the problem with "developers cutting costs" is that it usually ends up in short term thinking like "uhhh let's fire someone" rather than optimizing pipelines, workflows - e.g. there's still many places where revision control is unknown on the art side, where produced assets just get "lost". Where planning of how to put things together happens after the assets have been made, etc, etc. It's terrible how much "waste" is happening in some studios.
Sure if you're operating a studio on the brink of destruction then it's no wonder when bad sales are just the final nail in the coffin...
While I agree with many things being said, I have to say that I do not agree with the sentiment that the devs should get a cut of used games sales. Why should they? Would you want Lazy Boy getting a cut of what you get for selling your old recliner? Whether or not you think it's fair, everyone has the right to resell anything they buy, unless it's from Autodesk (sigh). The game industry brought this onto themselves by fixing their games to a physical medium that will only work with the console it's intended for. The fact that only the discs they print can function in their consoles is what turned an intangible good into a finite item. They created the potential for a secondary market.
It's simple: stop using DRM on consoles and start using digital distribution. Give consumers access to larger hard drives and lower prices. Go with the Steam model too. Once you buy a game, it's yours forever. You can download it to any machine you're logged into your account with. You can't resell it without selling your entire account so there's no secondary market.
The thing is, the powers that be were so paranoid that people might get their hands on games over the internet, that they created a system that requires DRM protected media to function. This made it possible to resell games where they wouldn't see one dime of profit, which is just as bad as people just downloading it. Either way, there are people competing with you with your own goods and they're always going to be able to undercut you. That's why content fixed to physical media will never be able to compete in digital and second hand economies.
Having worked at an EB Games (Gamestop), and for as long as I did, my feelings are...
I don't mind used games being bought and sold; I've found many great older games this way, that would otherwise have been lost to an attic or the garbage. I DO mind how hard the Gamestop powers that be force their employees to push BRAND NEW used games down the throats of their unknowing customers (unknowing of how this affects the people that made the game they're about to buy for a whole $5 less).
I also can't wait for digital distribution to become such a main part of the industry that there is no way for EB to hold on, and it crashes and burns and their countless scattered stores all fail and the entire company goes bankrupt, all the while wishing that digital games didn't take away their ability to make most of their money off used games.
Buuut I'm pretty sure you can disreagard this paragraph, it's just the rant of a disgruntled former employee. Seriously though, I like owning my games, cases, manuals, all that, so I don't really want to see digital downloading to take over completely. Just to the point where it makes Gamestop's owners really sweat.
I'm the complete opposite. I prefer digital over physical copies... maybe it's because I live in a cramped apartment with limited space. I understand that some people may have limited connections to the internet but digital is seriously the way to go. There's so much waste involved with making/storing/selling physical copies.
The publishers ought to just make fewer physical copies with the upcoming next generation of consoles. Cut back to like 10%(?) of the current level of physical copies so that those that have horrible internet connections can still buy/play games, while at the same time encouraging digital distribution with lower price points. That might keep a lot of used sales from happening.
Give it a few years and physical copies of games will be a thing of the past. I'm convinced that eventually all games will be played on a onlive'ish platform, which means no pirating or reselling - not that hate or condone either, it's just the natural progression of things. It's the future maaaan.
I dunno if it makes sense, but I like owning a physical copy ... for single player games costing me over 30$. I do want a physical copy of MGS4, but Megaman9 is perfectly fine as a download to me.
For online games I am fine with a download only, since the simple fact that it is online pretty much guarantees that the game will always be up and running (at least for the lifespan of the server).
Oh btw - I own alot of physical game discs, but I always throw away the boxes and manuals. I just dont care about them, since most of the time they are not designed by the game team hence are not part of the game experience really. It's a great space saver too. My only problem with physical discs for either PC or console is that it is near impossible to make a backup of them even tho the law allows it. Its a weird loophole.
Im with pior on this one too. I prefer to own a physical copy of my media when its something like over 30 bucks. Even when given the option at like Eat3d/3d Motive I always pay the extra like 5/10 bucks to get the DVD even though I havent opened one of the DVD's. Just always good to have.
Only boxes I keep are collector edtions since there special.
I'd tend to buy things online because I don't have to order it and wait, or get off my lazy arse and go into town to buy something.. but when I'm back home though chances are I'm going to town a few days later anyway.
Online copies are reassuring, because if something happens to a disc then you can still instal/play it. This happened to my WoW first disc, maybe I just suck at getting CDs out but these ones didn't have the middle section to lift the CDs up, eventually it just snapped in half. Fortunately you can download games you own on battle.net, but blizzard's games are more expensive to buy digital copies of =/
What I mean is, plenty of money is coming in. For everybody.
Take All Points Bulletin. The big failure of 2010, right? According to these figures APB made 130,000*28=3,6 million dollars. I know what you're thinking; that's not a lot. But it is!
For that kind of money, you can make Amnesia: The Dark Descent five or six times over (based on numbers here and here, it's $600,000-700,000 to make) and Braid over 18 times (source).
And that's just APB, which flopped horribly. There must be games out there getting much more revenue and still being in the red. Do you think a couple of millions is too little money for clicking on guys until they die, or are the indie developers I mentioned perhaps a bit more effective with their money? I just think the problem isn't that not enough money is coming in, but that there's more money going out.
APB failed on its own merits, it was completely un-pirate-able, and couldn't be bought used, but that's besides the point
The studio making it housed way more artists than an indie game ever would, braid housed one, on freelance.
Big-budget games are where we get our jobs, if big budget games stopped being made most of us on this forum would be in for an eventual career change.
But if you looked you should've noticed, I'm not against used sales at all, I'm just against the massive scale it is done at with new games, and that the people buying these used games think it's good to save a few dollars while unknowingly cutting out the developer entirely.
Used cars are often not in prime condition when bought used, And now game developers are making sure that games are not in a prime condition (considering its digital uncorruptable media) by using methods like first-time content (and ongoing dlc for first-timers).
This is a direct reaction to the massive gamestop market, not the old used games market.
I dont think you have a point. You could argue that Tetris is a better game than the new medal of honor also for much lower costs
And what did you gain from this argument? nothing. It's just not valid. Same with indie films and big studio releases. Some are good, some are shit. And there is a reason for both to exist.
regarding the topic. It sucks they only give you the game 5 bucks cheaper. Its like buying a used car and saving 5%. Nobody would ever do that. But at the end selling used stuff should always be possible without paying again to the manufacturer/developer. Its just common sense i think.
If it doesnt work find new ways to distribute >>>>> ONLINE. problem will solve itself anyway.
Zwebbie: They did make Amnesia 5 or six times over. More, in fact. The content of both games just can not be compared.
Amnesia had limited resources and made a great game: wonderful.
That doesn't mean that works for every game. I think more studios should try, but if APB was really the game they wanted to make then the budget of Amnesia would not work, at ALL.
Edit: Just thought I'd copy-paste this from another thread:
they could at least put some thought into realizing a game like skyrim with a HUGE open world and lots of characters has different art budgets than a game like fight night with one small environment and two characters
You have too much faith in the avarage "entitlement-gamer" :P
"If it's been done here, why can't it be done there? It's just computers anyway, you just copy paste or whatever, they suck!"
