Eurogamer Asks: Are second-hand games killing the industry?

Published 1 February, 2011 Duration 13:58

In the world of Online Passes, the first-time buyer is king.

Comments (201) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • FierceAngel #1 1 year ago

    Vid cuts out at 11.32

  • kingmong #2 1 year ago

    they can feck off. Toyota don't get anything off me if I buy a second hand car, LG don't get anything if I buy a tv off ebay.

    Developers/publishers: build a bridge and get over it.
    Edited by kingmong at 01/02/11 @ 15:06

  • geeza2020 #3 1 year ago

    I thought it was piracy that was killing the industry?

    Second-hand sales are just another area for publishers to get all greedy eyed and cuntish over.

  • patchbox360 #4 1 year ago

    its been apart of the industry from the days of Spectrum.

  • Praetorianer #5 1 year ago

    Eurogamer should ask: "Are countless sequels of trite franchises, remakes, bad or no localization, too many shovel-ware games, huge marketing budgets, expensive but bad licenses, and bad treatment of the talented people who actually create games, killing the industry?"

    It'd be a short article though: "Yes."

  • CygnusReactor #6 1 year ago

    I know a lot of work goes into Video games, but if the profit is not sufficient on the first hand revenue, then games are too cheap, but the fact there is demand for a second hand market is proof to me that games are to the average Jon are too expensive and an investment to cut the cost of future games. I never sell my games, but neither do I buy day 1 any more. Developers/publishers could put games out with a lower RRP and make greater profit on mass sales in £'s rather that GP%

  • mukki #7 1 year ago

    Video cuts out....
    but hey as a consumer I think second hand games are great!

  • Derblington #8 1 year ago

    The car argument doesn't hold water - over the course of years that you own a vehicle it would be unlikely that you never have any problems that don't, in some way, put money back in the pockets of the manufacturer. It's just a very different business.

    From a consumer pov, I doubt anyone would ever side with the development industry over retailers as, on the face of it, the retailers are the guys on your side. It doesn't work quite that way once you get into the details. Ultimately, it's a discussion that will never find an answer in these circles and needs to be ironed out by the dev/publishing and retail sides of the industry. In time, the retail sector will lose out but not before both sides suffer.

  • benfresh76 #9 1 year ago

    Talking about preowned games in the context of criminality is utterly churlish. To argue that people will pay anything if the content is good enough is ridiculous. Similarly, comparing preowned games to second hand cars and clothes is moronic considering a car is a far more significant purchase and you don't see many second hand clothes in Top Shop or Asda.

    Brand new games at RRP prices in high street retailers are way too expensive. Preowned games in high street retailers are too expensive; I still struggle to understand why people shop in high street retailers at all. People have every right to buy preowned and trade their games, but perhaps if more were aware that they could purchase their games online for much lower prices, brand new and without the need to trade or buy preowned (or spend even a minute in a depressing branch of GAME), the industry and consumers alike would be better off.

    Surely the ultimate solution is to entirely cut retailers out through direct distribution; this would not only significantly lower publishing costs which would hopefully be passed onto the consumer (surely once this becomes the norm, ludicrous direct distribution prices like ME2 on PSN will be a cold, dark memory) but also see the perfectly legal trade of preowned games fairly regulated in favour of the creative end of the industry...Maybe I'm naive, but given the (financially viable) choice, wouldn't we all prefer to see our purchase support people who make the games in the first place?
    Edited by benfresh76 at 01/02/11 @ 18:25

  • metalangel #10 1 year ago

    The industry seems quite capable of killing itself. The online pass is just the latest poison they're guzzling down having convinced themselves it's an elixir.

  • GooseUK #11 1 year ago

    Or as I rather amusingly found, the rental copy of Dead Space 2 I had this weekend came with a free dragon age unlockable code and the code for the in game unlockables in Dead Space itself was printed on the back of the manual in the box too. SO I still got my codes and i didnt buy the game in any capacity... is this theft? I think not.

  • Krawftwerk #12 1 year ago

    Mr. Rental is roughly the smarmiest man of all time but he has some good points. Both developers and retailers look unpleasantly greedy in this video but I guess that's to be expected in business.

  • dsmx #13 1 year ago

    The question that should be asked is "is the gaming industry slowing killing itself off?"

    We get uninspired sequels, pointless remakes and seemingly endless amount shovelware. Then we have marketing teams who try to make every game appeal to widest possible audience which results in pretty much every game being identical to each other. Which is probably why apathy is starting to set in with some people as every game seems to be the same once you look past the name.

    Then we have the rising cost of development since no-one seems to want to bother in investing in tools to make the tasks cheaper to do.

    The second hand market is simply a result of people wanting cheaper games and people wanting some extra money to spend on getting more games. The second hand market essentially gives people a bit more money to spend on games but it's also the only way stores can make money on games since they make next to nothing selling new games.

  • BOFH_UK #14 1 year ago

    I've always been more or less in the middle of this debate, agreeing with both sides to a certain degree, but seeing the sheer arrogance of the game CEO's here has put me firmly on the other side of the debate. Second hand games are NOT crimes against you, if you're going to argue that the consumer only effectively leases the game with no right of resale then bloody well price your games as such!

    Look, this really isn't that difficult. If you want to attract people to your game make it a game worth playing. If you can't sell enough copies to justify having the latest bleeding edge graphics then compensate with something innovative on the gameplay side. Give gamers a reason to buy new games that isn't just tearing out great handfuls of functionality and stop churning out identikit titles which reuse the same ideas again and again and again. Try different ways of reaching your consumers, look into digital distribution at fair prices (i.e. don't just put the RRP on it), try bringing in games at lower initial price points and avoid the wait for prices to drop, look into direct publishing and cut out the publishing companies, basicaly something, anything new to make gamers WANT to support developers rather than being made to feel like we're the enemy.

  • lockload #15 1 year ago

    £48 for a digital version of ME2? what are they smoking..

    Ridiculous
    Edited by lockload at 01/02/11 @ 18:49

  • stuntmaster #16 1 year ago

    without the preowned market there will be a lot more good titles that slip off the radar .also some pre owned stuff is also over priced and what with tesco`s and asda they don`t have a clue on pricing second hand stuff . i went into game on sunday and i could not believe what prices they wanted for second hand stuff as some of it was well over priced compared to online buying .
    the only way to get rid of preowned is digital format only but a lot of people like the contents in there hands i know i do

  • Snaggletooth #17 1 year ago

    I saw another article a while back, which I totally agree with..... If the developers put more value into a product in the first place then people will want to keep it rather than sell it on. I don't remember the game they referred to in the article, but by bundling a comic, dvd, etc the consumer didn't trade it in anyway near as much as plain old games. I''m not talking about overpriced special edition versions of games either....it was regular price. Just add some value and fun to the overall package and people won't sell them on as often.

  • Vyggo #18 1 year ago

    Aah great, people come out with the second hand car example again like it's even remotely the same thing...

  • eviroboy #19 1 year ago

    Personally I fully support the 'Online Pass' idea. Buy new, get perks. Buy pre-owned then you pay for those perks and support the developers.

    Besides that, the majority of pre-owned seem to have been owned by complete scumbags who have no idea how to look after games discs/manuals/cases.

    Retailers should charge pre-owned prices based on quality, not the brand name on the box, also retailers should give higher trade-in prices for well looked after games, afterall, we all know the really mint looking pre-owned games get passed off as new anyway, making the retailers yet MORE money.

  • Subquest #20 1 year ago

    cars, mobile phones, clothes - they all degrade. They deteriorate in a palpable way making them less attractive, driving the market for new, unadulterated items. A game doesn't degrade, i'll get exactly the same experience from a used disk just as long as it's not scratched.

    Next gen will see download only consoles if the industry has any sense.

  • Farstarbuck #21 1 year ago

    My argument is thus:

    Lets look at cars, they all come with a steering wheel and 4 wheels, do roughly the same thing. However, you dont see various makes of cars and models selling for the same price...do you? that wouldnt seem right because they are of different quality right?

    So games, the reason they are made is all the same, they are not all made from the same developer, they are quite a different quality, but yet why is the suggested RRP always the same regardless of wether you buy Uncharted 2 or Farcry 2?

    Surely the way forward is a more appropriate pricing strategy linked the overall quality of the game, question is who should be responsible for that?

  • Dangerous_Dan #22 1 year ago

    Talk is cheap.

    At the end of the day i want to give developers and publishers(at least if they are really supportive and not exploitative) my money. And i most certainly don't want to give the money to some shop. Nothing against shops, some things i like to buy from them, like food and clothes but i don't want to give them money for second hand games - and that's just me. In that regard i appreciate digital distribution where a lot more of the pie ends up with the publishers/developers.

    More of my money to the creator -> Creator knows i liked that game and will continue to make such a game.
    More money for the government with taxes -> More money to spend on their whim.
    More money to the shop -> Shop will continue to sell second hand copies for which i personally do not care.

    Everyone can do what they prefer.

  • Peter_LIAR_Molyneux #23 1 year ago

    I don't see why publishers are bitching about second hands sales. In 5 or 10 years when digital distribution is the standard they are going to be bending us over a barrel because there won't be any competition to keep the game prices reasonable. No retail stores to offer discounts for your business, you buy (download) directly from the publisher and good luck ever seeing a sale for games since you won't be able to find that game anywhere else so you buy it at the asking price or not at all.

    When that dark day inevitably comes then I wonder which boogeyman the gaming industry will invent next to erode our consumer rights even further? First it was piracy, then second hand sales. I'm guessing loaning games to family and friends is the next big hurdle to demonize and claim that it is killing the industry.

  • Shikasama #24 1 year ago

    No no no, the games industry is SPECIAL. That's why they deserve a percentage of every future transaction.

    Sorry guys, but sales aren't the issue with the games industry. They sell plenty of units. Millions. If they aren't making enough of a profit off those sales to cover costs that is a problem with the process of game making. Don't try to make me feel bad for you. If my business wasn't sustainable off its own sales it would go under.

  • Lukey__b #25 1 year ago

    I've no problem with the EA pass and alike as long as it is clearly stated, as it obviously will be.

    If it really is that bad and people don't like it, then they wont buy it. With the prices you get for preowned from retailers it won't make much difference if they give you a little less because you've used the code. This will also pass on to people paying less to buy preowned because they may have to factor in the cost of buying a new code for a tenner from the publisher.

    Anyway, it's the retailers and publishers mess to sort out. Don't look to blame the consumer who has no obligation other than legitiimately ontaining the product. If your business model isn't working, you are doing something wrong.

  • bad09 #26 1 year ago

    I don't like what they are doing to the 2nd hand market, people should be allowed to sell on THEIR game complete, but understand why the industry does horrid things like online pass and project "just make them download a chunk of the game" 10 dollar to consumers (they have no bollocks against the might of retail and do not want to address the huge cost involved for gamers who continuously support this industry in buying new games anyway).

    The funny thing is though even when you cut out trading in they still fuck you over. Moving on to PC where there is no 2nd hand market I found they just use a different evil that's "killing" the industry to justify doing me, the paying customer, over. It's the nature of big business gaming now sadly they want control of you and what you do with the games you buy and own, playing up the evils of 2nd hand (and piracy) is a great way to achieve control over gamers not seen before the bloody internet infected our once beloved hobby.

    Personally I think the industry is killing the industry, the huge amount of people needing to sell old games to fund new in the first place screams this. They don't care though, they will just continue the upward push on price thanks to higher RRPs and rip off DLC while taking any kind of legal ownership of products away until they'll just sell you a web address in a box and you won't own anything you buy anyway.

    Sad future in store for gaming, a real sad future mark my words.

  • andy10 #27 1 year ago

    Another great video - thanks Eurogamer. A shame the publishers were unwilling to contribute.

    I'm a consumer but I do side with the developers on this one. I'd never pay for a second-hand game. I value the content I pay for and want the people behind it to get the money they're due. I don't want 100% of my cash going to dead businesses like HMV and other physical retailers who, as mentioned in the video, are fighting for their survival. They're not doing you a favour with second-hand games - they're ripping the developers off, they're often ripping you off as well. Personally, I never buy games on Day 1 and wait until they're sub-£20. A few weeks' patience reaps dividends.

    I also value having pristine copies of my games to add to my collection and treasure over time (an outdated concept, I know). I'm clearly a sucker for that cellophane wrapping and 'new-game smell'. I'm sure digital distribution is soon going to sweep all of this away (and declutter my house in the process), but I can live with that.

    Overall, a lot of interesting questions thrown up by this video but no easy answers. However, as a consumer, I think if you care for the games industry and you value the product you're getting, you should always try and buy first-hand.
    Edited by andy10 at 01/02/11 @ 19:29

  • Phishfood #28 1 year ago

    Still I wonder if the people who mostly buy second games could really afford the full price £40 to begin with. Like parents with limited income. If it was the case that there was no second-hand market and everyone had to pay £40 then then we would be seeing a lot less people who take up gaming as a hobby.

