A take on how to solve the used game issue

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Greetings everyone,

As we all know the used game business is a big topic in today's gaming community. We have developers and publishers saying it cuts in to their profits. We also have it being the main life blood of many game store chains. Now I think I might have a solution to this that makes both parties happy. What if the game industry did royalties? What about they get 5% of whatever the used game is sold for? I think this is a decent compromise but, what is your guys' opinion on this issue in the gaming community and how it can be solved?

Why not this solution?

Leave used games the fuck alone publishers, you did fine before and you will do fine now.

The only people increasing the cost of games is yourself, we don't set your fucking budget. You don't see books with bloody DRM and chapter passes.

Also don't call them lost sales, that's the same as saying every book read in the library is taking money away from authors or the radio is killing musicians.

Matthew94:
Why not this solution?

Leave used games the fuck alone publishers, you did fine before and you will do fine now.

The only people increasing the cost of games is yourself, we don't set your fucking budget. You don't see books with bloody DRM and chapter passes.

Also don't call them lost sales, that's the same as saying every book read in the library is taking money away from authors or the radio is killing musicians.

This. Seriously, people, the first sale doctrine is a legally protected consumer right. Quit being so quick to give it up just because the publishers ask nicely. You wouldn't do that for your civil rights, so don't start with it on your consumer rights.

The market for used games is not an issue. Every other form of medium has a second-hand market (you can buy second-hand books, films, and cds) but for some reason game developers/publishers act as if it's the end of the world even more than other artists.

If people aren't buying games new, then obviously used games are seen as a superior option. In most cases this is price.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Matthew94:
Why not this solution?

Leave used games the fuck alone publishers, you did fine before and you will do fine now.

The only people increasing the cost of games is yourself, we don't set your fucking budget. You don't see books with bloody DRM and chapter passes.

Also don't call them lost sales, that's the same as saying every book read in the library is taking money away from authors or the radio is killing musicians.

This. Seriously, people, the first sale doctrine is a legally protected consumer right. Quit being so quick to give it up just because the publishers ask nicely. You wouldn't do that for your civil rights, so don't start with it on your consumer rights.

Thirded.

Those publishers are sneaky devils, making us gamers antagonize ourselves over simply exercising our rights.

Erana:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Matthew94:
Why not this solution?

Leave used games the fuck alone publishers, you did fine before and you will do fine now.

The only people increasing the cost of games is yourself, we don't set your fucking budget. You don't see books with bloody DRM and chapter passes.

Also don't call them lost sales, that's the same as saying every book read in the library is taking money away from authors or the radio is killing musicians.

This. Seriously, people, the first sale doctrine is a legally protected consumer right. Quit being so quick to give it up just because the publishers ask nicely. You wouldn't do that for your civil rights, so don't start with it on your consumer rights.

Thirded.

Those publishers are sneaky devils, making us gamers antagonize ourselves over simply exercising our rights.

The worst part is they use the word "entitled" as an insult, when actually, yeah, gamers (and any other consumers) are legally entitled to resell their property without the original owner butting into the process. Once you sell something. it's no longer yours, and an EULA is nothing but a piece of shiny paper they've fooled a few judges with. The recording industry and the publishing industry both tried exactly that about 100 years ago, /and the courts struck it down as violating the first sale doctrine./ The only reason this is an issue at all is because judges tend to be old coots who don't understand technology.

You guys have made alot of very good points. My OP was more of a way to make everyone happy (even though you cant). Though you are right with every other medium having a second-hand market.

My opinion on this resolution is the same as my opinion on all consumer submitted solutions: it's not your fucking problem, stop licking the arse of the publishers.

They're million dollar companies trying to weasel money out of you that isn't there. Why do you feel sorry for them? Why do you feel a need to help them out? Why do you continue to talk your way out of games that cost 5 a pop?

You're the consumer for Christ's sake.

What gets me with this is that the publishers have yet to grasp the most basic point in all of this. Be it used game sales, or game piracy or whatever. It's the price point that drives the whole thing. If the price point of games at release was $20 USD, there would be very little piracy, very little used game sales or trade ins, and a huge burst in overall sales numbers. Customers would be willing to take risks on new games. They would be hang onto games longer and not rade them in simply because there would be greater value in doing so, and they wouldn't have to scrounge so hard to get the cash for the next game.