Just for the record, you're comparing Braid and APB.
Braid.
APB.
Used cars are often not in prime condition when bought used, And now game developers are making sure that games are not in a prime condition (considering its digital uncorruptable media) by using methods like first-time content (and ongoing dlc for first-timers).
Cars aren't less valuable by design, though, but by the sheer facts of life. If someone designed cars in which parts of it would go bust if you'd sell it again, I'd be pissed off at that too. Would you say that's only a fair way to combat second hand car sales?
I dont think you have a point. You could argue that Tetris is a better game than the new medal of honor also for much lower costs
And what did you gain from this argument? nothing. It's just not valid. Same with indie films and big studio releases. Some are good, some are shit. And there is a reason for both to exist.
What I'm saying is that I don't want to hand over basic consumer rights like reselling and lending just because the studio people decided they needed to make a Blur-introduced, normal mapped, famous-actor-voiced game. Maybe they shouldn't be making such games if they can't recoup the costs without screwing me, as a customer, over.
What most of you seem to be saying is that the continued existence of big budget games is more important than consumer rights. I can understand that a great lot of you depend on big budget titles, but as someone who isn't the industry, to hell with that.
(the above is sort of my reply to MightyPea as well)
What most of you seem to be saying is that the continued existence of big budget games is more important than consumer rights.
I don't think anyone is saying that. Also consumer rights are not going to change because of videogame sales when Black Ops just sold 12 mil. Used game sales have nothing to do with bad game sales. Only thing companies can say is "we believe we lost some revenue" but they have no idea how much revenue because it's impossible to come up with such a figure.
Only thing companies can say is "we believe we lost some revenue" but they have no idea how much revenue because it's impossible to come up with such a figure.
It's not impossible, it's just that the company those numbers would come from is the very company those numbers would hurt if they got out.
I don't like used game sales the way they're pushed the first few weeks of a new release. I'm pretty sure that does take a chunk out of new game sales, how much is up for debate but honestly why should gamestop be allowed to create policies that directly subvert funds from developers even if the % is small the fact that it even happens is too much. They shouldn't be allowed to aggressively set up policies and actively discourage new games sales while talking customers into used games.
The last time I was in a gamestop (buying bioshock) I had to say "no I want the new copy" 3 times before the jackass would ring it up. After the second attempt he tried his pitch on my wife who was standing at the counter with me, meanwhile there was a line forming. What the fuck... you're selling a game to me fuckwad not my wife, I told you no twice and you turn to her instead of just ringing me up?
That was enough for me to swear off the place, every game I've bought that is worth owning a physical copy since then has been from a retail chain, I get the game, they scan it, I swipe and I'm gone.
If they where not so aggressive about it, it might not be an issue. But if that's the only way they can do business I would push my products into stores that don't operate that way which is pretty much any chain retailer, Walmart, Target, Best Buy, whatever electronics dept that doesn't deal in used games. Punish the ones that do by getting products to them a week late or in limited supply. Fuck me over... I'm going to do the same thing and drive your business down the street.
Cars aren't less valuable by design, though, but by the sheer facts of life. If someone designed cars in which parts of it would go bust if you'd sell it again, I'd be pissed off at that too. Would you say that's only a fair way to combat second hand car sales?
This has been through on the forums before, basically, cars degrade, digital media does not, why would anyone ever buy a new car if the used ones were always in the same condition no matter how many times it was used?
What most of you seem to be saying is that the continued existence of big budget games is more important than consumer rights. I can understand that a great lot of you depend on big budget titles, but as someone who isn't the industry, to hell with that.
(the above is sort of my reply to MightyPea as well)
No one here is against the sales and buying of used games, I'm just against the scope gamestop is doing it in, and clearly working towards selling games that just came out, at a competitive price, by selling used copies and thus completely shutting off the publisher and developer.
if anything they're hurting the used games market because they're not exactly helping you find old used games, they're into selling new games that just came out without having to let the developer take any part of the profit.
They're tricking the consumer and hurting the developers.
This has been through on the forums before, basically, cars degrade, digital media does not, why would anyone ever buy a new car if the used ones were always in the same condition no matter how many times it was used?
That's not entirely correct. You're forgetting the nature of console games. Legally, you can only get those games if you purchase the storage medium they are fixed to. That does degrade. Your point might have been valid if we were allowed to copy, but we are not. Furthermore, cars don't instantly loose any functionality simply because it was transferred into another person's possession like these games do. So Zwebbie has a point there.
This has been through on the forums before, basically, cars degrade, digital media does not, why would anyone ever buy a new car if the used ones were always in the same condition no matter how many times it was used?
I understand that, but that's just how things work. That's no excuse for adding degradation in the form of one-time DLC or a multiplayer pass or accounts or what-have-you, solely for the purpose of degradation.
There is still a used car market. Which is unfair, because there's no used toothbrush market. Tootbrushes degrade more than cars! By your reasoning, it's only perfectly fair that someone makes cars degrade more, to keep up with toothbrushes, because you say you can also make games degrade more to keep up with physical products.
No one here is against the sales and buying of used games, I'm just against the scope gamestop is doing it in, and clearly working towards selling games that just came out, at a competitive price, by selling used copies and thus completely shutting off the publisher and developer.
Right, I can imagine that, but how do these measures not hurt private sales and lending as much at the same time?
It's not impossible, it's just that the company those numbers would come from is the very company those numbers would hurt if they got out.
It is impossible because if someone buys a game used for $25 and a new version cost $40, you have no idea if the used version wasn't there that they would have bought it new. Just like if someone pirated your game you have no idea if they would have bought it if they couldn't have pirated the game.
It is impossible because if someone buys a game used for $25 and a new version cost $40, you have no idea if the used version wasn't there that they would have bought it new. Just like if someone pirated your game you have no idea if they would have bought it if they couldn't have pirated the game.
The savings aren't that great. Its normally $5 less than the cost of the new game. They'll buy it back for 50-75% less than the price of new but they jack it back up to $5 less than new.
They can check the numbers by dropping the high pressure used game sales and see the jump in new sales, they won't ever do that. They won't ever tell you how many people had a new copy in their hand and are talked out of it and walk out with a used copy.
They'll never say because it would look really bad for them if they did and it would impact a HUGE part of their business plan.
I think that most of us agree that Gamestop is a pain in the ass to our industry but unless we start using something like serial numbers or registering all console games (which I think is honestly a terrible idea) it's not as if they're going to slow down. I myself will buy games from Gamestop from time to time but I make sure to buy new if I can help it. Sometimes though, the game I want is old and no new game exists on the shelf.
More than anything the part that kills me is, if Gamestop is so terrible for our business market, why do so many developers make exclusive content for them? I mean, if someone wants the game you figure they'll buy it from somewhere, so why give gamestop the edge with extra content and not give it to a store that doesn't handle second hand sales?
More than anything the part that kills me is, if Gamestop is so terrible for our business market, why do so many developers make exclusive content for them? I mean, if someone wants the game you figure they'll buy it from somewhere, so why give gamestop the edge with extra content and not give it to a store that doesn't handle second hand sales?
