Quantcast
Destructoid - taterchimp's Community Blog



About Me
Location: Des Moines
Job: Data Analyst
Real Name: Kris
Gamer Profile
3DS friend code:
Steam:
Battle:
PSN:
Mii:
Gamertag: Taterchimp
Following (10)
Anthony Burch
Brian Szabelski
Char Aznable
Jim Sterling
Kyousuke Nanbu
LindaLou
manasteel88
Niero
Red TheHaze Veron
Sharpless
The Case Against Used Games
taterchimp | 4:57 PM on 09.21.2011 7 comments


Before I get into it, this is where I am coming from: I have a background in businessy things,and every once in a while, people post business things, either as a story, in the comments. Most of the time, these are harmless enough, but every once in a while, it is just flat out wrong. When people say that games should be sold at half price, that companies should take a major hit in sales to improve PR, it kind of sets me off. I mean no disrespect by this, but most of the people on Destructoid are not my most trusted resources when it comes to business practices, and maybe the companies who operate as a business actually know what they are doing. I will admit I am not to be the most trusted resource either, but I wanted to give my two cents, and today I want to focus on used games. My recommendation for listening for this post: Sympathy for the Devil of course.

Argument number one: games are too expensive, so of course people will trade them in! Sixty dollars is pretty steep for a game, and when multiple games come out, that is a hassle right? I remember back in the day when Super Mario RPG cost...wait, sixty dollars still? All SNES games cost me sisxy back then, and NES games started at fifty as well. I don't want to seem all crotchedy and remembering the 'good ol days' back when you could get coffee for a nickel, but inflation is clearly working in our favor here. Today's money is worth less, and the price stayed the same, so a game should be cheaper now than it was before. Actually, there are places online where you can view/apply the cpi to get an approximate value (ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt has the full tables). Long story short, Super Mario RPG would now 'cost' around 42 dollars. Please keep in mind too that today's game cost to develop is probably higher right now, and compared to NES games, you are getting a crazy amount of content.


I seriously googled inflation, and this was the first thing that came up. Awesome.

Argument number two: people leverage used games to buy new games, and support the market. For who? I know that people will say that a used game sale is not a lost sale, and the same argument goes for piracy. In the eyes of the business who produces the games it is at very least a potential sale. So let's say you trade in three games to buy a new game, and for the sake of simplicity, all 3 games were made by the same publisher. They just lost 3 games worth of potential revenue, and gained one games worth. Not such a good deal. Without revenue, developers will close, without developers, we don't get games. I recall many posts saying this kind of thinking is 'short sighted', and I tend to agree....

A lot of people bring up argument 2.5: Other industries deal with used sales all the time, but they don't seem to suffer because of it. Which industry? Lets start high: car industry. That's a big one, and you don't hear complaints, right? That's because a car will automatically devalue itself until someone who had the car has to buy another one. Natural degradation of the product leads to another purchase, and it doesn't matter who the end user of that product was (insert easy Xbox joke from 2006\7 here). I should suggest that companies start doing that! Oh wait, Capcom has tried and there was crazy backlash (Resident Evil 3d, and Pac Man/Galaga). Maybe it isn't the right way to go, but the logic they are applying is easy to understand, and from a business perspective, I sympathize with them (even though it is a dick move, even though I buy new). While then, video games aren't cars, they are more like movies or music. iTunes has such insane DRM and other restrictions that it makes what gamers put up with look like a joke. Hey, you just bought a song! A SONG! And it won't play on anything that doesn't have m4a support, and it is locked to your account which you can only have on five computers and you have to sync it to your registered iProduct and fuck this, I buy mp3s free of DRM from amazon! Think what Microsoft does with timed exclusives is bad? Movie to DVD transitions typically take four months (source: http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/03/6497.ars) and depending on the box office success can take even longer. Can you imagine if there was literally [b]no way[b] for you to play a used video game for half a year until after it was released? So we gamers, we have it easy.


I really, really hate Apple, so it makes me happy to see that 'drm' on google returns Apple hate. Or you know, I would feel that way if I were petty (which I'm not...honest).

