Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Secondhand Games Stifle Innovation?

Posted by Zonk on Fri Jan 20, 2006 06:31 PM
from the trying-not-to-roll-my-eyes dept.
Entertainment Games
Via GameSetWatch, an article at the Guardian relaying a message from publishers. They say that, though you may be enjoying those second-hand games, they may be forcing you to choke down the sequels that plague the industry. From the article: "'We recognise the secondhand games market is part of the revenue mix, for retailers at least,' said a spokesman. 'However, if it continues to grow, it could potentially starve us of the funds necessary for research and development, and therefore, developers will be less willing to take a risk on new and genre-diversifying titles. It's this creative diversity that makes the games industry so popular, and without sustained funding from new software sales, this could be at risk.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Secondhand Games Stifle Innovation? 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • First Rant! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20 2006, @06:32PM (#14523199)
    The symptoms:
            People are buying piles of second hand games.
            It's cutting into your profits.

    The problem:
            You've set your price-point too high for the duration that your games are enjoyable.

    The solutions:
            Lower your price or
            Make games that people will want to retain longer.

    Bitching that your retailers are against you because they can't make money selling first-hand games is stupid. Retailers adapt to what makes money. If you lower you prices so they can run thicker margins on the new product, they will push your products accordingly.

    This is not rocket science. Open to the pages of your marketing book where they show that setting a jukebox to play a song for a quarter will earn twice the money as one requiring one dollar but playing four songs.

    Read, think, repeat until clued.

  • 2nd hand games have no devaluation? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PoderOmega (677170) on Friday January 20 2006, @06:38PM (#14523261)
    The interesting issue that I don't see brought up often is the fact that assuming the media remains in tact a video game's quality never reduces over time. Sure the box and manual can get damaged, but let's just assume we are talking about the game itself. Used games will only go down in price because of lack of demand, never because the actually quality of the game changes like most items in the "pre-owned" market does.

    • Re:2nd hand games have no devaluation? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Z0mb1eman (629653) on Friday January 20 2006, @11:50PM (#14524636) Homepage
      In a way, that's true - that's one way to look at it.

      Another is that a game's quality degrades because:
      - it gradually becomes more and more of a hassle to run it (DOS games? floppies? etc.)
      - the graphics "degrade" - not really, but old games used to engage us with no problems, and the graphics were still amazing every new generation of games... go back a few generations and the graphics just plain look "bad", even though they haven't actually changed
      - gameplay becomes simplistic - yes, it was great at the time, and some games were pioneers and are true classics. Compare the gameplay of Dune II to, say, Starcraft, though... or Wolfenstein to Halflife... plenty of counter-examples, of course, but I'm only comparing equivalent games - "today"'s best games to "yesterday"'s best games in the same genre.

      So in a way I agree that the quality never degrades, but (some) new games are such huge leaps forward that the net effect is the same.

      I'd agree much more with that point of view if it was about music :p
    • Well, the books I buy second hand (or my own I re-read) tends to have the same quality, never noticed any change in the plot and so on. I even have books that are over 100 years old, again, no problem reading, no change in quality of the story and so on either.....

  • Just like secondhand CDs, secondhand books... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kelson (129150) * on Friday January 20 2006, @06:40PM (#14523272) Homepage Journal
    So the argument wasn't ridiculous enough when the RIAA railed against stores selling used CDs, or when book publishers railed against used book stores? Somehow, because they're games instead of books, it magically makes sense now?

    I imagine thrift shops are preventing the clothing industry from innovating, too?
    • Somehow, because they're games instead of books, it magically makes sense now?

      In fact, it makes even less sense to me...

      Aren't we buying used games in the first place because somebody who owned the game decided it no longer had value for him, and somebody else decided that the value of the game was lower than the cost of buying it new?

      Now, assuming a company puts out an all-new game based on an innovative premise and with gameplay we hadn't seen before... wouldn't that a) force those who want that experience to buy it new, and b) provide enough value to otherwise second-hand buyers of valueless games that they would now buy a new one?

