56% of American Gamers Don't Buy Games

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

Well this is disconcerting. I recall working at gamestop & hearing a fanboy complaining that capcom should make more games like godhand as he's BUYING a used copy. Irony.

By the way, ITS USED, NOT PRE-OWNED. There should be no euphemism for buying people's sloppy seconds. How does pre-owned condoms sound?

emeraldrafael:
Hunh...

I dont think used games are so much to worry about as publishers think they are or make them out ot be. You already collected the price on that new game. Publishers seem to forget that you cant have used without new, and I'd be willing to say that a good portion of bought used games are bought past the point where the publisher has to worry about making mad cash off it to justify development.

EDIT: then again the last time I paid full price on a new game was Catherine, and thats only cause I wanted to support the Persona team and SMT so much.

Same here, although a friend did give me Disgaea 4 for my birthday.

GreatTeacherCAW:
Sounds about right. 75% of the games I played in 2011 were done with the same 55 dollar credit at GameStop, with their retarded 7-day no questions asked return policy. Saves me money, and then I don't end up owning shitty games. And before I get yelled at for not supporting the developers and blah blah blah - I don't care.

It's not your responsibility to care. I don't cry for corporations.

ForgottenPr0digy:
I think developers should get a percentage for any used game they developed. At least between 20-30% for royalties or something like that. This might hurt used game sales but it won't hurt too much that we the consumers can still use it and trade in old games to buy brand new games.

No, they already received their due from the initial sale. First sale doctrine and all that jazz.

Well... lets see.
(InsertGameHere)for $120 brand new.
(InsertGameHere)for $60 second hand.
The developers probably have way more money then me. I'm not going to spend an extra $60 giving money to those that don't need it.

You know I think developers should just go on strike and say they aren't going to work until people on the Internet quit accusing them of being greedy. See how long players can go without going into withdrawals.

Interesting. I can see why developers and publishers are nervous. That'd make me nervous too.

Again, repost of article that's full of crap.

As one of these 85 million US gamers, I don't remember getting asked my game buying habits.

I call Shenanigans!!!

Meh still don't see the problem.
I bought Uncharted 3 and Arkham City New and I plan on swapping one of them with a friend for AC Revelations. Saves us both money.

Don't like it. Cry a river, build a bridge, and get over it.

We're buying the games new its up to us what we do with it.

Spacecat-V:
Well this is disconcerting. I recall working at gamestop & hearing a fanboy complaining that capcom should make more games like godhand as he's BUYING a used copy. Irony.

By the way, ITS USED, NOT PRE-OWNED. There should be no euphemism for buying people's sloppy seconds. How does pre-owned condoms sound?

Really? Used games are condoms now? Also that game is like $10 on PSN not to mention the studio no longer exists.

I usually buy games new, but sometimes they are over the top with prices. Here, at BestBuy when I went to preorder Skyrim it actually cost $69.99 plus tax. I was shocked since games are usually just $60 plus tax no matter what. Unless you buy some special edition, but this was the normal edition. So pricing being cut would help but a lot of Escapists suggested that but let me suggest a new better idea:

Guys, combine 2/3 DLCs into the original game when you sell it. That way, the price seems worth it since we won't have to spend an extra $4 to $29 dollars on DLC's that make the game funner which already should be part of the game. I understand that sometimes you make really good DLCs after for a reason, but most of it could just be included in the game. Imagine how happy your fans would be.

OR, or... if you have them pay for the game when it first comes out instead of just charging everyone $60.00 throughout the months then all the DLC's are free to first buyers. Something similar to what Gears of War 3 did.

GreatTeacherCAW:
Sounds about right. 75% of the games I played in 2011 were done with the same 55 dollar credit at GameStop, with their retarded 7-day no questions asked return policy. Saves me money, and then I don't end up owning shitty games. And before I get yelled at for not supporting the developers and blah blah blah - I don't care.

You shouldn't have to. You are a consumer, what the producer wants is irrelevant. A consumer should look out for themselves, not the people they are buying from.

RedEyesBlackGamer:

GreatTeacherCAW:
Sounds about right. 75% of the games I played in 2011 were done with the same 55 dollar credit at GameStop, with their retarded 7-day no questions asked return policy. Saves me money, and then I don't end up owning shitty games. And before I get yelled at for not supporting the developers and blah blah blah - I don't care.

You shouldn't have to. You are a consumer, what the producer wants is irrelevant. A consumer should look out for themselves, not the people they are buying from.

