Support NeoGAF

[biggreenmachine]

Alright biggreenmachine cherry picking points out of the article doesn't refute it. Especially when for 1) you're just countering his hypothetical example with your own and for 2) um, you're not refuting the point at all

Did I claim/appear to be refuting his article? I thought I said it was an "interesting read", then I thought I picked out 2 bits of it, that to me, made him sound biased and the reasons I felt that. Then I used something he said to back up my own beliefs and answer the orignal posts title.

 

[Agent X]

First off the argument that a lot of used games don't sell so it doesn't harm the new games market is bull. Have you *seen* the used games that don't sell? They're crap. Just because NFL Quarterback Club languishes on the shelf doesn't mean that used games that are actually in demand aren't being sold. The fact that decent used games on the shelf are so scarce isn't because they don't exist, it's because they GET SNAPPED UP FAST when they could have been sold new, this hurts the game publishers and developers because that is money they never see.

Hell just look at the crazy amount of space EB has been devoting to used games for the past couple of years. It's gotten insane and the clerks push the used games like crazy as well. This is being pushed because it WORKS, tons of used games are being sold and every dollar that is spent on used isn't being spent on new. Used games are pure profit, but only for EB shareholders. Frankly EB shareholders can go sit on it, I want my money to go to the people who took the risk and actually created the games.

Then you can buy new games exclusively, and encourage others to do the same.

Here's the thing, though: The used video game market has existed almost as long as the video game industry in general. I bought a used copy of Activision's Skiing for the Atari 2600 way back in 1982, in a store in my local shopping mall that happened to stock a few used games.

I remember buying a few used Atari 2600 games from my friends, as well as from flea markets and garage sales and online auctions. You can admonish the big retailers from accepting and reselling used games, maybe even block them out altogether, but then people will still find other avenues to sell their old games.

Somone might not like the fact that a game store pays $5 for an old game of his, that the store would then turn around and sell to someone else for $20. So, instead he decides to put it up on auction on eBay, and ends up getting the full $20 straight into his own pocket. Is he "evil" for somehow denying a sale that could have otherwise gone to the publisher?

This can easily be headed off in one of two different ways

1) Publishers start their own buyback programs to entice people to sell the publisher their used games directly in exchange for sweet credit on a brand new game from the same publisher, and the publisher starts selling the used games for a discount themselves. Essentially cut out the greedy and destructive middle man.

So, instead of the retailer being the "greedy and destructive middle man," then the publisher itself would become the new "greedy and destructive middle man," since they would be selling used games and thus denying the developer of the original game their fair share of the profits. Isn't this what you're trying to avoid doing?

2) The greedy and destructive middle man grows a freaking brain and sends 10% or so of the proceeds from every used games sold to the apporpriate publisher. Everybody wins.

Now option 2 is the smartest for everyone concerned but somehow I doubt that this would ever occur to the dumbass profit addled EB board of directors.

Sounds good on paper, but why would they do that?

1. You'd have to get everyone who sells used video games to agree to that, which is almost impossible. Remember what I said about "other avenues." Maybe the big retailers might agree to it (likely not, for other reasons), but someone running an independent shop or a used game stand at a flea market wouldn't want to be bothered.

2. Those who agree to it would have to lower buyback prices (thus driving the end user to pursue "other avenues" such as online auctions) or raise their selling prices in order to make up for the cut of the money they'd have to send to the publisher. Either way, the consumer loses here.

Anyway, this is all moot. The problem being brought up here is that the developer is getting the shaft, not the publisher. What you're saying would (on paper) help the publisher, but the developer (who may or may not be the same as the publisher) isn't seeing any of that money. Sorry, but everybody doesn't win.

 

[Azih]

I'm treating the developers and publishers as the same deal in this case for the same reason that I treat movie studios and movie creators as the same. Creating these things requires a ton of cash and resources and that is provided by the publisher. If a publisher makes more money off a game then the developer of the game gets the credit, they get the security, stability, and financing they need to work on their next project.