Because exclusive content = preorders = Which forces gamestop to sell new games, since they can't give you pre-order bonuses with used games
Because exclusive content = preorders = Which forces gamestop to sell new games, since they can't give you pre-order bonuses with used games
Exactly. Although frankly, I wouldn't put it past them.
The issue I see with GameStop is that they have essentially created a system that functions like a rental service, but royally screws both the original developers and publishers, as well as their own consumers. If you look at it in terms of a rental service, their entire pricing structure is ridiculously expensive for the consumer. If any of the media rental stores (most of which are going under) had charged those prices for game rentals, they would have never been used.
But by giving their consumers the "illusion" of ownership, and then aggressively encouraging trade-ins, they are screwing everyone over and reaping a green harvest. If you prefer not to keep your games long-term, then use GameFly instead. At least they don't try to convince you they're something that they're not. And in the long run, you will probably end up spending less money. Seriously, when you look at how much you actually spend trading-in games at GameStop, the cost is awful. You're "renting" games to the tune of $20 - $30 each. You'd be better off waiting a few months and buying them new at Best Buy or Target.
I've gone to Gamestop maybe twice in the past five years, if you're going to buy a used game that isn't helping developers, you might as well get it as cheap as you can right? Half.com and Gamefly's used games are consistently a lot cheaper than used games at Gamestop. Gamestop's undercutting of the games industry is cannibalistic...$5 off a brand new game because someone returned it the day after launch is bullshit. What I really wonder is how Gamestop still manages to get in bed with publishers that make devs provide bonus content to preorders especially when Gamestop is saying "trade in a few games and get this new game cheaper!" IN THE SAME COMMERCIAL.
But I'll be glad when all games are downloadable in the near future on consoles, I love Steam. The deals it has, as well as other direct download places like the EA store regularly have insane deals on brand new games. I occasionally enjoy a nice packaged game, but caring about the physical copy of a game is liking caring for a music CD versus downloading mp3s...I'd rather have an online playlist of games than a big stack of em taking up space.
I'm a fan of steam/D2D, etc because I dont see the point it a brick and mortar store for a product that is purely digital. I would love it if the price-points on digital downloads were cheaper than the physical copies, but that never seems to be the case.
I'm also the rare person who never sells any of his old games or consoles. I either keep it, or give it to cousins/friends etc. I also like Steam because there are no disks to lose, no serial numbers to remember or document. I can play my games on any PC I want, at pretty much any time. The only real negative, IMO, is the online requirement.
The only real negative, IMO, is the online requirement.
You can play most of the games in offline mode though, can't you? So long as you've signed in to "validate" them at some point on that computer? (And assuming the game itself doesn't require online sign in each time, like a lot of Ubisoft games or something).
You can play most of the games in offline mode though, can't you? So long as you've signed in to "validate" them at some point on that computer? (And assuming the game itself doesn't require online sign in each time, like a lot of Ubisoft games or something).
Yeah there is an offline mode. Sometimes it's a bit wonky but for most games it works. Maybe he was talking about being required to be online to actually download the games? Would be kind of a silly point though.
Gamestop should be charged a huge premium to give the industry more of a kick back on that other 50% and developers should add more first buyer content, content that's actually worth a damn, to encourage people to buy new. I wouldn't say "Gamestop is evil." or anything like that - they've benefited from a loophole - but I don't support them and haven't shopped there in quite a while.
Why is it that games should get special treatment in the secondary market when I can resell my clothes, my car, or my furniture without hearing anybody from those industries crying that they should get a cut of the action or have the power to block people from selling them? The game publishers want the games they sell to be treated like a physical product, so they're going to have to accept that people will resell their games as is allowed by right of first sale. It just comes with the territory. It was through the act of fixing the games to a proprietary format that made the used game market possible.
If people aren't buying the game at retail price but they are at the used price, then you're pricing it too high. One thing that Steam has been very successful at is getting people to buy games that at the retail price points they would never have bought them, but at the crazy low price of $5-$20 you pick up new customers. If you only sell a game at $30-$60, you're cutting out a huge swath of apprehensive buyers. Drop the price a little lower, and you'll likely pick up more sales. What you might lose in profit margin, you could make up in volume.
While I definitely see your point, there's a huge difference between an individual selling his used stuff and Gamestop, a nationwide retail store that sells to thousands.
While I definitely see your point, there's a huge difference between an individual selling his used stuff and Gamestop, a nationwide retail store that sells to thousands.
I don't see a difference, all I see is a company that has built its business around a secondary market, like used car dealers. Certainly, GameStop uses pretty underhanded tactics in the way they handle selling and buying of used games which typically rips off the customers, but they aren't obligated to give the game industry any kind of compensation for selling used games than people selling games on Ebay.
I also don't see the value to the customer in providing "first buyer" content. If anything, it actually subtracts value in the eyes of the customer. Why would I want to pay full price for a game that is designed to break? That's like designing a car to lose its steering wheel or disable the seat belts when you sell it to someone else. "But the used car market is hurting our ability to make a profit! Used car dealers should pay us a portion of their sales or we'll be forced to disable features of our vehicles upon resale and charge extra for their reactivation to protect our investment." If that sounds absurd to you, it should sound absurd when applied to used games.
I havent read through the whole thread. juts the first page, but really, its a business just like any other. They are just trying to make money. But, that being said, I think alot of people will pick up an older game used, just cause they didnt play it back when it first came out, and if they like they, they tend to buy the sequel new when it comes out. Ive done this alot. I also buy alot of new games for the extra content. like the CEs. skyrim for instance. I WANT THAT DAMN DRAGON STATUE!
I really dont think buying/selling used games is hurting the industry as much as you might think. I know alot of people that will still buy someone newer games new, since the used copy is usually only 5 bucks cheaper anyways. Its not till they drop in price that they start being bought up. Hell, go into an gamestop, and see how many extra copies they have of older games. its a bit extreme. But when you think about it, where do all those come from? they always have those specials that you trade 3 in, get a new game free. or trade 2 in and get 50$ off the new game. i feel alot of people wouldnt buy new games at all if not for those deals. I know my brother wouldnt. all he does is trade stuff in for newer games.
also... I hear bestbuy is starting to do trade ins? I remember seeing a commercial for it recently.
I havent read through the whole thread. juts the first page, but really, its a business just like any other. They are just trying to make money. But, that being said, I think alot of people will pick up an older game used, just cause they didnt play it back when it first came out, and if they like they, they tend to buy the sequel new when it comes out. Ive done this alot. I also buy alot of new games for the extra content. like the CEs. skyrim for instance. I WANT THAT DAMN DRAGON STATUE!
I really dont think buying/selling used games is hurting the industry as much as you might think. I know alot of people that will still buy someone newer games new, since the used copy is usually only 5 bucks cheaper anyways. Its not till they drop in price that they start being bought up. Hell, go into an gamestop, and see how many extra copies they have of older games. its a bit extreme. But when you think about it, where do all those come from? they always have those specials that you trade 3 in, get a new game free. or trade 2 in and get 50$ off the new game. i feel alot of people wouldnt buy new games at all if not for those deals. I know my brother wouldnt. all he does is trade stuff in for newer games.
also... I hear bestbuy is starting to do trade ins? I remember seeing a commercial for it recently.
