It was just recently that David Braben of Frontier Development said used games were "killing single player games." Today brings a similar sentiment, this time from Denis Dyack, Founder of Silicon Knights.
"From a consumer side, [in the last few years] we started seeing used games really come into fruition, and I believe that has caused quite a problem," Mr. Dyack said to Gamesindustry.biz. "I would argue that used games actually increase the cost of games," echoing sentiments of Mr. Braben.
Mr. Dyack went on to explain how used games have basically cut off the "revenue tail" for most titles.
"There used to be something in games for 20 years called a tail, where say you have a game called Warcraft that would sell for 10 years. Because there are no used games, you could actually sell a game for a long time, and get recurring revenue for quite a while. Recurring revenue is very key," he said.
"Now there is no tail. Literally, you will get most of your sales within three months of launch, which has created this really unhealthy extreme where you have to sell it really fast and then you have to do anything else to get money," alluding to the recent deluge of multiplayer and downloadable content to hit the industry.
"I would argue, and I've said this before, that used games are cannibalizing the industry. If developers and publishers don't see revenue from that, it's not a matter of hey 'we're trying to increase the price of games to consumers, and we want more,' we're just trying to survive as an industry. If used games continue the way that they are, it's going to cannibalize, there's not going to be an industry."
First off, his example is stupid as gak. Warcraft is a PC game. There is no used market for PC games the likes we see for console games.
Secondly, used sales are not new. The difference is that they've become a large business due to the likes of Game Stop. Sure you guys are gonna lose some money, maybe even a substantial sum, but the idea that used games will kill the industry is extremely ludicrous. There are no used games without a games industry to start with. If no one buys something new no one can buy it used. Used games are bargain shopping. Maybe if you guys dropped your prices like you used to as time went on you'd do better.
EDIT: This also ignores the self perpetuating system where companies create serial titles. Why is anyone gonna buy Madden 07 in 2009? Sure you budget is low, but then there's CoD which releases a new game every year. Of course your not going to get a tail. Back in the 90's sequelization was so minor that if I wanted a Jet Force Gemini game there was really only one option. Now I have my pick of Gears of War 1, 2, and 3. Why would I bother buying a game that's five years old when the new one looks better, works better, and has been hyped to death?
Thirdly, the industry is killing itself by over saturating the market with a monotony of crappily made and repetitive titles and has been doing so for years. Then they pull stupid stunts like invasive DRM, strews of DLC, and other things that slowly turn consumers off. The little game the industry has been playing where it consitently blames its own failures on buzz words like "piracy" and "used games" has been old for a very long time. This hasn't killed films, music, or even computer hard ware. How is it going to kill you?
And btw Silicon Knights, there's a reason you guys don't have a tail. Its because the last major game you made was Too Human and it sucked.
Silicon's Knight's last game wasn't Too Human. It was that terrible X-Man game.
Also even when companies do drop their prices on games it's now seen as a negative. I've been to various gamestores and when I am deciding on what I want to purchase (if I went on a whim) often people'll ask what's wrong with the game that is priced at $20, $30, or even $40. Since this generation people are too used to games being the premium price of $60 (where as before we had quite a bit of price differences) that when a game isn't $60 there must be something wrong with it.
As for the topic at hand. Used games do take a fair chunk out of the game industry but, even as someone who knows people who work in it and plans to, I think it's grossly over-exaggerated. I think it's just publisher's realising they can't fight piracy aswell as they thought so they're attacking people who they can do something against.
There is also the problem of SP games lasting only 4-5 hours now. Hell I beat Twisted Metal's SP in about 2-3 hours. If you want to release a SP game you need to have a super engaging story, a fair ammount of game time, and reasons to go back and play the game. Trophies/achievements can only go so far. The answer isn't to simply tack on MP or stop making SP games (MAG's problem). We need to go back to the PS1/2 era were SP games would last you a few weeks to beat and you could actually enjoy them. I say, if anything, the used game market is proving how crappy games are getting. If you don't want your game after you beat it,especially on launchday or day after, there's something wrong.
"There used to be something in games for 20 years called a tail, where say you have a game called Warcraft that would sell for 10 years. Because there are no used games, you could actually sell a game for a long time, and get recurring revenue for quite a while. Recurring revenue is very key," he said.
That's because:
1) there weren't as many good games out there so people would hold on to titles for longer periods of time - drying up the used game supply;
2) dedicated game systems weren't being redeveloped and re-released every few years - making games playable for longer periods of time;
3) used games used to be a sketchy market. Used cartridges in the pre-DVD era were likely to be worn out and unplayable - drying up the demand for used games; and
4) Most importantly - you guys aren't competitively priced against the used game market.
I remember when I wanted to buy Bioshock quite a while after its release. I could buy it new for $40 or used for $25. I'm generally inclined to buy new, but to save $15, I'll buy used. I would've been willing to spend $5 over the used price, but not $15.
Of course, Game Stop likely knows this, so if the new price was dropped to $30, Gamestop would sell used for $15.
The price retailers pay for used games is staggeringly low compared to the price they pay for new games. Game developers will never be able to compete with used games at the retail level unless there's some additional value to new games (which is the purpose of DRM).
Silicon's Knight's last game wasn't Too Human. It was that terrible X-Man game.
I don't count that as a 'major' game. We could amend the statement to "Silicon Knights you don't have a tail because you suck at your job these days"
They haven't actually made a good game since the 90's or early 00's. It probably has something to do with dithering away on a game for nine years just to have it be crap
P.S. Wasting money on a pointless Epic lawsuit isn't helping either.
Silicon's Knight's last game wasn't Too Human. It was that terrible X-Man game.
I don't count that as a 'major' game. We could amend the statement to "Silicon Knights you don't have a tail because you suck at your job these days"
They haven't actually made a good game since the 90's or early 00's. It probably has something to do with dithering away on a game for nine years just to have it be crap
P.S. Wasting money on a pointless Epic lawsuit isn't helping either.
I can agree to that, about them sucking. The X-men game was a major game for Activision and lost them quite a bit of money.
I'll say SK hasn't made a good game since they ended their contract with Nintendo. From the stories I've heard Nintendo's QA and assisstance is god like if you're in an exclusive deal with them. Like hearing stories from people who worked at Retro from before and after they signed the deal with Nintendo (before Nintendo bought them out) is just amazing how they turned a studio who was in a worse position then SK into one of the best studios (in my oppinion).
As for the Epic lawsuit. Blaming Epic for their game sucking was stupid. However, I have heard numerous devs complain about Epic's help with Unreal(mostly around the time they have a game about to come out) and often just went to the UDK forums for help or other third party forums. Why SK just didn't do that if they were having such problems with Unreal is beyond me.
The problem with suing Epic isn't that SK handled it poorly. Epic is a bunch douches run by a douche bag (anyone whose ever played Gears of War should have figured this out ). The problem is that at the end of the day, Epic has more money. A lot more money. They'll just drag it out until SK has none left. Considering SK's financial debt and poor prospects for future income, they're killing themselves trying.
The modern era has introduced a number of interesting difficulties for content producers and distributors across the board. No longer can they rely on outmoded business practices and still expect people to buy their over-priced and/or crappy product, so they're basically fumbling over themselves in an effort to keep up.
Thirdly, the industry is killing itself by over saturating the market with a monotony of crappily made and repetitive titles and has been doing so for years. Then they pull stupid stunts like invasive DRM, strews of DLC, and other things that slowly turn consumers off. The little game the industry has been playing where it consitently blames its own failures on buzz words like "piracy" and "used games" has been old for a very long time. This hasn't killed films, music, or even computer hard ware. How is it going to kill you?
This.
The games industry is strong enough to resist "damage" from piracy and used sales. Any company who blames it for their failures is most likely doing so out of greed or incompetence.
They're absolutely right, of course. The used game market IS destroying the industry, at least on the console side.
This is why companies have started taking the stance that a used game buyer is not their customer so they're not really obligated to give them any extra content.
Honestly, what would you say if your employer said that wanting to be paid for your work was feeling "entitled"?
Melissia wrote:Honestly, what would you say if your employer said that wanting to be paid for your work was feeling "entitled"?
As has been pointed out in previous threads related to the subject, they have been paid for their work. If I go into a store and pay $60 for a new copy of "Super Soldier Man 2345" then "Super Soldier Game Developer 1345" has been paid for their work. Whatever happens to the copy after that doesn't hurt them. People who buy a game used buy it used for two reasons: They can't afford to buy it new, or the cost of a new game is not competitive with the cost of a used one.
Both of those issues are on the publisher, not the person selling the used copy or the person buying it. If they want to do things like online passes, I disagree with it, but its fair in a sense. However, don't make a long string of crappy games, and then tell me that used game sales are killing your business. That's disingenuous and the game's industry knows it (SK certainly should). Used sales are not a monstrous thorn in their side, and even if they were it doesn't matter. They're just going to release the sequel in two or three years anyway the profitable weight of which massively exceeds that of tail sales (of course I'd argue that practice is a leading reason in why tail sales are so low).
Frankly once a game hits about 1,000,000 sales, which most block busters will in the first few weeks, a game has exhausted the pool of people who really want it. When a successful company can make over 1,000,000 in sales (and often multiple times that for major releases) and then turns around to complain that they would have been higher without used games is an outright lie (or they're idiots).
EDIT: And as I said earlier the pool of used games available for sale can never exceed that of new games purchased. Its a sliding scale. If a game is selling so low that there are no used games then no one wants it to begin with. If sales are high then the game is likely good and the chances that a large number of people will sell it back used any time soon is low (insert massive influx of used copies of Halo 3 prior to the release of Halo Reach. Substitute titles as necessary). If people are buying a game used in large number then the game rests in the middle ground as a mediocre product that probably wasn't even worth the initial purchase.
The idea of used games hurting the industry is an outright lie that makes no logical sense.
Melissia wrote:Honestly, what would you say if your employer said that wanting to be paid for your work was feeling "entitled"?
As has been pointed out in previous threads related to the subject, they have been paid for their work. If I go into a store and pay $60 for a new copy of "Super Soldier Man 2345" then "Super Soldier Game Developer 1345" has been paid for their work. Whatever happens to the copy after that doesn't hurt them. People who buy a game used buy it used for two reasons: They can't afford to buy it new, or the cost of a new game is not competitive with the cost of a used one.
And as has been pointed out in previous threads related to the subject, if I go into a store and pay $60 for a new copy of "Super Soldier Man 2345" but then sell it back to the store for $45...they in turn sell it for $55.
The developer is cut out of the second sale entirely, however, and thus receives nothing for it.
The same game has been sold twice, but the developer was paid once.
The same game has been sold twice, but the developer was paid once.
And? They only did the work to be paid once. They aren't entitled to profit from the same work twice in a row unless of course they themselves are managing the used product.
If I buy a used game than the only thing the publisher lost is the off chance that I might have bought it new. Which isn't costing them anything. They were paid for the work and at this point the product of that work is just cycling through different hands. They haven't really lost anything.
The same game has been sold twice, but the developer was paid once.
And? They only did the work to be paid once. They aren't entitled to profit from the same work twice in a row unless of course they themselves are managing the used product.
If I buy a used game than the only thing the publisher lost is the off chance that I might have bought it new. Which isn't costing them anything. They were paid for the work and at this point the product of that work is just cycling through different hands. They haven't really lost anything.
If you buy a used game, then the only thing the publisher/developer has lost is the sale of the game.
Stores sell used games and pocket the entire sales amount. Nothing from a resale goes to the publisher/developer.
The same game has been sold twice, but the developer was paid once.
And? They only did the work to be paid once. They aren't entitled to profit from the same work twice in a row unless of course they themselves are managing the used product.
If I buy a used game than the only thing the publisher lost is the off chance that I might have bought it new. Which isn't costing them anything. They were paid for the work and at this point the product of that work is just cycling through different hands. They haven't really lost anything.
If you buy a used game, then the only thing the publisher/developer has lost is the sale of the game.
Stores sell used games and pocket the entire sales amount. Nothing from a resale goes to the publisher/developer.
That is of course you conveniently leave out the hype generated, the popularity, the extra interest generated into the sales of a sequel,
the company, the studio, and the development team.
Lets not forget how much a game's resell value is also reflected by its game play duration, extra contents you can play online , with your friend etc etc
after you pass it which will also effect how much you can fetch out of selling back to a game store.
You cannot ignore these 2 obvious points that make up the success and value of a game.
Kanluwen wrote:If you buy a used game, then the only thing the publisher/developer has lost is the sale of the game.
I am a toothbrush maker. I make a toothbrush and sell it to Bob for $5. I have been paid. I am no longer entitled to anything as I no longer own that toothbrush. Bob sells the toothbrush (ew) to Frank for $3. All I've lost is the possibility that Frank might have bought one from me for $5. However by not buying one from me, I haven't really lost anything because the costs of that toothbrush (sold to Frank by Bob) have already been paid. Claiming that I have lost a sale by Frank not buying a new toothbrush from me is a dubious and disingenuous position because Franky might not have bought one at all (thought it would have been better for his health... probably).
This is how second hand things work. Should Milton-Bradly profit from every yard sale of one of their tricycles?
Stores sell used games and pocket the entire sales amount. Nothing from a resale goes to the publisher/developer.
Because they aren't entitled to anything.
Let me outline my premise for why this idea (that used sales hurt the industry) is flawed:
Lets assume that I make a game called Hat Man 64. I sell copies for $50 each and manage a total of 500,000 sales. Used game sales are now capped at a maximum total of 500,000. If people turn around and then dump their copies on Game Stop within a week of release (something that happened with Bioshock for example) and people start buying the game used, who is the problem? Is it used game sales, or is that my game, while decent, wasn't good enough to keep and therefor turn around on the product was rapid because no one wanted to play it anymore? That's not the fault of used game sales that's my fault for creating a product without long term playability. If I create a game worth keeping (at least until I release my next sequel) then I won't have to worry about a meaningful impact from used game sales.
Assume this does not happen. I sell 500,000 copies, and maybe a couple thousand go back as used but most people keep theirs cause they like the game. There are not many used games available, forcing consumers to buy new or not buy at all.
Used game sales are a problem the industry has created for itself (assuming be believe it is a problem, I do not). Because they rush out titles, often with little replayability or that weren't worth the initial $60 price in the first place. This is not a problem of used games killing the industry is a problem with the service of the industry on itself and then blaming the result of their own shotty workmanship on someone other than themselves.
EDIT: I also propose this is a self-perpetuating system, where game companies have creating this market where initial sales are the most important so they hype the game up and promise features prior to release. Large numbers of people buy the game on release and then realize that it isn't what I made it out to be. They sell the game to get some money back. Then the industry turns around an blames used game sales for their own failure, and then they boost the hype next time around trying to again maximize initial sales.
This whole discussion of course ignores the absurdity in claiming that a game that sells 1,000,000 copies is somehow still killing the industry because a few hundred thousand or so end up be resold used.
The solution for used game sales (assuming they cause harm which I don't believe they do) is the same solution to piracy. Make the game worth buying new. Stuff like online passes may achieve this goal somewhat, but really its just a crutch that allows the companies to continue not fixing the real problem.
Melissia wrote:I didn't ignore the points, they're just irrelevant because it's still money that the company isn't getting.
Frankly used games are a bigger problem than pirating.
"that isnt getting" directly.
But they are getting the benefit of it as I mentioned.
Just like warhammer, we have market for metal and plastic where people are ok with buying and stripping.
then we have finecast, they can barely fetch the same price as the materials above.
Which circles back to how much they can be resold for.
Video game is every bit the same
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:If you buy a used game, then the only thing the publisher/developer has lost is the sale of the game.
I am a toothbrush maker. I make a toothbrush and sell it to Bob for $5. I have been paid. I am no longer entitled to anything as I no longer own that toothbrush. Bob sells the toothbrush (ew) to Frank for $3. All I've lost is the possibility that Frank might have bought one from me for $5. However by not buying one from me, I haven't really lost anything because the costs of that toothbrush (sold to Frank by Bob) have already been paid. Claiming that I have lost a sale by Frank not buying a new toothbrush from me is a dubious and disingenuous position because Franky might not have bought one at all (thought it would have been better for his health... probably).
This is how second hand things work. Should Milton-Bradly profit from every yard sale of one of their tricycles?
Stores sell used games and pocket the entire sales amount. Nothing from a resale goes to the publisher/developer.
Because they aren't entitled to anything.
Let me outline my premise for why this idea (that used sales hurt the industry) is flawed:
Lets assume that I make a game called Hat Man 64. I sell copies for $50 each and manage a total of 500,000 sales. Used game sales are now capped at a maximum total of 500,000. If people turn around and then dump their copies on Game Stop within a week of release (something that happened with Bioshock for example) and people start buying the game used, who is the problem? Is it used game sales, or is that my game, while decent, wasn't good enough to keep and therefor turn around on the product was rapid because no one wanted to play it anymore? That's not the fault of used game sales that's my fault for creating a product without long term playability. If I create a game worth keeping (at least until I release my next sequel) then I won't have to worry about a meaningful impact from used game sales.
Assume this does not happen. I sell 500,000 copies, and maybe a couple thousand go back as used but most people keep theirs cause they like the game. There are not many used games available, forcing consumers to buy new or not buy at all.
Used game sales are a problem the industry has created for itself (assuming be believe it is a problem, I do not). Because they rush out titles, often with little replayability or that weren't worth the initial $60 price in the first place. This is not a problem of used games killing the industry is a problem with the service of the industry on itself and then blaming the result of their own shotty workmanship on someone other than themselves.
The solution for used game sales (assuming they cause harm which I don't believe they do) is the same solution to piracy. Make the game worth buying new. Stuff like online passes may achieve this goal somewhat, but really its just a crutch that allows the companies to continue not fixing the real problem.
LunaHound wrote:But they are getting the benefit of it as I mentioned.
Your'e not getting paid for your work. Oh, I still expect you to put in 40 hours, and perhaps even overtime. But I'll give you a good word to toher people that you're a good worker. Still not paying you though.
Honestly your "benefits" are just worthless apologisms which do not pay the bills.
Kanluwen wrote:If you buy a used game, then the only thing the publisher/developer has lost is the sale of the game.
I am a toothbrush maker. I make a toothbrush and sell it to Bob for $5. I have been paid. I am no longer entitled to anything as I no longer own that toothbrush. Bob sells the toothbrush (ew) to Frank for $3. All I've lost is the possibility that Frank might have bought one from me for $5. However by not buying one from me, I haven't really lost anything because the costs of that toothbrush (sold to Frank by Bob) have already been paid. Claiming that I have lost a sale by Frank not buying a new toothbrush from me is a dubious and disingenuous position because Franky might not have bought one at all (thought it would have been better for his health... probably).
This is how second hand things work. Should Milton-Bradly profit from every yard sale of one of their tricycles?
These are silly comparisons; and you're quite aware of that.
Yard sales and private sales are not the same as a business which sells these things for profit.
Stores sell used games and pocket the entire sales amount. Nothing from a resale goes to the publisher/developer.
Because they aren't entitled to anything.
Let me outline my premise for why this idea (that used sales hurt the industry) is flawed:
Lets assume that I make a game called Hat Man 64. I sell copies for $50 each and manage a total of 500,000 sales. Used game sales are now capped at a maximum total of 500,000. If people turn around and then dump their copies on Game Stop within a week of release (something that happened with Bioshock for example) and people start buying the game used, who is the problem? Is it used game sales, or is that my game, while decent, wasn't good enough to keep and therefor turn around on the product was rapid because no one wanted to play it anymore? That's not the fault of used game sales that's my fault for creating a product without long term playability. If I create a game worth keeping (at least until I release my next sequel) then I won't have to worry about a meaningful impact from used game sales.
Assume this does not happen. I sell 500,000 copies, and maybe a couple thousand go back as used but most people keep theirs cause they like the game. There are not many used games available, forcing consumers to buy new or not buy at all.
Used game sales are a problem the industry has created for itself (assuming be believe it is a problem, I do not). Because they rush out titles, often with little replayability or that weren't worth the initial $60 price in the first place. This is not a problem of used games killing the industry is a problem with the service of the industry on itself and then blaming the result of their own shotty workmanship on someone other than themselves.
The solution for used game sales (assuming they cause harm which I don't believe they do) is the same solution to piracy. Make the game worth buying new. Stuff like online passes may achieve this goal somewhat, but really its just a crutch that allows the companies to continue not fixing the real problem.
