Pre-Owned Games Damaging Single-Player Development, Says Braben

David Braben, Frontier Developments chairman and co-author of the groundbreaking trading game Elite, says the existence of the pre-owned games market is "damaging" the development of single-player games.

"I think it's really damaging to the single-player experience. Games like BioShock and Assassin's Creed, where they're perfectly valid games, but once you've played them they go into the pre-owned section," he told GamesIndustry. "The sales don't reflect the actual sales of people playing them because someone has gone out and bought, at almost the same price, a pre-owned copy because they couldn't get an original. It's very frustrating that they don't carry that stock anymore."

Braben suggested that the current pre-owned scheme could be replaced by a rental system instead. "A genuine rental market would be fine," he continued. "There may well be other business models - and the problem with video rental, as I understand it, was prices were really high. I think that was the issue."

"Maybe there are different ways of participating in that. Maybe it's not a higher price, maybe we get a share of the rental, which actually might be better where the copy is even cheaper, or even free," he added.

I can't speak for anyone else, but when pre-owned game prices are "almost the same" as new, I buy new. On the other hand, if I can pick up a copy of Riddick for 20 bucks pre-owned, that's a whole different story. Videogame rentals already exist, but the prices are ridiculous and the terms are, to put it politely, less than friendly to consumers. The pre-owned market exists for a reason, and it will take some very fundamental changes to the way the industry does business to make it go away.

Permalink

While we're at it, I guess Braben expects used book stores to close down. Pawn shops won't be able to sell used DVDs or CDs. And let's make sure to pass some laws to shut down the horrible scourge on humanity that are garage sales where people get to *gasp* sell the things that they legally bought!

Seriously, when I buy something I can do whatever I want with it. Every other industry has to cope with people buying their products cheaper when they're used. Deal with it. Make your game so great that people won't be able to wait for it to show up in the used section and they'll want to buy it new.

Yah I'm NOT in favor of removing the pre-owned market. I wouldn't have got GTA IV if it wasn't for the ability to trade in old games. I bought it, its my game I'll sell it to who ever I want to, now they own the game and can sell it if they want to. Thats how ownership works.

I bought Assassin's Creed used....

So it's the gamers' fault? Not the industry's fault for pricing the games beyond their perceived value? Most single player games these days are coming in at fewer and fewer hours. $60 for 40 hours of gameplay, that's a good deal. But $60 for 10 hours of gameplay? It makes you think twice.

If it's hurting the single player market so bad, hopefully this'll push 'em to make more co-op and multiplayer games ;)

Having a viable market for a business practice is what drives any kind of affect on the general industry as a whole, not the people who partake in it. This is the similar argument that showed up with the RIAA and mp3's a while back, although what's talked about here is less sensationalist.

iTunes proves that the mp3 purchase medium can be made into a viable profitable business model. Game rentals are insane in terms of pricing and the online rental system (not systems, because other than gamefly you are out of luck at the moment) hasn't caught fire yet, so pre-owning games is more appealing right now. I doubt you're going to see the pre-owning market go away, not when it's firmly entrenched as a normal business practice for many brick-and-mortar versions of shops.

I agree that it's harmful when a used game is being sold for marginally less than the new price. At that price point, the used market is selling used games to that people would have bought new. The crazy thing is that people are willing to buy used at $5 less than new.

That said, the used market is vital for retaining a back catalog of old games. There are many games that I want to play that are no longer available new. I'm not going to be shelling out $60 for a game.

edit: The solution isn't to ban used games.

His next argument should be that we shut down libraries. Seriously, how are publishers supposed to make money if you can borrow stuff from the library for free? Aside from books, CDs, and DVDs, you can also borrow games from the library for free. I've played through Halo 3 and Ace Combat 6 on 2 week loan, with Bioshock waiting for me this weekend. It's only a matter of time before Hollywood/RIAA/gaming companies start going after libraries...imagine how fun that will be.

I'm not exactly caught up on game rentals (or know where to rent games, for that matter). How bad is the pricing and the terms?

I tend to avoid overly expensive games too, by getting cheap used games. Only if I'm really into it will I get an expensive game. Here in the US, I would give $50 for CoD4, Ratchet and Clank, MGS4. Not Halo 3 (not really interested), not all the other ripoff titles. Spore, maybe, but unlikely. I can get TF2 for $20! Portal for 10! The Orange Box for 40!

Besides, save a few dollars, help the environment at the same time. (Won't be as much as if all Americans turned their lights out when they go out, but still.)

