Support NeoGAF

[GillianSeed79]

How about offering incentives for people to buy a game new either digitally or retail and not punishing them or blackmailing them into buying new. I'll give you a few examples. If you pre-order a game on Steam you'll usually get a 10 percent discount. That's an incentive. If it's a particularly big game, they might even kick you a free game if a game meets pre-order goals. Here's a retail example. The standard retail version of The Witcher 2 for PC included a game guide, map, making of DVD, official soundtrack, papercraft and other minor goodies for $50. Most publishers would throw in a useless statute to that and charge $150.

You know what isn't an incentive? Stuff that punishes the player or blackmails them like 99 percent of pre-order exclusive content, Day 1 DLC and especially retailer-specific exclusive pre-order content.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

You guys should really check out craigslist for used video games. I've bought and sold plenty off of people on that site. I usually sell mine for 5 bucks less than what GS is selling the same game for.

 

[ttocs]

I think Nintendo put it best. If you're worried about your games being sold to the used game market, then make games people want to keep longer and play more.

 

[RoninChaos]

"this year, we learned that the average salary across the entire game industry is $81,192"

http://www.gamecareerguide.com/features/1108/game_developer_salary_survey_2012.php

Just saying........

What are you saying?

 

[Just_myles]

Make it more appealing to buy your games digitally, then you can move into an online only store later on in the generation then bam! No more used games. Xbone missed steps one and two.

dat first post.

It just dawned on me, the title of the thread should be changed. By 'purchasing' a game at all we are 'supporting' our hobby who gets the funds is irrelevant. It should read quite honestly as, "why game players should support their developer" or to that affect.

Looking at the music ind. example, pretty much they had to 'adapt' to the trend of digital music being a reality, and since Apple did it in a way that people naturally conformed and accepted would be a good start for games instead of all the belly-aching.

I know these industries are different, but I think some kind of analysis should be done on this. Music copyright and royalty laws are very extensive (very), maybe game media should go this route if they want all of their money. Just sayin.

 

[Crazypanda_85]

No offense, Maxime B sounds like he's full of shit.

"Used games suck! P.S. pre-order at GameStop for exclusive items"

I don't agree with him but I respect his opinion, which I feel is in the thought of self preservation. I do feel that its odd that they want to say that used games are the devil but always make deals with GS. They obviously know that they need GS.

 

[TheDrowningMan]

I've noticed with the Last of Us that, in the UK at least, it's selling out quickly, despite hardly setting GTA or CoD or FIFA style records. It's also the same price (£39.99) digitally; in impulse range if you cannot find a copy nearby.

Nintendo usually don't overpress their games, and their value is retained far better than 99.99999% of games. Perhaps Sony are looking to that example.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

There is no contradiction. If they made games less expensive you would get even worse games and used games will STILL be cheaper so people will not really care. Dropping the base price is not a solution at all. I want well developed games.

Dropping the base price is most definitely a solution because GameStop can only undercut so much before its not even worth trading in / selling used.

 

[Mechanized]

Here’s a pretty unavoidable truth for consumers: when someone buys a used game, that transaction does not support the artists, designers, programmers, musicians, or anyone who created that game. 100 per cent of the money paid for a used game goes to the people they just handed their money to.

They got 100% of the money they were due when the product was originally purchased. That's all there is to it.

 

[Raist]

And the problem is....?

The problem is that from their point of view, retailers get way more money (and repeatedly) out of their work, and this just for having the game sit on a shelf for a bit.
I can understand that it's a rather depressing thought.

 

[Version 3.0]

Here’s a pretty unavoidable truth for consumers: when someone buys a used game, that transaction does not support the artists, designers, programmers, musicians, or anyone who created that game.

This is misleading lawyer-ish double-talk. Everyone mentioned has already been paid for that game. I sell products, too, and I never have and never will ask for money from my products' new owners' transactions.

If they don't like my product enough to keep it, I encourage them to find an owner who does.

End of story.