The "rush out of titles, often with little replayability" isn't necessarily the problem the industry CREATED for itself.
Part of the problem is simply that there is a fixture on the multiplayer rather than single player.
LunaHound wrote:But they are getting the benefit of it as I mentioned.
Your'e not getting paid for your work. Oh, I still expect you to put in 40 hours, and perhaps even overtime. But I'll give you a good word to toher people that you're a good worker. Still not paying you though.
Honestly your "benefits" are just worthless apologisms which do not pay the bills.
I don't think you should mix the specific workers together with the over all company.
They are completely different entities when looking at profit returns.
Im sorry if that sounds cold blooded, but its the truth.
Im not denying the workers arnt being paid fairly, but this is how the industry goes.
they can either suck it up, or the company will hire the next thousands of workers available down the line.
LunaHound wrote:They are completely different entities when looking at profit returns.
Unless they're the ones selling used games apparently, in which case they are the same, amirite?
You're still not getting paid. If your company doesn't make money, you don't make money. You get fired, or forced to work longer hours for less, or work harder because you have less people working on the same project.
Or worst of all, projects get canned completely. Because if the company doesn't get paid, NOONE gets paid. Not just you.
Kanluwen wrote:These are silly comparisons; and you're quite aware of that.
Its not. Economic systems function on the idea that I do work I get paid for it. Demanding that I do work get paid for it, and then get paid for that same work a second time is ludicrous.
Used games are a service problem. They result because the game clearly wasn't worth keeping to the consumer. If used games sales are killing video games then why aren't used sales killing other industries? The fact of the matter is they don't. No one gets paid twice for a product in the world. Video games are not some special love child that needs special attention because if they don't get an exception, second hand sales will end them. Its a silly position to adhere to.
If something is worth buying new people will buy it new. If its not, then the game probably isn't worth $60 to begin with.
EDIT: Basically the giest of what I'm trying to say here is that, assuming used game sales are causing harm, Game Stop and companies like it are a byproduct of the root issue not the cause.
Yard sales and private sales are not the same as a business which sells these things for profit.
Which is the real issue at hand. Game Stop, and its compatriots, have turned the 'yard sale' into a business model. But this isn't not a problem with consumers. Its a problem with the industry itself and needing to find a solution to used game sales, not demanding to be paid twice for no extra work. But frankly, I don't believe this pretext that should Game Stop not exist that sales would be higher. Prior to this past year, game sales have done nothing but increase for two decades. Used game sales have also increased parallel to that in a predictable line. EDIT: There's no evidence, or even a way to prove, that used sales are causing any harm even if they were.
If Game Stop did not exist, people who no longer want a game will by and large still find a means to sell it. For EA, there's no functional difference between me selling a game to John, and me selling it to Game Stop who then sells it to John. EA just gets peeved that Game Stop has made a free and clear $40, but under no circumstances is EA entitled to make any money from Game Stop for that sale anymore than they are entitled to money had I just sold it myself.
The "rush out of titles, often with little replayability" isn't necessarily the problem the industry CREATED for itself.
It is a problem they've created for themselves. Surely, we can agree that multiplayer games carry more replayability than single player games as a general rule, yes?
So, then, how do we make single player games more playable thus boosting their replayability and making the chances that people sell them back is lower? That's the real question the industry needs to answer, not "how do we get paid for our game twice."
This is of course assuming that used game sales noticeably hurt a publisher. Take Bioshock for example. All around good game. Game Stop however got flooded by copies in the weeks following its release because the game had little replay value. Bioshock still sold over 2,000,000 copies in its first year, and another 2,000,000 over the next two, and it was one of the most heavily traded in games of all time. 4,000,000 sales is huge. That Take2 is somehow taking a loss and will be destroyed by used games after shipping 4,000,000 copies (that was in 2010 btw) that is an absurd position.
LunaHound wrote:Then treat it like starbucks coffee where you can refill for free :'P
That is one of the dumbest video game comparisons I've ever heard. At best it's partially tangential.
At worst it s just... it hurts.
As insulting as that is, its understandable. The most successful companies are ones that can apply proper psychology
together with human purchasing patterns. How good people are at connecting the dots is what makes or breaks a concept.
I cant find a starbuck example, so use Mcdonald. Find the relativity between what I said and you'll see its not so dumb after all.
Has anybody actually got any figures on this? My personal suspicion is that in recent years publishers have started to become better off not worse thanks to the various codes and internet requirements they put in these days, but I'm loathe to make a sweeping statement without proof.
Despite this argument being quite old I've never actually seen any figures, not ones about profits etc (inflation and the expansion of the game market would make those hard to compare I guess), but some kind of annual round-up of new sales versus used sales.
Should think downloads have offset things somewhat as well, but again, would like PROOF.
Lux_Lucis wrote:Has anybody actually got any figures on this? My personal suspicion is that in recent years publishers have started to become better off not worse thanks to the various codes and internet requirements they put in these days, but I'm loathe to make a sweeping statement without proof.
Despite this argument being quite old I've never actually seen any figures, not ones about profits etc (inflation and the expansion of the game market would make those hard to compare I guess), but some kind of annual round-up of new sales versus used sales.
Should think downloads have offset things somewhat as well, but again, would like PROOF.
To further expand on that idea, I would also want to see the initial sale # AND the discount sale # ( e.g steam sales , or most retailers lowers the price after 4 months ish? )
Computer games generally are not what is being resold, given that most have single-use registration keys and it's cheaper to do things via digital distribution.
It's console games where the money is currently at.
Kanluwen wrote:Computer games generally are not what is being resold, given that most have single-use registration keys and it's cheaper to do things via digital distribution.
It's console games where the money is currently at.
its not whats been sold, its getting idea of what % of people hold off purchasing at full price for initial release.
It wont be the exact matching number as finding out how much % is been done with purchasing "used"
but the psychology behind the 2 arn't that off.
Lux_Lucis wrote:Has anybody actually got any figures on this? My personal suspicion is that in recent years publishers have started to become better off not worse thanks to the various codes and internet requirements they put in these days, but I'm loathe to make a sweeping statement without proof.
Despite this argument being quite old I've never actually seen any figures, not ones about profits etc (inflation and the expansion of the game market would make those hard to compare I guess), but some kind of annual round-up of new sales versus used sales.
Should think downloads have offset things somewhat as well, but again, would like PROOF.
Part of the problem with hard numbers is that (afaik, and I don't follow this debate THAT closely) Game Stop, the principle offender of the alleged losses, doesn't release specific numbers on used game sales. They might account high numbers, and they account for the percentage of their income (it was like 40% last year I think), but I don't know if data exists on, say, how many used copies they sold of Modern Warfare 3 (insert other titles as necessary).
Even if we had the number, its hard to determine how much money Activision really lost as a result. Just because someone bought a used game doesn't mean they'd buy a new one.
The irony is that last years report shows Game Stop's largest growth last year was actually in digital distribution.
Computer games generally are not what is being resold, given that most have single-use registration keys and it's cheaper to do things via digital distribution.
Not really (unless you actually register the key which few people do it can be used and reused on some systems). The reason Game Stop has never gotten into used PC games is because of the myth that PC games are easier to pirate. Thus, back into their earliest days they've had a store policy that they do no deal in used PC games (I think back into the late 90's). EDIT: I'm going back like, 5 or 6 years when I say this.
No matter how hard you try to weasel word, to lie, to apologize, a company still makes nothing off of used game sales.
It doesn't matter if the used games are on sale or at full price or given away for free. The company makes nothing off of them in any scenario unless they do something like adding an access code that for used agme buyers must be purchased to play the game or access certain contents-- a feature, I should note, which itself was only done specifically to combat this problem.
I suspect they still make large profits (for decent games at least). Depends on whether you think they should get every single penny or whether distributors should be allowed to make more money from used games than they would just through selling new ones. Certainly it allows them to be more competitive than selling new games seems to allow them to be.
The point may be moot in a few years anyway, reports seem to suggest both Sony and Microsoft will be implementing systems in their new consoles that prevent users playing used games without shelling out more money.
And just to respond to Melissia's point, increasingly these days they do, with many games requiring people to buy extra codes etc. to make the game work fully.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, added that before I saw your post. Apologies.
Melissia wrote:It doesn't matter if the used games are on sale or at full price or given away for free. The company makes nothing off of them in any scenario.
Again who cares? Paramount doesn't get money from used movie sales, a record label from used albums, car manufacturers from used cares. No one makes money from used sales because they aren't entitled to it. We all know that a company gets nothing from used game sales but that's not the point. They aren't entitled to anything.
The company that makes them, the developers who work there, anyone who wants to see them make more games or to have he time to make higher quality games, and so on.
Lux_Lucis wrote:And just to respond to Melissia's point, increasingly these days they do, with many games requiring people to buy extra codes etc. to make the game work fully.
Which was done specifically to combat this problem.
I'd be more accepting of their view if games weren't so expensive. Yes they cost a lot to make but several AAA titles have made more money than blockbuster films.
Melissia wrote:The company that makes them, the developers who work there, anyone who wants to see them make more games or to have he time to make higher quality games, and so on.
The idea that used games are going to end the industry is ludicrously absurd and it always will be. Again, I cite Bioshock. One of the most high traded in games of all time and it still shipped 4,000,000 copies (by 2010). At the end of the day used game sales are limited by new game sales. This concept, commonly known as supply, basically prevents as a matter of course used games from doing actual harm to a developer. At worse, they don't make as much money as they might have.
Melissia wrote:The company that makes them, the developers who work there, anyone who wants to see them make more games or to have he time to make higher quality games, and so on.
The idea that used games are going to end the industry is ludicrously absurd and it always will be. Again, I cite Bioshock. One of the most high traded in games of all time and it still shipped 4,000,000 copies (by 2010). At the end of the day used game sales are limited by new game sales. This concept, commonly known as supply, basically prevents as a matter of course used games from doing actual harm to a developer. At worse, they don't make as much money as they might have.
To add to that, the industry hasn't ended and controls are getting tightened. In fact it's expanded massively. So not a world-shattering problem for them.
Lux_Lucis wrote:I'd be more accepting of their view if games weren't so expensive. Yes they cost a lot to make but several AAA titles have made more money than blockbuster films.
And they will continue to do so. But not all games are "AAA titles". Would you suggest that the only games that should ever sell are AAA titles?
The industry is expanding, but used games are still causing problems. Games really can't be compared to movies because of the vast differences in interactivity.
Used Games aren't all that bad, honestly; For example, if I had a problem with Activision, in a perfect world CoD: Modern Warfare 47 would be $45 to $70 New. Why should I support a company that is A) Increasing prices, B) releasing the same shtick every year, C) just full of utter douchebags? Gamestop is the lesser of two evils in this scenario. Capcom is another prime example of whom every game should be bought used (As they, luckily, aren't smart enough to include Online Passes in their games yet), because lets face it; when you release MVC3, and then six months later MVC3 Ultimate Edition, and within two years your on the sixth edition of Street Fighter, the whole Devil May Cry debaucle, and one of the planned campaigns in RE: ORC, your nothing but greedy.
Also, they just need to find a better system of selling things; look at TF2, before that went F2P that was one of the most loved/purchased/oldest shooters on the market. Now, it's just loved and old, without the purchase!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Lux_Lucis wrote:I'd be more accepting of their view if games weren't so expensive. Yes they cost a lot to make but several AAA titles have made more money than blockbuster films.
And they will continue to do so. But not all games are "AAA titles". Would you suggest that the only games that should ever sell are AAA titles?
Lets see, of my favorite games....
Ghostbusters; the game
Splatterhouse
Alice Madness Returns
Brutal Legend
Blazblue
Darksouls (?)
And Metro 2033
Would never have been released. I would be a sad panda
Lux_Lucis wrote:I'd be more accepting of their view if games weren't so expensive. Yes they cost a lot to make but several AAA titles have made more money than blockbuster films.
And they will continue to do so. But not all games are "AAA titles". Would you suggest that the only games that should ever sell are AAA titles?
The industry is expanding, but used games are still causing problems. Games really can't be compared to movies because of the vast differences in interactivity.
I know, and I have no solution or answer to that (unfortunately). But since games come in at £45-50, and are no doubt due to go up with the new lot of consoles, more competitively priced games would be nice. As an example, I don't buy CoD games for a long while until the price has dropped considerably because I cannot justify spending that much money on something that is going to last about 5 hours. Instead I rent. Maybe it's just because I don't really play multi-player.
Actually in 2011 the profits of the game's industry dropped. It was 2% but this is the first time that's happened in nearly two decades (EDIT: Or is one decade?).
The game's industry mini-bubble has been building for awhile and imo its getting ready of start deflating ( by that I mean I think it won't pop)
The industry is expanding, but used games are still causing problems. Games really can't be compared to movies because of the vast differences in interactivity.
Interactivity is relevant how? Second hand sales are a basic factor present in nearly all industries. The makers of the original material profit from those sales in none of them and none of those industries are 'dying.'
Melissia wrote:Because it requires an entirely different level of expertise than merely good acting.
Good Movies require a bit more than just acting, you know; you need good writers, then there is the cost of sets/on location, the cost of any form of CGI associated with the film.... To say otherwise is merely fictitious.
Melissia wrote:Because it requires an entirely different level of expertise than merely good acting.
Good acting? What movies are you watching
At the end of the day cost of development relative to income from sales is all that matters. The developmental costs of games and movies have been comparatively similar for quite some time (marketing in games has taken most of its notes from the film industry too).
The only real difference is the existence of theaters reducing the retail costs of a movie relative to a game, which is a pretty significant difference but the market behaviors of second hand markets are pretty much universal for most things that cost less than four figures.
No... its... not. Dont put words in my mouth because Im talking about something different.
Originally he said:
Lux_Lucis wrote:Despite this argument being quite old I've never actually seen any figures, not ones about profits etc (inflation and the expansion of the game market would make those hard to compare I guess), but some kind of annual round-up of new sales versus used sales.
Should think downloads have offset things somewhat as well, but again, would like PROOF.
Then I wanted to expand the idea while at the same time keeping track the # of people that buys initial releases
vs
the figure of people that waits a few month for a price drop, may it be in store, or online discount for example steam.
LunaHound wrote:To further expand on that idea, I would also want to see the initial sale # AND the discount sale # ( e.g steam sales , or most retailers lowers the price after 4 months ish? )
Then kanluwen jumped in, assuming the number Im drawing figure from steam is for the sake of getting a figure off computers
Kanluwen wrote:Computer games generally are not what is being resold, given that most have single-use registration keys and it's cheaper to do things via digital distribution.
It's console games where the money is currently at.
Which then I reminded him that its not what counsel or platform that is relevant.
is the % of people that would wait for a price drop that is relevant to my original figure.
LunaHound wrote: its not whats been sold, its getting idea of what % of people hold off purchasing at full price for initial release.
It wont be the exact matching number as finding out how much % is been done with purchasing "used"
but the psychology behind the 2 arn't that off.
Then you got confused by my response to a confused kanluwen and thought I meant something else.
Melissia wrote:Yes it is.
No matter how hard you try to weasel word, to lie, to apologize, a company still makes nothing off of used game sales.
It doesn't matter if the used games are on sale or at full price or given away for free. The company makes nothing off of them in any scenario unless they do something like adding an access code that for used agme buyers must be purchased to play the game or access certain contents-- a feature, I should note, which itself was only done specifically to combat this problem.
Videogame company doesnt lose anything.
Or else you can say the following are losing just the same.
Cellphone
Computer
Warhammer
Books
Heck anything you see on ebay.
Assuming the used games market is cannibalising the primary market... What solutions do they have ?
They can't push to outlaw second-hand sales, that would be madness. There is a second-hand market for everything, it's part of commerce ; it just so happens that it's allegedly giving the producers difficulties in that sector.
Can they make games that you want to buy new ? Of course they can, and that begins with making a game whose designers you want to support by giving them your money. So, a good game. Moreover if it has a long lifespan such as high replayability, it will take longer for it to appear on the secondary market.
But some customers are only loyal to their wallet, and estimate that the game isn't worth the retail price so they'll grab it second-hand. We have an obvious pricing problem here !
What are the solutions to a pricing problem ? I can see three :
Lower prices to increase competitivity with the secondary market. In the end, a good is worth what people are willing to pay for it.
Increase prices (in a feeble attempt) to increase gross margin (the GW way !). Do I really need to expand on that ?
Reduce costs to either increase or maintain gross margin (more flexibility in prices). Whether it is doable or not I don't know, but it do think it's ridiculous to have FPS reaching Hollywood levels of budget for one game.
Hyd wrote:Assuming the used games market is cannibalising the primary market... What solutions do they have ?
They can't push to outlaw second-hand sales, that would be madness. There is a second-hand market for everything, it's part of commerce ; it just so happens that it's allegedly giving the producers difficulties in that sector.
Can they make games that you want to buy new ? Of course they can, and that begins with making a game whose designers you want to support by giving them your money. So, a good game. Moreover if it has a long lifespan such as high replayability, it will take longer for it to appear on the secondary market.
But some customers are only loyal to their wallet, and estimate that the game isn't worth the retail price so they'll grab it second-hand. We have an obvious pricing problem here !
What are the solutions to a pricing problem ? I can see three :
Lower prices to increase competitivity with the secondary market. In the end, a good is worth what people are willing to pay for it.
Increase prices (in a feeble attempt) to increase gross margin (the GW way !). Do I really need to expand on that ?
Reduce costs to either increase or maintain gross margin (more flexibility in prices). Whether it is doable or not I don't know, but it do think it's ridiculous to have FPS reaching Hollywood levels of budget for one game.
Yes! thats why I wanted to see the % of people that would rather wait for a price drop or 2nd hand
instead of buying it during initial release.
Videogame company doesnt lose anything. Or else you can say the following are losing just the same.
Cellphone Computer Warhammer Books
1: No. In order to use a cell phone you must ahve a cell phone plan.
2: Not really, most of the time the people who would b e buying used computers instead simply buy the constituent parts and make it themselves.
3: GW certainly thinks so.
4: Resale of books is something that literature has had a problem with for a while now. Only with e-books have they managed to try to find a real solution. Hell even with college textbooks the company implores buyers to get them new, not used, as it's a big problem there.
There are more than two options. One way to make used copies less desirable is to make them more worthless. Have an unlock code that is tied to an account it's first installed on, and if you are playing on an account which hasn't unlocked, you have to pay for it or you only get to play a short demo. The used copies are thus pretty worthless, especially when you consider that they're often priced only a few bucks less than a normal copy, than you haveto pay ten to twenty to actually play the game on top of that. Who'd want to buy used there? Problem solved. The ones that do buy used either don't get the full product (what does the company care, the company didn't get any money from them) or they fork over the money to actually support the developer whose game they are wanting to play.
It's an extreme example, but certainly companies are pushing to see how far they can go at the moment. Gamestop has actually tried taking these things out of the box (thus denying their customers the full product) because it cuts in to their profits-- Gamestop isn't really a new game seller anymore, they're a used game dealer who sometimes occasionally has new games in stock but will gladly lie about what's in stock to get you to buy used.
Hyd wrote:What are the solutions to a pricing problem ? I can see three :
Lower prices to increase competitivity with the secondary market. In the end, a good is worth what people are willing to pay for it.
Increase prices (in a feeble attempt) to increase gross margin (the GW way !). Do I really need to expand on that ?
Reduce costs to either increase or maintain gross margin (more flexibility in prices). Whether it is doable or not I don't know, but it do think it's ridiculous to have FPS reaching Hollywood levels of budget for one game.
If you lower the price of new games, you lower the price of the secondary market and thus increasing sales to both yourself and the secondary market. The only result is that you move more product and likely end up with the same profits and the same problem. The solution being proposed here is to eliminate or deminish the secondary market in order to lower the 'new' price.
Increasing pricing seems to be working. Pretty much all games nowadays are $60 with some even having day-one DLC or advantages for the collector's edition. People will pay for this stuff. Nobody wants to break the $60 price-point for console games, so every excuse to charge you further is being tried. People buy horse armor, and thus companies provide horse armor. Not only all this, but the DLC concept is benefiting the producers and not the retailers selling secondary product. Also note that comparing this idea to GW undermines your point (Throwing GW out there is the 'hitler' of wargaming forums).
There will always be the company that spends tremendous amounts of money on the production of a game. There are 'indie' developers out there that make games for comparatively little, there are the Activisions/EAs that create games for millions. Arbitrarily setting a limit is only going to stifle the industry.
