56% of American Gamers Don't Buy Games

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Garethp:

Asuka Soryu:
I don't feel any guilt for borrowing games(mind you, I borrow from a friend for PS2 and Game Cube) but honestly.

60$ for PS3

40$ for 3DS

Come on, there's no way I'm gonna spend that much on those. I don't have 60$ to constantly throw away on a video game that probably won't last me a week. Nothing like throwing away 60$

Then there's 3DS games. 40$ for remakes and ports and the umpteenth Mario games. Hell no. The 3DS is a portable GameCube with ass 3D. I've only gotten Zelda OoT and Street Fighter 4. I have no intention of paying 40$ for games that either look unappealing or sale for 10$ on eBay on older consoles. Even if you added some graphical improvements and 3D~

Damn, Nintendo. Freakin' lower the price of your games. 20$ would be perfect. I could spend 40$ much easier if I was getting two games. 40$ is just rediculous.

Read my post two down from yours. Paying that little for games is a goddamn good price in Australia

What's your point? In a warzone, I'm pretty sure you'd rather have one leg blown off then the other guy who lost both, but I'm sure you probably wouldn't suck it up and never show pain or mention it, because you know others are in worse condition.

This is such B.S. logic. Just because you pay more doesn't mean jack. How much do you have to spend? What if someone here only pays 60$, but that's all they get if they save up for 2 months, huh? Then what? They can't complain about pricing because oh no, someone pays more somewhere else? No, screw that.

I'm tired of this arguement. Just because you pay more doesn't make it any better for us. We aren't fucking cash cows who can dole out 60$ a game easy as that. Yeah, sure, 100$ a game is a bitch. But when did that EVER make 60$ cheap as air? Hell, don't Australian's get payed more then American's? Perhaps you can work out a way where you get payed less and they lower the price of games. Sound good?

I don't have money to blow constantly on 60$ games. A 100$ price tag doesn't mean jack to me, because I can't even justify it at 60$

You know, just because you're getting screwed over doesn't make it better for the rest of us.

I refuse to accept that damn logic. What if there's a place that costs more for games then Australia? What if they pay double what you pay? Will you then never complain about a 130$ game as long as someone else has to pay 200$?

Irridium:

PC games most certainly do not have a longer shelf-life. Hell, PC games are lucky to even get a place on shelves these days. The PC market at retail is largely dead, and now far more digitally focused thanks to services like Steam, Impulse, Gamersgate, Origin, ect. And they still have the same prices as their largely irrelevant retail counterparts. They are not reducing prices. They're reducing costs, but not prices.

And the initial sales thing is just what I'm talking about, it's a strong focus on short-term gain without looking at long-term effects. Here's the thing, if there's a lot of used sales, then perhaps it would be a good idea to find out why people are trading them in. Perhaps if publishers put more effort into why people are trading in games and fueling used sales, they might find a way to actually do something about it, which would lead to long-term benefit for both the publisher and the consumer. Instead they just focus on getting short-term profits from used buyers. A strategy that apparently isn't making them that much money.

When talking shelf life it isn't just physical. Its digital as well. Shelf life is how long its selling for the publisher. Things on Steam are on the shelf.

I cant find Mass effect 1 anywhere original for a console, yet I can find it as an original for the PC. That is longer shelf life.

I buy unused games from the UK off Ebay, that counts as buying games, right? >.>;

Australian retailers are criminals when it comes to game prices! D:

You know, there's this thing going on at the minute, you might have heard of it. It's called "The economy going down the shitter."

Here in the UK, we've got hundreds of thousands of people being put out of work, the economy has had 0% growth over the last year, and times are generally tough all round. Many people are finding that they won't be able to even pay their fucking heating bill over winter because the price of gas and oil has risen so much.

From what I gather, it's much the same story in the US. With that in mind, is it any fucking wonder that people have less money to blow on videogames than they used to? If someone offered to let me borrow their copy of Gears or Battlefield 3, you're damn well right I'm going to take them up on that offer.

Danzavare:
I buy unused games from the UK off Ebay, that counts as buying games, right? >.>;

Australian retailers are criminals when it comes to game prices! D:

A close friend of mine over there has me run his steam account so I can buy things on US prices and he just transfers money over to my accounts when he wants something.

Gotta love those friendship discounts!

FelixG:

Danzavare:
I buy unused games from the UK off Ebay, that counts as buying games, right? >.>;

Australian retailers are criminals when it comes to game prices! D:

A close friend of mine over there has me run his steam account so I can buy things on US prices and he just transfers money over to my accounts when he wants something.

Gotta love those friendship discounts!

