAs.

 

[jimi_dini]

And again what are you basing the less unit sales claim from? Just because a game is outside of a consumers budget doesnt mean that it will forever be. Games drop in price all the time. Consumers could simply just wait till the price drops.

You think they will drop the prices as fast as currently, even if there aren't any used game sales anymore? Why should they?

Um what? The retailer receives 100% of the profit of the sale of a used game. Its not even debatable, they lose money on used sales.

publishers lose money on used sales? You mean the same sort of money that they lose on piracy?

You are assuming that if someone bought game X as used, that someone would have also bought it new in case used sales were not available. Just one example. Say we got game X and game Y. Someone buys them both as used for the total price of a new game. You now take used sales away. Oh my gosh, he will only be able to afford one game for his monies. And maybe he even won't buy the games at all, because the price of them brand-new is too expensive for him. Maybe he will buy something completely different. Who knows.

Also consider that there is eBay for example for selling used games as well. eBay gets a share, but most of the money from that used sale gets to the original buyer of the game. Which also increases the value of a game. If used sales were not possible anymore, that value would be lower than before. Is eBay bad, because you can sell used things there and they get a share for this service?

 

[snap0212]

I think you're the one confusing things.
Let me quote what you said earlier:

Its not even debatable, they lose money on used sales.

This statement is an assumption that you cannot back up with any evidence at all.

The reality of today is that publishers/developers make nothing on a used sale of a game today. Thats not debatable.

There is a giant difference between not making money off of something and something causing you lose money.

Publishers don't make money off of used game sales, that's correct but also not what you said earlier. Earlier, as I quoted, you claimed that they were 'losing money on used sales', which is something that might be true but is also something that you cannot prove at all. It's an assumption on your side. An assumption you thought was okay to make - to prove your point even though you were calling others out for making assumptions without backing them up with actual facts.

There is no evidence that used game sales cut into the profits of video game publishers.

 

[iamshadowlark]

I think you're the one confusing things.
Let me quote what you said earlier:
This statement is an assumption that you cannot back up with any evidence at all.


There is a giant difference between not making money off of something and something causing you lose money.

Publishers don't make money off of used game sales, that's correct but also not what you said earlier. Earlier, as I quoted, you claimed that they were 'losing money on used sales', which is something that might be true but is also something that you cannot prove at all. It's an assumption on your side. An assumption you thought was okay to make - to prove your point even though you were calling others out for making assumptions without backing them up with actual facts.

There is no evidence that used game sales cut into the profits of video game publishers.

You are just arguing semantics now lol. Cmon dude don't stoop that low.

 

[Dead Man]

Nope. Publishers will just implement a "Bomba" pass. This pass will be free for buyers who purchase new copies within the first 30 days. For everybody else it will cost $10 + whatever adjustment is necessary to bring the average sale price up to MSRP. Players will need this Bomba pass to access any of the game's content (after the splash intros of course).

You read it here first GAF.

Fuck, you're right.

You are just arguing semantics now lol. Cmon dude don't stoop that low.

No, it's a pretty crucial difference. If customer A buys a game at $60 and then sells it to B for $30, he can use that $30 for another game at $60 that he may not have been able to afford without that used sale. Further, if he knows beforehand he can't sell the game, he may not purchase it at all since his total outlay will be higher. At no point does the publisher see any of this used sale money, but it helps with the sale of other games yet to be purchased by A.

 

[Pandaman]

What are you talking about? What are you not understanding? Publishers make 0 dollars on second-hand sale of their used game. Zero. Zilch. Nada. What proof do you need? You are making my head hurt.

you cant lose money you never earned in the first place.

 

[Pureauthor]

Video Games are software first and foremost. I don't know what the hell you are talking about but games have been labeled software for at least the last decade and a half and have included software licenses. Read your EULAs.

You do realize that labelling videogames as software negates the argument about software not being resold, right? I was under the impression that the point of your bringing up software was to show a separate group of consumer goods that could not be resold to back up the idea that there are indeed specific types of consumer goods that cannot be resold, but if that wasn't what you were driving at, then I'll need to ask you to clarify that point.

Furthermore, being legally labelled as software and including EULAs (which are not necessarily legally binding) does not change that they are not marketed as software by the producers, nor are they grouped as software by retailers, nor are they treated as software by consumers. The idea of videogames being comparable to software fails on multiple levels.

 

[larvi]

What are you talking about? What are you not understanding? Publishers make 0 dollars on second-hand sale of their used game. Zero. Zilch. Nada. What proof do you need? You are making my head hurt.

Bullshit, people who buy used games also buy dlc for those games that they wouldn't have purchased otherwise. It could also lead to that person becoming a fan of that series and buying the next iteration on day 1 new if they like it that much. In short the publisher is gaining new customers that they might not have had otherwise if it wasn't for the lower entry point of the used game in the first place. In the 90's the PC shareware model had publishers giving away games FREE to gain new customers and it worked for those who had a good product.

 

[snap0212]

You are just arguing semantics now lol. Cmon dude don't stoop that low.

Semantics? These semantics are the only reason this Thread exists. You continue to fail to understand that there's a difference between someone not making money off of something and someone losing revenue.

 

[Cipherr]

I'm just curious, what game is worth $60 and keeping it forever to you?

Guardian Heroes

 

[iamshadowlark]

Fuck, you're right.



No, it's a pretty crucial difference. If customer A buys a game at $60 and then sells it to B for $30, he can use that $30 for another game at $60 that he may not have been able to afford without that used sale. Further, if he knows beforehand he can't sell the game, he may not purchase it at all since his total outlay will be higher. At no point does the publisher see any of this used sale money, but it helps with the sale of other games yet to be purchased by A.

Its a difference but its still not something you can prove. Say customer A usually buys used games around launch for maybe 15$ cheaper, who are you to say that he/she won't buy it new for $50/$60 if its the only thing available?

Most games these days have matchmaking or at least stat tracking and those cost server and infrastructure to run. There are plenty of ways publishers can lose money on a used sale and those occur often.

It’s all that stuff, and so in general, we’re giving out a huge amount of content, and part of the reason for the online pass is that when that stuff goes online, it isn’t free. We have to pay for servers and all this different stuff to maintain it, and so at some point, you know, games have to make money. It is a business, and we just wanna be able to continue to provide that kind of content. If Sony ever comes to us and says “You’re not making enough money on this, you need to cut it” or whatever, that’s not something that we want. We want to be able to maintain the level of quality of the product that we’re giving out.

Arne Meyer: We don’t want to sink the company with bandwidth costs!

Justin Richmond: Yeah exactly, and the other thing is that even if you do buy it used, it’s worth the price of that online pass just to get all that content, because there’s so much stuff. It’s either that or we offer online completely in its entirety also, so we have a complete offline package as well, so if you want to play the co-op with a friend, you can do that offline.

http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2011/10/17/interview-naughty-dog-on-uncharted-3/