      In other words, it seems to me that sequelitis is directly responsible for the surge in the used market, and the only way out of it is to produce new and innovative games. It's not the other way around. Developers need to give people a reason why they should buy a new game. Pumping out sequels is just going to do the opposite. (It also has the effect of just dumping a whole bunch of previous series editions into the used marketplace. Why keep Madden 05 when Madden 06 is now out?)

      Just look at the Nintendo DS if you need an example of this. The only solution is to make games that are as fun and unique as possible, and that aren't "updated" on a yearly basis.

    • Re:Just like secondhand CDs, secondhand books... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by miu (626917) on Friday January 20 2006, @07:21PM (#14523489) Homepage Journal
      There isn't any context, attribution, or even a direct quote - so it is hard to guess exactly what was really said and under what circumstances. What I gather is that some publishers are upset about the fact that retailers are selling second hand copies right next to the new copies. If that is the case I can see their point - who is gonna pay $60 for generic sports game 2006 when a used copy is available for $30 right next to it, but that is an issue they need to take up with retailers and hardly the responsibility of consumers.

  • Enter the first sale bypass... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Godeke (32895) * on Friday January 20 2006, @06:41PM (#14523278)
    It's this creative diversity that makes the games industry so popular, and without sustained funding from new software sales, this could be at risk.

    Here is how we will see the proliferation of "activation servers" and the like systems where purchasing a "used" copy of a game simply buys you a coaster. Copyrighted materials (in the US at least, and from the article the EC) are covered under the doctrine of first sale: once a work in "fixed form" is sold, that fixed form is transferable to anyone else by any method desired. The used book, CD and game industries survive only because of this doctrine.

    Activation servers add an additional wrinkle to the mix: you can still legally sell the bits, but the activation code isn't going to work when you take it home. When you complain to the company, they will (correctly) tell you that the code has already been used. Thus, the idea of used games will be a thing of the past. Of course, so will be the idea of tossing an old CD into your machine and expecting it to do anything but say "activation server could not be reached".

    All this will be couched in terms of "the benefit of the consumer" while in reality kicking them in the teeth.

    • Re:Enter the first sale bypass... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Eightyford (893696) on Friday January 20 2006, @06:51PM (#14523336) Homepage
      It's this creative diversity that makes the games industry so popular, and without sustained funding from new software sales, this could be at risk.

      Here is how we will see the proliferation of "activation servers" and the like systems where purchasing a "used" copy of a game simply buys you a coaster. Copyrighted materials (in the US at least, and from the article the EC) are covered under the doctrine of first sale: once a work in "fixed form" is sold, that fixed form is transferable to anyone else by any method desired. The used book, CD and game industries survive only because of this doctrine.

      Activation servers add an additional wrinkle to the mix: you can still legally sell the bits, but the activation code isn't going to work when you take it home. When you complain to the company, they will (correctly) tell you that the code has already been used. Thus, the idea of used games will be a thing of the past. Of course, so will be the idea of tossing an old CD into your machine and expecting it to do anything but say "activation server could not be reached".

      All this will be couched in terms of "the benefit of the consumer" while in reality kicking them in the teeth.


      That's where we consumers come along. We don't buy the software that requires activation. That's it.
      • ...or bust out the hex editor, or disassembler/assembler and add some well-placed NOOPs.
      • Yes, I see how poorly Half Life 2 did. Sure there was some complaining, but the reality is that the consumer rolled over. Purchase a CD, install on PC and wait for the executable bits to download so you can play. I got my karma handed to me on a platter for suggesting that Steam was anything but a orgasmic experience here on Slashdot.

  • No. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by vertinox (846076) on Friday January 20 2006, @06:44PM (#14523298)
    If the games were that good to begin with, people wouldn't have waited til they have become second hand and bought them when they were new. Secondly, if they were really that good of a game then chances are people would be less willing to part awith them for cash, making them harder to buy second hand.

    This is just an exscuse for greed and lack of effort by developers... Truth be told, I bet uninnovative sequels perpetuate second hand retail industry.

