We occasionally discuss the complaints from video game publishers and developers about
how used game sales are hurting them, and how they've been testing out
countermeasures disguised as features to compensate. Now, industry analyst Michael Patcher has released a report which attempts to quantify that damage. Patcher estimates that
used game sales and trades number around 100 million each year in the US. However, despite the immense number of transactions, he doesn't think the used game market is as detrimental to sales of new games as the publishers think. "The vast majority of used games are not traded in until the original new game purchaser has finished playing, typically well beyond the window for a full retail priced new game sale. Thus, while there may be some limited substitution of used game purchases when GameStop employees 'push' used merchandise upon consumers lined up to buy new games, the vast majority of used game purchases occur more than two months after a new game is released. ... To the extent that there is a substitution effect, we estimate that fewer than 5% of new game sales are impacted."
Seriously... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is insane beyond belief.
Should MSI get a cut of the sales if I sell my laptop?
Why should game companies get a cut of resell?
Even candy is labelled "no individual re-sell".
Re: (Score:2)
This is insane beyond belief.
Should MSI get a cut of the sales if I sell my laptop?
Why should game companies get a cut of resell?
Even candy is labelled "no individual re-sell".
While I agree with you in concept; there is precedent in laws in some countries that give artists a cut of subsequent resale of original art.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that if all the other countries are jumping off of a cliff, our country ought to be allowed to do that as well? That's never been a good argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? More detail -- which countries for a start?
Anyway, I think "original" art would be unique hand made objects like paintings, sculptures; not mass-produced copies of such.
Re:Seriously... (Score:4, Funny)
Even candy is labelled "no individual re-sell".
Ok, that's braindead. I cannot imagine that the used chewing gum market impacts the sale of new gum.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
âoeItâ(TM)s MY crap, and I work long and hard choosing the products to eat to make it high yield fertiliser.â
âoeIt wouldâ(TM)ve got sent to the bloody sewer system anyway,â the Boss replies.
âoeIf I so choose to release my products to the public domain, so be it. However, if you take something which is mine, which I created, and give it to another â" well thatâ(TM)s theft!â
âoeYeah, sure,â the Boss snaps wearily.
âoeI
Re: (Score:2)
Fix UTF-8 Fix UTF-8 Fix UTF-8 Fix UTF-8 Fix UTF-8 Fix UTF-8 Fix UTF-8 Fix UTF-8 Fix UTF-8 Fix UTF-8 Fix UTF-8 Fix UTF-8
Re: (Score:2)
LOL Seriously. But the reason things are marked "no individual resale" is because the person who
sold it packaged it in bulk for sale to the public. Probably to make a certain profit, but just
to give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps with less packaging that items meant for resale would have.
Either way it has absolutely nothing to do with actual resale of games, or anything else that is a durable
item, versus something that's a consumable. I regularly purchase used games for my disabled aunt on a fixed
Re:Seriously... (Score:4, Informative)
no, sorry, that only applies to candy and other goods sold in multi-packs and is there to stop unscrupulous retailers from purchasing multi-packs and then splitting them and selling the individual packs at the normal single pack price...
Parent
Nutrition analysis (Score:4, Informative)
And what's so "unscrupulous" about splitting up a multi-pack? That's half of what retailers are there for: so you don't have to order things by the pallet.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is because they don't print the nutrition information label on every individual item, hence "Not labeled for individual sale"
So should book publishers try to prevent trading? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What are they doing to book publishers?
Re: (Score:2)
Especially school books. Consider how many students sell their kickass expensive books every year after passing the course!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Just fix a few typos, and voila! It's like you have a new book to sell.
And if you dare try to walk into a college class with the old edition you are SURE to fail...
Re:Editions! (Score:3, Interesting)
I held my private rebellion to this.
You were right until the book publishers also caved to the "Don'Wanna'Read" crowd at the same time. I improved my grade by some 3 points because the older edition I picked out of a department ex-libris bin had more thorough explanations everywhere. Then on mean days I'd ask "brilliant" questions based on material that wasn't in the new edition.
Re: (Score:2)
Old editions have the same information. In fact based classes where there's only one right answer
Re:So should book publishers try to prevent tradin (Score:4, Interesting)
I have some insight on this.
I ran a Computer store from '92 to '95. I started doing a "buy, sell or trade" thing on computer games in 94, I immediately noticed a big jump in new game sales, and the reason was told to me by hundreds of customers, being able to sell or trade the game in when they were done was a gigantic incentive to buy the games in the first place.
I also tried renting them out, BTW; that helped sales a little, but only because every 3rd or 4th customer ended up buying the game through late fees.