  • Stomp224 #29 1 year ago

    With the car comparisons, do you see dealers stand in front of a new car, only to usher you in the direction of the exact same car that the previous owner had for a week and returned, asking almost the same price?

    That is the crux of the problem I think. The games industry didn't give a shit when PO was almost half the price, but when its been sold on again at practically the same price, and the massive pressure on these stores & their staff to push preowned products over new, it kinda takes the piss out of (and the money off) the guys who busted their balls for two years to actually make it, and the publisher who put up the money for them to do so.

    Pre-owned does have a place I think, but not like this

  • dingo75 #30 1 year ago

    How about you report that Ubifail authentication servers are down since a few hours for everyone EG?

    http://www.ubi.com/ -> This website is currently undergoing maintenance.
    We currently do not have an ETA on restoration of services

    So much for "online authentication" and shit...

    Oh and of course PS3 hacking is to be blamed!

  • KnickKnack #31 1 year ago

    Yes, the industry is in tatters in the UK, partly because retailers sell second hand games and partly because making games requires talented people and a lot the talent either moves to film or goes abroad (I'm a case in point, Ive moved from the games industry in the UK to the film industry in California).

    I know a lot of you gamers will get angry with comments about second hand games but I think you're all deluding yourselves if you think that second hand games aren't affecting the games industry. Look at your games collection and ask yourself how many games were bought for only a few pounds less, second hand. Now multiply that by millions of gamers and you've got potentially billions of pounds being taken from the games-industry and handed straight over to the retailer.

    However, I'm not calling for the banning of second hand games and I can appreciate that games do cost a lot of money. I think there is a happy medium to be had here. I don't think it's fair that a single game disc can be bought 7 or 8 times at slightly discounted rates with the proceeds going straight into the retailers pocket. Retailers only buy one unit but can sell it multiple times; they didn't create anything, they only put it on their shelves, so why should they continually make a profit from a game that they had zero investment in. I'm all for selling second hand games at discounted prices, but the developer should still get his share of the profits; that way everyone wins. Retailers can make money hand over fist and pay good dividends to their shareholders while giving the executives massive bonuses while employing spotty teenagers at minimum wage, developers get the equivalent of residuals (like in the movie industry) for each time that game is sold, and gamers get cheap games, everyone's a winner! Another way would be for publishers to just start charging $400 per game to the retailer and allow the retailer to sell it as often as they want.

    Lastly, the argument from gamers saying developers should start making decent games is deluded and off-topic. The reason you lot buy second hand games is to save money, and if a great game can be bought for $5-$10 cheaper (American keyboards don't have the pound sign, go figure), it makes perfect sense to buy the cheaper unit; or are gamers only buying second hand games that are rubbish and paying full price for the good games?.
    Edited by KnickKnack at 01/02/11 @ 19:30

  • Lukey__b #32 1 year ago

    @Andy10

    With respect to your comments about supporting the developer with your money by not buying 2nd hand [which is your choice and personally I have only every purchased 2nd hand once], how much money do you think the developers see once you have waited until the game has hit sub 20 pounds?

    Do you think that the percentage cut stays the same, or that the developers/publishers cut gets smaller and smaller as the price falls?

    It might be worth looking into if you are really after giving the developer money. I'm sure there is a reason why retailers will advertise and sell games cheap, whereas the developers are working on the next thing to sell at 40 pound RRP i.e the retailers still make a nice profit, the developers dont.

  • riz23 #33 1 year ago

    Those retail guys were c**ts. You don't see second-hand dvd's and CD's in HMV and the analogy about the cost of games versus those media does not hold water. How much do you think it costs to make an album say? Not much. A DVD has had full theatrical release before it comes to the retail market, trust me, it should have already turned a profit before it hits DVD. If a videogame turns a profit it is in the minority, most lose money.
    Seeing second-hand games in Asda and Argos is simply wrong. Am I going to see second-hand coats and TV's in there next? No, so why games?
    The level of profit a retailer makes on pre-owned is staggering, and they fuck us the consumer when they do it, as well as the developer. As for an online pass, well that makes no difference to the cost of a new game does it, so why do you moan? You want to take it up with the retailer who is still selling that pre-owned game for GBP 37.99. Ask him why the cost of an online pass is not considered when they set a re-sale value on it? It has nothing to do with the publisher any more as the retailers in the video so kindly pointed out to us. It's true though, that the retailers are fighting for their lives, they are desperate to save their themselves. Personally though HMV, GAME et.al can fuck off and disappear from the high street. I won't shed a tear for their companies but I will sympathise with those who work there.
    However, publishers and platform holders are not angelic in this, if we did go to a download only market, then again the consumer is going to get gouged as prices are artificially held and savings in production and distribution not passed onto the consumer.
    It is a thorny issue, but ultimately it us the buying public who get the rough end of the deal either way.
    Edited by riz23 at 01/02/11 @ 19:37

  • Amblin #34 1 year ago

    All that will happen is project 10 dollar will become project server based games. second hand is a joke imo, based on blagging owners to part with games for next to nothing only for a store to make a minimum of 3x profit.

    I say fuck second hand sales, I rarely buy em unless it;s something I cannot find in a sale and want to play. I never trade in and love my collection.

    If publishers dropped the prices tostart with they could kill the market. but they are greedy cunts so they won't.

    ce la vie! =)

  • Lord_Gremlin #35 1 year ago

    While personally I never buy used games for personal reasons I think the whole argument against used games is ridiculous. The idea here is that publishers want to only rent you games, but not let you own them.

    If tomorrow Steam closes... Heh.

  • TheRealBadabing #36 1 year ago

    I think it's great that people feel so strongly about supporting the industry that they want to buy their games new at full RRP, though I'm not sure they realise how little of their money actually finds it's way to the developers.

    If one feels it necessary to spend more in order to encourage a thriving industry, get the game whichever way you want and send the devs a thank you note with a cheque attached. Don't forget to send Bobby Kotick a few quid too.

  • super_monty #37 1 year ago

    If a game is good enough or appears to be I buy it at release and keep it if i like it, like a collector.
    I tends to buy new games more often because I know I can trade them in, if they are not a keeper.

    I would buy and keep a lot less games if trade in didn't exist.

    For Pre-owned i tend to buy titles that I would have not bought from new.

  • OliverH #38 1 year ago

    Look, this is the same old argument "Customers aren't willing to give us as much money as we want them to, that's evil of them" Hogwash. It's the goddamn job of your marketing department to ensure that the products you put out are both in a quality and at a price that will maximise willingness of the customers to fork over money. If a) too few buyers are willing to pay or b) people are only willing to pay less money than you want them to, then that's because your products are not appealing enough. Either the mass appeal is lacking - that's what tackles the numbers of buyers or people don't consider it as much value for money as you do - then the quality isn't good enough. Trying to fight the customer never helped anyone. All you're going to achieve is to royally p*ss off the people whose money you want.

    Make sure your marketing department does what it's supposed to do - find out what the customers really want and are willing to pay for and show them (not just dupe them) that you're providing it - instead of spreading smoke and mirrors and lacking substance and you will find yourself earning a solid profit. If you don't want to do your homework, good riddance.

  • Graftonator #39 1 year ago

    @Thedrifter "look at music and videos their biggest blockbusters on release cost no more then £15 so what makes gaming so special to charge £40 a pop for a single newly released game ?"

    How about even the shortest games last at least 3 times as long as the average movie? And that's before you even start multiplayer!

    Also all the comparisons to second hand cars is stupid, if the car manufacturer had to supply parts and labour for free, then I bet they'd be after a bit of that second hand market. "Project 10 dollar" is a pretty good way to help "second hand buyers" pay for their use of the servers. Admittedly it's a shame for multiple users on the same console but the publishers were pushed down this route.

    I don't have a huge problem with the idea of the second hand market, just a problem with the pricing. Lets use cars again, as people are so fond of them. You can buy a second hand car from a garage for £10,000. You can get the same car for £11,000 brand new. The garage bought that car from the previous owner for £4,000 and have done nothing more to it than going through a car wash.

  • Sak666 #40 1 year ago

    Didn't even bother to watch this. It seems that someone is trying to criminalize something that's been in our culture since no doubt first club was made just to squeeze more bucks out of their overpriced products. The day i can't buy previously used HOUSE is the day i could think of stopping buying used games. FFS i even buy previously used clothing.. what the hell is making games so special that suddenly all should feel vile and evil for not paying 'bout 60 € for aprox 6 hours of fun??? Ah yeah and i buy used dvd's and blu-rays, should that make me bad person aswell?

  • smithdown #41 1 year ago

    Good film, well balanced views from all 3 sides of the discussion. The only way this is going to end well is if developers/publishers and retailers reach a compromise. Otherwise we'll see new tech being employed by devs to make sure games are only bought new (e.g. the online pass, DRM etc) or developers closing down because retailers aggressively continue to market pre-owned.

    Personally I will only by pre-owned from eBay, where there is a far greater chance of all that money (bar eBay fees) going to a gamer who will then buy another game, rather than in to the pockets of greedy retailers. I believe this is the fairest balance.

  • OliverH #42 1 year ago

    @KnickKnack

    Sorry, but you seem to understand very little about how markets work. What you miss is that the opportunity to trade in games allows those who sell their games to buy other games AND it increases their readiness to pay full money because they don't have to write it all off in case the game doesn't fulfill their expectations. You top it off by saying "Lastly, the argument from gamers saying developers should start making decent games is deluded and off-topic." No, it isn't. Because quality is one of the foremost marketing tools. Insulting customers, on the other hand, is pretty good evidence that one deserves every bit of hardship one gets - quite obviously, you don't want any money from those people. Otherwise, even the most minute grain of common sense would indicate you that insulting folks whose money you'd like to pocket is a pretty bad idea. You may think people are deluded all the time. Heck, I curse over customers of my company constantly. But not while they're within earshot.

  • azix2 #43 1 year ago

    Publishers should just come together and start a major store chain that actually shares resale profits with all publishers involved.

  • Machetazo #44 1 year ago

    An interesting point, and a key one, raised in the programme, was that of perceived value. If somebody buys the game for £40, and doesn't feel their box provided them a fair experience that justifies the price, how are they going to trust the next box claiming to be worth £40? I really think the static RRP system that is in place, where you only see boxes at one of two price points in the shop, is a really destructive and diabolical contrivance. I do not understand the reasoning that that has not been addressed and altered so that if a consumer picks up that box...It's all well and good asking for the 40, but if everyone's asking the 40 then where's the differentiation? One answer, there, is to buy pre-owned.
    Except, well, the industry won't help itself. It will not recognise and address flaws in the way the system is now, so I don't know what there is.

    "if you're going to argue that the consumer only effectively leases the game with no right of resale then bloody well price your games as such! "

    well said #14! The industry has short-term fix issues. It puts short-term fix on fix, continuously trying to patch a problem with little good being done. It does need all involved to sit round a table or pick up the phone and discuss a strategy.
    Let's view the situation from the perspective of what happens when a game appears on sale, at a lower price than usual - there's usually a huge rush of interest, and ordering - those are new copies being sold, where before the people had it been £40 might have held off. I think the guy offhandedly mentioning a half off the current price is unrealistic, but, I think...

    The part that isn't mentioned by the man talking about his £80 SNES carts, is two-fold: One, being that they have a grandiose measure of more advertising, and audience than they had. There's the internet, the paper publications - was SFII turbo worth that? Absolutely! For the industry at that time, I recall people trying to get that imported for stupid money, the clamour was so great to play - but it was so much more niche! The available audience was smaller, visibility minimal.

    I accept the things cost increasing amounts to make and market, but if people are in the business of selling boxes new, and don't want to get the gamers offside (that one going on comparing second-hand gaming to piracy: what is the good of making silly statements like that, if you profess to want to oppose piracy, butthen go right ahead and throw people in general, helping to further what you want to see, in with the people you definitely don't want to see succeed?!) It just comes off as misguided.
    Great show. :)

  • Soton4084 #45 1 year ago

    I totally agree with the guy from HMV and without pre-owned I wouldn't be able to buy as many games as I do now. If a game is good enough I am happy to pay £40, as I did with Uncharted 2, Heavy Rain, Red Dead Redemption, etc. However, I will not pay full price for games which aren't of the same quality.

    Furthermore, I think the price of the digital download version of Mass Effect 2 is a case in point as to why physical media is vital to maintaining competitiveness for consumers. Without physical games and pre-owned, I think consumers would suffer from publishers setting rip-off prices. For this reason I will not be buying any games consoles in the future if they do not have physical media.

  • chrisp #46 1 year ago

    Something that definitely speaks in favour of pre-owned to me, although maybe not the average 'casual' gamer, is that - simply put - many games would not be available if it weren't for the pre-owned market. I don't completely abandon old formats - I still play the odd PS1/PS2/Dreamcast/Gamecube game and would also buy games for these formats now (have bought a few PS2 titles recently as a matter of fact). With perhaps the exception of one or two PS2 titles, no games for these systems are available new any more - if there were no such thing as pre-owned then you'd just have to accept that you could no longer play them. It's not just previous generation formats, though; many titles become deleted during a system's lifetime, meaning you have no choice *but* to buy second-hand.

