Publishers and their used games gripes.

[Regginmad]

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.

I think the concept of incentives for buying new should enter the equation.

What in the hell do game developers actually do to give anyone an incentive to buy their game new at $60? In a free market scenario the presumption of self-interest and rationality is made for all. So why in the heck would anyone be expected to shell out $60 for a game when they have every reason to assume that if they wait they can have the same game for much less? Unless you are a collector, rabid fan, or just can't wait there is no actual reason to buy a game new at full price. NONE.

If publishers really want to get the used game sales to slow down, they either need to provide an incentive or lower their prices to undercut the used game market.

Thats the problem. They do very little to make a person want to buy a game new. I think they should change this, I just dont think they should do it be gimping the used version with functionality it had in the past. A stuffed plushie? sure. Golden armor? sure. A free weapon? sure. These are things that make me want to buy a game.

But If you gimp the used version, in the long run it will only make it worth less and available cheaper. Players will get less for trading it in, and will have less to spend toward new games. This in turn will make it more likely that credit issued for used games will be exchanged for used games.

[jp1]

Um no you said that publishers don't deserve to get money because they have giant profits and that they take dumps on golden toilets and that making a game is like being on vacation.

Ummm, no I didn't.

In one of my posts I spoke about game developers and the cushy perks they get. Nearly all my other points were directly related to publishers and mirror what the guy in the video was saying.

See these quotes:

Well, it is about if they are better or not to me. If they were actually better now then I could justify the price point. I don't really care about the costs of production and all of that. It is the end product that interests me as a consumer. A few of the new games that come out might justify a $60 price tag but the vast majority of them do not.

These companies make huge profits. I'm not saying they shouldn't, that is the whole point of making the game in the first place. They could find a way to sell the games for less and still make huge profits.

Because every person is going to purchase the game still knowing that it won't be worth shit used because the industry has finally achieved it's goal? I wouldn't drop a dime on a game if I knew I could never sell it and recoup some of that money.

It's a simple fact that many people wouldn't buy the games at all at the new price and that another percentage of people wouldn't buy the game new if they didn't know for a fact that they could trade it in or sell it to recoup some of that cost when they finish with it, especially if it sucks. These companies are supporting the game industry because they are providing a service that allows some consumers that wouldn't otherwise purchase new games at all to purchase them and then trade them in when they are tired of them.

The simple fact that unlike any other industry the video game industry thinks it should have the right to tell the consumer what to do with their own property is what is disgusting. If you can't make it work with the business model you have in place then adapt or disappear. Someone else can and will do it right.

Gamestop is successful in used games for a reason. It is impossible to determine what percentage of that used games sales represents the demographic I'm talking about but I have a hard time believing that all of these people that trade in their games left and right would be content to still purchase them at the same price if that service didn't exist.

I should be clear about one thing. I have no problem supporting developers. I purchase new games just as often as used ones.

If they have a problem with not getting a piece of the pie on used sales then they need to take it up with Gamestop NOT with the consumer. Better yet offer trade in incentives and used sales directly from their own venue instead of trying to jump in and take over a business they don't have any right to be involved in.

They should just start having some kind of collectible pack in. Like trading cards or something related to the game. If they could get them popular enough to bring the value up then it could be a really cheap way to encourage people to purchase new. I doubt that the used trade in copies would still have something like that included.

Even a one time use download code for something separate from the game like a small animated feature or a set of concept art or something. They could even make a club the same way that Nintendo has and offer incentives with a certain amount of points but only allow people to gain points by showing proof of purchase of a new item.

Drop scratch off cards in the new games with a chance to win prizes. 1 in a million could win a free game and 1 in 15 million could win something really cool like a limited edition 5 print run copy of the game.

There are a million ways to reward the people who purchase new without punishing the people who purchase used. The problem is all of them would require a little effort, a little money, and a little respect and concern for the consumer. They obviously aren't willing to give any of that.

I realize that is a lot of selective quoting but since you felt the only thing you needed to do to discredit my entire argument was to point out 1 or 2 of the unsavory elements and ignore the rest I figure turnabout is fair play. I made a lot of similar points to the guy in the video and the only person in this thread to even acknowledge that they weren't total bullshit was Flake. I just find it funny that now that this guy posts a video saying the same things it makes sense.

