surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
@OneRed
The new market doesn't have to be healthy for the new market to be healthy. If a new game isn't received well, all the game at retailers don't just disappear if they aren't sold. So then where do they go? Gamestop or another reseller. And the more a game is ill received the more people that are going to sell it back or give it away. If a game is very well received than there will be fewer copies left over at retailers to be shifted to resellers, and fewer copies will be resold because of perceived replay value. This means that the used market actually thrives off of public discontent more than logical market fluctuation, as games deemed as inferior or undesirable are picked up cheaper by the reseller and are more likely to be returned to sell again.
The used market will never die, because there will always be a demand for older, cheaper games. The new market could very well collapse as the rest of the economy does and the used market would likely expand as it would then be the only option to purchase the games that existed before this catastrophic collapse. Very few people that frequent the Gamestop for used games have the money to buy new frequently or at all, and saying that resale leads to new purchases is a forgone conclusion, and unlikely considering that used games remain the cheaper alternative, which will be inevitably pursued if money is hard to come by, which it clearly is if games have to be resold for that individual to purchase another game.
Now, a new market, on a developer to developer basis, can only be healthy if the game is well enough received to have new copies produced and stocked in stores. If the game is quality, but poorly advertised or just slips through the cracks (like Valkyria Chronicles, Psychonauts, Okami) then that game is likely to flourish in the second hand market because it will be the only place to find these gems, but then none of that gratitude coming to late to the party will ever make it to the developers, so the publishers won't allow the budget for a sequel. The online pass/bonus content plan is a rough-shod means by which to regain some profit for a game that doesn't gain popularity until after the new market has deemed it unsustainable, making it more likely for the developer to make some new, awesome stuff in the same vein as that. That it's being implemented on games that are pretty sure to succeed is a little pointless, but over-all it should be better for the developers and encourage longevity and franchise development while allowing new income for experimental titles.
The new market doesn't have to be healthy for the new market to be healthy. If a new game isn't received well, all the game at retailers don't just disappear if they aren't sold. So then where do they go? Gamestop or another reseller. And the more a game is ill received the more people that are going to sell it back or give it away. If a game is very well received than there will be fewer copies left over at retailers to be shifted to resellers, and fewer copies will be resold because of perceived replay value. This means that the used market actually thrives off of public discontent more than logical market fluctuation, as games deemed as inferior or undesirable are picked up cheaper by the reseller and are more likely to be returned to sell again.
The used market will never die, because there will always be a demand for older, cheaper games. The new market could very well collapse as the rest of the economy does and the used market would likely expand as it would then be the only option to purchase the games that existed before this catastrophic collapse. Very few people that frequent the Gamestop for used games have the money to buy new frequently or at all, and saying that resale leads to new purchases is a forgone conclusion, and unlikely considering that used games remain the cheaper alternative, which will be inevitably pursued if money is hard to come by, which it clearly is if games have to be resold for that individual to purchase another game.
Now, a new market, on a developer to developer basis, can only be healthy if the game is well enough received to have new copies produced and stocked in stores. If the game is quality, but poorly advertised or just slips through the cracks (like Valkyria Chronicles, Psychonauts, Okami) then that game is likely to flourish in the second hand market because it will be the only place to find these gems, but then none of that gratitude coming to late to the party will ever make it to the developers, so the publishers won't allow the budget for a sequel. The online pass/bonus content plan is a rough-shod means by which to regain some profit for a game that doesn't gain popularity until after the new market has deemed it unsustainable, making it more likely for the developer to make some new, awesome stuff in the same vein as that. That it's being implemented on games that are pretty sure to succeed is a little pointless, but over-all it should be better for the developers and encourage longevity and franchise development while allowing new income for experimental titles.
I was totally expecting this so It's not that big a deal.
I just hope it's the same VIP pass that gives you access to all the future maps for free like Bad Company 2 had.
I just hope it's the same VIP pass that gives you access to all the future maps for free like Bad Company 2 had.
Kinda mellow on the whole online pass crisis now. As with the whole debate on the used game market that's going on here, I won't go blind seeing how it hurts developers and publishers with money going to GameStop and not them. However, not everyone has the deep pocket to dish out $45-$60 for a game they may not even find appealing until they play it. For me who makes little money at all find used games very appealing since I can buy games, play them, then trade them back and use the credit for more games.
Now if publishers/developers wanted me to buy their games new, I would. I would love to send money for the sake of the line of games. Yet when developers and publishers use that money to make sequels that in most cases are the degradation of the former. I find it pointless to support them for something fails to justify their price.
I still try to buy new games when I can. Games that to me are worth the $60 such as Dark Souls, The Last Guardian, and Skyward Sword. This if course varies between people of what games they see value in.
Now if publishers/developers wanted me to buy their games new, I would. I would love to send money for the sake of the line of games. Yet when developers and publishers use that money to make sequels that in most cases are the degradation of the former. I find it pointless to support them for something fails to justify their price.
I still try to buy new games when I can. Games that to me are worth the $60 such as Dark Souls, The Last Guardian, and Skyward Sword. This if course varies between people of what games they see value in.
a shame it doesnt have an online pass on pc, I would be happy if pc games had an online pass system. Than again if the pc would have it it would mean that we had to insert the disk everytime we wanted to play a game not something I would want
"Because servers cost money, and used games don't make developers any money."
Lol. I still don't understand this. They already make money off of selling it the first time, what the fuck else do they want? I can't think of any other market where something like this happens; where the retailer potentially gets profit from the same product more than once.