    I know the trade in old games isn't an aspect of the pre-owned market that developers/publishers are really targetting, but it's still an important aspect of it, or at least it is to me.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #47 1 year ago

    "Retailers only buy one unit but can sell it multiple times; they didn't create anything, they only put it on their shelves, so why should they continually make a profit from a game that they had zero investment in."

    Um, because that's the entire fundamental principle of all retailing? You're not paying for them to invest in developing a game, any more than you're paying for them to make the Corn Flakes themselves. You're paying for them to rent a High Street store, pay the bills on it and hire staff to work in it, so that you can buy games conveniently and in person. You're paying for them to provide somewhere to easily and quickly sell your game when you're finished playing with it. All that stuff costs money.

    You may or may not value those services sufficiently to pay the premium that they cost over buying online or (theoretically at least) downloading. That's your choice - nobody's forcing you into GAME at gunpoint. But there is no justification on this Earth for the spoilt, greedy videogames industry to be treated as a special case compared to every other kind of retailing on the planet.

    Online Pass and the like are just the latest in a long line of stupid, self-defeating attempts to suck more money out of consumers' pockets. What it will actually achieve is to drive the price of preowned games down (because you can't get away with charging as much if consumers know they'll have to pay more for the online component), which in turn will simply make them more attractive to all the people who don't give a shit about online play (which is the majority) and put even more pressure on full-price sales.

    The games industry: run by fucking idiots since 1979.

  • moconnor09 #48 1 year ago

    game trading has been happening for over two decades and that hasn't effected the industry. yes it's become increasingly more available than previously, but the industry continues to be the fastest growing and earning. so end of.

    I've bought my fair share of new games and so have most if not all gamers.
    If they aren't earning enough, cut costs, hire less useless staff and charge more for your games if want a better return for your money (btw no one needs a fricking £100 special edition version of a game, expect it to get traded in)

    The games industry is nothing without its gaming community. I would rather wait years for a great game than see so much crap that lands on our shelves at the moment. Game trading is a necessity for the gaming industry to grow.

  • MinerWilly #49 1 year ago

    Wow i had no idea Mastertronic where still going strong ! I used to adore their budget range of original games over 20 years ago , some absolute classics of the 8bit european gaming scene .
    I hate the way so many young people think that we where using NES's and loving Mario in the eighties , im sorry but that was just not the case whatsoever and only a tiny amount of people owned a Nes in Europe . Mario to me just meant Game and watch .
    The real gaming heroes where Miner Willy , Monty Mole , Horace , Jack the Nipper , Dizzy and the sublime Head over Heels .

  • Xboxfanuk #50 1 year ago

    You know what CEX doesn't sell new games. They are a pawn shop. But shops like HMV and GAME are actively discouraging the sales of a new boxed game in favor of used games, THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!

  • chiz #51 1 year ago

    All they need to do to reduce second hand game sales is sell the downloadable versions for say, 30quid instead of 48!.. Fools..

    Totally agree.

  • byakuya83 #52 1 year ago

    Post deleted at 10:03:41 30-03-2012

  • Apaar #53 1 year ago

    I don't quite get the attitude of that pro-rental guy. Yeah, of course one is free to do so if they want to somehow min-max entertainment value. But I certainly wan't my money to go to the developers and publishers, not just some rental firm or a used-games retailer.
    My money won't have any say (even the illusionary say it currently has) in terms of supporting the games I like if I rent or buy them used. Luckily I don't deem too many games worthy, so this principle will not kill my budget.

  • OlMaster #54 1 year ago

    Can I play devil's advocate without being negged to hell? (i.e. please don't neg me if you disagree, reply instead) Let's see how this goes:

    The key difference between pre-owned markets in other consumables (cars, mobiles, clothes, even DVDs) is degradation in quality, or at least perceived degradation. You buy a second hand car you know that you run a slightly higher risk of it having problems, mobiles will be a bit scuffed, DVDs might be scratched, and so on.

    Games, on the other hand, have no problems in that regard. You essentially buy exactly the same product with no loss in quality. The arguments about making higher perceived value, and better marketing etc. are not really the solution, because even with lower-costing high-value games, the pre-owned market will always undercut it and with no loss in value for the consumer. Can you honestly say that you would buy games if they were cheaper, even if the pre-owned market was cheaper still?

    So in that sense, the games industry tends to, or has the potential to, be harder hit. With this I can somewhat sympathise with the publishers (and developers, to a lesser extent) who are feeling hurt by this. That said, some of the tactics used against the industry are heavy-handed and need modified. Moving into the digital media realm is a start.
    Edited by OlMaster at 01/02/11 @ 21:22

  • MrChuckles #55 1 year ago

    Well, that was shit... No explanation to people not in the (developer side of the) games industry why it's important.

    Basically every time you pay £5 less for a 2nd hand game, you take £20 from the developer/publisher, £2 from the manufacturer, £1 from the distributor and hand it ALL (Minus about £5) straight to the shop. So, instead of that money spent on making better games, it's spent on making nicer shops.

    I see a future where all games are free, and you pay a few quid to unlock each single player level/unlock multiplayer. A game you like, and play a lot, you spend £40, a game you half finish is £20, and a game you try and hate is free. All your money goes to the publishers, you don't get ripped off, and good games make more money than crap ones. And shops go bust.

    Did anyone else find the HMV guy a self important cock?

  • andypandy11 #56 1 year ago

    Stuart Campbell - always a man who speaks sense, been away too long!

    I am that man in the red top. That CEO. I would ask Eurogamer to show the wholeof my interview. My position is actually quite clear - if you buy the game you own it and can do with it as you see fit. If there is a market for that game
    , it is your right to sell or buy. If the games are cheaper, then arguably the market starts to close around itself. It really is as simple as that.
    Is it great for developers and publishers? Not really, but devs and pubs are clever people and will work out new business models or go and do something else. At the end of the day a market is only as strong as it's customer. No customers = no market. Up to the games industry to figure that bit out.

    As I say, ask Eurogamer for the whole interview and you will see my arguments are from everyone's perspective, ultimately we are all customers, gamers, consumers whatever and ultimately we will set the prices, no matter what anyone thinks.

  • MrChuckles #57 1 year ago

    Oh and some other points...

    Developers don't mind you selling/buying 2nd hand games in Cex, Ebay, Boot Fair. Developers HATE the fact you go into the ONLY high street store that sells their goods, and have the staff act like a bloody market trader trying to sell you a knocked down 5 quid off copy instead.

    I'd have thought most people who trade in 2nd hand games use that money to buy 2nd hand games, which they later trade in to buy more 2nd hand games.

    I'm starting to be in meetings and thinking we want to make as good a product as possible for that first time buyer, as they give us the money to make the game. The second hand buyer gives us nothing at all, not a penny and therefore not a single moment of my day at work should be spent on making them a good game. As David Braben says, for us a 2nd hand buyer is as bad as a pirate.

    I'll expect negs from outraged consumers, but i buy 2nd hand games at the moment, because it's stupid not to. They are cheaper, i hate doing it. It's not the consumers fault, it's the industry.

    Oh, and one last point. We recently wanted to release a game on DD for a the same price as retail. You know what they said? 'If you do that, we won't stock your game, or your next release.' The industry wants to match or even beat retail prices, but they won't let us.

  • FeralYouth #58 1 year ago

    They seem to form a healthy part of the game industry. Someone who buys Dead Space secondhand, might just go out and buy Dead Space 2 brand new. That's how it worked with me put it that way.

    If the elimination of second hand sales lead to something like regular Steam sale prices then I'd be all for it.

  • silversun #59 1 year ago

    It was an intresting video on all the views, i buy all my games new but i shop around online for best deals.
    About the only games i dont buy new are games that where released say over 10 years ago because they are no longer being made availible to buy.
    So my question is why can the movie industry make old films from years back widely able to obtain when the games industry while improving is no where near that.
    Edited by silversun at 01/02/11 @ 21:53

  • jamhead #60 1 year ago

    @OLMaster "Can you honestly say that you would buy games if they were cheaper, even if the pre-owned market was cheaper still? "

    Yes. If games were priced between 15-20 quid, and I felt the content was of sufficient quality, I would not buy a second hand copy at 10-15 quid. I rarely buy second hand games - largely because I usually buy games I will want to keep and come back to in years to come. I do on occasion take a reckless punt on an uber-cheap second hand game if I am particularly skint, and don't especially care for the 'product'. To get a fix if you like.

    However, I wouldn't buy the likes of Uncharted, Ico, Halo Reach, Hot Pursuit, Vanquish (etc - you get the idea) second hand, but I wish they were cheaper from release. As it is, I usually have to wait for 6 months for them to come down in price, or some supermarket deal to come into effect.

    The fact of the matter is, I just can't afford to shell out £40 for a new game. Get games down to 20 or under and I wound't buy a second-hand game, at all.

  • lordofthedunce #61 1 year ago

    I bought a second-hand copy of R6 Vegas for £8 the other day. I would have to be a total fucking idiot to voluntarily pay £15 for a new copy.

  • silversun #62 1 year ago

    "Wow i had no idea Mastertronic where still going strong ! I used to adore their budget range of original games over 20 years ago , some absolute classics of the 8bit european gaming scene . "

    did they do magic knight games? i would love be able get them to buy on a pc format, this is good example of old games i cant buy new lol.

  • bad09 #63 1 year ago

    "I'd have thought most people who trade in 2nd hand games use that money to buy 2nd hand games, which they later trade in to buy more 2nd hand games."

    What?

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #64 1 year ago

    'mobiles will be a bit scuffed, DVDs might be scratched, and so on.

    Games, on the other hand, have no problems in that regard"

    What? What? DVDs might be scratched, but games (which more often than not come on DVDs, in DVD cases) won't?

    What?

  • Machiavellian #65 1 year ago

    Lets take a look at the analogies that a lot of people use to defend the second hand market. Cars, bad analogy since the care industry has a very lucrative parts market where they make a ton on. Weather you buy new or used, you are going to have to have your car serviced and they get your money. Movies, the movies studios already make their money when the movie is released in the theaters. The DVD market is an extension and extra cash in the pocket and it’s not dependant for sales. CDs, Artist (which is who we care about) do not make their money from CDs but instead concerts. CDs do bring in revenue but it doesn’t really make a artist rich after everyone get their money.

    Then we have the excuse that developers and publishers have to add more content then just the game in order to get sells. Think about that, you spend millions to make a game and it’s great but you have to spend even more millions to entice gamers to play your great game even if it get top notch scores. Then if you add this extra content, you hope it’s appealing enough to entice a purchase which means your next game has to have equal to or better extra or no sell.

    Then we have people crying about sequels but then you look at the games that are selling and games that gamers are looking forward to are sequels. New innovative games get saddled to the discount bin or used game purchase because gamers do not want to take a risk. So why would a development studio spend millions to bring you something new when it appears most gamers first thought is to wait until the game is cheap or get it used.

    So are used games killing the industry, nope. Are developers with their sequels killing the games industry, nope. It’s the people on the other end who only complain and never do what they say they will do. They ask for new and show their love by waiting the game is used for discounted to nothing. They say sequels are bad but you look at their profile and that’s all they are looking to buy. Blame goes both ways but I guess if you are the consumer, you are always right.

    Edit:
    I was about to worry that not going with the crowd on this topic would not produce a lot of negatives but as always Eurogamer posters did not let me down ;)
    Edited by Machiavellian at 02/02/11 @ 15:09

  • Ravenger #66 1 year ago

    Look at the PC market for an indication of where it's going. Most games now have DRM or account locks making it impossible to resell, trade-in or even give away your games. And we're not just talking about online games - many single player games are impossible to resell.

    Retail has almost abandoned PC games because of this - they can't make money on trade-ins for PC games so they stock fewer of them in preference to second hand console games, and have effectively pushed PC gamers into buying online via online retailers, or via digital distribution. (And then thrown a huge hissy fit when the digital retailers out-compete them, but that's a different issue.)

    Luckily there's plenty of competition at the moment in the PC online distribution market, so prices (at least in the sales) are competitive, but consoles don't have that - each console has one digital store, which is exclusive to that console, so there's no competition, and prices are high as a consequence.

    As a PC gamer I don't want to see console games go down the same road that PC games have gone, where you're stuck with a game even if it's buggy and not fit for purpose, but if retailers (who are now glorified pawn shops) continue to over-exploit the second hand market I can see exactly that happening.

  • OliverH #67 1 year ago

    @Macchiavellian:
    "So are used games killing the industry, nope. Are developers with their sequels killing the games industry, nope. It’s the people on the other end who only complain and never do what they say they will do. They ask for new and show their love by waiting the game is used for discounted to nothing. They say sequels are bad but you look at their profile and that’s all they are looking to buy. Blame goes both ways but I guess if you are the consumer, you are always right."