Brilliant~! I stick to Australian prices, but almost exclusively buy games that have been reduced by at least 75% (50% if I'm really longing for the game). The downside is that this laptop can't actually play most games, so I'm holding on in the vague hope I get a better computer someday.

On the console front, the UK is responsible for 90% of my purchases. I can get Fable 3 for a bit under $30 (last time I checked) off Ebay or get it for $60 at an Australian retailer. Heck, they're still trying to sell me Fable 2 for $40.

One Hit Noob:
First of all, you didn't exactly copy my style of typing because I didn't cap my words in a manner that seems frighteningly rude. Second of all, when exactly did the OP say that the game market crashed?

Ah, we're relying on pedantry to cop out now.

Okay, if you don't want to seriously talk about things, don't. I only replied to your prior post because you said something silly and disingenuous in the face of other media having done the same thing you insist doesn't work. No skin off my nose if you're not even going to take your own argument seriously.

The Data has been what statisticians call "Massaged" pretty heavily to show a certain point. Of COURSE nearly every gamer has borrowed a game from a freind, the numbers would look similar with DVDs or CDs if you displayed it in this way. Its simply a false reading

Once AGAIN escapist i take issue with your dramatic title not matching up with the actual news. 77% of all money spent on games is money towardards publishers and developers even with these slightly dubious numbers.

This also makes the assumption much, like the bullshit piracy numbers, that a used sale/ borrowing/ normal sharing of a game within a family = a lost new sale. This DOES NOT automatically equal a lost sale and i think even the publishers know it. People buy older games used that are now hard to find new, i recently re-bought "The Darkness" after giving my copy to a freind of mine some years ago. I wanted to replay it and it was only 3. Sharing games between freinds usually means someone wants to try a game out. Both pre-owned sales and game swapping/sharing lead to players being able to experience games with a lower price of entry, it is a free, big impact interface with potential consumers with games they would not normally have the funds to come into contact with. It ADDS to the gaming market and killing it would kill not only many games acess but PUBLISHERS ACESS TO GAMERS Its like banning cosumer trade shows becase they are "Playing our games for free!", if more people play your games more people recognise your brand. Its BENFICIAL.

Also this study also implies that normal sharing between freinds and family should be combated by publishers (and is already of being so by some with codes and other such wank). This is Caped Evi; Viallan territor "Muahahahaha, what to let your brother who lives 4 feet away play your game? Well fuck you! You have to buy MORE copies! SPEND MONEY! SPEND MONEY! MAKE OTHER PEOPLE SPEND MONEY! AHAHAHAHA!" Consumers expect certain basic ownership over retail games.

Draech:

Irridium:

PC games most certainly do not have a longer shelf-life. Hell, PC games are lucky to even get a place on shelves these days. The PC market at retail is largely dead, and now far more digitally focused thanks to services like Steam, Impulse, Gamersgate, Origin, ect. And they still have the same prices as their largely irrelevant retail counterparts. They are not reducing prices. They're reducing costs, but not prices.

And the initial sales thing is just what I'm talking about, it's a strong focus on short-term gain without looking at long-term effects. Here's the thing, if there's a lot of used sales, then perhaps it would be a good idea to find out why people are trading them in. Perhaps if publishers put more effort into why people are trading in games and fueling used sales, they might find a way to actually do something about it, which would lead to long-term benefit for both the publisher and the consumer. Instead they just focus on getting short-term profits from used buyers. A strategy that apparently isn't making them that much money.

When talking shelf life it isn't just physical. Its digital as well. Shelf life is how long its selling for the publisher. Things on Steam are on the shelf.

I cant find Mass effect 1 anywhere original for a console, yet I can find it as an original for the PC. That is longer shelf life.

Then if you can't find a new copy of the game anywhere, how is a used sale cutting into profits? There's no way it could be bought new, so there's no way they lost a sale.

Zeriah:

Irridium:
Hey, publishers, if SO MANY PEOPLE aren't buying new, and one of the big reasons is price, perhaps it'd be a good idea to reduce your fucking prices already. You know, like what any other business would do.

Especially you EA, who said that the $60 price was a problem way back in 200-fucking-7, and still have done NOTHING to remedy this despite now having your own store where you can charge whatever you want.

Publishers are so quick to blame so many things for the loss of money, but I would bet that their own broken-ass business model is the biggest reason.

Valve has proven that the less you charge, the more you make. Perhaps you should try that.

Normandyfoxtrot:
The thing that always bugs me is people complaining that they don't make enough new IP's but then won't buy new IP games new, they rent them or buy them used.

Well when the publisher doesn't market them, charges $60, and releases the at the same time as the next big Modern Warfare, Assassin's Creed, Halo, Battlefield, Elder Scrolls, and/or Fallout game, can you really blame them for not wanting to risk their money on it?

