Support NeoGAF

[Davidion]

No it's not wrong. The theaters would go nuts with day and date releases. Short of arty experiments from Soderberg and that ilk, there is still 1-3 months between theater and DVD and that is getting shorter so capitalize on mindshare and marketing budgets, I thought.

That's the theater's problem. Both Fox and WHV are already exploring alternate DVD release strategies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/business/media/18dvd.html?_r=1

Yes, this is my point. Let the game do what it's gonna do for the first 1-3 months at retail, then let rental markets have it. Game makers get 2 release windows, gamers who want to pay more get the game sooner, and gamers on a budget still dig the games but they have to wait a bit longer (just like movie rentals). I see no issue with this.

That's insane, the DVD market hasn't needed to resort to this measure, why should the game market do the same? The idea that gamers who can't necessarily afford the game shouldn't be allowed to rent it upon release is incredibly anti-consumer. Where does the fairness come in here?

In fact, how the hell is this any different than Gamestop trying to push the product (ie. used games) that earns them a better margin?

Oh god, these were random examples to illustrate the fact that there is no added content at all. I'm not saying that Uncharted is the LotR of video games... Tell me why (without sliping in some lame trolling arguments) a good game doesn't have any replay value at all. It's like "I've beaten it once, there is no reason to play through it again". It's silly. If you enjoyed playing through it once, why wouldn't you enjoy it again X months down the road? Just like you can enjoy reading a good book multiple times.

I've slipped in trolling arguments? Kindly don't try to deflect the point when you've not one to make.

I've asked you again and again, what the hell makes you think that people consume video games the way YOU do? In fact, why would consumers sell back a product if they still enjoyed it? A game doesn't have replay value to consumers just because YOU think they should.

Your idea that the consumer is somehow to blame because they don't enjoy the product is ridiculous.

 

[StuBurns]

Regarding this:

'People don't typically user their name because they want to use a reference of something, to say something by default with every post.'

I don't understand what you are saying.

That was a poorly formed sentence, indeed. What I basically meant was, they don't just not use their name because they're hiding. Usernames often say something about the poster. A favourite game, novel, band, quote, or whatever.

I very much doubt people aren't using their names because they care about people knowing it.

 

[Smash88]

Because due to the poor way the larger part of the industry has conducted business, many publishers are now in financial trouble and desperately need something to blame instead of looking in the mirror and saying "we fucked up."

This cannot be repeated enough. Publishers in my mind are beginning to look for a scapegoat instead of just manning up and noticing that they are the ones that are at fault and no one else.

 

[davidjaffe]

The used market exists primarily because of two consumer-centric forces:

1) Limited use of the product to the consumer. When the gamer is bored/dissatisfied with the game, the value of that game drops to zero. That means they paid $50 or $60 dollars for something that is presently worthless.

2) Insurance against buyer's remorse. This is a driver of not only used game sales, but discounting in general. When a customer is fearful that they may be purchasing a product they will not be happy with, they attempt to lower the risk by buying it at a discounted rate.

The solution to both of these problems is simple. Games people love, and love to play, do not get resold. Games people love also have strong word of mouth and build confidence into the brand for future products. Word of mouth and brand confidence reduce consumer anxiety and thus, discounts are not as aggressively sought after because there is less fear of being ripped off.

If I were a developer, I would not be publicly advertising the fact that used game sales were killing my business. That is tantamount to saying that I put out a product that has no value to the original customer and limited value to the used buyer. Don't these people feel embarrassed? The solution to the second-hand market is to increase the value of the product in the consumer's mind. And that does not mean spending money to produce free content. Gaf may hate to admit it, but Nintendo's most popular games hardly get resold and they never drop in price - despite the fact that the budgets are lower. That means Nintendo's games are providing greater value for longer periods of time for their customers, and that Nintendo figured out a cost effective way to do so.

Well I don't think my products anything to be embarrassed by. And this argument is more of a general industry argument/discussion/debate for me; I'm not really worried my new game is gonna get hammered by this. I mean, it WILL, but they always get hammered by it. And that's kind of ok actually, because a hit used game serves as advertising for the sequel and DLC. And as I've said over and over and over, I SUPPORT THE CUSTOMER'S RIGHTS TO GET THE BEST DEAL THEY CAN...I just want to make sure my business can stay healthy and competitive and that if I work my ass off and the team and publisher I work with works our ass off, we can all do really well.

THAT SAID: your 2 reasons for used market are interesting. Question I have is, if there were a moratorium on used games for 4 weeks from when the new game hits, would you see a problem with that?

