I think it's a symptom of Madden rather than the online code. Every other year the sales go up and down, and I think it illustrates more that people are just tired of buying a new Madden every year, when they should be working on a system to buy one copy, and upgrade for a fee every year.
Sony joins EA and Ubisoft in considering limitations on used games
- Thread starter patsu
- Start date
I think it's a symptom of Madden rather than the online code. Every other year the sales go up and down, and I think it illustrates more that people are just tired of buying a new Madden every year, when they should be working on a system to buy one copy, and upgrade for a fee every year.
(((interference)))
Veteran
Exactly
Why should games be treated differently to DVDs, music CDs etc?
It's the consumers legal right to resell goods they purchased.
You don't see car or electronics manufacturers complaining that they don't get any of the proceeds when a person sells a car or say a PS3 still under warranty.
And I agree that most of this is due to companies milking the hell out of franchises like Madden, FIFA, COD, Guitar Hero etc. charging full price for annual releases often with only incremental upgrades.
Lots of CDs have DD codes in them that can only be used once. Also Music has multiple revenue streams like concerts and liscenscing that gaming doesn't have.
Also while I may agree with Madden and Fifa . I c'at agree that Guitar hero /Rock band are incremental upgrades. YOu normaly get full new set lists and msuic costs money to liscense and they have to go through and make the games. Its not randomly generated
(((interference)))
Veteran
Well certain games also come with DLC or XBL trial codes that can only be used once, so it's not much of a difference. If you buy a second hand CD, sure you might miss out on some window dressing but you will still get the core experience. Now if you buy a title like COD4 or BF:BC2 used and have to pay $10 more for online, you are being deprived of the core experience.
And let's not forget that piracy has a massive impact on music, far more than games (especially console titles) and unlike the games industry the music industry is in decline.
There is no reason why games should get preferential treatment.
With Guitar Hero/Rock Band the licensing costs are a factor, but basically the only new content is the different note arrangements needed for the songs which won't exactly take that much time to do.
I don't think it should cost as much as say the COD titles where they have to design new single and multiplayer levels for each releasec as well as character, weapon assets etc.
But I do think that the likes of Gamestop should strike a deal with publishers to give them a cut of the used game sales though.
Publishers should be focusing on negotiations with the retailers, rather than implementing schemes that disenfranchise consumers - which only come across as yet more attempts to make a quick buck, under the pretext of the used game market affecting their sales. I would think that publishers would have the clout to force retailers to come to some sort of profit sharing agreement on this.
Publishers also seem to ignore the indirect benefits of used game sales; for example someone who liked a title they played used (or borrowed from a friend) might end up buying the sequel and of course as mentioned before, the vast majority of people sell their used games so they can purchase newer title; every single time I have sold a game it was because I was upgrading to the sequel (eg. Forza 2 to Forza 3) or wanted to purchase some other new title. All my friends do the same; the vast majority of people will sell or trade in games only so that they can buy more games.
So it's a complete fallacy that publishers are not benefiting at all from used game sales.
Last edited by a moderator:
(((interference)))
Veteran
I don't see what being a non-material product has to do with it, what about say a Ferrari or an iPhone - using them also is a desirable experience and they don't stop working after a day/week and if someone decides to resell them the original owner is deprived of the experience, just like with games. And just like games a significant amount of time and effort has been spent on their design and development.
Games are somewhat different to movies, books etc in that if you've read a book, or watched a movie you've pretty much experienced what they have to offer and so reselling them doesn't really deprive you of anything.
Wheras with games, especially with online or sandbox titles, the experience changes enough that it is desirable to retain a title.
For example I sold my copy of MW2 two months ago and subsequently have been deprived of the multiplayer experience - which is desirable, if it had been a movie or book I had already read/watch it wouldn't be the case.
Except it can be argueed that your stil lgetting the core experiance , your just missing out on the window dressing. Last gen if you bought COD on the ps2 you wouldn't get online.
Music is moving to DD and you can't resell your itunes music or your zune music last I checked.
Books are also moving towards DD and you ca'nt sell thoses either. Movies also.
Whats it up to you to decide. Rock band 1 came with X amount of songs and you were willing to buy it at full price. Rock band 2 coming with the same amount of songs or more warrents the same price.
I think Publishers are just goin to try and cut off retailers all together and the used market.
Would it make you happy if they sold you cod4 for $40 bucks and then the multiplayer for $20 but you had to have the cod4 disc in the drive (replace cod4 with whatever new cod is coming out if you want) to play the $20 multiplayer ? Because it amounts to the same thing.