I dont hear car companies complaining that the used car market is killing their business. They made their profits selling it the first time, they dont give 2 gaks about it after wards. Im with Lordofhats on this one, any game company that is using this as an excuse are fething idiots.
Used games, Is the best way to buy games. You guys realize that games that came out three years ago are still over $50? That is just plain sad. The price on new games doesn't go down enough for a normal person to actually get to buy it. I have played online games after the community as moved on. it sucks. And to add to this whole thing. WHO ELSE PRE ORDERED DUKE NUKEM FOREVER??? Yea, thats the reason why you don't buy new. Why pay $50+ on a game that no one really knows what the game is like? I have read reviews before buying a game. And yet, when playing the game have been so p'd that i have sold the game. You can't trust the people who review games for a publication. When companies finally start to realize games that are worth more than one play through, i'll start buying new. Right now the only reason to buy games is to play a 4 hour single player, crap story line, and then spend the rest of the time trying to play on line. Which the community has ruined that. This whole thing boils down to lazy people making games. Every once and a while there will be the game that gets released and everything is good. But for the amount of crap we have to dig through to get a good title. Its not worth buying new.
I don't think that used games are going to destroy the industry, but they do feel it at the developer level. If a company goes under because people only bought their games used then I honestly think there must be a problem with their business model. Honestly though, I haven't shopped in GameStop for a while. Also here is a comic about this very problem.
Why is a company entitled to profit from every possible transaction involving their product?
Short answer: they are not.
The comparison between EA not profiting from re-sale of ME3 copies on the one hand and an employer not paying her employees for a day's work on the other is laughably bad.
Developers are reshaping the market by using piracy and used game sales as an excuse to hold content hostage. The product stream that they are "cut-out of" is still providing them plenty of launch-price sales for quality (and even not-so-quality) titles. (Seriously, have you guys been to a Gamestop? The push pre-orders harder than anyone.) Even so, what you pay launch prices for is no longer complete until you engage in a digital micro-transaction that cuts out Gamestop, et al., from the deal. And now this is a Day One transaction. Using ME3 as an example, there is now also a "buy DLC to finish the game" precedent. (To head it off at the pass, I hope no one is stupid enough to think DLC, which once meant "additional content," will continue to be truly "additional.")
Another beneficial result of the DLC model is the "second bite" release, where you get some people at launch and DLC launches and get another batch with a "GOTY" or "Gold" edition that includes all the DLC, boosting the price of an old game by throwing in a very small amount of content. Why would people do this? IME, DLC prices do not sink as fast as the price of physical copies because there is no used market for DLC. In some cases, you're actually saving money by buying the GOTY edition instead of buying a "Greatest Hits" or used copy and then buying the DLC on top of that. And so there is effectively another launch that undermines used sales.
Developers -- or let's call them what they really are -- publishers are not nearly at the mercy of the used game market. But which model is better for consumers? On the one hand, you can buy a complete used game for slightly to significantly under the MSRP of a new copy. On the other hand, you can pay full price at launch for an incomplete game that you will need to keep investing in so that you can have a complete experience.
But by all means, let's line right up to defend the publishers' interest against Gamestop and all those douchebags who save money by shopping there (us).
Absolutionis wrote:If you lower the price of new games, you lower the price of the secondary market and thus increasing sales to both yourself and the secondary market. The only result is that you move more product and likely end up with the same profits and the same problem. The solution being proposed here is to eliminate or deminish the secondary market in order to lower the 'new' price.
The point of lowering the price would be to move the item up the demand curve. Of course it reflects on the secondary market, but new games would be more attractive and as a side-effect second-hand dealers would be subject to downward pressure to some extent.
Increasing pricing seems to be working. Pretty much all games nowadays are $60 with some even having day-one DLC or advantages for the collector's edition. People will pay for this stuff. Nobody wants to break the $60 price-point for console games, so every excuse to charge you further is being tried. People buy horse armor, and thus companies provide horse armor. Not only all this, but the DLC concept is benefiting the producers and not the retailers selling secondary product. Also note that comparing this idea to GW undermines your point (Throwing GW out there is the 'hitler' of wargaming forums).
I was thinking of a direct increase in retail price, but indeed DLCs and the likes make for a valid point. (and Manchu just happened to write an interesting piece on this ; I say they better stick to good business practices if they want to keep their customers.)
I'd also like to underline that mentioning Hitler in an essay on totalitarianism would be absolutely relevant and in no way warranting a Godwin point. I mentioned GW tongue-in-cheek to make an analogy with business practices people on this forum are likely to be familiar with : you're shooting yourself in the foot if you price yourself out of your market, which you agreed with when you mentioned the $60 cap.
There will always be the company that spends tremendous amounts of money on the production of a game. There are 'indie' developers out there that make games for comparatively little, there are the Activisions/EAs that create games for millions. Arbitrarily setting a limit is only going to stifle the industry.
Not sure who talked about setting a limit, and anyway I did say I don't know what can be done at that level. They do. Fortunately it's their problem, not mine ; I'm just trying to be constructive for the sake of discussion.
What I don't get is why the used games market should be the one to change or be impacted when they have done nothing wrong in the first place. There is a demand for used games, and they are here to fulfill it. Period. Maybe video games are not viable in their old format and producers just need to adapt, which they have began to do.
If a company goes under because people only bought their games used then I honestly think there must be a problem with their business model. Honestly though, I haven't shopped in GameStop for a while.
This is flawed logic and the reason why used games can't kill the industry. The number of used games available can never exceed the number of new games sold. If you sold so few new copies that you took a loss used games aren't the problem the product is. If a game is good, people won't be selling it back used (at least not for a few weeks) or maybe even until a sequel is coming.
The irony of your comic though is that Game Stop is already in the Digital business. They saw more growth in it last year than in used or new game sales.
This is a complete myth. Used games aren't killing the industry. They can't as a matter of course. Maybe they can cost the industry by not making it as much as it could have but at the end of the day used game sales have never stopped a publisher from making a profit (don't make me keep pulling out Bioshock).
To head it off at the pass, I hope no one is stupid enough to think DLC, which once meant "additional content," will continue to be truly "additional."
QFT
Machu I think hits the nail on the head. Publishers are boxing themselves into a self-perpetuating cycle, and have been for some time, in which they're slowly going to start killing themselves. Forbes produced an article a few months back arguing that DLC will be the death of the game's industry. I didn't completely agree with the guy but he raised some interesting questions. I'll see if I can find it. Day 1 DLC is a perfect example. ME2 marketed itself (quite successfully) to encourage new purchase. ME3 threw that model out the window.
Found It, however it is now apparent I did not remember this article correctly and its actually as critical of gamers in the ongoing DLC controversy as the companies.
Aye, trying to keep shareholders happy with unsustainable year on year record growth will kill the games industry, or make it make daft decesions in its desperate attempts to keep their trends growing.
Same things been happening with GW for a while. Shares seem to be the best and worst things that can happen to a company. Great for that initial cash boost, bad when folks are expecting dividends every year for .. well forever.
I somehow think Melissia has made a mistake with her point. The companies that have been mentioned so far are not developers - they are publishers. These guys take the games made and get them onto the shelves and ultimately want the cash return more than the devs ever would. And these are the guys making the biggest fuss. They get their money from big titles and big releases. The fact that they are not getting all their money's worth from all the sales of the game they publish, both new and used, is why we have near-pointless DLC, online passes and that stuff. They want ALL the money they can get their greedy mittens on. You don't hear much from the dev teams claiming that the used game market is killing them.
Personally I think that, as someone else pointed out on this thread, the used game market is the result of poorly made games. If you don't believe that, then do explain the constant patching of pretty much every game released within the last few years or the persistance of tacking a multiplayer option to a game that isn't a fullblown RPG, or perhaps the obession with DLC between £5-10 (or equivalent) that adds something new to the game. There wouldn't be much of a need for this game-changing DLC, patching or multiplayer necessity if most of these games that were mainly singleplayer games had good singleplayer campaigns. 10 hours long, great characters and story and game mechanics, and you will sell that game like cupcakes. But as of late game developers are getting lazy. They aren't making robust games like they used to. And thinking that tacking on a multiplayer to increase the lifespan of the game is a cheap idea. Things need to change and until they do, this problem will still be around.
*Shrug* that's my opinion on the matter. It may not be accurate but oh well, it's an opinion.
Manchu, I purchased From Ashes (The ME3 Day 1 DLC) from GameStop.
I don't know if other stores do this, but we have a wall of DLC/XBLA/PS3 DG cards. They never change prices, and they sell out a lot. So maybe Gamestop has a hand in the DLC market as well.
I agree. And we should all give even more money to EA.
After all, they are the leading innovator in creating more advanced techniques to milk you for all you're worth counter piracy and help keep themselves afloat in these troubling economic times.
Manchu wrote:To head it off at the pass, I hope no one is stupid enough to think DLC, which once meant "additional content," will continue to be truly "additional."
I rarely buy used, but I almost never buy at launch. I typically will wait till that $60 game is only $30 or less new. On rare occasions that I do buy it right off is either becuase it is something I want to make sure to support voraciously, like Shadow of the Colossus or The Last Guardian, or something to play with my friends, like Diablo III or Borderlands 2.
KingCracker wrote:I dont hear car companies complaining that the used car market is killing their business. They made their profits selling it the first time, they dont give 2 gaks about it after wards. Im with Lordofhats on this one, any game company that is using this as an excuse are fething idiots.
Automobiles are a physical commodity. The engine runs, the systems function, etc. Over time, there is mechanical wear-and-tear. Thus, the price depreciates significantly the moment you even buy the car. A car with low mileage is greatly sought-after.
Videogames are on a digital disc. The wear-and-tear is negligible. For all intents and purposes, the functionality of a new game and a used game are essentially identical.
The analogue to the used car industry is a fallacious one.
Hyd wrote:
Absolutionis wrote:If you lower the price of new games, you lower the price of the secondary market and thus increasing sales to both yourself and the secondary market. The only result is that you move more product and likely end up with the same profits and the same problem. The solution being proposed here is to eliminate or deminish the secondary market in order to lower the 'new' price.
The point of lowering the price would be to move the item up the demand curve. Of course it reflects on the secondary market, but new games would be more attractive and as a side-effect second-hand dealers would be subject to downward pressure to some extent.
You move the item up the demand curve in the secondary market as well. Used games will still be cheaper and a more attractive option.
Hyd wrote:What I don't get is why the used games market should be the one to change or be impacted when they have done nothing wrong in the first place. There is a demand for used games, and they are here to fulfill it. Period. Maybe video games are not viable in their old format and producers just need to adapt, which they have began to do.
Juvieus Kaine wrote:If lots of people buy it used then there probably was a problem with it, otherwise they would have bought it new, yes?
Lots of people buy games used because the "problem" with it is that it's not multiplayer. Many games nowadays are having tacked-on multiplayer.
Manchu wrote:If anything, if a lot of used copies of a game are moving it's because the game is good.
And developers are given no incentive to make their game good as a result. They don't see any of the money that their effort brings. Thus, their biggest incentive is to increase day-one sales by making sequels to games... preferably with tons of multiplayer and day-one DLC.
I buy almost everything I get at launch. I can't remember ever buying a used game. I have even bought "GOTY"-type editions of the same game on the other console. (Example: bought FO3 at launch for PS3; bought GOTY FO3 for 360.) The only exception is shooters. Shooters are way to short and unreliably enjoyable for me to buy at launch prices. Generally, I want publishers to make money on RPGs so I'm down shelling out $60 on ME3 and certainly for Skyrim.
It goes without saying that I don't mind paying full price for Nintendo games like Skyward Sword, whose new copy prices don't seem too affected by the high used copy prices. And isn't Nintendo that spoke strongly against the recent trends in DLC? Hmm ... could it be that the DLC-to-complete model is the problem rather than used games?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Absolutionis wrote:
Manchu wrote:If anything, if a lot of used copies of a game are moving it's because the game is good.
And developers are given no incentive to make their game good as a result. They don't see any of the money that their effort brings. Thus, their biggest incentive is to increase day-one sales by making sequels to games... preferably with tons of multiplayer and day-one DLC.
No, D1DLC is not the necessary course of action. And any form of DLC doesn't solve the problem of low incentive to create original franchises. And the used game market is hardly the biggest obstacle to what is already the giant risk of developing a new franchise.
Why consumers feel the need to blame themselves for the profit-motive of corporations is truly astonishing. It's some kind of Stockholm Syndrome.
In some games, if they make it only available to the Collector's Editions or those who preordered--it can cause a large backlash. Look at "From the Ashes", or any BioWare D1DLC for example. Whenever it's come out that Collector's Editions will have access to a special character first--it gets blown up as this big huge thing where BioWare eventually caves and releases it at launch.
Another example? Look at Gears of War 3's recent "Forces of Nature" DLC. It included new maps, some new gun skins, and some "new" characters.
Those new characters, however? They're just reskins of the Preorder Bonus characters. As in Epic purposely went out and reskinned those preorder bonus characters and made them as part of the content some months later.
Admittedly--the Gears example isn't as bad in my opinion because we're on the fourth or so DLC pack(I THINK) and it's still being a free download to those of us who purchased the Season Pass...with a few more still to come.
Absolutionis wrote:
Videogames are on a digital disc. The wear-and-tear is negligible. For all intents and purposes, the functionality of a new game and a used game are essentially identical.
Wrong.
Back when I was stupid enough to buy physical games, I'd say about 10% of the disks didn't work out of the box and essentially had to be thrown away and marked down as a lost purchase, and about 60% were unusable after a year or so. CDs are one of the worst and most unreliable storage devices ever conceived.
Kanluwen wrote:Whenever it's come out that Collector's Editions will have access to a special character first--it gets blown up as this big huge thing where BioWare eventually caves and releases it at launch.
Wait you think that EA creating demand for a product by marketing it as limited and then turning around to sell it to everyone experiencing the demand is an example of "caving"?
You are truly pure of heart. Don't ever change, my friend.
Manchu wrote:If anything, if a lot of used copies of a game are moving it's because the game is good.
And developers are given no incentive to make their game good as a result. They don't see any of the money that their effort brings. Thus, their biggest incentive is to increase day-one sales by making sequels to games... preferably with tons of multiplayer and day-one DLC.
No, D1DLC is not the necessary course of action. And any form of DLC doesn't solve the problem of low incentive to create original franchises. And the used game market is hardly the biggest obstacle to what is already the giant risk of developing a new franchise.
That's what multiplayer is for. Don't cherry-pick.
Manchu wrote:Why consumers feel the need to blame themselves for the profit-motive of corporations is truly astonishing. It's some kind of Stockholm Syndrome.
Many things are astonishing if you're unwilling to see the other side. Gamestop is also a corporation.
Joey wrote:
Absolutionis wrote:
Videogames are on a digital disc. The wear-and-tear is negligible. For all intents and purposes, the functionality of a new game and a used game are essentially identical.
Wrong.
Back when I was stupid enough to buy physical games, I'd say about 10% of the disks didn't work out of the box and essentially had to be thrown away and marked down as a lost purchase, and about 60% were unusable after a year or so. CDs are one of the worst and most unreliable storage devices ever conceived.
Gamestop, Play & Trade, and every other secondary company out here gives you a guarantee if your disc doesn't work. Your argument is invalid. If there's anything these companies are good at, it's placing a guarantee that their game works.
As an aside, BluRay is also used nowadays; it's rather resilient to scratches.
To even compare the used game business to the gamble that is the used car business is showing complete ignorance on your part.
Manchu wrote:If anything, if a lot of used copies of a game are moving it's because the game is good.
And developers are given no incentive to make their game good as a result. They don't see any of the money that their effort brings. Thus, their biggest incentive is to increase day-one sales by making sequels to games... preferably with tons of multiplayer and day-one DLC.
No, D1DLC is not the necessary course of action. And any form of DLC doesn't solve the problem of low incentive to create original franchises. And the used game market is hardly the biggest obstacle to what is already the giant risk of developing a new franchise.
That's what multiplayer is for. Don't cherry-pick.
Manchu wrote:Why consumers feel the need to blame themselves for the profit-motive of corporations is truly astonishing. It's some kind of Stockholm Syndrome.
Many things are astonishing if you're unwilling to see the other side. Gamestop is also a corporation.
Joey wrote:
Absolutionis wrote:
Videogames are on a digital disc. The wear-and-tear is negligible. For all intents and purposes, the functionality of a new game and a used game are essentially identical.
Wrong.
Back when I was stupid enough to buy physical games, I'd say about 10% of the disks didn't work out of the box and essentially had to be thrown away and marked down as a lost purchase, and about 60% were unusable after a year or so. CDs are one of the worst and most unreliable storage devices ever conceived.
Gamestop, Play & Trade, and every other secondary company out here gives you a guarantee if your disc doesn't work. Your argument is invalid. If there's anything these companies are good at, it's placing a guarantee that their game works.
As an aside, BluRay is also used nowadays; it's rather resilient to scratches.
To even compare the used game business to the gamble that is the used car business is showing complete ignorance on your part.
I haven't heard of Gamestop or Play & Trade, I'm also not spending £5 on a bus ticket to return a game that cost me £20. The bad ones were all from the large chain stores anyway.
Kanluwen wrote:Whenever it's come out that Collector's Editions will have access to a special character first--it gets blown up as this big huge thing where BioWare eventually caves and releases it at launch.
Wait you think that EA creating demand for a product by marketing it as limited and then turning around to sell it to everyone experiencing the demand is an example of "caving"?
You are truly pure of heart. Don't ever change, my friend.
No, I think that them saying "This will be available later for everyone who did not buy a Collector's Edition" and then turning around to sell it to everyone after people complained that they would have to wait is an example of caving.
Having it free as a perk of buying the collector's edition is not a bad thing. Having it be available later for people who buy the collector's edition is not a bad thing either.
Absolutionis wrote:That's what multiplayer is for. Don't cherry-pick.
I didn't.
Many things are astonishing if you're unwilling to see the other side. Gamestop is also a corporation.
So what you're saying is that I'm taking one corporation's side over another corporation? This just confirms my Stockholm Syndrome theory. No, I'm actually not making a choice between hostage-takers. I'm talking about the interests of consumers rather than corporations. Gamestop is only successful because consumers are also generally self-interested.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Having it free as a perk of buying the collector's edition is not a bad thing. Having it be available later for people who buy the collector's edition is not a bad thing either.
The Foot wrote: If a company goes under because people only bought their games used ......
Where are they going to get their used games? Someone has to buy it new to be able to sell it as used.
The people who pay $60 for a game are the people who are willing to pay $60 for that game, supply and demand will eventually drive the price of that game down to where more people will buy it. Eventually the game is selling for $10 (or some other bargain bin price) and then you have maximized your profit, assuming you do that. The only thing that can impact that, is if you don't drop prices as fast as you need to, your competitors will undercut you and decrease your profits. That's what is happening here. The used game companies, like Game Stop, are competitors. What I don't understand is why are the game distributors even selling new games to Game Stop, since they are a competitor.
And, for those that say that it's not competition, it is. Game Company A makes a game that they will sell for $60 per title and reasonably expect to sell 1 million copies. Let's say they spend $30 million to make the game and get it on the shelves. That means their cost for the game is $30. They sell a million games that first couple months and now those games start hitting the Used Game Store B's shelves. Used Game Store B buys the games back at $40 and sells the games for $55 while the Retail stores are still selling the game at $60. (Pretty typical pricing). Now, Game Company A's cost per user is $30, Used Game Store B's cost is $40 per user. If you are Game Company A and want to run Used Game Store B out of this business, lower the price of your product. (You know it's time to do this when Used Game Store B actually has sufficient quantity of your game to fulfill demand) Since there is $30 of profit (between you and the retail store) and only $15 in Used Game Store B's profit, then you can lower your price $5 and force your competitor to either lower his price or lose sales (who buys the game used for the same price as new?). Now, that won't take $5 of profit away from Used Game Store B, because they will just pay less for the game, but they have to pay enough to get people to sell them the game, so they probably pay $37 for the game instead of $40 and they can sell it for at most $50 used, so their profit just went down to #13 instead of $15.