 

[TheHeretic]

Mmmm, I disagree. With games, you don't interact with the medium (CD) except to insert it. With books, you interact with the medium on a minute by minute basis. Will some used books be better experiences than others? Yes. Will interacting with the medium degrade the book? A missing page or pages is a bigger problem than a scratch on a game CD. A stinky book will turn me off and affect my experience, unlike a scuffed CD which will deliver the same game as new.

These arguments are so stupid. What gamestop is doing is legal and ethical, with or without precedent. They are a middle man between two parties in which they are the primary beneficiary. All fucking businesses pretty much work this way.

 

[vireland]

The used market exists primarily because of two consumer-centric forces:

1) Limited use of the product to the consumer. When the gamer is bored/dissatisfied with the game, the value of that game drops to zero. That means they paid $50 or $60 dollars for something that is presently worthless.

2) Insurance against buyer's remorse. This is a driver of not only used game sales, but discounting in general. When a customer is fearful that they may be purchasing a product they will not be happy with, they attempt to lower the risk by buying it at a discounted rate.

The solution to both of these problems is simple. Games people love, and love to play, do not get resold. Games people love also have strong word of mouth and build confidence into the brand for future products. Word of mouth and brand confidence reduce consumer anxiety and thus, discounts are not as aggressively sought after because there is less fear of being ripped off.

If I were a developer, I would not be publicly advertising the fact that used game sales were killing my business. That is tantamount to saying that I put out a product that has no value to the original customer and limited value to the used buyer. Don't these people feel embarrassed? The solution to the second-hand market is to increase the value of the product in the consumer's mind. And that does not mean spending money to produce free content. Gaf may hate to admit it, but Nintendo's most popular games hardly get resold and they never drop in price - despite the fact that the budgets are lower. That means Nintendo's games are providing greater value for longer periods of time for their customers, and that Nintendo figured out a cost effective way to do so.

In the macro sense, I think you've covered it, but one of the major things you DIDN'T cover is that Gamestop is ARTIFICALLY pushing consumers into the more-profitable used games by under-stocking new games in the release window. I think if THIS were addressed there would be a LOT less anger in the pub community.

 

[davidjaffe]

That was a poorly formed sentence, indeed. What I basically meant was, they don't just not use their name because they're hiding. Usernames often say something about the poster. A favourite game, novel, band, quote, or whatever.

I very much doubt people aren't using their names because they care about people knowing it.

You are right in many cases, I would imagine. My point tho is that if you ARE gonna be inflammatory or rude, then you should man up (or woman up) and do it with your real name. Otherwise, it's doesn't really mean anything.

In fact,maybe that's a good rule for me. In the future, I think I'll only respond to folks who are being rude to me (if I respond at all) when they sign it with their real name. I think everyone should follow suit

David

 

[McBacon]

Dude, Fuck... Fuck You

What a child you are

What a fucking intellectual fool you are

I love it

 

[NeoUltima]

How's this for childish: "I don't like that people can legally buy my games used for less than the price of a new game. People who do that are killing the industry. They can do it with other products, but it's not fair that they can do it with my games. The free market is unfair. You might as well be pirating!"

Boo-hoo.

Who said that though? I don't have a problem with the people, I am talking about GS specifically and the way they push used, not the whole used market. Gamestop is essentially a chain store that makes about 50% of its profit on used sales. I can't think of any other retailer that does that. The fact is, the used game market is a different beast from others. A used game can work as fine as a new one. Going to bring up music and dvds? First both are fucked over due to piracy. Secondly music has a huge DD following and movies make the majority of their money in theaters.

Except that the publishers aren't in any way entitled to it.

Legally no, but they should be imo(apparently not in your flawed view though). Wouldn't you rather some of your money go to the people that made the game, rather than all of it simply going to someone(GS) who resold it to you? Not to mention they ripped someone off in order to obtain the used copy.

Again as I said in an above post, this debating is a waste of time cause this will not happen(even if it should). Publishers will ramp up incentives for people to buy new or DD, until the market is ready for near 100% DD.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

THAT SAID: your 2 reasons for used market are interesting. Question I have is, if there were a moratorium on used games for 4 weeks from when the new game hits, would you see a problem with that?

See, this is already better. I wouldn't have much of a problem with this at all if there were any feasible way to do it.

 

[Kintaro]

Developers and publishers are going to find themselves a new foe when ISPs demand a cut of THEIR DD sales because they're the ones providing the services which allow consumers to download their games. After all, without them, they can't sell shit.

