Publishers and their used games gripes.

[Weekend_Warrior]

Why is it that a straight-to-DVD movie or cartoon that costs millions of dollars to produce can be sold on DVD for $15-$20. But a video game that costs the same amount to make has to start at $60?

Because the straight-to-DVD movie will sell more and cost less.

But maybe they sell more cause they're more affordable? Isn't that simple business economics?

[Weekend_Warrior]

Also, another point about used sales - if I pay off my $20,000 truck and decide to re-sell it to someone else a year later for $5,000.. should Chevy get a certain percentage of that sale?

Hell no! It's my truck!! They already got their twenty grand

So why should video games or anything else be any different?

[gtmtnbiker]

Why is it that a straight-to-DVD movie or cartoon that costs millions of dollars to produce can be sold on DVD for $15-$20. But a video game that costs the same amount to make has to start at $60?

Because the straight-to-DVD movie will sell more and cost less.

But maybe they sell more cause they're more affordable? Isn't that simple business economics?

There are a lot more people with DVD players than a particular console. So the potential target audience is larger. I know quite a few people who are willing to buy a movie for $5/$10. Personally, I think it's a waste since I will only watch it once. I rather pick one up from Redbox for $1/night.

[ZeroAX]

So why should video games or anything else be any different?

because their business model is FUCKED UP. The cost to make a video game has gone up 10-100 times in the past decade (depending how big the scope for the game is. The most expensive games 10-15 years ago didn't cost over 1 million, and today there are single player games that cost more 50 million to make, and let's not even drag MMOs into this) and the audience has doubled at best.


The graphics arms race is stupid. The way the gaming industry works right now, is like the movie industry only making blockbusters.

Imagine Ironman, The Dark Knight, Spiderman, PotC and every other big budget release of the last decade, being released in a 3 month period. Would you have money to go see all of them?

Movie studios stay profitable by making movies with a small budget to have a constant stream of income, and 1-3 times a year they make a movie with a huge budget, that is backed up by marketing, and manage to turn a good profit (if everything goes according to plan).


Gaming still hasn't found its romantic comedy, its social movie. They constantly make big budget games, because they consider the risk, of making a game that doesn't have good graphics (but has original gameplay to make up for it), too big.

So they get burned. The very small audience can't buy all the games they are making, and they can't reduce their budgets for fear that competitors will get the best of them.



And as we have said countless times, Nintendo is the only one who has gotten it right. They make big budget games like Mario Galaxy and the new Zelda, but they also make games with a smaller budget, like NSMBWii and Wii Party, and people love those games and buy them. Iwata is a gaming industry genius I'll never tire of saying that. Miyamoto might make great games, but Iwata can save the industry from self destructing.

Personally I support the industry's move to smaller budgets. The downloadable services are full of gems.

[gtmtnbiker]

They make big budget games like Mario Galaxy and the new Zelda, but they also make games with a smaller budget, like NSMBWii and Wii Party, and people love those games and buy them. Iwata is a gaming industry genius I'll never tire of saying that. Miyamoto might make great games, but Iwata can save the industry from self destructing.

How do you know that Mario Galaxy was big budget and NSMBWii was small budget? Where is your source for this info? Is this just your own guess?

[Flake]

Personally I support the industry's move to smaller budgets. The downloadable services are full of gems.

It's ironic. The thing that can really save gaming is the downloadable title. Imagine just what the profit margin on Megaman 9 or 10 was compared to, say, Lost Planet?

And yet that is the type of industry trend I dread the most...because you can't really collect downloadable games...

[MrPopo]

Also, another point about used sales - if I pay off my $20,000 truck and decide to re-sell it to someone else a year later for $5,000.. should Chevy get a certain percentage of that sale?

Hell no! It's my truck!! They already got their twenty grand

So why should video games or anything else be any different?

STOP USING THIS EXAMPLE! You keep missing the fundamental difference between a used video game and a used car. A used car has a ton of wear and tear. The warrenty is gone. If you take the new car and the used car and treat them the exact same the new car will last you longer, period. All of these downsides are why a used car is cheaper, and why a consumer might want to purchase a new car instead. With video games no such divide exists. For the consumer who just wants to play the game the difference between a new copy and a used copy is non-existant. And another fallacy with your analogy is that I honestly don't think the publishers aren't pissed because of the people who buy the used copy of Blue Dragon two years after launch. They're trying to stop the people who buy the used copy one month after launch. Are you paying off that truck and selling it for 5 grand in a month?

The two industries are completely different and have completely different economics. Stop comparing the two. If you want to make a comparison then use the CD market. It's still not the same as the video game market (because that's not the only vector to make money off a given song/album) but at least that specific product has the same properties between new and used as a video game.

[Limewater]

Because the straight-to-DVD movie will sell more and cost less.

But maybe they sell more cause they're more affordable? Isn't that simple business economics?

There are a lot more people with DVD players than a particular console. So the potential target audience is larger. I know quite a few people who are willing to buy a movie for $5/$10. Personally, I think it's a waste since I will only watch it once. I rather pick one up from Redbox for $1/night.

Lots of (most?) straight-to-DVD movies are money losers. Often, the companies make the film and tour festivals and stuff, hoping to get a big distribution deal. When that falls through, they take a deal to release on DVD, hoping to at least get back something for all of the money they've sunk into production.

Straight-to-video films also have additional potential sources of revenue. One reason Asylum is able to keep making their crappy movies is because SyFy keeps buying broadcasting rights to play them as "SyFy Original Pictures."

There's not really a great analog in the realm of video games.

[ZeroAX]

How do you know that Mario Galaxy was big budget and NSMBWii was small budget? Where is your source for this info? Is this just your own guess?

Everything is Mario Galaxy is much more detailed, plus the levels are much bigger in scope, so in general just the art for the game is more expensive than the art for NSMBW.

[Regginmad]

Also, another point about used sales - if I pay off my $20,000 truck and decide to re-sell it to someone else a year later for $5,000.. should Chevy get a certain percentage of that sale?

Hell no! It's my truck!! They already got their twenty grand

So why should video games or anything else be any different?

STOP USING THIS EXAMPLE! You keep missing the fundamental difference between a used video game and a used car. A used car has a ton of wear and tear. The warrenty is gone. If you take the new car and the used car and treat them the exact same the new car will last you longer, period. All of these downsides are why a used car is cheaper, and why a consumer might want to purchase a new car instead. With video games no such divide exists. For the consumer who just wants to play the game the difference between a new copy and a used copy is non-existant. And another fallacy with your analogy is that I honestly don't think the publishers aren't pissed because of the people who buy the used copy of Blue Dragon two years after launch. They're trying to stop the people who buy the used copy one month after launch. Are you paying off that truck and selling it for 5 grand in a month?

The two industries are completely different and have completely different economics. Stop comparing the two. If you want to make a comparison then use the CD market. It's still not the same as the video game market (because that's not the only vector to make money off a given song/album) but at least that specific product has the same properties between new and used as a video game.

This isnt a fallacy in their logic, its a fallacy with the way the publishers think games should be sold. Its very true that the industries are different. In fact gamestop will provide a better exchange/return policy for a new game in the event it does work poorly do to wear and tear, but it doesn't change the fact that no other used market works that way. No one else even seeks to see money from subsequent sales.

So while i'll agree there are differences, they are the same when it matters. EA deserves no money for a used game sold any more than Ford does for a used car sold. The fact that Ford offers a better incentive for buying new really doesnt enter that equation.

The equation it does enter is the market used products are intended for. New cars are not an option for everyone due to price. Similarly, new games are not an option for a game I may not like and will like to return with in the week