Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Entertainment Games

Buy Second-Hand Games, Stifle Creativity? 217

Posted by simoniker from the or-something-like-that dept.
Thanks to GameSpot for its 'GameSpotting' editorial discussing why buying second-hand games could have a negative effect on videogame creators. The author points out: "You know, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft must have a real love/hate relationship with stores that stock used games alongside their new games [since buying used games doesn't give] the game developers, or the game publishers a thin, red cent. Instead, the retailer is enjoying a nice, fat profit margin, where the markup is in the neighborhood of 200 to 1000 percent." He goes on to argue: "Buying used is equivalent to the game not selling at all in the eyes of developers and publishers, and when games don't sell, they don't get sequels and excellent concepts and, therefore, opportunities are lost."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Buy Second-Hand Games, Stifle Creativity? More

Buy Second-Hand Games, Stifle Creativity?

Comments Filter:

  • Maybe they should take a hint. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mark_MF-WN ( 678030 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @02:11AM (#9301148)
    Maybe game developers and publishers should take a hint about what the sweet spot for pricing is.

    Why are business-types so colossaly stupid? The success of used games should indicate that selling games for two thirds of what they cost now would dramatically increase their sales. Instead of complaining, they could just take advantage of that trend. Losing 33% of your per-game revenue is irrelevant if you double total sales -- and since per-unit production costs are negligble, that's a pretty reasonable scenario.

    • Re:Maybe they should take a hint. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Over this side of the Atlantic one must typically shell out 60€/game. That's only one third of the price of the hardware ! Or to put it another way, you can buy a new game console for the price of every 3 games. Or to put it yet another way, the modchip only costs the price of a single game (two at most) and after that, count only 1€/DVD for a pir^H^H^Hbacked-up game.

      Sorry, but no sympathy here. If games were indeed in the 20€/piece I'd own a lot more originals that I do now.

      -AC

      • Maybe they should take a hint and start making more games that are interesting and worth playing. (and heaven forbid, REplaying). I buy new games all the time. I buy them new from the store when price falls to $20 (USD).

        Rarely I buy a game new at ~ $50 (US) when it looks really good. (these are the games that stay at 40-50 for 6 months rather than dropping to $15 within 3 months of release...)

    • What, and lose a mere 5-10% of the used margin? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Inoshiro ( 71693 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @02:28AM (#9301215) Homepage
      When people trade in a game that at 5$, and the store sells it for 20$, they're making a healthy profit. Even if the game companies go ahead and decide to drop prices of their new games by 1/3rd, the used stores can still absorb that easily because they're paying about 60% to as low as 2% of the final price of a used game to take it in.

      What's worse, you've suddenly made used game trade ins more valuable because they can get more new games or used games for the same amount of trade ins!

      Natuarally, this is why providers are trying to move to a model where you don't own the content (online). I don't like that either. There are still game companies out there, though, that can make games that are worth enough that I'll hang on to them after I beat them, even if they have limited replayability (like Beyond Good and Evil, or Deus Ex: TIW).

    • Re:Maybe they should take a hint. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Tuvai ( 783607 ) <zeikfried@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @02:37AM (#9301248) Journal
      If they sold the games for two-thirds of their original price, the price of second hand software would simply fall to even lower levels, and the cycle would repeat.

      True, more games will be bought brand new, but these will be purchases from the usual suspects, the ones with either the loyalty, lack of patience, or high amounts of cash to be able to go out and purchase software at release. The large numbers of those who hawk second hand software will simply shrug their shoulders and wait for the even cheaper castoffs to arrive. I severely doubt we shall see a sharp enough spike to cover the massive developmental costs of games these days.

      There is little the developers can do to stop this in this valued free market, except go for the big launch, as it is the sleeper hits that tend to be screwed over the most.
      • True, but there comes a point where the price is JUST right - where the % increase in new customers is equal to the % decrease in price.

        Taking your assumption and the root comment numbers as an example:
        Let's say there are 30,000 people interested in the game but only 10,000 are willing to pay for the game at $60. The industry recognizes the used game industry is meeting the demand of the rest of the 20,000 and decide to cut the price by 33%. By doing so, purchases increase by 50% (according to the root po
        • When I add the numbers, I get

          Original Revenue = 10,000 * $60 = $600,000
          New Revenue1 = 15,000 * $40 = $600,000 (0% increase in revenue)

          You have more customers, but no more revenue. Considering production/distribution costs per unit, the overhead of the 5000 additional units means you probably lose money.