Now there are some who will pay $55 for a new game, who wouldn't pay $60 and so you pick up some customers, and your competitor probably does as well, but not as many as you do, because those that want the game because of the initial hype have already bought it at either $55 used or $60 new, the next good price point for a used game is going to be below the $50 mark, probably closer to $40 based on current behavior. This is the sweet-spot for you, since you have re-couped your initial investment and now you are just bringing in profit. Sell here until you see the used market for your game picking up (supply meeting demand), then you lower prices again. Once you get down around the $45 price point you are going to have to accept a lean year for your product, supply of used is going to exceed demand and very few will buy your game. Wait a year (or at least 6 months) and then drop to $30 and keep going down as low as you want. At this point, you are picking up customers that probably didn't have the hardware to handle your game when it came out and kids buying games for their dad as presents. Don't snicker at that market, my nephew gave me a copy of Halo when it hit the $20 price point. He didn't know I had beat the game a year and a half before!
$60 for a game, 6 months after it came out, is only justified if the game is something a gamer would keep for 6 months. If enough of them start selling it back, it's because it really wasn't worth $60 and the price needs to drop. This is the way supply and demand works. What other industry gives you such a great way to measure your price? Game Company A should be thanking the used market for helping them make a better product and set an appropriate price point on this game.
Tye_Informer wrote:Where are they going to get their used games? Someone has to buy it new to be able to sell it as used.
Let's say that EA needs to sell X million copies of ME2, potentially to X million unique consumers, in order to pay BioWare to develop ME3. Of those consumers, let's say that half aren't willing to buy the game at launch but are willing to buy the game used. Gamestop helps those consumers to easily get the used games, completely cutting EA off from making money from as many as one half of those X million copies. In that case, EA cannot pay BioWare to make ME3 and we, the fans, don't get our precious ME3! Oh noes!
That's the story that EA wants to sell you. Fortunately, while it is hypothetically accurate at a level that makes sense to most consumers who don't think about it for very long, it doesn't actually reflect reality. How can I prove it? Go to GameStop and ask if they have any new copies of ME3. Of course, for all those who are buying into EA's story, I suppose the only reason we have ME3 is because of all the ME2 DLC. Face front, true believer!
What I don't understand is why are the game distributors even selling new games to Game Stop, since they are a competitor.
That is a puzzle, isn't it? Almost seems to suggest that things aren't quite as simple as the narrative above.
While Game Stop is a competitor; they're also one of the biggest chains out there.
They operate from smaller shops than big name chains like Best Buy or Wal-Mart that sell video games--and thus have spread like a pestilence across the landscape.
I don't get the hostility. The only thing inconvenient about having so many GameStop's around is that sometimes you forget if you pre-ordered your copy of Super Soldier Man 2345 II from the one on this side of the street or the one on that side of the street. EA cares not from whence the cash flows.
The only thing inconvenient about having GameStops around is you have GameStops around, with all the shady business dealings they have going on. Gamestop throws their weight around like nobody's business--and it can afford to, since given their spread they make up a rather large portion of sales for some companies.
Gamestop is the only retailer which can force "their" exclusive preorder content to remain exclusive or they refuse to stock the game.
I understand plenty of people love Gamestop, but since I had them mess up not one but THREE preorders (all placed online for store pick-up) it became clear that I'm better off using Amazon or Best Buy.
But that's not what you said. You said that GameStops were bad because of "shady business dealings." Presumably, you then gave examples: "Gamestop throws their weight around like nobody's business" and "Gamestop is the only retailer which can force "their" exclusive preorder content to remain exclusive or they refuse to stock the game." But unless you're a publisher, none of those things actually harms you.
Now you say that GameStop messed up some of your pre-orders. Can you explain how that's related to their "shady business dealings"? I mean, my guess is that you pre-ordered through GameStop because you wanted the bonus exclusive to doing business with them. But that is neither an example of GameStop doing shady business nor an example of how the proliferation of GameStops harms you.
So, I'm a little confused both by your claims and your claim that these claims affect you.
I had preordered three games(Age of Conan's collector's edition as a present for my father, Rainbow Six: Vegas 2, and the original Mass Effect).
Each time, when push came to shove they kept saying that "Oh, your order shipped so check with your local store".
Each time, my local store had no record of ever receiving anything.
Each time, Game Stop then claimed that I did not "properly fill out the notification forms for shipments".
Bear in mind that those games all had a biiiiiiiiiig difference in timeframes for releases. Each time I only preordered via Game Stop because they had something unique which also affected the gameplay in such a way that it was dumb not to preorder through them.
I had preordered three games(Age of Conan's collector's edition as a present for my father, Rainbow Six: Vegas 2, and the original Mass Effect).
Each time, when push came to shove they kept saying that "Oh, your order shipped so check with your local store".
Each time, my local store had no record of ever receiving anything.
Each time, Game Stop then claimed that I did not "properly fill out the notification forms for shipments".
Bear in mind that those games all had a biiiiiiiiiig difference in timeframes for releases. Each time I only preordered via Game Stop because they had something unique which also affected the gameplay in such a way that it was dumb not to preorder through them.
Did you end up purchasing from amazon or they re-order everything for you again?
Yeah, that's what I thought. But what I don't understand is how there being a lot of GameStops means that they are screwing up your order ... or constitutes shady business dealings for that matter?
Manchu: the "shady business dealings" is related to something which I have seen quite a few of their shops go out of their way to buy things faaaaaaaaar less from minors than they do from someone with a clue.
Ex: My neighbor, who is 13, was told that Modern Warfare 3--the week it released--was only being bought back for $20.
Luna: the resolution was me telling my credit card company to stop payment as they did not deliver on their goods; with three weeks to do so.
It wasn't like I preorder things at the last minute. I preorder things the day a preorder is available if I really, really want it. By three weeks in, you can't get preorder bonuses and if that's what you're after it is not worth trying to.
I don't doubt that it happens but I do doubt that it's a policy.
As for throwing their weight around, would you agree that only a publisher would find that to be a negative? (Or, conversely, a consumer with no access to GameStop because there were not yet enough of them around.)
Kanluwen wrote:Luna: the resolution was me telling my credit card company to stop payment as they did not deliver on their goods; with three weeks to do so.
Sounds like you had a record of the pre-order. I don't think I would have accepted the store's version of events the first time, much less the second or third times.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunaHound wrote:Bought back value $20
trade in value $48
sounds 100% legit to me.
That's a good point, but I assumed he meant trade-in value or buy-back for both.
LunaHound wrote:Bought back value $20
trade in value $48
sounds 100% legit to me.
That's a good point, but I assumed he meant trade-in value or buy-back for both.
The number makes too much sense to be a coincidence, coming from a 13 years old and an angry customer.
It also didn't take into account for the specific time period.
E.G Gamestop didnt project an accurate number for the popularity and worth of a game.
For example, lets say Bestbuy. lot of their buy back price and resold price has changed drastically depending on the popularity
of a game as it grew... lets say.... Dark Souls for example.
nomotog wrote:If removing used games is need to save the industry, I say let it die. I actually don't think I could be a gamer if I had to buy every game new.
I never buy used games but I pretty well agree with this statement. I don't want to see the stuff put out by an industry that crumbles before the sweeping tide of GameStop, which badgers me to pre-order every single game that the industry produces every single time I transact any business in any of their stores (even online!).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunaHound wrote:The number makes too much sense to be a coincidence
Yeah, that is exactly what you would expect there.
Manchu wrote:I don't doubt that it happens but I do doubt that it's a policy.
I doubt it's a "written" policy but considering I saw it happen in a Game Stop I visited while out of state, I don't doubt it's something they're told to do when they're being trained up and if they can get away with it.
As for throwing their weight around, would you agree that only a publisher would find that to be a negative? (Or, conversely, a consumer with no access to GameStop because there were not yet enough of them around.)
It's definitely a problem for the publisher, but also the developer.
Look at, as an example, the preorder bonus for Ghost Recon: Future Soldier via Game Stop.
FREE Upgrade to the Signature Edition
Pre-order Ghost Recon Future Soldier and get a free upgrade to the Signature Edition! While Supplies Last. Pre-order Ghost Recon Future Soldier and receive a code to register for the VIP beta. Available online and in-store while supplies last.
Online/ In-Store Pickup Customers: A code and instructions on how to redeem your VIP beta invitation will be emailed the following Monday after pre-order is placed.
Store Customers: A code and instructions on how to redeem your VIP beta invitation will be printed on your receipt at time of reservation.
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Future Soldier Signature Edition
More details
FREE Upgrade to the Signature Edition
- Bonus Moscow Suburb In-Game Co-op Multiplayer Map
- 2 Bonus In-Game Weapons
- Bonus Head Customization Mode
-Limited Edition Penny Arcade Weapon Skin Featuring Twisp and Catsby
Compare that to everywhere else here in the US.
Depending upon where you preorder from...
Best Buy only has the bonus in-game weapons.
Amazon has early access to a map called "Drilling Ship"(note: Early access; not EXCLUSIVE access).
Wal-Mart only has two skins for your standard guns; no bonuses except that and a $10 eGift card.
So that's a gun skin--which according to Ubisoft will NOT be made available through them--, some customization options for your character, and a coop multiplayer map (Which if you have not seen the previews for it, is you fighting off hordes of bad guys...at a Game Stop in Moscow) which are not available anywhere but Game Stop.
For a developer, a map is quite a bit of work to not be able to make it available overall.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunaHound wrote:Bought back value $20
trade in value $48
sounds 100% legit to me.
I don't do many buybacks/trade-ins so excuse me. If I buy games, I generally keep them.
Pardon my misstep in that.
They told me they would BUY IT BACK for $48 when I took it in. Same day, same store, even the same employee.
Am I the only person whom's gamestop tries to save him money?
I mean, The one I go to now.. I go in there to buy 12 months of XBL subscription, and the sales clerk goes into the back and hands me 12 + 2 months of XBL, and sells it to me for the same price.
The old one screwed me over though; I sold them six games for $1 each, though to be fair it was a bunch of four/five year old games, and they all sucked. Except Shadow of the Collosus, I really regret selling that one
Manchu wrote:So Kan, now you are saying that it is a problem for the developer but I'm still not seeing a problem for you, the consumer.
Really? You can't see how having a retail company which is actually able to push developers around and keep exclusive content for them exclusive is a problem?
For FPS games, exclusive content(i.e. guns) which have a direct impact within the game causes a problem.
Ex: BF3 and the preorder bonus which Game Stop alone had.
Access to 3 highly powerful guns AND some of their biggest accessories...on day one. In multiplayer, that puts you at a huge disadvantage. In the case of Battlefield 3, the "day one access" in this case was the DAO-12 shotgun(an unlock for all classes) and the Frag Rounds(which are the second to last unlock for Shotgun ammunition and still ridiculously powerful even now), the M60 machine gun(ridiculously powerful--even now) and the extended magazines, and the SKS (the only "dud" in the group of three guns according to those who preordered--except it was a sniper rifle which came with a flash suppressor at the start, meaning that your shots would not show on the minimap).
Then there's the Ghost Recon Future Soldier example I gave...an entire map which will not be available to anyone else but Game Stop customers, an entire level of customization for your MP characters not available to anyone else but Game Stop customers, and the (admittedly meh) lack of a gun skin for anyone but Game Stop customers.
Manchu wrote:Wait wait wait. Anyone can buy the game at GameStop for no more expense than buying it anywhere else. So again there is no harm to the consumer.
Not everyone shops around for preorder bonuses. One should not gain an advantage by simply shopping at a store.
Game Stop--NO MATTER WHAT--always has SOME kind of advantage for its preorder bonuses. It's more obvious in FPSes with multiplayer, however, as it alters the dynamic of play.
While I will never believe the outright lie that used games are killing the games industry, I too hate Game Stop (I just choose to hate them for something that isn't imaginary).
To go down the list:
-Horrible Service
-Jerk Employees (generally, YMMV)
-Constantly trying to sell me Game Informer subscriptions I don't want
-EDIT: Horrible selection (again YMMV)
-Trade in X game for $10 so we can sell it for $30
-EDIT: Pre-order bonuses I can get on board with, but I hate those in general
There are a lot of problem with Game Stop and stores like it. But killing the video game industry isn't one of them.
Kanluwen wrote:One should not gain an advantage by simply shopping at a store.
People should not benefit for shopping around for the best bargain?
That is the first genuine LOL I have posted for a while.
You're not "shopping around for the best bargain".
You're "shopping around for an in-game advantage".
It's not as big of a deal when it applies to "single player only"(like ME3's preorder bonuses were) but when someone is getting a highly ranked gun and its "best" ammunition right off the bat, there's a problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Preorder bonuses "in general", I don't hate....provided it's something which isn't affecting the actual gameplay.
Weapon skins or something? Yeah I'm fine with that, it doesn't matter one bit if your gun looks like a tigerbear.
Kanluwen wrote:You're not "shopping around for the best bargain". You're "shopping around for an in-game advantage".
I don't see any difference. Anyone can preorder the game at GameStop for the same amount of money as anywhere else.
Really this isn't a legitimate problem that a consumer could have with GameStop. I can see WalMart having a problem with it. So far you have complained on behalf of developers, publishers, and retailers but not yet consumers.
But you could have done the same at zero additional expense. The fact that you didn't and then got mad about is a complaint against yourself rather than GameStop.
Manchu wrote:But you could have done the same at zero additional expense. The fact that you didn't and then got mad about is a complaint against yourself rather than GameStop.
Just playing the devil's advocate, what if there are no GameStops near where you live?
Manchu wrote:But you could have done the same at zero additional expense. The fact that you didn't and then got mad about is a complaint against yourself rather than GameStop.
Just playing the devil's advocate, what if there are no GameStops near where you live?
If some random kid can drive 700 miles to get a dorito taco from Taco Bell, I think anyone else can manage to drive to a game stop. I doubt I've ever seen one farther off than 100 miles
Manchu wrote:But you could have done the same at zero additional expense. The fact that you didn't and then got mad about is a complaint against yourself rather than GameStop.
Just playing the devil's advocate, what if there are no GameStops near where you live?
If some random kid can drive 700 miles to get a dorito taco from Taco Bell, I think anyone else can manage to drive to a game stop. I doubt I've ever seen one farther off than 100 miles
Manchu wrote:But you could have done the same at zero additional expense. The fact that you didn't and then got mad about is a complaint against yourself rather than GameStop.
But again, you missed the point. It's an in-game advantage at--as you put it--"zero additional expense".
Your argument is that it's "shopping around". Not everyone pays attention to preorder bonuses; nor do they have an interest in buying such a bonus when it unbalances the game.
Game Stop KNOWS it can do this crap and get away with it because they are one of the biggest chains out there, and given that people can (and do) trade in /sell back their "old" multiplayer heavy titles for the next "hit multiplayer title" to Game Stop--there's a problem here and it's not the developer or publisher.
GameStop relies on people paying attention to this. If GameStop had it's way, all people who bought the game would have the in-game advantage because they would only buy from GameStop. In effect, any one who cares about being competitive should do business with the company that allows them to be the most competitive.
There really is no problem here whatsoever, except for competitive players who don't pay attention to companies that spend a lot of money trying to get their attention.
Um, it's not; if I spend sixty bucks for a pre order, and you spend sixty bucks for a pre order, and your pre order is better than mine, it's not based on money spent because we both spent the same (Sixty bucks).
Trolls who accuse others of trolling because they have no counterargument? Nice.
Defending Gamestop is really the scummiest form of stockholm syndrome.
Slarg232 wrote:Um, it's not; if I spend sixty bucks for a pre order, and you spend sixty bucks for a pre order, and your pre order is better than mine, it's not based on money spent because we both spent the same (Sixty bucks).
dogma wrote:It isn't based on money spent, its based on where you shop.
There are competitive advantages given away based on money spent, but they aren't tied to retailers, they're tied to producers.
It's not based on the location the money is spent, but it's based on where and when your money is spent.
If you ignore the silly technicalities that you're all so hung up on, if Gamestop has an exclusive preorder bonus that makes my weapons better/different/etc, it's an unfair advantage. It cheapens the multiplayer experience and creates an uneven playing field.
Slarg232 wrote:I agree that it is based upon where you shop, to say that is it based on how much money you spend is blatantly false.
Yes, yes, yes. Your blatant misinterpretation of other peoples' arguments happens to be blatantly false. Let's move on.
Ok, spell it out to me slowly and painfully; how is me spending $60 bucks for no extra content, while you spend $60 for the same game with additional content PAYING extra for an advantage?
Trolls who accuse others of trolling because they have no counterargument? Nice.
Isn't that what you're doing here:
Defending Gamestop is really the scummiest form of stockholm syndrome.
Also, this is no defense of GameSpot. It's a clarification that GameStop's interests are more in line with the consumer's compared to the publishers. Kanluwen wasn't able to show how any of the practices he mentioned were bad for the consumer.
Melissia doesn't have an argument. She posted a totally inapplicable statement and followed it with a smarmy bit of trolling.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Absolutionis wrote:If you ignore the silly technicalities that you're all so hung up on, if Gamestop has an exclusive preorder bonus that makes my weapons better/different/etc, it's an unfair advantage. It cheapens the multiplayer experience and creates an uneven playing field.
The only possible way that it's an unfair advantage is if every single purchaser of the game in question is not able to obtain the bonus content. And I grant that it might be the case that folks in some countries can't do. But it's still not paying for an advantage, except inasmuch as dogma mentioned: GameStop is "paying" (and even this is probably figurative) to pass on a free advantage to every person who cares to be their customer and can be.
How is the idea that "One can buy from a vendor to gain an in-game advantage on day one" good for the consumer?
If Game Stop didn't allow trade-ins for store credit(which is usually their way of saying "We'll give you more value if you trade it in and then we'll give you money towards that shiny new title you crave!") to count towards new games, etc--you might have a point that it's "just a choice of smart shopping".
But that's not the case. Game Stop starts running ads on places like Cartoon Network/Adult Swim the week before the game comes out, when most people who are actually excited for a game because of having played its predecessors, or whatever else have preordered from a vendor which is close to them or they had a coupon for or whatever.
They will usually time it to coincide with a "Trade in X games, get Y towards your preorder of Z!" deal as well, usually with "X games" being relatively new titles which they're selling preowned for $49.99 rather than $59.99.
Slarg232 wrote:I agree that it is based upon where you shop, to say that is it based on how much money you spend is blatantly false.
Yes, yes, yes. Your blatant misinterpretation of other peoples' arguments happens to be blatantly false. Let's move on.
Ok, spell it out to me slowly and painfully; how is me spending $60 bucks for no extra content, while you spend $60 for the same game with additional content PAYING extra for an advantage?
You fail to grasp that nobody mentioned anything about paying extra. You fabricated that little bit on your own, misinterpreted Kanluwen's and Melissia's argument against preorder bonuses, and decided to argue against a point that nobody held.
Manchu wrote:
Absolutionis wrote:
Manchu wrote:Wow, trolling. Nice.
Trolls who accuse others of trolling because they have no counterargument? Nice.
Isn't that what you're doing here:
Defending Gamestop is really the scummiest form of stockholm syndrome.
I'm only reiterating your phrase from earlier. "Troll" is not synonymous with someone that simply disagrees with you.
Manchu wrote:Also, this is no defense of GameSpot. It's a clarification that GameStop's interests are more in line with the consumer's compared to the publishers. Kanluwen wasn't able to show how any of the practices he mentioned were bad for the consumer.
Melissia doesn't have an argument. She posted a totally inapplicable statement and followed it with a smarmy bit of trolling.
Providing an unfair advantage based on location and time where your money is spent is not in-line with consumer interests. People that missed the promotion due to time constraints gets utterly screwed. People that cannot buy from Gamestop get utterly screwed.
We end up with a situation where some people have Gamestop-exclusive items and others do not. It is not an even playing field and thus cheapens the entire experience. It becomes un-fun when new players, already at a skill handicap, end up having a mechanical handicap that they can never overcome.
Kanluwen wasnt 'unable' to do anything. You simply don't agree with his point and dismissed it.
Melissia's abrasive comment was simply a retort to your dismissive one-liner.
As I was telling you earlier though, Best Buy does the same thing; trade in games for store credit that can be used for that shiny new game that's coming out. Sure, not to the extent of advertising, but then Best Buy also lets you buy TV's and such with that money.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Absolutionis wrote:
Slarg232 wrote:
Absolutionis wrote:
Slarg232 wrote:I agree that it is based upon where you shop, to say that is it based on how much money you spend is blatantly false.
Yes, yes, yes. Your blatant misinterpretation of other peoples' arguments happens to be blatantly false. Let's move on.
Ok, spell it out to me slowly and painfully; how is me spending $60 bucks for no extra content, while you spend $60 for the same game with additional content PAYING extra for an advantage?