  • They could always go Hollywood... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Guppy06 (410832) on Friday January 20 2006, @06:46PM (#14523306) Journal
    ... and pay the Senate to make used game sales illegal.

    What bothers me is this:

    "However, if it continues to grow, it could potentially starve us of the funds necessary for research and development, and therefore, developers will be less willing to take a risk on new and genre-diversifying titles."

    This isn't a chicken-or-egg problem, we know new games came before used games. Therefore, this entire cycle was started with new games that had a high degree of suckage, and these high-suckage games were published before the used game industry took off (because, again, new games came first).

    The solution seems obvious: publish good games. The better the game, the less likely the owner will sell it back to the store. And if it's really good, they'll buy the same game two or three times (witness Nintendo's business model on the GBA). But making the "We need to make crap games to pay for good games" argument that Hollywood has been touting for the past 50 years or so is simply going to land them in the same place Hollywood is now.
  • To: Game Industry From: Me Please don't try to offload responsibility for your own inadequacies on me. Thanks, Me

  • Call The Waaaaaahmbulance! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NBarnes (586109) on Friday January 20 2006, @06:51PM (#14523337)
    Oh, puh-leeze. The publishers are 'warning us' 'for our own good' than secondhand game sales are 'hurting development'.

    Note: it's not crappy ass games that are hurting you, it's not mindless sequelitis, it's not buggy games that need 15 patches before they arrive in stores, and it's not the fact that Blizzard is eating all your lunches, no, it's those awful secondhand games.

    Suuuuuuuuuuure.

    I buy a lot of used games, since I like not spending huge amounts of cash on new titles. And you know what? I can buy 15 copies of trashy games I know I don't want, but it's often a pain in the ass to find a good used copy of something I actually care about playing, because people don't often sell good games. The secondary market is flooded with older versions of sports games, obsoleted by the industry's own revenue model for sports games, and crap. Cry me a river, EA.

  • (Seriously, now) Cry me a river, boys... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TechieHermit (944255) on Friday January 20 2006, @06:56PM (#14523355) Journal
    So, publishers are bent out of shape that games last for years, and we all trade them back and forth in the same way used CDs, tapes, and records have been for decades? They're afraid we're going to stop buying new games because we're buying used ones? They want more money (that goes without saying)?

    Yeah. Cry me a river. Here are my thoughts:

    1. The game industry is making money hand over fist. They may WANT a license to print money, they may feel that all of us gamers should spend all our income on their brand new stuff and never look for a bargain, but tough luck -- the world doesn't work that way. If we all got whatever we wanted, whenever I got lonely or horny I'd clap my hands, yell "Doughnut!" and a gorgeous hottie with an oral fixation would appear. See -- I just clapped. NOTHING! So why should they get whatever fool thing THEY want?

    2. Used games COME FROM SOMEWHERE. They don't just suddenly appear, the Used Game Fairy doesn't bring them around in her "naughty nurse" uniform, and they're not gifts from aliens. Every used game was purchased by someone, brand new, at some point. So, the game publishers DID get paid for them! Their problem is, they're not getting paid for them ANY MORE. Again, too fucking bad. That's life. I'd love it if my ex girlfriend had to come over three times a week and do me, but she doesn't (too damn stubborn).

    3. A PURCHASE IS A PURCHASE. Once we buy our games fair and square, we can sell them to anybody we want to. We can trade them for cigarettes and beer if we feel like it. We can give them to homeless people to use as ninja stars when fratboys annoy them. We can do whatever we like with them. BECAUSE WE BOUGHT THEM, for much more than they're conceivably worth, by the way. All the pissing and moaning in the world won't convince me that once I buy a game, I shouldn't sell it or trade it in for a new one. It's mine, I'll do whatever I want with it.

    4. FINALLY, seriously now, isn't it ridiculous that they're now trying to pretend that it's the used game market that causes game companies to put out derivative dreck? YEAH, I see how that works. It's not that game companies are pushing their developers to exhaustion, outsourcing a lot of their activities, making UNBELIEVABLY shitty movie tie-in games (if you can call them games), and in general, treating the public like they'll buy anything if they put the right face on the package. Oh, no, if sales slow down it must be because all the customers are EVIL! Yeah, we're all just penny-pinching Meanies. I see...