I think other businesses with considerable market strength, like Best Buy, getting into the used game business could help curb some of the abusive behavior that GameStop participates in. Competition is good for consumers. It drives innovation and lower prices. It also drives companies to serve their customers better than the other guys. Without someone out there to compete with in the market, what incentive do you have to improve your services? Why raise the bar, when you're the only one setting it? Lack of competition fosters complacency and greed. It also stagnates innovation. The more players in the used games market, the harder companies like GameStop will have to work to get our business. With more choices, they can't sell used games $5 under the brand new price or buy games from people for a tenth of what it could go for elsewhere.
Game publishers need to stop breaking games just because people sell their games in a perfectly legal secondary market. If they want the sales that badly, they should experiment with different pricing instead of including features that break if they don't get our money. It's self-defeating and makes customers not want to buy your games at all. The unspoken truth about used games is that it's the ability to sell one's old games that gets people in the door where they can be solicited to buy that new game. GameStop does help the industry by getting people in the stores with promise of getting a deal they can't get at other retail stores (but that's changing). It's a honey pot for game buyers.
Lack of competition fosters complacency and greed. It also stagnates innovation. The more players in the used games market, the harder companies like GameStop will have to work to get our business. With more choices, they can't sell used games $5 under the brand new price or buy games from people for a tenth of what it could go for elsewhere..
Gamestop is in the business of buying its competition, which is why you don't see many other used games stores around. As we've been through before: they've industrialized something on a global scale that was meant for person to person.
In fact, a person selling a game would get much more money, and the person buying it would pay much less if they left gamestop out of the loop.
Gamestop is in the business of buying its competition, which is why you don't see many other used games stores around. As we've been through before: they've industrialized something on a global scale that was meant for person to person.
In fact, a person selling a game would get much more money, and the person buying it would pay much less if they left gamestop out of the loop.
I agree on everything but "they've industrialized something on a global scale that was meant for person to person." GameStop didn't globalize it anymore than other secondary market businesses that operate on the internet. Also, there's nothing wrong with building a business around buying and selling used goods, no matter the scope. There's nothing wrong with the concept of a used game retailer, it's just that GameStop gets away with abusing the market because there isn't anyone else as big as they are doing the same thing. More major retailers in the used games market could reduce GameStop's ability to abuse the monopoly they have. Hell, there are sites that let you swap games straight up for other games or other media. If you don't like GameStop try them or Ebay.
Wikipedia states 6500 retail stores over the world, many of these being different stores that were merged into gamestop and eventually became exactly that.
Other retailers can only beat gamestop of they become exactly like them.
But then again, whenever the industry eventually goes fully digital in the future it will be a death-sentence for them, It's why they bought impulse, so they can stay in the game, but they'll have to figure out what to do with all those retail stores.
There's a way to beat GameStop at their used game shenanigans: Rapid price reduction. The first six weeks are arguably the busiest sales period for new games. You start the game off at your target retail price of $60 or so. Then, after six weeks of sales, you drop the price by half. Then again after another six weeks. This cannibalizes GameStop's ability to profit from used games because by the time they have a solid stock of used games, the price on new games drops to nearly what they paid customers for their used copies and since the price drops so much, you're going to pick up more sales from apprehensive buyers that just couldn't justify paying $60 or $30. Sure, they could pay customers less and charge less, but at some point the profit margins don't justify the logistical cost.
So the question remains, "Won't people just hold out for the price reductions instead of buying at release?" Yes and no. Some "have to have it" so they can be the first to play and some will just wait, but you shouldn't let that go unmarked. You'll just have to make the $60 price more appealing with added bonuses like a free copy of an old title from their library (Some people love old games and would like a copy of out of print games), limited edition copies/collectors edition, etc.
There's a way to beat GameStop at their used game shenanigans: Rapid price reduction. The first six weeks are arguably the busiest sales period for new games. You start the game off at your target retail price of $60 or so. Then, after six weeks of sales, you drop the price by half. Then again after another six weeks. This cannibalizes GameStop's ability to profit from used games because by the time they have a solid stock of used games, the price on new games drops to nearly what they paid customers for their used copies and since the price drops so much, you're going to pick up more sales from apprehensive buyers that just couldn't justify paying $60 or $30. Sure, they could pay customers less and charge less, but at some point the profit margins don't justify the logistical cost.
So the question remains, "Won't people just hold out for the price reductions instead of buying at release?" Yes and no. Some "have to have it" so they can be the first to play and some will just wait, but you shouldn't let that go unmarked. You'll just have to make the $60 price more appealing with added bonuses like a free copy of an old title from their library (Some people love old games and would like a copy of out of print games), limited edition copies/collectors edition, etc.
This doesn't sound like a good idea at all. So all games' prices should be reduced just because gamestop is profiting? Don't you think that gamestop would be reducing the prices too in accordance to the current price? This will decrease the prices for games overall incredibly and affect us artists indirectly. No thanks.
Aren't all new games bought new in the first place....?
So, even if there is someone who only buys used games, those same used games were already bought as new in the past....
I've gotta be missing something
Well, yes. The problem lies in re-selling the same game over and over for almost the same price as a new game. They make astronomical amounts of cash, and the people who make the game see none of the money. The entire reason "online passes" and first-purchase exclusive content even exists is because of retailers exploiting used sales.
Used sales are totally fine in theory because I feel you own what you buy. But using really aggressive marketing/pricing models to actually discourage giving any money to the people who make the product is underhanded and just not cool!
They already got their money from the initial new purchase though, and that is the only money they (the publisher/developer) are entitled to. The initial sale of that new title.
I guess I didn't consider how Gamestop lets their employees borrow new games to beat them, only to re-package them as new as well.....
Their shady business practices. Used game selling is fine in itself, but you're right, they exploit it and that harsh exploitation is what hurts the pubs/devs.
You can play most of the games in offline mode though, can't you? So long as you've signed in to "validate" them at some point on that computer? (And assuming the game itself doesn't require online sign in each time, like a lot of Ubisoft games or something).
Through steam, you can play all non-valve games offline by simply running the game's .exe in your steam folder.
They already got their money from the initial new purchase though, and that is the only money they are entitled to. The initial sale of that new title.
This debate could go on forever, but in a way I see the used game sales similar to buying a movie ticket. Imagine you bought a movie ticket for $10, and it was possible to re-sell your ticket stub to someone else for $9. They sell it back to you for $3. Do this over and over and over. Hundreds of people got to see the movie, you made a shit-load of money, and the movie studio saw $10
The reason I bring up movie tickets instead of say DVD sales, is that there is some intrinsic value to seeing a movie in a theater, vs DVD. Watching on DVD could be considered a diminished value over the intended experience.
That's a good way to put it. Buy it used from Gamestop, sell it back to them, they sell it to someone else, that someone sells it to a friend....