Not really the response I was expecting, but it is certainly better. I don't really understand why people wouldn't mess around with a 7-day no questions asked return policy.

Time to start complaining about letting people borrow games now.

The games industry is the only one to complain about rentals and used copies. Why is it any different to renting a movie or buying a movie on ebay? Gamers and the gaming industry constantly need something to complain about. It's a non-issue, lets drop it...

Draech:
[Well I think we do have the same Idea.

I evaluate every purchase I do before and after I buy it. If I think I have gotten my moneys worth then I am not going complain. If not Ill take my money somewhere else. I think this is more the "Insulin" attitude that has brought this about. I cant live without it. If the market wasn't willing to accept crappy product's then crappy products wouldn't survive.

I do have a disagreement with you on the "more wanting more" thing. I am not going to pretend to be a saint and say I wouldn't work less hours for more money if the opportunity presented it self. So I would feel hypocritical I imposed a different ideal on others. The true objection comes whether or not they follow business practises I believe.

Being very right wing I've run into the same ideological conflict. Overall I think capitalism is a great system, and am a lot like you in the same respect of wanting to better myself, and how I would not feel guilty by doing so.

My basic attitude is that while capitalism is a fine system, we're running into a situation where there are a few greedy arseholes ruining it for everyone else. It's rapidly become a matter of those at the very top keeping people down as much as anything. What's more when you get to the point where you have more money than you could ever possibly spend, heck more money than your kids and grandkids could ever posisbly spend once you leave it to them, why the hell do you need more money?

See, I don't begrudge someone being a millionaire, or a billionaire, or whatever else. Let the rich have their toys. However when a business is sitting here saying "well tens of millions in profits is not enough" I tend to have something of an issue with that when they want to gouge me. I bust on Bobby Kotick frequently because the guy has a private jet, and was involved in a sex scandal involving his personal stewardess at one point. When the guys in charge are THAT rich, WTF do they need to find ways to gouge us for every single dime?

In the end the basic answer is "because they can" and that's the problem IMO.

I love the capitalist system, however I think the big challenge facing it is to find a way to prevent a few greedy jerks from ruining it for everyone else, without creating some kind of dystopian hybrid-socialist monstrosity that makes things even worse. I don't pretend to know how to make that work, but I do think it's what people should be striving to find a way to do.

Also for the record, I rag on the gaming industry so hard because even beyond the general "exessive greed" thing, I feel it's a criminal enterprise, just as bad as the pirates they happen to persecute. Whether there is a legal loophole being exploited to avoid being criminal on some technical merits... in spirit they ARE operating illegally.

See, the US at least has laws in place to keep cartels, monopolies, and other similar types of control schemes from exploiting the people. A cartel being when multiple business interests conspire together to create a monopoly by setting prices and not actually competing with each other despite apperances. Gas companies are in trouble for this and under investigation all the time, how much pressure they are under from the federal goverment's investigations oddly influances what you pay at the pump. It's in and out of the news regularly. The gaming industry operates very similarly, you'll notice that all games have
the same prices, this is regardless of how much money actually went into developing a game. A game that took 2 million dollars to make and a 200 million dollar AAA title are both going to retail for $60. This is done so nobody tries to undercut anyone else's prices, and everyone can make tons of money... where the idea of the US laws and market is that everyone is supposed to compete to deliver the best product for the lowest prices, and the game industry should all be trying to outproduce and undercut each other, but that generally doesn't happen. What's more you'll also notice that the game industry makes pretensions of competition, but the various companies move their titles around to avoid competing with each other. Unless it's like the Christmas season or something, if someone is say releasing the next big shooter, the other companies releasing big games will wait to release theirs later, hoping to get more sales, and of course making it so that they compete for each other's business as little as possible despite how they might make it seem. It's probably that the game industry has not gotten big enough to get govermental attention in this aspect yet, but it could also be due to some technicality that makes it so they don't fall under the same standards as other businesses that have gotten nailed for the same thing in the past. The bottom line is that it's immoral, and even if legal circumvents the principles of the American market.

I'm not a big fan of piracy, and oddly the analogy I usually use in regards to the industry battles with pirates leading to all this DRM and garbage is likening it to gang bangers fighting the mafia. Both sides are dead wrong, and incredibly corrupt. It doesn't matter who wins, we wind up losing due to the crossfire. Really I'd like to see Uncle Sam get off his censorship kick, and take a look purely at the business aspects of this and come clean it up so to speak. Right now as someone who just wants to play games, I sort of fantisize about seeing some massive federal raids, and seeing pirates and game company CEOS sharing the same overcrowded federal prison cells. Removing the need of DRM, and getting rid of enough of the sleaze where hopefully the industry could get back to making good games with a reasonable expectation of profit, rather than simply making whatever sells the most at the moment and finding every possible way to exploit the user base in terms of both grabbing their money and crawling through their systems with spyware.