Which nose do you really want to cut off to spite your face guys? Lose a huge chunk of the market in an attempt to make a little more money and deal with the potential fun of dealing with ISPs for a cut of your profits? Or deal with retail and uses market like every other physical product in existence has to.

Not really thinking this through very much...

THAT SAID: your 2 reasons for used market are interesting. Question I have is, if there were a moratorium on used games for 4 weeks from when the new game hits, would you see a problem with that?

How in the world would you realistically enforce this? Not to mention its pretty anti-consumer.

 

[BocoDragon]

[*] Only sell download codes, similar to buying gift cards today that get activated at the register. With this would have to come some sort of second-hand online market place. After being done with a game, you would be able to specify a price for your game (or auction it) in the online marketplace. Once the game sold, it would be deauthorized on your system, a new code generated for the purchaser, and the developer would get an ebay/paypal like cut of your sale and you would get credit for future purchases or toward your monthly subscriber fee.
[/LIST]

Neat concept, but this would be worse for publishers and so, will never happen. Why would anyone ever buy for full price again when a "used" digital copy will be completely identical to the "new" digital copy? And now the "reseller" gets a credit, which is actually just the publisher selling a download game for less money to this "seller", in exchange for giving up a "new" sale on the game the "seller" sold? The publisher gets nothing, loses revenue all over the place, to service consumer rights which they don't even wish exist right now as evidenced by this thread. It doesn't add up at all.

Publishers will just sell DD for "new" and that's that.

 

[Pimpbaa]

I agree, the customer can not get fucked.

If you believe that then why were your god of war games so ridiculously short with no replayability and at full price? This whole issue wouldn't be as big of a problem if more games were worth keeping (and worth buying to begin with). Not saying those games were bad BTW.

 

[NeoUltima]

All games DD? Within a decade? Do you know how many consumers are going to have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the world of the internet, to make that happen?

I'm just saying they will all be offered that way. I'm not saying retail will be gone...yet.

 

[Starchasing]

In the macro sense, I think you've covered it, but one of the major things you DIDN'T cover is that Gamestop is ARTIFICALLY pushing consumers into the more-profitable used games by under-stocking new games in the release window. I think if THIS were addressed there would be a LOT less anger in the pub community.

but you said games dont degrade right??

whats wring with a bussiness trying to "push" people into buying the same product but cheaper

 

[ThatCrazyGuy]

I am not a fan of DD to be honest, I want the disc in my possession.

Also as Kintaro said, what if the ISPs get what they want and charge per GB downloads and have their caps. Where will DD be at that point?

 

[Raist]

Then compare it to books. Jewelry. Household tools. DVDs. Toys.

Why is the video game market unique?

IP. Costs of development. Average time between purchase and selling in. Other sources of income. And a lot more.

Ok, since a lot of people don't seem to understand where I'm going with the whole picture thing, here is a summary.

A unique product, falling under IP laws, that takes years and millions of $ to produce. That you can buy used, as soon as a couple of days after its release, from a company that can make more profit out of it than the original manufacturer makes, while said manufacturer has absolutely no other way to make profit from. Used product will more likely have no shortcomings as compared to the new product, and will be displayed right next to the new one.

From a developer/publisher point of view, these are all applying. And I don't see them applying to any product out there.

Sure, from a customer point of view, that's like, great. But I certainly won't call out people who have a problem with this, saying that they are greedy assholes.

Video games are a finished product for me, I'm not expecting their producers to provide me a ton of free content "or else I'll sell it". If their game is good, I'll buy it, if it's great I'll support them through buying DLC. And yes, I think the used market and renting hurt more than it helps.

 

[Mario]

Absolutely -- reduced, but not unique. Which is really what it would take. For example, consider used DVDs as an obvious one. This experience is not reduced. CDs as well. Jewelry has virtually no degradation. In ma cases, these products are indeed sold right alongside the new ones (I can buy used DVDs at Blockbuster, for example).

I can certainly discount DVDs as a valid comparison amongst this list. Movies are monetised in many more ways than DVD sales which only make up a portion of the return to filmmakers e.g. theatre sales, pay per view, broadcast rights, merchandising.

Consider used cars again. Used cars have dramatically lower resale values than new cars do. This is extremely bad for the new car market: If a new car model is, say, 20,000 dollars, I can often buy a similar used car for 15,000 or even lower -- even if the car is in excellent condition. A savings of 5,000 dollars just for waiting a year! This would presumably be a very big issue for automobile manufacturers that video game publishers would never have to deal with. And yet, car manufacturers found a way.