New games need to be cheaper. That is what it comes down to I think. Back when games were cheaper, on a per-title basis, each game sold more than your average game today, yet the market is much bigger now.... of course one would argue that the enlarged market also caused saturation.
Gah, variables. The main issues is that everything is going up in price...
While wages have stayed mostly the same, BARELY adjusting for inflation.
That's a good way to put it. Buy it used from Gamestop, sell it back to them, they sell it to someone else, that someone sells it to a friend....
New games need to be cheaper. That is what it comes down to I think.
I'm no economist but I bet if used games were a non-issue, new games would be cheaper. If you think about it, games have been the same price year over year for decades. $40-$60 US with some exceptions, but certainly have not increased at the rate of other consumer goods. Especially with brick-and-mortar stores where there is a huge overhead in manufacture, shipping, shelf space, marketing. You might find per sale, game publishers make less now than they used to.
Thats why digital distribution is the future. No used copies, no real-world overhead.
Our network infrastructures sadly cannot seem to keep up.... there are still those who don't even have access to reliable broadband in perfectly funded neighborhoods.
It's also that society cannot keep up with the changes that the digital age has presented.
This doesn't sound like a good idea at all. So all games' prices should be reduced just because gamestop is profiting? Don't you think that gamestop would be reducing the prices too in accordance to the current price? This will decrease the prices for games overall incredibly and affect us artists indirectly. No thanks.
You're assuming that you will make less, but you're forgetting all the extra sales you'll make because those that can only afford used (or are just cheap) will buy new when the price drops (you're not loosing money, you're gaining more sales). Let me put it this way, would you rather GameStop gets the sales from all the people that want it for cheap or would you prefer to drop your price after a few weeks so they hold off buying used until they can buy it new instead? You typically have to wait a bit for used copies to show up anyway, so waiting for prices to drop will be the same for them.
I'd rather buy new for cheap than get used. Everything that's supposed to be in the box is there (manual, collectibles, DLC keys, etc.). Sure GameStop could drop their prices, but they would have to pay out less too. They'll have to anticipate when and how much the publisher drops the price. This will reduce the "used" supply of games and people will wait until the price aligns with what they're willing to risk since there's less benefit from reselling/buying used. It will be much harder for GameStop to compete with the rapidly falling prices because the value of used over new to the consumer will be greatly diminished. However you look at it, new wins out when you aggressively drop the price over time.
This whole plan would gut GameStop's absurd exploitation of the used market, it allows used buyers to buy new for a "used" price (providing more sales, cha-ching), and game developers get more sales to boot. Most people will buy new if you just hit their price at some point in time, just look at Steam. The compulsion to stick to the $50-$60 price for as long at possible is what does the most damage to games sales. Doing it this way takes the appeal of used games and puts it on new copies.
This is actually a pretty good plan if you launch in time for the holiday shopping rush. It will be $60 in November when people buy them as gifts and in January, when people take unwanted gifts back for credit, they can get that game they wanted for Christmas for $15, making a sale that normally would not have happened.
It's a safe assumption you will make less money in the long run.
Lowering the price of a product increases the quantity demanded of it, which means it's best to start with a high price and lower it as slowly as possible to ensure that you milk the people willing to pay high prices for as much as you possibly can before lowering the price to increase your consumer pool.
There are other factors like re-marketting, interest decline, depreciation, availability, etc. but generally speaking the longer you can keep the price high, the more money you will make in total after years and years of sales.
The ideal solution in my opinion is simply a shift to primarily digital sales of games via the xbox/playstation stores. You offer the game at a reduced price if you buy it digitally and you make retail versions of the game exclusively "bonus" content items, that come with artbooks, figurines, stickers, posters, whatever. You essentially turn the boxed copy of the game into something consumers won't want to re-sell, and digital purchases cannot be resold which completely removes them from the equation.
You're never going to get rid of used games completely but reducing the incentive and ability to resell a game would do a lot of damage to GameStop's business model.
It's a safe assumption you will make less money in the long run.
Lowering the price of a product increases the quantity demanded of it, which means it's best to start with a high price and lower it as slowly as possible to ensure that you milk the people willing to pay high prices for as much as you possibly can before lowering the price to increase your consumer pool.
There are other factors like re-marketting, interest decline, depreciation, availability, etc. but generally speaking the longer you can keep the price high, the more money you will make in total after years and years of sales.
The ideal solution in my opinion is simply a shift to primarily digital sales of games via the xbox/playstation stores. You offer the game at a reduced price if you buy it digitally and you make retail versions of the game exclusively "bonus" content items, that come with artbooks, figurines, stickers, posters, whatever. You essentially turn the boxed copy of the game into something consumers won't want to re-sell, and digital purchases cannot be resold which completely removes them from the equation.
You're never going to get rid of used games completely but reducing the incentive and ability to resell a game would do a lot of damage to GameStop's business model.
I understand your doubts, but you're missing two key issues. Firstly, games have a very high price elasticity. They aren't the same as products in the sense that more quantity requires more materials and labor, discs are cheap. You can make as many copies as you like for a very marginal cost. Secondly, what about the customer? You know, the people who's demand you're trying to satisfy?
I disagree that you'll lose money in the long run, because that assumes that no new customer sales will be generated. There are always people who want to get something for cheaper and the reason GameStop is having such a successful time with used games is because the game industry isn't meeting the price that used buyers consider fair or affordable.
I also have serious doubts that going digital and decreasing the price marginally will improve the situation either. In a strictly digital distribution system, the marginal cost is nearly zero so you can lower the price immensely ($5 for Metro 2033 anyone?) while still making lots of money. We live in a no-refunds game industry. You buy a game and it's yours for good. People see that as a risk, many don't want to risk $60, $50, or even $40 on a game they might not like. They can't recoup their losses, except through used sales. So, pare down the risk by lowering the price and you will gain more customers. They might even start buying them at release for full price if you give them good enough reason to.
I see a lot of artist-centric and publisher-centric talk here, but few seem to realize that treating the customer right and providing them the goods they want is where your business plan needs to begin. Your bottom line matters, but you're doing yourself a huge disservice by assuming that your obligation to the customer starts and ends with the game. If you want people to buy new instead of used, you're going to have to accept that you need to drop the price after a few weeks to stay ahead of the supply of used games people want to sell to GameStop. The point is, you're not going to win over the used game market by thinking about yourself. By being so rigid on price, you're creating a market for second hand games. You're going to have to think about what the customers want if you'd like to get some of those cheapskates to come over to your side. Remember, they don't need you, but you need them.
All of this debate is rather pointless in any case, because nobody whom has the authority to do anything is actually paying attention, so it's going to be the status quo and the same complaints about GameStop until the game developers start competing with used games on its one point of advantage: price.
Replies
Sure if you're operating a studio on the brink of destruction then it's no wonder when bad sales are just the final nail in the coffin...
It's simple: stop using DRM on consoles and start using digital distribution. Give consumers access to larger hard drives and lower prices. Go with the Steam model too. Once you buy a game, it's yours forever. You can download it to any machine you're logged into your account with. You can't resell it without selling your entire account so there's no secondary market.