You fail to grasp that nobody mentioned anything about paying extra. You fabricated that little bit on your own, misinterpreted Kanluwen's and Melissia's argument against preorder bonuses, and decided to argue against a point that nobody held.
Melissia wrote:There is a problem here, giving competitive advantage based off of money spent ruins the gameplay.
@Absolutionis: Do you consider people who can afford to buy more of substantially similar games and/or afford to play them more often to be "buying" an advantage?
@Kanluwen: Allowing customers to get more trade-in value for a pre-order or new game is bad for customers ... ?
Oh you think that people who have money to spend on games during pre-order or at launch have an unfair in-game disadvantage over people because of free bonus content?
I'm not sure where this is going. The point is that no one is paying more for an in-game advantage. GameStop passing on exclusive content for free to its customers is not a "competitive advantage based off of money" in any meaningful sense unless you're also willing to count something like "able to play eight hours a day" as the same kind of advantage.
Manchu wrote:
@Kanluwen: Allowing customers to get more trade-in value for a pre-order or new game is bad for customers ... ?
Since I can tell that this is one of those times where it seems we might be having a communications breakdown, here we go:
Say you play Super Soldier XVII's multiplayer all the time. You've got all the multiplayer achievements, but you haven't once touched the single player. Not because it's bad--but because you only care about the Imaginary Trophy Race that is the stat leaderboards.
You then find out that Super Soldier XVIII comes out--NEXT WEEK! And all your buddies are getting it! So you have to get it too, since they won't be playing Super Soldier XVII with Super Soldier XVIII coming out next week.
Luckily, you find that out because you're watching Family Guy and Game Stop has paid for ad time to show you all those awesome preorder bonuses that they have. Since you played Super Soldier XVII, and obtained it this same very way not two years prior, you know that by going to Game Stop you're going to get some gamebreaking bonuses for Super Soldier XVIII--because that's what happened with Super Soldier XVII!
But wait...
Game Stop is also having--according to the ad--a deal where you can trade in four of the most popular titles at the time(Super Soldier XVII, Fastdriver 4, Ancient Reading Material X: The Darker Stuff Comes Back, and Sillypants II: The Wrecker) and get 50% more trade-in credit. Upon showing up to trade it in, you're then told that the trade-in credit only applies to preorders made THAT DAY...so you have to use it all or you're boned!
So you preorder Super Soldier XVIII without exchanging any money, and preorder Fastdriver 5, and preorder Ancient Reading Material XI: The Even Darker Stuff Shows Up This Time. Super Soldier XVIII is the only one whose entire cost is covered, and you put $5 and $5 towards Fastdriver 5 and Ancient Reading Material XI: The Even Darker Stuff Shows Up This Time.
Game Stop then goes and puts those titles up for sale for prices ranging from $29.99(Sillypants II: The Wrecker) to $39.99 (Ancient Reading Material X: The Darker Stuff Comes Back) and then $49.99 (Fastdriver 4 and Super Soldier XVII).
They effectively have set it up so that they're gaining $179.96 for four games which cost YOU $59.99 from them new.
First of all Kan, those are hilarious game titles and I would likely play the Ancient Reading Materials series, which I am guessing was developed somewhere in Maryland.
Second, you've estbalished that what GameStop does is smart for them. But you haven't established that it harms the guy who traded in the games (after all, he no longer wants them or, if he does want them, he doesn't have to trade them in) or anyone who might want to buy the games he just traded in. If anything, you've shown how all of those consumers win out and explained how GameStop, by relying on consumer self-interest, has made a lot of money.
Manchu wrote:
@Kanluwen: Allowing customers to get more trade-in value for a pre-order or new game is bad for customers ... ?
Since I can tell that this is one of those times where it seems we might be having a communications breakdown, here we go:
Say you play Super Soldier XVII's multiplayer all the time. You've got all the multiplayer achievements, but you haven't once touched the single player. Not because it's bad--but because you only care about the Imaginary Trophy Race that is the stat leaderboards.
You then find out that Super Soldier XVIII comes out--NEXT WEEK! And all your buddies are getting it! So you have to get it too, since they won't be playing Super Soldier XVII with Super Soldier XVIII coming out next week.
Luckily, you find that out because you're watching Family Guy and Game Stop has paid for ad time to show you all those awesome preorder bonuses that they have. Since you played Super Soldier XVII, and obtained it this same very way not two years prior, you know that by going to Game Stop you're going to get some gamebreaking bonuses for Super Soldier XVIII--because that's what happened with Super Soldier XVII!
But wait...
Game Stop is also having--according to the ad--a deal where you can trade in four of the most popular titles at the time(Super Soldier XVII, Fastdriver 4, Ancient Reading Material X: The Darker Stuff Comes Back, and Sillypants II: The Wrecker) and get 50% more trade-in credit. Upon showing up to trade it in, you're then told that the trade-in credit only applies to preorders made THAT DAY...so you have to use it all or you're boned!
So you preorder Super Soldier XVIII without exchanging any money, and preorder Fastdriver 5, and preorder Ancient Reading Material XI: The Even Darker Stuff Shows Up This Time. Super Soldier XVIII is the only one whose entire cost is covered, and you put $5 and $5 towards Fastdriver 5 and Ancient Reading Material XI: The Even Darker Stuff Shows Up This Time.
Game Stop then goes and puts those titles up for sale for prices ranging from $29.99(Sillypants II: The Wrecker) to $39.99 (Ancient Reading Material X: The Darker Stuff Comes Back) and then $49.99 (Fastdriver 4 and Super Soldier XVII).
They effectively have set it up so that they're gaining $179.96 for four games which cost YOU $59.99 from them new.
Who in the world is going to buy the older version when the new one is coming out next week?
In the immediate weeks preceding and following release, people who didn't play the last game will buy it (if they have the money) to catch up on the story line or to start getting used to the game mechanics. Its not like its a large number of people, but it allows GS to stock up on a item people may have renewed interest in and to encourage the purchase of the new product.
Slarg, that would be me. I sometimes don't get on board for game 1 until after seeing that it was successful enough to lead to a media frenzy over game 2.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For example, I am strongly thinking about getting RE5 and RER sometime before November.
LordofHats wrote:In the immediate weeks preceding and following release, people who didn't play the last game will buy it (if they have the money) to catch up on the story line or to start getting used to the game mechanics.
True on the game mechanics bit, but if they are that interested in the story that they want to know what happened in the previous one, and they are cheap enough to buy used, they are probably smart enough to google the cutscenes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:Slarg, that would be me. I sometimes don't get on board for game 1 until after seeing that it was successful enough to lead to a media frenzy over game 2.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For example, I am strongly thinking about getting RE5 and RER sometime before November.
Oddly I seem to be one of the only people who will actually watch an entire "Lets Play" series to catch up on something. It takes the same amount of time and is absolutely free XD
Heard it's awful. Watched LPs on YT which seemed to confirm this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:Oddly I seem to be one of the only people who will actually watch an entire "Lets Play" series to catch up on something. It takes the same amount of time and is absolutely free XD
fething brilliant. And I already watch LPs! As reviews mostly ...
LordofHats wrote:Oddly I seem to be one of the only people who will actually watch an entire "Lets Play" series to catch up on something. It takes the same amount of time and is absolutely free XD
Meh, I did that with the Original Splatterhouses. Yeah, 2010 had them all in one package, but I just wasn't into the ball breaking difficulty when I just wanted to know what happened.
Although this is another instance in which DLC feths everything up. If I don't sit through an LP of ME2 with all the DLC, I'd think it was gak. And I mean that. I played ME2 at launch on 360 and hated it but bought the PS3 version one year later after listening to folks talk it up here on Dakka (yes, I do change my mind about things when people on a forum make good points) and with all the DLC in place I thought it was much, much better.
Heard it's awful. Watched LPs on YT which seemed to confirm this.
It's not too bad if you have people to play with, though it would be better with more maps. Naturally, these are already on their way but you have to pay for them.
They do quite a few things right, like the Quick Draw system that lets you immediately pull out your pistol and fire it with the Left Stick while holding LB/L1, and the character classes are varied and fun. All of them have their uses, if it's not readily apparant.
Manchu wrote:First of all Kan, those are hilarious game titles and I would likely play the Ancient Reading Materials series, which I am guessing was developed somewhere in Maryland.
Yes. Chevy Chase, of course!
Second, you've established that what GameStop does is smart for them. But you haven't established that it harms the guy who wants traded in the games (after all, he no longer wants them or, if he does want them, he doesn't have to trade them in) or anyone who might want to buy the games he just traded in. If anything, you've shown how all of those consumers win out and explained how GameStop, by relying on consumer self-interest, has made a lot of money.
Here's how it harms the guy who wants to trade in the games:
He's not doing it because he wants to. He's trading it in to play keep up because developers are trying to screw over Game Stop's profiteering and releasing the same game with one or two new features(Maybe this time it's dual wielding shotguns!) after they've just released the last piece of DLC. People who genuinely preferred playing Super Soldier XVII to Super Soldier XVIII are going to be stuck with long search times between matches--until the servers are finally just shut down, so if they want to play with their buddies they have to buy Super Soldier XVIII and if they don't do it by preordering at Game Stop, they're at a disadvantage from day one in multiplayer.
In the end the gamer has lost out $60(the price of a whole game!) simply by comparing the prices of the game new to Game Stop's resale prices. That's not counting the fact that even getting 50% more trade-in credit...the gamer only got $70 to put towards the games the gamer "wanted"(read: was forced to preorder because the trade-in credit decays). The gamer has paid off one game, but the gamer will have to put in $109.98 to finish paying off the other two(not counting sales tax of course).
It's not a "blindingly obvious" thing, but it's something I've had time to think about watching the trends on my friends list for Xbox Live. My younger brother is one of the people who salivates for Game Stop preorders because he knows he'll get to "pwn noobs" on day one with them.
I don't usually go in for multiplayer, which is why I was originally not excited about ORC. (I had even heard it was a MMO at one point.) I think there's already DLC up for it, too. Maybe a map.
Kanluwen wrote:He's not doing it because he wants to. He's trading it in to play keep up ...
Even that doesn't make sense. If the consumer in question didn't have the cash to pay pre-order/launch price and GameStop didn't let him trade for boosted values, he wouldn't be able to do it at all or at least not with out trading even more games, in your view, "against his will."
Automatically Appended Next Post: Conquest was absolute gak! That was the first game I ever traded in, which is something I almost never do. I didn't even want it in my house. I traded it in like three days after launch and got something like 25 bucks for it -- and even though that stung I knew even then that it was 25 bucks more than I would have gotten without GS.
A friend was visiting after Christmas so I bought WitN for us to play. We beat it in no time and I was beyond unimpressed. I asked a GS dude how much they'd trade it for and he said something like $15. I nearly gak a brick. Thankfully, my friend wanted it and packed it in his suitcase while secretly leaving me $60 in cash.
I know GS is not my friend. Friends give you much closer to what you paid. But at least GS will give you something.
Also, never buy any game that says "Lord of the Rings" on it.
Kanluwen wrote:He's not doing it because he wants to. He's trading it in to play keep up ...
Even that doesn't make sense. If the consumer in question didn't have the cash to pay pre-order/launch price and GameStop didn't let him trade for boosted values, he wouldn't be able to do it at all or at least not with out trading even more games, in your view, "against his will."
I didn't say he didn't have the cash to pay preorder/launch price(technically: launch price is irrelevant as the MINUTE it ticks over to the release date, Game Stop pulls their preorder options and bonuses)...but there's a perception of value there which is misleading.
By timing the "trade-in deals" just right, Game Stop sets it up so that they can shaft you out of your trade-in values(especially by doing things such as "credit only applies on this day" or by requiring certain AAA titles to be paid off in full for a preorder) and still make the maximum amount of profit (which mind you; does not actually go to the publisher or developer since it's a trade-in which is resold) off a title which they know will be outdated within the next week.
Manchu wrote:Conquest was absolute gak! That was the first game I ever traded in, which is something I almost never do. I didn't even want it in my house. I traded it in like three days after launch and got something like 25 bucks for it -- and even though that stung I knew even then that it was 25 bucks more than I would have gotten without GS.
I actually enjoyed Conquest. I still play it sometimes.
The only reason I'd want to get rid of it though is that I've got too many games sitting in my game trolley. I figure I can clean out the titles which no longer have MP support--at all-- first.
Kan, if you don't want to trade in your games and you have the money to buy a game at launch then you shouldn't trade it your games. Again, this is a complaint that the consumer can only file against himself.
Meanwhile, if you don't have the cash or credit then GS is giving you an alternate means to get the game. No one is forcing you to trade just like no one is forcing you to buy. If anything, offering more value for trades on the game you want is a good thing for you. Sure, it's also good for GS. But being good for GS doesn't necessarily make it bad for you.
Manchu wrote:Kan, if you don't want to trade in your games and you have the money to buy a game at launch then you shouldn't trade it your games. Again, this is a complaint that the consumer can only file against himself.
Meanwhile, if you don't have the cash or credit then GS is giving you an alternate means to get the game. No one is forcing you to trade just like no one is forcing you to buy. If anything, offering more value for trades on the game you want is a good thing for you. Sure, it's also good for GS. But being good for GS doesn't necessarily make it bad for you.
That is the publishers' line, not the consumers'.
Okay. This is getting us nowhere, I think, because you're so insistent upon this being "the publisher's line".
I'll try again though:
You can have the money to buy a game at launch. You can trade in your games all you want. That's not the problem, and that's not why I'm saying it's "bad for the consumer".
You are still doing it in such a way that it is only being done to pad Game Stop's pocket. They PURPOSELY have set themselves up to be the place which people will turn to by practicing shady deals and throwing their weight around at publishers/developers by threatening to not stock the game unless they get an "exclusive bonus" which only THEY get. Having a single retailer being able to push around the publishers and developers?
That's not a good thing when it can affect the content of the game.
Well, now you've completely skipped back to a previous line of attack.
Which has the same answers:
(1) You haven't shown any "shady dealing" that GS engages in (aside from an anecdote about one employee which even you admit is certainly not a GS policy).
(2) You haven't shown how GS "throwing its weight around" is bad for the consumer. GS leverages additional content out of publishers and then passes that on for free to its customers.
Hell, it's not even bad for publishers (which is more likely why they do it than a major business partner threatening them): GS is a much more effective distributor and co-marketer of games than anyone else. How many release events have you seen at Walmart? How many displays at Target? How many Target employees have ever pressured you to pre-order any game much less every game. I'm aware that some retailers do these things but none do them so much in so many places as GS. Publishers are likely glad to hand over some token map or item in exchange for all that selling power.
So we come back to a point of you defending developers/publishers rather than customers although you keep insisting it's all about what's good for the customer. The customer thinks he's doing fine at GS and he's not stupid. Neither is GS. Together, a lot of customers have gotten to play the games they wanted when they wanted to and GS has made a lot of money.
The only folks losing anything on this bonanza are developers and publishers (who also benefit from it, but they want every last drop of blood out of the stone). And the publishers' response? Screw over the customer with incomplete games and D1DLC.
Manchu wrote:Well, now you've completely skipped back to a previous line of attack.
Which has the same answers:
(1) You haven't shown any "shady dealing" that GS engages in (aside from an anecdote about one employee which even you admit is certainly not a GS policy).
"Limited time offers" for trade-ins before a big title release and then reselling the outdated title for almost full retail price isn't a shady dealing? Interesting...
(2) You haven't shown how GS "throwing its weight around" is bad for the consumer. GS leverages additional content out of publishers and then passes that on for free to its customers.
But they DON'T pass it on for free to players. That's the bloody point I've been trying to make. Game Stop may pass it on for free to THEIR "customers"; everyone else either has to pay for it or just not plain get it.
It's also worth noting that in cases like Ghost Recon's "Signature Edition", those preorder bonuses are limited to a certain percentage of titles that the vendor will receive, but Game Stop does not out and out tell you that. You'll preorder and do the whole trade-in bonanza thing, then get shafted from the preorder bonuses. Those "Signature Editions" are also something that Game Stop throws a hissy fit about, as if they do not get a larger percentage for their own shops than anyone else then they won't stock it.
Hell, it's not even bad for publishers (which is more likely why they do it than a major business partner threatening them): GS is a much more effective distributor and co-marketer of games than anyone else. How many release events have you seen at Walmart?
Wal-Marts do a lot of release events for the "Big Titles". Killzone 3, Halo games, Call of Duty games, etc all get release events.
Admittedly it's not as big of a deal as Game Stop since Wal-Mart is a 24/7 store while Game Stop isn't, that doesn't mean that it's any different than Game Stop doing their release events--which are for the Big Titles too.
How many displays at Target? How many Target employees have ever pressured you to pre-order any game much less every game. I'm aware that some retailers do these things but none do them so much in so many places as GS. Publishers are likely glad to hand over some token map or item in exchange for all that selling power.
I've seen quite a few displays at Target...but again, it's for the big titles. The same titles that Game Stop has displays for. Target employees have pressured me to preorder certain games, but usually the employees are people who I've played with on Live and they want to ensure that I'm going to be able to have a copy on launch day to play with them.
So we come back to a point of you defending developers/publishers rather than customers although you keep insisting it's all about what's good for the customer. The customer thinks he's doing fine at GS and he's not stupid. Neither is GS. Together, a lot of customers have gotten to play the games they wanted when they wanted to and GS has made a lot of money.
But there's the rub.
Customers/players have to jump into a game already unbalanced by the simple fact that people preordered with a company which took its inspiration from a Ponzi scheme.
The only folks losing anything on this bonanza are developers and publishers (who also benefit from it, but they want every last drop of blood out of the stone). And the publishers' response? Screw over the customer with incomplete games and D1DLC.
D1DLC almost always applies to single player games; and inevitably it is
"Limited time offers" for trade-ins before a big title release and then reselling the outdated title for almost full retail price isn't a shady dealing?
No. But what exactly do you mean by shady anyway?
But they DON'T pass it on for free to players.
What? (1) I didn't say they did. (2) Why would they? (3) That still doesn't hurt anyone who can shop at GS, which is basically everyone in the continental US (as far as I know, may be more).
Customers/players have to jump into a game already unbalanced by the simple fact that people preordered with a company which took its inspiration from a Ponzi scheme.
The first part of that argument (about "unbalanced" gameplay) is illegitimate, as I have shown above. The second part of the argument (about Ponzi inspiration) is simply baseless ad hominem.
"Limited time offers" for trade-ins before a big title release and then reselling the outdated title for almost full retail price isn't a shady dealing?
No. But what exactly do you mean by shady anyway?
Is said business practice morally or economically questionable?
If yes: refer to "shady". As you pointed out: there are people who will buy the game used before the release of a new title to play it through before the new one "if they've heard enough good reviews"--and they'll be paying $10 less than the brand new title; and maybe getting $15-$20 tops back on that. That's all profit for Game Stop no matter how you spin it.
But they DON'T pass it on for free to players.
What? (1) I didn't say they did. (2) Why would they? (3) That still doesn't hurt anyone who can shop at GS, which is basically everyone in the continental US (as far as I know, may be more).
Yeah, but you see my point was that "customers" isn't simply those who are buying from Game Stop. It's those who are buying the title, period.
I guess that might have been the sticking point that we weren't meeting across.
Customers/players have to jump into a game already unbalanced by the simple fact that people preordered with a company which took its inspiration from a Ponzi scheme.
The first part of that argument (about "unbalanced" gameplay) is illegitimate, as I have shown above.
Is the multiplayer component being altered by the existence of things which the preorders for a specific business are receiving?
If yes: it's "being unbalanced".
I am by no means a "pro player", but I can say rather reliably that when an item unlocks at level 38 (and is balanced to reflect that) for everyone who did not preorder through a specific business is being unlocked the minute you start playing--with the most powerful ammunition option to boot!-- there's a balance issue going on.
The second part of the argument (about Ponzi inspiration) is simply baseless ad hominem.
Oh yeah?
Game Stop's business model right now relies upon presenting an air of legitimacy by having the new games for sale, but they make a point of "We'll buy your used games, as long as they work!" and I know for a fact that the Game Stop near me has more used titles for sale than new.
And not because they sell out of the new titles. They order a limited number (usually the amount of people who preorder, and a half dozen more tops) and make most of their sales by trade-ins/resales.
Kanluwen wrote:Game Stop's business model right now relies upon presenting an air of legitimacy by having the new games for sale, but they make a point of "We'll buy your used games, as long as they work!" and I know for a fact that the Game Stop near me has more used titles for sale than new.