          • Original Revenue = 10,000 * $60 = $600,000
            New Revenue1 = 15,000 * $40 = $600,000 (0% increase in revenue)

            You have more customers, but no more revenue. Considering production/distribution costs per unit, the overhead of the 5000 additional units means you probably lose money.

            You won't lose money with the additional overhead of 5000 units - the cost for producing the packages is generally inexpensive on a bulk basis.

            In fact, if yout game sold enough units, you would begin to have fan sites that appear t

            • But now you have an extra 5000 people to do support for which in the stated example is 50% more, and support is not that inexpensive, even if outsourced to India.

      • Re:Maybe they should take a hint. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Fizzl ( 209397 ) <fizzl@@@fizzl...net> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @04:31AM (#9301566) Homepage Journal
        If they sold the games for two-thirds of their original price, the price of second hand software would simply fall to even lower levels, and the cycle would repeat.

        I disagree. There is just a spot where it is worthwhile to sell your used game instead of keeping it 'just for collection'. If the prices would dramatically drop, it would be much rarer ocassion that someone would want to part from their original game for miniscule payback. Also, the demand for second-hand games would decline if the games would be reasonably priced. Say, 20 euros for the latest hit game would make me buy games just for the heck of it.

        Currently I only play EverQuest and Americas Army. They have decent value for money (I buy EverQuest expansions when they hit the cheapo-bin at my local store). I'm not going to cough up 50 euros for yet-another-FPS.

        • two thoughts.

          1) I rarely returned my college books because the payback was so low and I enjoyed the books more than the possible return.

          2) There were still USED University books at the bookstore.

          There will always be a used market and there should be. People should just be aware that the USED item probably returned for a reason. The only University books I returned were for the classes I hated.
      • If they sold the games for two-thirds of their original price, the price of second hand software would simply fall to even lower levels, and the cycle would repeat.

        Nah. The local stores offer me $15 for a used game (which they subsequently sell for $35). If the prices dropped 33% then they'd be offering me $10 at which point I'd rather just keep the game than sell it.

      • Nope, all they have to do is what microsoft et al are doing now - (at least for PC games) - and generate a hardware specific ID tag and an authorization system. Almost everyone who has a pc has an internet connection so it would seem be feasible.
    • No shit. Next thing you know Nintendo will be trying to shut down second-hand game stores. Then people will just trade games instead of selling them, so the big N will have to hire a vigilante force to stalk the suburbs, looking for spotty gits trying to score a copy of Metroid Prime.

    • Re:Maybe they should take a hint. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Where's your degree in business?
      Where's your fat wad of cash?

      You know, why should any CEO or any type of manager 'take a hint' from you? Before you go and spew total BS, maybe you should try and give us a reason to believe you.

      "The success of used games should indicate that selling games for two thirds of what they cost now would dramatically increase their sales."

      Why would it? What is the marginal costs of creating a more units? Is the demand for the game elastic? Inelastic? Let's not forget about R

    • Re:Maybe they should take a hint. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Delphiki ( 646425 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @08:38AM (#9302275)
      Wow, I always wonder all the greatest minds in business decide to spend all of their time reading slashdot. And you don't even work in business! What a horrible waste. You could revolutionize the gaming industry.

      Oh wait, maybe not. Maybe you just over simplified the situation and assumed everyone else is an idiot. Hey, you think if they dropped the price for games, then maybe people would start selling used games cheaper so it really wouldn't help their sales that much? No... that's crazy talk. Or gee, maybe they've done a little marketing research that suggests they wouldn't be able to double sales by cutting the price in half. Nah, "business-types" are colossoly stupid as you so aptly put it. They must have just not thought of it because they aren't smart like you.

  • bullshit. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dunkelfalke ( 91624 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @02:15AM (#9301165)
    if you sell used games you get money to buy new games. so simple.

    • Re:bullshit. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MachDelta ( 704883 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @02:43AM (#9301274)
      Very true. I bought a used game a while back (one of the Neverwinter Nights expansions) that had the previous owners' receipt in it. Out of curiosity, I looked to see what he had sold and bought. He sold 5 or 6 games/expansions for around $85 (Canadian), and bought 3 new ones (2 full games, 1 expansion) for something like $130. So the publishers and developers got ~$40 out of him, he got 3 new games, the retailer (EBGames) got to cash in on me, and I boosted my love for Bioware with their +2 Expansion of Funness.