It's the price point stupid!!!! (This is the same thing that our idiot political leaders never grasp. Taxes generate the most revenue right at the %23 mark. Anytime they go over that gross revenues fall)

Matthew94:
Why not this solution?

Leave used games the fuck alone publishers, you did fine before and you will do fine now.

The only people increasing the cost of games is yourself, we don't set your fucking budget. You don't see books with bloody DRM and chapter passes.

Also don't call them lost sales, that's the same as saying every book read in the library is taking money away from authors or the radio is killing musicians.

That's kinda been my take on this whole thing. If developers don't make enough money in the game's opening couple of weeks (when EVERYONE has to buy it new) to cover their costs and make a hell of a profit by selling (x) million copies, then it's a failure on their part for making a crappy game that no one wanted.

You can't do royalties because second hand sales are open business, you owe the publisher nothing.
If anyone was actually worried about them they would educate the customers on howmuch money they throw away, but they don't give a shit about the customer, they are only pissed at the extra money retailers make.

So we got project $10, publishers hustling money from a business model they didn't think off.

Erana:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Matthew94:
Why not this solution?

Leave used games the fuck alone publishers, you did fine before and you will do fine now.

The only people increasing the cost of games is yourself, we don't set your fucking budget. You don't see books with bloody DRM and chapter passes.

Also don't call them lost sales, that's the same as saying every book read in the library is taking money away from authors or the radio is killing musicians.

This. Seriously, people, the first sale doctrine is a legally protected consumer right. Quit being so quick to give it up just because the publishers ask nicely. You wouldn't do that for your civil rights, so don't start with it on your consumer rights.

Thirded.

Those publishers are sneaky devils, making us gamers antagonize ourselves over simply exercising our rights.

Fourthed

edit: low content prevention add-on -sorry this content is only available if you purchased the collector edition of this post or by paying 10 dollars for day 1 dlc

Matthew94:
Why not this solution?

Leave used games the fuck alone publishers, you did fine before and you will do fine now.

The only people increasing the cost of games is yourself, we don't set your fucking budget. You don't see books with bloody DRM and chapter passes.

Also don't call them lost sales, that's the same as saying every book read in the library is taking money away from authors or the radio is killing musicians.

Agreed, the used game "Problem" is just a myth used to bring out these DRM and codes IMO. Most people if there was a new game for 40 ($60) and a pre-owned game at 30 (?) would go for the pre-owned. They don't like this and try to bring out DRM to punish the many in order to bully them into buying their games used.

Why SHOULD they get royalties, though? Why do they deserve it, when no other industry does?

Here's a better suggestion. Instead of focusing on the problem - people buying used games en masse - why not focus on the actual CAUSE of the problem, i.e. most games these days being short and boring, with reviews which rate the game solely on its hype and polish rather than how fun it actually is? Because that's what causes people to not want to buy games new in the first place. And moreover, that's what causes people to trade in their games two days after release - which is exactly what allows the used games market to take such a sizeable chunk out of the new games market.

If you don't want people buying your games used, why don't you make games that people don't want to trade in? Long, involved games that people can get invested in. Games with lots of variety that people would want to play through several times. Hard games that people will beat slowly and determinedly. Games with great, fun multiplayer. Really good games that people will want to keep on their shelf and not get rid of. Or simply cheap games that there's no point in trading in because you just won't get much back for it.

When you make a linear FPS that people can beat in a day and you charge $60 for it, are you really surprised that people have no reason to hang on to that game?

Matthew94:
or the radio is killing musicians.

Yeah, it's video who killed the radio stars..

[edit]

On topic, where do used games come from if no one's buying new?

RoBi3.0:

Erana:

Owyn_Merrilin:

This. Seriously, people, the first sale doctrine is a legally protected consumer right. Quit being so quick to give it up just because the publishers ask nicely. You wouldn't do that for your civil rights, so don't start with it on your consumer rights.

Thirded.

Those publishers are sneaky devils, making us gamers antagonize ourselves over simply exercising our rights.