Lol. I still don't understand this. They already make money off of selling it the first time, what the fuck else do they want? I can't think of any other market where something like this happens; where the retailer potentially gets profit from the same product more than once.
Well, look at it this way. While yes it doesn't add another person to the servers. It continues the need to maintain support for the game. If you are selling the game it means you no longer wish to play it online. The would be taking someone away. I.e. selling your car. Then the person purchasing it is adding back to the requirement that they keep that user slot open and maintained. I.e. purchasing and driving the car. Meaning this insistence that as consumers we don't need to pay to continue the service is false. You don't buy a used car and insist you don't have to pay registration and insurance or change the oil because "the last guy paid for that when he bought it new". Is pretty silly. We all wan't and love to game with a plethora of choices but don't want to do our part. The argument of "well they make millions on this game already" is also false. They lose money on 9/10 titles they release. With one blockbuster paying for the rest of the niche titles you all love playing when they take a risk on a new IP. Just my 2 cents.
@Sonintega
As a whole, the new market does indeed have to be healthy for a used market to be healthy. The semantics of this will vary on a case to case basis, of course, but the only supplier to the used market is the new market. For every game that can be considered more apt to be resold over and over again (something that is pure conjecture, of course), there is one that can be considered to be kept far longer than normal. On the whole, though, there absolutely positively needs to be a healthy new market for a healthy used market, I've offered up an example of why in a past comment on this article.
"Very few people that frequent the Gamestop for used games have the money to buy new frequently or at all, and saying that resale leads to new purchases is a forgone conclusion, and unlikely considering that used games remain the cheaper alternative, which will be inevitably pursued if money is hard to come by, which it clearly is if games have to be resold for that individual to purchase another game."
That's pure conjecture, and Gamestop's own numbers prove this wrong. I posted the numbers in a past comment here, but to reiterate this one point, 12% of money spent on new product in a Gamestop is money payed to consumers by Gamestop. So one in ten, as an average, new games sold are paid for entirely by money paid to the consumer by Gamestop. In reality, though, it is more likely that a higher percentage of people simply take this money to get a discount on a new game, rather than paying for it outright with Gamestop-paid money exclusively.
As to a used market rising after a new market has crashed, this is a temporary effect. If the new market crashes, it will be because consumers spend less on games. This will lead to an increased demand for used games, which will, in turn, lead the price of used games to rise as demand outpaces supply, and the used market will then be subject to the same economic restrictions that the new market will have. It is a moot point, because if the new market crashes, there will be no video game stores like Gamestop left.
As for your last point, publishers have given up on games that have sold very well simply because they did not sell incredibly well. The shrewdness of today's big publishers has nothing to do with a lack of money from consumers, that is easily proven given how much support the industry receives, and has received year over year. I know that your argument does make sense at a glance, but these overlooked gems that did not sell did not sell for a reason, and publishers know it. They know that games like Psychonauts have large followings, and have thrived because enthusiasts have stuck with them. They do not care, the game did not sell well, regardless of how many people decide to buy the used game years down the road. Valkyria Chronicles sold a million copies, which is quite good indeed for a PS3 exclusive, and even better considering it is a stylized strategy-RPG. It was not a lack of support that sunk that ship, it is a lack of overwhelming support that did it in.
At the end of the day, all that I would need to change my mind is proof that the used market harms the new market, or is responsible for game development costs rising. The industry will not even attempt to prove that the used market is taking food out of anyone's mouth, their actions more or less prove that the used industry helps, they just want it to help more. They won't get into whether or not it causes production costs to rise, because it would open them up to scrutiny in their own spending habits (a dev working on Halo: Aniversary recently said that the reason why games are expensive to make is because publishers make them expensive to make". The only point I am trying to make is that if you are going to charge more for something, prove your reasoning behind doing so. If your reason are legit, they fair enough. But they are not even trying to prove anything, when they certainly have the resources to do so, and this leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
As a whole, the new market does indeed have to be healthy for a used market to be healthy. The semantics of this will vary on a case to case basis, of course, but the only supplier to the used market is the new market. For every game that can be considered more apt to be resold over and over again (something that is pure conjecture, of course), there is one that can be considered to be kept far longer than normal. On the whole, though, there absolutely positively needs to be a healthy new market for a healthy used market, I've offered up an example of why in a past comment on this article.
"Very few people that frequent the Gamestop for used games have the money to buy new frequently or at all, and saying that resale leads to new purchases is a forgone conclusion, and unlikely considering that used games remain the cheaper alternative, which will be inevitably pursued if money is hard to come by, which it clearly is if games have to be resold for that individual to purchase another game."
That's pure conjecture, and Gamestop's own numbers prove this wrong. I posted the numbers in a past comment here, but to reiterate this one point, 12% of money spent on new product in a Gamestop is money payed to consumers by Gamestop. So one in ten, as an average, new games sold are paid for entirely by money paid to the consumer by Gamestop. In reality, though, it is more likely that a higher percentage of people simply take this money to get a discount on a new game, rather than paying for it outright with Gamestop-paid money exclusively.
As to a used market rising after a new market has crashed, this is a temporary effect. If the new market crashes, it will be because consumers spend less on games. This will lead to an increased demand for used games, which will, in turn, lead the price of used games to rise as demand outpaces supply, and the used market will then be subject to the same economic restrictions that the new market will have. It is a moot point, because if the new market crashes, there will be no video game stores like Gamestop left.
