Support NeoGAF

[Tntnnbltn]

I don't understand this idea at all. What next, our cars? Chevrolet doesn't make money on used car sales do they?

Congratulations, you are the first person to think of this argument.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

People wanting to raise their flags and 'get it together' versus these evil DLC-based game companies don't realise the majority of the gamers won't 'get it together' and will still pay for these practices.

There is a reason gamerpictures and themes sell. There is a reason why a closed beta of an anticipated, upcoming game sells. There is also a reason why this will sell, and they are linked.

People saying this need to realize that even the most loyal of audiences has their breaking point.

I'll admit, few industries are as diligently dedicated to finding their audience's breaking point as the games industry though. How are those arcades doing again, games industry?

 

[The S-Word]

Only if said people never rented / borrowed / ebay from users sure. Either way the person isn't buying a new copy. Get over it.

 

[Dina]

Instead of screwing the consumers, how about companies just require Gamestop to give 10% to 20% of what it sells in used copies to the devs if the used price is higher than 40% the retail price? I mean, it's either that or kill the used-games business altogether, so I'm sure they'll ultimately give in.

What do you guys think?

Gamecompanies can't really force GS/EB to pay them anything. Consumers sell their games to GS/EB by their own choice and it has nothing to do with Gamecompanies.

I don't really see a solution that doesn't hurt any of the three parties involved. It will either screw the consumers or gamecompanies will keep feeling screwed.

 

[borghe]

Epic... STFU and get to work on the Gears 2 PC port you knobs. DLC endings? Watch the sales of your games AND your DLC ridden games drop in sales.

the ironic part is why would they see THEIR sales drop? People buying the game new off of store shelves don't see any change. The only change would be renters and used buyers who, the entire point is, don't contribute to the sales numbers you are talking about.

Not saying this is a great idea (although it is definitely interesting), but I think a lot of people in this thread fail to realize that this change would only affect a very specific set of users, none of which are in the sales demographic of people buying the game new. if those people opted to just not buy the game at all, the game company wouldn't suffer in the slightest. whereas if even one of those ended up buying the game new instead, the game company benefits. And there is no reason to assume anyone already buying the game new would stop out of protest.. it's not like they are being affected even in the tiniest bit.

edit - and as well it doesn't even KILL the used market.. it just changes the concept of it. if they sell, say, the final boss for $20, and Gamestop prices current recent used games at $55, it just means that gamestop has to start selling the games at $35 instead. Of course that means trade ins now are only going to be worth $15 or so instead of $25, but really it's not killing the market.. just realigning it.

 

[krazen]

Everyone saying it doesn't matter and that the consumer will pay anyway has a point.

The problem is, right now the industry is expanding and like it or not, used games are part of the equation. Stamp it out too hard, make people (not necessarily Gamestop) suffer for being frugal in a shitty economy, and it will come back in the end.

Yeah, everybody accepts microtransactions. Yeah, you will still have your blockbusters that sell millions and punish used buyers into buying new copies.

But eventually it will reach a point. Lets act like the industry has never seen a crash in it's relatively small years of existence.

You NEED the customer. Bleed him out, and watch him scurry and run the second there's a viable second option (be it piracy, a new entertainment medium, etc)

 

[Daante]

I said this before in another thread, but going after consumers like this may be the dumbest thing you can do.

Seriously shame on anyone who embraces tactics like this. I will never buy a game that has this kind of shit in it. Never. I'd go as so far as to not buy anything from the companies library until they get rid of it.

This gen devs and pubs just keep taking it further and further, one day the levi's gonna break and they will be out on their asses.

Absolutely sickening.

I agree. I like DLC and think its a great way for delevopers to expand and offer their audience more things that make sense or have been requested a lot. But reading this op is making me sick and scary.

Didnt they mention something on the last 1up yours that there was a music game coming where you would pay extra for downloading other ppl:s created songs? (cant remember the game)

 

[Dina]

People saying this need to realize that even the most loyal of audiences has their breaking point.

I'll admit, few industries are as diligently dedicated to finding their audience's breaking point as the games industry though. How are those arcades doing again, games industry?

True, the gaming audience has a breaking point, and initiating this will make you lose a chunk of your consumers. The backlash for the first company to do this will be large, but I predict the chunk will be smaller as time progresses (and assuming the company doing this survives).

Your arcade argument is a good one, but with one flaw. The game you played at the arcade could also be played on your SNES or Megadrive. They were essentially the same, the only difference being you paid upfront for games on your console, and per 3 lifes in the arcade. The hardware was different (sticks vs gamepads, big screen and a stool vs a small screen and a couch), but let's leave that aside for now. The software was essentially the same, which is one of the reasons why arcades pretty much died out at the end of it all (couch > stool, multiplayer not confined to arcades any longer).

If these practises fly, the games will not be the same anymore. Your retail copy will not have the same content out of the box as your second hand copy.

It's a worrying future though, and I sincerely hope this doesn't fly.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

the ironic part is why would they see THEIR sales drop? People buying the game new off of store shelves don't see any change. The only change would be renters and used buyers who, the entire point is, don't contribute to the sales numbers you are talking about.