    Well, that's my rant for now. I'll leave you with this thought:

    Do I buy a lot of used games? Yes, I do.

    Do I buy a lot of new games? Well, actually, yes on that one also.

    Am I a freeloader? NO. I spend more money on this crap than most people.

    Do I feel like anyone appreciates my business? NO.

    You know, this stuff isn't that complicated. It's about treating me like a customer, appreciating my business, and giving me good value. If you can't do that, there's nothing you can sell me.

    • I had this brilliant rant in my head before I sat down to post a comment, and then I come here to find out you stole it from me. Jerk! :(

      Ultimately I think this is a bunch of sniveling hand-wringing. To borrow from the article:

      Judging the true extent of this impact is tricky, especially when none of the publishers contacted were willing to name specific titles being affected. (emphasis added)

      Gosh, you mean they're having a hard-time quantifying this (phantom) effect?

      The following from a Sony spokesman:

      How

      • I agree with you wholeheartedly. The problem with these game companies (and all companies nowadays, but I don't want to get started on that, I'll have carpal tunnel by the time I'm done typing my rant) is that they literally expect to be catered to. They don't want "customers", they want serfs.

        I had a weird argument this morning which actually provides a good example of this mentality.

        Over the past four years or so, I've missed maybe four appointments with my dentist. I always made them up shortly afterward
  • If you make your games infinitely replayable, will we really want to buy the new games you produce?

    If you make your games play-once, there may be a secondary market, yes, but how long does it take before everyone's played the game, is done with it, and is ready for new stuff?

    The current trend is your best bet, given the options that don't involve legislators.

  • Its that usual music industry line (Score:3, Insightful)

    by malsdavis (542216) * on Friday January 20 2006, @07:01PM (#14523379)
    Has the Games industry been having chats with the music industry or something?

    Its sounds to me like exactly the same sort of "I know our products suck at the moment but if you guys gave us more money we'd make better products, honest" line.

  • Boo f'ing hoo (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Shadarr (11622) on Friday January 20 2006, @07:02PM (#14523381) Homepage
    "...if it continues to grow, it could potentially starve us of the funds necessary for research and development"
    To this I say: Welcome to the free market, adapt or die. Don't whinge about how consumers are hurting you by exercising their rights, don't beg for people to buy the new copy to "support the developer". I don't care about you, I don't care if you can put food on your child's table. Make a product that's worth buying at a price that seems fair, and I will buy it.

    Part of the rise in used sales has to be due to the rising price of new games. I am not willing to spend $50 or more on a game unless I know, ahead of time, that it's one of the best games ever made. And it had also better have more than 10 hours of gameplay in it. Otherwise, I'll wait till the price drops or I see a used copy.

    There's a huge difference in terms of impulse spending between $30 and $50. If I have the choice between a $25 used copy and a $30 new copy, I'll buy new. Over $30 and I'll try to find it cheaper somehow. If you think you can't sell your game for $30 and make a profit, then you need to think about what you can offer as a value add, either as something you can't get with the used copy or something that will encourage people to not sell theirs in the first place. If you want to compete and be successful in the marketplace, innovate. Don't bitch at your customers for not giving you enough money. Capitalism is not charity. If your game isn't selling it's because you didn't make something worth buying new.

  • I'm Sorry (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HunterZ (20035) on Friday January 20 2006, @07:07PM (#14523407) Homepage Journal
    I'm sorry, but it's NOT MY PROBLEM. If the game industry can't get its act together and put some games on the shelves that are actually FUN, then I'll stick to older games that ARE.

    Consumers don't owe the industry any favors, especially after years of being treated like:
    - criminals via abusive copy protection mechanisms and unfair return policies
    - sheep via releasing non-innovative games over and over again, with poor support and quality control

    Also, explain this:
    - If the innovative games aren't out there, then how the HELL is buying the CRAP that *IS* on the shelves going to help any?

    Answer: IT WON'T.