As for your last point, publishers have given up on games that have sold very well simply because they did not sell incredibly well. The shrewdness of today's big publishers has nothing to do with a lack of money from consumers, that is easily proven given how much support the industry receives, and has received year over year. I know that your argument does make sense at a glance, but these overlooked gems that did not sell did not sell for a reason, and publishers know it. They know that games like Psychonauts have large followings, and have thrived because enthusiasts have stuck with them. They do not care, the game did not sell well, regardless of how many people decide to buy the used game years down the road. Valkyria Chronicles sold a million copies, which is quite good indeed for a PS3 exclusive, and even better considering it is a stylized strategy-RPG. It was not a lack of support that sunk that ship, it is a lack of overwhelming support that did it in.
At the end of the day, all that I would need to change my mind is proof that the used market harms the new market, or is responsible for game development costs rising. The industry will not even attempt to prove that the used market is taking food out of anyone's mouth, their actions more or less prove that the used industry helps, they just want it to help more. They won't get into whether or not it causes production costs to rise, because it would open them up to scrutiny in their own spending habits (a dev working on Halo: Aniversary recently said that the reason why games are expensive to make is because publishers make them expensive to make". The only point I am trying to make is that if you are going to charge more for something, prove your reasoning behind doing so. If your reason are legit, they fair enough. But they are not even trying to prove anything, when they certainly have the resources to do so, and this leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Yup wa is just pods poor they need every cent they are so broke they need this while those those dirty small developers are not making online passes
Yup ea is just pods poor they need every cent they are so broke they need this while those those dirty small developers are not making online passes
Why not just buy games off amazon or other cheap sites NEW. Gamestop charges $54.99 used. At that price, why buy used. Even if you wait a few months, buy used, the price will be about $44.99. Add a $10 pass, that's $54.99. You're still paying less than new. So all this whining is useless. Your still spending less money even with the pass. Why not buy the game new? Your not saving that much and your guaranteeing that your copy works.
@killias2
"If anything, used games better fit the bill of "lost sales" than pirated games. Why? Because used game purchasers have undoubtedly demonstrated intent to purchase and are simply not going to repurchase it new."
Very true, and I wholeheartedly believe in buying new for this reason alone. I barely buy used when the game is old either since the money is not going towards the devs or new game development either. I'm totally ok with people paying other people for used games(through online auctions or in person). That is the best example of people just recycling the money and server space for online games, which allows them to buy new games, instead of giving it to corporations like Gamestop.
"If anything, used games better fit the bill of "lost sales" than pirated games. Why? Because used game purchasers have undoubtedly demonstrated intent to purchase and are simply not going to repurchase it new."
Very true, and I wholeheartedly believe in buying new for this reason alone. I barely buy used when the game is old either since the money is not going towards the devs or new game development either. I'm totally ok with people paying other people for used games(through online auctions or in person). That is the best example of people just recycling the money and server space for online games, which allows them to buy new games, instead of giving it to corporations like Gamestop.
I played Crash Bandicoot 2 the other day, Its the exact same game that I played all those years back. No need to be online to play it or to load my save, No levels or characters cut out because i didnt pay extra, No punishment for picking it up several years after the PS1 was discontinued.
When the PS3 is no longer being made, What will happen if i want to go play games like Arkham City?
Well, ill still be able to play it, But i doubt very much that itll be the same game i remember playing.
Online pass for online gameplay, Okay, I can accept that, This isnt news that angers me really, But all the other crap needs to stop.
Its a shame that whole "Vote with your wallet" thing doesn't work.
Those who have the integrity to stick to this lose out by having no game, And make no difference, making no dent in sales at all.
Its just a sad time we are entering, And its getting worse. Who do we blame though? Im guessing its a publisher desicion for most games.
If games were good enough, They would get traded in. I see this whole used sale prevention thing as an admission of the game being less than good.
Don't see the same shit happening in the film industry.
I might start pirating stuff like this from now on, And ill find it hard to feel bad about.
I will not be fucked like this! It leaves me feeling filthy and bad.
When the PS3 is no longer being made, What will happen if i want to go play games like Arkham City?
Well, ill still be able to play it, But i doubt very much that itll be the same game i remember playing.
Online pass for online gameplay, Okay, I can accept that, This isnt news that angers me really, But all the other crap needs to stop.
Its a shame that whole "Vote with your wallet" thing doesn't work.
Those who have the integrity to stick to this lose out by having no game, And make no difference, making no dent in sales at all.
Its just a sad time we are entering, And its getting worse. Who do we blame though? Im guessing its a publisher desicion for most games.
If games were good enough, They would get traded in. I see this whole used sale prevention thing as an admission of the game being less than good.
Don't see the same shit happening in the film industry.
I might start pirating stuff like this from now on, And ill find it hard to feel bad about.
I will not be fucked like this! It leaves me feeling filthy and bad.
Only question.... do they run dedicated servers.
If so argument has some validity tho its really reaching.
If no then FFFFFUUUUUUUUUU company that is charging gamers to leech their bandwidth.
If so argument has some validity tho its really reaching.
If no then FFFFFUUUUUUUUUU company that is charging gamers to leech their bandwidth.
I've personally come to the conclusion that game companies will not be satisfied until they are making 150 to 200 a game. I don't mean from the initial sale alone but a combined total of the initial sale plus DLC and every other extra they want to tack on. Honestly, if you do the math they are already getting scary close to that 150 dollar mark already and depending on what version of a game you buy you can easily exceed even the 200 dollar mark.
New games cost: $60-$150
DLC: $5-$50 (potentially higher depending on game)
One thing i love that is never mentioned is how much money is spent on DLC's by used game buyers. Do the game companies complain that a second person buys the same DLC's that the original buyer also bought? I bet no.