Not saying this is a great idea (although it is definitely interesting), but I think a lot of people in this thread fail to realize that this change would only affect a very specific set of users, none of which are in the sales demographic of people buying the game new. if those people opted to just not buy the game at all, the game company wouldn't suffer in the slightest. whereas if even one of those ended up buying the game new instead, the game company benefits. And there is no reason to assume anyone already buying the game new would stop out of protest.. it's not like they are being affected even in the tiniest bit.

You're acting like the used market exists in a completely separate bubble from the new market, though. People sell their games, on eBay, or at GS/EB, and do what with the money? Buy more games. If you snuff out that aspect of the games industry, I guarantee the results would not be pretty.

Separate from that, my thoughts:

How about instead of sticking it to the consumer to save their shitty failing business model, they try to figure out why they're fucking up so hard that they have to stand here, hat in hand, begging their customers to think of their well-being like some common panhandlers? Why don't they stop spending tens of millions of dollars worth of budget on extended ego trips? Why don't they stop shipping unfinished games, relying on the assumption that everyone is online and can download a patch? Why don't they stop releasing sub-par products that leave the customer feeling burned? Why don't they stop deliberately interfering with the preview and review process, trying to hide the faults (that they are fully aware of) in their finished products from consumers?

They're sitting here begging for good will, begging the consumer to care enough to spend ten extra dollars so that they can put a few extra drops of gas in the Ferrari, meanwhile, these assholes treat their customers in one of the most hostile fashions I've ever seen. Go ahead, games industry, keep fucking pushing. I fucking dare you. Somewhere along the line you guys got the mistaken impression that you are some kind of invincible one-of-a-kind snowflake. I almost wish for you to see the end result of that line of thought. We don't need you. You need us.

 

[Kintaro]

I really don't understand why Gamestop could grow into such a huge business. Why buy a used copy for such a miniscule discount, or why even buy a gutted "new" copy at Gamestop? Why don't people just buy their stuff new, sealed, for the same price, anywhere else? Boggles the mind.

Because people and gamers don't care as much as you think they do or should. Video games still do not mean that much to the vast, vast majority of people who buy them. If people are taking such little trade in value, buying games used a week after they come out and so forth, what does that tell you? It certainly tells me that gamers don't give as much of a shit as this forum thinks they do.

The problem as has been pointed out several times is that within weeks or even days of a game's release the retailers are pushing used copies at nearly full retail price instead of the new product.

Where do the retailers get used copies from? Consumers who bought the game NEW and either a) thought it sucked or b) was done with it in a such a short amount of time and wasn't worth keeping after that.

Retailers do not get used copies unless consumers sell them. Consumers sell these things back because the game simply wasn't worth keeping. That tells me the root problem here is the quality of the game (and the inherent nature of some game genres that will always offer no replayability).

said this before in another thread, but going after consumers like this may be the dumbest thing you can do.

Seriously shame on anyone who embraces tactics like this. I will never buy a game that has this kind of shit in it. Never. I'd go as so far as to not buy anything from the companies library until they get rid of it.

This gen devs and pubs just keep taking it further and further, one day the levi's gonna break and they will be out on their asses.

Absolutely sickening.

I'm behind you 100%. Get over yourselves and find a better way to promote buying your games new that doesn't try to fuck over your customers.

Build an online storefront that offers points for buying your game with cool rewards like autographed art, soundtracks and so forth. You can do this with new retail copies of games as well. Put a one time use token in each new game that is entered into the rewards site (where the customer then signs up). You can have some interesting events to drive sales. Double points weeks, etc etc.

Hell, you can go ahead and sell those things too for some extra money. Put the soundtrack on iTunes, offer different pieces of signed artwork, so forth and so such. If your game is good, this things should be able to supplement it quite well and build a good relationship with your customers. Especially if you promote the fuck out of it.

Just one of many different ways to offer more to people for buying new. I mean, you're never going to be rid of the second hand market and putting in any measures (or even talking about it) that can be seen as punishment will just set people off. So, you may as well suck it up, accept it like you should have 20 years ago and think of a better way.

 

[tahrikmili]

If these practises fly, the games will not be the same anymore. Your retail copy will not have the same content out of the box as your second hand copy.

Stop pretending that the DLC will not be included in the inevitable mandatory pirate copy that can be downloaded easier than unlocking a stupind game ending code.

 

[Tom Penny]

Great idea. It's all about choice.

 

[borghe]

You're acting like the used market exists in a completely separate bubble from the new market, though. People sell their games, on eBay, or at GS/EB, and do what with the money? Buy more games. If you snuff out that aspect of the games industry, I guarantee the results would not be pretty.

but that model would still be there, just with a lower margin than currently exists..

the biggest problem as I see it is the rental market.. let's take a look at japan... they have a massive second hand market, yet still see consistent new sales for titles with legs on them. but they don't have virtually any rental market. the rental market in the US is essentially killing a LOT of sales. Look at it this way. If someone couldn't rent the game, suppose they even go out and buy used. That is one less used copy out there for someone else to buy, who might then decide to buy new.

If anything, this would kill the rental market which IMHO is a great thing. From an economic standpoint the rental industry is hurting these guys even more than piracy. One rental copy probably sees in it's first month as many as 10+ plays on it. a single store has 3 copies and you are looking at 30 potential sales from a single store. and this is legitimate plays, so we could easily count how many theoretical sales are lost per copy sitting on Blockbuster's shelves.