Fourthed

Fithified!

I am glad to see a thread about this topic were everyone is actually talking sense.

You know if we don't like the practice we could always get together and start a class action lawsuit against the publishers.

The Knightly Gamer:
Greetings everyone,

As we all know the used game business is a big topic in today's gaming community. We have developers and publishers saying it cuts in to their profits. We also have it being the main life blood of many game store chains. Now I think I might have a solution to this that makes both parties happy. What if the game industry did royalties? What about they get 5% of whatever the used game is sold for? I think this is a decent compromise but, what is your guys' opinion on this issue in the gaming community and how it can be solved?

Because the retails don't want to agree to it. Simple? There is no law preventing them from pulling 100% of second-hand game sale, so why would They settle for 95% or less?
In the end it's not them who loose on the online passes/project10$.

The customer get's fucked twice. Once by publishers, who want to protect their products and thus push their solutions to the problem. And second time by retailers who not only enforce high markup on new copies but also shove used copies down customers throats, abusing the lack of knowledge and often minimal price difference to maximize Their own profit at cost of customer and publisher.

That's how business works.

In a decade or so every game will be digital download only, so the TS doesn't need to invent anything. No more brick and mortar game stores and no more used game trade.

If you want to play you will have only 2 options: buy new or pirate. Actually that is not to different from now, because I don't consider buying used a valid choice. Data can be replicated in infinite supply, so the value of a copy (new, used, pirated, anything) is always zero and the only problem is development costs.

I see promise in what Double Fine are doing right now: consumers directly funding the development of a new game. That way you're paying for something real again, instead of giving charitable contributions afterwards.

Personally I think they should pay me to take those horrible used games off their hands... Seriously, that's my opinion.

veloper:
Actually that is not to different from now, because I don't consider buying used a valid choice

Interesting. Please, if you don't mind, explain how you've arrived at that conclusion.

OT: I see the used game problem as I see other problems: It's a service problem. People simply do not wish to own games any more, and wish to sell them in order to purchase other games. Publishers do not provide this service, so places like Gamestop do.

veloper:

I see promise in what Double Fine are doing right now: consumers directly funding the development of a new game. That way you're paying for something real again, instead of giving charitable contributions afterwards.

I'm still very wary of the whole idea. Sure it's nice that developers can get funding for projects that way, not having to go through the publisher machine, but how far will it go?

People donated 2 million for a project without knowing anything about it except that Tim Schafer said it will be amazing. Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see Double Fine do great game, but what if it's not? What will those people say then? How likely They will fund a different project? How much of moaning there will be because it's not Their dream game?
They raised the hope bar so damn high They can't afford to disappoint, not only for their own sake, but for sake of every other studio trying to pull the same thing. After all They got 5 times more than They wanted, which, by simple math means, They need to do 5 times better... (that's of course not entirely my view, but I can see some people seeing it as such)

Crowd funding is amazing, but with how entitled and judgmental gaming community can be it can go the wrong way very fast.

Considering that used and rented games have been available since the NES/SNES era, and that the video game industry has only flourish with them, I think it's safe to say they are not the problem. If people are in fact buying used more now, then it's because you are making products not worth the retail price you put them as. How about you go look at the games sold in the recent eras where used sales weren't a problem? See that thing games used to have? That 'variety' thing? Maybe you should start producing more of that. I don't mean new ideas or innovation, I mean the days where there was just as many fight/platformers/RPG's as there were FPS's. Over-saturation of anything ruins the market, that's a fact.
Maybe you might have to expand the scope of games outside of 'macho fantasy fulfillment simulators' and 'stubble ridden everymans' before you get people caring about these products again to the extent they once did.

Because as of right now many games are pretty much disposable and lacking identifiable characteristics.

Speaking of lacking identifiable characteristics:
image

mikey7339:

RoBi3.0:

Erana:

Thirded.

Those publishers are sneaky devils, making us gamers antagonize ourselves over simply exercising our rights.

Fourthed

Fithified!

I am glad to see a thread about this topic were everyone is actually talking sense.

You know if we don't like the practice we could always get together and start a class action lawsuit against the publishers.