New games cost: $60-$150
DLC: $5-$50 (potentially higher depending on game)
One thing i love that is never mentioned is how much money is spent on DLC's by used game buyers. Do the game companies complain that a second person buys the same DLC's that the original buyer also bought? I bet no.
Honestly, I would rather go to Gamestop and buy new than used for several reasons. I stopped buying used because of the condition on the used games. So many times people trade in, games that don't work. Most Gamestops don't give two shits what the disc looks like. They'll just tack on a fee to repair the disc, usually 3 bucks and resell it. I bought Rock Band 2 used. It worked like shit. It wouldn't even load up. I bought madden used, same thing happened. I've bought other games used over the years, had tons of issues. I just gave up. The online pass just put the nail in the coffin for me. I look back now that I discovered all these deals on the internet and I will never buy used again unless some incredible deal is out there.
@Matthew Bridges
I don't follow your logic on that. Are you saying that somebody that never trades in their multiplayer game should pay more after a certain point to continue playing it online? If not, then why should it matter that somebody else gets the game later? It's not like the people responsible for keeping the servers up can tell the difference between first-hand and second-hand owners. Also, please keep that car comparison out of this, that doesn't apply to the videogame market.
I don't follow your logic on that. Are you saying that somebody that never trades in their multiplayer game should pay more after a certain point to continue playing it online? If not, then why should it matter that somebody else gets the game later? It's not like the people responsible for keeping the servers up can tell the difference between first-hand and second-hand owners. Also, please keep that car comparison out of this, that doesn't apply to the videogame market.
Killas2: I have such a boner for you right now.
In 2009 for Gamestop alone used sales were estimated as 2 Billion dollars. (http://www.next-gen.biz/news/gamestop-used-game-sales-pegged-2b). That is two billion-with-a-god-damn-b dollars that anyone who made the game did not see. Used games leeched two billion dollars from their success.
From a company perspective, used games are just as bad as piracy: They do not lose a sale, but someone gets to play the game somehow without paying them money. The messed up part? Piracy can use the argument 'I might buy it new if the game 'deserves' it.' You don't have to justify the used games, because hey, you paid someone for it, so it means its legit right?
If you don't go after that money, you suck at business. You have a right to get money for your product. But lets say you don't do anything about it. Your shareholders see that you don't care, your stock goes down, and your studio closes anyway. Cool!
You aren't fighting the power. You aren't some revolutionary standing up against a great evil. This isn't us versus them. This is people who made a product, selling you the product, asking you for money for that product. And you are being a spoiled brat and saying 'No, you don't get money, because I have to put in an online pass! You are treating me like a thief for not paying you any money!' They make a game. You pay for the game. They use the money you paid to make more games. You don't pay them. They don't make more games. It isn't that hard to understand!
(Excception: people who can't use online passes because they don't have a constant internet connection, which is not relevant here, but is relevant in Batman. If you argue that, you got me. If not, you are, as I see it, just acting entitled.)
In 2009 for Gamestop alone used sales were estimated as 2 Billion dollars. (http://www.next-gen.biz/news/gamestop-used-game-sales-pegged-2b). That is two billion-with-a-god-damn-b dollars that anyone who made the game did not see. Used games leeched two billion dollars from their success.
From a company perspective, used games are just as bad as piracy: They do not lose a sale, but someone gets to play the game somehow without paying them money. The messed up part? Piracy can use the argument 'I might buy it new if the game 'deserves' it.' You don't have to justify the used games, because hey, you paid someone for it, so it means its legit right?
If you don't go after that money, you suck at business. You have a right to get money for your product. But lets say you don't do anything about it. Your shareholders see that you don't care, your stock goes down, and your studio closes anyway. Cool!
You aren't fighting the power. You aren't some revolutionary standing up against a great evil. This isn't us versus them. This is people who made a product, selling you the product, asking you for money for that product. And you are being a spoiled brat and saying 'No, you don't get money, because I have to put in an online pass! You are treating me like a thief for not paying you any money!' They make a game. You pay for the game. They use the money you paid to make more games. You don't pay them. They don't make more games. It isn't that hard to understand!
(Excception: people who can't use online passes because they don't have a constant internet connection, which is not relevant here, but is relevant in Batman. If you argue that, you got me. If not, you are, as I see it, just acting entitled.)
The thing that makes a BF3 online pass so heinous is that multiplayer is half if not more than half of the games experience like COD and Halo...which means that a used copy of BF3 is essentially only half of the game
It's this simple guy's, one person buys a used a game, a new game isn't sold and therefore the potential sale is lost, that's how it hurts the industry. The trade in argument for new actually goes like this, used buyer trades in the used game he bought to buy a copy of a used game he's going to get, after all why would a used buyer start buying new when he can save himself 5 dollars (ROLF).........or look around and get it for 35 dollars new, see but that just asking too much.
This image of the poor little Battlefield developer huddling over a flaming gabrage bin while their family picks away at a half eaten chicken bone in some dark alley because of used game sales is so fucking moronic. Gamers are fucking idiots who will believe anything it seems lol
Sadly...I'm still getting it. They won. I want this game more than I want to not support the online pass system.
Gah, killias2's ignorance is just painful, especially considering the whole "Occupy Wall Street" thing that's going on. Do you ever step out of your box and actually understand what's going on in the world? Do you know how economy works? Have you graduated high school?
I agree with what has been said: BC2 did it right. Offer some incentives, but don't axe an important feature (nay, THE BIGGEST FEATURE) of your game and make it exclusive to new purchasers. I totally think giving away a first map pack for early adapter is a fantastic idea (especially since the day 1 buyers are the ones that get shafted when the game drops in price a month later), but cutting critical content like this is just absurd.