I really don't see this as a bad thing. It kills rentals, realigns the used market, and doesn't affect the new market. People are against it in principal because it shakes things up and has an adverse affect on two markets, but the second hand market will still be fine, and the rental market is frankly just one step above piracy (And in many cases is directly used for piracy).

 

[Vagabundo]

edit - and as well it doesn't even KILL the used market.. it just changes the concept of it. if they sell, say, the final boss for $20, and Gamestop prices current recent used games at $55, it just means that gamestop has to start selling the games at $35 instead. Of course that means trade ins now are only going to be worth $15 or so instead of $25, but really it's not killing the market.. just realigning it.

A lot of new game sales are fuelled by money gained from sales of second hand games, watch as that loss impacts the market. And I'm betting it is a long way from being insignificant.

I really don't see this as a bad thing. It kills rentals, realigns the used market, and doesn't affect the new market. People are against it in principal because it shakes things up and has an adverse affect on two markets, but the second hand market will still be fine, and the rental market is frankly just one step above piracy (And in many cases is directly used for piracy).

How does it kill rentals? Most people dont complete the games they rent, so an DLC ending wont matter to them. The knock on effect of lowering second hand game prices would be much bigger than the amount of new game customers plus the DLC from the second hand purchasers.

Most gamers I know only have a limited amount of cash to pump into games and it is rarely in €60 packets. They are impatient, so they would normally supplement with selling a game they do not play. That money will go elsewhere if the games industry is not careful.

Messing with an economy that is this complex, in such a fundamental way, can really come back and bite you in the arse.

 

[Tntnnbltn]

[Point 1] Because people and gamers don't care as much as you think they do or should. Video games still do not mean that much to the vast, vast majority of people who buy them. If people are taking such little trade in value, buying games used a week after they come out and so forth, what does that tell you? It certainly tells me that gamers don't give as much of a shit as this forum thinks they do.

[Point 2] Build an online storefront that offers points for buying your game with cool rewards like autographed art, soundtracks and so forth. You can do this with new retail copies of games as well. Put a one time use token in each new game that is entered into the rewards site (where the customer then signs up). You can have some interesting events to drive sales. Double points weeks, etc etc.

Hell, you can go ahead and sell those things too for some extra money. Put the soundtrack on iTunes, offer different pieces of signed artwork, so forth and so such. If your game is good, this things should be able to supplement it quite well and build a good relationship with your customers. Especially if you promote the fuck out of it.

Just one of many different ways to offer more to people for buying new. I mean, you're never going to be rid of the second hand market and putting in any measures (or even talking about it) that can be seen as punishment will just set people off. So, you may as well suck it up, accept it like you should have 20 years ago and think of a better way.

Points 1 and 2 are in disagreement. The lay customer doesn't care for things like autographed art and whatnot.

Stop pretending that the DLC will not be included in the inevitable mandatory pirate copy that can be downloaded easier than unlocking a stupind game ending code.

Unless you want to play PS3 games.

 

[Kintaro]

Points 1 and 2 are in disagreement. The lay customer doesn't care for things like autographed art and whatnot.

Since it's never been offered to them, how do we know this? Yeah, they may never well, but there will be a fanbase that does and you have to try to grow that. Currently, the lay gamer doesn't value the game enough to KEEP or enough to buy NEW (which is the argument here). Offer positive incentives to buy NEW and you can at least plant the thought that buying new would net them more than buying used.

Point 2 was a positive reward to buy new games. What if the points went towards using them to buy other games for "free?" <shrugs>

 

[Wolves Evolve]

This idea repulses me. I hope whoever thinks this is a good idea suffers immensely.

Good job on these ideas for further wrecking an already dysfuctional game business model! Blast fax kudos all around.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Unless you want to play PS3 games.

Thank god that's not a problem for most people.

 

[tahrikmili]

Unless you want to play PS3 games.

And you really think people will gladly bend over and spread their asscheeks upon such treatment in order to play PS3 games?

PS3 sales alone prove that people are not as dumb as you think they are. They were supposed to bend over for $599, but somehow they did not. I'm sure a lot of people wanted to play PS3 games before launch as well.

 

[borghe]

A lot of new game sales are fuelled by money gained from sales of second hand games, watch as that loss impacts the market. And I'm betting it is a long way from being insignificant.

yes, this is exactly what I was responding to. There wouldn't be a complete loss of that source of money. Worst case scenario based on typical margins would be a 25-33% reduction if the end boss/level is $20. That's what I meant when I said the used market would realign. It would still exist and still be viable, just not as high of margins for Gamestop or the customer as they currently have.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

yes, this is exactly what I was responding to. There wouldn't be a complete loss of that source of money. Worst case scenario based on typical margins would be a 25-33% reduction if the end boss/level is $20. That's what I meant when I said the used market would realign. It would still exist and still be viable, just not as high of margins for Gamestop as they currently have.

What if your console isn't online? No ending for you?

 

[SovanJedi]

Wow Segata, if you were using your "throw the guy and he explodes" variant of your avatar right now I'd so quote that in reference to your long and thoroughly agreeable post earlier.