And not because they sell out of the new titles. They order a limited number (usually the amount of people who preorder, and a half dozen more tops) and make most of their sales by trade-ins/resales.
I fail to see how this is illegitimate. Over the years they've realized that their most important source of revenue is in used titles. And frankly so many people pre-order these days they'd probably get by order a number of copies to match the pre-orders plus two or three more. Most people don't pick up a game in Game Stop during launch week without a pre-order.
For new games Game Stop competes with numerous retailers. In used games they're the only game in town (for the most part). Its their most important business arm and they started stepping it up several years ago. Back before, probably 2007, you'd rarely see the massive wall of used games. It would be a wall of new games + a small section of used. But people get new copies from numerous sources and most games hit their peak sales within the first month and then drop off. They design their store to meet market demand. That's not illegitimate its standard practice.
That's all profit for Game Stop no matter how you spin it.
But nothing about that makes it immoral or unethical. I'd like to see you analyze GW this way, Kan.
Yeah, but you see my point was that "customers" isn't simply those who are buying from Game Stop.
As Melissia would say, "irrelevant." All customers could be, and if they want the free and exclusive bonus content, should be GS customers -- and they need to do nothing more to be a GS customer than they do to buy the game from any other retailer.
[same points about balance as before]
The feature is available to everyone who could otherwise purchase the game at launch. There is no more or less imbalance involved than not playing 24 hours a day or not starting at the same time as the very first players. And let me know of a blockbuster that has been significantly undermined by this kind of bonus content pre-order imbalance please.
Oh yeah?
Yeah. All the stuff you just posted is nothing like any kind of scheme in the sense that scheme means something illegal or even underhanded.
I say "legitimacy" because quite frankly at this point, Game Stop is little more than a rental agency for the Big Titles.
I used the term "Ponzi scheme" because quite frankly, that's what it is. They offer higher returns on "investments"(read: trade-ins), but in order to do so they need to do something to attract their customers to keep the whole system going:
Enter preorder bonuses.
That's all profit for Game Stop no matter how you spin it.
But nothing about that makes it immoral or unethical. I'd like to see you analyze GW this way, Kan.
Pft. I know GW's only in it for the money. I don't think that anything they do is about "being good for the customer".
[same points about balance as before]
The feature is available to everyone who could otherwise purchase the game at launch. There is no more or less imbalance involved than not playing 8 hours a day or not starting at the same time as the very first players. And let me know of a blockbuster that has been significantly undermined by this kind of bonus content pre-order imbalance please.
BF3's multiplayer.
Like I told you earlier: those 3 guns that early on makes a huge difference in how fast one progresses. It was enough of a difference that with the "Back to Karkand" content(which released not all that long ago), EA was basically forced to include the "Physical Warfare Package" as part of the DLC to even things out for new players.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:It has become apparent that you do not know what a Ponzi scheme is.
Oh reaaaaaaaaaaaaallly now?
A Ponzi scheme is a system which is built upon the idea of promising someone a higher return upon their initial investment, with the investor being made aware that the initial investment may not be as high as they could be. As time wears on, the payouts increase steadily but require the addition of more investors lured by promises of high payouts. The initial investors will see increased returns, but it's all being paid out of the new entrants within the scheme.
Eventually the whole thing will reach a certain point where it will either be completely untenable as people have caught onto the whole shebang or because the authorities have caught on to it and stopped it.
Manchu wrote:BF3??? Seriously? Yeah, that was a total disaster for EA.
Or at least on meth it was.
You didn't specify who it was a disaster for, Manchu.
I know a lot of the people I play with on consoles were utterly turned off from the game during the first few weeks because of the sheer number of rank 5s with DAO-12 shotguns and Frag Rounds. It was something that was not available to ANYONE BUT GAMESTOP customers for 37 ranks--and usually another two ranks to obtain the Frag Rounds.
Given that the server rotations for those first few weeks as well focused upon the cramped quarters of maps like Operation: Metro or Grand Bazaar--it was a special kind of hell.
Kanluwen wrote:Oh reaaaaaaaaaaaaallly now?
Google FTW. But it's too late. You already revealed your true depth of knowledge by calling GS trade policy a Ponzi scheme.
Pft. My "Organized Criminal Activities" textbook would take offense at being called Google...
Like GS, some are, some aren't, but they will always have an air of desperation and sadness that cling to either becuase it is where people go to sell things far below their worth to get their next fix.
Manchu, I think you and my dad would get along perfectly.
I'll give you an example of what my dad did.
Spoiler:
He opened a gas station on a spare lot in the middle of almost nowhere. When it first started, the competitor gas station in busy intersections
made a bet with him that it'll fail within the 3 month of operation.
Bet accepted.
My dad, what did he do. He told my mom to make contracts with the soap, towel companies.
It started with a few taxi ( In taiwan taxi are VERY COMMON ) we would give out stamp cards, for every 4 visit you get a bar of soap
and every X number of visit you get a towel. Now, its hot in Taiwan, and Taxi drivers dont use AC when not taking customers.
So they are incredibly happy with free towel and soap, soon words spread and all the Taxi company come to our gas station.
Words travel fast, our first month of operation we surpass the profit of the largest country owned gas station in our city.
To beat us, they copied our gifts. But the customers are quite loyal to us, after all no one ever gave them gift prior to this heated competition.
Then my dad decided to take it up a notch. Remember our gas station is in the middle of nowhere? Thats right, our lot is 3 times larger than inner city gas stations.
We added 2 automated car wash facility ( again can redeem stamp ) and free hand wash area ( this is important as in Taiwan our water costs money )
As well as increased the number of pumps, double the shift of workers to 24/7 .
Within 7 month, our profit are the highest in the city, and we held to the record for 2 years straight.
Huhuhuhu, Gamestop is awesome because they are like my dad :'D
@ melissa and kan.
You know how you guys always defend GW and say they do what they do because they are business and not charity?
So why should gamestop be any different?
You guys talk about the developers and not getting their fair share, sounds like an incident at our gas station.
See, the staff there are all students, mostly university. One day the staff captain was bribed by our competitor to walk off / quit.
In Taiwan they didnt have nice easy Unions like you guys are used to, so what did my dad do?
"All the staff that stayed behind, you guys are awesome. for this week you guys get pay quadruple, and your friends that need a job tell them to come
they'll be hired right away. And all of you are promoted. This encouraged loyalty and made them work even harder, because the new staff are all friends of the loyal staff,
the efficiency and company morale was boosted even higher.
When we found out why the original staff quited via bribery my dad during the gas industry chuckled and said that was too easy.
He is the most amazing guy to me!
And you guys are too spoiled, thats why the economy in USA is so bad, and you blame Mexicans to steal your work because they'll do what you guys are too spoiled to do :'D
TL;DR? basically I say "deal with it" to this thread, and of course
Ya console games is truly where the money is made.
Consumers love the used game industry but producers cannot stand it because they are making nothing off the sell of their game after it has been resold. Although producers are beginning to get money back from the producer with codes that are needed to play online or required-DLC to play online. Were seeing this with Battlefield 3, Space Marine and many others.
It will be interesting to see if Microsoft does however makes it so that if you buy a game it can only be used on the console it was bought for........ That rumor has been circling about the next Xbox.........
I can't imagine Microsoft or SOny are that stupid (there are rumors for the next Sony station as well). If something actually kills the games industry it will be the publishers and the hoops they keep making that consumers have to jump through just to play a game.
Ahtman wrote:GS isn't a ponzi scheme, it is just a pawn shop that specializes in video games.
No, it's really not. GameStop is exactly like a used car dealer. They give you a low payment for your used goods and resell them at grossly inflated prices.
Pawn shops are basically a bank that deals in collateralized loans. The reason pawn shops are seen as shady is because they're essentially a lender of last resort, so people who can't get credit elsewhere will give up expensive collateral in order to get secure a loan, and usually won't be able to pay it back (allowing the pawn shop to sell the collateral).
LordofHats wrote:I can't imagine Microsoft or SOny are that stupid (there are rumors for the next Sony station as well). If something actually kills the games industry it will be the publishers and the hoops they keep making that consumers have to jump through just to play a game.
So the publishers aren't stupid ,but they are stupid?
LordofHats wrote:I can't imagine Microsoft or SOny are that stupid (there are rumors for the next Sony station as well). If something actually kills the games industry it will be the publishers and the hoops they keep making that consumers have to jump through just to play a game.
So the publishers aren't stupid ,but they are stupid?
I'll probably end up being wrong again (I've been saying "no one is that stupid" for years and I usually end up being wrong). Publishers and the console makers will do what they've always done and what GW has always done for that matter. Maximize short term profits while slowly killing their long term sustainability.
LordofHats wrote:I can't imagine Microsoft or SOny are that stupid (there are rumors for the next Sony station as well). If something actually kills the games industry it will be the publishers and the hoops they keep making that consumers have to jump through just to play a game.
So the publishers aren't stupid ,but they are stupid?
I'll probably end up being wrong again (I've been saying "no one is that stupid" for years and I usually end up being wrong). Publishers and the console makers will do what they've always done and what GW has always done for that matter. Maximize short term profits while slowly killing their long term sustainability.
Someone was asking for numbers earlier, and lo and behold...
The Penny Arcade Report actually has an article today about "A War on Used Games Is A War On Gamestop: Here Comes the Science" These are the 2011 sales figures for Gamestop; which is from the company's 10k Form(no link provided--the link in the article only links to the Wikipedia entry for a 10k form).
These are the 2011 gross profit figures
I suppose I'll at least get to laugh in... I'll give the industry five to six years before the house of cards publishers are building for themselves comes tumbling down.
Unless something happens in the mean time, which I guess I'm optimistic enough to hope for that.
@Kan, nice chart find. EDIT: Though, like most things produced by Penny Arcade these days, their conclusions are laughably bad.
The only reason used games are such a high percentage of profit is the profit margin. Likely, the total $$$ brought in from new games is higher than from used, but for Game Stop the profit from used is much high because a new game might as well be worth half of a used game where they're concerned.
As some dumb math:
4048 x 60 = 242880
2629 x 55 =144595
They lose a lot of the new sales "profits" recapping the purchase and marketing, but used sales might as well be a complete gain for them.
Chowderhead wrote:Basically, it's a win/win for everyone.
Except the developers.
I'm not sure why. As someone who's not really up and up on economics, could you give me a quick lowdown on why not?
Every sold and resold used game is money that does not go to the developers. These players still expect the developers to patch the game (which requires man-hours put in to the game that isn't making money), to provide servers for game authentication (which costs money to run), to provide matchmaking and/or servers for the gameplay itself (in the case for multiplayer, which costs money to run), and to generally support the game (which costs money and hours to run, which could have been spent on the next project or a sequel), but they have not actually payed for the game itself in the eyes of the developer.
In truth, producers and developers don't just "not gain" money off of used game buyers, they actively LOSE money.
Now, if a developer made it so that noone could play multiplayer or get patch updates without either having a new game or paying the developer directly (Through DLC, a multiplayer unlock code, or other method), the producer/developer would have no reason to complain, this is true.
Chowderhead wrote:Basically, it's a win/win for everyone.
Except the developers.
Please explain.
I don't even know. For most developers you can't even distinguish them from the publisher anymore. Bioware? They're all EA employees. What's good for EA is good for them. Same with DICE, 343, Relic, Take2, Blizzard etc. Most major developers have been absorbed into the corporate body of the publisher, a lot of what were indie developers have become self-publishers.
I could see an argument that the middle man developer might be getting hurt by the current system, but that's not a problem with used game sales its a problem with the strangle hold a publisher can hold over the actual maker of the game. Why Mel targets out used game sales I'm not really sure.
In truth, producers and developers don't just "not gain" money off of used game buyers, they actively LOSE money.
Money they might have made can't be qualified as a loss. Otherwise we'd have to account for every item purchased that doesn't give direct profit as a loss and then every company in the world is losing money.
Melissia wrote:]I know reading is hard for you but you could actually try it.
You could try reading your own words. SOmething that doesn't make sense doesn't make sense. Fundamentally there isn't a difference to a produce of an item between someone buying their product used and someone buying a similar product from another producer.
Money that might have been made is not a loss. If we expand losses that broadly then everyone in the corporate world is taking losses.
Manchu wrote:Isn't the developer paid by the publisher?
Yes, but both are tied directly to the profitability of the developers' games.
As I understand it, it works something like this:
(1) developer makes game
(2) publisher pays the developer as game is made
(3) publisher performs QA, markets, distributes, and provides customer service for game
So how does the developer suffer from used games sales?
Melissia wrote:Every sold and resold used game is money that does not go to the developers. These players still expect the developers to patch the game (which requires man-hours put in to the game that isn't making money), to provide servers for game authentication (which costs money to run), to provide matchmaking and/or servers for the gameplay itself (in the case for multiplayer, which costs money to run), and to generally support the game (which costs money and hours to run, which could have been spent on the next project or a sequel), but they have not actually payed for the game itself in the eyes of the developer.
The developer has to provide these services to people who "buy" the game from the developer as well.
People who buy the game on the secondhand market are not freeriders (like pirates), they're actually taking one of the existing licenses.
If the developer sells 10 copies, they have to provide service for those 10 copies.
If 5 of those get sold through the secondhand market, the developer still has to provide service for 10 copies.
The only way the developer is "losing out" is that instead of selling 15 copies with 5 copies being (effectively) destroyed, they sell 10 copies and have to continue to service them.
Melissia wrote:In truth, producers and developers don't just "not gain" money off of used game buyers, they actively LOSE money.
See above. The secondhand market doesn't increase the supply of games in the market, it maintains the supply of games in the market.
This is actually a problem for developers who rely on continuing sales (the "tail" referred to in the OP) to pay for continued development.
Manchu wrote:Isn't the developer paid by the publisher?
Yes, but both are tied directly to the profitability of the developers' games.
As I understand it, it works something like this:
(1) developer makes game
(2) publisher pays the developer as game is made
(3) publisher performs QA, markets, distributes, and provides customer service for game
So how does the developer suffer from used games sales?
The publisher could punish the developer for not adding in anti-used features, such as online codes.
Generally speaking, something like DRM is typically decided on the publishers end and then the developers implement it into the game code. I don't think refusing is an option.
Okay, Lord of Hats, since you are either unable or unwilling to read my post, will read it for you.
Melissia wrote:Every sold and resold used game is money that does not go to the developers.
This is a statement that we both agree upon. This, however, is NOT the finality of my argument. Don't stop reading here, it's only the first sentence.
Melissia wrote:These players still expect the developers to patch the game (which requires man-hours put in to the game that isn't making money)
This is money and employee hours that is being used to support the game for people who have not paid for it. Ergo, it is money lost. If all people who were using the service had paid for it, then it would not be money lost. But used game buyers have not paid for it. I will repeat these lines several times, to be sure that you have read them. Yes, I know the argument will be made that they have paid for it, but none of that money went to the producer, therefor to the producer they have not.
Melissia wrote:to provide servers for game authentication (which costs money to run)
This is money and employee hours that is being used to support the game for people who have not paid for it. Ergo, it is money lost. If all people who were using the service had paid for it, then it would not be money lost. But used game buyers have not paid for it.
Melissia wrote:to provide matchmaking and/or servers for the gameplay itself (in the case for multiplayer, which costs money to run)
This is money and employee hours that is being used to support the game for people who have not paid for it. Ergo, it is money lost. If all people who were using the service had paid for it, then it would not be money lost. But used game buyers have not paid for it.
Melissia wrote:and to generally support the game (which costs money and hours to run, which could have been spent on the next project or a sequel)
This is money and employee hours that is being used to support the game for people who have not paid for it. Ergo, it is money lost. If all people who were using the service had paid for it, then it would not be money lost. But used game buyers have not paid for it.
Melissia wrote:but they have not actually payed for the game itself in the eyes of the developer.
This is reiterating the first point.
Melissia wrote:In truth, producers and developers don't just "not gain" money off of used game buyers, they actively LOSE money.
Now here is the only part of my post taht you actually bothered to read. If you skipped over the other parts of my post, go back and actually read them.
Melissia wrote:Now, if a developer made it so that noone could play multiplayer or get patch updates without either having a new game or paying the developer directly (Through DLC, a multiplayer unlock code, or other method), the producer/developer would have no reason to complain, this is true.
This is what would make your statement true. This is not the case for any developer on the market today.
Melissia wrote:This is money and employee hours that is being used to support the game for people who have not paid for it. Ergo, it is money lost. If all people who were using the service had paid for it, then it would not be money lost. But used game buyers have not paid for it.
As biccat pointed out, it does not matter who paid for it. Someone paid for X copies and only X copies are being serviced. It doesn't matter who paid, only that someone did pay.
Manchu wrote:As biccat pointed out, it does not matter who paid for it.
And yet, that's still money that's not being paid to the producer.
Therefor, it matters to them. It doesn't matter to you, I can tell that much (it doesn't matter to me using the same definition, but I still support the producers' actions as far as penalizing used game buyers in favor of new game buyers, because it is well justified both morally and economically, and a simple change to the EULA will make it legal anyway), but that doesn't mean it is irrelevant.
You will be seeing more and more of the game industry penalizing used game buyers as the years go on, because of this very fact-- they cost money while giving nothing in return.
The used game player has not payed for these services, but the person who bought the game new has already.
It's like Manchu said. If 10 people bought the game, returned it, and 10 people bought it used, then someone has already paid the developer for the game.
They're losing theoretical money. Not real dollars.
And anyway, if a server is overloaded, if it's laggy, if it gets damaged, then it's the Publisher's fault, not the consumer. It could not deal with the demand for the game, or the problems with their servers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Melissia wrote:This is money and employee hours that is being used to support the game for people who have not paid for it. Ergo, it is money lost. If all people who were using the service had paid for it, then it would not be money lost. But used game buyers have not paid for it.
As biccat pointed out, it does not matter who paid for it.
And yet, that's still money that's not being paid to the producer.
Therefor, it matters to them.
You will be seeing more and more of the game industry penalizing used game buyers as the years go on, because of this very fact-- they cost money while giving nothing in return.
Manchu wrote:As biccat pointed out, it does not matter who paid for it.
And yet, that's still money that's not being paid to the producer.
This is a different argument and why LoH is talking to you about the difference between losing money and not making all the money one could potentially make.
Chowderhead wrote:But someone already paid for the game!
One person paid, but seven people used the service, six of which did not pay. All of them cost money to run the service, but six of them are being given a free ride.
Melissia wrote:This is a statement that we both agree upon. This, however, is NOT the finality of my argument. Don't stop reading here, it's only the first sentence.
Indeed we do, the problem is that there is no entitlement to profit from their work a second time.
Melissia wrote:This is money and employee hours that is being used to support the game for people who have not paid for it. Ergo, it is money lost.
If Bob sells his copy of Super Hat Land 64 to Frank, then the situation for the developer is no different than it was before. They are still only supporting a single user who holds a single copy of the game. Used copies do not magically produce new users who need support. The support of the original user practically transfers down the line. The situation for the developer does not change.
No money has been lost.
Melissia wrote:This is money and employee hours that is being used to support the game for people who have not paid for it. Ergo, it is money lost. If all people who were using the service had paid for it, then it would not be money lost. But used game buyers have not paid for it.
No the person who bought the game new paid for it. Again, no new users need to be supported. At most, the developer loses some miniscule amount storing the data of previous users who no longer play, but the charges of multi-player networks usually aren't on the developer they're paid for by the publisher.
Melissia wrote:This is money and employee hours that is being used to support the game for people who have not paid for it. Ergo, it is money lost. If all people who were using the service had paid for it, then it would not be money lost. But used game buyers have not paid for it.
If Bob sells his copy he is no longer playing. There's still just 1 person who is being supported.
All your example are mooted by the nature of how a used game is acquired. If I sell 500,000 copies of Super Hat Land 64: I Have Spoken Edition, then I'll only ever have to support 500,000 users. Used games cannot magically increase the number of people playing my game and needing my services. This is extremely simple logic.
Melissia wrote:... I still support the producers' actions as far as penalizing used game buyers in favor of new game buyers, because it is well justified ... morally ...
Manchu wrote:As biccat pointed out, it does not matter who paid for it.
And yet, that's still money that's not being paid to the producer.
You'll have to explain how transferring a license entitles the original licensor to any sort of benefit from the transfer, either morally or economically.