Sixthed.

The used game "problem" is an issue of games not being worth what the publishers are charging.

The rumors that the next Xbox will have things to prevent used games is seriously concerning.

I would get behind this if corps weren't already using DLC to get more money out of their games like all other media. People need to re-evaluate their use and definition of entitled. Not every gamer is an entitled brat.

There is no used game problem, there is a DRM problem.

CM156:

veloper:
Actually that is not to different from now, because I don't consider buying used a valid choice

Interesting. Please, if you don't mind, explain how you've arrived at that conclusion.

OT: I see the used game problem as I see other problems: It's a service problem. People simply do not wish to own games any more, and wish to sell them in order to purchase other games. Publishers do not provide this service, so places like Gamestop do.

If you had included in the quote the sentence that followed, you would have had your answer.

I'll elobarate on the zero value. The price of real (non-vitual) goods depends on scarcity. Digital data, including videogames, can be copied infinitely by publishers, gamers, anyone, so there's no production value.
A copy of the game manual, flimsy as it usually is, is still worth more than a copy of the actual game, because a color photocopy atleast costs paper and ink.
Replicating the game is easy and costs nothing. If you must also have it on a dics, then a couple cents for the disc. So if you're paying, but not even to support the devs, you are basicly throwing money at free stuff.
The prices that publishers set on games, movies, music etc. are all completely arbitrary bullshit, but atleast they have an initial investment to recoup. Used game sellers have a lucrative scam.

surely (correct me if i'm wrong) a used game has to have been bought, then sold again, so surely if you just make a game that no one will ever want to sell or get rid of, then you have no reason to worry about 2nd hand games?

veloper:

CM156:

veloper:
Actually that is not to different from now, because I don't consider buying used a valid choice

Interesting. Please, if you don't mind, explain how you've arrived at that conclusion.

OT: I see the used game problem as I see other problems: It's a service problem. People simply do not wish to own games any more, and wish to sell them in order to purchase other games. Publishers do not provide this service, so places like Gamestop do.

If you had included in the quote the sentence that followed, you would have had your answer.

I'll elobarate on the zero value. The price of real (non-vitual) goods depends on scarcity. Digital data, including videogames, can be copied infinitely by publishers, gamers, anyone, so there's no production value.
A copy of the game manual, flimsy as it usually is, is still worth more than a copy of the actual game, because a color photocopy atleast costs paper and ink.
Replicating the game is easy and costs nothing. If you must also have it on a dics, then a couple cents for the disc. So if you're paying, but not even to support the devs, you are basicly throwing money at free stuff.
The prices that publishers set on games, movies, music etc. are all completely arbitrary bullshit, but atleast they have an initial investment to recoup. Used game sellers have a lucrative scam.

You seem to think places like Gamestop make their copies. No, they buy them from consumers. If I trade in a copy of Final Fantasy XIII-2, Gamestop will pay me $30 for it (until the game has been out a month, I saw a promotional ad). Gamestop now has $30 to recoup for that copy of the game. They will charge $55 for it but it probably cost Gamestop more to acquire that copy than it took the publisher to manufacture that copy.

ohnoitsabear:

Sixthed.

The used game "problem" is an issue of games not being worth what the publishers are charging.

The rumors that the next Xbox will have things to prevent used games is seriously concerning.

The "publisher" is charging You ~30$ on a game - that's the wholesale price. Rest is retailer markup, console manufacturer royalties, and in some cases distributor fee.

Crono1973:

You seem to think places like Gamestop make their copies. No, they buy them from consumers. If I trade in a copy of Final Fantasy XIII-2, Gamestop will pay me $30 for it (until the game has been out a month, I saw a promotional ad). Gamestop now has $30 to recoup for that copy of the game. They will charge $55 for it but it probably cost Gamestop more to acquire that copy than it took the publisher to manufacture that copy.

Except that's exactly the same price They pay for new copy from the distributor/publisher.
Look at it this way:
- They buy a box for 30$ (-30$)
- Sell the game for 60$ (-30+60=30$)
- Then buy the game off You or 30$ (-30+60-30 = 0$)
- Sell it for 55$ (-30+60-30+55=55$)

Magical money making machine engage.