I will not be buying Battlefield 3 now, in any iterations. Mostly because I can't afford to buy every game new. And yes, this is with both me and my wife working full time, with a very frugal lifestyle.
I agree with what has been said: BC2 did it right. Offer some incentives, but don't axe an important feature (nay, THE BIGGEST FEATURE) of your game and make it exclusive to new purchasers. I totally think giving away a first map pack for early adapter is a fantastic idea (especially since the day 1 buyers are the ones that get shafted when the game drops in price a month later), but cutting critical content like this is just absurd.
I will not be buying Battlefield 3 now, in any iterations. Mostly because I can't afford to buy every game new. And yes, this is with both me and my wife working full time, with a very frugal lifestyle.
The video game used market is exactly like every other used market I dare you to point out one exception
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eNrgpVp70U&feature=related Day after day after day I get to read about every game using an online pass. it's not NEWS anymore Jim. Just do a letter campaign or something that CAN ACTUALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE instead of spamming the news feed
@OneRed
Totally respect the fact that you're being reasonable about this, but I still think you're misconstruing these numbers you have about Gamestop's sales, and you have to admit that you're guilty of conjecture as well. I'm not sure where you got your numbers, because I can't seem to find anything that divide's Gamestop's profits by type of consumer, but as for used games overtaking new game sales:
http://www.gamesetwatch.com/gamestop-estimated-software-units.png
Even though a fraction of new game sales are made to people that trade in games, that sale is still made on the back of putting far more games into the used markets to dilute the profits of all those games traded in. The benefit for new games that are bought using used game returns is short term at best, and constantly feeds the cycle of lost profits to used games. Used games are lost profits to the developer, pure and simple, and the only real debate that can come after that is wether or not the losses are sustainable. Given that all the smaller studios are going to digital download (where there is no used market to siphon off profits, and pricing is allowed to be more flexible because there less worry about losses to distribution and used sales) and only the big conglomerated producers are still capable of pushing games on the physical market it is pretty indicative of an enduring problem.
And a used game only market would persevere past a crash of the medium, though they would become collectibles and novelty items. Gamestop may not survive, but over all used games would still be available, bought and sold in the same way that NES games are today, just on a person to person, or boutique basis with the cost naturally inflated.
If the difference in perceived lack of support of a game by the producers and developers hinges on the difference between good and overwhelmingly good, then they should take every measure necessary to prove the viability of their product using both short and long term means. At best, used games are a naturally occurring negative influence, pure loss to legal scalping, borne by those that don't have the funds, or the dedication, to pay for the game new, and if a $10, completely optional donation to the developer is a means to prove continued worth of the title and the developer, than that is a good thing, even if it is inconvenient and forces the consumer to change the definition of what a completed game is. Used games do hurt more franchises than they help (though it's the new IPs that are really at risk), and that's fine and expected, but the march of technology, as well as the expectation that builds in the consumer, is pushing developers to build more complex worlds, and that is time consuming and expensive, and if it is of benefit to the developer to charge more to second hand purchasers than to raise the cost of the game entirely, then that is a good thing. I'm all for a better option being presented to insure the survival of the medium, but at least this method prevents me from paying more for a new cutting edge game.
Totally respect the fact that you're being reasonable about this, but I still think you're misconstruing these numbers you have about Gamestop's sales, and you have to admit that you're guilty of conjecture as well. I'm not sure where you got your numbers, because I can't seem to find anything that divide's Gamestop's profits by type of consumer, but as for used games overtaking new game sales:
http://www.gamesetwatch.com/gamestop-estimated-software-units.png
Even though a fraction of new game sales are made to people that trade in games, that sale is still made on the back of putting far more games into the used markets to dilute the profits of all those games traded in. The benefit for new games that are bought using used game returns is short term at best, and constantly feeds the cycle of lost profits to used games. Used games are lost profits to the developer, pure and simple, and the only real debate that can come after that is wether or not the losses are sustainable. Given that all the smaller studios are going to digital download (where there is no used market to siphon off profits, and pricing is allowed to be more flexible because there less worry about losses to distribution and used sales) and only the big conglomerated producers are still capable of pushing games on the physical market it is pretty indicative of an enduring problem.
And a used game only market would persevere past a crash of the medium, though they would become collectibles and novelty items. Gamestop may not survive, but over all used games would still be available, bought and sold in the same way that NES games are today, just on a person to person, or boutique basis with the cost naturally inflated.
If the difference in perceived lack of support of a game by the producers and developers hinges on the difference between good and overwhelmingly good, then they should take every measure necessary to prove the viability of their product using both short and long term means. At best, used games are a naturally occurring negative influence, pure loss to legal scalping, borne by those that don't have the funds, or the dedication, to pay for the game new, and if a $10, completely optional donation to the developer is a means to prove continued worth of the title and the developer, than that is a good thing, even if it is inconvenient and forces the consumer to change the definition of what a completed game is. Used games do hurt more franchises than they help (though it's the new IPs that are really at risk), and that's fine and expected, but the march of technology, as well as the expectation that builds in the consumer, is pushing developers to build more complex worlds, and that is time consuming and expensive, and if it is of benefit to the developer to charge more to second hand purchasers than to raise the cost of the game entirely, then that is a good thing. I'm all for a better option being presented to insure the survival of the medium, but at least this method prevents me from paying more for a new cutting edge game.
oh koo only applies to the ebayers n nerdstop buyers
atleast we don't have to pay yearly like that other game w/ 60usd DLCs
atleast we don't have to pay yearly like that other game w/ 60usd DLCs
Space Moose: This image of the poor little Battlefield developer huddling over a flaming gabrage bin while their family picks away at a half eaten chicken bone in some dark alley because of used game sales is so fucking moronic. Gamers are fucking idiots who will believe anything it seems lol
This exactly!!!