ETA:
Melissia wrote:
Chowderhead wrote:But someone already paid for the game!
One person paid, but seven people used the service, six of which did not pay. All of them cost money to run the service, but six of them are being given a free ride.
You're confusing piracy with secondhand markets.
If people really are buying a game, burning a copy, and then reselling it through GameStop, that is a much different problem, and I'd largely agree with you. But that isn't what we're talking about.
Manchu wrote:As biccat pointed out, it does not matter who paid for it.
And yet, that's still money that's not being paid to the producer.
This is a different argument and why LoH is talking to you about the difference between losing money and not making all the money one could potentially make.
Something to consider is that a Certain Place Where One Halts For Entertainment Material will actively try to sell you a used game before the new game; meaning they make the profit rather than the developer/publisher.
There was also a big to-do not long ago about Gamestop opening up EA's games and removing the promotional stuff for EA Origins held within because Gamestop is preparing its own digital distribution service.
Chowderhead wrote:But someone already paid for the game!
One person paid, but seven people used the service, six of which did not pay. All of them cost money to run the service, but six of them are being given a free ride.
But there was space made for the six people already.
If six people buy the same used game, that's still only one user on the server. Not six.
LordofHats wrote:Indeed we do, the problem is that there is no entitlement to profit from their work a second time.
So you think that added patches, added content, added multiplayer, etc are just one monolithic product.
You are wrong.
LordofHats wrote:No the person who bought the game new paid for it.
I never denied that . I deny that used game buyers did. And therefor used game buyers are not the producer/developer's customer. They're gamestop's customer.
Chowderhead wrote:But someone already paid for the game!
One person paid, but seven people used the service, six of which did not pay. All of them cost money to run the service, but six of them are being given a free ride.
No, only one person can ride at a time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Something to consider is that a [GameStop] will actively try to sell you a used game before the new game; meaning they make the profit rather than the developer/publisher.
Sure, but somebody had to buy as new everything that they're now selling as used.
Kanluwen wrote:Something to consider is that a Certain Place Where One Halts For Entertainment Material will actively try to sell you a used game before the new game; meaning they make the profit rather than the developer/publisher.
WHich is an argument that could be made though the solution is simple. Tell Game Stop to stop selling both in the same locations (not that it would matter, bargain hunting is bargain hunting). Besides look at Game Stops sales chart. New game sales are nearly 3x that of used game sales as a raw number (profit is just higher on used which produces a better margin for GS). Most people would rather have a fresh item than a used one.
There was also a big to-do not long ago about Gamestop opening up EA's games and removing the promotional stuff for EA Origins held within because Gamestop is preparing its own digital distribution service.
That was a situation with OnLive, and while I don't think Game Stop should have removed the coupons, I can agree that it wasn't fair Square should not have done it. OnLive (and Origin for that matter) are competitors to Game Stop. They can't force Game Stop to sell a product that gives the buyer incentive to purchase from a competitor.
So you think that added patches, added content, added multiplayer, etc are just one monolithic product.
No. The problem is the claim that somehow it costs them money to have to support used games.
For EA, there is no difference between me owning a new copy of a game and a used copy, other than that I didn't buy a new copy. The person I got my used copy from is no longer playing and thus no longer being supported. As Machu says, only one person can ride at a time. EA's costs do not change because the previous owner no longer needs support once I start needing it. The cost to the developer and the publisher is the same (assuming we ignore that development costs a lot more than distribution and they'd have to develop the patches anyway).
Manchu wrote:No, only one person can ride at a time.
Considering they're using the service that constantly costs the company money, that's not really much different to them compared to having multiple people who coincidently play the game at different times.
Manchu wrote:Sure, but somebody had to buy as new everything that they're now selling as used.
Gamestop will specifically understock new games to force people to buy used or go home empty handed. Essentially, they specifically work to sell the bare minimum number of new games sold to maintain a highly profitable (for them, and no-one else) secondary market.
I think biccat tried explaining this before and I think this is what Melissia is talking about, too: Publishers assume that post-launch sales will finance post-launch development and service. The used game market undermines that assumption by undermining post-launch sales. If the assumption is correct, then publishers will not pay developers to provide post-launch support/content.
Melissia wrote:Considering they're using the service that constantly costs the company money, that's not really much different to them compared to having multiple people who coincidently play the game at different times.
What? No, this is a licensing issue where the license can only be used by one person at a time. For every one license that was paid for, only one license is supported.
Melissia wrote:Gamestop will specifically understock new games to force people to buy used or go to BestBuy or Target or WalMart or Toys'R'Us, etc, etc.
Fixed that for you. Which also kind of explains why GameStop works so very hard to sell the huge number of new games that they do.
Manchu wrote:I think biccat tried explaining this before and I think this is what Melissia is talking about, too: Publishers assume that post-launch sales will finance post-launch development and service. The used game market undermines that assumption by undermining post-launch sales. If the assumption is correct, then publishers will not pay developers to provide post-launch support/content.
If that's what's been going on then I can get behind that to an extent.
I'm less concerned with this as a problem because when you release a sequel every (2) year, post launch sales aren't going to amount to much anyway. Everyone who really wants the game will buy it at launch to begin with. Publishers had their own hand in eliminating the tail and they started doing it long before GS starting making a gak ton off used games.
Kanluwen wrote:Something to consider is that a [GameStop] will actively try to sell you a used game before the new game; meaning they make the profit rather than the developer/publisher.
Sure, but somebody had to buy as new everything that they're now selling as used.
Sure, but again:
If the game just came out, but because of the way it is set up(a single player game like Batman: Arkham City, for example) has no replay value to the "hardcore" players who are constantly moving from one heavily advertised new title to the next and playing a game to 50-75% completion this poses a problem.
Why?
Because what happens is this:
Person A plays game to 50-75%. Finishes main story, then goes to trade in/ sell back said game to Gamestop.
Gamestop buys game back for under 50% of sale price of new copy of game. They then proceed to constantly sell people said used copy; while the new copies just sit on the shelves unless there is some kind of reason that the developer/publisher has put in to buy new and the customer is aware of the difference between the two.
Melissia wrote:Yes, that is what I'm trying to argue. Albeit not very well apparently.
I guess the trouble is that publishers are relying on an assumption that isn't true. There are two possible responses: (1) change their behavior to fit the reality of the used games market or (2) force reality to correspond to their assumption by fighting the used game market.
Kanluwen wrote:If the game just came out, but because of the way it is set up(a single player game like Batman: Arkham City, for example) has no replay value to the "hardcore" players who are constantly moving from one heavily advertised new title to the next and playing a game to 50-75% completion this poses a problem.
That's not a problem with used games its a problem with a shotty product. I.E. The games industry blaming second hand market for their own failure to deliver worthwhile goods.
If a game has replay value (which I consider to be necessary for a game to qualify as good) there's no reason to turn it back in so fast.
The really don't work hard at all to sell new games. They actually seem to loathe doing it.
I can actually 100% agree with that. They sell them but I'll be damned if they don't try to get me to buy the used copy with the busted up case and scratched disk. There's a reason I don't shop at GS anymore.
Kanluwen wrote:They then proceed to constantly sell people said used copy; while the new copies just sit on the shelves ...
GameStop doesn't want games to sit on the shelf. That is the unstated part of your and Melissia's comments: GameStop very much wants you to buy new copies of every game -- specifically, they want you to pre-order or buy at launch. Their model is that games should only sell new copies when games are new to the market. It just happens to be the opposite of what would make the publishers the most money.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:The really don't work hard at all to sell new games. They actually seem to loathe doing it.
Melissia wrote:Yes, that is what I'm trying to argue. Albeit not very well apparently.
I guess the trouble is that publishers are relying on an assumption that isn't true. There are two possible responses: (1) change their behavior to fit the reality of the used games market or (2) force reality to correspond to their assumption by fighting the used game market.
There's a third response: make post-launch content cost money and give it to new game buyers for free; rewarding the new game buyers because the money they spent actually went to support the game's post-launch development, but also giving access to the content to used game buyers if they want to spend money on supporting the developers themselves.
Of course, I would be deeply amused if EA decided whenever it made new contracts for selling its games to Gamestop that Gamestop was obligated to give it royalties on all used game sales for any subsequent EA releases, and refused to sell to gamestop otherwise. Just imagine how much drama that would cause, while also solving the problem for funding EA's post launch content.
But I don't think Gamestop would ever agree with that, even if it meant losing access to all EA titles.
Kanluwen wrote:If the game just came out, but because of the way it is set up(a single player game like Batman: Arkham City, for example) has no replay value to the "hardcore" players who are constantly moving from one heavily advertised new title to the next and playing a game to 50-75% completion this poses a problem.
That's not a problem with used games its a problem with a shotty product. I.E. The games industry blaming second hand market for their own failure to deliver worthwhile goods.
If a game has replay value (which I consider to be necessary for a game to qualify as good) there's no reason to turn it back in so fast.
A game can have replay value(Specifically why I used the example of Arkham City, actually. It's a single-player game where the main takes a good chunk of time to do for full completion...and you still have the Challenge modes to do after that) , but people will "turn it back in so fast" because they want to make money back.
It's an issue when people treat games as "investments" rather than entertainment.
I don't think EA could afford that. One of those things that just ends up ugly and splits the consumer market into taking sides.
At the end of the day, Game Stop is the largest retailer of soft ware for the market. More likely I think that the industry will continue its current path where it tries to get money directly out of used buyers through online passes.
while also solving the problem for funding EA's post launch content.
There is no problem... This is just EA (insert other publishers) whining about a piece of pie getting around and they aren't getting any. It has nothing to do with them losing money and everything to do with not making any. Post launch is funded by launch (and charging for said post launch, which I'll point out used game buyers end up paying for as well if they want it).
LordofHats wrote:At the end of the day, Game Stop is the largest retailer of soft ware for the market. More likely I think that the industry will continue its current path where it tries to get money directly out of used buyers through online passes.
I think so as well. But it's a nice fantasy.
I also support their online passes and similar deals, myself. Then again, I always buy new instead of used so it's not like I ever have to deal with them
edit: herpderp, typo. Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:There is no problem
There is if you like developers continuing to produce games.
Melissia wrote:There's a third response: make post-launch content cost money and give it to new game buyers for free; rewarding the new game buyers because the money they spent actually went to support the game's post-launch development, but also giving access to the content to used game buyers if they want to spend money on supporting the developers themselves.
Are you talking about the "gold editions" or whatever, that bundle the original game with any expansions? (like this?) That's no different than selling a separate expansion, or charging for new content.
There is no way for game producers to distinguish between new users and secondhand users, unless you use some sort of tracking software. And if you're doing that, you could just as easily cut off the secondhand market.
Melissia wrote:Then again, I always buy new instead of used so it's not like I ever have to deal with them
Same, of course I'm mostly on PC so used games wouldn't be an option even if I wanted them.
There is if you like developers continuing to produce games.
IE, if you are a gamer.
The developers happen to also be the publishers. We don't need to worry about most of them anymore. At the end of the day all that matters is "did we make a profit." If the game sold well enough they most certainly did and the chances of seeing the sequel are pretty much assured. There's nothing used games can do to hurt a developer other than eliminate the tail, but the publishers eliminated it themselves years ago (I can on a hand see how SK would have missed the memo. I'm sure they missed a lot things that changed in the world locked in the cubicles for 9 years). Post launch and DLC content fund themselves. EDIT: Unless all those things became free while I wasn't looking.
biccat wrote:Are you talking about the "gold editions" or whatever, that bundle the original game with any expansions?
I thought she meant having content that anyone who doesn't purchase a new copy of the game will have to purchase that would be free to everyone who did purchase a new copy.
So you buy a new copy of Super Soldier CLXVII and get the Lastar 5300 Sniper Pistol for free, which you download online with a code that only works once. And if someone later buys your copy of the game after you traded it in, they'll have to buy that download if they want the weapon.
So again -- what publishers already do, in partnership with companies like GameStop, who in turn push sales of new games at launch as hard as they possibly can.
This is because the interests of GameStop and the publishers are aligned at launch. It is only afterward that they drift apart.
Manchu wrote:That's the hostage-taking line I mentioned at the outset of posting in this thread. That's also GW's line.
And GW has a point, honestly. But because GW does not provide any post-sale services (barring tournaments, which IIRC they charge money for entrants anyway unless I'm mistaken), it has less control over the secondary market than the gaming industry does.
biccat wrote:There is no way for game producers to distinguish between new users and secondhand users
Tying post-launch content and multiplayer to a specific account works, especially for console games where said account can be tied to a specific console game, or on such systems as Steam where games are owned by the account specifically.
There is if you like developers continuing to produce games.
IE, if you are a gamer.
That's the hostage-taking line I mentioned at the outset of posting in this thread. That's also GW's line.
As opposed to the "Gamestop is a friend and hero to the people; letting people buy the game for a whole $5 less used and also giving us obscenely powerful preorder bonuses letting us wreck the fun of the game for everyone else" line you were posting?
I'm not sure where you're equating that with GW's line, by the way. Or are you trying to spin this off into comparing Gamestop to CHS? Because that deserves a special mention of the Chewbacca defense.
Manchu wrote:This is because the interests of GameStop and the publishers are aligned at launch. It is only afterward that they drift apart.
Actually I was gonna say that ALL new game buyers, not just preorders from a specific store.
I mean I understand why they do preorders being different across stores, but it's still kinda annoying, especially when it's exclusive even post-launch. They at least need a DLC package that has all the preorder bonuses, much like DoW2 Retribution released on Steam. Aside from contract non-sense, I don't understand why preorder bonuses aren't released as DLC on day one anyway.
Kanluwen wrote:As opposed to the "Gamestop is a friend and hero to the people; letting people buy the game for a whole $5 less used and also giving us obscenely powerful preorder bonuses letting us wreck the fun of the game for everyone else" line you were posting?
No, please try to think of yourself (or at least me) as distinct from a corporation. GameStop allows consumers to do something that is both in their own interests and in the interest of GameStop. This does not make GameStop a hero of the people.
I'm not sure where you're equating that with GW's line, by the way. Or are you trying to spin this off into comparing Gamestop to CHS? Because that deserves a special mention of the Chewbacca defense.
I am referring to GW's "we sell a hobby" idea.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Manchu wrote:This is because the interests of GameStop and the publishers are aligned at launch. It is only afterward that they drift apart.
Actually I was gonna say that ALL new game buyers, not just preorders from a specific store.
Here's a question: do you think EA prefers to make it's money sooner or later?
LordofHats wrote:Post launch and DLC content fund themselves. EDIT: Unless all those things became free while I wasn't looking.
Not patches.
Patches would have to be funded and released anyway, unless the game sold so poorly that there's no point in making them
If 500,000 need a patch to fix game imbalances in Underwater Super Soldier Man Extreme 3, then whether those copies are new or used is irrelevant. Its unlikely that the majority of users are using used copies, and the development costs of the patch are finite and independent of how many people need it. Distribution of the patch is a miniscule cost, meaning under what circumstances a copy was acquired doesn't effect costs for patches at all.
And besides, even then if 500,000 new copies were sold then you never have to support more than 500,000 people. A used owner is to a company, no different from a new owner as far as ongoing costs of support are concerned. New or used, they'd have to pay that cost anyway.
Manchu wrote:Here's a question: do you think EA prefers to make it's money sooner or later?
So release the preorder bonses as a day one DLC bundle. I mean it already has to be in the game at day one, after all, and we know the best way to have DLC sell well is for it to be day one DLC. This would mean that people could purchase both a preorder from one company and then on day one they'd purchase whatever other preorder bonuses they want as DLC.
LordofHats wrote:Patches would have to be funded and released anyway, unless the game sold so poorly that there's no point in making them.
This also ties into the idea of publishers rushing shipping dates and not performing QA. But patches still cost money and publishers still assume that post-launch sales should cover it.
Again, I'm building a case of why publishers are the issue rather than the used game market.
LordofHats wrote:Patches would have to be funded and released anyway, unless the game sold so poorly that there's no point in making them.
This also ties into the idea of publishers rushing shipping dates and not performing QA. But patches still cost money and publishers still assume that post-launch sales should cover it.
Again, I'm building a case of why publishers are the issue rather than the used game market.
Ideally speaking a patch is not a large cost unless there are serious bugs in which case they should have been addressed before release (and I refuse to allow developers or publishers blame anyone other than themselves for a mistake like that, its disingenuous). Going into game files and changing some numbers around to change balance doesn't cost that much. One guy can do it and test it and be done in a few hours.
Assuming they made a significant profit, the cost of patching is miniscule and negligeable unless serious issues were not addressed in development. This could explain in part why free content has gone the way of the dodo, but its not an argument that the developers/publishers are losing money.
biccat wrote:Are you talking about the "gold editions" or whatever, that bundle the original game with any expansions?
I thought she meant having content that anyone who doesn't purchase a new copy of the game will have to purchase that would be free to everyone who did purchase a new copy.
So you buy a new copy of Super Soldier CLXVII and get the Lastar 5300 Sniper Pistol for free, which you download online with a code that only works once. And if someone later buys your copy of the game after you traded it in, they'll have to buy that download if they want the weapon.
So again -- what publishers already do, in partnership with companies like GameStop, who in turn push sales of new games at launch as hard as they possibly can.
This is because the interests of GameStop and the publishers are aligned at launch. It is only afterward that they drift apart.
The "Gold Editions" which I think biccat is referring to are the "Game of the Year" editions.
In the case of some games(BF3, for example) they slap a "Limited Edition" tag onto the box and then do something in there to encourage you to buy it new at launch and keep it.
BF3's "Limited Edition" gave you a voucher which allowed you to download "Back to Karkand"(a big DLC package which came out a few months later) for free when it launched.
The online passes which EA packages with new games do not necessarily allow you to get any items. In the case of BF3, the Online Pass gave you access to the "meat" of the game: the Multiplayer. They, of course, allow you to buy an Online Pass from XBL/PSN directly--but at the cost of a difference between the "Used" copy you bought and the "New" copy you could have bought.
That works out for EA a bit in conjunction with them staggering their big DLC releases and doing it in such a way that it undermines the "new hotness" title launches.
Melissia wrote:Tying post-launch content and multiplayer to a specific account works, especially for console games where said account can be tied to a specific console game, or on such systems as Steam where games are owned by the account specifically.
I guess I worded that wrong:
There's no way for game companies to distinguish between new and secondhand users that wouldn't also allow them to wholly eliminate the secondhand market.
If console games can be tied to a specific account, the publisher can stop other accounts from using the game. Steam also is a particularly heavy-handed form of DRM. Mandatory registration (same thing as "coupon codes") would also serve the same function.
Manchu wrote:Here's a question: do you think EA prefers to make it's money sooner or later?
So release the preorder bonses as a day one DLC bundle. I mean it already has to be in the game at day one, after all, and we know the best way to have DLC sell well is for it to be day one DLC.
Melissia, now you're getting at what D1DLC really is!
Ahtman posted a helpful graphic earlier but I'll summarize it:
Publishers get developers to make a game and before it ships the publishers carve out a piece. That piece becomes D1DLC. Does this encourage anyone to buy a new copy of the game? Does it discourage anyone from buying a used copy of the game? Nope and nope. What it does is makes all copies of the game incomplete. In effect, all copies of the game become invitations to buy more content from the publisher.
This is why D1DLC as it is actually sold is not at all related to the used games market.
Manchu wrote:Melissia, now you're getting at what D1DLC really is!
I don't think you quite understand what I was saying.
Even today, we still have preorder bonuses that are not released later on as DLC.
Space Marine's power sword preorder bonus, for example, took a long time to be released. Which doesn't really make any sense-- if it was released on day one as DLC it'd have made much more money than several months down the line. And unlike the Chaos unleashed pack, it was already finished on day one anyway.
What I am saying is that publishers are using DLC to make more money. Any attack on the used game market is completely incidental. Their complaint that the used market undermines them is true but they don't seem to be interested in actually addressing it other than tarring businesses and customers engaged in the used game market. The idea that this market is unfair or immoral or unethical is completely false.
Manchu wrote:Melissia, now you're getting at what D1DLC really is!
Ahtman posted a helpful graphic earlier but I'll summarize it:
Publishers get developers to make a game and before it ships the publishers carve out a piece. That piece becomes D1DLC. Does this encourage anyone to buy a new copy of the game? Does it discourage anyone from buying a used copy of the game? Nope and nope. What it does is makes all copies of the game incomplete. In effect, all copies of the game become invitations to buy more content from the publisher.