      Whats wrong with that?
    • yeah, but if you're stupid and assume that the customers have infinite amounts of money to spend on your products.. Then it becomes a problem in your marketing departments eyes.

      besides, how would it stiffle CREATIVITY??? by giving them less money for titles that already sold enough(and are bad enough for people to get rid of them) to actually be available as used in large numbers?

  • This is stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by togofspookware ( 464119 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @02:17AM (#9301169) Homepage
    Yeah, and when I buy a used couch, the couch manufacturing companies don't get my money either. So what? I wanted a couch, and the guy selling it didn't, so I bought it. That's how a free market works. Of *course* they'd rather I bought a new one!

    • It's even dumber than that because indirectly, the makers do get some of your money. If my friend bought, say, Wind Waker for $100 (Aussie money), and I bought it off him for $40, then effectively the store got $40 of my money, via my friend.

      If they want to compete against that, it's pretty simple, they have two choices. They could:

      1. lower the price on new games so they seem more attractive to buy; or
      2. Cripple games so they stop working after a certain amount of time, or only work on a single game console
      • Cripple games so they stop working after a certain amount of time, or only work on a single game console.
        If they think sales suck now, wait until they try this crap. I sure won't buy any DRM titles.

      • Re:This is stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Genom ( 3868 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @06:34AM (#9301881)
        Cripple games so they stop working after a certain amount of time, or only work on a single game console. ...and I'd have to stop buying games completely. As it is, I generally tend to finish the games I buy 1-2 *years* after I actually buy them. Sometimes less, sometimes more (and sometimes never...)

        The cycle generally goes:
        • Buy new game
        • Play 30-60% of new game
        • Other things need attention
        • Forget about game for 3-6 months
        • Look at game shelf..."Oh yeah, I really ought to complete that sometime..."
        • Other things need attention
        • Forget about game agaun for 3-6 months
        • Eventually pop it in again, finish it, and move it to the "finished" pile


        If they only worked for 3 months or so, I'd hardly finish anything!
  • Perhaps game publishers could provide a microsoft style EULA that makes it ilegal to sell used copies of OEM windows.

    And like microsoft, they can choose not to honor any of their obligations in the EULA (RE refusing promised refund mentioned if you disagree with the EULA, forcing opensource buyers to buy windows with their laptops)
    • Simple solution, disagree to the EULA, then resell your copy. Nothing wrong with that.

      Right of distribution is usualy (in most countries copyright laws) consumed after the first sale, hence you are allowed to resell, for example, a book, a music CD, or some computer software as much as you want.

  • You're problem is what exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Torgo's Pizza ( 547926 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @02:19AM (#9301181) Homepage Journal
    This was settled in court ages ago. What are you going to do? Put Ebay, Blockbuster, flea markets, Goodwill and used car lots out of business as well? It's pretty much a consumer's right to sell, trade in or do whatever he wants to his purchase. It's not like game publishers also don't get into this as well. How else do you explain the collector's editions, multiple covers, numbered boxes and special editions? Sorry, but the crying towel for this subject was used long, long ago.
    • Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft could always include in the license for all games, a clause that you may not resell the product. That would probably stamp out most of the trade, although there's no way in hell it would stop direct sales.

      • Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft could always include in the license for all games, a clause that you may not resell the product. That would probably stamp out most of the trade, although there's no way in hell it would stop direct sales.

        That's illegal, they can't restrict that. Moreover, if they include something illegal in their licence, it invalidates the whole thing (effectively dropping their rights back to just the standard ones a copyright owner has). This arguably makes it illegal to play the game be

      • Three words: First. Sale. Doctrine.

      • Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft could always include in the license for all games, a clause that you may not resell the product.

        Except that that would be illegal in a lot of coutries. Microsoft tried to enforce reseller restrictions onto their OEM versions of Windows etc. The German courts decided that this practice (which forced bundling) was illegal. You can therefore buy (new or used) OEM Windows without being required to any hardware. I believe this is not so in the States.

        Some markets are absolu

  • Sounds like a lot of bull to me (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Flyboy Connor ( 741764 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @02:25AM (#9301201)
    Many publishers release repackaged versions of their games a year or so after the original release, usually priced $5-$10. If they can profit from that, new games are way overpriced. If they cannot profit from that, someone buying a second-hand game a year after its release doesn't cost them a cent.