Would you risk $60 on a game you've never heard of, when instead of it you can buy the sequel to a series you already know you love?

So if they did this and reduced the price to say $40, you think this would stop gamestop from being able to take a few percent off on a used title and sell it for $36? That's very naive right there, it would barely change the amount of people buying used at all. It only saves them a few dollars right now and apparently 85% of people are making that choice. Think about this - I'm sure in an ideal world if they were assured that reducing the price of games to $40 made it illegal to sell them used, they would take that option in a heartbeat.

I happen to think that $60 is an incredibly small price to pay for a game that can sometimes last up to 100+ hours anyway (like any multiplayer game and a large portion of RPG's). How entitled can you be to think otherwise? Think about how many DVD's/Blu-rays or movie tickets you would have to buy to equal 100 hours.

Well, when the likes of Valve, EA(who said it in 2007), Todd Howard, and David Jaffe, and others believe that $60 is too high(EA and Valve said it in 2007 and 2009 for fuck's sake!), perhaps it's time to fix that. But nobody is. Not even EA, who is in the best position to do so with their own store. In fact, they've raised prices by now charging $60 for PC games.

This isn't about entitlement, it's about basic business sense. If people aren't willing to buy your product for the current asking price, you either A) provide a better deal, or B) reduce the price. Neither are things anybody is doing.

They may have to to take a hit at retail at first, but in the long run it'll be better for everyone.

Asuka Soryu:
Hell, don't Australian's get payed more then American's? Perhaps you can work out a way where you get payed less and they lower the price of games. Sound good?

Actually last I heard the average US citizen is payed about 8k more per year.
Though, that stat is back from 2008, things could well have changed recently with the Aus dollar rising and the US one crashing.
Also our dollar is higher then yours at the moment, a $60 dollar game in your currency is currently $55 to us, and our $120 games are $130 to you. thats a nice chunk more then double the cost.
But, this doesn't really matter to me, this console gen failed miserably and if I want PC games I use Steam or get freeware ones.

Hevva:
56% of American Gamers Don't Buy Games

image

A new market study has indicated that "swapsies" is the most popular game of 2011.

Although game-sharing isn't a novel concept in any sense, new research conducted by games market research firm Newzoo has shown that games are now more likely to be shared amongst friends and family than to stay with the original user. Consequently, according to Newzoo's report, more than half of the 82 million gamers in the United States don't actually have to spend money on games. Out of all customers who buy games for PC, Mac or Console, 85% say they regularly purchase pre-owned titles.

For a quarter of game-buyers, almost half of their budget goes towards pre-owned titles. In total, the report says, the average American gamer spends 23% of their gaming budget buying pre-owned.

The report then expands on the ballooning DLC market, which is expected to become worth $960 million in US sales alone this year. In total, 12% of the money spent on games in the US goes towards DLC, and Newzoo estimates that American and European gamers combined will spend $1.7 billion on DLC in 2011.

Taken as a whole, this information reads as a primer on why big publishers have developed such a fondness for DLC and online passes in recent years. AAA titles are expensive and it often makes sense for regular gamers to either wait for a new copy to appear in the pre-owned section or just borrow it from a friend - but doing that cuts out any profit for the developers and publishers, unless they add on DLC or see a major boost in early sequel sales. Though many gamers are irritated by "day-one" DLC and the concept of online passes, it's hard to see how publishers can avoid these methods without seeing a marked decrease in their profits.

Source: GameSpot

Permalink

1: Students to kids, CANNOT AFFORD the day one release bar the ones they really really long for because then they will have saved and scrounged like a madman to get the money down for the game
1.B : Either stop Pumping out Triple A titles like you are now game companies and invest more time in better games, or stop complaining that people buy used, we cannot afford Modern warfare 1 through 20 every day
2: payed day one DLC is a first buy deterrent
Why buy a game when you have to pay extra anyway for all it's features to come along
it's much better to wait for the GOTY
2.B: If you can't get your head round that go back to point 1
3 : nobody is barring you from cutting percentage deals over used sales
3.B: Also nobody is barring you from not joining in together and telling your programmers it's been fun and all but the economy is receding and they could cut back from say 100.000 dollars a month to 80.000 dollars a month
4. Get that stick out of your arse
4.B: No really do
5 3 words 15 letters : League Of Legends
5.B That game is free to play and still sustainable

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH SHIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET

Yopaz:
And yet people will come here and say that used sales don't cause the publisher any reason to worry...

Can't get used games without someone buying them new.