[MrPopo]

Penny Arcade are a pair of c*nts. Second hard market worse than piracy? Get a fncking grip.

Nice job actually reading the full content of the sentence you're referencing. They said, from the perspective of a publisher, buying a game used is no different from piracy. And this is a fact. When you pirate a game the publisher gets nothing. When you buy a used copy the publisher gets nothing. Thus, no difference.

But If you gimp the used version, in the long run it will only make it worth less and available cheaper. Players will get less for trading it in, and will have less to spend toward new games. This in turn will make it more likely that credit issued for used games will be exchanged for used games.

I think one point of contention between me and the rest of you is I take issue with the notion of trading in your old games to get the new ones. Sure, every so often you buy a stinker and so being able to get some return on it is nice. But trading in significant parts (if not all of) your collection to buy latest game #7 seems like bad math to me. You're effectively taking a large number of games and turning them into a smaller number of games, and likely there is no increase in quality. You don't tend to see people do the same thing with books or movies. Why is it that video games have become so disposable?

[BlackDS]

ooh this is starting to heat up!

[Flake]

Why is it that video games have become so disposable?

Simple economics. Yeah, the actual price of games isn't that out of whack compared to the NES and SNES days...

...but have you seen just how many games come out these days? Think back to the 90's. A sprinkle of games all year with a small splooge every holiday season. Certain genres were straight up deprived.

Today EVERY month sees more top-shelf games come to market than we expected to see in an entire year a couple of decades ago. Too many game developers, too much product, and no real decrease in price.

People don't trade in games or buy used to screw developers. They do it to just keep up. The games industry created this mess, not consumers.

[Regginmad]

I think one point of contention between me and the rest of you is I take issue with the notion of trading in your old games to get the new ones. Sure, every so often you buy a stinker and so being able to get some return on it is nice. But trading in significant parts (if not all of) your collection to buy latest game #7 seems like bad math to me. You're effectively taking a large number of games and turning them into a smaller number of games, and likely there is no increase in quality. You don't tend to see people do the same thing with books or movies. Why is it that video games have become so disposable?

Some people have no choice. Video games are a luxury. Collecting video games is a luxury on top of that. You might not have 60 dollars, you might only have 30 dollars and your old game. Devaluing used games is the same as taking game buying money out of someone's pocket.

Another point is that a multiplayer based game, does lose value as people stop playing it online, but value/worth is a totally different discussion. To one player, a game he wants is simply more desirable than 10 he isnt playing anymore.

[jp1]

Penny Arcade are a pair of c*nts. Second hard market worse than piracy? Get a fncking grip.

Nice job actually reading the full content of the sentence you're referencing. They said, from the perspective of a publisher, buying a game used is no different from piracy. And this is a fact. When you pirate a game the publisher gets nothing. When you buy a used copy the publisher gets nothing. Thus, no difference.

But If you gimp the used version, in the long run it will only make it worth less and available cheaper. Players will get less for trading it in, and will have less to spend toward new games. This in turn will make it more likely that credit issued for used games will be exchanged for used games.

I think one point of contention between me and the rest of you is I take issue with the notion of trading in your old games to get the new ones. Sure, every so often you buy a stinker and so being able to get some return on it is nice. But trading in significant parts (if not all of) your collection to buy latest game #7 seems like bad math to me. You're effectively taking a large number of games and turning them into a smaller number of games, and likely there is no increase in quality. You don't tend to see people do the same thing with books or movies. Why is it that video games have become so disposable?

Still, it isn't the same thing as piracy man. Even from the publishers point of view the person who traded that game in may have used it as credit towards a new purchase which benefits them in some way. Piracy is just straight stealing the product with absolutely no benefit to the publisher. If they see a $1 profit out of every 10 used games even if it is second hand profit then it still benefits them more than piracy. If you think they don't see a cent because of used games I don't know how you can rationalize that.

As for people trading in games to get the newest game. I agree it doesn't make sense but people do it none the less. I don't know why you would take issue with someone else doing it. This very fact proves that the used game market benefits publishers because someone goes in with $30 in pocket or whatever else and is able to purchase a new game because of trade in credit. Sure, their collection is now smaller but if they don't give a shit then why should you? Video games are disposable because a lot of them have lost a lot of replay value. I can go back to a lot of classic retro games and have the same fun I did with them back when they came out. For me at least there are a lot fewer games that offer that same experience these days.

