Articles against self-entitlement of videogame consumers

[Hatta]

Gamers aren't entitled to games, and game companies aren't entitled to sales. One thing that's clear though, is that it's never wise to blame the public for bad PR. Whether they're right or wrong, that never goes over well.

[MrPopo]

What is it with the gaming industry trying to vilify the very people paying their salaries lately? First vilifying those that buy games used, and now this. This is a good way to shoot themselves in the foot and turn fans away.

I'm pretty sure used game buyers do not "pay the salaries" of those in the industry.

If no one bought used games, there would be less money to be had by those exchanging games to get a new one. With less new games purchased, the industry would slump.

The problem with your logic is instead of buying 10 used games and not supporting the industry a person should instead buy 5 new games. The person who used to resell isn't getting any money back, but the industry ends up with more money if the used person is buying new, since you're removing the cut that Gamestop takes to make a profit.

[Erik_Twice]

Gamers aren't entitled to games, and game companies aren't entitled to sales. One thing that's clear though, is that it's never wise to blame the public for bad PR. Whether they're right or wrong, that never goes over well.

Hear, hear.

I couldn't agree more.

[ZeroAX]

Gamers aren't entitled to games, and game companies aren't entitled to sales. One thing that's clear though, is that it's never wise to blame the public for bad PR. Whether they're right or wrong, that never goes over well.

+1 from me


And please not the used games thing again. Just keep buying used games and punish all the companies who use online passes, or keep buying all games you want for full price new if that's what you feel like.

Is there really any chance we'll change each other's mind? No. And the ethical side of this situation has been debated to death on these forums.

[Flake]

The problem with your logic is instead of buying 10 used games and not supporting the industry a person should instead buy 5 new games. The person who used to resell isn't getting any money back, but the industry ends up with more money if the used person is buying new, since you're removing the cut that Gamestop takes to make a profit.

The standard MSRP for Xbox360 and PS3 games is $60 USD. $50 UDS for most Wii and high profile PC games.

...how many games come out at the MSRP are actually worth that much money? If game publishers wanted to solve the "problem" of used games, they would open up a freaking micro-economics textbook, flip to the section where the supply, demand, and price graph is explained and figure it out.

Cut the price of your new game to $40 with an anticipated price drop to $30 and $20 at three month intervals (unless demand at $40 stays strong) and you absolutely annihilate Gamestop's business model. I do not understand why publishers INSIST upon releasing their games at full MSRP instead of actually anticipating the level of interest in the game and pricing it accordingly.

[sabrage]

Cut the price of your new game to $40 with an anticipated price drop to $30 and $20 at three month intervals (unless demand at $40 stays strong) and you absolutely annihilate Gamestop's business model. I do not understand why publishers INSIST upon releasing their games at full MSRP instead of actually anticipating the level of interest in the game and pricing it accordingly.

This is a great point, and I see it get thrown out a lot in these arguments. I agree, but the problem is that the average consumer sees a brand-new game at $40 and automatically assumes that it's a lesser title because of its "budget" price. Manufacturers are afraid to be seen in that light, so they stick with the status quo and take an even bigger hit to sales. Imagine if Shadows of the Damned had been released for $40, for instance!

[jfrost]

Cut the price of your new game to $40 with an anticipated price drop to $30 and $20 at three month intervals (unless demand at $40 stays strong) and you absolutely annihilate Gamestop's business model. I do not understand why publishers INSIST upon releasing their games at full MSRP instead of actually anticipating the level of interest in the game and pricing it accordingly.

This is a great point, and I see it get thrown out a lot in these arguments. I agree, but the problem is that the average consumer sees a brand-new game at $40 and automatically assumes that it's a lesser title because of its "budget" price. Manufacturers are afraid to be seen in that light, so they stick with the status quo and take an even bigger hit to sales. Imagine if Shadows of the Damned had been released for $40, for instance!

There's actually been talk of pricing tiers for games. I believe Sony will implement some kind of tiering for Vita games.

[Flake]

Cut the price of your new game to $40 with an anticipated price drop to $30 and $20 at three month intervals (unless demand at $40 stays strong) and you absolutely annihilate Gamestop's business model. I do not understand why publishers INSIST upon releasing their games at full MSRP instead of actually anticipating the level of interest in the game and pricing it accordingly.

This is a great point, and I see it get thrown out a lot in these arguments. I agree, but the problem is that the average consumer sees a brand-new game at $40 and automatically assumes that it's a lesser title because of its "budget" price. Manufacturers are afraid to be seen in that light, so they stick with the status quo and take an even bigger hit to sales. Imagine if Shadows of the Damned had been released for $40, for instance!

I understand that is their mentality. What a logical fallacy though: Let's commit multiple flavors of industrial suicide to avoid pricing things reasonably!

[sabrage]

Cut the price of your new game to $40 with an anticipated price drop to $30 and $20 at three month intervals (unless demand at $40 stays strong) and you absolutely annihilate Gamestop's business model. I do not understand why publishers INSIST upon releasing their games at full MSRP instead of actually anticipating the level of interest in the game and pricing it accordingly.

This is a great point, and I see it get thrown out a lot in these arguments. I agree, but the problem is that the average consumer sees a brand-new game at $40 and automatically assumes that it's a lesser title because of its "budget" price. Manufacturers are afraid to be seen in that light, so they stick with the status quo and take an even bigger hit to sales. Imagine if Shadows of the Damned had been released for $40, for instance!

There's actually been talk of pricing tiers for games. I believe Sony will implement some kind of tiering for Vita games.

It's kind of already in place for the PSP. There's two tiers for New MSRP: Square Enix, and everyone else

[MrPopo]

The problem with your logic is instead of buying 10 used games and not supporting the industry a person should instead buy 5 new games. The person who used to resell isn't getting any money back, but the industry ends up with more money if the used person is buying new, since you're removing the cut that Gamestop takes to make a profit.

The standard MSRP for Xbox360 and PS3 games is $60 USD. $50 UDS for most Wii and high profile PC games.

...how many games come out at the MSRP are actually worth that much money? If game publishers wanted to solve the "problem" of used games, they would open up a freaking micro-economics textbook, flip to the section where the supply, demand, and price graph is explained and figure it out.

Cut the price of your new game to $40 with an anticipated price drop to $30 and $20 at three month intervals (unless demand at $40 stays strong) and you absolutely annihilate Gamestop's business model. I do not understand why publishers INSIST upon releasing their games at full MSRP instead of actually anticipating the level of interest in the game and pricing it accordingly.

I agree that would be an interesting thing to try and would probably work better in the long run. I just hate seeing people claim that the used game market is enabling people to buy new games. At best it enables the initial buyer to buy more new games then he would otherwise, but now the second person is not buying any, instead of the small number he would if he didn't have used games available.

This is a great point, and I see it get thrown out a lot in these arguments. I agree, but the problem is that the average consumer sees a brand-new game at $40 and automatically assumes that it's a lesser title because of its "budget" price. Manufacturers are afraid to be seen in that light, so they stick with the status quo and take an even bigger hit to sales. Imagine if Shadows of the Damned had been released for $40, for instance!

Yeah, you get one chance to set the standard price of a game; at console launch time. Once that has passed any variations from that standard price point is seen as making the title budget or premium. The PC digital world seems to be better at this due to the large number of indie games.