The thing is, the powers that be were so paranoid that people might get their hands on games over the internet, that they created a system that requires DRM protected media to function. This made it possible to resell games where they wouldn't see one dime of profit, which is just as bad as people just downloading it. Either way, there are people competing with you with your own goods and they're always going to be able to undercut you. That's why content fixed to physical media will never be able to compete in digital and second hand economies.
I don't mind used games being bought and sold; I've found many great older games this way, that would otherwise have been lost to an attic or the garbage. I DO mind how hard the Gamestop powers that be force their employees to push BRAND NEW used games down the throats of their unknowing customers (unknowing of how this affects the people that made the game they're about to buy for a whole $5 less).
I also can't wait for digital distribution to become such a main part of the industry that there is no way for EB to hold on, and it crashes and burns and their countless scattered stores all fail and the entire company goes bankrupt, all the while wishing that digital games didn't take away their ability to make most of their money off used games.
Buuut I'm pretty sure you can disreagard this paragraph, it's just the rant of a disgruntled former employee. Seriously though, I like owning my games, cases, manuals, all that, so I don't really want to see digital downloading to take over completely. Just to the point where it makes Gamestop's owners really sweat.
The publishers ought to just make fewer physical copies with the upcoming next generation of consoles. Cut back to like 10%(?) of the current level of physical copies so that those that have horrible internet connections can still buy/play games, while at the same time encouraging digital distribution with lower price points. That might keep a lot of used sales from happening.
For online games I am fine with a download only, since the simple fact that it is online pretty much guarantees that the game will always be up and running (at least for the lifespan of the server).
Oh btw - I own alot of physical game discs, but I always throw away the boxes and manuals. I just dont care about them, since most of the time they are not designed by the game team hence are not part of the game experience really. It's a great space saver too. My only problem with physical discs for either PC or console is that it is near impossible to make a backup of them even tho the law allows it. Its a weird loophole.
Only boxes I keep are collector edtions since there special.
Online copies are reassuring, because if something happens to a disc then you can still instal/play it. This happened to my WoW first disc, maybe I just suck at getting CDs out but these ones didn't have the middle section to lift the CDs up, eventually it just snapped in half. Fortunately you can download games you own on battle.net, but blizzard's games are more expensive to buy digital copies of =/
APB failed on its own merits, it was completely un-pirate-able, and couldn't be bought used, but that's besides the point
The studio making it housed way more artists than an indie game ever would, braid housed one, on freelance.
Big-budget games are where we get our jobs, if big budget games stopped being made most of us on this forum would be in for an eventual career change.
But if you looked you should've noticed, I'm not against used sales at all, I'm just against the massive scale it is done at with new games, and that the people buying these used games think it's good to save a few dollars while unknowingly cutting out the developer entirely.
Used cars are often not in prime condition when bought used, And now game developers are making sure that games are not in a prime condition (considering its digital uncorruptable media) by using methods like first-time content (and ongoing dlc for first-timers).
This is a direct reaction to the massive gamestop market, not the old used games market.
I dont think you have a point. You could argue that Tetris is a better game than the new medal of honor also for much lower costs
And what did you gain from this argument? nothing. It's just not valid. Same with indie films and big studio releases. Some are good, some are shit. And there is a reason for both to exist.
regarding the topic. It sucks they only give you the game 5 bucks cheaper. Its like buying a used car and saving 5%. Nobody would ever do that. But at the end selling used stuff should always be possible without paying again to the manufacturer/developer. Its just common sense i think.
If it doesnt work find new ways to distribute >>>>> ONLINE. problem will solve itself anyway.
Amnesia had limited resources and made a great game: wonderful.
That doesn't mean that works for every game. I think more studios should try, but if APB was really the game they wanted to make then the budget of Amnesia would not work, at ALL.
Edit: Just thought I'd copy-paste this from another thread:
Just for the record, you're comparing Braid and APB.
Braid.
APB.
What I'm saying is that I don't want to hand over basic consumer rights like reselling and lending just because the studio people decided they needed to make a Blur-introduced, normal mapped, famous-actor-voiced game. Maybe they shouldn't be making such games if they can't recoup the costs without screwing me, as a customer, over.
What most of you seem to be saying is that the continued existence of big budget games is more important than consumer rights. I can understand that a great lot of you depend on big budget titles, but as someone who isn't the industry, to hell with that.
(the above is sort of my reply to MightyPea as well)
I don't think anyone is saying that. Also consumer rights are not going to change because of videogame sales when Black Ops just sold 12 mil. Used game sales have nothing to do with bad game sales. Only thing companies can say is "we believe we lost some revenue" but they have no idea how much revenue because it's impossible to come up with such a figure.
I don't like used game sales the way they're pushed the first few weeks of a new release. I'm pretty sure that does take a chunk out of new game sales, how much is up for debate but honestly why should gamestop be allowed to create policies that directly subvert funds from developers even if the % is small the fact that it even happens is too much. They shouldn't be allowed to aggressively set up policies and actively discourage new games sales while talking customers into used games.
The last time I was in a gamestop (buying bioshock) I had to say "no I want the new copy" 3 times before the jackass would ring it up. After the second attempt he tried his pitch on my wife who was standing at the counter with me, meanwhile there was a line forming. What the fuck... you're selling a game to me fuckwad not my wife, I told you no twice and you turn to her instead of just ringing me up?
That was enough for me to swear off the place, every game I've bought that is worth owning a physical copy since then has been from a retail chain, I get the game, they scan it, I swipe and I'm gone.
If they where not so aggressive about it, it might not be an issue. But if that's the only way they can do business I would push my products into stores that don't operate that way which is pretty much any chain retailer, Walmart, Target, Best Buy, whatever electronics dept that doesn't deal in used games. Punish the ones that do by getting products to them a week late or in limited supply. Fuck me over... I'm going to do the same thing and drive your business down the street.
This has been through on the forums before, basically, cars degrade, digital media does not, why would anyone ever buy a new car if the used ones were always in the same condition no matter how many times it was used?
No one here is against the sales and buying of used games, I'm just against the scope gamestop is doing it in, and clearly working towards selling games that just came out, at a competitive price, by selling used copies and thus completely shutting off the publisher and developer.
if anything they're hurting the used games market because they're not exactly helping you find old used games, they're into selling new games that just came out without having to let the developer take any part of the profit.
They're tricking the consumer and hurting the developers.
That's not entirely correct. You're forgetting the nature of console games. Legally, you can only get those games if you purchase the storage medium they are fixed to. That does degrade. Your point might have been valid if we were allowed to copy, but we are not. Furthermore, cars don't instantly loose any functionality simply because it was transferred into another person's possession like these games do. So Zwebbie has a point there.
There is still a used car market. Which is unfair, because there's no used toothbrush market. Tootbrushes degrade more than cars! By your reasoning, it's only perfectly fair that someone makes cars degrade more, to keep up with toothbrushes, because you say you can also make games degrade more to keep up with physical products.
Right, I can imagine that, but how do these measures not hurt private sales and lending as much at the same time?