Also, standard piracy response - "Its not a lost sale, the people that buy used, likely would not have bought new if it was there only choice"

I buy what's there- often, the "Games that can be bought new" and the "Games that can be bought preowned" lists don't really overlap, at least in Australian stores. But I can pretend to be in a position to choose:

I'll start feeling sorry for publishers when they respond in a manner that *doesn't* treat the consumer as the cartoonish villain with the twirly black mo'. I'm sick of being likened to a criminal for taking the logical choice- you aren't giving me much reason to *want* to buy new.
"Hey, be nice to us, you fucking asshole" is all I'm getting.

Let's try something different, publishers: Let's *not* overcharge on our games.
The "problem" (Which I maintain is not actually a problem, because every other fucking market has to put up with the same thing) will never go away, but I can assure you that if games did not put such a dent in our wallets, we'd be more inclined to buy new. Hell, I'd say most people would rather a new game- nice, crisp manuals, no chance of those tiny scratches messing anything up... sounds nice to me! I'd rather that copy than the shitty one I borrowed from a friend or bought at a more reasonable price.

We aren't evil for taking the better option- just cautious. I get that publishers are trying to maker theirs the better option, but maybe if they could do that in a less hostile way, we'd all hate them less.

Buying used does not equal not buying. It is just not buying from the publisher. I buy games used because it is better value for money than being overcharged by the publisher.

Legally speaking, there's nothing wrong with buying used. Legally speaking, there's nothing wrong with sharing games.

Ethically? I look at it this way:

If Person A buys Publisher B's games used, or plays Publisher B's games by borrowing them from a friend, and then that publisher goes belly up, Person A doesn't have the right to complain about because Person A didn't support that business.

Take me for example. I like Ubisoft's Prince of Persia and Assassin's Creed games, and I own several of them, but I've bought them all used. If Ubisoft went bankrupt tomorrow, I would accept that I was part of the reason because enjoyed their product without supported their business. If I were to piss and moan about how disappointed I am that they're gone, I'd be a hypocrite because my buying habits contributed, in a small way, to them getting there.

And, this principle works another way too. If you don't like a company, but you want to play a game they make, you can intentionally avoid buying new so that you can play the game without supporting the company.

Again, take me for example. I don't like Activision. If I were to buy an Activision game, I'd intentionally buy used to avoid giving Activision my money. If Activision went under tomorrow, I'd feel sorry for all the honest and hard-working people throughout the ranks, but I wouldn't feel bad for the corporation as a whole, and I'd be laughing at Bobby Kotick for a week.

So, by all means, I say buy used and share games if you want, but if the company that made those games goes under and can't make any more of your favorite games, you have no grounds on which to complain. You did nothing to support the business, so you were part of the reason they went under.

Phas:

Deathninja19:
Also how did the games get to be pre-owned, someone must have bought them so the publishers are getting money.

So, if I hypothetically bought a membership card to a club, and sold it to another guy, that guy would have paid the club?

That was not what I was saying at all, what I meant was even if over 50% (which I think is an Over exaggeration anyway as that number is hard to quantify and even if you bought just one game that would exclude you from this percentage) the publishers are getting money from the original sale so it's no real loss as that pre-owned game is no longer theirs just as a car is no longer the manufacturers after it leaves the car lot.

The thing is there are plently of ways to attract new customers, sell new IPs at a lower cost, make single player games last longer than 6-8 hours, create DLC that is actually worth the money spent and so on. It's all ok for the games companies to complain about pre-owned games but the simple fact is they are not meeting their customers half-way and making it worthwhile to buy new games.

PS I almost always buy new the above is from the point of view from the pre-owners.

At the time, it was around 2008 so the idea of it being on psn for dirt cheap didn't exist yet.

Also, i'm not comparing games to condoms, I'm saying the term "pre-owned" should not be a euphemism for used. That's a different topic.

But I do agree once the money is spent on the game, its yours through & through. The problem I see is that I don't good game companies going out of business because no is buying them or they're waiting for it to be used. Clover Studio probably would of been around still. Though I think its a matter of customer interest as to why clover never got any real recognition.

Makes sense to me

Irridium:

Zeriah:

Irridium:
Hey, publishers, if SO MANY PEOPLE aren't buying new, and one of the big reasons is price, perhaps it'd be a good idea to reduce your fucking prices already. You know, like what any other business would do.

Especially you EA, who said that the $60 price was a problem way back in 200-fucking-7, and still have done NOTHING to remedy this despite now having your own store where you can charge whatever you want.

Publishers are so quick to blame so many things for the loss of money, but I would bet that their own broken-ass business model is the biggest reason.

Valve has proven that the less you charge, the more you make. Perhaps you should try that.