 

[Dirtbag]

Another result of the ever increasing risk of funding game development is publishers are forced to make more conservative decisions in what they release

More sequels
Longer generations
More shooters till another genre takes it's place
More aping of the biggest seller (CoD clones current gen, who knows next-gen)
Cross gen development, slowing the push into the future.

Even Nintendo seems less risky this gen vs. their Wii generation already.

Sure indie devs can flex some muscle and take risks, but imagine what a big-budget big-studio game could be if that studio didn't have to fear a risky play completely shutting their studio down.
It's kind of forced all big-budget games down a particular route, which stagnates change.

 

[Scrabble]

Additionally, used games only exist because the buyer who originally bought it sold it... so they already GOT the money for that copy which was sold as used.

They seem to be viewing it as the used game is a new copy that wasn't bought new. :S

Are you playing dumb or just ignoring the fact that a used copy sold means one less new copy sold? Lets stop looking at this as some black and white issue where it's just this or that and nothing else.

 

[Crazypanda_85]

How about offering incentives for people to buy a game new either digitally or retail and not punishing them or blackmailing them into buying new. I'll give you a few examples. If you pre-order a game on Steam you'll usually get a 10 percent discount. That's an incentive. If it's a particularly big game, they might even kick you a free game if a game meets pre-order goals. Here's a retail example. The standard retail version of The Witcher 2 for PC included a game guide, map, making of DVD, official soundtrack, papercraft and other minor goodies for $50. Most publishers would throw in a useless statute to that and charge $150.

You know what isn't an incentive? Stuff that punishes the player or blackmails them like 99 percent of pre-order exclusive content, Day 1 DLC and especially retailer-specific exclusive pre-order content.

Atlus does this pretty often with some of their bigger titles. They are actually doing this with Shin Megami Tensei 4.

But I do agree. I wish more devs would do this . I miss my cloth maps and hardcover, 100 page mini books and pendants.

 

[Version 3.0]

Dropping the base price is most definitely a solution because GameStop can only undercut so much before its not even worth trading in / selling used.

Exactly. The used market will shrink in direct proportion to price reductions.

 

[Skilletor]

Are you playing dumb or just ignoring the fact that a used copy sold means one less new copy sold? Lets stop looking at this as some black and white issue where it's just this or that and nothing else.

Really? Since when? Why do you assume somebody buying a used game would have bought that game new?

I've bought a lot of games used that I would not, or could not, have bought new.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I don't agree with him but I respect his opinion, which I feel is in the thought of self preservation. I do feel that its odd that they want to say that used games are the devil but always make deals with GS. They obviously know that they need GS.

Well that's the thing, any principles he might have had regarding this issue are compromised once he starts cutting deals with the devil. Granted, it's probably someone much higher up on the ladder, but how much of the money from used game resells would he have expected to see from an Xbox One title? All of that money would go to the same corporate heads who made that happen in the first place.

 

[Zeliard]

Are you playing dumb or just ignoring the fact that a used copy sold means one less new copy sold?

You must have a very loose definition of the word "fact."

 

[Lupin the Third]

Are you playing dumb or just ignoring the fact that a used copy sold means one less new copy sold? Lets stop looking at this as some black and white issue where it's just this or that and nothing else.

Uh, hypocrisy much?

 

[ultron87]

This is misleading lawyer-ish double-talk. Everyone mentioned has already been paid for that game. I sell products, too, and I never have and never will ask for money from my products' new owners' transactions.

If they don't like my product enough to keep it, I encourage them to find an owner who does.

End of story.

He is talking about it from the person buying the game's perspective though: if you have a choice between the 60 dollar new game and the 55 dollars used game and you are someone who thinks more games like that should exist maybe spend the extra five bucks.

Obviously as the prices diverge more (as happens if you're buying at not Gamestop) it becomes less likely that the buyer would also buy the new thing.

 

[Beer Monkey]

I used to design and develop multimedia applications for touch-screen kiosks. I was approached by a game development studio owned by a major publisher and they aggressively tried to recruit me.