They can check the numbers by dropping the high pressure used game sales and see the jump in new sales, they won't ever do that. They won't ever tell you how many people had a new copy in their hand and are talked out of it and walk out with a used copy.
They'll never say because it would look really bad for them if they did and it would impact a HUGE part of their business plan.
More than anything the part that kills me is, if Gamestop is so terrible for our business market, why do so many developers make exclusive content for them? I mean, if someone wants the game you figure they'll buy it from somewhere, so why give gamestop the edge with extra content and not give it to a store that doesn't handle second hand sales?
Because exclusive content = preorders = Which forces gamestop to sell new games, since they can't give you pre-order bonuses with used games
Exactly. Although frankly, I wouldn't put it past them.
The issue I see with GameStop is that they have essentially created a system that functions like a rental service, but royally screws both the original developers and publishers, as well as their own consumers. If you look at it in terms of a rental service, their entire pricing structure is ridiculously expensive for the consumer. If any of the media rental stores (most of which are going under) had charged those prices for game rentals, they would have never been used.
But by giving their consumers the "illusion" of ownership, and then aggressively encouraging trade-ins, they are screwing everyone over and reaping a green harvest. If you prefer not to keep your games long-term, then use GameFly instead. At least they don't try to convince you they're something that they're not. And in the long run, you will probably end up spending less money. Seriously, when you look at how much you actually spend trading-in games at GameStop, the cost is awful. You're "renting" games to the tune of $20 - $30 each. You'd be better off waiting a few months and buying them new at Best Buy or Target.
But I'll be glad when all games are downloadable in the near future on consoles, I love Steam. The deals it has, as well as other direct download places like the EA store regularly have insane deals on brand new games. I occasionally enjoy a nice packaged game, but caring about the physical copy of a game is liking caring for a music CD versus downloading mp3s...I'd rather have an online playlist of games than a big stack of em taking up space.
... has been found.
http://kotaku.com/5837137/cumming-mom-vows-only-to-buy-new-after-finding-dick-pic-in-used-game
Go forth, with penistanks!!
I'm also the rare person who never sells any of his old games or consoles. I either keep it, or give it to cousins/friends etc. I also like Steam because there are no disks to lose, no serial numbers to remember or document. I can play my games on any PC I want, at pretty much any time. The only real negative, IMO, is the online requirement.
You can play most of the games in offline mode though, can't you? So long as you've signed in to "validate" them at some point on that computer? (And assuming the game itself doesn't require online sign in each time, like a lot of Ubisoft games or something).
Yeah there is an offline mode. Sometimes it's a bit wonky but for most games it works. Maybe he was talking about being required to be online to actually download the games? Would be kind of a silly point though.
Why is it that games should get special treatment in the secondary market when I can resell my clothes, my car, or my furniture without hearing anybody from those industries crying that they should get a cut of the action or have the power to block people from selling them? The game publishers want the games they sell to be treated like a physical product, so they're going to have to accept that people will resell their games as is allowed by right of first sale. It just comes with the territory. It was through the act of fixing the games to a proprietary format that made the used game market possible.
If people aren't buying the game at retail price but they are at the used price, then you're pricing it too high. One thing that Steam has been very successful at is getting people to buy games that at the retail price points they would never have bought them, but at the crazy low price of $5-$20 you pick up new customers. If you only sell a game at $30-$60, you're cutting out a huge swath of apprehensive buyers. Drop the price a little lower, and you'll likely pick up more sales. What you might lose in profit margin, you could make up in volume.
I don't see a difference, all I see is a company that has built its business around a secondary market, like used car dealers. Certainly, GameStop uses pretty underhanded tactics in the way they handle selling and buying of used games which typically rips off the customers, but they aren't obligated to give the game industry any kind of compensation for selling used games than people selling games on Ebay.
I also don't see the value to the customer in providing "first buyer" content. If anything, it actually subtracts value in the eyes of the customer. Why would I want to pay full price for a game that is designed to break? That's like designing a car to lose its steering wheel or disable the seat belts when you sell it to someone else. "But the used car market is hurting our ability to make a profit! Used car dealers should pay us a portion of their sales or we'll be forced to disable features of our vehicles upon resale and charge extra for their reactivation to protect our investment." If that sounds absurd to you, it should sound absurd when applied to used games.
I really dont think buying/selling used games is hurting the industry as much as you might think. I know alot of people that will still buy someone newer games new, since the used copy is usually only 5 bucks cheaper anyways. Its not till they drop in price that they start being bought up. Hell, go into an gamestop, and see how many extra copies they have of older games. its a bit extreme. But when you think about it, where do all those come from? they always have those specials that you trade 3 in, get a new game free. or trade 2 in and get 50$ off the new game. i feel alot of people wouldnt buy new games at all if not for those deals. I know my brother wouldnt. all he does is trade stuff in for newer games.
also... I hear bestbuy is starting to do trade ins? I remember seeing a commercial for it recently.
I think other businesses with considerable market strength, like Best Buy, getting into the used game business could help curb some of the abusive behavior that GameStop participates in. Competition is good for consumers. It drives innovation and lower prices. It also drives companies to serve their customers better than the other guys. Without someone out there to compete with in the market, what incentive do you have to improve your services? Why raise the bar, when you're the only one setting it? Lack of competition fosters complacency and greed. It also stagnates innovation. The more players in the used games market, the harder companies like GameStop will have to work to get our business. With more choices, they can't sell used games $5 under the brand new price or buy games from people for a tenth of what it could go for elsewhere.
Game publishers need to stop breaking games just because people sell their games in a perfectly legal secondary market. If they want the sales that badly, they should experiment with different pricing instead of including features that break if they don't get our money. It's self-defeating and makes customers not want to buy your games at all. The unspoken truth about used games is that it's the ability to sell one's old games that gets people in the door where they can be solicited to buy that new game. GameStop does help the industry by getting people in the stores with promise of getting a deal they can't get at other retail stores (but that's changing). It's a honey pot for game buyers.
Gamestop is in the business of buying its competition, which is why you don't see many other used games stores around. As we've been through before: they've industrialized something on a global scale that was meant for person to person.
In fact, a person selling a game would get much more money, and the person buying it would pay much less if they left gamestop out of the loop.
I agree on everything but "they've industrialized something on a global scale that was meant for person to person." GameStop didn't globalize it anymore than other secondary market businesses that operate on the internet. Also, there's nothing wrong with building a business around buying and selling used goods, no matter the scope. There's nothing wrong with the concept of a used game retailer, it's just that GameStop gets away with abusing the market because there isn't anyone else as big as they are doing the same thing. More major retailers in the used games market could reduce GameStop's ability to abuse the monopoly they have. Hell, there are sites that let you swap games straight up for other games or other media. If you don't like GameStop try them or Ebay.
Other retailers can only beat gamestop of they become exactly like them.
But then again, whenever the industry eventually goes fully digital in the future it will be a death-sentence for them, It's why they bought impulse, so they can stay in the game, but they'll have to figure out what to do with all those retail stores.