 

[Ponn]

If anything, this would kill the rental market which IMHO is a great thing. From an economic standpoint the rental industry is hurting these guys even more than piracy. One rental copy probably sees in it's first month as many as 10+ plays on it. a single store has 3 copies and you are looking at 30 potential sales from a single store. and this is legitimate plays, so we could easily count how many theoretical sales are lost per copy sitting on Blockbuster's shelves.

I'm sorry, but the bolded is blatant bullshit. Having been a store manager I can ASSURE you a game, even if new does not get rented out 10 times in the first month. In the time span it takes to get a week rental, being late, etc you are lucky to get 3 rentals on one game. And on top of that the most popular new releases will get 10 to 20 copies in of each. After the first 2 months of consistent rentals over half of the rest just sit on the shelves waiting to be sold as pre-owned.

Next is the "potential sales" which is just impossible to claim one way or the other. But when you try to make that argument you HAVE to count the fact that the renter bought those games. So if one game in Blockbuster has had a total rental history of 6 people (which was the average in my store for a pretty popular game) you already have one of those potential buyers covered by the initial sale. Now you're hoping that the rest of the kids who were digging for the change just to rent that game or had to beg their mom just to rent the game (not buy, rent) were actually going to buy it.

Now start to take out how rentals help to expand peoples experiences with games that never otherwise would have picked up a certain genre of game or series but then got compelled after to get into that series or genre. I would have never been the RPG lover I am today if I didn't have the option to try out Final Fantasy or Dragon Warrior from my game rental store as a kid.

 

[Vagabundo]

yes, this is exactly what I was responding to. There wouldn't be a complete loss of that source of money. Worst case scenario based on typical margins would be a 25-33% reduction if the end boss/level is $20. That's what I meant when I said the used market would realign. It would still exist and still be viable, just not as high of margins for Gamestop or the customer as they currently have.

I'm not that worried about GS, more that the impact to First-Hand games could be huge.

- DLC for endings on Second hand games released world wide
- Second hand games drop in price to take this into account
- Suddenly second hand games are more affordable and gamers have less money in their pockets from the sale of first hand games
- First hand games are now priced out of the market, as the market has the realigned to a lower price.
- Most people buying second hand games never reach the ending anyway and never buy the €20 DLC, but would complain to the store if the second hand price was any higher.
- Rental prices my also drop to complete with second hand games
- Industry goes into a tail spin. :lol :lol :lol

 

[scitek]

I've seen it mentioned before, but why do developers automatically assume that those used sales were potential new sales they missed out on? I've got news for them, if I buy it used, it's because I was never planning on buying it new to begin with. At $60, I rarely buy any games new -- the only time I do is when it's a more indie title and I want to support it (No More Heroes, de Blob, I'll be getting LittleBigPlanet shortly, etc., and I buy a lot of PSN and WiiWare) so until that price dropped to $30, they never even had a potential sale from me. I can't be the only one with this mindset.

 

[haowan]

How about instead of sticking it to the consumer to save their shitty failing business model, they try to figure out why they're fucking up so hard that they have to stand here, hat in hand, begging their customers to think of their well-being like some common panhandlers? Why don't they stop spending tens of millions of dollars worth of budget on extended ego trips? Why don't they stop shipping unfinished games, relying on the assumption that everyone is online and can download a patch? Why don't they stop releasing sub-par products that leave the customer feeling burned? Why don't they stop deliberately interfering with the preview and review process, trying to hide the faults (that they are fully aware of) in their finished products from consumers?

The developers are the ones losing out, and the answer to all your questions in that paragraph is "publishers". The whole publishing model is broken all the way from developer advances down to the price of retail games.

(since you asked about the analogy thing, logic and reasoning are the gods of good analogies, and i may be a shithead but the used car and the pie analogy are really not appropriate or meaningful for reasons pointed out several times)

 

[Version 3.0]

The developers are the ones losing out, and the answer to all your questions in that paragraph is "publishers". The whole publishing model is broken all the way from developer advances down to the price of retail games.

The various relationships between publishers and developers is an entirely different topic, not relevant to the used games business. Publishers sell to Gamestop, not developers.

The rental business is also a separate topic, and one long since structured to everyone's agreement in the movie industry. If game rentals don't follow a similar model, then that's something to be addressed...but not by consumers, and not by screwing consumers.

 

[Campster]

The various relationships between publishers and developers is an entirely different topic, not relevant to the used games business. Publishers sell to Gamestop, not developers.

Well I hate to keep harping on about it, but the used games issue wouldn't be an issue if our business model was better, and that includes our publisher/developer relationships.

The problem isn't "Used games are basically piracy," the problem isn't "GameStop is evil," the problem is "We have an unsustainable method of generating income with rising costs, a relatively stagnant audience, and a leech of a retail sector that makes these problems several times worse." The good side of this, if there is one, is that it highlights how fundamentally fragile our current setup is - all it takes is a retailer to start pushing used product and we're scrambling to come up with ways to prevent it.

The emphasis shouldn't be "OMG CONSUMER RIGHTS" or "EPIC SUX" but rather "How did it get to this point, and what alternatives are there? How can we make used games impact overall profits less? Isn't this just a band-aid on a much bigger problem?"