If you want sales indication, ask retailers to record the sales of used games. If you want more money, then screw off. Unless you're Valve or something.

Oh yeah, I got the Painkiller collection box (Original, Battle, and Overdose) for $20. Not a bad deal, really. But then I got Halo CE for $20. Yeah, not that great. Halo 2 for $30? Not too likely.

Braben needs to take into account the number of players who buy high volumes of first-run games only because they can lay off some of the cost by trading in used games for store credit. I've talked with people who have bought games they thought were of marginal interest only because they could sell the game back if they didn't enjoy it... if the used market is removed (somehow) then those sales will disappear.

-- Steve

Oh sure, single player games don't really push player to subscribe to services to play on maintained servers.

I wonder if by rapidly dropping prices after the first two weeks of a game's release if publishers could keep sales momentum going? They could essentially undercut the used games market, and possibly maintain a longer period of meaningful sales.

I'll always by a new greatest hits title over a used version of the same title.

I don't sell my games when i buy them as i find the amount you get for them to be pathetic. But if you do have a problem with the pre-owned games market, listen to people above... MAKE THEM LONGER....

This is like complaining that our refusal to give them free money is hurting the industry.

I hate to break it to David, but the doctrine of first sale is not going away anytime soon. All that remains is for the concept to be reconciled with digital distribution.

This is the same whining publishers of 78s made about 100 years ago. Welcome to the future, it's the same as it ever was.

tendo82:
I wonder if by rapidly dropping prices after the first two weeks of a game's release if publishers could keep sales momentum going? They could essentially undercut the used games market, and possibly maintain a longer period of meaningful sales.

Totally good idea. I mean, it's ridiculous in the first place that you're only usually saving about $5 or less buying a used game that has recently come out. So, if price cuts came regularly after release, then the used prices would have to go down, too and that would drastically cut into the used stores' profit margins.

Whaaa! I don't like the reality of the open market! Whaaa! That's all I'm hearing from this guy. Is this the new drum to beat, now that piracy is old news? First EA, now Frontier Developments. It's like these guys get together to decide what the whine of the day is going to be. I'm getting kind of sick of hearing devs bitching about every little thing. If you can't take it, get out of the business, we won't miss you.

The real issue here is that these Single Player offline games offer little to no replay value and are not worth the $60 (US). So, players economically rationalize the purchase by reselling or buying the games at reduced prices.

KiKiweaky:
I don't sell my games when i buy them as i find the amount you get for them to be pathetic. But if you do have a problem with the pre-owned games market, listen to people above... MAKE THEM LONGER....

The problem with simply "making games longer!" is that it pushes the casual crowd out of their potential buyers. I can't speak for everyone, but I know the primary reason I haven't gotten in to the Final Fantasy series is that putting 100 hours into a game seems like a stretch for someone who puts about 3 in every week. Spending 4 months to complete a game just seems like a waste. I prefer games like Rock Band and Madden where I can pick it up, play for 1 or 2 hours and get a load of fun without feeling like I'm missing 90% of the experience. Sure, I'll never make it to a leaderboard in Rock Band or be good enough to be on MaddenNation, but I have fun, which makes it worth the money.

Also, I'm not going to spend $60 for Halo 3 on launch when I could wait 2 weeks and get it for $35 from the local used game store (even GameStop is expensive, it's still $50 used).

Look, this is the second time in as many weeks some dipshit developer has spouted off without looking at the history of the very type of product they are producing. If you produce physical goods, you only get to sell them once.

THERE IS NO DEBATE HERE. It's just bitching about the physical world and the inability for vested interests to expire physical matter the way they would like. If you make a physical product, you have to deal with the first sale doctrine. Period, end of story, no we are not going to change reality because you make games instead of books, cars, screwdrivers, hats, clothes, paperclips or nail clippers. If you are a developer complaining about the used games market, you are an infant and you need to find an different job.

Before you post ANYTHING in this thread, I recommend you review the history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale_doctrine

I guess that's why he sells his games on WiiWare. (Frontier made LostWinds) No resale value there at all!

I saw the most senseless things in my local 7-11 last month. They were DVDs that would basically self-destruct after watching them. So instead of paying $5 to rent a movie, you'd pay $5 to buy one and then throw it away after you watch it. (looked it up, it's called FlexPlay--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexplay)

I'm sure there's an EA or Activision executive sitting at his desk rubbing his hands together at the idea of doing this with videogames. Take that, resale value!

Rooster Cogburn:
This is like complaining that our refusal to give them free money is hurting the industry.