Well when the publisher doesn't market them, charges $60, and releases the at the same time as the next big Modern Warfare, Assassin's Creed, Halo, Battlefield, Elder Scrolls, and/or Fallout game, can you really blame them for not wanting to risk their money on it?

Would you risk $60 on a game you've never heard of, when instead of it you can buy the sequel to a series you already know you love?

So if they did this and reduced the price to say $40, you think this would stop gamestop from being able to take a few percent off on a used title and sell it for $36? That's very naive right there. I believe it would barely change the amount of people buying used at all. It only saves them a few dollars right now and apparently 85% of people are making that choice. Think about this - I'm sure in an ideal world if they were assured that reducing the price of games to $40 made it illegal to sell them used, they would take that option in a heartbeat.

I happen to think that $60 is an incredibly small price to pay for a game that can sometimes last up to 100+ hours anyway (like any multiplayer game and a large portion of RPG's). How entitled can you be to think otherwise? Think about how many DVD's/Blu-rays or movie tickets you would have to buy to equal 100 hours.

Well, when the likes of Valve, EA(who said it in 2007), Todd Howard, and David Jaffe, and others believe that $60 is too high(EA and Valve said it in 2007 and 2009 for fuck's sake!), perhaps it's time to fix that. But nobody is. Not even EA, who is in the best position to do so with their own store. In fact, they've raised prices by now charging $60 for PC games.

This isn't about entitlement, it's about basic business sense. If people aren't willing to buy your product for the current asking price, you either A) provide a better deal, or B) reduce the price. Neither are things anybody is doing.

They may have to to take a hit at retail at first, but in the long run it'll be better for everyone.

I respectfully disagree with your assumption. To me if people are willing to not support the industry in order to save $5 on a used copy right now, I see no reason why the same people would still not buy the game used at $36 if they reduced the new game price to $40. I still believe $60 is a huge bargain for any AAA multiplayer game that you intend to play online, or any single player games that you can easily spend over 50 hours in. Games like Bulletstorm or even Bioshock (despite how good they may be) probably should not cost as much as the aforementioned games considering their length, but I guess it really depends on development cost for the publishers - not game time.

Irridium:

Draech:

Irridium:

PC games most certainly do not have a longer shelf-life. Hell, PC games are lucky to even get a place on shelves these days. The PC market at retail is largely dead, and now far more digitally focused thanks to services like Steam, Impulse, Gamersgate, Origin, ect. And they still have the same prices as their largely irrelevant retail counterparts. They are not reducing prices. They're reducing costs, but not prices.

And the initial sales thing is just what I'm talking about, it's a strong focus on short-term gain without looking at long-term effects. Here's the thing, if there's a lot of used sales, then perhaps it would be a good idea to find out why people are trading them in. Perhaps if publishers put more effort into why people are trading in games and fueling used sales, they might find a way to actually do something about it, which would lead to long-term benefit for both the publisher and the consumer. Instead they just focus on getting short-term profits from used buyers. A strategy that apparently isn't making them that much money.

When talking shelf life it isn't just physical. Its digital as well. Shelf life is how long its selling for the publisher. Things on Steam are on the shelf.

I cant find Mass effect 1 anywhere original for a console, yet I can find it as an original for the PC. That is longer shelf life.

Then if you can't find a new copy of the game anywhere, how is a used sale cutting into profits? There's no way it could be bought new, so there's no way they lost a sale.

It simple really. Because used is there as a cheaper alternative with better profit for the distributor. Therefore buying new stock is bad business. In other words you got the order wrong. People arn't buying used because new isn't available. New isn't available because people buy used.

I can find new versions of old games for just about anything on the PC. No used available. Its not that games just disappear because the publisher decided to leave them. We decided to buy the cheaper used ones and makes it pointless for them to use money on making extra stock.

I'd like to see day of release rebates for new games. For example, if a game is going to sell for $60 (regular price), offer it for $45-50 on day of release. Hell, maybe throw in some rebates on DLC on top of that. Give customers a reason to buy new.

Doesn't mean a goddamn thing unless you include a side by side comparison of annual sales figures.

This is a natural consequence of the current generation of consoles and games being around for a while. Until the new platform comes out, there's a HUGE pool of wonderful games out there that you haven't played yet, so used is a viable option.

Briney-:
I'd like to see day of release rebates for new games. For example, if a game is going to sell for $60 (regular price), offer it for $45-50 on day of release. Hell, maybe throw in some rebates on DLC on top of that. Give customers a reason to buy new.

Here is what I suggest. Go full digital.

It is proven that any game that has a Digital only version will be significantly cheaper than a game with a Boxed product. We will get cheaper games day one. Section 8 on launch = 20$. Savage 2 on launch = 10 $.