I just can't understand why you people don't get it. Used games don't just magically appear. They were new once meaning the pub/dev already got paid. Sure I can understand that a used customer is a potential new customer, but in reality that isn't always the case.
For every used copy on the shelf there was a new copy sold.
I'm not opposed to the online pass. It's a good way to get that new sale or make a little something on a used one. Personally I think they need some better incentive for a new purchase tho. An example is the RDR GOTY edition. I bought RDR new plus UN and every piece of DLC. Now a year later you get all that PLUS a couple exclusive features all in one package at a HUGE discount. Early adopters get shafted bigtime. That just seems like a bad business model to me. I feel like they should be rewarding the people that made the game a success not penalizing them.
I feel like I'm just rambling on now so I'll zip it.
This exactly!!!
I just can't understand why you people don't get it. Used games don't just magically appear. They were new once meaning the pub/dev already got paid. Sure I can understand that a used customer is a potential new customer, but in reality that isn't always the case.
For every used copy on the shelf there was a new copy sold.
I'm not opposed to the online pass. It's a good way to get that new sale or make a little something on a used one. Personally I think they need some better incentive for a new purchase tho. An example is the RDR GOTY edition. I bought RDR new plus UN and every piece of DLC. Now a year later you get all that PLUS a couple exclusive features all in one package at a HUGE discount. Early adopters get shafted bigtime. That just seems like a bad business model to me. I feel like they should be rewarding the people that made the game a success not penalizing them.
I feel like I'm just rambling on now so I'll zip it.
@ Sonintega Ugh used games are subject to the rules of supply and demand. Used games sell because they're main advantage is that they are cheaper which means consumers are more willing to pay out for them. Otherwise they would just buy new. So used games are not lost profits for developers because those particularly people aren't willing to buy the games at that price. It was money they were never going to get anyways. Now that they've carried out with this online pass crusade they've reduced the incentive to buy used games without adding anything as to make new games more affordable. In the end that's just losing gamers.
You can't demand that companies get paid a cut for virtually every used product that gets sold on, it's insane. It is just a ridiculous entitlement complex to people who have already made their money. The same amound of copies are in circulation so why should they be paid more? This totally spits in the face of SUPPLY and demand. If developers are complaing about loyalty and what is owed then they've got to earn the loyalty of gamers which cannot be done through punitive measures such as the online pass.
The online pass goes beyond the conventional ideas of capitalism and exists as pure unaltered greed masquerading itself as some sense of indignation over what is "owed" in an emotive sense instead of the empirical sense.
You can't demand that companies get paid a cut for virtually every used product that gets sold on, it's insane. It is just a ridiculous entitlement complex to people who have already made their money. The same amound of copies are in circulation so why should they be paid more? This totally spits in the face of SUPPLY and demand. If developers are complaing about loyalty and what is owed then they've got to earn the loyalty of gamers which cannot be done through punitive measures such as the online pass.
The online pass goes beyond the conventional ideas of capitalism and exists as pure unaltered greed masquerading itself as some sense of indignation over what is "owed" in an emotive sense instead of the empirical sense.
Any chance of Battlefield surpassing COD in popularity just went out the window. They're just hurting themselves. Stupid.
You know, the more I think about this, the more I see that the games having this online pass aren't shit that I play anyway. I don't spend money on things like CoD or Battlefield. Looking at my collection I've only awesome 1p games like Tales of Vesperia and Persona...sooooo...fuck em.
Well, you know what? F U, EA! I was going to buy it used because I can't shell out 70€ for a game. After DLC, they come up with more stupid crap. I hope this game, as well as the others using this shit, will get pirated to hell and back. Fucking rapists!
@Space Moose: That is easily one of the worst arguments against this. You have someone who spent years to learn a technical trade, then spent years to develop a product, and they want to get paid for it? Yeah, screw them! I mean it's like how overpaid doctors, mechanics, pharmacists, and anyone else is! They should all be paid the same as a fry cook, honestly. That argument comes off as two parts jealous and one part ignorant.
@Palpable: Yeah, let's talk economics. Take the exact same product and sell it for sixty dollars and fifty dollars, with no other differences in the product (quality, being legal, etc). A consumer will always buy what's cheaper, because why wouldn't you. This has nothing to do about a magical price point, it is just people making the best deal. Gamestop is taking the games and undercutting the price to increase their bottom line profits (off someone else's work). All that the industry is doing is making it so that people either have to second guess that, or make the money that they deserve.
And finally, at anyone who says 'they already made their money on the used copy' you are wrong. A video game is a unique experience. Compare this to a car: I buy a car new, I get the new car experience. As I drive it, the value decreases over time, as parts wear and tear. If you buy that car used, you buy it with that wear and tear. The manufacturer knows that car will last X miles, then someone will have to replace it. The cars value depreciates over time in a predictable manner, which will lead to another new car sale at some point in time.
Games on the other hand, do not depreciate in value. If I buy a game, I get the same experience if it is used or new. No one will ever have to replace a used copy due to the value being lowered over time.