In the current industry most every developer works through a publisher, proceeds from new game sales go to the publisher and the publisher then distributes salaries to the developers who worked on it. That's why the publisher can't be considered middle men, they own and control the product.

 

[Lhadatt]

Ads displayed while browsing this thread:

:lol

 

[mrklaw]

The difference here is that CDs and DVDs are $20 or less, and games are $20 and up. If you spent $50 for game and you knew you could get $15-20 back for it in a few weeks, of course you're going to trade it in. CDs and DVDs are cheaper, so you would only get a few dollars back for a trade in, if at all. Most music stores let you trade in several CDs for one new one. Only at that point does the store think the trade in is worth it.

If games had a lower MSRP, the would also have a lower trade-in value, which encourages buying new and discourages trading one or two old games for one new one. If a game was $20 or $30, your first thought wouldn't be to trade it in for a new game because a resell value would be lower.

There's also the fact that games don't age well. Music from the 60s and 70s are still worth paying $15 an album for, but can you imagine trying to pay even $20 for an average N64 game today? That's just 6 years ago. Until the majority of games can retain their value for 5+ years in the same manner than a DVD can, this problem will always exist.

good point. That illustrates some of the differences between the retail models of CD/DVD/Games. So if the publishers are whining, have they looked at reducing MSRP before bitching about used games?

 

[Ranger X]

So, instead of the retailer being the "greedy and destructive middle man," then the publisher itself would become the new "greedy and destructive middle man," since they would be selling used games and thus denying the developer of the original game their fair share of the profits. Isn't this what you're trying to avoid doing?

I might want to add some food on the table here. If we need greedy one to have this system working, it better the publishers instead of Gamestop, because Gamestop does not fund my game projects...

 

[biggreenmachine]

I might want to add some food on the table here. If we need greedy one to have this system working, it better the publishers instead of Gamestop, because Gamestop does not fund my game projects...

Really?... Check this out: The last 3 games I bought, lets see.... Electroplankton, Phoenix wright, and Trauma center I bought at EBgames. Why? These games arent even available at Wal-mart, Futureshop, (insert various big box store outlet here). Without boutique games stores the small title developers would have a hard time getting their products out there which means in a way, at their own risk, they do help fund them. You however, obvoiusly work for EA or something...

 

[Ranger X]

Really?... Check this out: The last 3 games I bought, lets see.... Electroplankton, Phoenix wright, and Trauma center I bought at EBgames. Why? These games arent even available at Wal-mart, Futureshop, (insert various big box store outlet here). Without boutique games stores the small title developers would have a hard time getting their products out there which means in a way, at their own risk, they do help fund them. You however, obvoiusly work for EA or something...

Talk about missing my point LOL
Did you buy those game used or new?

Gamestop selling NEW games makes no harm. We are speaking of used ones.
We were saying that all the money goes to Gamestop when they sell used games. When they sell new games, it's the other way around, the publisher gets the money.

Now i prefer the publisher to get the money for the simple fact that it's them that are going to fund your next game project, not Gamestop.
Money does not "appear" in develloper's hands, the bank is the publisher.

 

[Agent X]

I might want to add some food on the table here. If we need greedy one to have this system working, it better the publishers instead of Gamestop, because Gamestop does not fund my game projects...

Point noted.

But Azih appears to be blaming the retailer for the woes of the publisher and developer, when I am saying that his anger is misdirected. His proposed "solution" is not to cut out the "greedy and destructive middle man," but rather to cut out the retailer and thereby appoint a different part of the chain (that being the publisher) as the "greedy and destructive middle man."

The real solution to the problem is for developers (or publishers, or whoever is responsible for the game production) to produce games that are so good that people who buy them don't want to get rid of them! If the problem is that piles of so-called "top-tier" games are being traded in a week after they're released, then you know what that means? It means that whoever produced the game made a subpar product that is boring and/or short with no hope for long-term replay value. In that case, the producers of the game need to sit down and think real hard about how they should retain their customers the next time they try to press a piece of crap on a disc and shuffle it off for $49.99.