  • Now also banning... (Score:4, Funny)

    by michaelggreer ( 612022 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @02:25AM (#9301203)
    used books, used cars, used houses...all of that creativity stifled!

  • Be thankful... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tuvai ( 783607 ) <zeikfried@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @02:26AM (#9301204) Journal
    That you don't live in Japan, where the software developers have been known to not only take a dim view to retailers stocking second hand software, but also actively clamp down on it. [arts.or.jp]

  • Community support (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @02:27AM (#9301207) Homepage
    Community support goes a long way to getting a sequal made. Prince of Persia: SOT sold pretty poorly overall, but because of the tremendous buzz surrounding it the Prince of Persia line is suddenly revitalized. It's never about how well this game sold, it's about how well people think the next game will sell. Part of that is based upon sales numbers, but a large part of that is based around the size of the community around the game. Used games greatly foster community.

    Furthermore, the reason used game prices are so high (besides EB's fat profit margin) is that not enough people sell their games. People become attached to them, like good books or movies, and don't want to give them up. Also, because they retail for 50 and sell for 5, people understandably are shocked by the depreciation. If you want to support gaming as a hobby, go third party. Sell back any games that you don't play anymore, and sell them to the smaller local stores that haven't been gobbled up by the major chain.

    Cry no tears for Nintendo. It is true that their profits were cut in half this year, but that was cut in half to a half billion dollars. Used games are necessarily a diminishing-returns phenomenon. Most games launch at a rediculous price, and are quickly reduced as demand subsides. Very few people resell their games, and the few that do generally plow that money right back into the hobby of gaming. Does that mean the copy of Metroid Prime you picked up used for 20 bucks from a local mom-and-pop videogame store doesn't pay Nintendo a penny? Yes, but the same could be said of reselling movies, cars, furnature, or anything else in life. Nintendo made their money. Sony made their money. Microsoft made their money. If the person who paid for that game wants to sell it to plow even more money back into their hobby than I can't see how this hurts the gaming ecosystem.

    As a game developer, I welcome the practice. Heck, I own a used copy of one of the games I helped develop, which I picked up for 11 dollars.

    • Re:Community support (Score:2, Insightful)

      by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
      Why do people take games back to stores and get 5 bucks if they could sell them on eBay for at least twice that? The seller gets more money which is likely invested ino video games and the buyer pays less and keeps more money which he can then spend on video games. With a store the seller gets little money and the buyer pays a lot while the profit from the sale goes to the store and will less likely be used for games.
      • Convenience.

        The extra $5 isn't worth the time it would take to package/ship a single item. Heck, the $5 isn't worth the time/hassle of just driving to the UPS store to ship.

        If I'm headed to Gamestop anyhow, and have a few clunkers to unload, might as well bring them.
    • Sell back any games that you don't play anymore, and sell them to the smaller local stores that haven't been gobbled up by the major chain.

      Sell 'em on eBay, or the like. You get more, they pay less, you both win. I don't understand why anyone would sell games to used game store, unless it was a game that nobody out there wanted anymore and I could get store credit for it.

      --trb

  • I buy used games... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wheresdrew ( 735202 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @02:28AM (#9301212) Journal
    ...because they're cheaper.

    That's the bottom line. Ebay, Gamestop, EB Games or local independent game shops, it's all good. Saves me money and allows me to buy more games. If they want to sell more copies of newer titles, I see two options:

    1. Make the game worth $50

    2. Make the game cost less than $50

    • If I could just add to your list there:

      3. Make the game worth playing through again and again

      • Re:I buy used games... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ConceptJunkie ( 24823 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:02AM (#9302757) Homepage Journal
        That's just a specific instance of #1.

        I buy used games all the time. At $5-$10/each I don't mind if I find myself spending much time with only one out of every 3 or 4 titles. Games are a funny thing, you often have to own them for a while before you know for sure if you really want them. If I drop $50 for a game, it better be something really special... and I'm no starving college student anymore. I can afford those games, but I just don't feel it's worth it. Most of the games I've spent the most time with lately I picked up in bargain bins, and I can never predict if something that gets me hooked will be one I picked up for $20 (or occasionally $30 or 40 or more), or some obscure or older bargain I get for $5.

  • Isn't the term "vote with your pocketbook"..kinda negates that huh?