    The only thing that makes sense in your post is that last sentence.

    Once more for those a little hard of comprehension: If you want someone's money, you have to provide him with something he's willing to pay for. All those claims that the unreasonable demands of customers are "killing the industry" are signs of complete and utter failure to understand how a business works to begin with. if you have no one who pays for your products you have no business, period. And it's not the stupid customer's fault, it's your fault because you produce something that not enough people want. it's not the duty of the customer to do an industry a favour and throw money at them. It's the industry's job to convince people that their products are worth the money and worth paying it NOW.


    Oh, and to all those claiming that there's no degradation in games, you are wrong. What you miss is that in business terms, degradation is not a technical issue. not an issue of "works" vs. "fails to work, has glitches etc.". In business terms, it's an issue of fulfilling expectations. If you wait a year or two to buy a game, it will NOT fulfill expectations the way it did when it was new. It will not be on the cutting edge of technology, which it might have been at the time it first came out. And consequentially, it will be worth less money - THAT IS what doing business is about -fulfilling expectations and getting money for it. If you disappoint expectations, don't expect people to pay full price - or pay at all, if you consistently disappoint expectations. Yes, a car will suffer TECHNICAL degradation. But from a business point of view, the reason it is worth less money is that this technical degradation makes it fulfill expectations to a lesser degree. There are cars that are decades old for which people pay MORE money than their original price - why? Because they fulfill all the expectations that people attach to that price.

  • JamieR #68 1 year ago

    you take away the pre owned games rival they will be able charge what they want for new games and remember the guy in this video mentioning the price of mortal combat the price of new games will rocket.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #69 1 year ago

    "Oh, and to all those claiming that there's no degradation in games, you are wrong. What you miss is that in business terms, degradation is not a technical issue. not an issue of "works" vs. "fails to work, has glitches etc.". In business terms, it's an issue of fulfilling expectations. If you wait a year or two to buy a game, it will NOT fulfill expectations the way it did when it was new. It will not be on the cutting edge of technology, which it might have been at the time it first came out."

    Cobblers. Seriously, how advanced are graphics on 360 or PS3 games now compared to two years ago? Console technology is essentially static - developers can tweak a little bit more out of the hardware as they get to know it (less so now than with previous generations), but show the average punter in the street a 2011 game and a 2008 one and they won't know which is which.

    And "a year or two" is nonsensical anyway. Heavy game discounting these days happens over periods measured in weeks, not years. I remember picking up the first Little Big Planet (new, not preowned) for £11 literally six weeks after release. Anyone with the common sense and backbone to wait two months can pick up most games nowadays for half the release price.

  • DrStrangelove #70 1 year ago

    lol did they just compare game resale with software piracy?

    I'm not even a second-hand buyer, but they need to get a fucking grip. They can't just come and demand the fundamental principle of buying and reselling to be eliminated from their particular market. If I have a problem with how the concept of property works, I have to live with it and make the best of it. What on Earth makes them think that doesn't apply to them?

    It is of course understandable from their point of view, in the same way that it is understandable that Muammar al-Gaddafi suppresses opposition and free press to secure his power. It is understandable if you're thinking "there is no you, there is only me".

    Go on, sell not games but personal access to a game. But for half the price at most, of course. Everything else is fraud.
    Edited by DrStrangelove at 01/02/11 @ 23:02

  • Ravenger #71 1 year ago

    I would argue that games can actually appreciate in quality over time - new releases can be very buggy, and buying the inevitable GOTY version six months to a year later can get you a fully patched up game including all the DLC for less than the buggy DLC-less version costs at launch.

  • Oh-Bollox #72 1 year ago

    you have to spend even more millions to entice gamers to play your great game

    Aye, no game has ever been commercially successful without a massive ad campaign.

    even if it get top notch scores.

    Scores can be, and are, bought. Anyway, games do not need great reviews to succeed commercially.

  • Farzlepot #73 1 year ago

    This is a dangerous argument to have.

    There are two ways that publishers can go. Either DRM on consoles as well as PCs (and admittedly, on consoles there is limited scope for technical problems, but who here hasn't bought at least one game after borrowing a friend's copy?), or digital distribution, in which case publishers alone control the prices (and we've seen how well that gies on consoles at the moment).

    And if the whole "well technically, you're leasing the product off us" argument goes far enough, we could even see publishers go down the route of renting the games to us, at a regular price. In other words, we may have to pay each time we want to play a game. And who here hasn't played a retro game for sentimentality's sake?

    Personally, I don't want publishers to have total control over how much a game sells for. Digital distribution so far has shown this to be an expensive proposition despite the reduced production costs and lack of overheads, and I don't see matters improving if they gain a monopoly. Likewise, I don't want second-hand traders to be precluded from their god-given right to sell/buy used games. EA's Project 10 Dollar might be a short term solution to the problem but ultimately, publishers and retailers need to sit down and hash out a compromise. Like, publishers reducing the price of new games so that retailers make a greater profit, in exchange for retailers imposing a time limit on how soon they can buy back newly released games.

    And as for the "well, they shouldn't keep releasing rehashed sequels with no innovation" BS, well, STOP BUYING THEM! they only continue to do so because they sell! If nobody bought COD 97, there would be no COD 98!

  • toby182 #74 1 year ago

    I think that the enormous success that mega franchises such as Call of Duty have attained has set a target that all other publishers are trying to replicate. With this comes a lack in variety and lower quality 'clones' of these big franchises. Unfortunately the people who play these big games aren't typical 'hardcore' gamers that are looking for varied innovative gaming experiences but rather the general public who don't usually invest in gaming systems as much as 'hardcore' gamers.

    The opposite end to this is the family friendly games market that Nintendo boosted with the success of the DS and Wii that the publishers are also aiming for. Ultimately, 'hardcore' gamers are no longer the main target audience for publishers which is why 'project ten dollar' etc exists, because it is most likely those 'hardcore' gamers will be willing to purchase them. The only exception to this are remakes of classic games or bringing gameplay back to the late 80s/ early 90s such as New Super Mario Bros that appeal to both families and 'hardcore' gamers. This is why my Wii continues to gather dust until Nintendo bring out a game to exploit my nostalgia or I play the odd game on my 360 that I can play for longer than 10 hours without completing it or a bit of COD with friends who don't usually games over XBOX LIVE (which I do feel a little bit guilty playing).

    I agree with previous comments that we need a crash in the games market to bring it back down to its 'hardcore' consumers where innovation and originality are priorities, rather than major corporations who couldn't give less a shit, as long as their shareholders are happy in the short term.

  • OliverH #75 1 year ago

    @Rev Stuart Campbell

    "Cobblers. Seriously, how advanced are graphics on 360 or PS3 games now compared to two years ago? Console technology is essentially static - developers can tweak a little bit more out of the hardware as they get to know it (less so now than with previous generations), but show the average punter in the street a 2011 game and a 2008 one and they won't know which is which."

    Except, of course, that a new generation console might be out by then.

    "And "a year or two" is nonsensical anyway. Heavy game discounting these days happens over periods measured in weeks, not years. I remember picking up the first Little Big Planet (new, not preowned) for £11 literally six weeks after release. Anyone with the common sense and backbone to wait two months can pick up most games nowadays for half the release price."

    So? Why is that possible to begin with? Because you play through the game in five hours flat and replayability value is zero. You still don't grasp that this is the producer's fault, period. Heck, I still dig out Alpha Centauri or Morrowind because they have a huge replayability value. I've played Planescape:Torment until the CD cracked (so much for not technical degradation...)

    You quite obviously missed the point - which was that expectations aren't being met. To try to strongarm the customer into paying more than he considers what he gets is worth is short-sighted, and it's a complete and utter failure at running a business. It can ONLY work on the short term because in the long run, people will decide they have better things to do than sponsors your laziness and lack of creativity - which is precisely what you ask them to pay for.

  • beatwolf #76 1 year ago

    the narrator of these EG videos has the most inane squeaking voice... might as well get mickey mouse in there

  • Aradiel #77 1 year ago

    I noticed something in the video that really irks me - it's the constant comment that publishers don't get any money from the sale of second hand games.

    This, I feel, is at least misrepresented, if not wrong.

    First of all, they got the money from the first sale. When it get's re-sold, it's not like both the original customer and this second customer both have the game. The game didn't magically spring into existence after the first person bought it.

    Secondly, though the retailer will get the money from the second hand sale, how much is it really? They are selling the game for, let's say £50. Surely that means they get £50, right?
    Well, no, since they bought it for £45, they're only getting £5.

    Trade in complicates the above point a bit, though, and I'm too tired to think through that aspect at the moment.

  • OlMaster #78 1 year ago

    @jamhead "yes"

    If I'm honest I would too, but I imagine we're in the minority here, being avid gamers who want to support the industry. If the used game industry has shown anything it's that you don't need to have that much of a gap between new and old. Try find a used copy of COD:BO for £35 or less for example.

    @Rev. Stuart Campbell "What? What? DVDs might be scratched, but games (which more often than not come on DVDs, in DVD cases) won't?"

    Yeah, I know they're essentially the same technology, but speaking from personal experience (as someone who buys used games...I just like devil's advocate and gamers seem to LOVE making huge one-sided statements) I've had far less experience with games being unable to work due to scratches compared with used or rented DVDs. Maybe that's anecdotal, although my argument doesn't hinge on that anyway.

  • Machiavellian #79 1 year ago

    Once more for those a little hard of comprehension: If you want someone's money, you have to provide him with something he's willing to pay for. All those claims that the unreasonable demands of customers are "killing the industry" are signs of complete and utter failure to understand how a business works to begin with. if you have no one who pays for your products you have no business, period. And it's not the stupid customer's fault, it's your fault because you produce something that not enough people want. it's not the duty of the customer to do an industry a favour and throw money at them. It's the industry's job to convince people that their products are worth the money and worth paying it NOW.

    Actually how I see it is that publishers and developers are moving away from the hardcore to the casual because of the endless demands for more than just a quality game. You say it's the industry job to convince gamers to purchase their games, well Nintendo and Apple has shown that their are many different types of gamers and only concentrating on those hardcore bunch probably not as profitable as it use to be. See those new gamers really aren't burned out and demand increasing amount of investment from publishers. In your statement above, you say the devs/pub produce something that not enough people want, basically forcing them to go to another source of income because the hardcore continue to want more than a quality game.

    The main problem is that retailers make a heck of a lot more money from used games then new. I do not know about anyone else but I have been pushed to buy used games from retailers over the new plenty of times. They do offer good deals like buy 2 get one free. Insurance on your used game if it breaks, just bring in the receipt and they will replace etc. There are a lot of things retailers do to get you to buy used and they are fair to do but it does present a conflict of interest and does impact the industry because there isn't a lot of avenues for developers to make their money on games besides retail at this point.

    My post above is just throwing out some points and trying to side with the developers/publishers without using the crazy statements like it's steal to buy use or crazy nonsense like that. There is an impact for the industry because of the used game market but trying to get rid of it is not the answer. I do believe devs and pubs will have to think up unique ways to get people to purchase new or even discounted new games (at least they still get paid).

    This topic is not something that is totally black and white but I do believe that there is blame on both sides. Gamers keep talking about they want something new and innovative but they are not willing to support those endeavors as if such development cost nothing. Gamers continue to clamor for their sequels or the next game that is pretty much the same as the one they are playing with a new skin.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #80 1 year ago

    "Gamers continue to clamor for their sequels or the next game that is pretty much the same as the one they are playing with a new skin. "

    You can't blame customers for not taking risks at £40+ a time. The thing killing creativity in the mainstream industry is the same thing it's always been - greedy pricing.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #81 1 year ago

    "Except, of course, that a new generation console might be out by then. "

    My bad. I thought we were talking about the actual videogames industry, not an imaginary fantasy one where the generational lifespan is 1-2 years.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #82 1 year ago

    "So? Why is that possible to begin with? Because you play through the game in five hours flat and replayability value is zero."

    Wow. Using that argument when the example given was Little Big Planet, of all things, is... well, not too bright.

    "You quite obviously missed the point - which was that expectations aren't being met."

    I didn't miss the point at all. I understood it perfectly, I just noted that it was bollocks. What you said was this:

    If you wait a year or two to buy a game, it will NOT fulfill expectations the way it did when it was new. It will not be on the cutting edge of technology, which it might have been at the time it first came out.

    Which is just rubbish, for the reasons I gave. Nobody waits two years to buy the typical preowned game, and the chances of a new generation of console hardware arriving in the gap between a new release and its heavy discounting (ie a few weeks) are tiny. And what's all this crap about "fulfilling expectations"? Who's buying a game for last-gen hardware and expecting it to look as good as a new-gen title?

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #83 1 year ago

    "My post above is just throwing out some points and trying to side with the developers/publishers"

    That's a bit like analysing the battle of Stalingrad and saying "I'm just trying to side with the Nazis/Russians".