They wanted me to work 50% more hours and half the pay. Why? Because of the honor of working in the much coveted game industry. They thought I should be a happy slave.

Hear this. If stopping game sales and trade-ins would result in more money being spent on new games (It won't; the drop in liquidity will contract the market and cause industry contraction), is anybody really dumb to think that the designers, artists, and coders are going to get any of that money?

Because please, pass the fucking crack pipe over here. I'll have some of what you are smoking.

This industry fucks developers far more than any kid trading in a game ever will.

 

[Version 3.0]

Are you playing dumb or just ignoring the fact that a used copy sold means one less new copy sold? Lets stop looking at this as some black and white issue where it's just this or that and nothing else.

Not necessarily, but even if that's the case, why is that game being sold? Because it wasn't worth the purchase price. There's nothing wrong with multiple people playing one game, via resale or any other method (other than theft, of course).

 

[N2NOther]

If they didn't like what gamestop does, stop giving retailer specific pre-order incentives for shoppers to go and buy things from gamestop. I don't even begin to understand how Pubs can talk like they're the bane of their existence yet help funnel customers directly to them.

They can't. Pre-order incentives are part of the deal. If they supply good bonuses, the game gets a greater presence in the store through marketing materials.

 

[LiquidSolid]

If publishers really want more money and to push people to go digital, why not follow the movie industries example and pack a digital copy of the game into retail Special Edition packs?

 

[MaddenNFL64]

What are you saying?

That for the level of education needed to learn this shit, they get paid... meh.

 

[Version 3.0]

He is talking about it from the person buying the game's perspective though: if you have a choice between the 60 dollar new game and the 55 dollars used game and you are someone who thinks more games like that should exist maybe spend the extra five bucks.

And I do that all the time. But I will defend the guy who saves $5 with my dying breath.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

Are you playing dumb or just ignoring the fact that a used copy sold means one less new copy sold? Lets stop looking at this as some black and white issue where it's just this or that and nothing else.

As a consumer I could care less about a publishers bottomline. I care about my bottomline. Used games 4 Life!

 

[ultron87]

And I do that all the time. But I will defend the guy who saves $5 with my dying breath.

Oh yes. They absolutely have every right to save that five bucks on every game they buy if they so choose.

But if they then start complaining that no one makes games they like anymore then I don't have much sympathy.

 

[bro1]

I buy games new all the time, I just wait 6 months to a year after it comes out to get it cheap. You want me to buy new on launch date? Ship a game that doesn't need 5 patches to be playable and LOWER YOUR DAMN PRICE!

$60 a game is outrageous. You want people to buy more games than sell them for less. When Gamestop offers a used copy for just $5 less than a new copy that should tell you something. They know from their experience that customers are willing to buy used for just a $5 savings.

How about splitting out your single play from your multiplayer? I don't play multiplayer and just picked up MW3 for $15 (new on PC) for the single player because that's all it's worth.

If you are going to insist on $60 games so I can "support developers" how about you start lowering your prices faster. There is no reason why a game should be $60 3 months after launch. Drop it by $15 every three months and that avoids all issues of used games.

 

[Pavaloo]

I don't mind buying a used copy of a game that's a couple of years old, but it just makes me sick that I'm being incentivised to trade in The Last of Us within the first two weeks of purchase for a bigger trade in value. Fuck that. The game literally just came out you fucks. If they do this store wide, imagine entire shipments worth of a game being sold around the country after the first two weeks of the game's release and they're ALL used sales. That is completely fucked and I don't doubt it happens often.