 

[Acosta]

why not? sure it has differences, but at the end of the day the consumer is buying a product that a publisher is selling. Fairly similar to music or DVD for example - you are buying the right to access an intellectual property for personal enjoyment.

Because even if you totally ignore it, publishers doen´t think the same way than you. They sell a product under certain legal term. Other thing is that people passes of this (until it is enforced).

I will save you the discussion. If publishers and console makers agree that they are loosing too much money with second hand market, you can be sure they will make something about it. Then you can complain until your head explodes.

It´s not about ipinions or how you, or I, see it. If they feel to, they will do something because technology is, more and more, something easily controlled and monitorized. And at the end you will be able to choose if you accept the new terms or you don´t, that your freedom as consumer.

 

[Mario]

The real solution to the problem is for developers (or publishers, or whoever is responsible for the game production) to produce games that are so good that people who buy them don't want to get rid of them! If the problem is that piles of so-called "top-tier" games are being traded in a week after they're released, then you know what that means? It means that whoever produced the game made a subpar product that is boring and/or short with no hope for long-term replay value. In that case, the producers of the game need to sit down and think real hard about how they should retain their customers the next time they try to press a piece of crap on a disc and shuffle it off for $49.99.

The thing is that this is the same kind of problem as the graphics treadmill. If everybody across the board raises the quality of their products by 50%, then games in general are massively better, but there are still some titles that are better than others. And people will trade those lower quality ones away even if they are 50% better than last year.

 

[Agent X]

The thing is that this is the same kind of problem as the graphics treadmill. If everybody across the board raises the quality of their products by 50%, then games in general are massively better, but there are still some titles that are better than others. And people will trade those lower quality ones away even if they are 50% better than last year.

This is true. When we boil everything down to the nitty-gritty, the goal is simply to produce the best possible game.

One thing is certain: The used video game market isn't going away. It's existed long before the large chain stores were accepting used games (when it was relegated to smaller independent game shops, thrift stores, flea markets, and garage sales), and it will continue to exist long after those stores are gone.

Even if the overall quality of games in general rises, people will continue to sell or trade the games they feel are inferior. It's true that this might hurt some developers or publishers, but then this goes back to the simple concept of "make a better game." Obviously the game wasn't "good enough" or else people wouldn't be willing to get rid of it. Remember, the retailers who are doing buybacks aren't forcing their customers to get rid of their old games. They aren't sending soldiers to break into gamers' homes and bodily drag them out to the store, while shouting on megaphones, "YOU WILL TRADE IN YOUR USED GAMES AND SAVE!" No, the customers are freely doing this on their own volition. They are making a conscious choice to get rid of games that they no longer have an interest in. Therefore, the task is on the shoulders of the developer or publisher to ensure that it isn't their product that's carelessly being tossed onto the used game rack in mass quantities.

The market is so big now, with so many developers and publishers, that it is unfortunately impossible for everyone to be massively successful. Some people will do better than others, but that's the nature of business...it's "survival of the fittest." The superior game producers will succeed and become profitable, while the inferior ones will fail, and subsequently shrivel up and ultimately become extinct.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

The industry will expand and contract, just like the stock market. Its how business is usually ran. The efficiently ran ones will be successful and grow while the dinosaurs go extinct or at the very most, merge with a successful developer. EA might suck as a company but they're very efficient. They rarely make shitty mistakes. As opposed to SNK which made shitty mistake after shitty mistake since the mid 90s. You can throw Sega on that list of companies that make bad mistakes. They failed.

Thats why in my opinion, we'll see developers that work on two levels: big, epic productions and smaller games. I expect the smaller games to hit the DS, PSP, and hell, maybe even Revolution. The point is to capitalize on the large handheld market and get enough profit to fund the epic productions, which will probably be on PS3 and to a lesser extent, Xbox 360. For example, a developer will make 5 addictive but small games on the DS and PSP. They make $5 million in profit, which goes to their $7.5 million epic PS3 project. Its their way of making the big games without as much risk.