  • Synthesis #84 1 year ago

    If the games industry is in such dire straits then they should look internally at why this might be, rather than blame the second hand market, particularly when second hand trading has gone on for centuries in human society.

    If there isn't enough money to go around, or the sales aren't matching up to what you're spending on producing the games, then you need to change the way you run your business. The market is saturated by games, so many get released and the consumers only have so much money to spend on them. It's not the second hand markets fault and it's certainly true that if you took away the ability to trade games at all, far less would be sold unless the prices were lowered dramatically.

    The HMV guy spoke the most sense by far, the Codemasters CEO was a complete joke.

  • dfish #85 1 year ago

    I do think there is a strong parellel with piracy here. It boils down to whether someone enjoying the fruits of someone elses labour is contributing something back to the people that made it possible in return for their enjoyment of the game. In the case of a pirate , virtually no one is benefiting monetarily but the developer may benefit from word of mouth sales from a satisfied pirate, similarly with second hand sales except this time the retailer is benefitting monetarily. However the retailer is the least important entity in the creative process and the least deserving of the reward. Their main function is to serve as a solution for transferring data via physical medium until it is practical to do otherwise, second hand sales is taking unfair advantage of that role. Trading person to person on ebay should always be acceptable but the situation in stores like GAME now where you have second hand copies of games wafted under your nosed everytime you take a new copy to the till is a real challenge to the funding of the creative process behind every game title.
    Edited by dfish at 02/02/11 @ 03:03

  • KnickKnack #86 1 year ago

    @OliverH

    I'm not defending developers who bad mouth gamers; to me that's pretty pointless. I'm bad-mouthing the retailers who are effectively leeching off the games industry; I don't know why gamers don't want to admit that.

    Rev Stuart Campbell

    I think you're completely wrong about the fundamentals of retailing; selling a product over and over isn't a fundamental, it's actually pretty rare. Show me any other market sector where the ONLY high-street outlets for a product is driven by second-hand sales? It doesn't happen in music and film, which are the nearest products to compare.

    "You're paying for them to rent a High Street store, pay the bills on it and hire staff to work in it, so that you can buy games conveniently and in person. You're paying for them to provide somewhere to easily and quickly sell your game when you're finished playing with it. All that stuff costs money." - well that's a great defense for the retailers, but the sale that goes to them gets taken from the team that made the game in the first place. For whatever reason, games sales are in big decline, bad economy, bad games, multiplayer longevity (the amount of people and the length of time playing a multiplayer game has increased since the days of internet gaming on consoles), and retailers are feeling the pinch so they introduce the second hand games market so they can make more money of each asset they buy from a publisher. But there is still less money going back to the publisher so it's going to have a negative impact, whichever way you justify it.


  • Loghorn #87 1 year ago

    I agree with most of the commentators here. This is nothing but pure greediness of publishers/developers who wants to have a monopoly over the gaming industry by forcing people to pay loads of money for download games, even if they're months &/or years old. The used game market has been around since the mid 70's or so. Do the publishers, developers, &/or DD fanboys honestly believe that the gaming industry would've made it this far without it? I think not. That's one of the contributions as to why it's still around right now.

    You take that away, & you're just asking for a lot of pirating within people, & are asking for most of your game sales to go completely down, in which it could cause another market crash, just like with Atari before Nintendo stepped in to save it. Japan tried pulling that crap by making second hand market forbidden to gamers, & look what happened to that. Consumers in that region were so outraged, that the government had to take that law (or rule) out. The same thing will happen to other countries if they try to do so.
    Edited by Loghorn at 03/02/11 @ 19:33

  • TrevSkyline #88 1 year ago

    Okay, so you have completed all your games - what do you do?

    1. Keep hold of 100's of games.

    2. Trade them in and buy NEW games.

    I'd say 80% of people do option 2, get rid of the second hand games market and your get rid of gaming - bloody IDIOTS.

  • OliverH #89 1 year ago

    @Rev Stuart Campbell

    "I didn't miss the point at all. I understood it perfectly, I just noted that it was bollocks. What you said was this:"

    The only one spreading bollocks here is you. Which should be pretty obvious, given that economy in the game market has nothing to do whatsoever with any other type of economy. The fact that you focus on the two years I mentioned simply illustrates that you confuse the point with the illustration - which can always be exaggerated to make the point more clearly. Stop grabbing for straws.

    It could in fact not be more obvious that you missed the point. Because you completely missed that those pre-owned games have been sold by someone - someone who quite obviously is through with them one way or the other and considers the replayability value of the game as less than what the retailer is offering him for the game. So all the waving with Little Big Planet isn't going to help you, because the fact that someone has sold it makes my point.


    "And what's all this crap about "fulfilling expectations"? Who's buying a game for last-gen hardware and expecting it to look as good as a new-gen title? "

    This "crap" is what marketing is all about. But thanks for demonstrating that you're quite clueless as to how businesses that are well-run operate. Now go back to your claiming that people who have no idea how to run a business should still be subsidized by customers who don't get what they pay for.
    Edited by OliverH at 02/02/11 @ 06:55

  • OliverH #90 1 year ago

    @Machiavellian

    "Actually how I see it is that publishers and developers are moving away from the hardcore to the casual because of the endless demands for more than just a quality game. You say it's the industry job to convince gamers to purchase their games, well Nintendo and Apple has shown that their are many different types of gamers and only concentrating on those hardcore bunch probably not as profitable as it use to be. See those new gamers really aren't burned out and demand increasing amount of investment from publishers. In your statement above, you say the devs/pub produce something that not enough people want, basically forcing them to go to another source of income because the hardcore continue to want more than a quality game."

    What I said was this: If they don't make enough money, it is either because not enough people buy their games - this means they need to have products that appeal to more people, which can also be done by making games that appeal to people who didn't use to play games before or by diversifying into a different type of software - or it is because their customers don't attribute as much value to the games (and consequentially aren't willing to pay as much money) as is necessary to recover costs - in that case, they need to convince the customers their products are worth more. Most often, it's a combination of the two. And if you reach out to a new customer group, you need to either make sure that you don't overfocus on the new and lose the old, or that the new customer group is so large that you can make a clean cut and actually move over.

    That's really nothing spectacular, it holds true for any company out there.

    "The main problem is that retailers make a heck of a lot more money from used games then new. I do not know about anyone else but I have been pushed to buy used games from retailers over the new plenty of times. They do offer good deals like buy 2 get one free. Insurance on your used game if it breaks, just bring in the receipt and they will replace etc. There are a lot of things retailers do to get you to buy used and they are fair to do but it does present a conflict of interest and does impact the industry because there isn't a lot of avenues for developers to make their money on games besides retail at this point."

    Well, the retailer figures if he can give you the product for less, you will be very satisfied and come back. But the true question is as to what the actual impact on the industry is. Because all these games have to be bought at least once. And as has been said many times, losing the chance to sell games when they don't appeal makes that first investment a much higher risk- which should translate to less sale from those people who are now buying new. On the other hand, people buying used now would have to buy the game new, yes - if they want it that much. And that's the key point here: Why do they buy used now: Because they a)don't consider it worth that much money? Because they b) want to reduce their investment risk? Or because they c) simply don't have that much money? You can completely forget about those in c). And neither a) nor b) will fully move to buying new. So the real question is: Will that part of a) and b) that will now buy new offset the loss yes or not? That question isn't answered by some handwaving. And it certainly won't be helped by insulting customers. It requires some serious market analysis, which, given what a "great" understanding of marketing people seem to have, I frankly don't see.

  • OliverH #91 1 year ago

    @KnickKnack

    "well that's a great defense for the retailers, but the sale that goes to them gets taken from the team that made the game in the first place. "

    That's the claim, but it is far from given. The situation is a bit more complex because even without the opportunity to buy used, not everyone who buys used now will move to buying new - and not all of those buying new today will still do so if they have no chance to resell. If people are moving towards used that heavily, it suggests the market doesn't bear the prices for new games. REDUCING their utility, i.e. making it impossible to do some things with them that you can do now - such as sell them - in my eyes is highly unlikely to make people willing to pay prices they are reluctant to pay now.

  • smurfinaus #92 1 year ago

    Imho. Doesnt really affect PC (how many places can you buy 2nd hand pc games from???..not EB).More PS3/Xbox/Wii issue...

  • Tyronne #93 1 year ago

    Its mine, I bought it and I can sell it, now fook off.

  • Redeye #94 1 year ago

    I've said it elsewhere before, but I feel compelled to say it again: once a game is purchased first time around, the publisher gets their slice of the pie. That's it. No more customer obligation to give the publisher any more of their money. Any demands the publisher has for more of the customer's hard-earned for future resells of the same bloody game is just greed, pure and simple.

    Money-grabbing morons are killing this industry, and to attack consumers for buying second-hand titles is insanity personifed.

  • kingcrowbar #95 1 year ago

    You lot moaning in the UK about £40 for new releases don't realise how good you have it there. Here big recent releases such as Dead Space 2 or Little Big Planet 2 are about £60. And here the price drops take much longer compared to the couple of months you might need to wait for there.

  • SlackMaster #96 1 year ago

    TBH I think the pre-owned market in highstreet retail has gotten out of hand... I wouldn't say that I'm against the pre-owned market although I tend not to buy them anymore, but for a while now I've watched as so called specialist stores stock less and less new games and have pretty much dedicated 70% of their wall space to pre-owned games.

    It's coming to the point now that only chart titles are in the new section and if you want to find something outside of the chart you're forced to look in the pre-owned section. I wonder if this, on the part of the retailer, is done on purpose to give customers no other option but to buy pre-owned. Yes, you can shop online and I do, but for those that can't or don't then the lack of variety/scope in the new section forces many to shop pre-owned.

    On digital distribution I think the problem with going this route is its perceived value. If I buy something and don't have the physical object I feel that it should be cheaper.

    Games on a digital service should be a lot cheaper than physical boxed copies. People argue that iStore, XBLA and PSN games/content might be selling really well and that we have been buying music digitally for some time now, but look at how much they charge. These all tend to be micro transactions usually £5-£10 ish... paying £20+ or full retail for a game is just too much for some, for something that many feel they don't own as they have nothing physical to show for it.

    I think until the price of new full retail games drop via digital distribution it'll never become a prefered medium.

  • PixelPirate #97 1 year ago

    Answer no.

    I believe there was a stat the other day that 60% of new games are funded by trade-ins.

    If they want a mountain of cash for a AAA game, then us commoners need to afford it somehow.

  • Zomoniac #98 1 year ago

    Sorry but the majority of us buy pre-owned games that we were NOT going to pay the full price for, as they are not that great.

    That is 100% not true. The vast majority of pre-owned game sales are from high street retailers like Game and Gamestation. In 99.9% of cases you can get that game cheaper brand new online than pre-owned in a shop. There is no good reason for anyone to ever buy anything pre-owned from Game.

  • kangarootoo #99 1 year ago

    Can I just say, that regardless of all the arguments for ownership, and regardless of whether second hand games are killing the industry, and regardless of whether second hand sales lead to the purchase of new titles, and regardless of whether we should make a distinction between ongoing online services and limited offline experiences......

    Can people please STOP MAKING THE CAR ANALOGY?!?

    It is a poor analogy, it makes little sense, it is tired and old, it is EASILY debunked by anyone with the remotest common sense, it removes intelligence from the discussion, and it makes the commenter LOOK TIRED AND STUPID.

    FFS!

  • BOFH_UK #100 1 year ago

    Okay here's a thought for the gaming industry. You're not going to stop second hand game sales by any means short of REALLY annoying your customers so... why not join in?

    No, seriously, you know the prices Game, CEX, HMV etc give for trade in on current and catalogue titles. You have the ability to cut out the middleman and sell directly from your own website (ideally ONE website that all publishers sign up to). Offer, say, 25% more for trade-in than the highest high street trade-in price and free postage. Customer sends the game and makes payment, you send them a shiny new copy of your latest release and take the second hand copy out of circulation. Customers get better trade-in value, you get to benefit from ALL of the money they pay for the game (or at least a bigger cut than if they went to a retailer) , heck throw in a special bonus item for getting the game this way as well.

  • tankboi #101 1 year ago

    People that argue that car sales and TV sales work in this way are being ridiculous. The price of a game compared to a car or TV is fractional, and much more accessible to the masses, plus you don't get the worry of a game failing outside of its warranty like you do with a TV (which in most cases is void when you sell it on). There is no risk involved in second hand games...if it doesn't work or the disc is scratched...then the worst case is that your £30 down...not the end of the world. A very different story for a car or TV.

    To compare a a second-hand video game to these high value items is absurd. Its like that anti-video-piracy trailer...you wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't kill a policeman, then shit in his hat, then have sex with his wife, then send his kids off to the Navy, so don't pirate a movie!

    How totally stupid.