You selfish pricks. Think of the giant corporations for once, man...

It's kinda true, but then again... who really cares? We could hem and haw all day about buying games new, but in the end we all like being able to pay less for a used game, especially when it's only single player.

how the hell does that hurt single player development?? if anything, it allows for people to get titles for reasonable prices! Why spend 60 bucks on a game that takes saaay... 4 hours to beat when you can either wait, or find a used copy at a lower price like 50 bucks or so? It's why multiplayer is added in games. To increase the replay value/longevity.

DamienHell:
Yah I'm NOT in favor of removing the pre-owned market. I wouldn't have got GTA IV if it wasn't for the ability to trade in old games. I bought it, its my game I'll sell it to who ever I want to, now they own the game and can sell it if they want to. Thats how ownership works.

Yeah and it's gonna stay that way until we get rid of that "First Purchase" right, where if you are sold something, IT'S YOURS! Put it on the internet, sell it to your friend, beat a person to death with it, etc.

Well, I hate to actually inject logic or facts into an internet argument, as it generally upsets people, but...

The fact of the matter is that the money from used game sales is actually subsidizing new game sales for specialty stores. The margins on new game sales are very thin, thin to the point where surviving on new game sales alone isn't feasible for an EB. Accessories and other items help things, but the profit that comes off of used game sales is a fundamental part of their business model.

Market forces conspire to determine who gets what cut of the money that games generate. The publishers/developers would like to push the retailers completely out of the picture, but as long as they're selling physical boxes they need somebody to provide that service and they're not going to provide it without making a profit.

What I'd really like to see- and I don't understand why it doesn't exist- is an online retail store run directly by the publishers. There have been times where finding a new copy of a game- even online- has been exceedingly difficult. Psychonauts had good word of mouth, but good luck finding a copy of it (even while it was still in print). There are plenty of publishers who are more than large enough to run this type of operation, so it seems like a natural business expansion to me.

You know, if I turn around right now and sell my '93 Chevrolet Cavalier to someone, Chevrolet doesn't get a single penny. Why should they? It's not still Chevrolet's car, it's mine. I have the title; I am the owner. It is my property to do with as I please. I don't hear Chevrolet complaining that the used-car market is damaging new-car sales.

A game, on a physical disc, is exactly the same. I can sell, trade, or give that disc to whoever I want. The game's publisher has absolutely no right to tell me what I can or cannot do with that physical disc. If you want to tie down the game itself with DRM, to where I'm the only person who can ever play it, go right ahead- but you can expect that to seriously hurt your sales. And please, PLEASE do not try to impose a "rental" license on me- you'll never get a dollar from me. When I buy a game, I expect that game to be mine for as long as I wish to keep it- not as long as you wish to let me have it.

And someone please explain this to me:

"The sales don't reflect the actual sales of people playing them because someone has gone out and bought, at almost the same price, a pre-owned copy because they couldn't get an original. It's very frustrating that they don't carry that stock anymore."

Who says they can't still get an original? And if they can't (because the game is too old and the publisher no longer wants to press copies) then WHOSE FAULT IS THAT? That's right! THE PUBLISHER'S! Obviously it's not important enough to them to do another production run, or even (as BloodSquirrel pointed out) make the game available for purchase online, so why should they make extra money if I buy it from Joe Blow who's sick of the game? (And hey, if I'm stupid enough to buy a used copy for nearly the price of a new one, when new ones are available- well, a fool and his money, hm?)

Here's a thought, Mr. Braben. If you want me to keep your game, rather than sell it to a game store, MAKE THE GAME GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME TO WANT TO KEEP.

I've often said that if publishers were smart, instead of fighting the pre-owned market they'd jump into it with both feet. Gamers get what they want, retailers get to keep their margins up without taking heat from the industry and publishers get a slice of the pie too. Maybe not as big a slice as they get from new sales, but it's more than they're getting from the used market now - which isn't going to shrivel up and blow away just because they want it to - and they get to keep the customers happy in the bargain. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game.

arrr_matey:

tendo82:
I wonder if by rapidly dropping prices after the first two weeks of a game's release if publishers could keep sales momentum going? They could essentially undercut the used games market, and possibly maintain a longer period of meaningful sales.

Totally good idea. I mean, it's ridiculous in the first place that you're only usually saving about $5 or less buying a used game that has recently come out. So, if price cuts came regularly after release, then the used prices would have to go down, too and that would drastically cut into the used stores' profit margins.

I suppose that the idea was, before attacking the second hand retail, to make games stay longer on shelves.