I feel like this is why we don't get "B" games anymore (like B movies if that makes sense). The developer PROBABLY would've stayed afloat with trickling sales throughout the whole year when someone saw a random copy of Mercenaries 2 with a cool cover and decided to pick it up since it's cheap. Wait what's that? $19.99 new and $12.99 used? SOLD USED! And I get it, I totally get it, what a deal right? It's just, it's not like movies or music, there is no funding coming back from the product after the initial sale, and considering how gigantic the push is on the used games market, it can be a pretty significant hit. Bleh, it's the whole reason DLC works

"Make the games cheaper," okay then say games move to $40 then the used title with obviously become $35, where does it stop?
"I sunk X amount of hours into Y game, which means I'm definitely picking up the sequel," (not all cases obviously, but it fits the B game idea) what if the developer didn't make enough off the first game to produce a sequel?

Has this been posted or discussed in the thread?

PS. Movie rental stores died/are dying, CD music stores died/are dying, Libraries are funded by government, etc. You guys really surprised this is happening?

 

[MaddenNFL64]

And I do that all the time. But I will defend the guy who saves $5 with my dying breath.

Same. I like buying new over used, but there is no way in hell anyone saving a buck should get any shit from anyone. I've owned pre owned stuff my whole life to save a buck. Same with games. Bought used games, older & newer titles for dirt cheap. If the industry can't stay alive because of that, please die. I'm sure what will come out of the collapse will be saner.

 

[N2NOther]

You said this....

Are you playing dumb or just ignoring the fact that a used copy sold means one less new copy sold?

And then this....

Lets stop looking at this as some black and white issue where it's just this or that and nothing else.

Which is a black and white issue. Weird.

I can tell you 100% from experience that your "fact" is not true.

I bought Skyrim used a couple of weeks after release because my gf went home for 5 days and I wanted something I could play for 5 days and not beat and the plan was to return it when she got home. I wound up keeping the game and getting a Platinum trophy and sinking 250 hours into it.

The point here is a couple of things.

1- I wasn't going to buy Skyrim new because I had intentions of returning it for a refund.
2- I loved the hell out of that game and will be buying Elder Scrolls VI day one, new.

 

[Harp]

What is up with the entertainment and hospitalty industry thinking that its the consumer that should make sacrfices so they can make money? A Videogame company is a business and like any other business they exist to provide a service or a product that someone wants to buy. If people dont want to buy your product or they do not feel that your product is worth full price. It not their problem its yours.

Its really simple if you feel that you cant make money in the industry then go out of business. What we will find out is that people will still play games. Just not your games.

 

[quest]

I am honestly sick of people bitching about used games with out a solution that only screws over the customers. All these people want 59.99 dollar games with no used game market and increase sales. There needs to be give and take. Price price and price are the key here. The problem is every developer thinks their game is worthy of 59.99 when clearly they are not. Put more games between 29.99-49.99 at retail. Give people more reason to buy a downloaded game. Take 20% off and instead of Tuesday release digital release is the Friday before things like that. After the Xbone DRM maybe they will figure out people don't want to pay 59.99 for a long term rental period. Quit coming after the consumer if you think gamestop is screwing you go after them.

 

[Plinko]

The entitlement in this industry is irritating. So many things are sold used with no fuss by the original creators.

If you want to eliminate used, go all digital. Let the market dictate if you survive at that level selling $60 games.

 

[VariantX]

They can't. Pre-order incentives are part of the deal. If they supply good bonuses, the game gets a greater presence in the store through marketing materials.

There are other stores. Gamestop is not the only game in town.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

That for the level of education needed to learn this shit, they get paid... meh.

...?

The level of education is a college bachelors degree, if that. And I'd guess the majority of programmers are largely self motivated and self taught with regard to specific coding skills.

Lots of game designers are very smart, no doubt. It doesn't require a doctorate though, and $80K is pretty fucking good for just about everyone except those of you with medical school bills.

 

[jonabbey]

I've given old games to family members when they first got their own PS3, but whenever I'm at GameStop I only buy new copies.

 

[Just_myles]

There are other stores. Gamestop is not the only game in town.

^ That's true, I have a few mom and pop game shops in my area that sell used games. Just like any medium a second hand market pretty much goes un-noticed until someone starts turning a profit.

 

[MaddenNFL64]

...?