    I would rather the money went to 'the big bad publishers' (or preferably the devs obviously) than the tight-fisted retail stores any day. The big bad publishers pay for the games you and little Jimmy love to play every night, and if it were not for them then you would be climbing trees, playing Monopoly, and masturbating round the clock. The retailers do nothing other than charge you more than they need to on boxes sent to them by the big bad publishers. I buy everything off the internet now and refuse to even walk into a Game store. They do nothing that the internet doesn't do for half the price. I love you, internet.

    The real solution to this is a non-profit website for swapping, buying and selling. No middle-man is a purple shirt charging you £5 less than the price of a new game. Gumtree springs to mind. If the people that made the game cant see the profit then no one should.

    Edited by tankboi at 02/02/11 @ 09:54

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #102 1 year ago

    "The only one spreading bollocks here is you. Which should be pretty obvious, given that economy in the game market has nothing to do whatsoever with any other type of economy."

    Did you really just say that? Man, you are going to be SO embarrassed when you sober up this morning.

  • BillyBrush #103 1 year ago

    So Braben thinks the costs are high because the games have to support the preowned market.

    And that if there wasn't preowned...they'd be cheaper.

    And says that with a straight face.

  • chrisjm #104 1 year ago

    EG asks are second hand games killing the industry... AGAIN.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #105 1 year ago

    "I think you're completely wrong about the fundamentals of retailing; selling a product over and over isn't a fundamental, it's actually pretty rare. Show me any other market sector where the ONLY high-street outlets for a product is driven by second-hand sales? It doesn't happen in music and film, which are the nearest products to compare."

    And there's a reason for that - the music and film industries don't tend to sell their products at a price most of their consumers can't afford or aren't prepared to pay. But the only difference between the resale of games compared to anything else is that it's more commonplace and therefore more noticeable. Almost all consumer products, from movies to electronics to clothes to vehicles, are sold and resold more than once in their lives, just not as often as videogames.

    Really, the prevalence of preowned games definitively ends the decades-old argument about whether games are overpriced or not. They clearly are, or there wouldn't be so much demand for slightly cheaper ones that they're taking over at the primary points of sale.

  • Ranger101 #106 1 year ago

    @BOFH_UK just won the thread.

    http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/eurogame...
    Edited by Ranger101 at 02/02/11 @ 10:23

  • Sutorcen #107 1 year ago

    You know what is killing the industry? Having to pay an additional 30-40 and in some cases up to 80 Euros (yeah EA I'm talking about you) for crappy DLC's. Content that should have been in the game in the first place. Or having to pay the same price for a game or a DLC one whole year after it’s release. Everything else is just an excuse to maximize their profit.

    @kingmong you are 1000% right man.

  • megalomaniacs4u #108 1 year ago

    1) Stop charging rip off prices. £15 should be the maximum price for a new game (second hand market price will drop accordingly - the price of used dvds is generally peanuts unless the dvd has been deleted).

    2) I own what i buy, and can do WTF i like with it - none of this licensing BS

    3) Digital prices should drop after 3 months also - WTF COD:BO (none this BLOPS BS please) is still £40 on steam, its insane COD:MW2 is still full price after 14 months! Mind you they only dropped the price of COD:MW at the recent steam sales...

    4) Most importantly of all - stop making 4-6 hour games! The one thing that feeds the second hand & rental markets is the insanely short games where £40 marks extremely poor value. A large percentage of the userbase out there doesn't give a damn about MP.

  • teabagger #109 1 year ago

    As a general response to the "everything is a sequel blah blah blah. Where are our original titles blah blah blah, so you're killing yourselves" comments... Does someone really need to list for you all the critically acclaimed, original titles that didn't sell at retail because people would much rather buy CoD 12, PES 15, etc. etc. etc.

    The titles produced are market driven. So if you want more good and original IP then can I suggest that when one turns up you actually go and buy it instead of Fifa 22 or whatever version we are on now.

    /rant.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #110 1 year ago

    "The titles produced are market driven. So if you want more good and original IP then can I suggest that when one turns up you actually go and buy it instead of Fifa 22 or whatever version we are on now."

    As already said: unless you've got more money than braincells, it's not reasonable to expect people to gamble on new and unknown IP when it costs £40+ a time.

  • kangarootoo #111 1 year ago

    @Rev. Stuart Campbell

    Strange as this feels, I have to agree with you about the previous poster that said "given that economy in the game market has nothing to do whatsoever with any other type of economy" (which is of course, completely insane).


    However, in the spirit of balance :), I have to call you on the suggestion that the second hand market exists because new games are too expensive. I believe the second hand market would exist regardless of the cost of new games. A pre-owned game will always be cheaper than a new one, and so it represents better value for many gamers.

    A reduction in the price of new games will result in a reduction in the price of second hand games (it may result in some slight changes in the size of each market, but we can hardly predict that with any confidence). The "value" of a new game is always measured relative to its peers and competitors, rather than in actual pounds and pence (just look at how the app store has changed our perceptions of value - with good games available for 59p, £3.99 is the new "expensive";).

    I suppose what I am drifting towards is that I don't believe it is true to say that the "solution" to the second hand market is making new games cheaper. It will of course have an effect, but the degree of that effect is not something any of us can state firmly.

  • SidiousCyanide #112 1 year ago

    I've always bought new because pre-owned games are an absolute rip-off, high street retailers sell the majority of them at a few quid cheaper than new, in fact I've seen pre-owned games for sale at twice the price of games I can buy new from some of the major online stores. Besides new games rapidly drop in price within a month or so, you just need to shop online to get the best deals.

    Also if publishers want to sell games digitally they need to sell them considerably less than the boxed product, that's why I don't buy music downloads online, why would I buy an album on iTunes when I can buy the CD for the same price or less?
    Edited by SidiousCyanide at 02/02/11 @ 11:22

  • BOFH_UK #113 1 year ago

    @teabagger: I sorta agree with you but think that devs / publishers are missing a trick with original IP. Simply put if you're going to launch a new brand these days you need to make it attractive. People naturally tend to be wary of something new when it costs the same as a known property so be creative. Great example of this, Little Big Planet. The first game didn't exactly set the world on fire when it was launched. Great reviews but relatively few takers. Within a couple of months (if that) the price got slashed down to £20 or less and sales picked up. It's built a pretty solid community since then and LBP2 seems to be doing great business as a result. Just putting a game out there with no history and expecting it to compete against well known and popular franchises is always going to be a huge risk.

  • LOLLERS #114 1 year ago

    Given the option at the checkout of getting the same thing for less money, people are always going to take it, it doesn't prove that games are too expensive, it only proves that people like to pay less for things...

  • arcam #115 1 year ago

    I think the size of the second-hand games market compared to DVDs, CDs or books, shows that games are too expensive for many people.
    Edited by arcam at 02/02/11 @ 11:27

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #116 1 year ago

    "Given the option at the checkout of getting the same thing for less money, people are always going to take it, it doesn't prove that games are too expensive, it only proves that people like to pay less for things... "

    The comment two posts above yours seems to somewhat blow that idea out of the water.

  • Murton #117 1 year ago

    Why does everyone try to compare second hand games to second hand something else? Cars, clothes, furniture suffer wear and tear and can be damaged, software however does not degrade in a tangible way, this means that a second hand game is in effect identical to a brand new one (retailers reject damaged discs and manuals and can swap the dvd/bd case if they wish) so it does represent a very real threat to the revenue of the industry.

    I suppose publishers have the right to try and protect their revenues, Project Ten Dollar and Online Pass are two ways of doing this, it's your basic carrot and stick approach, I like carrots, I support that approach but beating gamers with sticks for not buying new as the Online Pass does is only going to hurt the publisher in question and ultimately the industry as a whole if it continues.

    The one thing to take from the video however was the CEX guy who brought up the issue of price competition, was that suppose to be a joke or does he genuinely think that EG's readers are that stupid? To give an example, Modern Warfare 1 managed to go two whole years at full retail and actually went up in price in 2009 when prices increase from 40 to 45 quid on new releases, surely such a popular title would have been a formidable weapon in price competition between the stores but nobody used it in those two years and it wasn't until some time after MW2 was released that price cuts were looked at. Retailer competition in this industry only exists in sales promotions, outside of that it's pretty flat and it doesn't look like anyone wants that to change at the moment.

    Buying online from the channel islands should have been mentioned, without store overheads and VAT these guys offer considerable savings vs retail and the publishers still get their money. I personally prefer the experience of the retailer but as I refuse to buy pre-owned and retailers give more space to pre-owned than they do new titles, thus limiting their stock I'm forced to go online to buy titles I didn't get on or close to release day as they simply can't be found at retail.

  • Machetazo #118 1 year ago

    A less major problem, but one that probably does have a part in "killing creativity", is the amount of times that game from smaller/international, as is typically the case, X decides to make its appearance at the same time, or just in the stead of bigger publisher franchise game - it doesn't stand a chance, and also, the franchise release hasn't had a wait behind it, uncertainty over release date, etc...In fact, it's probably enjoyed a stage-managed to near excellence build-up/media exposure campaign in comparison.
    But, I lost count of the amount of times that this situation happened, and it must be costly.

    Do the (arguably more) creative-driven teams chase the money, or space - or just try, or even NEED to get that title available as soon as possible after it's finished? What's their solution - I would LOVE to see more use made of PSN, and XBL as a way to diversify the price points that an otherwise retail game that might struggle to find its audience can be sold for, gets the exposure and interest and can launch at a sensible price, as a DD on those services. You could do so much more, without franchise/sequel X breathing down the necks and grabbing all the interest, but again, that doesn't really happen. :( It's a direct line to the most excited to play that game, and exposes to such a greater audience, than would see it in the shop. It also, handily removes the stumbling block of resale altogether, and just gets the broadest possible range of titles out there.
    Edited by Machetazo at 02/02/11 @ 12:42

  • raloB #119 1 year ago

    You want more people to buy your games then sell them cheaper. If you still don't sell millions then no one wanted it.

  • LOLLERS #120 1 year ago

    "The comment two posts above yours seems to somewhat blow that idea out of the water."

    Does it? Some people shop around, most don't. I was referring to the fact that at the checkout you're often offered a pre-owned copy even if you try to buy new. 99% of people will take that offer because they don't know or care where the money goes. You seem to be ignoring the question of whether they would have been happy paying the original price or not.

    I think £40 is reasonable given the hours of entertainment you will get out of it. Going to the cinema for a couple of hours can cost half that, and as stated in the video games used to cost a lot more than this for arguably much less content. Focusing on whether games are a 'Rip-off' or not is missing the point, which is that developers are not seeing a return on the sales of their product.

  • disappointed #121 1 year ago

    In order to convince me that something's killing the games industry, you first have to convince me that its dying. Its not, its thriving. Shut up with your whinging or I shall take my business else where.

  • arcam #122 1 year ago

    video games used to cost a lot more than this for arguably much less content.

    The people who used to buy video games at a much higher price are still buying them today, and appreciate the lower costs. However publishers today rely on selling to a much, much wider audience, and that audience never spent £70 on Turok 64, and would probably think you were mad for doing so.

    For a lot of that audience (again this is the most important audience for publishers) £40 is too much for a game, because they are not as committed as the old-school heads. The only way they have of making their purchases cheaper is sell their old games, which they have no interest in playing anymore, to offset the cost of the new one.

  • el_pollo_diablo #123 1 year ago

    £40 is too much for a shit game and a bargain if it's a good one.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #124 1 year ago

    "99% of people will take that offer"

    Have you done a survey?

  • LOLLERS #125 1 year ago

    Well clearly the fact that preowned is so popular proves the theory...

    The problem isn't that people sell their games, or borrow them, it's that the stores are pushing preowned games over new sales because their profit margins are significantly higher on those purchases.

    Also, the industry is hardly thriving. Tell that to the people at Bizarre, or any of the hundreds of others people who lost their jobs in the last year.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #126 1 year ago

    "Also, the industry is hardly thriving. Tell that to the people at Bizarre, or any of the hundreds of others people who lost their jobs in the last year."

    That's a meaningless statement. Bizarre Creations are not the industry. Taken as a whole, the industry is still generating a huge amount of income and profit. The problem for Bizarre and others is that high prices consolidate a bigger and bigger slice of that income in fewer and fewer publishers. If Call Of Duty hoovers up half the money by itself, that's less to go around everyone else. And if you don't think the big publishers plan it that way, you're a naive fool. Capitalism is about getting all the cash for yourself, not sharing it around with your competitors.

  • kangarootoo #127 1 year ago

    @Rev. Stuart Campbell

    You know your last post, informed as it was, could have been written withough the inclusion of a token "and if you don't agree, you are a naive fool".

    It would have been better for it.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #128 1 year ago

    "The problem isn't that people sell their games, or borrow them, it's that the stores are pushing preowned games over new sales because their profit margins are significantly higher on those purchases"

    Are you suggesting that stores should conduct their business in way that reduces their margins and diverts the money elsewhere, out of the kindness of their hearts?