 

[DDayton]

If there should be a second hand market, the profits must go to publishers and studios, that are the makers of the game. As simple as that. . . . Ah, and please, don´t copmpare this to any other second hand market. It´s not the same a car or a house, that you are the full propietary, than a videogame or any computer program.

... so all used book sales should result in the profits going straight to the writers and publishers?

How did the publishing industry exist for this long with used book sales constantly cutting into their margins?? Why, there are entire used book stores -- and websites constantly push used books at you!

 

[Mario]

... so all used book sales should result in the profits going straight to the writers and publishers?

How did the publishing industry exist for this long with used book sales constantly cutting into their margins?? Why, there are entire used book stores -- and websites constantly push used books at you!

I'm not sure why people keep pulling in unrelated examples to try and prove a point.

If I walk into an average mainstream bookstore, I won't find used books intermingled with the new books, and the retail assistant won't ask me if I really wouldn't prefer a cheaper used copy of the new book I just brought to the counter.

I don't think game developers/publishers ever had a problem with second hand sales until retailers pulled used games into the primary sales channel and started pushing them preferentially over new stock.

 

[biggreenmachine]

I'm not sure why people keep pulling in unrelated examples to try and prove a point.

If I walk into an average mainstream bookstore, I won't find used books intermingled with the new books, and the retail assistant won't ask me if I really wouldn't prefer a cheaper used copy of the new book I just brought to the counter.

I don't think game developers/publishers ever had a problem with second hand sales until retailers pulled used games into the primary sales channel and started pushing them preferentially over new stock.

Publishing=Publishing=Publishing

So it only became a problem after game stores started selling used stock alongside new stock? Have you ever seen a "used game" store where they didn't sell new games? Book, DVD, CD publishers all have their bottom line cut into by the used market. Due to the nature of the price/selection of games they may feel it a bit more. Either way, they should not get some sort of different treatment then the rest of the publishing world because gamespot sells used games. I mean really, whats the acceptable amount of used games to carry? Well, you can have 40 used games but not 100! C'mon now.....

Gamespot takes the risk in buying any used game you can bring in there almost regardless of quality, the games don't all sell, so Gamespot should get the money, Shit, they'll buy games made publishers that dont even exist anymore.

See, if Gamespot bought ABC game used for $20 and sold it for $40 and gave the pubs $10 that would be great right? Sure. Well what if Gamespot bought ABC game for $20 and it sat on the shelf for the next 2.5 years? Then ABC game publisher would then owe Gamespot for an unsold product right? So the only work around would be to have publishers pay for each used copy directly to the store at the time of purchase, but why would the publisher pay $20 and accept the risk for a game that might not sell when they can produce the same game new for only a few dollars max?
Gamespot takes the risk, Gamespot gets the loot. If the pubs want to take the risk than give them the money, but just try and find a publisher that would be willing to pay $25 for a game that cost them far less to get in the store in the first place. I'd like someone here to describe a model for this that they think would be practical, cause there isn't one, which is why it doesnt exist anywhere, including anywhere in the publishing world.

 

[StRaNgE]

If the publishers en masse cut the price of games to about $20, I doubt I'd ever by a secondhand game again, unless I could only get it that way. At the same time, people who go "How much for one game? Fuck that" will look at gaming again and find it far more accessible. The market grows until, like the movie industry, pretty much anyone can afford to be a gamer as so many games are sold that the smaller profits on each one add up to larger profits than they got selling them for so much.

Or we could just jack up the prices and turn even more people off/towards secondhand games. Genius!

now this is something i agree with
at 19.95 i would buy a ton more new games.
i would not feel the need to complete them all before buying another either opening me up to buy buy buy! and if budget titles were 9.95 to 11.95 to 14.95 then i'd buy and take chances on all kinds of crap i would not normally take a second look at.

a game that sold 100,000 at 49.95 would probably push over 500,000 at 19.95 well maybe those #'s are way off but you get the idea.

and trading in, who here buys a cd at 15 bones and actually trades it in after for 2 bucks? not i...