Hyperbole to prove my point: I buy a car, and put 50K miles on it. I sell that car to someone else, they sell it, that person sells it, each person putting 50K miles on it. The last person who has the car reaches 250K miles, then the car has a value of 100 dollars, and is scrapped. There is one less car on the market, and a maximum of five people could have enjoyed it. If someone wants another car, they will have to buy one.
A new game comes out. I buy it. I give it to a friend. He gives it to a friend. That guy gives it to a friend. Everyone in the damn world with a console can play this game, without having to replace the copy (unless it is destroyed, but in this hypothetical, it is not, and this is not a naturally occurring problem). The manufacturer makes one sale off the game. In reality these numbers could be 50-50 or 80-20, but still, this is lost revenue.
If the used market pays a fee to the publisher to sell the game used, as rumored by the Batman pass, then the game company makes money from the sale, Gamestop makes money from the sale, and the consumer can buy games at a reduced price (presumably). Everyone wins.
@Palpable: Yeah, let's talk economics. Take the exact same product and sell it for sixty dollars and fifty dollars, with no other differences in the product (quality, being legal, etc). A consumer will always buy what's cheaper, because why wouldn't you. This has nothing to do about a magical price point, it is just people making the best deal. Gamestop is taking the games and undercutting the price to increase their bottom line profits (off someone else's work). All that the industry is doing is making it so that people either have to second guess that, or make the money that they deserve.
And finally, at anyone who says 'they already made their money on the used copy' you are wrong. A video game is a unique experience. Compare this to a car: I buy a car new, I get the new car experience. As I drive it, the value decreases over time, as parts wear and tear. If you buy that car used, you buy it with that wear and tear. The manufacturer knows that car will last X miles, then someone will have to replace it. The cars value depreciates over time in a predictable manner, which will lead to another new car sale at some point in time.
Games on the other hand, do not depreciate in value. If I buy a game, I get the same experience if it is used or new. No one will ever have to replace a used copy due to the value being lowered over time.
Hyperbole to prove my point: I buy a car, and put 50K miles on it. I sell that car to someone else, they sell it, that person sells it, each person putting 50K miles on it. The last person who has the car reaches 250K miles, then the car has a value of 100 dollars, and is scrapped. There is one less car on the market, and a maximum of five people could have enjoyed it. If someone wants another car, they will have to buy one.
A new game comes out. I buy it. I give it to a friend. He gives it to a friend. That guy gives it to a friend. Everyone in the damn world with a console can play this game, without having to replace the copy (unless it is destroyed, but in this hypothetical, it is not, and this is not a naturally occurring problem). The manufacturer makes one sale off the game. In reality these numbers could be 50-50 or 80-20, but still, this is lost revenue.
If the used market pays a fee to the publisher to sell the game used, as rumored by the Batman pass, then the game company makes money from the sale, Gamestop makes money from the sale, and the consumer can buy games at a reduced price (presumably). Everyone wins.
@palpablepalpatine
Wow, that's confusing to type. If what you say is true, and that a used purchase is not a purchase at all, then they really don't have anything to lose by adopting this plan. Reducing the incentive to buy used without adding such to buy new leaves them in the same starting position, with no gamers lost that wouldn't have been lost anyways. Most companies are issuing preorder incentives at the same time with special editions and limited content, but that is the other side of the coin you deem to be greed, when the truth of the matter is that you don't think games are worth what the people that make them say that they are, even though new games drop in price pretty quickly.
If the demand were what they wanted it to be, than supply would increase in turn. More copies would be printed at the rate that the games are removed from store shelves until demand wanes enough that stores no longer request copies. The existence of the used market speeds up the rate that titles cycle through marketplaces, because used customers can buy it cheaper elsewhere. The online pass is not a punitive measure so much as one that tries to heavy-handedly tries to compensate for a system that turns the product they would get a profit from into one that they get no return from whatsoever.
And how exactly do you earn the loyalty of a consumer base that has proven itself to be so fickle as to deny the producer the asking price? Used games will always be cheaper, which is a large part of why new game pricing starts where it does, but new games do drop in price almost as quickly. A year from now it will be more affordable to get many of these titles new on Amazon as the next wave of heavy hitters sways the audience, who has time and again proven that it is quick to rage at change and perceived slights but slow to adopt new products or a calm understanding that games are expensive undertakings that continue to expand and need the support of customers in a tangible monetary sense to continue being made. Sure, it'd be more affordable if ME3 were made as an 8-bit sidescroller, but that is not what the audience wants, even if it's hard to cope with the price of what they're asking for.
They aren't demanding a cut of every used title - lockout codes would be implemented if that were in fact the case. The people who care enough to pay a little more can do so, and those that do not have that option. Cut-rate prices, cut-rate games. Pay very literal tribute and you get your content that you now deserve for allowing money to return to the source that produce the game that you enjoy.
Wow, that's confusing to type. If what you say is true, and that a used purchase is not a purchase at all, then they really don't have anything to lose by adopting this plan. Reducing the incentive to buy used without adding such to buy new leaves them in the same starting position, with no gamers lost that wouldn't have been lost anyways. Most companies are issuing preorder incentives at the same time with special editions and limited content, but that is the other side of the coin you deem to be greed, when the truth of the matter is that you don't think games are worth what the people that make them say that they are, even though new games drop in price pretty quickly.
If the demand were what they wanted it to be, than supply would increase in turn. More copies would be printed at the rate that the games are removed from store shelves until demand wanes enough that stores no longer request copies. The existence of the used market speeds up the rate that titles cycle through marketplaces, because used customers can buy it cheaper elsewhere. The online pass is not a punitive measure so much as one that tries to heavy-handedly tries to compensate for a system that turns the product they would get a profit from into one that they get no return from whatsoever.