So the question remains, "Won't people just hold out for the price reductions instead of buying at release?" Yes and no. Some "have to have it" so they can be the first to play and some will just wait, but you shouldn't let that go unmarked. You'll just have to make the $60 price more appealing with added bonuses like a free copy of an old title from their library (Some people love old games and would like a copy of out of print games), limited edition copies/collectors edition, etc.
This doesn't sound like a good idea at all. So all games' prices should be reduced just because gamestop is profiting? Don't you think that gamestop would be reducing the prices too in accordance to the current price? This will decrease the prices for games overall incredibly and affect us artists indirectly. No thanks.
So, even if there is someone who only buys used games, those same used games were already bought as new in the past....
I've gotta be missing something.
I suppose that if 10 people buy used, and only one buy new.... but still, for those 10 to have bought used, they had to be bought new at some point?
Well, yes. The problem lies in re-selling the same game over and over for almost the same price as a new game. They make astronomical amounts of cash, and the people who make the game see none of the money. The entire reason "online passes" and first-purchase exclusive content even exists is because of retailers exploiting used sales.
Used sales are totally fine in theory because I feel you own what you buy. But using really aggressive marketing/pricing models to actually discourage giving any money to the people who make the product is underhanded and just not cool!
I guess I didn't consider how Gamestop lets their employees borrow new games to beat them, only to re-package them as new as well.....
Their shady business practices. Used game selling is fine in itself, but you're right, they exploit it and that harsh exploitation is what hurts the pubs/devs.
Not many people know this.
This debate could go on forever, but in a way I see the used game sales similar to buying a movie ticket. Imagine you bought a movie ticket for $10, and it was possible to re-sell your ticket stub to someone else for $9. They sell it back to you for $3. Do this over and over and over. Hundreds of people got to see the movie, you made a shit-load of money, and the movie studio saw $10
The reason I bring up movie tickets instead of say DVD sales, is that there is some intrinsic value to seeing a movie in a theater, vs DVD. Watching on DVD could be considered a diminished value over the intended experience.
New games need to be cheaper. That is what it comes down to I think. Back when games were cheaper, on a per-title basis, each game sold more than your average game today, yet the market is much bigger now.... of course one would argue that the enlarged market also caused saturation.
Gah, variables. The main issues is that everything is going up in price...
While wages have stayed mostly the same, BARELY adjusting for inflation.
I'm no economist but I bet if used games were a non-issue, new games would be cheaper. If you think about it, games have been the same price year over year for decades. $40-$60 US with some exceptions, but certainly have not increased at the rate of other consumer goods. Especially with brick-and-mortar stores where there is a huge overhead in manufacture, shipping, shelf space, marketing. You might find per sale, game publishers make less now than they used to.
Thats why digital distribution is the future. No used copies, no real-world overhead.
It's also that society cannot keep up with the changes that the digital age has presented.
You're assuming that you will make less, but you're forgetting all the extra sales you'll make because those that can only afford used (or are just cheap) will buy new when the price drops (you're not loosing money, you're gaining more sales). Let me put it this way, would you rather GameStop gets the sales from all the people that want it for cheap or would you prefer to drop your price after a few weeks so they hold off buying used until they can buy it new instead? You typically have to wait a bit for used copies to show up anyway, so waiting for prices to drop will be the same for them.
I'd rather buy new for cheap than get used. Everything that's supposed to be in the box is there (manual, collectibles, DLC keys, etc.). Sure GameStop could drop their prices, but they would have to pay out less too. They'll have to anticipate when and how much the publisher drops the price. This will reduce the "used" supply of games and people will wait until the price aligns with what they're willing to risk since there's less benefit from reselling/buying used. It will be much harder for GameStop to compete with the rapidly falling prices because the value of used over new to the consumer will be greatly diminished. However you look at it, new wins out when you aggressively drop the price over time.
This whole plan would gut GameStop's absurd exploitation of the used market, it allows used buyers to buy new for a "used" price (providing more sales, cha-ching), and game developers get more sales to boot. Most people will buy new if you just hit their price at some point in time, just look at Steam. The compulsion to stick to the $50-$60 price for as long at possible is what does the most damage to games sales. Doing it this way takes the appeal of used games and puts it on new copies.
This is actually a pretty good plan if you launch in time for the holiday shopping rush. It will be $60 in November when people buy them as gifts and in January, when people take unwanted gifts back for credit, they can get that game they wanted for Christmas for $15, making a sale that normally would not have happened.
Lowering the price of a product increases the quantity demanded of it, which means it's best to start with a high price and lower it as slowly as possible to ensure that you milk the people willing to pay high prices for as much as you possibly can before lowering the price to increase your consumer pool.
There are other factors like re-marketting, interest decline, depreciation, availability, etc. but generally speaking the longer you can keep the price high, the more money you will make in total after years and years of sales.
The ideal solution in my opinion is simply a shift to primarily digital sales of games via the xbox/playstation stores. You offer the game at a reduced price if you buy it digitally and you make retail versions of the game exclusively "bonus" content items, that come with artbooks, figurines, stickers, posters, whatever. You essentially turn the boxed copy of the game into something consumers won't want to re-sell, and digital purchases cannot be resold which completely removes them from the equation.
You're never going to get rid of used games completely but reducing the incentive and ability to resell a game would do a lot of damage to GameStop's business model.
I understand your doubts, but you're missing two key issues. Firstly, games have a very high price elasticity. They aren't the same as products in the sense that more quantity requires more materials and labor, discs are cheap. You can make as many copies as you like for a very marginal cost. Secondly, what about the customer? You know, the people who's demand you're trying to satisfy?
I disagree that you'll lose money in the long run, because that assumes that no new customer sales will be generated. There are always people who want to get something for cheaper and the reason GameStop is having such a successful time with used games is because the game industry isn't meeting the price that used buyers consider fair or affordable.
I also have serious doubts that going digital and decreasing the price marginally will improve the situation either. In a strictly digital distribution system, the marginal cost is nearly zero so you can lower the price immensely ($5 for Metro 2033 anyone?) while still making lots of money. We live in a no-refunds game industry. You buy a game and it's yours for good. People see that as a risk, many don't want to risk $60, $50, or even $40 on a game they might not like. They can't recoup their losses, except through used sales. So, pare down the risk by lowering the price and you will gain more customers. They might even start buying them at release for full price if you give them good enough reason to.
I see a lot of artist-centric and publisher-centric talk here, but few seem to realize that treating the customer right and providing them the goods they want is where your business plan needs to begin. Your bottom line matters, but you're doing yourself a huge disservice by assuming that your obligation to the customer starts and ends with the game. If you want people to buy new instead of used, you're going to have to accept that you need to drop the price after a few weeks to stay ahead of the supply of used games people want to sell to GameStop. The point is, you're not going to win over the used game market by thinking about yourself. By being so rigid on price, you're creating a market for second hand games. You're going to have to think about what the customers want if you'd like to get some of those cheapskates to come over to your side. Remember, they don't need you, but you need them.
All of this debate is rather pointless in any case, because nobody whom has the authority to do anything is actually paying attention, so it's going to be the status quo and the same complaints about GameStop until the game developers start competing with used games on its one point of advantage: price.