More importantly it would shut this need for wasting resources on splitting games into DLC and online passes. These are resources wasted in order to get a piece of the second hand market. If the second hand market is gone no time/money will be spend on trying to get a piece of it and those resources would be used on the game.

Ofc people are against this because "We cant sell our games then" and that was the main problem to begin with. I say so what. You will get cheaper better games while supporting the development of new ones.

Normandyfoxtrot:
The thing that always bugs me is people complaining that they don't make enough new IP's but then won't buy new IP games new, they rent them or buy them used.

Those people just want to play the games for free. They would never suppport a good game or make a company want to produce a game. They do love to complain about the market though.

Irridium:

Normandyfoxtrot:

Irridium:
Hey, publishers, if SO MANY PEOPLE aren't buying new, and one of the big reasons is price, perhaps it'd be a good idea to reduce your fucking prices already. You know, like what any other business would do.

Especially you EA, who said that the $60 price was a problem way back in 200-fucking-7, and still have done NOTHING to remedy this despite now having your own store where you can charge whatever you want.

Publishers are so quick to blame so many things for the loss of money, but I would bet that their own broken-ass business model is the biggest reason.

Valve has proven that the less you charge, the more you make. Perhaps you should try that.

Well when the publisher doesn't market them, charges $60, and releases the at the same time as the next big Modern Warfare, Assassin's Creed, Halo, Battlefield, Elder Scrolls, and/or Fallout game, can you really blame them for not wanting to risk their money on it?

Would you risk $60 on a game you've never heard of, when instead of it you can buy the sequel to a series you already know you love?

Which doesn't change the fact that your hardly in any position to bitch about a lack of new IP's why do you think they turn out so many sequels in the first place.

Because sequels sell better than the original IP. And why do they sell? Because when everyone buys the new IP used, they love it and buy the sequel new.

This industry is so focused on short-term gain they fail to see the long-term affects. Used sales are perfect for building franchises. Used sales do transfer into new sales. It just doesn't happen quickly.

And again, people buy the new IP used because the publisher doesn't market it, charges the same amount as the huge sequels, and releases them at the same time as those sequels. Expecting them to sell well in that environment is just insanity. It's not the consumer's fault that publishers don't market their games, charge a lot of money for them, and release them at a time where the consumer's money will be put towards sequels. It's the publisher's fault for releasing it in such an environment.

Introducing Ignorant #1 - Lets discuss this another way. Not one of these companies is a top grossing company. They do all of the things they do for some of the lowest profit margins available in the market today. They also have some of the most overhead to cover for and the most finicky and whiny consumers. Have you ever seen a million people flame a one month delay of a movie and call every developer involved terrible names, cause I haven't either.

So as a consumer if you stop bitching suck it up a bit and buy new you will accomplish 2 things. The developers will get the money they need to make games and with that money they will make games cheaper. Many developers and companies have made countless statements to this end some saying the price should be $40 dollars.

In turn if the developer starts out cutting prices, used companies would just cut used prices and everyone would continue to buy used they never changed why would they decide that now is the time to change. If you look at a 40 dollar game and right next to it is the same game for 30 you'd still grab the 30. The consumer has to step up or shut up, those are their only options. The best part is that a new game that you buy used is priced at $59.99 while the used copy sitting next to it is $54.99. The big difference is that for $5 dollars more you can support the game and its developers.

You can never make a perfect sale time. The market is flooded with entertainment, video games are released every Tuesday with movies every Friday and books on Thursday there isn't a time that the developer can release anything competition free.

However you are clearly the victim in this area. So I think you should log off your computer. Sell all your consoles and video games, then you will have nothing to complain about and used dealers will lose one of their advocates that selling a used game for 5 dollars less is the ultimate life saver to gamers everywhere.

I lent BF2 to a buddy of mine, because he heard all the upcoming pub for BF3 (this was weeks ago) and wanted to get a feel for the game before going out and purchasing it.

Because I "swapped" my game with him, EA got an additional sale of BF3...but of course, I'm sure that went unnoticed with the other 5M sales it received.

Zeriah:

I respectfully disagree with your assumption. To me if people are willing to not support the industry in order to save $5 on a used copy right now, I see no reason why the same people would still not buy the game used at $36 if they reduced the new game price to $40. I still believe $60 is a huge bargain for any AAA multiplayer game that you intend to play online, or any single player games that you can easily spend over 50 hours in. Games like Bulletstorm or even Bioshock (despite how good they may be) probably should not cost as much as the aforementioned games considering their length, but I guess it really depends on development cost for the publishers - not game time.