As I mentioned in a followup post, differences in the economics come into play here. The market for cars in general is much larger than that for videogames. There are also signicantly fewer car manufacturers than there are videogame developers and publishers. Manufacturers also benefit from the selling of parts to maintain used cars. Car manufacturers are also struggling right now too, partly because the way they found was low financing on new cars.

I'd suggest staying away from the used car analogy entirely. It is just too far removed from games.

The better example used in the thread is books, even though again used books aren't commonly pushed in new book outlets and the economics are different (it is much cheaper to make and manufacture books, and the market is larger).

So just as you and others might argue that the video game industry has it particularly bad in some respects, so too do the car markets and others you have attempted to discard.

I'm not really trying to discard anything in this thread, merely weighing in with some reasons as to why a lot of straight analogies are not necessarily valid.

 

[vireland]

These arguments are so stupid. What gamestop is doing is legal and ethical, with or without precedent. They are a middle man between two parties in which they are the primary beneficiary. All fucking businesses pretty much work this way.

Yow. Calm down there, buckaroo.

Ethical? No. If you'd read my other post, you will see that they are artificially increasing demand for their used games in the release window by under-stocking new games, so kids trapped in their store credit swamp have no choice if they want the game NOW. Yes, it's retarded, but believe me, there are PLENTY of people out there that do this, and a number of my son's friends do this all the time. Anyway, if they stocked enough new and used to give a true choice, I think there would be a lot less anger on the pub side. Stupid thing is, if they keep pressing it, they will lose in the end, and then we ALL lose.

 

[StuBurns]

If you believe that then why were your god of war games so ridiculously short with no replayability and at full price? This whole issue wouldn't be as big of a problem if more games were worth keeping (and worth buying to begin with). Not saying those games were bad BTW.

Oh snap.

The GoW games are bad value now, sure.

 

[TheHeretic]

but you said games dont degrade right??

whats wring with a bussiness trying to "push" people into buying the same product but cheaper

Nothing, which is why anti Gamestop is bullshit. If games don't degrade and the consumer can get the same thing for less they are doing the consumer a favour.

Yow. Calm down there, buckaroo.

Ethical? No. If you'd read my other post, you will see that they are artificially increasing demand for their used games in the release window by under-stocking new games, so kids trapped in their store credit swamp have no choice if they want the game NOW. Yes, it's retarded, but believe me, there are PLENTY of people out there that do this, and a number of my son's friends do this all the time. Anyway, if they stocked enough new and used to give a true choice, I think there would be a lot less anger on the pub side. Stupid thing is, if they keep pressing it, they will lose in the end, and then we ALL lose.

So? Didn't Jaffe already say the used game experience was identical? How does that person lose by buying a used game for LESS money?

 

[Uncle]

Mmmm, I disagree. With games, you don't interact with the medium (CD) except to insert it. With books, you interact with the medium on a minute by minute basis. Will some used books be better experiences than others? Yes. Will interacting with the medium degrade the book? A missing page or pages is a bigger problem than a scratch on a game CD. A stinky book will turn me off and affect my experience, unlike a scuffed CD which will deliver the same game as new.

Where do you buy your used books?

 

[davidjaffe]

If you believe that then why were your god of war games so ridiculously short with no replayability and at full price? This whole issue wouldn't be as big of a problem if more games were worth keeping (and worth buying to begin with). Not saying those games were bad BTW.

I don't set the prices. I was THRILLED when Sony put out the Twisted Metal port at 20 bucks. Granted it was a port, but if it were up to me, ALL games would be 20 bucks and we'd grow the biz that way. Or there would be 2-3 tiers of games and marketing would train customers to understand that just cause a game is 20 bucks vs 60, it's not a lesser game, just different. For example, people are prob. gonna get 100+ hours out of MODERN WARFARE 2. To me, if that game were 80 bucks, that would be fair for the value it brings based on time spent with it. A game like GOD OF WAR should have been 20 bucks, no doubt. It eventually was however, with greatest hits....so perhaps that went down easier for you?

 

[Scrubking]

But it's been an unfair playing field for us game makers for too long and so something has to give.

There is nothing "unfair" about used game sales. You don't get to dip your hand into my pocket as many times as you feel like man. Stop with the damn greed! Once you sell your game to me, AND MAKE YOUR MONEY, what I do with it is not your goddamn business!

 

[vireland]

but you said games dont degrade right??

whats wring with a bussiness trying to "push" people into buying the same product but cheaper

Because they're ARTIFICALLY limiting choice, pushing consumers into buying the used that they make more money on by NOT OFFERING the NEW (via understocking). It's a shell game. Advertise the new - oops, we're "out" of that. How about this used one for $5 less? They make more money on the used, period.