 

[Fizzle]

Has microsoft been giving him idea's?

 

[Stink]

The inherent failure in the retail model is huge a contributory factor in quality devs being unable to make unique content, because people don't take a chance on niche stuff until it goes secondhand. Interesting new stuff doesn't stand a chance. Middle of the road hyped up grey/brown macho shooter crap, annual sports games and sequelized racers take their place.

This has been the most terrible generation for innovation since I can remember, even on the Wii, with its funky new controls failing to ignite the imagination of budget holders.

 

[Version 3.0]

Well I hate to keep harping on about it, but the used games issue wouldn't be an issue if our business model was better, and that includes our publisher/developer relationships.

The problem isn't "Used games are basically piracy," the problem isn't "GameStop is evil," the problem is "We have an unsustainable method of generating income with rising costs, a relatively stagnant audience, and a leech of a retail sector that makes these problems several times worse." The good side of this, if there is one, is that it highlights how fundamentally fragile our current setup is - all it takes is a retailer to start pushing used product and we're scrambling to come up with ways to prevent it.

The emphasis shouldn't be "OMG CONSUMER RIGHTS" or "EPIC SUX" but rather "How did it get to this point, and what alternatives are there? How can we make used games impact overall profits less? Isn't this just a band-aid on a much bigger problem?"

Costs are 100% up to the publisher/developer. Cost are not "rising", they're being raised by choice. If you want to make a low-cost game, there's nothing stopping you, and there are several platforms to choose from where a low-cost game won't appear inferior. Nintendo is the obvious prime example of a company that decided not to pursue a high-cost model, and it's paid off in spades. They also don't seem to worry about several of these other problems. Ask yourself why that is.

a leech of a retail sector that makes these problems several times worse

And this is patently untrue. The retail sector of the videogame market works on the lowest possible margin, making small-scale business impossible to sustain. Gamestop found a way around this, and their solution includes driving new game sales harder than any other retailer. Publishers refuse to admit how much good Gamestop does them, while crying about the used game business "stealing" from them. If their used game business goes away, so does their new game business (which is what happened to all of their competitors). You can't have it both ways--do you want Gamestop's sales, or not?

 

[Speevy]

I have 93 game endings.

 

[anotherworld]

Could I have the final boss/ending taken out of my Gears 2 for a $20 refund?

Is it that bad?:lol

 

[Dave Long]

Costs are 100% up to the publisher/developer. Cost are not "rising", they're being raised by choice. If you want to make a low-cost game, there's nothing stopping you, and there are several platforms to choose from where a low-cost game won't appear inferior. Nintendo is the obvious prime example of a company that decided not to pursue a high-cost model, and it's paid off in spades. They also don't seem to worry about several of these other problems. Ask yourself why that is.



And this is patently untrue. The retail sector of the videogame market works on the lowest possible margin, making small-scale business impossible to sustain. Gamestop found a way around this, and their solution includes driving new game sales harder than any other retailer. Publishers refuse to admit how much good Gamestop does them, while crying about the used game business "stealing" from them. If their used game business goes away, so does their new game business (which is what happened to all of their competitors). You can't have it both ways--do you want Gamestop's sales, or not?

I applaud your post, but you're not going to win any friends or influence any people. Used games are the devil to the industry and to many people here on GAF. No amount of logic will every break them of their ignorant opinions of their affect on the industry.

 

[charlequin]

Well I hate to keep harping on about it, but the used games issue wouldn't be an issue if our business model was better, and that includes our publisher/developer relationships.

Yep.

Movies hardly have to worry about used sales cutting into their new revenues, and for good reason: who feels the need to get a used copy of a movie that sells for $10? Games should be aiming to hit a pricepoint where people aren't feeling like they should wait for the used copy to see if the game is worth a purchase, not jacking the prices even higher.

And this is patently untrue. The retail sector of the videogame market works on the lowest possible margin, making small-scale business impossible to sustain. Gamestop found a way around this, and their solution includes driving new game sales harder than any other retailer.

Yep. Gamestop's rise is entirely a result of the market that publishers and hardware manufacturers created. A pawnshop operation is the only way to make money as a dedicated videogame retailer: your margin on new hardware is literally around $1 per system and the profits on new software cannot make up the difference.

Now, Gamestop is a sleazy-ass company and have plenty of their own anti-consumer policies that I'm happy to call out as well, but the reason that there's no competing chain that doesn't engage in this kind of used-game swappage is because it's not financially viable to do so.

 

[Scrubking]

Costs are 100% up to the publisher/developer. Cost are not "rising", they're being raised by choice. If you want to make a low-cost game, there's nothing stopping you, and there are several platforms to choose from where a low-cost game won't appear inferior. Nintendo is the obvious prime example of a company that decided not to pursue a high-cost model, and it's paid off in spades. They also don't seem to worry about several of these other problems. Ask yourself why that is.

I still remember the gobs of articles featuring devs and pubs crying about costs when the $60 price hike was announced.

Now those guys are still crying and Nintendo is making record profits.