 

[kaching]

How many games did you trade in? 3? 4? Because that means there are going to be 3 or 4 people in the next few weeks who are going to buy one of the games you traded in, rather than a new copy of those games. Net loss for the industry: 1-2 games.

4 games. It could go down like you describe or it could be one person buying them or they could just sit on the shelf ignored.

Me personally, I always buy new. If I'm interested enough in the game to want to buy it, I'll buy it new to assure that my sale goes to the publisher/developer as much as possible. That's not to say I always buy at the initial retail price as I will certainly wait until the game is at the price I think is worth paying for it, or use trade-ins to accelerate that process (as I did in this case).

Obviously there's plenty of people who don't mind buying used, which speaks to the fact they care about cost to them more than the well-being of the developer/publisher who made the game possible, whereas for me those two concerns are equal. And obviously there was always guaranteed to be a mix of the two types of buyer.

I don't think the mere fact that games are resold used should be of concern to the industry - any product that retains some resale value after the original owner has gotten what use they wanted out of it has been prone to this. I don't think this phenomenon has been able to kill off any healthy industry single-handedly.

Nor do I think its fair to blame retailers who may push a used game sale over a new game sale. Although it would be nice if there were at least some small, assured kickback to the original dev/pub in a used game sale.

I guess I consider this more of a problem for the devs/pubs to solve because its ultimately their product to sell. If places like Gamestop and EB are truly doing more harm than good for new game sales then I'd assume that any publisher that can quantifiably prove that would just pull their products from those stores.

Getting more people to buy new is going to come down to getting potential customers to care more about the talent, craft and effort that went into the making of the game. As someone who has loved games as a hobby for the past 20-25 yrs, that awareness is not a problem for me but the industry is still very insular in how it presents its inner workings to the mainstream audience and probably still creates the impression amongst most buyers that games are more manufactured than crafted.

 

[DarknessTear]

Yeah either way the complainers in the first post are British, and the British don't count in the gaming industry.

And yeah games will be easy if you only have 3 in your country. :lol

 

[DDayton]

I'm not sure why people keep pulling in unrelated examples to try and prove a point.

If I walk into an average mainstream bookstore, I won't find used books intermingled with the new books, and the retail assistant won't ask me if I really wouldn't prefer a cheaper used copy of the new book I just brought to the counter.

I don't think game developers/publishers ever had a problem with second hand sales until retailers pulled used games into the primary sales channel and started pushing them preferentially over new stock.

See, I somewhat differ in my opinion here... there have always been used book stores, and there have always been specialty book stores that deal in both used AND new merchandise. Books are sold in quite the same way as games are; the scenarios aren't exactly the same, mind you, but as far as licensing, publishing rights, and fair use, they are quite the same. Books, movies, and video games are essentially equivalent as far copyright and licensing... and I don't see why different rules should apply to games than to books. There have always been used book stores, and I've never seen authors complaining about the fact...

 

[Az987]

I fucking hate used games for the simple fact that you mother fucks dont know how to take care of your shit. NO, I WANT THE FUCKING INSTRUCTION BOOK AND GAME CASE TOO BITCHS! AND NO SCRATCHS ON THE DISK. AND I HATE FUCKING EB GAMES STICKERS ALL OVER MY CASES.

 

[Ghengis Cohen]

I fucking hate used games for the simple fact that you mother fucks dont know how to take care of your shit. NO, I WANT THE FUCKING INSTRUCTION BOOK AND GAME CASE TOO BITCHS! AND NO SCRATCHS ON THE DISK. AND I HATE FUCKING EB GAMES STICKERS ALL OVER MY CASES.

Don't buy them.