 

[grap3fruitman]

Yes but the second part of my stance is that if Gamestop and others do not want to cut pubs/devs in then gamers should not get pissy when game makers adjust to try to make the business models work for them (i.e. digital distribution where DD copies are priced for less, having parts of the game not unlock unless it's a new copy until 6 months after the game has shipped;etc)...

Your suggested solution is to gimp customers' experiences?

I already have issues with my Xbox 360, DRM and not being able to play XBLA games I've paid for. You want to bring this same experience to every single retail game?

Don't complain once you've done this and your games are pirated ten fold than what they are now.

I mean gamers can get pissy if they like but if Gamestop gets to play hardball, then we do as well...and so we should. As many of you like to point out- as if I am not aware- it's a capitalist society in which we live...evolve or die. Sounds good to me. All I was saying is, Gamestop and the like should play ball with us now and we all do well together versus forcing us to cut them out of the picture down the road....

David

It sounds like you are the ones that are refusing to evolve so you're trying to gimp everyone's experiences in the name of "being fair."

I agree, the customer can not get fucked.

But I also think customers will need to get used to some new ways. Customers don't bitch about having to way 3 whole months from when a movie hits DVD from when it was in the theater. They don't act all enraged if- as I said before- a 50 dollar concert ticket doesn't give them as good an experience as a 250 dollar ticket. These are just things they have come to expect as the nature of the businesses they choose to support. With games so far, that has not been the case. And so as those things start to change (i.e. you didn't buy the game new? Sorry, you're missing the coupon to unlock the 3 extra MP levels), customers will at first get annoyed and then learn to adjust. At least that is my thinking on it. But we'll see.

That sounds like fucking the customer to me.

But it's been an unfair playing field for us game makers for too long and so something has to give.

Publisher: You have to buy x amount of shit game or we won't give you enough copies of triple A game
Retailer: Fffffuuu...
Publisher: =)
Retailer: Okay, now I'm gonna make up the loss on those shitty games by buying them back from people and selling them at a profit but less than new so that people who would have been on the fence can buy it
Publisher: Wait, you can't do that! That's not fair!
Retailer: Suck my balls.

 

[Pimpbaa]

Oh snap.

The GoW games are bad value now, sure.

They were then too. I'm still miffed about GoW1 ending as soon as it did. It really made me more cautious of my future purchases.

 

[davidjaffe]

Developers and publishers are going to find themselves a new foe when ISPs demand a cut of THEIR DD sales because they're the ones providing the services which allow consumers to download their games. After all, without them, they can't sell shit.

Which nose do you really want to cut off to spite your face guys? Lose a huge chunk of the market in an attempt to make a little more money and deal with the potential fun of dealing with ISPs for a cut of your profits? Or deal with retail and uses market like every other physical product in existence has to.

Not really thinking this through very much...



How in the world would you realistically enforce this? Not to mention its pretty anti-consumer.

How is it anti consumer? Is it anti consumer if I don't basically turn over and let people ass rape me?!? Look, movies have the same thing...they are a different medium but that doesn't matter to this argument. In essence, there is theatrical run, home video, cable, network, and then shit like airplanes. If a consumer wants to watch a movie for free, he will wait till it's on NBC. That's not anti-consumer, it's just fair. If you want it sooner, you pay 10 bucks at the movies. If you are willing to wait, you pay a bit less and rent a dvd for 4 bucks. Why would games doing this be anti consumer but not movies?

 

[vireland]

Where do you buy your used books?

Cal's stinky books.


(not really - we buy new, but we have a CHOICE)

 

[TheHeretic]

Because they're ARTIFICALLY limiting choice, pushing consumers into buying the used that they make more money on by NOT OFFERING the NEW (via understocking). It's a shell game. Advertise the new - oops, we're "out" of that. How about this used one for $5 less? They make more money on the used, period.

You've said this already. How does the CONSUMER lose here?

 

[Opiate]

Thank you very much for you insight Mr. Pachter.

The analogy to car sales is not quite fair, since cars are sold to be consumed over a multi-year period, and the car maker is indifferent if the original purchaser drives it for ten years, or if he resells it after two. Games are more like other intellectual property, intended to be consumed only once (at least, that's the idea behind books and movies--music is different). In other settings, there is not much of a resale market, likely because the initial price is relatively low (movies and books are typically priced at $20 or less, and are widely available under $10 after a few years), and the products have a very long life. A book isn't "stale" when the sequel comes out, and a movie doesn't become irrelevant because a new hardware format launches.