 

[Campster]

Costs are 100% up to the publisher/developer. Cost are not "rising", they're being raised by choice. If you want to make a low-cost game, there's nothing stopping you, and there are several platforms to choose from where a low-cost game won't appear inferior. Nintendo is the obvious prime example of a company that decided not to pursue a high-cost model, and it's paid off in spades. They also don't seem to worry about several of these other problems. Ask yourself why that is.



And this is patently untrue. The retail sector of the videogame market works on the lowest possible margin, making small-scale business impossible to sustain. Gamestop found a way around this, and their solution includes driving new game sales harder than any other retailer. Publishers refuse to admit how much good Gamestop does them, while crying about the used game business "stealing" from them. If their used game business goes away, so does their new game business (which is what happened to all of their competitors). You can't have it both ways--do you want Gamestop's sales, or not?

With regards to your first paragraph: I don't disagree at all; lowering development costs is absolutely one way to change the industry for the better. Shorter or lo-fi games would be a godsend, and I do applaud Nintendo from slowing down the technological arms race. When I say that costs are rising, I'm referring almost exclusively to mainstream titles on the PS3, 360, and occasionally PC. But despite the emergence of smaller games like Portal or Team Fortress 2, or downloadable games like Braid, most of the money made in this industry is through mega-hit blockbusters. As a result, that's where most of the resources and money go - trying to create the next Grand Theft Auto or Guitar Hero.

And yes, this is the result of publishers "deciding" to follow this route, but these are massive publicly traded companies. They don't exactly have free will. If I'm a CEO for an Activision or EA and I'm not pumping millions into making the next mega-blockbuster franchise that can be milked across every platform once a year, for hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, I'm going to be fired. Explaining to the board how it makes more sense for a smaller ROI with risk distributed over many more titles isn't going to go over well. In short, I agree, but it's not as simple as flipping the "let's make cheaper games" switch.

With regards to your second paragraph: There's no denying that a retail store for games alone can't survive without used games. That's a gimme. Again, we have a horrible way of making money - our product is basically designed to be sold in big box retailers with low margins and high volume, but a very significant portion of our sales go through specialty retailers like GameStop. It's an inherently tricky problem, and I don't really have any great solutions for it. But at the same time, I think it's possible to hold both the idea that used games undeniably hurt the games industry and the idea that specialty game retailers absolutely need used games sales in your head at once.

 

[Version 3.0]

Now, Gamestop is a sleazy-ass company and have plenty of their own anti-consumer policies that I'm happy to call out as well, but the reason that there's no competing chain that doesn't engage in this kind of used-game swappage is because it's not financially viable to do so.

Exactly. I hate Gamestop and almost never shop there. But not for any reason discussed in this thread; I just hate the way they push everything on you: used games, pre-orders, strategy guides...and I don't find their used prices to be worth my time.

And if you go into Game Crazy, it's the exact same thing--because it's the only way to make game retail into a profitable business. Now you see Play N Trade getting started up (are they brand new or just new to Vegas?), and I'll bet they have all the same practices.

 

[Version 3.0]

With regards to your first paragraph: I don't disagree at all; lowering development costs is absolutely one way to change the industry for the better. Shorter or lo-fi games would be a godsend, and I do applaud Nintendo from slowing down the technological arms race. When I say that costs are rising, I'm referring almost exclusively to mainstream titles on the PS3, 360, and occasionally PC. But despite the emergence of smaller games like Portal or Team Fortress 2, or downloadable games like Braid, most of the money made in this industry is through mega-hit blockbusters. As a result, that's where most of the resources and money go - trying to create the next Grand Theft Auto or Guitar Hero.

And yes, this is the result of publishers "deciding" to follow this route, but they these are massive publicly traded companies. They don't exactly have free will. If I'm a CEO for an Activision or EA and I'm not pumping millions into making the next mega-blockbuster franchise that can be milked across every platform once a year, for hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, I'm going to be fired. Explaining to the board how it makes more sense for a smaller ROI with risk distributed over many more titles isn't going to go over well. In short, I agree, but it's not as simple as flipping the "let's make cheaper games" switch.

With regards to your second paragraph: There's no denying that a retail store for games alone can't survive without used games. That's a gimme. Again, we have a horrible way of making money - our product is basically designed to be sold in big box retailers with low margins and high volume, but a very significant portion of our sales go through specialty retailers like GameStop. It's an inherently tricky problem, and I don't really have any great solutions for it. But at the same time, I think it's possible to hold both the idea that used games undeniably hurt the games industry and the idea that specialty game retailers absolutely need used games sales in your head at once.

I can agree with most of this, but the bolded is, again, not proven at all. Take away Gamestop's trade-in business, and you remove them from the #1 new game retailer position, plain and simple. You'd need their data to quantify how much the trade-ins drive new sales, but I promise you it's substantial. Obviously there is some trade-off, and many people who buy a used game might have bought a new game instead--especially the newest ones, when GS is selling them at $5 off. But you can't make a blanket statement that "used games are bad". It's simply not true.

It reminds me of the movie industry's panic attack over home video sales, and how they would kill the theater business. That didn't happen, and in fact the home business is a huge sector now.
I'm not suggesting a parallel between home movie sales and used game sales, but the panic is similar--because in neither case is the secondary market necessarily harmful to the primary. Only in theory.