That's my thoughts at any rate.

Loonerinoes:

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

Of course they don't! After all, used sales are *legitimate* ways in which the developers/publishers don't get money, whereas piracy is bad because it's *illegitimate*. What matters is the principle of the thing, not the, ya know, actual effect being virtually the same damn thing in the end.

/end sarcasm

In twenty years, when nobody owns anything in the U.S. but is only renting everything they have, it will be because of people like you, who do not believe that a company owes them a physical product with future value, who we have to thank for it.

And 78 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Honestly though, that's a pretty impressive, albiet worrying number, (if it's accurate)
I personally buy new as much as possible, but I'm getting sick of being punished for buying new only to be punished again if I buy used cause I simply don't have the money for a title or if it's no longer ordered in new.

Those kind of figures should certainly worry publishers and devs alike, but they're going about fixing this the entirely wrong way >_>

(not trying to turn this into a used sales debate, just stating my opinion)

violinist1129:

DSQ:

EHKOS:
Yeah...but...what about books, and movies. They don't whine like this. Or at least as much. I'm really sick of the whole subject.

This. If publishing, Cinema and Cars don't make such stupid claims then I don't understand why games complain so much. I mean it is not like these players don't buy the games or that the publishers get no money in this system. For every used game their was once a new game!

Movies have theater time long before DVD sales begin. Cars don't turn over in days like games do. You will never find a used car at a store one week after the model was released. Similarly, you can't even buy movies until months after their theater release.

Cars maybe, but with films you can get DVD's somtimes on the same day of a cinema release and increacingly 2 to 3 weeks after a cinema run.

Every industry has it's challenges and used games being so fat to hit game shelves is just one of the game industry. Punishing the customer and calling them theives is only gonna make most gamers resent game companys rather that support their cause.

Hevva:
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.

I'm sorry, what - hard to see? Steam already showed how it works: cut prices down to 50%, and boost sales by 300%.

AAA titles are just too expensive.

UrieHusky:
And 78 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot...

In addition: 85.73% of people will believe any statistic with a decimal point

85% of gamers buy used. That means that the number of gamers who don't buy games at all is 15% or less.

As well, the study claims that more than 50% of gamers don't buy games. Let X be the total number of gamers, and G be the number of gamers who don't buy games.

0.5X < G < 0.15X

G DOES NOT EXIST

STUDY IS FAKE

Oh hang on a moment. This is Newzoo doing this work... they're the fuckers behind the Duke Nukem Forever review contraversy involving holding back games.

Zero. Fucking. Credibility.

Loonerinoes:

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

Of course they don't! After all, used sales are *legitimate* ways in which the developers/publishers don't get money, whereas piracy is bad because it's *illegitimate*. What matters is the principle of the thing, not the, ya know, actual effect being virtually the same damn thing in the end.

/end sarcasm

Except, the company DID get their profit from that used copy, when it was bought new. Whereas the pirated copy was created without them receiving a dime.

Or, are you going to suggest that people who buy shit didn't pay money for it. Cause they did. The publishers got it. That copy is paid for. Doesn't matter who else gets it.

Publishers want their games to stop being passed around as tho they were consumed they need to make less consumable (read: more replayable) games. Anything else is devaluing the rights of their initial buyer, and is a stripping of customer rights and crapping on the very notion of a contract of sale.

dyskordian:
I have 170+ games on Steam that disagree with this article.

You count for more then half of the gaming market in America?

GreatTeacherCAW:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

GreatTeacherCAW:
Sounds about right. 75% of the games I played in 2011 were done with the same 55 dollar credit at GameStop, with their retarded 7-day no questions asked return policy. Saves me money, and then I don't end up owning shitty games. And before I get yelled at for not supporting the developers and blah blah blah - I don't care.

You shouldn't have to. You are a consumer, what the producer wants is irrelevant. A consumer should look out for themselves, not the people they are buying from.

Not really the response I was expecting, but it is certainly better. I don't really understand why people wouldn't mess around with a 7-day no questions asked return policy.

I don't know... oh, maybe because you are a decent human being and actually are into gaming and want to support certain developers so they can continue to make the games you like?
Like say... take for example the Humble Indie Bundle: http://www.humblebundle.com/ or similar game deals, where it's basically "Pay what you want" or even some developers living off of donations, there are still people there spending upwards of 100$ and the average buy price is somewhere around 5$ per bundle.