Up until Microsoft's attempt to kill or seriously injure the PC gaming industry came out, the "games for windows" program, I would have said that PC game reselling was a 100% good thing for the gaming industry; I imagine it would be impossible with the state of EULA's to do it legally, these days.
Blatant Plug: www.gotthefire.net/dnn. Go. Be Round.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Up until Microsoft's attempt to kill or seriously injure the PC gaming industry came out, the "games for windows" program, I would have said that PC game reselling was a 100% good thing for the gaming industry; I imagine it would be impossible with the state of EULA's to do it legally, these days.
You have a 100% protected legal right to resell the game. However, if there are technical measures in place to prevent you from transferring your activation, then you are best avoiding reselling that game entirely. Console manufacturers want to knock out resale too. I suspect we're going to have to get some laws passed if we want games resale to continue into the next decade.
(It's been four minutes since I last posted a comment. WTF? This is the thanks for helping make slashdot great? We'll take off the ads
Game companies have a way to counter this (Score:2)
Make shitty games. That way, they have no resale value whatsoever. Or better, call them something-forever and don't even sell them in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Quite the opposite would work: Make games with great replay value so I do not want to sell them.
The "story" of a contemporary game takes you about 10 hours, tops. After a few skirmish turns you're fed up with that too. And then? Off to the used market.
Can you imagine parting with your copy of CivII? Or Alpha Centauri? I can't. Yeah, I don't really play them THAT often anymore (hey, they're like 15 year old now), but still... I just might pick them up again, I couldn't sell them.
Re:Story FTW! (Score:2)
OhMyGawd, by accident you might have stumbled onto TehWin.
Random madeup example: "Tom Clancy's NSA-Force: Lebanon" or something. Then as a bonus you can include special documented tech specs from Tom's secret notes, not found anywhere else. A complimentary special-edit version of a novel would also rock.
GAME-story: 10 hours.
Special Edit Clancy Novel: 10 hours!
They can't stand free trade? (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuck 'em.
I actually collect games rather than sell them, but I reserve the right to do with my physical copies and registered accounts what common morality affords me, broken EULAs or no.
I frankly don't care how little or how much they "lose" through after market trading. Get off my lawn.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, I've started keeping games that I feel were amazing. It sure makes it easier knowing that I cant trade away the crappier ones on my shelf to get one that I missed.
Re: (Score:2)
Last game I bought was FIFA 2009. It had the original Gamestation sticker on it, a new Cash Converters sticker on that, another electronic secondhand shop's sticker on that. I currently have it up for sale on eBay, minus the stickers. After tomorrow, the game will have passed though a minimum of five people's hands. Excellent.
Fuck 'em indeed. This is all about reduce, reuse and recycle, minus the reduce bit. Fuck 'em five times.
Out
Re: (Score:2)
I have to agree. I've never actually sold a game second hand and in fact have pre-ordered most new games out for the 360 for the last 2 years spending thousands on games, but I've always thought it seems odd that if say someone in my family became massively ill and I had to dig up as much cash as possible from somewhere I'd be able to sell everything from my house to my toaster to my car to my XBox 360 games, but oddly would be unable to sell my Steam based DRM'd games.
The fact is games that impose technica
Re: (Score:2)
I'll have even less of a pain in my conscience when I don't buy them. And when that DRM starts screwing up the experience of new purchasers, I'll have myself a great big belly laugh.
Sorry. The only people who make serious money in the video game industry are the
So essentially he is saying... (Score:5, Interesting)
as price drops demand picks up; and purchasers at $20 will not buy at the $50 retail price. Thank you for restating how supply and demand curves work.
The real question is:
Is there a price point between the price of used games and new games that would generate greater profits for game manufacturers than the current pricing model?If there is, then used sales do cut into new ones in the sense that purchaser will wait until the game price drops to a price they are willing to pay if the used game reaches that price prior to publishers lowering the price of new ones. If the used market captures those sales then it is cutting into new game sales since used games are replacing new game sales.
Publishers would probably like to price so as to capture as much of the "I must have it on release day" sales as at high a price as possible; then drop prices enough so the incremental demand from the price drop generates higher profits than fewer sales at higher prices. While falling prices would drive down the value of used games and their attractiveness to stores; publishers run the risk of training buyers to wait a few weeks for the first price drop and losing release day sales and profits. Given how rapidly used games start to appear after release shows their is a large demand at lower prices (duh); how to tap into that without hurting earlier sales is a difficult question to answer. It's a tough call; especially given the money it takes to develop a game.
In the end, however, I think their is more to the story than just $20 used game sales don't hurt the $60 new game sales./P.