I still maintain that a window to allow maximum new game sales would be an acceptable compromise, since new game sales are extremely front-loaded, and not just at Gamestop. But they need incentive to do so, because right now they have every reason to want used game sales on a title to start as soon as possible, and little reason to want new game sales to go beyond first-day sales (ie. preorders).

That's aside from any changes in the cost structure, publisher-developer relationships, etc, of course. Those are neither consumers nor retailers concerns, and they aren't able to do anything about it in any case.

 

[Monocle]

Great idea. It's all about choice.

Bingo. Microsoft is still backpedaling just as fast as they can from their unbelievably boneheaded decision to sell 360s sans hard drives. Hopefully devs will take the lessons of history to heart and laugh off this DLC endings idea before it sees the light of day.

 

[RoH]

THQ should be making better games and managing their budget better. I feel very bad for the individuals who lost their jobs, but no sympathy whatsoever for the company.



Why should we be sympathetic to companies who are actively attempting to take away our consumer rights, while screwing their own employees at the same time with horrible overworked hours, often without overtime pay, huge turnover and seasonal layoffs which are part of the "normal cycle" of game development?

You should feel sorry for them, you should also want to feed their families because if you (consumers as a whole) don't then they wont make games. Its like a bartering for anything ; if the creator is not making what the market dictates they should, why should the creator make the product?

 

[RoH]

I've seen it mentioned before, but why do developers automatically assume that those used sales were potential new sales they missed out on? I've got news for them, if I buy it used, it's because I was never planning on buying it new to begin with. At $60, I rarely buy any games new -- the only time I do is when it's a more indie title and I want to support it (No More Heroes, de Blob, I'll be getting LittleBigPlanet shortly, etc., and I buy a lot of PSN and WiiWare) so until that price dropped to $30, they never even had a potential sale from me. I can't be the only one with this mindset.

Because those new used copies where potential monies for the Dev. If you did not buy it at that time the price would have dropped or it would have hit one of the many greatest hits packages. New or used the prices stay about the same, unless the game is out of print.

 

[Iain Howe]

It seems the biggest costs in Development are R&D to squeeze the most out of the new hardware and the sheer amount of art content that is needed (increased poly counts and texture resolution mean far more work).

So, if we're agreed that the biggest thing driving the second hand market is price, and that price needs to come down, either we need to find a way to reach a much bigger audience, or we need to reduce cost.

If we reduce cost it'll be by taking the Nintendo route. Are all the Gaffers here going to be happy waving goodbye to the cutting edge, AAA product that they're used to, in favor of more technologically pedestrian works?

Would you guys be happy if the new Gears looked like the old Gears?

 

[RoH]

It seems the biggest costs in Development are R&D to squeeze the most out of the new hardware and the sheer amount of art content that is needed (increased poly counts and texture resolution mean far more work).

So, if we're agreed that the biggest thing driving the second hand market is price, and that price needs to come down, either we need to find a way to reach a much bigger audience, or we need to reduce cost.

If we reduce cost it'll be by taking the Nintendo route. Are all the Gaffers here going to be happy waving goodbye to the cutting edge, AAA product that they're used to, in favor of more technologically pedestrian works?

Would you guys be happy if the new Gears looked like the old Gears?

Is it really price thats driving the second hand market? Are people really dieing to basically save $5 in tax?

 

[Opiate]

I can agree with most of this, but the bolded is, again, not proven at all. Take away Gamestop's trade-in business, and you remove them from the #1 new game retailer position, plain and simple. You'd need their data to quantify how much the trade-ins drive new sales, but I promise you it's substantial. Obviously there is some trade-off, and many people who buy a used game might have bought a new game instead--especially the newest ones, when GS is selling them at $5 off. But you can't make a blanket statement that "used games are bad". It's simply not true.

It reminds me of the movie industry's panic attack over home video sales, and how they would kill the theater business. That didn't happen, and in fact the home business is a huge sector now.
I'm not suggesting a parallel between home movie sales and used game sales, but the panic is similar--because in neither case is the secondary market necessarily harmful to the primary. Only in theory.

I still maintain that a window to allow maximum new game sales would be an acceptable compromise, since new game sales are extremely front-loaded, and not just at Gamestop. But they need incentive to do so, because right now they have every reason to want used game sales on a title to start as soon as possible, and little reason to want new game sales to go beyond first-day sales (ie. preorders).

That's aside from any changes in the cost structure, publisher-developer relationships, etc, of course. Those are neither consumers nor retailers concerns, and they aren't able to do anything about it in any case.

Great conversation going on here.

Regarding curbing used game sales, I think another option that needs to be discussed is increasing the replay value of games. I personally like this option, because it's completely under the control of publishers and developers: rather forcing a "compromise" on retailers who already struggle to survive without used games, it would be nice if the Publishers/Developers who caused this problem in the first place solved it themselves.

Some contrasting examples: Guitar Hero and Madden NFL, or Mario Kart and Final Fantasy. Both Madden and Final Fantasy are hugely frontloaded, as evidenced by their precipitous drop in retail price even a few months after release. This indicates large quantities of used game sales cannibalizing new game sales at the 59.99 retail price. By contrast, Mario Kart DS (and Mario Kart Wii) along with Guitar Hero are still set at their original sale prices, even though Guitar Hero retails for 89.99 with the bundled hardware.