It's hard to keep a game exposed for several weeks when it's past its own short marketing time, if it had any, and still wait there to be sold full price.

Hmm. My article this week is partly about this issue, so I'm going to jump in here with some semi-random thoughts.

First, there has never been any stable business model for selling video games. Imagine if someone put together an ulta-slick gaming rig that played Crysis and only Crysis, at an investment cost of $25 k or so. Who would pay so much as a quarter to rent play time on this machine?

But that's the initial video game model. Hardly anybody makes real money from it anymore.

Consoles seem to be well-established as a model, but let's not forget that the console market collapsed completely for a couple of years in the mid-eighties and Nintendo, which revived the market has had a roller-coaster ride since then.

Plus, Nintendo has survived as long as it has through the hand-held market, which few publishers paid any attention to until relatively recently.

Microsoft and Valve obviously want to push the download model, probably eliminating both consoles and used-game sales.

Sony doesn't know what the hell it wants to do.

The video game industry is in flux again, after roughly twenty years of semi-stability with the console model.

This history ought to caution us against sweeping generalizations.

Now, to used games.

Braben's argument is that used game sales take the place of new game sales. That may not be true, as others have pointed out above. I wouldn't take a risk on a $60 new game without the assurance that I can recuperate my losses when the game sucks. Used sales may encourage new sales.

Braben also argues that, if prices are pretty close between new and used versions of a game, the customer will buy new (at least, if he's the customer). I don't see why that would be. Five bucks less is five bucks less. If you have a problem with the idea that someone else's germy paws have touched a game, then you're buying new no matter what.

He does recognize that rentals don't really make any difference, because the publisher doesn't necessarily receive any part of the rental fee.

My answer to the problem is this: cut prices and include more content.

Movies make most of their money from DVD sales these days. Movies cost more to make than video games, but DVDs still cost less. They also feature lots of extras, in addition to the film. But you don't hear studio execs complaining about used DVD sales.

Perhaps if games cost $25 or so, Braben's argument would hold true. The used price wouldn't hold deep enough of a discount to draw sales.

There is a problem, however: the myth that video games make more money than movies. Revenues from games do exceed revenues from ticket sales, but they lag way behind revenues from DVDs, which is where movies make most of their money these days. The game audience is stall far smaller than the film audience.

I doubt that game publishers could double new sales by halving their prices. They might convert those who usually buy used to buy new, but the market may still be too small.

I would guess that downloading will eventually push out the disc model of game distribution, but that would still shrink the market. People would be more cautious about buying games without the safety net of a resale market and not enough people have the on-line capability or system memory for downloading a library of games.

Maybe the whole thing will collapse!

That's my top-of the head thinking, anyhow.

A great single-player game with a static story is still worth keeping around, just like a great book is worth keeping around. You'll want it around to show to other people, to revisit some other time, or just to collect stuff you like.

I haven't played Torment in years but I've still ended up buying three copies because various friends keep losing it.

If people truly are reselling Assassin's Creed and BioShock en masse it kinda implies that, at least for those players, the experiences weren't quite memorable enough to justify keeping the games around.

-- Alex

BloodSquirrel:
The fact of the matter is that the money from used game sales is actually subsidizing new game sales for specialty stores. The margins on new game sales are very thin, thin to the point where surviving on new game sales alone isn't feasible for an EB. Accessories and other items help things, but the profit that comes off of used game sales is a fundamental part of their business model.

You're right. But it's perfectly legal for them to do this. Just bc publishers/developers may want to stop this doesn't mean they have any right to. I mean EB are bastards for charging $55 for a used game that sells at $60 new, but that's their right I guess. Just like it's my right not to shop there.

I'm sure book publishers would rather that libraries didn't exist, but too bad for them. Tough titties.

BloodSquirrel:

What I'd really like to see- and I don't understand why it doesn't exist- is an online retail store run directly by the publishers. There have been times where finding a new copy of a game- even online- has been exceedingly difficult. Psychonauts had good word of mouth, but good luck finding a copy of it (even while it was still in print). There are plenty of publishers who are more than large enough to run this type of operation, so it seems like a natural business expansion to me.

Well, Psychonauts is available for download on GameTap and Xbox Live Classics.

I agree with you though. Take for example all of the old LucasArts adventure games. Why they haven't put these up for download at like $10 a pop blows my mind? They'd surely make enough money to justify it. And imagine if they put them on WiiWare? I think the publisher execs just aren't ready to think outside the box... literally.