    In any case, there's no difference to the producer if you purchased a used game or stole/pirated it outright.

    There is absolutly no difference. Now, I'm the first to say that's the way our economy works, tough tiddles and all that...

    But at the same time, the sale of used media is a bigger problem for media producers than any amount of piracy could ever be. Personally, I don't think it's that much of a problem. But at the same time, if you'

    • In any case, there's no difference to the producer if you purchased a used game or stole/pirated it outright.

      That's not true. If I buy a used game from a friend, two things happen. That friend no longer has the game and will have to purchase another if they wish to play it again. Also, that friend then has some of my money that they can use to buy something else, say another game -- possibly by the same producer.

      The secondary market is not an island, detached from the primary market. Each affects the

    • Bullshit.

      First, when you buy a used game, someone bougth that game originally, so they end up selling one game, even though two players use the game.

      Secondly, I imagine it's very common to do like I do. I buy my games something like 50/50 new and used, new games I tend to buy new, but older ones that I never got around to buying at their new price, I may buy used.

      That's simply because some games are for me simply not worth the $50 or whatever they demand for them, at that price, I'm simply not going t

  • Game sales (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Flyboy Connor ( 741764 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @02:33AM (#9301236)
    Game developers told me that the first three months after a game is released are crucial: that's when they sell the most of them. Everything after that period is nice, but if they didn't make a profit in the first three months, they never will. I am quite certain that in those first three months it would be rare to encounter a second-hand version of a game. Of course, you will find the warez-rip in the first three days after a game's release...

  • Used equivalence to not selling (Score:3, Insightful)

    by chaosmage42 ( 716255 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @02:38AM (#9301253) Homepage
    It is true that when someone buys a used game, the game company sees no money, but they saw money when the game was originally sold. Someone had to not like the game enough to sell it back so that it could appear on the used market. So the effect of the game appearing not to sell is partially true, the original owner would rather sie had not purchased the game. This means out of the 2 buyers of the game, only one would buy it if given a second chance. The company only receives one buyers money. This is fair {unlike the ridiculous markups on used games!}.

    If people are selling games after playing through them, it is usually long enough after the release that these purchases would not affect the company's income very much. {Another case is that the game has little-no replay value, and here the company is paying for it.}

    On the other hand, the author of the article makes good points and I do agree with him about supporting the companies {or local bands!} that one likes. Also, much of his arguements are about console games, which i feel have a larger used market than PC games {and I am almost entirely a PC gamer}.

    "Trigonometry is good for your soul"
    - [themathematicians.net]The Mathematicians
  • The used game market actually works to not only increase the total entertainment value of each individual game but also to IMPROVE the overall quality of the games in the market.

    When a consumer eventually sells the video game that she/he purchased, they signal that they've exhausted all the entertainment value for themselves in the game and have chosen to use the money they've devoted to that game into another product that gives them more happiness. However, if the game is made well enough that the consu

  • Game companies complain? They fix prices! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The game companies ought not to complain about used games - they are the ones fixing the prices! Fifty dollars standard, with retailers not allowed to discount in any significant way except with sanctioned sale offers. David Sheff's "Game Over" looks at how Nintendo did this in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and Sony and Microsoft are happy to continue doing it today. In a price-fixed environment where demand is elastic, demand will seek a better deal anywhere it can be had... such as with used games.
    • In a price-fixed environment where demand is elastic, demand will seek a better deal anywhere it can be had.

      That has nothing to do with the price elasticity of demand or price-fixing. Rational consumers will always choose the "better deal," period.
  • The morality of the issue is that it's both totally moral and totally legal to purchase secondhand items. It's no more immoral to buy a secondhand game than it is immoral to not pay some amount to the producers of that game for every second you spend playing the game privately at home, or to go to the toilet during TV ad breaks for that matter.

    It's not my fault if someone's dodgy business model doesn't work within the law and socially accepted behaviour.

  • Developers are crying to the wrong people (Score:5, Interesting)

    by neura ( 675378 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @04:35AM (#9301580)
    Just like the music industry, the artists (developers) should be bitching out the publisher for ripping them off. Publishers make most of the money and do the least amount of actual work. Not saying they don't do much work. Everybody involved does a lot of work, but they have by far the largest payoff.