Re:So essentially he is saying... (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank you for restating how supply and demand curves work.
It's worse than that, what he's saying is selective economics. You want to see how selective economics works? I will now prove that used game sales increase the sales of games at retail prices: Everyone today knows they can resell a $60 PS3 game for $15 to Gamestop. So when they are figuring out the price, they are assuming that the game retains a resale value of $15--much like a person shopping for a car takes note of its blue book value. So you can pretty much look at it like you're putting down a $15 deposit on the game. Everyone assumes that they are going to play the game for a week and get tired of it. Fortunately, there's a few games that are really really good so that the player either keeps playing them or grows attached to the game in a special way. Now, people are buying more copies of the game because the in-the-end cost is $45, not $60. And a few people are holding on to the game instead of trading it back in. So in a world without used game sales, you would have made less sales. On top of that, if you make a really great game and most people keep it then there are a bunch of people buying your game figuring they will resell it and don't ... and you make more cash. I still have my copy of Ocarina of Time for N64 in my room even though I don't play it.
See how anyone can use selective economics to meet their needs? By the way, all economics lessons are selective. Whether they try to be or not.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Just the opposite. If there were no used games, they could jack up the price on new games even higher, knowing that gamers wouldn't have the option of buying a used game instead. Simple economics -- restrict the
Daft (Score:3, Insightful)
The ability to resell add value to new games.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a huge stack of games, mostly unplayed and never even installed, on my shelf. I don't think I paid more than half price for any of them and most cost the same as two or three beers. When I see something vaguely interesting at that price I grab it. I figure it could cost more second hand in a year or two - if you can find it at all.
Some are original versions, some are those repackaged (xplosiv, soldout) ones from the bargain bins.
When I win the lottery I'll play them all, end to end.
Re:The ability to resell add value to new games... (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't have to imagine. Plenty of people lease cars, knowing they can't re-sell them - technically, they don't really even 'own' the car, all for a reduced price. Other people like me would never lease a car, though. We prefer to own the thing outright.
Disclaimer: I'm a game developer working on MMOs, so used games aren't exactly a threat to our business at the moment, since you're buying an on-line account which you really can't sell - the client software is sort of incidental. However, even when I was working on single-player games, I still felt the same way. Which is:
To hell with publishers who feel they don't have to earn their customers' money just like every other business on the planet. The game development industry is big and booming, but it's also incredibly cut-throat and highly competitive, often with very slim margins and high risk. Tough nuts - we finally made it (as an industry) to the big time, and now they're complaining that their margins aren't as big as they'd like it to be.
Guess what - if there's a thriving used game market which sells used copies of your game for just a few bucks less than the retail price, maybe it's an indicator that your prices are a bit on the steep side, especially many months after its initial release. How about you drop your prices to remain competitive? Or release additional content to encourage new sales, perhaps?
I can't stand it when people whine about the reality of the marketplace like that. It reminds me of another entertainment industry that's become universally loathed because of their refusal to adapt to new marketplace realities, and instead use the force of law to bully and intimidate their customers. I hope to God my industry doesn't go in that direction. At least we seem to be seeing a backing off of those insane and intrusive DRM schemes (which most developers I know don't like either).
Parent
Saying that used sales are "hurting them" is bogus (Score:4, Interesting)
The only people saying that the sale of used games is "hurting them", are people who do not understand the law, or greedy people. Or both. But there is no middle ground.
Pricing, Pricing, Pricing!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/02/20/0750203/Do-Video-Games-Cost-Too-Much/ [slashdot.org]
We've discussed this before, and the consensus is easy to spot: many games are not worth the asking price. You'll sell more games if at 1-3 months after launch, you simply drop the price point to an appropriate range, depending on the total units you sold at launch and the total expected units. It's been proven- some games sell well years and years after release for a discounted price.
Of course, this has two impacts- if you enjoy selling games back to places like gamestop, their resell value will be diminished, as the retail price will be lowered quickly. Also, unless you have a strong opening for your game, you simply won't sell them at full retail if you have created the expectation of lowered prices shortly in the future.
I'm willing to pay $20 for new games giving the developers and publishers the profit, rather than pay $15-18 for a used copy.
The trend will be to direct-download games. (Score:2, Insightful)
Console manufacturers and game publishers are going to move towards games which are entirely downloaded.
Directly downloaded games are impossible to re-sell. So will block this "problem"
Moreover, the revenue from downloaded games is not shared by resellers and retailers. Retailers can take up to 50% of the sale price. Just to sell a box.