They won't support the industry to save $5 now because games are $60. And as plenty of people have already said, including people in the industry, $60 is too much to charge people for games these days. With the popularization of the iPhone and iPad, which offers thousands of games, quite a bit are high quality, for only $1 or even free, asking people to pay $60 for a game is slowly becoming outdated.

And if people still won't buy new if you reduce the price, then they'll never buy new, and are not lost sales, which means you are losing no profit from them buying used.

But yes, price isn't everything. As I said to the other guy, publishers need to start offering incentives to buy new. Customers have no obligation to buy from anyone other than the guy who offers the better deal. Right now Gamestop is offering the better deal.

I point to piracy on the PC. Why do people buy from Steam when they could get the game for free? Because Steam offers a better deal.

Offer a better deal than Gamestop, and people will buy from you. If they still don't buy from you, they will never buy from you and aren't lost sales/profit.

But now video games are going on %-off sales left and right. For example, I got a new copy of Dead Rising 2: Off the Record 1/2 off on Amazon less than a month after release.

Melopahn:

Introducing Ignorant #1 - Lets discuss this another way. Not one of these companies is a top grossing company. They do all of the things they do for some of the lowest profit margins available in the market today. They also have some of the most overhead to cover for and the most finicky and whiny consumers. Have you ever seen a million people flame a one month delay of a movie and call every developer involved terrible names, cause I haven't either.

So as a consumer if you stop bitching suck it up a bit and buy new you will accomplish 2 things. The developers will get the money they need to make games and with that money they will make games cheaper. Many developers and companies have made countless statements to this end some saying the price should be $40 dollars.

In turn if the developer starts out cutting prices, used companies would just cut used prices and everyone would continue to buy used they never changed why would they decide that now is the time to change. If you look at a 40 dollar game and right next to it is the same game for 30 you'd still grab the 30. The consumer has to step up or shut up, those are their only options. The best part is that a new game that you buy used is priced at $59.99 while the used copy sitting next to it is $54.99. The big difference is that for $5 dollars more you can support the game and its developers.

You can never make a perfect sale time. The market is flooded with entertainment, video games are released every Tuesday with movies every Friday and books on Thursday there isn't a time that the developer can release anything competition free.

However you are clearly the victim in this area. So I think you should log off your computer. Sell all your consoles and video games, then you will have nothing to complain about and used dealers will lose one of their advocates that selling a used game for 5 dollars less is the ultimate life saver to gamers everywhere.

Alright, lets look at a company that has been so hurt by used sales they've tried everything from project $10 to online passes, EA.

Well, they seem to be doing very, very, very, very, very well for themselves. Making lots of money. They've been on the rise year after year, and are set to rise farther with the releases of The Old Republic and Mass Effect 3. They are set to make a net profit in the billions.

Poor them.

Perhaps they should just stop bitching and whining about used sales hurting their profits, which they aren't.

Which is why they should offer a better deal on top of a cut price. PC players buy from Steam when they could get 99% of those games for FREE because Steam offers a better deal. The consumer has NO OBLIGATION whatsoever to buy from anyone. Only the one who offers the better deal. Offer the better deal, and people will buy it. Publishers should suck it up and actually implement consumer benefits to gain and keep customers like every other fucking industry already.

Yeah, they can't release things competition-free, which is why they need to market their games. Almost no publisher ever markets a new IP, and releases them at the same time as the next big sequel that everyone will already be buying. Just because you can't ever release it at the best of conditions, doesn't mean you should default to the worst. Put some marketing behind it, release it in the summer when nearly no games are coming out, don't charge so much for it, and see what happens. Kind of like what Activision/Sony did for Prototype and Infamous. And both of those games sold well, and got sequels. Infamous 2 came out this summer and did very well, making it to number 2 on the sales charts for the month it came out.

I believe this. I remember doing quite a bit of wheeling and dealing in NES cartridges back in the day.

I also don't buy the supposed antipathy between publishers and Gamestop. The publishers are obviously willing to do special deals through them and get them new copies of games to put on their shelves. This kind of cooperation doesn't exactly smack of war.

Draech:

It simple really. Because used is there as a cheaper alternative with better profit for the distributor. Therefore buying new stock is bad business. In other words you got the order wrong. People arn't buying used because new isn't available. New isn't available because people buy used.

I can find new versions of old games for just about anything on the PC. No used available. Its not that games just disappear because the publisher decided to leave them. We decided to buy the cheaper used ones and makes it pointless for them to use money on making extra stock.

That's because Publishers aren't developing games with long-term strategies in mind, only short term. It's always hype before launch, launch, then more or less no talk about that game again from the publisher. This has happened for years, far before used sales got anywhere near as big as they are now. This leaves people only able to find out about the game from either friends who let them borrow it, or used sales, which they choose because they don't want to spend lots of money on a product they know next-to-nothing about and just generally being a smart consumer.