And how exactly do you earn the loyalty of a consumer base that has proven itself to be so fickle as to deny the producer the asking price? Used games will always be cheaper, which is a large part of why new game pricing starts where it does, but new games do drop in price almost as quickly. A year from now it will be more affordable to get many of these titles new on Amazon as the next wave of heavy hitters sways the audience, who has time and again proven that it is quick to rage at change and perceived slights but slow to adopt new products or a calm understanding that games are expensive undertakings that continue to expand and need the support of customers in a tangible monetary sense to continue being made. Sure, it'd be more affordable if ME3 were made as an 8-bit sidescroller, but that is not what the audience wants, even if it's hard to cope with the price of what they're asking for.
They aren't demanding a cut of every used title - lockout codes would be implemented if that were in fact the case. The people who care enough to pay a little more can do so, and those that do not have that option. Cut-rate prices, cut-rate games. Pay very literal tribute and you get your content that you now deserve for allowing money to return to the source that produce the game that you enjoy.
so i guess just wait like 6 months to a year to get it then? if ever?
goddammit, i wish i didnt love battlefield 2 so fucking much. i just wanted this one to go off without a hitch. and on top of all that shit there is still no commander. lame.
goddammit, i wish i didnt love battlefield 2 so fucking much. i just wanted this one to go off without a hitch. and on top of all that shit there is still no commander. lame.
I didn't know huge game companies were so defenseless and innocent they needed internet white knights to defend them. Go figure.
Next time I buy a used table the maker of the table will come and take away one of the supports unless I pay them $10. Sounds logical! :D
Next time I buy a used table the maker of the table will come and take away one of the supports unless I pay them $10. Sounds logical! :D
@Taterchimp: "Games, on the other hand, do not depreciate in value"
facepalm.jpg
Mulk Calathar would like to have a word with you.
facepalm.jpg
Mulk Calathar would like to have a word with you.
Gwen: The game that you buy is always the same game. The disc doesn't wear and tear. The code doesn't get old on you and have to be replaced. Old NES cartridges still work the same today as they did years ago. The same can't be said about a car, a shirt, a fridge, a washer....
The price may go down, and I see where you are saying that is depreciation, but that good is the same as the day it was made.
The price may go down, and I see where you are saying that is depreciation, but that good is the same as the day it was made.
@ZeeJayTL
The main reason places don't like to let you return a new game that you've played is not "economics", it is a combination of piracy and abusing the return policy to get free rentals. Piracy became an issue when games moved to CD formats, with people buying one game, copying it, then continually returning it for new games to in turn copy.
But more endemic was the "free rentals" trick. Back when game shops had non-restrictive return policies, people abused the **** out of them, and openly bragged about how many games they could get before an employee would finally stop them. (Employees were reluctant to do anything that would potentially annoy customers, as there were so many used game shops around. I'm obviously speaking of the period before Gamestop bought out or merged with everyone else.) Then they'd just sell the last copy, and either go to a different store for a while, or just try to catch a different employee at work.
Used game stores started putting restrictions on return policies because of those rampant abusers.
The main reason places don't like to let you return a new game that you've played is not "economics", it is a combination of piracy and abusing the return policy to get free rentals. Piracy became an issue when games moved to CD formats, with people buying one game, copying it, then continually returning it for new games to in turn copy.
But more endemic was the "free rentals" trick. Back when game shops had non-restrictive return policies, people abused the **** out of them, and openly bragged about how many games they could get before an employee would finally stop them. (Employees were reluctant to do anything that would potentially annoy customers, as there were so many used game shops around. I'm obviously speaking of the period before Gamestop bought out or merged with everyone else.) Then they'd just sell the last copy, and either go to a different store for a while, or just try to catch a different employee at work.
Used game stores started putting restrictions on return policies because of those rampant abusers.
Hazurr and Killias2 and any other idiot who are defending EA and these online passes don't have a f#%king clue what they're talking about. The fact that no other industry that I can think of has such negative restrictions on people who buy used copies of physical products pretty much ends any logical argument in support of online passes. This is nothing more than greedy businessmen being greedy; and this is coming from a businessman and MBA graduate.
@taterchimp: As I said: http://www.destructoid.com/the-question-is-arkham-city-s-catwoman-pass-too-much--213707.phtml?s=137#comments. Go to the latest comments and look for Mulk Calathar's comment about your illogical view of why games do not ever depreciate in value. By your same logic books do not depreciate in value as well and yet you can get old editions for 1 cent.
@Nerdy Suit: It completely baffles me as well.
@Nerdy Suit: It completely baffles me as well.
Everyone's missing a key point: If ALL games use an online pass, maybe it will work in killing off used (whether you like this or not)
but if not all games use it.. This HURTS DEVELOPERS. Seriously. What happens when we buy all our online pass games new and those all come from big rich publishers? The games we still buy used will become moreso those that don't have online passes or are cheaper. Those games that come from regular and smaller developers. Those developers will see increase in used sales and decrease in new, full stop.
If our industry is struggling, making the richest richer and not helping, possibly even hurting the other developers may not be a good idea.
but if not all games use it.. This HURTS DEVELOPERS. Seriously. What happens when we buy all our online pass games new and those all come from big rich publishers? The games we still buy used will become moreso those that don't have online passes or are cheaper. Those games that come from regular and smaller developers. Those developers will see increase in used sales and decrease in new, full stop.
If our industry is struggling, making the richest richer and not helping, possibly even hurting the other developers may not be a good idea.
follow