 

[Flo_Evans]

There have always been used book stores, and I've never seen authors complaining about the fact...

They didn't.... untill amazon started with "BUY IT USED FOR $1 CHEAPER" shit right next to the listing for a new book.

I think this is really the problem publishers are having, its not the fact that stores are selling used games, it that used games are sold aggresivly to consumers who would otherwise buy a new copy.

Anecdotal evidence ahoy: I went to gamecrazy to pick up lumines (about a month after PSP launch based on some GAF reccomendations ) The sales dude asked if I wanted a used copy for $5 less. I said no. He asked again. I said no again. Then he went into his 'if you sign up for gamecrazy's crazyperson club, you can get 10% all used games!!!' Again, I said no, I don't buy used games, I usually buy my games on launch, and I like the developer to get some money. Then he started talking about some magizine subscription and more money for my trade ins and all this shit... I literaly had to stop him and say "listen, if you don't ring me up for 1 new copy of lumines I am walking out of the store and you will never see me again."

I understand the economics of used games and I like that Mizuguchi fellow. I could of saved myself $5 and alot of pointless conversation with the sales clerk if I didn't care. MOST PEOPLE DON'T CARE.

 

[Mario]

Publishing=Publishing=Publishing

Not really.

Movie "publishing" has a massive "install base", many revenue streams e.g. theatre release, DVD/VHS, pay-per-view, cable, broadcast tv, merchandising, and the content can hold up for a relatively long time. Music publishing has relatively low production costs, low manufacturing costs, multiple revenue streams, broad portfolios, massive "install base", and the content can hold up for a relatively long time. Book publishing is platform independent (excepting literacy'language barriers), very low cost production, broad portfolios, and the content can hold up for a relatively long time. The majority of mainstream outlets for these products do not stock used goods alongside new goods.

Game publishing for the most part has limited revenue streams, high production costs, high rate of production failure, limited product life span, and dependency on platform install bases. Game publishing may share similarities with some of the above industries, but it is not really like any of them.

So it only became a problem after game stores started selling used stock alongside new stock?

Thats pretty much my belief.

Your average consumer is unlikely to go out of their way to pick up used games, especially when in the past they would have had to go through eBay or the likes (and there are no "average consumers" on GAF so people here dont count).

Retailers have now brought the trade of used games into the primary retail channel and are pushing them preferentially. Its a lot easier to pick up a used copy of a game in your local EB or Gamestop rather than through an auction site or at the specialist store all the way across town, especially when the retail assistant is telling you that you are better off with the used copy than the new copy.

In recent years, retailers have educated consumers about used games, provided them with easy access to a wide selection of them, and incentivised their sale. There has always been a secondhand trade, but it only became significant to publishers when retailers made it mainstream and the volumes grew substantially.

Gamespot takes the risk in buying any used game you can bring in there almost regardless of quality, the games don't all sell, so Gamespot should get the money, Shit, they'll buy games made publishers that dont even exist anymore.

...

Gamespot takes the risk, Gamespot gets the loot.

I'm not denying that Gamestop isn't taking a level of risk. I'm not denying the economics work out well for the retailer, and I understand why they do it and indeed prioritise it. I understand that it offers customers significant savings and choice.

The discussion I am responding to is "does the sale of used games stifle creativity?". Regardless of the business and moral reasons in favour of having legitimate used game sales in place, I believe it does because fundamentally it seems another hurdle for new and innovative content to overcome (see my earlier posts for my reasoning around this).

 

[Link1110]

If you spent $50 for game and you knew you could get $15-20 back for it in a few weeks, of course you're going to trade it in.

Not always. I only did this once (It was on EBay, and I got $50 for the game and its guide.) It was MGS2. I got to the Rays in like 2 days then couldn't beat them, and since Kojima makes it possible to miss stuff and be forced to restart (This happened to me with the thermal goggles in MGS1, too) I just opted to sell the game while I could still get (almost) full price for it. But usually I keep games because I end up buying them back anyway and losing money in the end.