    - How will buying the CRAP that IS on the shelves going to encourage publishers to market games that aren't CRAP?

    Answer: IT WON'T.
    • Also, explain this:
      - If the innovative games aren't out there, then how the HELL is buying the CRAP that *IS* on the shelves going to help any?

      Answer: IT WON'T.

      Well, it will lower everyone's expectations of what a game that isn't crap is. It will also provide funding to develop new games. (Probably crap)

      - How will buying the CRAP that IS on the shelves going to encourage publishers to market games that aren't CRAP?

      Answer: IT WON'T.

      More importantly, buying crap on shelves will lead them to believe their pr
    • For real. They should save that money they shovel into sequels, licensed shit (usually shit properties to begin with) and put THAT towards creative games. Is there some number chart somewhere that says selling fewer copies of multiple crap titles is better than selling a lot of copies of fewer BETTER titles?

      Part of the problem is that the games industry thinks better graphics == innovation. All this "research" funding is going into prettier explosions, higher res blood stain textures, and boobie bounce p
  • Go to any game retailer in town and look at the prices for games. I've seen tons of games that are over a year old still going for $40 or even $50, when the same games go for about $10 on eBay. Microsoft has a good idea with their "Platinum Hits" Xbox games - some old games that once were very popular sell for $20 new - but that concept needs to extend to all games.

  • Quoth the book publishers association: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by A nonymous Coward (7548) * on Friday January 20 2006, @07:26PM (#14523516)
    "We recognise the secondhand book market is part of the revenue mix, for retailers at least," said a spokesman. "However, if it continues to grow, it could potentially starve us of the funds necessary for research and development, and therefore, authors will be less willing to take a risk on new and genre-diversifying titles. It's this creative diversity that makes the book industry so popular, and without sustained funding from new book sales, this could be at risk."

    • Trust me, the publishing industry, especially the textbook publishing industry, is on the same level as the mob. I've heard that it's even run by the mob. All told, I'd rather owe the Godfather a favor than work for the textbook industry.

      So, there's this book called The Riverside Chaucer, which, according to my Chaucer professor, is about the best compilation of Chaucer's works you can get for an undergraduate taking a normal 3 hour per week class. The thing is, it's published in two editions:

      • The Briti

  • Less money means MORE risk taking (Score:3, Insightful)

    by absurdhero (614828) on Friday January 20 2006, @07:29PM (#14523533) Homepage
    If the games industry were to start starving, they would actually start taking more risks in an attempt to capture more sales. When you are backed into a corner do you take more or less risks to get out? The industry must be doing very well to be making the same games over and over. If you didn't notice, the people who have the least money innovate the most. So it sounds to me that the effect of used games is to help increase the quality of new titles. Buy more Used games!! Its good for the Industry!
  • Let's say that I'm a games publisher. I sell you a game that offers, say, 100 hours of interesting play. After the purchase you have three options:

    1) Sell it after a short while. OK, it wasn't to your taste. Sorry. If it's a good game, there won't be too many people in your situation.

    2) Sell it after a longer while. I'm glad you enjoyed it. Most people into this sort of thing will have bought it new by now. And whoever picked it up second-hand will hopefully buy my next game new, once they've enjoyed

  • R.I.P. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by therage96 (912259) on Friday January 20 2006, @07:50PM (#14523635)
    I miss the days when a business that no longer provided quality products to their customers slowly faded away and went out of business. These days, we have the RIAA, MPAA, and now the game industry trying to point the finger for their lackluster sales at everyone but themselves. Not only that, they sue their own customers (and brag about it in the news!) and if that wasn't enough, they line of the pockets of politicians everywhere to pass laws basically designed to keep them in business.

    Apple on the other hand seems to be actively listening to their customers and gives them what they want, rather than what the aforementioned companies do, which is try to tell us (the consumers) what we should want, and after they have watched another failure, sue us for not liking their products.

    /rant off
    • Apple on the other hand seems to be actively listening to their customers and gives them what they want

      Take the dick out of your mouth fanboy.