This is why D1DLC as it is actually sold is not at all related to the used games market.
Er what?
You're arguing two different things here.
Preorder bonuses are not the same thing as D1DLC.
Collector's Edition bonuses(ex: vouchers for early access to later DLC or some kind of unique item exclusive to the CE) are not necessarily the same thing as D1DLC.
When a developer's forums are loaded up with people complaining that "X gets Y, but why doesn't Z get Y too!" and they choose to release the DLC which was scheduled to release some months later early--that's not really "D1DLC". That's caving to the complaints.
Manchu wrote:The idea that this market is unfair or immoral or unethical is completely false.
But so is the idea that their efforts to undermine it is unfair as well. If gamestop is wholly moral and righteous for wanting to do nothing but expand its profits at the expense of everyone else, then surely the producers and developers are wholly moral and righteous for seeking the same path.
Melissia wrote:If gamestop is wholly moral and righteous for wanting to do nothing but expand its profits at the expense of everyone else, then surely the producers and developers are wholly moral and righteous for seeking the same path.
There is no question of being moral or righteous. The question is what is best for me, the customer. All the companies can worry about themselves and they sure as hell are not going to worry about me.
Honestly? The customer is probably served best through some program such as Steam as opposed to Gamestop.
Steam allowing the producers to have sales or lower prices whenever they want, while also having minimal overhead compared to Gamestop thus allowing Steam and the producers to have a higher profit margin and thus have more game content (or new games) released.
Then again, we also have to take into account all the Xbox and PS3 gamers who don't have the internet hooked up to their consoles/don't want it hooked up/don't want to pay 60 bucks a year.
Discs are the best way to market a console game. There's a reason that no-one lined up around the block to play Trials HD, while COD fetched queues of massive size. It's because using a download only system blocks off a lot of console gamers.
The Steam system only works for PC. Consoles are another beast entirely.
Melissia wrote:Honestly? The customer is probably served best through some program such as Steam as opposed to Gamestop.
A lot of customers (who play games on PCs) seem to think so. No doubt publishers will one day claim that Steam will destroy the PC gaming industry.
I'm sure EA will at any rate, solely because of its pushing of Origin. But that just means that EA is now competing with Steam, and doing it poorly.
If EA's Origin becomes as good as Steam, they'll do just fine-- after all they have a good customer base and profitable games, and they'd not be selling any of their games on Steam unless they specifically chose to do so (notice Battlefield 3 and Mass Effect 3's absence on Steam, for example). I have my doubts that EA would want to sell any other publisher's titles on Origin, so EA vs Valve will be a different monster than EA vs Gamestop.
Of course, that's a big if. I doubt Origin will be able to compete with Steam in terms of quality of service, so they'll have to rely on the popularity of their games entirely.
I don't think there's any inherent problem with DLC, as long as it is an expansion on the game and not content removed from the finished product.
If publishers want to kill used games then fine, but they need to stop Day 1 DLC and especially on-disc DLC... fething Street Fighter x Tekken... fething Capcom...
H.B.M.C. wrote:I don't think there's any inherent problem with DLC, as long as it is an expansion on the game and not content removed from the finished product.
The distribution channel seems to play a big part in the outcome. It would be difficult for a game company to put ME3's true ending on a disk, send it out to stores for $20, and have it sit on a shelf next to the $60 copy of ME3. That's basically a display communicating to the customer: "this game actually costs $80." DLC is a format that allows publishers to get away with that.
Except for the fact that DLC isn't $20 for the most part.
Come to think of it, I can't think of any one piece of DLC which has been $20.
Maybe the Gears 3 Season Pass; but that has encompassed multiple DLC packs(at least 4-5 so far, with the Season Pass still having more content to come according to Epic).
From Ashes was $10. If you think DLC will remain this "cheap," especially as DLC becomes more central to the game itself, you are in denial. Of course, by "cheap" I mean insanely expensive given that I already paid $60 for this content and then found it absent from my game.
Manchu wrote:From Ashes was $10. If you think DLC will remain this "cheap," especially as DLC becomes more central to the game itself, you are in denial. Of course, by "cheap" I mean insanely expensive given that I already paid $60 for this content and then found it absent from my game.
Manchu wrote:From Ashes was $10. If you think DLC will remain this "cheap," especially as DLC becomes more central to the game itself, you are in denial. Of course, by "cheap" I mean insanely expensive given that I already paid $60 for this content and then found it absent from my game.
What exactly is on From Ashes?
My understanding it's got a planet and a whole chain of quests for the Prothean guy, yes?
In a game about the struggle to fight an ancient race of universe destroyers, against which we only have hope because of the Protheans, a Prothean character and mission line is indeed comepletely extraneous. It's so extraneous, furthermore, that BioWare/EA didn't even need to include it on-disc because it effects one of the game's major selling points, the cause & effect decisions feature.
Oh sorry, I was posting from Bizarro World. Just read all of that as if it were the opposite of what it says.
Well no, it's one character. And furthermore, he plays a role similar to my own Shepherd--which makes him not useful to me.
When the next DLC for Mass Effect 3 comes out, it's quite likely that the price of the DLC will go down(this is usually what happens with BioWare's titles at least) and I know that they'll do a few free code giveaways on their Twitter feed.
Manchu wrote:I think it's safe to say that publishers aren't stupid at all.
I know many of game developers who STRONGLY disagree with that.
For some reason multi quote didn't get it but your post about how do devs lose money but it is simple.
Devs get some payment upfront. The payment they get upfront is realtive to the new game sales of their last game. The more sales the more money upfront. Then they can get more money from the publisher depending on how well the games does and how well it's recieved(thus why you'll hear story of some devs inflating their metacritic score. Their paychecks depend on it and it's impossible to reason aganist this practice because no publisher will accept your game without part of your payment being tied to review scores.).
Then there gets to be a lower chance of a publisher picking up a developer. Double Fine almost didn't get picked up by Vinvedi for Brutal Legend due to how bad Psychonaut's initial sales were. They had to prove how longer term it was a "sucess" and built a name for them. I'm sure this happened again when trying to find a publisher for their PSN/XBLA games due to Brutal Legend.
Basically everything you do in the game industry(even chance of getting hired on occasion) is tied to how well your last game sold. If your last game sold 100 mil copies. People want you because obviously you know how to make a good game. If it sold 200 copies then what the hell is wrong with you?
Also most devs don't complain about used game market because they're too busy complaining about publishers. Now that more devs are starting to self-publish you see more of them complaining about piracy. Once they start getting disc games you'll see them complain about used sales too.
It's like musicians and piracy. Most musicians don't complain about CD sales since they see it as them not getting money from them. What they don't realise is that if their CD does AMAZING then they get paid more for their next CD. While if their CD bombs they get less. This is why if you read stuff from the lead singer of System of a Down you'll notice he starts complaining about money getting less from the record label when he tells people to pirate his CDs because he gets no money from them. This is also a reason why record labels are now taking more percentage from concerts aswell (since they pay the costs for Venues and their extras)
Manchu wrote:ME DLC does not go down in price simply because the next DLC installment comes out.
For a short time...it actually does. Xbox Live usually sets their stuff up so that they have a "weekend" devoted to the DLC, where previous DLCs will be available at a reduced price.
Manchu wrote:ME DLC does not go down in price simply because the next DLC installment comes out.
Also, ME is a series of games about characters. Adding or subtracting any character from the game is a huge deal.
This.
Without Javik, I would have lost a lot of story that I felt was important.
I also spent 10 dollars for around 20 minutes of new (See: Uninspired and Copy/pasted from every colony world from ME2) content and a character. That's insane.
Ahtman wrote:GS isn't a ponzi scheme, it is just a pawn shop that specializes in video games.
No, it's really not. GameStop is exactly like a used car dealer. They give you a low payment for your used goods and resell them at grossly inflated prices.
Pawn shops are basically a bank that deals in collateralized loans. The reason pawn shops are seen as shady is because they're essentially a lender of last resort, so people who can't get credit elsewhere will give up expensive collateral in order to get secure a loan, and usually won't be able to pay it back (allowing the pawn shop to sell the collateral).
I wonder what the rate of buy back is for a a pawn shop? Almost everything I've seen is people getting loans they never pay off so it is pay out, or just selling it to the pawn shop outright. The number of people that actually get a loan from a pawn shop and pay it back seems to be very small. Even on the TV shows like Pawn Stars all anyone is doing is bringing something in to sell. I wonder what the rate of store credit to cash is for Gamestop? Or do they not do cash for games anymore? I stopped selling games years ago.
Most of those used car places also do credit at high rates as well. Or are we differentiating used car lots from the 'buy here pay here' used car lots? I've known people that went to places like that and they ended up having to pay around $250 a month for 2 years on a car that was worth maybe $2500. None of them end up being perfect analogies I suppose, but they all work.
Either way the connective tissue between all of them is buying something for a very low price and reselling it a much higher price.
Manchu wrote:ME DLC does not go down in price simply because the next DLC installment comes out.
For a short time...it actually does. Xbox Live usually sets their stuff up so that they have a "weekend" devoted to the DLC, where previous DLCs will be available at a reduced price.
Which the Developer/publisher has to.
And knowing EA, they won't ever do something like a sale for longer than a day. Hell, Arkham Asylum is still 50 dollars on Origin! And BF3 is 60!
Ahtman wrote:Most of those used car places also do credit at high rates as well. Or are we differentiating used car lots from the 'buy here pay here' used car lots? I've known people that went to places like that and they ended up having to pay around $250 a month for 2 years on a car that was worth maybe $2500. None of them end up being perfect analogies I suppose, but they all work.
Well, the difference between a "buy here, pay here" and a pawn shop is the nature of the credit. Pawn shops are collateralized loans, used car dealers are purchase money loans. The loan from the car dealer is related to the purchase, the loan from the pawn shop is unrelated, but secured.
Ahtman wrote:Either way the connective tissue between all of them is buying something for a very low price and reselling it a much higher price.
Pawn shops don't have a bad reputation because they buy at a low price and resell at a higher price (that's basically every industry ever), they have a bad reputation because they are easy fences, charge high interest rates, and tend to service poorer communities, leading to the impression that they're "taking advantage" of poor people. But poor people get charged high rates because they're bad credit risks.
If you think the markup for GameStop is outrageous, you should see some of the markup at grocery stores. They buy low and sell at a much higher price.
Manchu wrote:ME DLC does not go down in price simply because the next DLC installment comes out.
For a short time...it actually does. Xbox Live usually sets their stuff up so that they have a "weekend" devoted to the DLC, where previous DLCs will be available at a reduced price.
Which the Developer/publisher has to.
And knowing EA, they won't ever do something like a sale for longer than a day. Hell, Arkham Asylum is still 50 dollars on Origin! And BF3 is 60!
Manchu wrote:Yeah, Kanluwen is playing with smoke and mirrors here.
I think you've confused me with Chowderhead. It happens.
Chowderhead is using prices on Origins(a digital distribution system for complete games which is hosted by EA) as an example of DLC being reduced price for a small amount of time on Xbox Live.
He isn't even right though.
Arkham Asylum is $19.99 on Origins, and Arkham City is $49.99. These prices are the exact same as those on Steam.
BF3--while $60--also includes the same content which preorder players were able to get.
I was referring to your earlier objection that people don't pay attention to pre-order bonuses/GameStop limited time trade-in bonuses compared to your point on this page regarding DLC sales that go on for one or two days.
Kanluwen wrote:Arkham Asylum is $19.99 on Origins, and Arkham City is $49.99.
That is so interesting. Because Gamestop sells it new for a lower price than Steam and Origin. And on a disc, no less.
And the 60$ price tag covers the Online pass and a new pistol. That's it. I'm not paying 10 dollars more for a PC game which should be 50 so I can play online. Hell, the Disc for sale at Gamestop new is around 20 bucks less than buying off of Origin, without adding in shipping.
So please. Smoke and mirrors is not my game. I present the facts the way they are. You may try to claim smoke and mirrors, but the proof is in the pudding.
Manchu wrote:I was referring to your earlier objection that people don't pay attention to pre-order bonuses/GameStop limited time trade-in bonuses compared to your point on this page regarding DLC sales that go on for one or two days.
That wasn't my objection to that. My objection to that is that GameStop gets you in there with a "limited time trade-in bonus which will be applied to your account for use!" but then requires you to use it right then.
There's a difference existing between those two situations.
One is a "deal" which the digital delivery service(ex: Steam, Xbox Live, PSN) will tell you about when you look at the category to go download the DLC and makes no secret about it being a "limited time offer".
The other is an attempt to get you into the physical store, to trade-in your gently used games with a promise of credit applied to your account with said store for usage. The fine print, however, is that it will only be able to be used THAT DAY.
I don't think they are taking advantage of people, and I don't think I said they were. High markup isn't unusual, I mean, this is a GW board after all, I would think we would be used to it!
I didn't say pawn shops had a bad reputation*, just that they have an air of desperation that clings to them, much like Gamestop or used car sales. Any place where people are selling things/trading things has it. Some people know how to work it, but much of the time it is driven by impatience or ignorance, which is not the used car dealer, GS, or the Pawn Shops fault. No one is being forced into any of those situations or to trade/sell their items.
The payment structure is different between the different stores (collateral loan, money loan), but the end result is the same for each of them.
*At least I don't think I said 'bad reputation'. It was late and I may recalled incorrectly what I stated. I would go back but, man, not on a Friday. To much work.
Manchu wrote:I was referring to your earlier objection that people don't pay attention to pre-order bonuses/GameStop limited time trade-in bonuses compared to your point on this page regarding DLC sales that go on for one or two days.
That wasn't my objection to that. My objection to that is that GameStop gets you in there with a "limited time trade-in bonus which will be applied to your account for use!" but then requires you to use it right then.
There's a difference existing between those two situations.
One is a "deal" which the digital delivery service(ex: Steam, Xbox Live, PSN) will tell you about when you look at the category to go download the DLC and makes no secret about it being a "limited time offer".
The other is an attempt to get you into the physical store, to trade-in your gently used games with a promise of credit applied to your account with said store for usage. The fine print, however, is that it will only be able to be used THAT DAY.
And your point is?
Most people only trade in games when they want to buy something that day.
Kanluwen wrote:Arkham Asylum is $19.99 on Origins, and Arkham City is $49.99.
That is so interesting. Because Gamestop sells it new for a lower price than Steam and Origin. And on a disc, no less.
What is "it"? Be specific. Is "it" Arkham Asylum or Arkham City?
Or are you talking about BF3?
And the 60$ price tag covers the Online pass and a new pistol. That's it. I'm not paying 10 dollars more for a PC game which should be 50 so I can play online. Hell, the Disc for sale at Gamestop new is around 20 bucks less than buying off of Origin, without adding in shipping.
So please. Smoke and mirrors is not my game. I present the facts the way they are. You may try to claim smoke and mirrors, but the proof is in the pudding.
What proof? You've presented no evidence, you've made claims--which were flatout incorrect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chowderhead wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Manchu wrote:I was referring to your earlier objection that people don't pay attention to pre-order bonuses/GameStop limited time trade-in bonuses compared to your point on this page regarding DLC sales that go on for one or two days.
That wasn't my objection to that. My objection to that is that GameStop gets you in there with a "limited time trade-in bonus which will be applied to your account for use!" but then requires you to use it right then.
There's a difference existing between those two situations.
One is a "deal" which the digital delivery service(ex: Steam, Xbox Live, PSN) will tell you about when you look at the category to go download the DLC and makes no secret about it being a "limited time offer".
The other is an attempt to get you into the physical store, to trade-in your gently used games with a promise of credit applied to your account with said store for usage. The fine print, however, is that it will only be able to be used THAT DAY.
And your point is?
Most people only trade in games when they want to buy something that day.
As Manchu keeps saying:
Irrelevant. It's a dishonest business practice, reliant upon the "fine print" to cover their backsides.
Kanluwen wrote:[a point about not being able to use trade-in value on pre-orders until release? maybe?]
If I understand what you mean (big IF) then I still don't see a problem -- except that you think it's bad to be stupid at GS but okay to be stupid when browsing XBL or PSN.
Kanluwen wrote:[a point about not being able to use trade-in value on pre-orders until release? maybe?]
If I understand what you mean (big IF) then I still don't see a problem -- except that you think it's bad to be stupid at GS but okay to be stupid when browsing XBL or PSN.
I think it's unacceptable to be stupid anywhere actually, but that's beside the point.
I explained why I think it's bad in that big part with all the funny named games. The way they execute these "Special Trade-in Days" is to grab the most money they can by encouraging trade-ins of the "most popular" games which they can still reliably sell.
Ahtman wrote:I didn't say pawn shops had a bad reputation*, just that they have an air of desperation that clings to them, much like Gamestop or used car sales.
Honestly, I've never gotten that feeling going into a GameStop. Then again, I don't sell used games.
Video games, however, are a luxury good. People don't need them in the same way people often need money from a pawn shop (pay rent, buy groceries, etc.), so maybe it's just a personal perception. Usually, you see young kids selling games at GameStop, while used car dealers and pawn shops cater to a wholly different market.
Ahtman wrote:The payment structure is different between the different stores (collateral loan, money loan), but the end result is the same for each of them.
I suppose it depends on how you look at it. But they really are very different vehicles.
Kanluwen wrote:[And the 60$ price tag covers the Online pass and a new pistol. That's it. I'm not paying 10 dollars more for a PC game which should be 50 so I can play online. Hell, the Disc for sale at Gamestop new is around 20 bucks less than buying off of Origin, without adding in shipping.
If I have one problem with GameStop is trying to sell open games as new. If I am paying for a new game it better be sealed and still have the factory air still trapped inside. I don't care if they put the disk in a holder and say no one has played it, it shouldn't be open. Protip: having known some employees, they do play them*. The other problem then is that if you change your mind you can't take it back becuase it has been opened, even though you didn't open it.
They need to stop putting new games out on the shelves, and put cards that show what new games they have, or some other way, but selling open games as new is bad.
*It isn't store policy or encouraged, just bad employees, and sometime managers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
Ahtman wrote:The payment structure is different between the different stores (collateral loan, money loan), but the end result is the same for each of them.
I suppose it depends on how you look at it. But they really are very different vehicles.
But I think we can agree that none of them are ponzi schemes.
Kanluwen wrote:And the 60$ price tag covers the Online pass and a new pistol. That's it. I'm not paying 10 dollars more for a PC game which should be 50 so I can play online. Hell, the Disc for sale at Gamestop new is around 20 bucks less than buying off of Origin, without adding in shipping.
I forgot a part of my post. I meant to say Xbox disc that can be purchased at Gamestop. Which is less than the Origin price.
"New", BF3 is $59.99 for the 360.
"Used", it's $47.99 for the 360.
You will also have to pay for the Online Pass(which is not something the PCs do not have) and the Back to Karkand DLC to be able to make the most of playing BF3.
Buying new, you're saved $10--which then goes to Back to Karkand.
Kanluwen wrote:Back to Karkand DLC to be able to make the most of playing BF3.
You don't have to get it to enjoy BF3. This is opinion, not fact. The only reason I got BtK is because you and the rest of the idiots on XBL had it, and I didn't want to be booted from games!
And anyway, I'm going from memory as Gamestop is blocked at my school. So yes, you might be right. Hell, you are probably right, and I've made an ass out of myself. But still, I feel that I have made some valid arguments farther back in the thread.
Ahtman wrote:The payment structure is different between the different stores (collateral loan, money loan), but the end result is the same for each of them.
I suppose it depends on how you look at it. But they really are very different vehicles.
But I think we can agree that none of them are ponzi schemes.
Well, yeah. But nobody seriously argues that GameStop is a Ponzi scheme. At least, nobody who knows what a Ponzi scheme is.
Ahtman wrote:The payment structure is different between the different stores (collateral loan, money loan), but the end result is the same for each of them.
I suppose it depends on how you look at it. But they really are very different vehicles.
But I think we can agree that none of them are ponzi schemes.
Well, yeah. But nobody seriously argues that GameStop is a Ponzi scheme. At least, nobody who knows what a Ponzi scheme is.
Stop bringing logic into this thread, biccat. You're ruining it!
Gamestop is as bad as Ponzi was; bilking people for bajillions of dollars!
). The problem is that at the end of the day, Epic has more money. A lot more money. They'll just drag it out until 
its not whats been sold, its getting idea of what % of people hold off purchasing at full price for initial release.