The level of education is a college bachelors degree, if that. And I'd guess the majority of programmers are largely self motivated and self taught with regard to specific coding skills.

Lots of game designers are very smart, no doubt. It doesn't require a doctorate though, and $80K is pretty fucking good for just about everyone except those of you with medical school bills.

Oh, i've always heard they got paid lower than software engineers, and programmers outside the videogame industry. My bad if not.

 

[inky]

Developers and publishers do not offer a system for users to be compensated when they buy a bad or unfinished game or even simply a good game that they don't like. Developers and publishers, while they enjoy interacting with their fans, do not make counter-intuitive economic decisions in order to "support their fans". Developers and publishers do not offer retailers much in the way of margin on the end product. Developers and publishers rarely fix technical issues in no longer commercially active catalogue titles.

Businesses cannot conduct themselves through a veil of strict rationality and profit maximization and then expect customers to conduct themselves in a limbic, emotionally-driven, sympathetic way.

Individual staff members cannot defend poor corporate practices by saying "I work for a corporation, not my place to make those calls" and then when their business fails, say "It's not just a corporation, think of the human cost". The second you dismiss being able to do more because "it's not your place", you should realize that you're employing the exact same logic that people employ when they deny you charity when you're in need. The two are tied together. If businesses ran themselves in a more humanistic, human-focused way with an emphasis on mutual enrichment of customers and employees and long-term stability, rather than serving investors, customers would respond in a more emotional way.

Very well said. I feel like framing this post; I was going to bold some bits but all of it is filled with truth.

Their appeal for people to consider the developers (human element) behind the game when they buy used or sell back their games is completely empty. Why is there not an appeal the other way around in the form of regular updates free of cost, or even companies buying back the games themselves from customers, especially when they launch broken. They don't give a shit if I work my ass to buy $60 (more like $80 here) games and they end up being turds, or I am dissatisfied with the experience and they do nothing about it afterwards, for example. Why should I give a shit when they don't see any money they are not entitled to in the first place? Why are they not appealing to their bosses to stop doing exclusive deals with Gamestop if it hurts their business so much? Because they need retailers and they probably benefit more by the job retailers are doing than they are being affected by used games sales (Pachter estimates the damage at about 5%+/- of total sales in the US for several games. In the end it is hardly significant and not entirely conclusive they do any damage in the first place (if it ends up evening out when people put that credit towards buying new). That should tell them something

The simple reality is that customers want used games not only for the value it gives them towards new purchases when they trade in, but also as a shield an a recourse to recoup some money if the product is not to their satisfaction. The other reality is that publishers want their cake and want to eat it too. They don't want to lower budgets because they feel the AAA game is their only way to remain competitive. EA and Activision and Ubisoft don't throw 50 million dollars at games because they love us so much, or because we demand it, they do it because throwing so much money at them is the only way of differentiating their products from what used to be AA, or "B" games. They did it to drive away the competition, which has resurfaced as cheaper games in other markets like Opiate smartly points out (which they also abuse by the way -EA is a king on terrible F2P models for mobile games. Seriously, check out their games that offer items for hundreds of dollars for games that are extremely cheap to make), and they keep failing at making their money backs with plenty of their big gambles.

It is their model that is wrong, and these sorts of appeals to gamers when nothing is changing on their end to our benefit (weapon skins anyone?) is pretty disingenuous. Especially coming from people who have thrived and succeeded despite (perhaps even maybe due to) used games. Give me a break.

 

[Scrabble]

Really? Since when? Why do you assume somebody buying a used game would have bought that game new?

I've bought a lot of games used that I would not, or could not, have bought new.

Because I've done it and people i know have done it as well, especially when a new copy is only $5 bucks more than a used copy it's easy to see why someone wouldn't be dissuaded from just buying new.