      Apple doesn't listen to its customers, customers listen to Apple. In it's heyday the PPC was the king of the processor mountain. Apple isn't giving the customers what they want, the customers want whatever Apple offers them. Remember Apple's commercial about how the G5 was a weapon?

      I remember how a year ago, the Mac fanatics were singing the praises of the G5. Now eve

  • Easy solution (Score:3, Interesting)

    by scot4875 (542869) on Friday January 20 2006, @08:11PM (#14523721) Homepage
    To compete with the used game channel for older titles, why not just make their back catalogues available for cheaper prices? If a title is selling for $20 used, drop the new price to $20-$25. The negligible price difference will probably prompt all but the most frugal (cheap?) customers to buy the new copy instead of the used one.

    Besides that, the paltry cost of producing a box, disc, and manual is nothing compared to the $x that they could make from selling another new (reduced-price) copy. Yes, they spent a lot of money on development, and they need to earn it back somehow. So do they choose to not compete with used copies -- and earn $0 in the process -- or instead choose to make money by giving people an incentive to buy a new copy?

    Nintendo, Sony, and MS already do this for a lot of their older titles. Any publisher that doesn't is either stupid, stubborn, or both.

    --Jeremy

  • Kill The Secondary Market (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Friday January 20 2006, @08:19PM (#14523743) Homepage
    If the secondary market is killing you, kill the secondary market in a way that is good for consumers.

    You have two options. First is requiring activation, thus making the secondary copy useless. Other posters have pointed this out. This is terrible.

    Or you could take another route. Nintendo is doing this in some ways. Sell the games to people cheaper than used. Sell electronic copies. Make it in my interest to go buy a game for $30 from you, instead of $25 from the game retailer. Most games, after an initial period, sell next to nothing. So why leave the game on the shelves at $50 and let retails sell 'em used for $25 when you could sell them on-demand for $25. Basically, Live Arcade for more recent (and bigger) games. This is where the future is. We all know it. It is just a question of when we get there.

  • If used-game sales indeed reduce the amount of money to be made in the industry, innovation will increase. A lot. If first-person shooters sell well and make bundles of money, everyone makes first person shooters and there is zero innovation. Why fix something that is not broken? This is pretty much what is happening right now -- in the last couple of years, there were only a handful of innovative games and a metric shit-ton of mediocre crap.

    If, on the other hand, making a successful game was difficult
  • I hate to be so gruff about it, but bullshit. If you can get Madden 2006 for 60 dollars right next to a bin with Madden 2005 for 10, you're going to buy Madden 2005. EA isn't going to get any money and the developers aren't going to get any money. And neither of them, honestly, will deserve the money, because they didn't release anything compellingly better.

    Now, if you're looking at a copy of God of War for 50 or Shadow of the Colossus for 40 or Madden 2004 for 10, you're far more likely to go with the a
    • If you can get Madden 2006 for 60 dollars right next to a bin with Madden 2005 for 10, you're going to buy Madden 2005.

      Most people won't, because Madden 2005 doesn't have the updated rosters.

      Now, if you're looking at a copy of God of War for 50 or Shadow of the Colossus for 40 or Madden 2004 for 10, you're far more likely to go with the awesome original title. The developers will have provided an amazing, original experience, will deserve the cash and will get it.

      Again you are wrong, most people go f

  • Obvious (Score:2, Insightful)

    by noz (253073)

    "... it could potentially starve us of the funds necessary for research and development, and therefore, developers will be less willing to take a risk on new and genre-diversifying titles."

    Since when did publishing basic business strategy become news? Mark me for a Troll if you like, but I really am tired of these "analysts" telling us the obvious. If you can't make these connections for yourself, do yourself a favour and don't start a business on your own.

    It also makes me laugh to read that "developers w

  • Buh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mrseigen (518390) on Friday January 20 2006, @08:59PM (#14523912) Homepage Journal
    I buy secondhand because I'm not paying $70 for a derivative first person shooter. If you put out an original game, I'll buy it at full market price. I purchased Civ 4, Deus Ex, and System Shock 2 at full market price. I purchased Deus Ex 2 for $10 secondhand from a seedy retailer.