  • One point... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nacturation ( 646836 ) <nacturation AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @04:55AM (#9301623) Journal
    I agree with what most people have written here, but one thing struck me from the article:
    Maybe it's the punk rock in me, but I firmly believe that if you're lucky enough to find art or entertainment that you really connect with--be it a music group, a movie, a video game, or whatever--the people responsible for bringing it to you deserve to be compensated for it.
    This is similar to the argument for donating to Open Source projects. Sure, if it's GPL you don't need to pay anything to be able to use the software. However, if it's something you find truly beneficial to you, it's nice to compensate the developer for their efforts. I do agree with the author though... if the difference is only $5 between new and used, I typically purchase new if only because being the first person to crack the seal on the game is psychologically satisfying.

  • Greased Up Jesus On A Pogo Stick! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by limekiller4 ( 451497 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @05:05AM (#9301655) Homepage
    When the fuck did it become the gamer's duty to subsidize a skewed pricing tier? This reeks of "if we don't rape you for $16 for every CD, you won't get to listen to the inspired strains of the Backstreet Boys, oh hell!" RIAA shill.

    First, creativity will always exist. If it flounders, an opportunity will emerge. There will always be people for whom the "work" is more akin to "love" and will do it not only cheaper but better than the competition. Linux*cough*linux.

    Second, if old games were $15 and new games were $25, would this problem exist?

    Believe it or not, I'm fairly tolerant of self-indulgent Slashdot posts. But this one takes the cake.
  • He goes on to argue: "Buying used is equivalent to the game not selling at all in the eyes of developers and publishers, and when games don't sell, they don't get sequels and excellent concepts and, therefore, opportunities are lost."

    He goes on to argue: "Buying books is equivalent to the game not selling at all in the eyes of developers and publishers, and when games don't sell, they don't get sequels and excellent concepts and, therefore, opportunities are lost."

    Seriously, where is the complaint? You

  • How can I not? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by WWWWolf ( 2428 )

    You know, I'm a Poor Student. This is not an excuse to buy second hand games, but rather, the fact that I can't afford all games I want every month is. Why?

    The new games don't stay on store shelves long enough!

    The game retailing seems like an extremely cut-throat thing. There's zillions of new games coming out all the time and the stores just won't keep up long.

    I recently wanted to buy one (just released) game. It took a few months for me to scrape up the money for it. Went to the store. "Well, we h

    • -Exactly-. This occurs simply because even the games that sell -all- their new copies often do not see reprint.

      Take Disgaea. Where I live, it's now next to impossible to find a new or used one because word got around about how good it is. When there is a used one, it's $44.99. And they know they'll get it because it had such a small initial shipment and there's nothing more coming. The companies would rather develop and release the new games (La Pucelle, and yes, I realize it's not released by the same com
  • Increase the replay value of your games!!! I know that it isn't possible with some RPG games but... If the games have replay value after a year, 2 years etc, then people will be a lot less willing to sell them used. I know that I will never sell my copy of monkey ball, mario kart, or mario party for the gamecube because those games have so much replay value. I get together with my friends and still have a blast every time we play them.
    Game companies have no right to complain because their game gets bor

  • Who the hell are they trying to kid? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geminidomino ( 614729 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @06:31AM (#9301866) Journal
    when games don't sell, they don't get sequels and excellent concepts and, therefore, opportunities are lost.

    For every one "Deus Ex" (Not TIW), "Beyond Good & Evil", or "Castlevania: SotN", they bury us in steaming, greasy piles of rehashed "Starwars: Episode 3.14159 Racer", "Final Fantasy 34", "Super Mario Strip Poker", and the "[sport name] [year]" EA crap.

    Add to that underestimating demand for a game (Suikoden II, anyone?), a general "Screw the customers" attitude (That's right, SquareEnix, I'm talking to you, bitches), and you've got a right mess. Boo hoo. Stop trying to fleece me for $50 for a 10 hour game, and I'll stop buying it used.
  • Because you can sell a game used, it makes the game worth more. Someone had to buy the game new in order for it to be used (duh). For whoever that person is, that game becomes cheaper (net: new price - used price = net price). As any student of economics knows, the effect of decreasing price on any object is to increase units sold. Note that this decrease in price occurs without either the store or the gaming company having to make less money on the initial sale.

    As for the enormous markup, that's what

  • In other news (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thefirelane ( 586885 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @07:48AM (#9302073)
    The video game industry says not buying a game stifles creativity.

    Seriously, how does this stifle creativity? If X people want a game, and want to continue playing it then X people will do so.