Irridium:

Draech:

It simple really. Because used is there as a cheaper alternative with better profit for the distributor. Therefore buying new stock is bad business. In other words you got the order wrong. People arn't buying used because new isn't available. New isn't available because people buy used.

I can find new versions of old games for just about anything on the PC. No used available. Its not that games just disappear because the publisher decided to leave them. We decided to buy the cheaper used ones and makes it pointless for them to use money on making extra stock.

That's because Publishers aren't developing games with long-term strategies in mind, only short term. It's always hype before launch, launch, then more or less no talk about that game again from the publisher. This has happened for years, far before used sales got anywhere near as big as they are now. This leaves people only able to find out about the game from either friends who let them borrow it, or used sales, which they choose because they don't want to spend lots of money on a product they know next-to-nothing about and just generally being a smart consumer.

That is bullshit

If I can find them selling 10 years after release on pc, but cant find the same game selling 10 weeks after on console. Its the same bloody game. Dont start with "its their strategy thats the problem" when the same game will have a much longer shelf life on PC.

Im calling bullshit. Dont tell me that they only market the pc side.

I suspect that this article is mainly concerned with console game only. The sad trueth is that since PC games are not suited for the trading model they had relativity ignored in this issue; along with all issues in gaming as the PC seems to be coming a niche machine due to the profitablity of the large console market.

TestECull:

I hate Activision's Call of Duty DLC though. 15 dollars for three of last game's maps and two crappy ones a half-decent modder could whip up while drunk? Puh-leeze, Activision. that's not DLC. That's bullshit.

Yeah, I agree... it's the likes of these forms of DLC that generate the misrepresentations of DLC as a whole i.e extortionate prices for cheaply (evidently) made content.

Bethesda had their folly back in oblivion (horse armour and the like), but really stepped up their game after Nights of the Nine (Didn't Shivering Isles come out as an expansion?). Then in Fallout 3 they released several decent to great DLCs with hours of extra play(Anchorage, Point Lookout, Mothership Zeta -the weakest but still fun- and Brokem steel which continued the main game and added a beefy amount of new things to do). Obsidian followed with the somewhat sketchy starter packs, but made up for it with multiple large DLCs in the space of a year.

Kudos to Obsidian, that's what DLC should be like. EDIT: Minus the bugs of course.

Irridium:

Zeriah:

I respectfully disagree with your assumption. To me if people are willing to not support the industry in order to save $5 on a used copy right now, I see no reason why the same people would still not buy the game used at $36 if they reduced the new game price to $40. I still believe $60 is a huge bargain for any AAA multiplayer game that you intend to play online, or any single player games that you can easily spend over 50 hours in. Games like Bulletstorm or even Bioshock (despite how good they may be) probably should not cost as much as the aforementioned games considering their length, but I guess it really depends on development cost for the publishers - not game time.

They won't support the industry to save $5 now because games are $60. And as plenty of people have already said, including people in the industry, $60 is too much to charge people for games these days. With the popularization of the iPhone and iPad, which offers thousands of games, quite a bit are high quality, for only $1 or even free, asking people to pay $60 for a game is slowly becoming outdated.

And if people still won't buy new if you reduce the price, then they'll never buy new, and are not lost sales, which means you are losing no profit from them buying used.

But yes, price isn't everything. As I said to the other guy, publishers need to start offering incentives to buy new. Customers have no obligation to buy from anyone other than the guy who offers the better deal. Right now Gamestop is offering the better deal.

I point to piracy on the PC. Why do people buy from Steam when they could get the game for free? Because Steam offers a better deal.

Offer a better deal than Gamestop, and people will buy from you. If they still don't buy from you, they will never buy from you and aren't lost sales/profit.

How can the devs'/publishers' offer a better deal than Gamestop's used sales when any decrease in price will be easily matched by Gamestop (since Gamestop will be spending less on buying the used copies)? They tried by giving incentives to buy new over used with free DLC but apparently that is evil. I admit a price decrease on some games is a thing that probably should be done, especially for digital downloads. However you have yet give any reasons why that would stop the people who buy used from suddenly wanting to give up their $5 saving regardless of how low the total price goes down.

Also your point on Iphone games is pretty exaggerated, Iphone games last a couple of hours at most and have next to no development costs.

As to why more people don't pirate, well because it is Illegal? You have to have a lot of technical knowledge? People probably feel a lot more bad about it too, since they got it for free (even though I myself consider them about as bad as each other on their damage done to the industry (unless you are buying used because you can no longer find a new copy, like with older gen games), though I wont get into that here).

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here