[MrPopo]

Why is it that video games have become so disposable?

People don't trade in games or buy used to screw developers. They do it to just keep up. The games industry created this mess, not consumers.

See, here's the part I don't understand. What's there to keep up with? There really aren't that many more quality games released a year as there was back in the day. And if there are 10 awesome games released in a year and you can only budget out five, why don't you just buy the five? When I was a kid I had zero ability to get games on my own. Sure, there was Funco Land, but the thought of getting rid of any of my games never crossed my mind; then I wouldn't be able to play them. And even if I wanted to I wouldn't be able to get my parents to take me; they felt I was getting enough games as it was. So you can't afford every game you want that comes out; that's life. Keep playing the ones that you have. Just because something's out there doesn't mean you have to have it. The same principle applies to the people who can barely feed their families but have the latest smart phone.

Still, it isn't the same thing as piracy man. Even from the publishers point of view the person who traded that game in may have used it as credit towards a new purchase which benefits them in some way. Piracy is just straight stealing the product with absolutely no benefit to the publisher. If they see a $1 profit out of every 10 used games even if it is second hand profit then it still benefits them more than piracy. If you think they don't see a cent because of used games I don't know how you can rationalize that.

They only see indirect money from used game sales. And piracy does sometimes get them money. Back when I was in high school there were several games I originally pirated and later purchased to use the multiplayer. But regardless, here is the problem the publisher sees; when I purchase a used copy of GenericFPS 4 that means they don't get any money from me for GenericFPS 4. Simple math. And sure, the guy who traded in that copy might have used his credit for a new game. He might also have spent it on a used game. And if he did use it on a new game he just as likely used it on a rival publisher's game, which does GenericFPS 4's publisher no good.

Again, it's not the general practice of reselling games that's a problem. It's Gamestop's systematic attempt to shift as much of their business as possible to used game reselling. This has been successful for them because too many people are unwilling to accept that sometimes you just have to say "I guess I can't get this because I don't have the money".

[Flake]

See, here's the part I don't understand. What's there to keep up with? There really aren't that many more quality games released a year as there was back in the day. And if there are 10 awesome games released in a year and you can only budget out five, why don't you just buy the five? ...So you can't afford every game you want that comes out; that's life. Keep playing the ones that you have. Just because something's out there doesn't mean you have to have it.

As an example of high-profile games coming out faster than ever, let's use this year alone as an example: In rapid succession here are the new games coming out that I am interested in:

-Metroid: Other M
-Batman: Brave and the Bold
-Kirby: Epic Yarn
-Donkey Kong Country Returns

At $50 a pop that's 200 dollars and that's only for the next few months. This doesn't take into account all the other games I've purchased new over the past year and certainly doesn't include my unhealthy obsession with older games. It's also a list that only includes Wii titles. If I had an Xbox360 or PS3 the list would be even longer with the Halos and whatnot.

It adds up really quick. The market for used games is created out of necessity in a situation like this. If people didn't have access to easy credit by selling games they no longer care about (not everyone is a collector) new game sales would suffer greatly.

And yes, no one NEEDS video games. But if a person wants a new game and has a ready source of credit to pay for that game...what reason do they have not to get it?

[jp1]

This has been successful for them because too many people are unwilling to accept that sometimes you just have to say "I guess I can't get this because I don't have the money".

In which case none of the publishers would see a penny, rival or otherwise. I guess that is where we can't come to agreement. I think that gamestop is providing a service to the people who don't want to say "I don't have the money so I can't get it." It's a service that pawn shops used to offer a lot more prolifically than they do now, at least in my area. If anyone should be upset about it then they should be the ones.

I don't personally trade in games for a fraction of what they are worth just to get some new POS that I will likely hate anyway. I just don't see any downside for people that want to. Maybe they would be pawning off something more important to get the "must have" title if they didn't have the option of trading some relatively unimportant in the scope of life video games.

And if the publishers make money directly or indirectly a second or third time from a product they have already been paid for then they should shut up and be happy about it.