Wouldn't one consumer-friendly solution then be to sell games for a lower initial price? You indicated that DVDs/CDs may have less issue because of their low new prices. Developers could, for example, lower their production costs, which would allow them to sell their games cheaper (the reverse of what happened this generation, where increasing development costs spurred a price increase). That would be consumer friendly.

Also, aren't movies irrelevant when a new format comes out? I.e., isn't my copy of "Princess Bride" on VHS now just as irrelevant in the DVD age as God of War 1 is in the PS3 age? Or is this different?

I'm asking these questions honestly, and do not intend sarcasm or snark. I'm very interested in your thoughts.

Games are intended for single use, and are priced very high.

Well, this gets back to my earlier point. Not all games are intended for single use: Call of Duty and Mario Kart are examples. Not all games are priced high: DS and iPhone games are cheaper, for instance. Couldn't this problem be solved by making more games like Mario Kart or Call of Duty, and/or by focusing on platforms with lower production costs and thus lower retail prices? Mr. Jaffe, as an example, is not forced to make a single player game with cutting edge graphics, a la God of War. This is the type of game you're describing (single use, high price point), and this problem could be solved by simply making differnet types of games.

I don't think that Jaffe or the publishers would be upset if used game prices were limited to 50% of the price of a new game. In that case, GameStop could only make its 50% profit if it paid $15 for a trade-in and charged $30 for a game that was originally sold for $60. If GameStop only paid $15, most gamers would hold off trading games in for several months, and 75 - 90% of lifetime game sales for the new game would be in the books by the time the used game was offered for sale.

This makes sense, but wouldn't there be an equal and opposite pressure, as well? That is, right now, I may be able to resell for more (say, 20 dollars), but I have to buy for more as well. As a new purchaser, I may hold on to my copy for a bit longer, but the used purchasers might be willing to wait even longer because the discount is even better. Someone who is willing to wait 2 weeks to buy the game at 45 dollars might be willing to wait 2 months to buy the game at 30.

Thank you again for your comments.

 

[Smash88]

I agree, the customer can not get fucked.

But I also think customers will need to get used to some new ways. Customers don't bitch about having to way 3 whole months from when a movie hits DVD from when it was in the theater. They don't act all enraged if- as I said before- a 50 dollar concert ticket doesn't give them as good an experience as a 250 dollar ticket. These are just things they have come to expect as the nature of the businesses they choose to support. With games so far, that has not been the case. And so as those things start to change (i.e. you didn't buy the game new? Sorry, you're missing the coupon to unlock the 3 extra MP levels), customers will at first get annoyed and then learn to adjust. At least that is my thinking on it. But we'll see.

That sounds like fucking the customer to me.

Plus, don't those coupons for those 3 extra MP levels always get released later for a small price over PSN/XBL/PC? Totally agree that it seems that they are trying to screw the customer over, but the need for more money is too big to pass up.

 

[Pimpbaa]

(not really - we buy new, but we have a CHOICE)

I always have a choice between new and used games too. I dunno where you are getting this our choices are being limited bullshit from.

 

[BocoDragon]

Plus, don't those coupons for those 3 extra MP levels always get released later for a small price over PSN/XBL/PC? Totally agree that it seems that they are trying to screw the customer over, but the need for more money is too big to pass up.

Actually... that's kind of a good solution to this. Buy new, get extra content. Buy used, pay for that extra content via DLC. Either way publisher makes some money.

 

[dazed808]

IP. Costs of development. Average time between purchase and selling in. Other sources of income. And a lot more.

Ok, since a lot of people don't seem to understand where I'm going with the whole picture thing, here is a summary.

A unique product, falling under IP laws, that takes years and millions of $ to produce. That you can buy used, as soon as a couple of days after its release, from a company that can make more profit out of it than the original manufacturer makes, while said manufacturer has absolutely no other way to make profit from. Used product will more likely have no shortcomings as compared to the new product, and will be displayed right next to the new one.

From a developer/publisher point of view, these are all applying. And I don't see them applying to any product out there.

Sure, from a customer point of view, that's like, great. But I certainly won't call out people who have a problem with this, saying that they are greedy assholes.

Video games are a finished product for me, I'm not expecting their producers to provide me a ton of free content "or else I'll sell it". If their game is good, I'll buy it, if it's great I'll support them through buying DLC. And yes, I think the used market and renting hurt more than it helps.