No matter if you want to understand it or not, but buying used has the exact same consequence piracy does, not even that but it is worse as they are actually losing real money, not imaginary...
If enough people do it and certain games don't break even the development studios have to close and you won't get any more games out of them, it wouldn't be the first time that happened either... Even if they don't immediately have to close because a game did "alright", there's usually layoffs and certain "risky" game ideas/ventures... say Mirror's Edge 2, something similar to Psychonauts or even finally greenlighting another Beyond Good & Evil game proves rather difficult when the expected profit doesn't seem worth the risk, so they will be put to work on the new big MMO, FIFA or Modern Warfare instead of being creative...

I love how a lot of people constantly complain about the "modern online shooters" or "sports" franchises being so prevalent and wanting to have/enjoy new original ideas, but when it comes down to it and "new modern online shooter 15" or "sports mix 95" releases, their fans actually put down the money for it, while all the "fans" of good SinglePlayer experiences and new ideas can't be arsed to do the same...

Omissions in the article are bad enough but we all know who commissions these research groups, right? Well, we should all know by now. It's not a secret, it's right there on the fucking page.
http://www.newzoo.com/ENG/1522-Clients.html
If you're lazy or scared of links (Hey, I understand, it's the internet and we've all been scarred)
Here are some of the noteworthy ones:

BLIZZARD
EA
MICROSOFT
CODEMASTERS
POPCAP
GAMESTOP
WARNER BROS

The people who commission and pay the guys who produce these statistics (which are based on cherry-picked data and theoretical number crunching) are the same ones trying to push certain agendas.

The notions put forth here are ludicrous, these numbers are not a poor reflection on us "cheapskate, freeloading, lying, stealing gamers" and nobody's saying "If you have a family of four you had best buy four copies of that game you want otherwise you shall be lawyered right after we come over and shoot your dog".

The Escapist should get its own air time on fox news.

To add my 2p to what's going on in this thread...
Used games are no different to used furniture,cars, books etc etc
It shouldn't be legal to cut content for used game buyers
Did everyone forget about the 200%(+) markups on games by region?
What about the price on privacy? What about DRM? Dodgy EULAs? The whole licensing thing in general?

Call me when these guys want to play fair.

What makes video games, of all things, so different to everything else? And in the name of what? Bigger piles of cash.
I'm sorry, I just can't get behind that. The scary thing is; this industry may change how everything else in our lives works. The abolition of consumer rights is not any kind of way forward.

Hell, maybe those silly anti piracy videos were right, maybe we will all turn to stealing cars... but they have to understand that it'd be THEM who's putting us there.

[Edited for language and grammar]

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.

There are two solutions:
1. make games that dont suck (so the original owner will not sell it)
2. make games price reasonable (paying 200$ for a title is really idiotic, and if so little people do it, i sitll have faith in humanity after all).
3. Make DLC free. that will make sure the original owner stays with the game longer. the whole DLC for moeny concept is wrong. i already bought the game DLC should come on its own.

Based on the replies to this thread I think a lot of people are mistaking the "85% regularly purchase used games" statistic as meaning that they ONLY buy used. I would say I buy used regularly, especially when Gamestop has a "Buy 2 Get 1 Free" sale or bring out the "$20 or less" bin. That doesn't mean I don't buy new. I have Saints Row 3 and Mass Effect 3 pre-ordered and I plan on buying at least 3 new games Sunday K-Mart is offering a huge set of deals. If they would have calculated the percentage of gamers that only buy used games I guarantee it will be much lower than "85%"

Again, used game sales don't harm publishers in the same way as they make it seem. This isn't piracy for God's sake. They made their money when the first person bought the game. They make their money on shitty DLC. They make their money on online passes (sort of?).

If they are so concerned about the "evil" used game market then they should lower the price of their games. Maybe then people would be able to afford more new games. Maybe then people would be more inclined to pay for a 4 to 6 hour game. Maybe then new IPs would be able to get a foot hold. Maybe then singleplayer games wouldn't get stuffed with unnecessary multiplayer components to pad out the game.

In Australia, a new game in-store is $100 for console, $90 for PC. I generally buy off steam or pre-owned. There are a few games I buy new (Fable Series games, Diablo 3, Assassins Creed games, Total War games, Skyrim), but apart from that, they're either 2-3 years old or pre-owned, or off steam. How can publishers ask me to buy a new, recent release at $90 - $100, and that's not even special editions, and then get pissed when I don't? Hell, a 2-3 year old game new is still $50-$60. There are very few games I can justify paying more than that for. FFS, if they want me to buy new as it's released, start charging decent prices

If they want to increase their margins, how about just spending less on the thrills of a game?