When publishers, originate the game, develop it, promote it and take all the risks- you can see why they resent the used game market and the burden of "boxed-goods" retailers
Used games help new game sales (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The person who bought the game new gets some money back when he sells it used, thus giving him more money to go buy another new game.
2) People are more likely to buy a new game if they know they can sell it used when they get tired of it. If they know they will be stuck with it, they will be less likely to buy. In the aggregate, lower new prices would be necessary if there were no resales. (This might end up happening if all the draconian DRM makes the "purchase" into a true rental because the game can't be transferred and might fail to "activate" in the future. Such games would be worth less.)
Used game market makes new games more affordable (Score:2)
How many people buy a new game knowing that they can sell it on the used market when they've finished? So the cost to them for the game is effectively lower. How many would not buy the new game, or buy fewer, if that market wasn't there?
Car analogy! (Score:2)
So if this is supposed to be so wrong (from the eyes of the original seller), why aren't car manufacturers trying to clamp down on used car sales?
It's not "damage" (Score:2)
Its reality. Companies are "damaged" about as much by the fact that they don't make money off sales of used games as I am "damaged" by the fact that people aren't paying me royalties for every time they take a shit and thus inadvertently destroy the resale market for MY shit.
I have a business plan, after all, that depends on the world paying me for my shit.
In short, when you have the delusional belief that you are owed money for something that nobody else in the world has ever been owed money for nor has an
What about all other 2nd hand goods (Ebay)? (Score:2)
Shall we start a massive database to track down all goods worldwide so that the producers can get a share whenever it changes hands?
I bet that would be fun.
I accidentally left my newspaper in the bus this morning. Somebody else might have picked it up. Are they going to arrest me now?
Re: (Score:2)
Does it really fucking matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if 100 used games are traded each year or 100 million. GAME COMPANIES GOT THEIR CUT WHEN THEY FUCKING SOLD IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I don't give a shit if it takes 5% or 95% of their 'potential revenue' away - JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE ENTITLED TO IT.
In the puntastic words of someone funnier than me, it's not rocket surgery. Geez.
Used game sales do not hurt the game industry! (Score:5, Insightful)
Used games do not hurt or harm the game industry. Why? Because the consumer has a first-sale right to sell the game and the game industry has no right to financially gain from that secondary (or tertiary, etc) sale.
So when some third party profits, and you have no rights to the profits, it necessary follows that you were not harmed.
Under the game industry's logic, because my fellow employees are being paid by my employer, I'm somehow losing out on that money, because for some bizarre reason, that money should be going to me.
Or under the same asinine logic, McDonald's deserves a cut from the local Burger King's profits because it's making money that, for some bizarre reason, McDonald's thinks it deserves, even thought it has absolutely no right whatsoever to those profits.
Of course someone is going to complain about my analogies. That the game industry produced the game so therefore it has a right over the game. In my first example I didn't do my coworkers' duties, so therefore I have no right to their pay. And McDonalds didn't serve the customers who went to Burger King so therefore they have no right to those profits.
But you're missing the point. It is completely irrelevant that a particular gaming company originally produced the game. The main issue is that once it sells a copy, It no longer has any resale rights to that copy. I'll say it again, it has no right to any resale money in the same way that I have no right to my coworkers pay or that McDonalds has no right to Burger King's profits. None. Nada. Zip.
The gaming industry certainly wants profits it is not entitled to. But that is not harm. That's jealously and blind greed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Before I leave for the day, I want to add one thing.
Someone will say that the harm comes from the lost sale of new games. Guess what? That's not harm, that's competition. That's no different than my McDonalds/Burger King example.
Now of course if the competition is somehow unfair. Like if the Burger King ignores health and safety laws to keep their prices lower, then McDonalds would be harmed.
But as there is nothing illegal about reselling a copy of your game, there is no unfairness and no illegality.
To
Re: (Score:2)
Of course someone is going to complain about my analogies.
Of course, neither McDolands nor Burger King are cars.
second hand cars will be forbidden next (Score:3, Insightful)
buying a car second hand steals money to car manufacturers
let's forbid that shamefull behaviour and save economy
really, some companies do not deserve our money...
A publisher's perspective (Score:4, Funny)
If they want a disposable product lower the price! (Score:2)
Who is prepared to shell out $60 for a single game without any possibility of resale?
To be frank, that $60 price mark has prevented me from buying any new games. I have entertainment dollars to spend, but like anyone else, I like to be careful about how I spend them. When it comes to games, I consider anything over $40 to be something that requires some pondering where the end result is that I usually don't buy.
And now they want to discourage or even prevent the possibility of resale? Then they had bette