Do you want cod to come with 5 multiplayer maps and they give you a free for a limited time code for 10 more multiplayer maps that then cost $15 bucks on xbox live ? Because it ammounts to the same thing.
The developers might argue that because the person borrowed it or bought it used there wont be a sequal to the game because the first one failed. Your pointing out major franchises that are selling 1-15m copies ww each outing. But how about the ones where another 20thousand copies moved could have made the diffrence from a sequal to nothing.
I disagree. I think its a fallacy to believe that they are benefiting from used game sales.
Who's to say that these people buying used wouldn't just wait and buy it when the price drops down the line ?
I think all references to Gamestop and used retailers needs to be removed from the topic. Gamestop charges those prices because UNLIKE the developer they have costs associated with inventory and selling used titles. Gamestop needs to make profit on used game sales to support the cost of doing buisness. Once the game is released the only costs that are maintained by the developer is the online service, the online service does not change as individual copies of games change hands.
Just because some might think Gamestop is ripping off the consumer doesn't mean we should now allow the developers to get a cut of that money or a larger piece of the consumer pie.
All those who say that games are different then other used goods because the value doesn't depreciate mustn't understand percieved value. Its how the used market works, something might be in pristine condition and its value might be a lot less then retail because that is what the market says it is worth. If a copy of Madden 09 only sells for $10 that means the market says the game isn't worth more then that, no matter how pristine the disc is or how valuable it once was when it was released.
I will agree to the $10 fee if the games are sold retail without multiplayer for $50 and multiplayer can be purchased for an additional $10. Then they are selling a service to the individuals not a liscense to play a game and those buying the game used would only be buying the game and not the service to play online.
That is the only fair way of doing it, wouldn't aggrivate customers and still allow the used secondary market to thrive as it has been shown to promote a heal;thy primary market.
Just because some might think Gamestop is ripping off the consumer doesn't mean we should now allow the developers to get a cut of that money or a larger piece of the consumer pie.
All those who say that games are different then other used goods because the value doesn't depreciate mustn't understand percieved value. Its how the used market works, something might be in pristine condition and its value might be a lot less then retail because that is what the market says it is worth. If a copy of Madden 09 only sells for $10 that means the market says the game isn't worth more then that, no matter how pristine the disc is or how valuable it once was when it was released.
I will agree to the $10 fee if the games are sold retail without multiplayer for $50 and multiplayer can be purchased for an additional $10. Then they are selling a service to the individuals not a liscense to play a game and those buying the game used would only be buying the game and not the service to play online.
That is the only fair way of doing it, wouldn't aggrivate customers and still allow the used secondary market to thrive as it has been shown to promote a heal;thy primary market.
Well, as the 'reason' for developers looking at single-use codes is to try to and gain some financial reward for a game that is sold a 2nd, 3rd, 4th and even 5th time, it does make it difficult to remove references to gamestop or other.
See how difficult it is to remove references and still make a coherent point?
Oh, and your point about the only cost for a developer being the online cost and it not changing is incorrect on a couple of counts. For the latter, if Game A is bought by one person and played online for one person, they tend to do that until Game B comes along. Therefore, over time a developer can manage-down the cost related to supporting online for that title. However, if Game A then goes to Person B, those costs are extended. When it then goes to Person C, because person B has bought Game B which was traded by Person A, and those online costs are further extended.
And the first point? Well, just as Gamestop (or other) has to pay rent, tax, utilities and wages, so developers also have to pay rent, tax, utilities and wages. The difference being that a developer has been paying all of those things for a few years on credit. But they are still bills that had to be paid regularly, just the same as Gamestop.
This statement might be true if it werent for the simple fact that while Game Stop's used video game products only represented 25% of 2009 total sales, it video game products had an almost 50% profit margin. In comparsion 60% of GameStop sales come from new video game hardware and software which generated profit margins of 6.5% and 21%.
Gamestop used prices aren't dictated by inventory or associated costs but simply based on pushing used sales by maintaining a slight price advantage.
Then why complain because as the situation sits now the $60 price tag of games was set by the introduction of the new generation and not by a bunch of online multiplayer enabled titles charging a premium and then everyone else following suit. You can simply look at multiplayer as a complementary service given to the first buyer with second hand buyers having to pay for service. Pubs don't set the price for used titles so its up to GameStop to price accordingly if that complementary service is lost upon a second hand sale.
Last edited by a moderator:
I would argue that developers have 10s of millions in development costs that need to be recouped that gamestop doesn't have. Or I should say doesn't come from stocking new games. In fact the cost to stock new games is very small on their part. Its actually the cost to process used games and resell them at the expense of new games that is the problem.