Matthew94:
Why not this solution?

Leave used games the fuck alone publishers, you did fine before and you will do fine now.

The only people increasing the cost of games is yourself, we don't set your fucking budget. You don't see books with bloody DRM and chapter passes.

Also don't call them lost sales, that's the same as saying every book read in the library is taking money away from authors or the radio is killing musicians.

^this. excellent point.

Keava:

veloper:

I see promise in what Double Fine are doing right now: consumers directly funding the development of a new game. That way you're paying for something real again, instead of giving charitable contributions afterwards.

I'm still very wary of the whole idea. Sure it's nice that developers can get funding for projects that way, not having to go through the publisher machine, but how far will it go?

People donated 2 million for a project without knowing anything about it except that Tim Schafer said it will be amazing. Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see Double Fine do great game, but what if it's not? What will those people say then? How likely They will fund a different project? How much of moaning there will be because it's not Their dream game?
They raised the hope bar so damn high They can't afford to disappoint, not only for their own sake, but for sake of every other studio trying to pull the same thing. After all They got 5 times more than They wanted, which, by simple math means, They need to do 5 times better... (that's of course not entirely my view, but I can see some people seeing it as such)

Crowd funding is amazing, but with how entitled and judgmental gaming community can be it can go the wrong way very fast.

If the new game sucks, Double Fine will lose reputation and can forget about trying this ever again. The upside is that this should be high incentive to try hard.
Publishers are already recouping failed games on the consumer even now, through the fat price tags on succesful games. Gamers end up paying anyway and the publishers make their profits.
The difference is that the risk is spread in the current business model. The downside is that the current pricing is way out there.

Crono1973:

veloper:

CM156:

Interesting. Please, if you don't mind, explain how you've arrived at that conclusion.

OT: I see the used game problem as I see other problems: It's a service problem. People simply do not wish to own games any more, and wish to sell them in order to purchase other games. Publishers do not provide this service, so places like Gamestop do.

If you had included in the quote the sentence that followed, you would have had your answer.

I'll elobarate on the zero value. The price of real (non-vitual) goods depends on scarcity. Digital data, including videogames, can be copied infinitely by publishers, gamers, anyone, so there's no production value.
A copy of the game manual, flimsy as it usually is, is still worth more than a copy of the actual game, because a color photocopy atleast costs paper and ink.
Replicating the game is easy and costs nothing. If you must also have it on a dics, then a couple cents for the disc. So if you're paying, but not even to support the devs, you are basicly throwing money at free stuff.
The prices that publishers set on games, movies, music etc. are all completely arbitrary bullshit, but atleast they have an initial investment to recoup. Used game sellers have a lucrative scam.

You seem to think places like Gamestop make their copies. No, they buy them from consumers. If I trade in a copy of Final Fantasy XIII-2, Gamestop will pay me $30 for it (until the game has been out a month, I saw a promotional ad). Gamestop now has $30 to recoup for that copy of the game. They will charge $55 for it but it probably cost Gamestop more to acquire that copy than it took the publisher to manufacture that copy.

Well I don't. Just because a gamer sold the game to gamestop for X amount doesn't mean the game is actually worth X amount. Gamestop will find the greater fool who will pay even more for it.

If publishers made the games worth the money they charge to begin with, there might be a lot fewer being sold on second hand.

Games like ME, Skyrim etc, are to me worth 36 because they are so expansive, replayable, and long.

Games like MW2, even possibly BF3, are not worth 36 quid for a 4 hour single player game and an online function I might use once every couple of weeks.

Keava:

ohnoitsabear:

Sixthed.

The used game "problem" is an issue of games not being worth what the publishers are charging.

The rumors that the next Xbox will have things to prevent used games is seriously concerning.

The "publisher" is charging You ~30$ on a game - that's the wholesale price. Rest is retailer markup, console manufacturer royalties, and in some cases distributor fee.

I read it was $48 and only $12 goes to the retailer.

Personally, if used games are such an issue for the big publishers and devs, then maybe they need to consider making more of their games have proper replay value; in my books, that is a factor that separates a great game from the good games and makes me keep them.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked