Developers love to complain about second-hand games, even though used goods are a part of almost every single industry in the world, and Electronic Arts is far from the exception. Stating that the used game market is a "critical situation," that it plans to tackle digitally.
"I'd actually make the point that for us second-hand sales is a very critical situation, because people are selling multiple times intellectual property," explained EA's European senior VP Jens Uwe Intat. "What we're trying to do is build business models that are more and more online-supported with additional services and additional content that you get online. So people will see the value in not just getting that physical disc to play at home alone, but actually playing those games online and paying for them."
Intat also attempted to explain why used games are more of a problem than other used goods by suggesting that digital information doesn't deteriorate: "In our understanding of the business model we are actually giving away the rights to play, and if you just pass it on, pass it on, pass it on, that is not comparable to second-hand sales in the normal physical goods area where you have physical wear-out - second-hand cars, second-hand clothes, second-hand books ... they're all physically wearing out, so you have an inferior quality product."
Except of course, that's bollocks. Of all the used games I've ever bought, I can't remember a single disc being in pristine condition. The physical method of storing a game does deteriorate, just like his used book example. It's high time these companies stopped acting like they're the special case and suck it up. Used goods are a part of business in all sectors. The games industry is not a special little buttercup that is exempt from this. Still, EA offering more value for the disc (if it's not Namco-Bandai's idea of "value") is a good call. At least they're not just whining about it.
-icon.gif){kind=icon}
52 comments + 134338 views
All I have to say is fuck you EA.
A lot of people are only willing to pay the $50 or $60 per game that they currently pay because they know they can find outlets to sell the game if it's crap. If I could only download games but they still cost $50 a piece, I'd probably never buy any games unless they were proven hits like Metal Gear Solid 4.
Also, I wonder what EA has to say about people who borrow games from their friends. Should we all be charged a per use fee? That's horse shit if you ask me.
"I'd actually make the point that for us second-hand sales is a very critical situation"
Well shit we better shut down ebay! You stupid fucks EA.
If I was in his shoes, I'd complain about second-hand games too.
But this coming from EA makes me less sympathetic.
Ummm scratches or no, if the disc works, it is exactly the same quality game experience as if you had bought it new. It's not like you are buying a couch with shit stains all over it, which would definitely make it inferior to a new offering. While I don't think it is necessarily a critical situation, I think he is quite justified in saying that it is in fact not the same as other used goods.
Digital distribution doesn't deteriorate.
We're all locked into our copies of XBLA, PSN and Steam games, why weren't we bitching about this 3-5 years ago when those channels launched?
I'll tell you why. Because there's this huge mythical gap between "arcade" and "retail" and when we start talking about retail being digitally distributed, people get up in arms about "Oh, boo hoo, no physical disc, I can't sell or trade" -- well, if you're going to trade the god damn thing, maybe you should just RENT instead of BUYING so you don't waste all your money on depreciation of value!
Fuck's sake.
That's a great header picture, Jim. Possibly reinforces the idea that the violin is a vaguely fascist instrument. EA complaining about something automatically allies me to the cause that they're complaining about. But then again the second hand game market is making the Game chain rich, and since their Putin style takeover of Gamestation (why are we so rubbish at naming our games stores in the UK? even the RIP'd Electronics Boutique sounded like a vibrator store) they control the market.
They just want money, simple motivation from simple minds.
Whenever these fools find that they're a few million short on their bimonthly dividends they like to start slinging the phrase "intellectual property."
So is this chimp saying that because cars, clothes, and the like deteriorate it's not fair that we shouldn't have to replace our games once every few years? Anyone ever notice how it's the people who make millions who say such asinine things?
At least my name is not "Jens Uwe Instat." I home he/she (can't tell) gets hit by a truck.
aww you bought some second hand games that had scratches on them. Most people couldn't give a fuck as long as it works so sorry I'm with EA on this one unlike clothes, cars or ponies games do not degrade.
If your one of those people who keeps their games in vacuum sealed containers deluding yourself that they are going to be worth serious money someday then yeah there is a difference between new and used but for the rest of us as long as the game works the only difference is that used games are cheaper.
Oh... I stuck up for EA. I'm going to go take a shower now.
As I understand the EA guy's argument, it's a problem because a game disc can be resold 5 or 6 (or more) times before a new copy needs to enter the market to replace it (unlike a car or clothes, which aren't going to make it to that many owners).
But consumer interest decreases and therefore so does retail value. Sure, you can theoretically resell a game many many more times than a car, but by the time it gets that far, how much are they really losing on the sale of a new one? After about a year or so, who's still paying $60 for that game as new? Especially if it becomes a Greatest Hits title.
By the time a game gets resold more than a car could have been resold, the retail value's gone down significantly.
How about just going the Sony route and doing a seriously half-assed effort at backwards compatibility and then finally just saying "fuck it" and scrapping it on your less than $500 model?
Even if the media doesn't deteriorate (which it does) when it doesn't work on the latest platform and the company isn't even making it anymore then there is no profit loss.
I guess industry complaints about used games are new to me and not the internet but if they're this easy to dismantle I can't really understand why every comment is the same and why (in spite of the obvious consumer backlash, or at least angry bitchstorm) the industry doesn't actually do anything about them.
What's the difference between second-hand games and piracy? Either way the developers and the people responsible for the game aren't seeing a bit of the money. I always think that arguing for one and against the other is kind of silly.
I grow tired of the second hand market bs from the games industry. Fact is they are greedy reaching bastards who just want us to buy everything new.
I say to thee EA, fuck off. This isn't japan, where gamers get screwed by there being no second hand market. The result their is that plenty of shit games sell, and gamers can't offload their crap games.
If as they all claim, Game etc are taking all this money they should be getting, they should be trying to shut down Game. Oh yeah, I forgot, they are already trying to do that with this big digital push.
Reality check EA and friends, digital downloads are part of the industry and will never be as big as retail physical product. You fuckers are so tied up in IP copyriht bs that you don't want us to own anything anymore. I say fuck that and many other gamers will too.
And yes, even if Game did disappear, everyone will migrate to the joys of Ebay. What you gonna do EA, call the fuckin games Gestapo?
Oh yeah, EA are the Gestapo, lol.
"What we're trying to do is build business models that are more and more online-supported with additional services and additional content that you get online. So people will see the value in not just getting that physical disc to play at home alone, but actually playing those games online and paying for them."
Yeah, that would be nice if the companies showed respect for gamers and rewarded them with free content to buy and hold on to game months after release. Now, Microsoft is partialy to blame in regards to the costs of premium DLC since they seem adverse to thr word free. Still, it seems like with the previous generation you saw a lot more FREE post release DLC than this current gen. If games knew a particular title was going top be supported years after relase they might hang on longer.. at least it would motivate me.
Digital content is convienient but doesn't have any resale value so some people will never be totally sold on the idea of digital distribution as long as a physical equivelent exist.
'Digital' or not, I bought it, I own it, I can resell it.
If this is the shape of things to come, its not going to end well for us.
That all being said, I've never acutally hocked any of my games, but I have bought 5 or 6 'yellow stickered' titles. I'm not crazy either that most videogame stores are at least 50% used inventory, but I'm not thinking about the publisher's little baby tears in that case either.
Also a buncha NES carts.
But yeah, fuck off and die crybaby VG companies, I'm not renting the game I buy and may re-sell later anymore than I'm renting a wristwatch or a car - both of which I am free to sell later at my discretion.
I don't understand why game companies keep bringing this up. As you said Jim they just need to accept it as a fact of life. If you don't want people selling your games then make kick ass games that nobody will want to sell or make games cheaper so we don't have to sell old games to afford new ones. Otherwise it's just going to keep happening until everything is digital so just shut up and deal with it.
And honestly hearing this from EA is just ridiculous, they keep pumping out crappy blatantly rushed sports games every year and their really surprised people want to trade them in.
Also as Devile said, as time goes by and people lose interest in a game the companies need to realize this and price their products accordingly. Every single sports game made before this season should be 5 dollars, nobody wants them and they can't get rid of them at gamestops, why not slash the price and sell it just to get rid of it. When it's still 20 or 30 bucks new for a 2 year old sports game and 8 dollars at gamestop used why would anyone buy the new copy. After a few months go by and people lose interest in a game just match or even cut another couple bucks off the average used price and problem solved.
Fuck you and fuck your 'rights' I'm buying a game. Not a license to play it. Not the right to play it. Not your permission or your say so. I'm buying the fucking game.
I'm sick of these piece of shit media corporations telling us that we don't actually 'own' anything despite paying like £40-50 or whatever your local currency is. Every time I read the term 'intellectual property' I want to fucking vomit. It's horrible little money grubbing cunts like this that cause so much animosity toward the larger players in the media industries.
Do all these executives live in cloud cuckoo land where they can sell a game millions of times over and still have people snapping them up months/years after release for full price?
That's not even mentioning the utter shit we're expected to pay for these days. Seems we are expected to as well, rather than them doing everything they can to put out a product that deserves a purchase.
Jens Uwe Twat more like.
Another thing not mentioned is games that are purchased by Blockbuster etc for rental, some of which end up being sold on to the public once they've had their run. What about those? Are they not aloud to be sold on either, since they are not new either?
DLC is their holy grail, but they are gonna get a big culture shock yet to come, and like DRM and all those other ill thought out ideas, they'll see how wrong they are.
Its funny, and plays back into this bad industry idea of a presumed lost sale. That's like trying to sell clouds.
Greed will make corporate management say the dumbest things.
Simple suggestion for EA. Make games that are worth paying the $60 for.
They have to accept the concept of the games industry being multi faceted.
More than one way to sell/buy a game.
More than one way to advertise such games.
DLC is not the only one way, and never will be.
"What's the difference between second-hand games and piracy? Either way the developers and the people responsible for the game aren't seeing a bit of the money. I always think that arguing for one and against the other is kind of silly."
@acronikos
I just have to ask, are you fucking retarded?
Cars go because people don't care for them but even then they are sold for parts (also my friend has a old truck, no seat belts old, so it definitely been through a few owners)
Clothes are made from well cloth, material not well known for lasting very long (though my work liens have been used by several people, they have a big uniform room)
Books beside the fact that about every book in my house is older than me there these things called librarys, mine even lets you barrow games!
In other words buying a game shouldn't be like going to a theater its buying the movie. Just because a dvd last longer then celluloid film doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to sell them if we payed for them.
Oh and if I barrow a good game from a friend or buy it second hand i might look on the box say "they make good game" and buy a new game you guys make.
If authors felt this way about second-hand bookshops stocking their intellectual property, we wouldn't be closing the back covers of our cheaply acquired books, graphic novels, comics etc. with an amazed/delighted/satisfied sensation and the burning desire to read what those authors are going to come up with next. We wouldn't get our foot on that first rung of a ladder which leads up to us actually WANTING to buy new output the moment it is available.
Game companies focus on the 'property' aspect of that hated phrase when they should be tuned to the 'intellectual' aspect. If I pick up a copy of a game second-hand; finish it and have the same feeling of wonderment, appreciation, respect and thankfulness that they made it at all then yes, I'd be hammering on the window of my local games store for their next production when it came out and I'd buy it new because I'd been waiting to feel the same sensations their older output gave me.
If we end up not being able to discover our favourite devs, bedroom programmers and game auteurs without buying new then the industry will suffer more than it does now from piracy, second-hand sales and rentals combined. How many games have you loved in spite of negative reviews because you got to play them yourself and clicked with some aspects of the game? Aspects that reviewers haven't concentrated on because their duty is to consider the game as a whole. I cite Psychonauts and, say, Super Mario 64 - Mario is a much better platformer technically, but is a sterile wasteland of ideas compared with Psychonauts wild ride of madness, originality and hilarity. Leave second-hand alone game companies; make your games so good that we WANT to keep them, WANT to get the next one, WANT tofollow them the way we follow our favourite authors and not be forced to.
Sorry that I don't wanna pay 19.99 for a copy of Madden 07 when I could buy it for 1.99...
This is what happens when your development budget balloons to the double-digit millions driven by the desire for more power, polygons and mega-light refracting bump tracing textures.
I think the answer to development costs and games' longevity lies somewhere in the middle of the console triangle - Nintendo's more tempered costs, Microsoft's focus on a quality online service and Sony's push for unique downloadable content.
@ Everyone agreeing with EA - you can buy (and rent!) used DVDs or CDs, same shit.
Also, games don't hold their value like other goods do. The market for a 4 year old game isn't the same as the market for a brand new game, unlike antiques, old jewellrey, etc, which can retain or even exceed their original value.
EA are right - its NOT the same, games are in a way better position than other goods. I have a friend that has just bought Blade Runner on DVD again recently, but there is no way in hell I am going to buy a 10 year old game from anywhere.
@Capn Birdseye absolutely correct- games, like software have a shelf life, devaluation is fast, that is you would not buy a car and have it be worth 0% of the purchase price in 3-4 years when the platform is defunct- you need to keep it much longer than that in order for it to happen, and before the argument that cars cost more- expensive, remember that even 20 years down the line, the car will have some value wheras the game will have no value outside of a coaster.
Every day it seems that EA makes me want less and less to support them in their business, it is again a situation where a corporation thinks more of themselves than their customers and aren't realizing that it is a CHOICE for us to buy their games and they should be bending over backwards to create loyal customer incentives rather than punishments.
That right there, is a dictionary definition of total horseshit. I honestly don't see how you can say all that without, at the same time, sucking your own dick.
Quick econ lesson for EA:
When somebody who bought a retail game sells it to someone else, the seller usually get some form of currency in return for it. This currency may be -- and often is -- used to buy more games. And now the person who bought the used game becomes an addict, and you can also sell them more meth. Games. I mean games.
The people claiming that games don't degrade are out of their minds. By that same token, secondhand books don't degrade because even if coffee stains and aged paper weather the book, the intellectual property inside is still readable. Same with second-hand CDs and DVDs. All are immoral because the ideas haven't degraded, even if the physical storage does.
Horeshit. Everything in the real world degrades and eventually dies. The more you play a disc-based videogame, the more wear and tear you add to the disc, and the more life you take away from it, thus, the less times you'll be able to use it in the future. Sure, we may be talking in terms of years of use, but the fact remains that the disc wears and tears, and hence its value decreases. Simple economics, kids.
The games industry has you by the balls if you swallow EA's tripe on this one. Several publishers are trying to make videogames the exception to the rule, and it's simply because they're greedy. If they want more money, then they need to release games that people want to own on the first day.
To answer someone else's mad question -- the difference between used games and piracy, apart from the obvious, is that one is part of basic business and the buyer's statutory rights. The other is not.
I lol'd at "intellectual property".
Buying and selling used games isn't wrong...buying the game for $60, trading it in for $20, and then having the store that bought it from you sell it for $45...that's the thing that bugs me.
And giving me additional content for a game isn't enough to get me to buy it new. The used copy of Oblivion that I got can still use whatever online content I download. Maybe give us something more in return, like how Atlus bundled the first Persona 3 with an artbook and soundtrack, or the kick-ass Castlevania pre-order with PoR.
Otherwise, if a game is average, I'm not spending $60 on it. I'll wait until it's used (or even on sale) and get it for $20.
I'm not out to make these huge publishers feel good about themselves at the end of the day. I'm going to buy a game however I feel like buying it.
If games go to completely digital download, I won't buy nearly as many games. Neither will most people, probably, so I hope that business model falls on its face.
@Jim Sterling I still hold that the real degradation of the game is not wear and tear, but market value. The thing bout IP is that it's only value is market value as IP itself is not made of any material. Though by EA's standards. if you are leasing the IP and not the media- they should be required by law to replace and support the media at ANY GIVEN TIME AND FOR ANY REASON as requested by the lessee in order to preserve the contract. I am sure that EA would not be happy if you started calling them up and demanding a new disc every time that someone's little brother tried to eat it or you decided to use the disc to balance a table leg, but if it is the IP and not the disc, then that needs to be the case.
I buy a game at the best price I can find, period. Since games drop in price so fast I find myself purchasing either on clearance sales or second hand. If I had to buy games at 60$ a pop, I don't think I would buy any (there simply isn't a game out there that is worth that much money to me), I would just live on what I have been able to stash away here. If the game industry went digital completely or went to all 60$ games they would lose a ton of customers, there are loads and loads of people out there purchasing budget games. There are also loads of gift giving buyers out there keeping the industry alive, these people don't understand digital downloads and they expect to go to a store to buy a game as a gift for someone. I can't imagine the game industry surviving xmas if there were no game related products in retail stores. Retail stores would also take a huge hit since games are a huge customer draw. Games have to either go to budget price or cheaper second hand in order for the industry to survive. Every other industry has used stuff and no one complains about it, the only place I have seen complaints is in the gaming industry but then again thats typical of EA. I will make sure every game that I buy that EA makes is bought used now and at the most rock bottom price I can find.
About the difference between used games and piracy, its different when it is a copyright. The right to distribute is always the one in question. A pirate receives his copy from a source other than the creater who is distributing the game and the person who buys a used copy receives his game from someone who is not the creater.
Exactly the same. The right to distribute is the problem.
Returning Dtoiders: login now to post a comment
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just Create an avatar now - it's fast and free: PLUS you also get your own gaming blog and begin posting stories and uploading videos in our open community area that may also appear on our home page. Sign up and we'll guide you through it, it's easy and 100% anonymous.