    Produce something I want to actually buy and then we can argue the economics of me buying it new. The chicken/egg argument isn't appropriate right now until these original games are actually getting killed by the secondhand market.
  • you earn.

    You aren't dealing with nice little publishers anymore. In a lot of cases you aren't even dealing with nice little development houses.

    They'll give you money and when you blow it their lawyers will tie you to a soul sucking franchise (Sports games, driving game sequels, etc [no creativity though they may be fun])... If you think people are playing a game of russian roulette where they are spending big in the hopes of making it big don't play, release smaller budget games... if that doesn't work
  • He's forgetting that the option to sell a game once the consumer has finished it or if he doesn't like it effectively lowers the cost of buying the game new.

    For example, if I'd heard that Outlaw was fun, but only 10 hours long, I probably wouldn't pay $50 for it. If, on the other hand, I knew I could sell the game back for $35 in a week, the actual cost of Outlaw to me was only $15.

    So, in reality a healthy secondary market for games should encourage developers to take risks, since consumers will be m

  • ...games that fall into one of these four categories.

    1. Are $20 or lower. (rarely)
    2. Are so good no one has returned them, so I can't find them used. (this is the most frequent)
    3. Are designed so having a used copy is impossible (CD-keys basically make used PC games quite untrustworthy...consequently I buy very few PC games anymore...new or otherwise)

    I've bought 6 new games in the last year. I've bought over 50 preowned and bargain-binned games in the last year, most under $20. I imagine that ratio will

  • Basic economics will sort this out (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ath (643782) on Saturday January 21 2006, @11:41PM (#14530550)
    Too many people are caught up in the non-issue of whether the quality of available games creates a second-hand market or not. That argument is about as relevant as the game publisher's arguing that they are being starved of revenue by the second-hand market.

    But if you combine both arguments, you get a more accurate prediction of the future. If you just play out the game publisher's argument, you will see that they may be right. It does starve them of revenue. And that may, in turn, make them reluctant to spend money on risky titles or innovate. Now add in the "bad games" affect that this could create in the marketplace. What happens? Existing publishers lose money and, if they continue their approach, eventually either stagnate and get by with low growth or even go out of business.

    But if you focus on the marketplace instead of on the existing stakeholders, you see that the situation will address itself somehow. Obviously even the "bad" games have some market value if people are willing to buy them at a lower price point. So existing publishers could simply adjust their prices to compete with the second-hand market. Just because they made the same title that is being sold used doesn't mean they have a right to continued revenue on it. They made their revenue when they sold it the first time. However, if they lower their price after a time on a new box of the game then they can also share in the long term market for certain titles. They often do this by repacking titles with extra stuff like levels etc.

    What happens to those publishers who don't adapt to the market (as opposed to their current desire to adapt the market to them)? There is some radical that happens! New publishers start up and actually develop business models to exist in the market. They do things like publish titles with higher demand and/or they develop business models to survive the peaks and troughs of publishing high visibility titles. Valve is a classic example of this kind of competing company. You can hate many of their practices, but you at least have to acknowledge that they have found a different way to profit in the market. They focus on revenue from add-ons, they "took back" the margins that the publisher was previously taking, and they developed different licenses for game cafes.

    I think it is ridiculous the number of people, including executives at large game publishing companies, that claim they are so pro free market, but they constantly want to adapt the market to what they want instead of vice versa.

    • Listen I don't want to sound like an ass hole but where the fuck do you think that monthly fee goes? An mmog server can not be hosted on some kids computer with a cable modem. It takes clusters of servers which cost money to run. It also requires huge amounts of bandwidth which also costs allot of money. I concider the initial cost of the game for all the coding and content that went into the game. The 10-15 a month I spend is for the ability to play with 10,000+ other people on the same server. It also pro
    • This actually did happen a while ago (in the 70's or 80's), programmers were tired of not getting credit for making the games and they eventually just quit and started there own companies to make there own games. I think it will happen soon, once EA dies, i think alot of the smaller companies will have a pretty good spotlight.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.