Argument 3: The sequel sells better because of the original. How many games do you think get a sequel? The game industry is crazy cut throat today. What we have seen, is that if your title isn't a hit, You (Kaos) Lose(Visceral) Your (Pandemic) Job (Codemasters). The fact is that if a majority of a studios sales come from used games, I argue they are more likely to close down than they are to make a sequel (and Kaos isn't taking Homefront 2, so another company gets to celebrate the boon from used games. Go system!). As an aside, even if you buy an old game new, there is a chance that the publisher wont see any money anyway, if the game store doesn't restock the game. The only advantage to buying new is to stick it to Game Stop (or whoever) and that might be totally worth it anyway. So what makes a sequel sell better than the original? If you had a chance to do something twice, and hear all of the feedback from the original, what might you do? Fixing the problems would be rather high on the list for me. Maybe sequels sell better because they are better games (Castlenvania for the NES, of course, being the exception).

This originally wasn't meant to ride the latest Jimquisition, but I want to talk to one of his points: disrespecting gamers time. Here's what I want you to do: Load this video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMMcd6-D4x8
(or this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utsvltzxtm4 )

Watch it. It is 13 minutes long. Around ten minutes of names, scrolling. Every single one of those people worked on Deus Ex. Some of them may have worked on this game for years. How many people do you think that was? How many man hours do you think they spent creating this product for you? Take five minutes. Close your eyes. Think of every person you talked to in the last six months. How do you think that list and the list of people in the credits compare. Imagine every one of your relatives who can work. I can come up with maybe thirty. In the first minute of Deus Ex's credits, there are about 40 people mentioned. For many their main source of income is from the game you just played. By buying it used you say that you appreciate what they did, but not enough for them to make some money off of it. And we are wasting their time? (This sentiment goes double for piracy, even though the math isn't quite the same). Buying used is going to restaurant and not leaving a tip. It's being able to afford a night out on the town, but bringing along your shitty kid, because you can't hire a baby sitter. The last thing I wanted to say is on the humanity topic is I hate when people say it is greedy for a business to try to stay in business. They have to pay their employees, they have to maintain a facility, get food, take care of families, and we get to enjoy the fruits of their labors and support them.

To be realistic for a bit, I know some people can't always afford to buy a new game. It is unrealistic to expect everyone to spend money to support the people who made the game, and in many cases it is too late to make a difference anyway. All I'm saying is maybe you can take the time to enter a code to play online. Maybe you can spend money on used game passes to support people who made them. Maybe instead of complaining about how games aren't free, and you can't plug them in and go instantly, you can have fun, you know, enjoy playing the game.


This is a very good place to start having fun (on a budget!)



Attached photos:

Photo Photo Photo

Is this post awesome? Vote it up!

3

Those who have fapped:  ManWithNoName  


Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:

Comment with Facebook





Click connect and comment instantly!

Comment with Dtoid





New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds

7 comments | showing # 1 to 7
prev next

bbain's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/21/2011 18:17
bbain
OK, but there are plenty of other things that still need to be considered.

What about used games that you can't buy new at stores anymore, like games for older systems such as Atari, NES, SNES, Genesis, N64, PS1, etc.? If there was no used game market, no one would be able to play those games anymore except through emulation. And what are you supposed to do with a game that you don't want anymore? Throw it away? Keep it in your house forever in a closet and never touch it again? That seems like kind of a waste of resources, when someone out there who really wants it could be playing it. And if we did stop selling games back and just kept them in our houses, then when the current generation systems become old and they stop selling PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii games new in stores, then where would people be able to find those games? At a garage sale? That's basically the same principal as a used game store.
taterchimp's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/21/2011 19:17
taterchimp
bbain: I completely agree with you. In many cases it is impossible to find the games new. In addition, I did mention that even if you buy new, it maty not even benefit the publisher any. However to say that they are only beneficial to the industry, I believe, is completely wrong.
meteorscrap's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/21/2011 20:24
meteorscrap
Argument Number 1: The reason development costs have gone up is because the average market has, as well. Nintendo first party titles aside, the average game these days sells more copies than they did in the SNES era. Consider this: Chrono Trigger (including PS1 rerelease) and Final Fantasy VI (III, if you prefer) combined, sold less than either Final Fantasy XII or XIII. Put bluntly, the cost of development has risen to meet the expected profits.

Likewise, the reason people say games should be cheaper has to do with individual unit cost. Compared to the cartridges of SNES/Genesis days, even a BluRay costs less than a tenth of the price per unit to manufacture. I know that we can partially thank inflation for the increased prices, but we can actually say, definitively, that games cost too much for the average user. The thriving used market is proof that the demand is there, but at a lower price than the publishers are willing to provide.