Bah, I spent the last half hour typing and re-typing what you have just said 100x better than I ever could. Good work as always Dr.

 

[ThatCrazyGuy]

Jaffe: Serious question.

What if the ISPs get what they want and get all the caps on downloads, and start charging overage fees, and all these other things. How will publishers deal with this? If downloading just COD8 will eat my monthly cap, how is that going to affect all others game I would potentially download?

 

[KtSlime]

For the record, cases and manuals, and games in excellent condition are important to me. I only buy a used game if I can't get it new, and if the case/manual are in mint condition. The case and manual are very much part of the experience for me. I won't even buy greatest hits games because of their cases.

And the experience of a book is the text, I can read the book online, or hand written or photo copied, or from a used book. Will it be as enjoyable? Probably not, but like I said, a game in one of those generic gamestop replacement boxes are not as enjoyable either.

 

[grap3fruitman]

Actually... that's kind of a good solution to this. Buy new, get extra content. Buy used, pay for that extra content via DLC. Either way publisher makes some money.

I don't think that's a good solution but how would you differentiate between a new and used copy?

 

[Brimstone]

So...

According to Jaffe logic, a person buys a Stephen King novel and reads it. Then he sells it to a used book store. I walk in and buy that book. The book publisher and author should recieve no royalty for the sale because my reading experience will be diminished because of blemishes.


So...

Anytime a person walks into a public library and reads a book they are getting a diminished experience.

 

[vireland]

You've said this already. How does the CONSUMER lose here?

The consumer loses when the publisher was expecting to ship 100,000 units sells 50,000 because Gamestop ordered 1/2 to 1/3rd as much as they normally would so their stores would be out of new (c stores got a single copy, b stores got 2 copies, etc) and they could push customers into used. Repeat this a few cycles and that pub is gone. No more games from them. It will hasten consolidation in the market and the move to pure digital. Do you want that? I don't. I'm a fan of physical media and the stuff that comes with it.

 

[jvm]

The used market is bigger as a percentage of overall demand than for any other intellectual property, with GameStop selling approximately 1.5 - 2x as many used games as it sells new. Since GameStop has 25% of the new game market, this means that used games represent around 1/3 of all games sold. That's a crazy big number, and it's part of what drives Jaffe crazy.

Michael, if you wouldn't mind responding here, I'd be curious of the provenance of that figure.

The figures that I'm aware of from GameStop are ASP for new software, ASP for used software, new software dollar sales, and used product dollar sales. We can make some estimates based on those, I believe.

(There are also figures for "dollars from trade-ins used toward new vs. used product", but those are dubious enough for me to avoid.)

When I wrote about GameStop (reference in the article cited in the OP), I came up with this estimate:

I made a few assumptions there, which I'll explain. First, I assumed that 80% of "used product" dollars are from used software. I also am glossing over the fact that GameStop's 10-K data is for its global operations, not just the U.S., so comments made to me by managers obviously may not be applicable globally. Furthermore, I've assumed that the 80% figure is static over time, which is possibly wrong.

But, even if we assumed that GameStop's used product category was 100% games, then they'd have sold only 112 million units of used software in its last fiscal year (ending 31 January 2009). They sold 90 million new software units.

So even under the most generous assumptions, GameStop's used software unit sales would be only 1.25x of new software unit sales. That's significantly different from the 1.5-2.0x, enough for me to ask again: where is that figure coming from?

My guess, although I could be wrong, is that you've got more information that we about GameStop's used/new business in the U.S., and that that's where the figure is coming from.

Thanks.

(I should note that I provided an explanation for the differential over time for the used vs. new unit sales shown in the above graph:

The fiscal years ending in 2003 and 2004 were the first two full years during which the Xbox, PlayStation 2, and GameCube were all available. In those year new and used software unit sales were very close.

Likewise, the fiscal years ending in 2008 and 2009 were the first two full years during which the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and Wii were all available. Again, new and used software sales were very close in those years.

However used software unit sales were far ahead of new software unit sales for the intervening years. During the early years of a hardware generation there are fewer new software releases and, consequently, fewer used software titles available.

During the middle of a generation – say for the fiscal years ending in 2005, 2006, and 2007 – the used software market is flush with stock and prices on used software likewise drop, increasing used software unit sales dramatically. (In fact used software prices did drop further than new during that same period.)

)

 

[BocoDragon]

How would you differentiate between a new and used copy?

Download codes included with new copies. They're already doing this. I can't remember the examples. Someone?

Letting people buy the "new copy exclusive DLC" basically equals publishers making money off used copies.