    All resale prevents is from a game selling wildly upon high expectations, and not backing it up with long term playability. It sounds like it actually encourages creativity, because it makes them need to have an actually solid game

  • Good (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Monofilament ( 512421 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @07:58AM (#9302104) Homepage Journal
    A developer should really look at themselves if they see that there are a whole lot of copies of "Random blow the crap outa something" game on the shelves at their local EB.

    I could care less if they make a profit on it .. they already sold it once.. if its being sold used there is a reason somebody wanted to get rid of it... and that onus is on the game developer.

    If the game sucks .. it sucks ... or if its an iffy title that not as many people will like .. than they're not gonna get a skewed view of how many copies sold.

    In my own opinion only the game developers hurt themselves with used games... if the game was that kickass, then there would be no reason somebody would wanna sell it back.

    In fact i'm glad some game developers lose money cause i sell back games or buy used games .. half the time its cause some game sucked ass. I'd rather stick it to them by getting somewhat of my money back for the time that they stole from me for playing their horrid game. So many come to mind its mind boggling.

    Businesses fail .. thats life .. if you're a sucky game developer .. at least keep in mind just by your existance you're forcing a good developer to keep on their game.. you're doing a public service .. but further than that if your game sucks, it sucks, and its not supposed to sell.
  • Just think of the loss of incentive the carmakers have to produce new cars, and sequels of last year's model, when people would rather buy a used car than a new one! And those that sell used cars, those are the most immoral! They make a living destroying the new car industry!
  • maybe if the game "new" wasn't $50 I wouldn't be so likely to wait 6 months to get the "used" at $20. because since I'm waiting anyway after the release (no way I'm paying $50) I might as well wait after the first few rounds of "used" pricing: $45, $40, $35 ... until it drops down about as low as it will go. The only game I buy at or near release is the NHL series from EA Sports, because I want to be playing all NHL season long.

    But I still haven't picked up a few of the "really really good" games of 2003 a
  • The real trick is to make games with replayability. Without that, no one wants to hang onto their games.

    I remember back in the days of my Atari, before used game stores, you looked in the paper, and people were always selling used games in the classifieds. If it isnt in a store, people would still go about it this way.
  • The worst part is these added profit margins come from these game stores ripping off children.. EB pays next to nothing for their used games, but mark them way up - almost as much as a new copy for popular games.

  • Basic Economics says "nonsense." (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Fished ( 574624 ) <amphigory@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:28AM (#9302528)
    What this article ignores is that, at least in theory, the value of the first sale of the game is enhanced by the fact that I can resell it used. Simply, I am willing to pay more for it because I know that I can resell it for some fraction of that when I'm done. Yes, the publishers would make more if I never bought a game that wasn't new, but that's simply not the economic system we operate under.

    Instead of whining, publishers should work on making games that continue to be interesting after you've played them through once. Consider books, or movies, CD's. Although there is a used market for each, the market is not nearly as robust as the used games market. This is attributable to a couple of factors: first, the ridiculously high cost of games and, second, the fact that most games are worth playing only once if that. If games, like movies and books, were enjoyable to reuse and were not quite so expensive, people would be much less inclined to trade them in.

  • Oh the humanity! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bigbigbison ( 104532 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:29AM (#9302530) Homepage
    Even worse than used games is what is going on in the book industry! There's this building downtown that lets people borrow books for free! Just think of how many copies of books they could have sold if they would shut down these "libraries!"
    Seriously though, the outcry on used games and piracy often assumes that if these options to get a game/cd/book at lower or no cost did not exist, then people would pay full price, which is a fallacy. I know that when I buy a used game, it is almost always because it is cheap. If it was full price, I would not buy it. Maybe I'm just cheap, but if I really want a game, I'll buy it when it first comes out, otherwise, for 90% of the games I buy I just wait untill they are around $19.95. I imagine that I'm not entirely alone on this. So when I buy a used game, the manufacturers aren't losing out on anything because I wouldn't buy it at full price anyway.

  • Or (Score:2, Interesting)

    by BigBir3d ( 454486 )
    How about evaluating the used market, figure out which games are re-selling the best, and why? There might be a few golden nuggets of information in there to be rooted out.
  • Tell these morons selling their games to EB to STOP. Sell it on Ebay. It sells for a higher price, the seller gets much much more than the clowns at EB pays.