Argument Number 2: The money has to come from somewhere. A gamer who buys and sells titles does less, in theory, to support the games marketplace (new and used) as a whole compared to a used buyer. For a simple metric, see the following:

NewGamer buys NewTitleA for $69.99, plays it for two weeks, and then trades it back to GameStop for another title and uses a Trade-In credit of $50 from NewTitleA to do so. UsedGamer then picks up the used title for $54.99, but after finishing it does not trade it in. As far as that game unit is concerned, UsedGamer does more to support the industry than NewGamer. NewGamer's net contribution is $19.99 each time he picks up a game, while UsedGamer's net contribution is the remaining sum of the actual cost of a new title.

I'm not saying that used gamers don't sell their titles, but that ties into my counter point to...

Argument Number 2.5: Why the used market is such a problem for the games industry. It ties back into my thing about how new games are too damned expensive. I actually wrote a blogpost about it, if you're interested. But basically, the reason the used market is such a problem is that the new market isn't meeting supply at a price that is good for ending the used market, rather than propagating it.

Basically, rather than releasing a new title at $64.99 which twenty people in a given area will buy and then sell back to GameStop, publishers should release a new title at $39.99 which thirty-five people in a given area will buy so that the demand for the game drops. Demand for the game drops, the trade-in price drops. Trade-in price drops, you break the habit of gamers trading in their games. It's a whole thing I go into more detail about in the linked blogpost.

The funny part is that the various Greatest Hits lines of all the major consoles back me up on this one. Despite the general lack of advertising compared to launch, anything which hits that lowered price starts to sell like gangbusters new.

Right now, the best analog for the games industry is actually books. For the longest time, authors and book publishers worried about the used book market costing them millions and eventually driving them out of business. The difference between the games industry and the book industry is that books are cheaply available enough that selling your books to the bookstore generally isn't worth the time and effort. Even getting 75% back on a hot new paperback means you're getting six or seven bucks, which is about what you pay for a coffee and a bagel at the Starbucks in the bookstore anyway. Contrast that with selling a game back to the store, where you can see half a day's wages (or more, if you're really on the low end of the pay scale) come back to you by trading in your old title.

Argument 3: Eh, I mostly agree with you here. However, I don't buy that we should blindly support studios. It's a business at the end of the day, and as much as I'd hate to see a good studio go, there's always another up and comer around the corner willing to show me a new title I'll fall in love with. More to the point, customers need to start holding publishers responsible when they close a studio down for lack of profitability, but release the game with little advertising, alongside a hotly anticipated game in the same genre, or otherwise not practice good business sense. The Split/Second slash Blur thing sums that one up, really.

Good blogpost, and I just wanted to drop my two cents into the pile.
taterchimp's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/21/2011 21:08
taterchimp
Counterpoint 1: I am going to have to question where you get your numbers. I have an entirely valid source that isn't Wikipedia (it is) that shows sales numbers to be, give or take, around the same. This may be dated a bit, so excluding 360 and PS3 may be valid, but still, the SNES puts up good numbers to date. I have no backup for this, but it seems logical that the cost of the unit is not what drives the price, but the cost of making the game. Graphics like FF13 aren't as easy as Mario (and gameplay goes in the opposite direction, sadly).

I don't think that the average user can't afford the games. If you buy six games a year used you could buy five new. The fact of the matter is people what pay what the lowest price is, and used game sales are undercutting each other to a truer market value. A five dollar off incentive is enough.

Used gamer supports an industry, in your example, but he isn't supporting anyone who made the game. Every dollar a used gamer spends goes to Gamestop, whose only risk is shelf space of the game they are buying. Consider if ten people bought and traded in Brink because, whoa, didn't see that coming. One person paid for it to the company. Ten consumers got to use the item.

If the profit margin on games is 33%, then good god, yes, lower the price. But between development to overhead to marketing to distribution all the way down the supply chain, I really doubt that they can go that low. EDF and Deadly Premonition you can see the pieces missing from a budget release, but both are fantastic games. When you release a Greatest Hits line, you have no development time, no coding, and minimal marketing. You have to package and ship.

Books do seem like a good analogy, but I would say there is a lower risk to everyone involved. Again, with no real backup for this, my gut says writing a book is easier to recover your costs (but also considerably harder to make it big). Given that this industry is new, I think there are many issues that will take some time to hit their stride.