 

[gerg]

Games are intended for single use, and are priced very high. Because of that, there is a great deal of demand for the game at lower price points. The used market is bigger as a percentage of overall demand than for any other intellectual property, with GameStop selling approximately 1.5 - 2x as many used games as it sells new. Since GameStop has 25% of the new game market, this means that used games represent around 1/3 of all games sold. That's a crazy big number, and it's part of what drives Jaffe crazy.

I don't mean to sound obtuse, but these qualities aren't fixed and predetermined. It's certainly possible to create games that aren't intended for a single use, and aren't priced very high. Why don't publishers sell their games for less, or better yet, give their games away for free and profit from alternate sources of revenue?

Perhaps low speed internet connections are placing publishers in between some kind of a rock and a hard place, but I find it hard to believe that the current trends in consumer purchasing are so irreversible that they can't be circumvented.

 

[grap3fruitman]

Anytime a person walks into a public library and reads a book they are getting a diminished experience.

Some libraries have games, movies and music too. Of course, it's probably a bad idea to inform Mr. Jaffe of this fact.

 

[Opiate]

IP. Costs of development. Average time between purchase and selling in. And a lot more.

This is the developer's fault, though, isn't it? This isn't actually inherent to ALL video games.

There are video games that cost less to make, a la iPhone games. There are video games that are not resold as quickly, a la Mario Kart or Wii Fit.

This problem could be solved by not making extremely expensive single player games, a la God of War or Uncharted, and focusing on lower cost multiplayer or casual software. When other people say that this is a problem the Publishers have pushed on themselves, this is precisely what they mean.

No one forced them to make games that cost so much to make. The success of platforms like the iPhone, the DS, the Wii, and casual PC software makes this clear. No one forced them to focus on highly consumable, instantly resalable products. This is a hole they dug themselves.

 

[Davidion]

Actually... that's kind of a good solution to this. Buy new, get extra content. Buy used, pay for that extra content via DLC. Either way publisher makes some money.

It's worth to note that from a business and marketing perspective, this should be limited to future downloads/DLC, such as GTA IV's.

You immediately run into the issue of gimping the core game, perceived or otherwise, should the content be readily available at release.

 

[StoOgE]

oh, dont invent the wheel, dealers buy parts from car manufacturers to repair vehicles, from where almost all of their profits come from. I partially own car dealership , its car dealer 101 regardless of how many people go to independents. Does not matter though as cars and games can not be used in same sentence in any way, its completly different business.

for someone who partially owns a car dealership you don't know how they work at all.

Not to mention, it was only one of several examples that was given.

 

[Smash88]

Actually... that's kind of a good solution to this. Buy new, get extra content. Buy used, pay for that extra content via DLC. Either way publisher makes some money.

How so? Because, if they buy new and get that extra content its great, but if they buy used the devs/pubs don't get any money, but only a small percentage from the DLC (if the customer decides to even purchase it in the first place). I'm sure if Gamestop/EBGames/whoever were to cut a deal on used games with devs they would get a much higher percentage then what is received through that DLC which is even smaller if purchased over XBL/PSN since those companies get their cut of it (unless I'm wrong).

 

[vireland]

I always have a choice between new and used games too. I dunno where you are getting this our choices are being limited bullshit from.

Please read the whole thread. I'm tired of retyping.

 

[davidjaffe]

There is nothing "unfair" about used game sales. You don't get to dip your hand into my pocket as many times as you feel like man. Stop with the damn greed! Once you sell your game to me, AND MAKE YOUR MONEY, what I do with it is not your goddamn business!

Nobody wants to double dip into your nasty ass pocket. I am talking about a better deal between pubs and retail...customer should not feel a thing.

But the more I read on here, and the more I see ya'lls side and the more I think about it, I would be fine if there were just a 4-12 week waiting period from when a new game hits to when it can be sold used. And once it's sold used, the retailer makes all the money from it.

Granted many of you would still not like this because you would argue that you can buy a new car and resell it the next minute. And I can see that logic.

But something else this has opened my eyes to- and I've heard this before- but it comes up over and over: make games no one wants to resell cause the replay value is too great. So to those who stake that claim, you'd be ok if games like GOD OF WAR and UNCHARTED and MASS EFFECT simple went away because they are only 8-12 hour games...and we only had more gamey-mechanic based multiplayer games that really stood the test of replay time? I'm not challenging this, I'm actually wondering. Our new game is more of a gamey game and if people LIKE it, I am not worried about resale. But it does make me think twice about making a more single player narrative game...at least one at a high budget.