I could point to a couple of reasons why this occurs, but rather than get in to a long discussion about how game design increases replay value (that's a long thread in itself), I'll just assume we can agree that such distinctions exist. As such, one method to reduce this issue is simply to make games that aren't so ridiculously front loaded.

And like increasing development costs, this is a perrogative of the developer and publisher.

 

[Version 3.0]

It seems the biggest costs in Development are R&D to squeeze the most out of the new hardware and the sheer amount of art content that is needed (increased poly counts and texture resolution mean far more work).

So, if we're agreed that the biggest thing driving the second hand market is price, and that price needs to come down, either we need to find a way to reach a much bigger audience, or we need to reduce cost.

If we reduce cost it'll be by taking the Nintendo route. Are all the Gaffers here going to be happy waving goodbye to the cutting edge, AAA product that they're used to, in favor of more technologically pedestrian works?

Would you guys be happy if the new Gears looked like the old Gears?

Obviously the answer to that is no, but it's not up to us, it's up to the people funding these high-budget games. As a consumer, all you can do is buy them.

These big-budget games don't need to reach a bigger audience, not at all. Gears, GTA, Halo, Call of Duty, and so on have been wildly successful--and Gears and Halo 3 had a relatively small audience to sell to, being only on the 360.

It's the unsuccessful games that are in question. But that's no different than any other business. If you have a way to ensure your product is successful before you spend the money to get it to market, let me know. It's a gamble, but so is making any product for sale at all. Low-cost games are simply a smaller gamble.

But that's really another conversation. Used games are not the source of this problem, they're a side effect. A game that bombs, bombs out of the gate, before any used copies of it exist. Used games, at worst, can make a successful game a bit less successful. And at best, trade-in games can put pre-orders of a game through the roof, allowing it to be profitable the first day it goes on sale.

 

[Tiduz]

pirates and others will just watch the ending on youtube. we all know it.

 

[Opiate]

Obviously the answer to that is no, but it's not up to us, it's up to the people funding these high-budget games. As a consumer, all you can do is buy them.

These big-budget games don't need to reach a bigger audience, not at all. Gears, GTA, Halo, Call of Duty, and so on have been wildly successful--and Gears and Halo 3 had a relatively small audience to sell to, being only on the 360.

It's the unsuccessful games that are in question. But that's no different than any other business. If you have a way to ensure your product is successful before you spend the money to get it to market, let me know. It's a gamble, but so is making any product for sale at all. Low-cost games are simply a smaller gamble.

This misunderstands the market, I think. Absolutely, the above metnioned "big budget" games all made money, and just as you also mentioned, many other "big budget" ones lost money.

When analyzing an entire industry, the question isn't, "are there any products at all making money?" but rather, "is the industry as a whole making money?" This means you have to consider the flops and the hits.

Using your logic, we could say that everything is fine as long as one single game is clearly making money. Right now, we might be able to point to a dozen games that are unquestionably making money; that list has clearly narrowed even in the last 3 years. If, 10 years from now, the only clear earners in this "big budget" world are Grand Theft Auto and Halo, while everything else loses money, would we say that everything is fine? No, we wouldn't. And based off financial data, it's clear we're already reaching the point where the flops are frequent enough to syphon away almost all the money being made on the hits. Which means either costs need to decrease or revenue needs to increase -- we're either spending too much money or our audience isn't big enough.

 

[ElFly]

Is it really price thats driving the second hand market? Are people really dieing to basically save $5 in tax?

Yes.

Realize that a lot of these people then come back and resell the game to GS, therefore only paying $30 or $40 for their used game.

 

[Version 3.0]

This misunderstands the market, I think. Absolutely, the above metnioned "big budget" games all made money, and just as you also mentioned, many other "big budget" ones lost money.

When analyzing an entire industry, the question isn't, "are there any products at all making money?" but rather, "is the industry as a whole making money?" This means you have to consider the flops and the hits.

Using your logic, we could say that everything is fine as long as one single game is clearly making money. Right now, we might be able to point to a dozen games that are unquestionably making money; that list has clearly narrowed even in the last 3 years. If, 10 years from now, the only clear earners in this "big budget" world are Grand Theft Auto and Halo, while everything else loses money, would we say that everything is fine? No, we wouldn't. And based off financial data, it's clear we're already reaching the point where the flops are frequent enough to syphon away almost all the money being made on the hits. Which means either costs need to decrease or revenue needs to increase -- we're either spending too much money or our audience isn't big enough.

I was referring only to the big budget titles, because that's the only sector where the risks may not be worth the trouble. And clearly there's money to be made there. Whether it's worth the risk is something publishers can decide on their own. My point was that it isn't remotely truthful use the used game market as a scapegoat if you can't turn a profit.

As for the industry as a whole: it's booming, and has been for many years. It's a tough business, for sure, but there a lot of money being made. Nobody is talking about giving up or getting out, and the smart players are making record profits (Nintendo being the biggest example).

Publishers think they have it tough, but the truth is that times have been much harder historically than they are now. Take a look back at how many companies sunk at the end of the cartridge era, and right now looks a lot less troublesome. The high costs (which are not mandatory) right now are still more than offset by the extremely cheap media and the much larger market.