And that's fine, I don't want to get rid of the option to buy used, but it's silly to pretend there's a be all end all answer to this issue. Just because the dev/pub made money on one new copy sold, doesn't mean they wouldn't have sold more new copies had the option of used games not existed. If after the initial purchase the copy then gets resold used to 10 different people, then that's 10 potential people who could have bought new. Sure maybe 75% of people would say fuck it and not buy the game altogether if only given the option to buy new, but that still leaves 25% of potential revenue newly available without used games in the picture.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

It's an incentive that they actually advertise, as you don't like it bring it back. They are keeping the currency within their own infrastructure, and keeping it used.

Which hurt.

Your name is breaking the forum formatting =(

 

[DjangoReinhardt]

The developer-consumer relationship is a two-way street. I saw a whole lot in that editorial about what consumers should do to help developers, but I didn't see a single thing about the other side of the bargain. If developers want me to buy games new to support them, they don't get to ship unfinished games, they don't get to ship broken games, they don't get to stop supporting a game with patches until it's fixed, etc. If they can't stand up to their publishers to ensure that their customers are receiving a good experience, then why should I go out of my way to spend more money for their benefit?

Developers need to earn loyalty. There are plenty of entertainment alternatives and just about any other cause on the planet is more deserving of my charity.

 

[gabbo]

Oh like movies, music, books, etc?

Fuck off. That argument is so weak, yet it keeps coming up.

Pretty much this. It's not on me to make sure they're able to sustain themselves. If they can't with their current business model, well, capitalism has this mechanism built in. You can't skirt that reality forever.

 

[vg260]

Developers and publishers do not offer a system for users to be compensated when they buy a bad or unfinished game or even simply a good game that they don't like.

Ok, that part is insane. Do you demand a refund when you don't like the food at a restaurant, see a movie you don't like? Read a review, make an informed purchase. If you don't like something, too bad, that's life. If there's something actually wrong/defective/not as advertised, that's one thing, but feeling you should be compensated because you don't like a product or service is taking consumer entitlement to an absurd level.

 

[Zeliard]

Ok, that part is insane. Do you demand a refund when you don't like the food at a restaurant, see a movie you don't like? Read a review, make an informed purchase. If you don't like something, too bad, that's life. If there's something actually wrong/defective, that's one thing, but feeling you should be compensated because you don't like a product or service is taking consumer entitlement to an absurd level.

You don't understand. He is talking about why purchasing used is so attractive. It offers a service that publishers quite simply do not.

 

[railGUN]

Are you playing dumb or just ignoring the fact that a used copy sold means one less new copy sold? Lets stop looking at this as some black and white issue where it's just this or that and nothing else.

What about people who buy new games with the money they got from selling their used games?

Lets not ignore the fact that people buy used to save money - what is to say they would pay full price for a new copy?

Ok, that part is insane. Do you demand a refund when you don't like the food at a restaurant, see a movie you don't like? Read a review, make an informed purchase. If you don't like something, too bad, that's life. If there's something actually wrong/defective/not as advertised, that's one thing, but feeling you should be compensated because you don't like a product or service is taking consumer entitlement to an absurd level.

PS3 Skyrim says hello!

 

[Capital_Five]

I am not a charity, I'm a consumer. I have no obligation to support the companies that make the products I like if there are alternative options that make better fiscal sense for me. Your business model is broken, don't ask me to prop it up.

People saying that games will get worse are idiots. Every independent game developer currently in the market shows that you can make money with less of it. There are numerous examples of smaller studio's having a firm budget, following that, and making money from a game that didn't cost so much to make. And guess what? Some of them are even really good!

 

[RoninChaos]

Not to single you out, but this is the same attitude putting local business and mom n pop shops out of business.

There is something to be said about supporting the people providing the products and services you like. You are voting with your wallets and allowing them to continue to provide those products and services.

While I think that's true to a certain extent, service is being left out of your example. I know people who will go to a mom and pop shop and get charged more because of the service. People get shit service at walmart because they want things cheap. It's give and take.

Game developers don't really do "service" much any more. They used to with free map packs and things like that on pc. That model has never really existed on the console.