    The publishers would prefer this as the price of games doesn't drop off too much other than the ones that don't sell well or are really old.

    And another thought - publishers could come out with new versions every year. No one buys NFL 2003 after 2004 comes out and the inventory at EB becomes worthless.

  • It's quite possible that having the ability to sell a game as used makes an increased (but difficult to measure) value of a game, and could lead to increased sales. For example, if I buy "Parappa the Rappa 2", I know that if and when I get sick of the game, I could turn around and sell it used. In other words, resale value, just like you would see in a house or car, but of course on a much smaller scale. That hidden value makes me more likely to purchase the game in the first place. That's all part of a
  • Ho hum. This is just whining that should be scoffed at for the nonsense it is.

  • What buying used *really* means... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by stienman ( 51024 ) <adavis@@@ubasics...com> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:33AM (#9303020) Homepage Journal
    Buying used means:
    * The original owner didn't find the story satisfying enough to keep
    * The original owner sold it to buy a newer game
    * The original owner's younger brother needed ca$h fa$t and those rich nigerian people with slight banking problems won't put out to a 12 year old

    In either of the first two cases, the game publisher's shouldn't continue the series - it was good for a few weeks/months of game play, but wasn't a classic, or is not good for group play.

    -Adam
  • For crying out loud! Whining like this will kill the Goose that lays the Golden Eggs. Vid game pricing has been extremely strong and has enabled the vidgaming industry to surpass movies.

    The resale market serves a number of critical functions -- it support high release prices because many aficionados will get first-day releases, beat the game and resell. These resales will capture new game addict^H^H^Hfans.

  • Total Bunk (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ronfar ( 52216 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @11:09AM (#9303457) Journal
    Fist of all the economics of this article are nonsense. First point, a game can't exist in the used market unless it was:

    1. Purchased new at one point. 2. Sold back to the store.

    So, the game has to have been purchased new (note the article says nothing about clearance games) and the person who originally bought it had to tire of it and decide they didn't want it anymore or that it was mistake to buy in the first place. This should be obvious.

    Now, if games were like the used car market, this might not be enough to destroy this argument. I drive a 1990 Honda Accord, and I'm not planning to upgrade anytime soon. It's still a solid car. So, at some point, with games, there might be enough floating around that no one would buy new games, in theory.

    But this would ignore certain facts about games:

    1. The console lifecycle: Used games for consoles that don't boast backwards compatibility have a fairly short effective lifespan. Basically, they have whatever time is left in the lifespan of the console to be a major threat, because when the next generation of consoles come out no one will want to buy them anymore unless they are too poor to upgrade or collectors. On the other hand, Playstation II and Gameboy Advance are backwards compatible because the positives (keeping control of their respective markets) outweight the negatives (that people will occaisionally choose cheap, old, graphically inferior used games over the latest offerings).

    2. No marketing: Games are only marketted when they are new, and this include reviews except for the occaisianal "classic reviews" in magazines like Game Informer. This means that you have to already know that you want the used game and be able to research information about it before you decide to buy it. I recently decided I wanted to buy the game "Splatterhouse 3" for my Sega Genesis for nostalga purposes. Considering it is a rather average game it was fairly expensive and difficult to find. It isn't competition for the new Silent Hill game in any sense for anyone but monomaniacal game collectors like me.

    Frankly, another thing that makes this silly is that isn't it just as damaging to creativity to buy games like Namco Museum for Playstation, Super Mario Bros III for Gameboy Advance or Megaman Anniversary Collection for GameCube Used or not? After all, none of those are anything but compilations of older, popular titles. Any money they make will be a sign to the game companies that people want rereleases of older titles and not new titles that "push the envelope." Actually, isn't it worse, since precious marketing and publishing funds are "wasted" on these rehashes which isn't the case for a mint copy of "Super Mario Brothers III" for NES.

    Oh, and one last thing. I don't care if games are creative, I only care if they are good and entertaining for me. Maybe the author of the article wants to establish a NEA of games... that's his business.

  • "Buying used is equivalent to the game not selling at all in the eyes of developers and publishers, and when games don't sell, they don't get sequels and excellent concepts and, therefore, opportunities are lost."


    And this is exactly why you should always buy used CDs of bands you like. Legal music - and no additional money for the industry.

    Too bad that most eBay CDs now come from powersellers who sell new ones. :(

Slashdot Top Deals

The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.

Close