    The margins are the way they are because publishers have kept prices artificially high. They've diligently fashioned this rod for their own back over many years and now it's come back to bite them on the arse, if you'll forgive the mixed metaphor. You'd have to have the brains of mud to feel sorry for them.

  • Notallowedhere #129 1 year ago

    2nd hand games have never been a problem for publishers. The fact that retail take all the profit is the problem. A single game might be sold 4 times over which the publisher only sees the money once on the first sale, every sale after all the profit (and no tax) goes to the retailer. The retailer not only gets profit 4 times over but they also have no need to purchase 'new' copies of the game...

    If you buy a 2nd hand car you still are going to have to purchase new wheels, break pads running replacements... there is a revenue stream for the likes of the car gaints. For games there is nothing.

    We're not talking about record shops selling 2nd hand record or small bookshops selling on books, supermarkets are doing this. For every game sold on I can't think of another item where every single highstreet shop selling something new has 2nd hand versions alongside them, it doesn't happen, games are unique in that respect

    Unless retail and publishers can work something out expect to see more 'project £10' starting up for all publisher as they try to share some of the revenue with retail. You should see the price of 2nd games decreasing becuase of this.

    The end consumer will not lose out, the 2nd hand battle is between retail and publishing.

  • LOLLERS #130 1 year ago

    Publishers haven't kept prices 'artificially high', although that is a nice conspiracy theory you just started.

    I'm suggesting that the problem is stores, and that the solution is that games are no longer sold through retail stores. They've diligently fashioned this rod for their own back over many years and now it's come back to bite them on the arse, if you'll forgive the mixed metaphor. You'd have to have the brains of mud to feel sorry for them.

    The industry is hardly thriving - http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/20...

    Edited by LOLLERS at 02/02/11 @ 14:32

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #131 1 year ago

    That story has precisely nothing to do with the industry thriving or otherwise. It's the same story that gets trotted out every year as the business desperately pleads for tax breaks, ie free money from the taxpayer to support their broken high-prices business model.

    "Publishers haven't kept prices 'artificially high',"

    Unfortunately you have no clue what you're talking about.

  • LOLLERS #132 1 year ago

    Would you like to present some facts to support your argument? Or are you just going to take the 'I'm right and i'm going home if you don't agree' stance?

    That article clearly shows some facts which is that the UK games industry is in decline. This is nothing to do with tax (and I don't think that tax breaks are a solution), it's about the fact that studios are closing down all over the place and as I said before this is largely because they're not seeing the return on sales of their product that they should expect.

    Edited by LOLLERS at 02/02/11 @ 14:53

  • kangarootoo #133 1 year ago

    "because publishers have kept prices artificially high"

    What does that mean exactly? In what way have they done that?

  • kangarootoo #134 1 year ago

    @Rev. Stuart Campbell

    Please explain how publishers have kept prices artificially high. Just explain it, without insults.

    We aren't at school here. The old "well if you don't know I'm not telling you" approach doesn't carry water. The "trust me I'm a doctor" line can only work if you are a doctor, and regardless of how much you no doubt to know about the games industry... you aren't the only one.

    Just explain how LOLLERS doesn't know what he/she is talking about, if only so we can all laugh along with you.

  • RobTheBuilder #135 1 year ago

    The answer is so fucking simple. Everytime a second hand game is sold the retailer pays 50p to the publisher and 50p to the developer. Prices hardly change, no-one spends a fortune developing bullshit lock-outs or pass-code wankery, retailers keep their cash cow, publishers get a cut of the profit, everyone wins insteaed of everyone losing which is what this shit is heading for.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #136 1 year ago

    'The answer is so fucking simple. Everytime a second hand game is sold the retailer pays 50p to the publisher and 50p to the developer."

    Why not 50p to me too? I'm not entitled to a penny either, but I'd quite like some free cash from GAME for no reason.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #137 1 year ago

    "That article clearly shows some facts which is that the UK games industry is in decline. This is nothing to do with tax (and I don't think that tax breaks are a solution), it's about the fact that studios are closing down all over the place and as I said before this is largely because they're not seeing the return on sales of their product that they should expect."

    Define "should expect". Clue: it's not the same as "would like".

  • LOLLERS #138 1 year ago

    When a person goes into a shop, picks up a new copy of a game, goes to the till and then agrees to buy a pre-owned copy because it's £5 cheaper, there's some money the publisher/developer would expect to see that's going entirely to the retailer. This is isn't mates trading games, or individuals selling on ebay, it's big business for retailers that's having a very negative impact on the actual manufacturers of those products.

    Also retailers buy less stock from publishers because they know they can just keep the same old preowned copies that've been through 10 people on their shelves instead of even offering a new copy.
    Edited by LOLLERS at 02/02/11 @ 15:40

  • Machiavellian #139 1 year ago

    Are you suggesting that stores should conduct their business in way that reduces their margins and diverts the money elsewhere, out of the kindness of their hearts?

    Nope, it means that devs and publishers will find a new avenue to get their games to the consumer without the man in the middle. Its a conflict of interest when balance is broken. Retailers pushing used over new is shitting on the people that pretty much pay their salary. The point is that retailers are actively pushing a product on the consumer that goes against the original artist. As a business it's legal and fine for the retailers to do this but tell me this, how many different products out there you see pushing used over new. I have only experience this in the games industry and its probably because the margins are so high.

    Since the retailers are more after their own profit then a balance, it will result in civil war and the consumer may or may not reap the benefits.

    Retailers have the power but online distribution like steam are breaking those up (for PC). Console games will go the same way and once they do, devs and publishers will not care if a retailers tells them they will not stock their game unless they do this or that.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #140 1 year ago

    "When a person goes into a shop, picks up a new copy of a game, goes to the till and then agrees to buy a pre-owned copy because it's £5 cheaper, there's some money the publisher/developer would expect to see"

    No it isn't. The publisher got paid when the preowned copy was bought first time, and that is the full and final end of their legal right to receive any money for it, or to expect to.
    Edited by Rev.StuartCampbell at 02/02/11 @ 16:20

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #141 1 year ago

    "Nope, it means that devs and publishers will find a new avenue to get their games to the consumer without the man in the middle."

    They've been trying to do that since the dawn of time, because just like the retailers they want all the money for themselves too. Nothing will change that fact, and blaming the retailers for making money while they still can is epically retarded. When 100% digital distribution is feasible, publishers will leap on it with great enthusiasm regardless of what retailers do now, so why would retailers bend over when they don't have to and when it will do them no good anyway?

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #142 1 year ago

    "it's big business for retailers that's having a very negative impact on the actual manufacturers of those products"

    Sigh. And you can point us to studies proving the link between the two things, can you?

  • LOLLERS #143 1 year ago

    So you're saying it's ok for retailers to buy half the number of copies they think they'll sell, because they know they can make up the shortfall in supply by selling pre-owned copies? If so, it is you who is epically retarded here.

  • RobTheBuilder #144 1 year ago

    Re: Retailers buying less

    Retailers will buy what people demand. If no one wanted second hand games there wouldn't be so many of them.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #145 1 year ago

    'So you're saying it's ok for retailers to buy half the number of copies they think they'll sell, because they know they can make up the shortfall in supply by selling pre-owned copies?"

    Yes, of course it is. It's perfectly legal and it makes sound business sense. Indeed, doing anything else would be irresponsible to their shareholders and as such potentially criminal.

  • LOLLERS #146 1 year ago

    Yes, it's perfectly legal, and makes perfect business sense for the RETAILERS. What we are discussing here is whether this practice is harming the games industry, to which I am arguing that yes it does because clearly the people that make games are losing sales and income. Unless you have some secret research that proves that second hand sales do not impact publishers or developers profit margins?

    btw, you still haven't elaborated on your publisher price fixing conspiracy theory.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #147 1 year ago

    "Yes, it's perfectly legal, and makes perfect business sense for the RETAILERS. What we are discussing here is whether this practice is harming the games industry, to which I am arguing that yes it does because clearly the people that make games are losing sales and income."

    Absolutely no such thing is clear at all.

    And you asked me whether *I* thought it was okay, and I certainly do. The games industry has brought all of its troubles on itself, and I have no sympathy whatsoever. GAME and the rest are legally OBLIGED to act in the best interests of their shareholders, they're doing nothing wrong.

  • LOLLERS #148 1 year ago

    You talk about the games industry as if it were self-aware.

    And I think it is clear that offering a pre-owned alternative at the till directly impacts developers. How could it not? From the customers point of view they're simply getting a discount, they don't care about anything beyond that.

    And if publishers lowered RRP, the retailers would simply lower pre-owned prices and still take all the profit anyway so I don't think that's really a valid argument here.

  • LOLLERS #149 1 year ago

    AND IF YOU THINK I'M WRONG, ACTUALLY IT IS YOU WHO IS WRONG END OF ARGUMENT.

  • Machiavellian #150 1 year ago

    Yes, of course it is. It's perfectly legal and it makes sound business sense. Indeed, doing anything else would be irresponsible to their shareholders and as such potentially criminal.

    I am not sure if you know what a partner relationship is Rev. The retailers have a partnership with their suppliers which are the publishers. Doing things that break the trust between the two relationships might be legal but it sour those relationships, adds distrust and ultimately a break up. Business that want to keep relations good with their suppliers, respect those suppliers and look out for their well being just as much as their own is how successful business remain successful. You might think this is some high and mighty ideal or opinion but this is how a lot of business work. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's ethically or the right course of action if it causes your supplier to distrust you for their products.

    They've been trying to do that since the dawn of time, because just like the retailers they want all the money for themselves too. Nothing will change that fact, and blaming the retailers for making money while they still can is epically retarded. When 100% digital distribution is feasible, publishers will leap on it with great enthusiasm regardless of what retailers do now, so why would retailers bend over when they don't have to and when it will do them no good anyway?

    No publishers have been trying to break away from retail because they do not like to be controlled on how they distribute and price their games. Retailers have that control now but the market is changing. People are now more incline to purchase products on line and digitally. Unlike the pass, the technology and consumer base was not there but times have changed with products like the Iphone, Steam PSP go, Xbox Games on Demand ect. The climate is changing and it might not be in the interest of the consumer. When one party owns the everything usually the consumer is screwed.
    Edited by Machiavellian at 02/02/11 @ 17:19

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #151 1 year ago

    "And I think it is clear that offering a pre-owned alternative at the till directly impacts developers. How could it not?"

    For the reasons explained in the feature, for one - without preowned, people would buy fewer new titles, because (a) they couldn't afford them without trading in old stuff, and (b) would know they had much less resale value.

    If you're not going to listen to the arguments, don't be surprised when people don't treat you seriously.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #152 1 year ago

    "No publishers have been trying to break away from retail because they do not like to be controlled on how they distribute and price their games."

    So they DON'T want all the money? They're happier handing over 30-40% to retailers?

  • Machiavellian #153 1 year ago

    And you asked me whether *I* thought it was okay, and I certainly do. The games industry has brought all of its troubles on itself, and I have no sympathy whatsoever. GAME and the rest are legally OBLIGED to act in the best interests of their shareholders, they're doing nothing wrong.

    So what you are saying is that retailers should only care about their own interest and the best interest of their shareholders. There isn't any ethical issues any business should be concerned about as long as it lines their own pockets. As long as it legal within the law, then a business is pretty much free to do as they will no matter who gets shafted. So the devs and publishers are at fault and they should burn in hell is your opinion. No one else has contributed to the state of the industry.

    Now I understand where you coming from, I guess there really isn't anything else to say to you.
    Edited by Machiavellian at 02/02/11 @ 17:22

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #154 1 year ago

    "So what you are saying is that retailers should only care about their own interest and the best interest of their shareholders."

    Not only that they SHOULD, but that they HAVE to. If Gamestation suddenly decided to hand over a chunk of their profits to publishers, their shareholders would be entitled to demand the removal of the board, or even to have them prosecuted for dereliction of duty.

    "There isn't any ethical issues any business should be concerned about as long as it lines their own pockets."

    The idea that publishers whining for money they have absolutely no conceivable entitlement to is an "ethical issue" just about made me piss my trousers.

    "So the devs and publishers are at fault and they should burn in hell is your opinion."

    Those two groups of people are in no way the same, as I've already noted. But as for the publishers, yes. If you're really bad at business, your business should fail. That's how capitalism works.

  • LOLLERS #155 1 year ago

    Christ, you live in a miserable world Stuart. What's your solution then?

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #156 1 year ago

    "Christ, you live in a miserable world Stuart. What's your solution then?"

    The world is a miserable place. I myself am a very happy person. And if you want to hear my "solution" you're going to have to spell out exactly what the "problem" is. The fact that videogame publishers are greedy and whiny is not a new development.

  • RobTheBuilder #157 1 year ago

    @Machievalevivillian (can't spell today)

    The problem is not inherently that publishers want a chunk of second hand revenue, but their attitude of "Fuck everyone else, I want my money". They are happy to punish everyone to get what they want when they should be talking to retailers to find a suitable business model for both of them.