I mean I can do without the movie length cut scenes and super ultra detailed graphics, if it means a longer, cheaper, better polished game.

I mean how many people think Final Fantasy 13 is objectively better than ff6 in terms of writing, gameplay, PACING, testing, polish, etc?

Am I the only who wished they spent Crisis Core's budget on good script writers, rather than a voice actor for the fanifc writer's emo OC?

And is it me or do most Squaresoft games (even the good ones) have flaws that would be obvious with 5 minutes of testing (Kingdom Hearts Days........ see now I would be happy for this game to have graphics on par with Chain Of Memories, if it meant gameplay on par with Chain of Memories instead of..... this. But omg it has cinematics, ps2 like graphics and voice acting! Who cares if the battle system is crap, the ai is crap, the bosses are crap, the game is a broken mess and filled with pointless padding fetch quests?).

And yeah, if a game can be beaten within rental time ITS TOO SHORT YOU IDIOTS

Strazdas:
There are two solutions:
1. make games that dont suck (so the original owner will not sell it)
2. make games price reasonable (paying 200$ for a title is really idiotic, and if so little people do it, i sitll have faith in humanity after all).
3. Make DLC free. that will make sure the original owner stays with the game longer. the whole DLC for moeny concept is wrong. i already bought the game DLC should come on its own.

The problem with your third point (and the reason I like DLC as a form of income), is it costs the developers time and money to make those DLC. The price of the original game covers the money it costs developers to make the original game, so it's only fair they charge extra for extra work

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

Dexter111:

GreatTeacherCAW:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

You shouldn't have to. You are a consumer, what the producer wants is irrelevant. A consumer should look out for themselves, not the people they are buying from.

Not really the response I was expecting, but it is certainly better. I don't really understand why people wouldn't mess around with a 7-day no questions asked return policy.

I don't know... oh, maybe because you are a decent human being and actually are into gaming and want to support certain developers so they can continue to make the games you like?
Like say... take for example the Humble Indie Bundle: http://www.humblebundle.com/ or similar game deals, where it's basically "Pay what you want" or even some developers living off of donations, there are still people there spending upwards of 100$ and the average buy price is somewhere around 5$ per bundle.

No matter if you want to understand it or not, but buying used has the exact same consequence piracy does, not even that but it is worse as they are actually losing real money, not imaginary...
If enough people do it and certain games don't break even the development studios have to close and you won't get any more games out of them, it wouldn't be the first time that happened either... Even if they don't immediately have to close because a game did "alright", there's usually layoffs and certain "risky" game ideas/ventures... say Mirror's Edge 2, something similar to Psychonauts or even finally greenlighting another Beyond Good & Evil game proves rather difficult when the expected profit doesn't seem worth the risk, so they will be put to work on the new big MMO, FIFA or Modern Warfare instead of being creative...

I love how a lot of people constantly complain about the "modern online shooters" or "sports" franchises being so prevalent and wanting to have/enjoy new original ideas, but when it comes down to it and "new modern online shooter 15" or "sports mix 95" releases, their fans actually put down the money for it, while all the "fans" of good SinglePlayer experiences and new ideas can't be arsed to do the same...

Honestly, I understand that, hell, I even sympathize with developers for it. And if new games that had just come out were reasonably prices where I am (Australia, where they ask for $100 for game that's not even special edition), then I would certainly buy them brand new as they came out

Argh, all I hear about anymore is the financial problems of the industry. Is the only point of video games making money? Are video game not art? Is the only point of video games making huge profits? Is that why we call it "the industry"?

To be fair, they are a buisness, though they should try to handle it rather than trying to guilt the customers for following basic economics. Also people who make 6 hour games for $30 should feel guilty for that instead. I mean what a bad use of money

People just figured that out? People have been doing it for decades. Hell, I remember swapping SNES games with my school mates.

Iron Lightning:
Argh, all I hear about anymore is the financial problems of the industry. Is the only point of video games making money? Are video game not art? Is the only point of video games making huge profits? Is that why we call it "the industry"?

Yes, yes, yes and yes.
Still gamers can influence what makes that money, good games or bad games, so vote with your wallet.

Still this article sounds positive to me. Borrowing from friends is much smarter than using a middleman like Gamestop.

 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