I think that we both agree on point 3: You should support the devs that make good games. I think my biggest thing with games is that they are a luxury item. Nobody has to buy them, no one has a right to play them, and I honestly do feel it is like going to a restaurant: if you can find room in your budget to buy a game, you can find another five dollars (at Gamestop....Amazon is different because a twenty dollar person to person price drop is just insane, and easier to justify, I will give you that).

Thanks for the reply!
Malik's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/21/2011 22:56
Malik
You forgot a couple basic points. The most important ones that spring to mind is that you do NOT have to buy any game new at full price. Pretty much every single game drops in price after a month or two on the market. There isn't a need to buy it at 60 dollars the day it launches.
fulldamage's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/21/2011 23:40
fulldamage
I want to preface this by saying that I support the existence of the used games market. It has value in that brings more games to a wider audience, thereby generating discussion and interest and potential future new sales, and is sometimes the only way to track down a game that has disappeared from the new shelves.

That said: you make a lot of important points, and it really is good to remind people of how helpful it is to buy games new. It's the best way to support the people who make the games we love, and it's worth doing if you can afford it.

If the trend in seeing quick price reductions from online merchants like Amazon continues, hopefully it will mean brick-and-mortar retailers don't have quite as much leeway to gouge people on those used sales.
The Silent Protagonist's Avatar - Comment posted on 09/22/2011 00:26
The Silent Protagonist
When the RIAA took aggressive action against the rise of MP3s, what happened?

Well, they antagonized potential customers by telling them they were thieves and that we should feel sorry for Lars Ulrick and Metallica for the quarter they received for each album sold.

What the RIAA FAILED to mention was that by being able to sample MP3s, listerners were able to broaden their awareness in music and many people actually went out and bought the CDs of new and different bands they never heard on the radio.

In other words, MP3s encouraged CD sales. What took a dip in sales were the big-name artists labels invested more money into.

And while they were busy trying to shut down Napster or shake down your grandma for listening to an MP3, it allowed Apple to march right in and establish the market the RIAA was committed to destroy.

The way the video game industry is fignting the used market is just as careless and ignorant.

Let me use the PS3 version of Mass Effect 2 as an example.

Two people buy Mass Effect 2 for PS3, neither are familiar with the series and ME2 will be their entry point.

Gamer A buys the game new, gets the Cerberus Network code and with it, the all-important synopsis of the original game that allows him to make the critical choices of ME1 and have that influence his ME2 game.

Gamer B buys the game used and does not get the Cerberus code, as such his choices are to go without the code and accept the default choices Bioware starts Shepard with and no knowledge of the previous story OR he can cough up $15 and negate the WHOLE POINT of why he bought the game used.

Now, tell me this, is making the player pay to experience the prologue a good way to promote your game? Feels a bit cheap to me. Sure, we could have read a synopsis online or watched it on Youtube, but it wouldn't allow use to make the choices which are the heart of the Mass Effect story experience.

Is Gamer B going to feel good that he helped the starving artists at EA and Bioware? Will he be inclined to invest in ME3 at launch brand new knowing those that buy used will be treated the same as he was?

And let's bring in Gamer C. Gamer A loans Gamer C Mass Effect 2 as Gamer C is also new to the series, but he won't get the same opportunities Gamer A did because he borrowed the game and didn't buy it. So he's not getting the full experience.

What is so bad about what Gamer B and C do that they can't have an equal experience? Why can't the used market or the act of loaning out the game be seen as the same as promoting the game.

I will tell you because I got to enjoy the full experience of many games used that I have gone on to get the next installment of a series NEW. Why would I change from used to new?

Because I liked the original game and wanted to support the new one.

But if you're going to treat me like a thief, as EA and Ubi Soft seem inclined to, you may not be winning me over. You might do what I do and wait for the content roll-up of Dragon Age: Origins Ultimate Edition to show up in the used bin.

I like Bioware, but I hate how they treat their prospective customers and take pre-emptive action against them, so fuck 'em.

I'll save my money for the developers and publishers that treat me with respect, not those that hold content hostage because they think they can bully me into paying full price.

I bought Deus Ex: Human Revolution new, by the way. Augmented Edition. I'm familiar with the series thanks to a PS2 copy I bought used. Seeing as they didn't hold any critical content hostage as an incentive, I didn't see a reason to deny them what they worked for.
prev next

Comment with Facebook





Click connect and comment instantly!

Comment with Dtoid





New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds

Comments policy

Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?

Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!