I will also arguee that gamestop has over built themselves with to many stores to close to each other that only compete with each other.
specwarGP2
Regular
That's because those used products dont compete with new ones.
Huh? What kind of logic is that? They most certainly do compete. Almost any kind of used product competes with it's newer brother. Check out eBay & Craigslist!
Tommy McClain
specwarGP2
Regular
Let me clarify:
Games have a very short useful life. Most of them can be beaten in a week. So you end up with used copies of games that were just recently released competing with new copies. You even have used copies of games sitting right next to new copies in retail stores.
Cars and electronics have a much longer useful life, so people hold on to them longer and it takes a lot longer for them to appear on the secondhand market. Thus they dont really compete with current new products.
Don't you think that if a game is this short, it shouldn't be sold at that high price at first place?
A low priced game would have very little value for a second hand market. For example, if you can buy something new for US$10, why go for second hand market?
If I paid US$60 for a game I'd expect to be able to play it for months, not just a week.
They may not sit on the shelf alongside new products in the retail space, but if I'm looking online to spend less money I'm going to be checking out new & used products on eBay, Craigslist, Amazon, etc. People who value shop do it for all the product purchases, not just games. A person who buys used games is more than likely to consider purchasing other used products. And vice versa is true. Somebody who buys new games will likely buy other new products as well.
Tommy McClain
specwarGP2
Regular
Well yes, its true that people will try to find better deals, but if you want to buy a 2010 car or electronic device, there arent that many out there on the secondhand market. Yes there are some out there, but not enough to be considered competition imo
Games are different because within a month you can easily find used copies sitting right next to new ones. Used games are a perfect substitute with high availability and they steal a lot of sales away from new games.
I hope this clears what I've been trying to say.
Yet other on this board will call you a philistine, and that great experiences are worth paying for even if they're short. If your position is the norm, we are suddenly capping the types of games that can be made. It's worth noting that apart from online components, often AAA titles are pretty short. Uncharted wasn't a long game, but I'd say it was worth the asking price.
This coincides nicely with a PlayStation Blog poll on game length : http://polldaddy.com/poll/3680739/
I am not saying short games are bad. What I mean is, if a game is short, it should be priced accordingly.
Consider this: I can choose from many different forms of entertainment everyday. I may watch TV (free, but mostly boring), go to a movie (expensive, but can be enjoyable), go to an amusement park (very expensive), or play a game. Of course, it's not easy to define "entertainment value per time" because different entertainments have different values. However, let's just compare a game to a movie. Supposed that a game provides one weeks of entertainment, 2 hours per day. That means it provides 14 hours of fine entertainment. Now, a movie is normally 2 hours, with everything provided (a game normally don't provide a console for you). So, if a game is 7 times more expensive than going to a movie, it's probably too expensive.
Some may think this is not a legit comparison, but it is. If you bought an electronics (such as a fancy toy), and it bored you after a week, is it that crazy that some customers may decide to sell it back? The same can be said for a game. If a game does not have a long lasting value, why should it be priced at US$50 or higher? Especially when other games with more play time also cost the same? In a sense, if a game can be sold back to some outlets for, say, US$20 less, then it's probably only worth US$20 in the customer's mind.
Also, the "second hand games filling the market quick" is not a good argument. If a game is really that good, why are there so many people wanting to sell them back? If it's really that good, many people may decide to keep it so that they can play it again some time later, no?
Personally, I don't see this "one time code" scheme going to work very well. If they really want to solve this "second hand market' problem, they should just go for subscription model, or (cheap) episode games.
The problem with that thinking is what if a short game costs lots to make? Final price should be proprtional to cost to create, if we're going to have varied pricing, but the economy doesn't work that way.
This is my kinda thining too, and I do look for long-term value in purchases. There's still an argument against it though (but TBH, I'm not one of those 'art-house' gamers who feels niche titles should be supported because they're different!
) Depends on the game. I rarely ever return to a game once finished, but some titles encourage revisiting. I have played and 'finished' R:FoM, Valkyria Chronicles, KZ2 (don't care for online), Civilization Revolution, and a host of PSN titles like PJ Monsters and Savage Moons. The only one I've payed again is Civ Rev, because it's designed that way. I considered playing VC again but the game wasn't quite was I was hoping for. There are plenty of new games to keep us interested, and with limited play time, how many people really have time to revisit old games they've done with?
No, a good game doesn't inherently mean post-completion value that makes it worth keeping, and there are some experiences that are just done and dusted.
Similar threads
- Locked