  • kangarootoo #158 1 year ago

    @Rev. Stuart Campbell

    You still haven't explained the price fixing thing. Not avoiding the subject are we? You made the statement, and of course its not just bonkers conspiracy theory talk.....


    And lets not pretend you are a happy person. If you were a happy person, you wouldn't spend so much of your time insulting people. I wonder if your happiness, and your view of those in the games industry, was any different when you actually were a part of it.

  • LOLLERS #159 1 year ago

    The problem is that increasingly, developers can't generate enough income from retail to cover their costs, because people don't buy games new, they wait for them to be cheap and preowned.

  • kangarootoo #160 1 year ago

    And for the record, I don't personally subscribe to the idea that retailers should "give back" to devs out of the goodness of their hearts. They are, as Campbell says, obliged to generate profit.

    I do think they are being shortsighted though. Second hand sales are one of the reasons so many publishers are keen on digital delivery, and the closer that gets to becoming the norm, the sooner HMV will close its last store. And lets be clear, DD as the norm is coming, whether we like it or not. The app store is bigger than any other software outlet anywhere, and whether we hardcore gamers care or not, that sort of revenue will shape the future of gaming for us.

  • bloodflowers #161 1 year ago

    I like second hand sales. They allow me to pay full retail price for games when they come out, play them, and then recoup some of the money. If I couldn't do this, there's a lot of games I wouldn't buy.

    I bet they didn't consider that aspect.

    Of course with games like Dead Space 2, I know the code only works one time - so I'm not going to play it online, making me even more likely to sell it, nearly guaranteeing them a lost 'sale' through the used market.
    Edited by bloodflowers at 02/02/11 @ 17:45

  • teabagger #162 1 year ago

    Well I'm still keen to learn how 'the games industry has brought all of its troubles on itself'.

    Y'know... I'd just love to know where we've been going wrong as a developer all these years trying hard to make games that people will enjoy only to find it's becoming more and more financially perilous and that publishers are becoming more risk-averse and reliant on sequels to do the numbers.

  • chaywa #163 1 year ago

    Dear all.

    Look at Steam.
    Look at Steam sales.
    Look at the frequency of big Steam sales.

    This is how you do distribution, digital or otherwise.

  • Machiavellian #164 1 year ago

    Not only that they SHOULD, but that they HAVE to. If Gamestation suddenly decided to hand over a chunk of their profits to publishers, their shareholders would be entitled to demand the removal of the board, or even to have them prosecuted for dereliction of duty.

    Do you actually run a company because with your way of thinking, you would be like EA 5 years ago. We are not talking about giving away profits we are talking about how a business conduct itself. Yes, respecting your partners and looking out for their well being might not net you the most profits but it will keep that partnership very healthy where both companies can succeed. Anytime a company only looks out for their own well being, they usually piss off enough people to orchestrate their own downfall. Once relationships sour, it’s hard to build those bridges back unless you are the only source. In this situation, its that old saying of biting the hand that feeds you. Selling used games is fine. Pushing used games instead of new games is where things get messy.

    Now you have a situation where a publisher wants to do a promotion for buyers of new games but it cuts into the retailers used games sells. Big enough retailer probably would promote their used games more and regulated the publishers promotion smaller. Now things really start to get messy. Publisher wants to sell their own games online and 20 bucks cheaper than retail. Retailer come together and tell publisher, naw you will sell that game the same price as we do within the store but the store is pushing used games instead. Things get even messier.

    "There isn't any ethical issues any business should be concerned about as long as it lines their own pockets."

    The idea that publishers whining for money they have absolutely no conceivable entitlement to is an "ethical issue" just about made me piss my trousers.

    Well that sentence I stated was in direct response to your anything goes as long as it make the shareholders happy. As for publishers and devs whining about not getting paid, well its probably because they are not getting paid. From something I read not to long ago, game developers are pretty low on the salary scale compared to other similar paying jobs within their field. I guess they better hope those bonus checks for selling games come through. Opps I guess that doesn't happen when second hand is dominating sells.

    "So the devs and publishers are at fault and they should burn in hell is your opinion."

    Those two groups of people are in no way the same, as I've already noted. But as for the publishers, yes. If you're really bad at business, your business should fail. That's how capitalism works.

    So what defines a bad publishers. Is it the ones who come out negative on their quarterly reports or is it companies like Activision where money is the object. Slash and burn what doesn't sell and do the game by numbers that sell the most. Would you put EA on the bad list because they are in the negative even though they probably have the most attempts at bringing new games and IPs to the industry in the last few years. What about MS. They are making a ton, games are selling very well and now they have their new casual market that is really taken off. Hell, lets throw Nintendo within the bunch. All of their games pretty much stay the same price no matter how many months or even years they are on the selves.
    Edited by Machiavellian at 02/02/11 @ 18:09

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #165 1 year ago

    "The problem is that increasingly, developers can't generate enough income from retail to cover their costs, because people don't buy games new, they wait for them to be cheap and preowned."

    Well, that's easy, and has already been explained. You make them cheap in the first place. There are more than enough consumers to make even the most expensive-to-develop games profitable at £20, £15 or even £10. Cheap games destroy the preowned market, because the margins for retailers shrink until they're not worth all the extra hassle and consumers would rather buy new if it's only £1 more. There's a reason there isn't a preowned books section in Waterstones, a preowned music section in HMV or a preowned DVD section in Asda.

    No business can sustain a long-term future selling products for more than their market thinks they're worth. Only games still try to do that.

  • KungFuSpoon #166 1 year ago

    I hate that 'don't forget you can trade-in your games and get money off' blurb you get in Game every time you buy a game it annoys me, mostly because on more than one occasion I've seen a pre-owned games being sold for more than another shop has it new. That and the huge disparity between the trade-in value of a game and the price they sell it for. But I do think people should be able to trade in games if they want.

    It's all bollocks that if people just buy second hand games the industry will fall apart because people have to buy the games first hand for there to be a second hand market. And if it was having that bigger an effect then how comes games record record sales year-on-year? Okay so not all games will but it is still a clear indication that the industry is growing. And as has been said time and time again everything has a resale value, everyone can sell the things they own or buy stuff second hand why does the games industry think it should be any different. Yes a car and a game are a very different thing but that shouldn't mean the principles of ownership are any different.

    The bottom line is if the industry wants to stifle trade-ins they need to provide good after sales support, and not just bug fixes and minor balancing patches but new content. And not the over-priced DLC packs like a bundle of new maps partly rehashed and poorly balanced for a third of the price of a new game but proper new content for free. Take TF2 or Burnout Paradise for example, (okay so you can't trade-in TF2 on steam) if you know that for at least a year if not longer the game will get updates, new features etc. you'd hang onto it. Part of the reason for trading in a game is you've seen all there is to see or gotten bored or both but if the game is kept fresh people won't sell it on. I'm not saying all DLC should be free, but it certainly sweetens the deal when you get a taster and you know all the free burnout updates have been good so the premium one that's probably going to be good too.

  • Machiavellian #167 1 year ago

    Well, that's easy, and has already been explained. You make them cheap in the first place. There are more than enough consumers to make even the most expensive-to-develop games profitable at £20, £15 or even £10. Cheap games destroy the preowned market, because the margins for retailers shrink until they're not worth all the extra hassle and consumers would rather buy new if it's only £1 more. There's a reason there isn't a preowned books section in Waterstones, a preowned music section in HMV or a preowned DVD section in Asda.

    That sounds all well and good if the split for games was 50/50 at retail for console games but it's not. If a developers spent 10 million and that's about average for a AA game, how many copies would need to be sold in order to just recoup development cost. Why would the retailer not still sell used games when you see games that are priced low like DS/PSP games have just as much of a collection of used games as the console games.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #168 1 year ago

    "We are not talking about giving away profits we are talking about how a business conduct itself."

    The sole purpose of a business is to generate profits.

    "Well that sentence I stated was in direct response to your anything goes as long as it make the shareholders happy."

    I said no such thing. You chose to infer it, wrongly, for your own purposes.

    "So what defined a bad publishers."

    In the specific context of this discussion, one which loses money.

    "Yes, respecting your partners and looking out for their well being might not net you the most profits but it will keep that partnership very healthy where both companies can succeed."

    This might very well be fine and dandy as a general rule, but it has nothing to do with the situation we're debating. Videogame publishers and retailers tolerate each other because they have no choice, and it has ever been thus. Publishers have whined for 30 years about the size of retail's cut and all manner of other stuff, and retail has whined for 30 years about wholesale prices and stock supply and goodness knows what else.

    If the government announced tomorrow that they'd secretly been installing fibre-optic cables and everyone in the country would have 100-meg broadband from next week, publishers would drop retail like a hot turd, and they'd throw a party. That day is inevitably coming, and retailers know it. This isn't about mutual respect and support, it's a man in a desert refusing to share his last bottle of water with someone he knows hates him and is going to shoot him as soon as he finds a bullet for his gun.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #169 1 year ago

    "Well I'm still keen to learn how 'the games industry has brought all of its troubles on itself'.

    Y'know... I'd just love to know where we've been going wrong as a developer all these years trying hard to make games that people will enjoy only to find it's becoming more and more financially perilous and that publishers are becoming more risk-averse and reliant on sequels to do the numbers."

    To save us all some trouble, can you tell me how many times I need to say that publishers and developers aren't the same thing? I've already done it at least twice in this thread, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in. If it's seven or something, let me know and I'll do the other five all at once so we can move on without me having to fucking repeat myself all the time for the hard-of-attention.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #170 1 year ago

    "Why would the retailer not still sell used games when you see games that are priced low like DS/PSP games"

    DS and PSP games are not "priced low". They are, if anything, even more overpriced than console games.

    "That sounds all well and good if the split for games was 50/50 at retail for console games but it's not. If a developers spent 10 million and that's about average for a AA game, how many copies would need to be sold in order to just recoup development cost."

    That question has so many unknown variables in it that it's impossible to answer.

  • Machiavellian #171 1 year ago

    EA suffered a net loss of $322 million for its fiscal third quarter ending December 31, 2010, a fourfold increase from the same period last year. The company generated revenues of a mere $1.05 billion during Q3, a decrease of nearly $200 million from the holidays last year. Despite significant increases in digital revenue and "record breaking" iOS sales, there wasn't enough to offset the reduction in packaged goods (disc-based games) sales, titles with "significant" development costs and the general cost of goods sold for EA's business.

    Lookly here, EA released their quarterly statement. Looks like digital revenues are off the charts but alas disk based sells happen to bring that happiness down. Maybe EA should start paying their developers less, move them to low income areas to help bring those development cost down

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #172 1 year ago

    You've lost me.

  • Machiavellian #173 1 year ago

    "We are not talking about giving away profits we are talking about how a business conduct itself."

    The sole purpose of a business is to generate profits.

    What business school did you go to. Is your instructor last name Kotick.

    This might very well be fine and dandy as a general rule, but it has nothing to do with the situation we're debating. Videogame publishers and retailers tolerate each other because they have no choice, and it has ever been thus. Publishers have whined for 30 years about the size of retail's cut and all manner of other stuff, and retail has whined for 30 years about wholesale prices and stock supply and goodness knows what else.

    What we are discussing has everything to do with the what we are debating. If there were respect between the two parties, we would not be having this debate at all. These are fundamental business relationships and so far most of your statements show these are not being taught or you lack the knowledge. Relationships are always more important than profit. Profits go up and down but relationships can last for centuries. Companies have disputes all the time, its when one company gets the upper hand and wield their power like a mace when things get out of hand.

    "That sounds all well and good if the split for games was 50/50 at retail for console games but it's not. If a developers spent 10 million and that's about average for a AA game, how many copies would need to be sold in order to just recoup development cost."

    That question has so many unknown variables in it that it's impossible to answer.

    Actually the math on this one is pretty straight forward. Eurogamer already did a piece on the different cuts between the retailer, OEM (MS,SONY etc), publisher, developer. Yes there could be variables like how much publisher get paid before dev see a dime but then again those situations are ruled by how much the publisher funded development.

  • Machiavellian #174 1 year ago

    You've lost me.

    From that report I blurb. It shows a direct correlation between EA lost due to high development cost and low sells at retail. Is this due to second hand sells; who knows. I am sure a study could be done to see how many people buy second hand compared to new or even discounted new.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #175 1 year ago

    "Relationships are always more important than profit. Profits go up and down but relationships can last for centuries."

    They CAN, but in this business they're not going to. Bricks-and-mortar videogames retailing is coughing its last, and that has a huge impact on the relationship between the two parties under discussion. If you ever want to debate the actual thing this thread is about, feel free to join us. I can't be arsed with any more of your irrelevant sixth-form ethics, straw-man misquoting or meaningless EA stats, though.

  • sega #176 1 year ago

    Here's my little oppinion lost in the depth of all these comments.

    I'm going to compare the game industry to the film industry. Films have different budgets - you have the big blockbusters like Avatar which cost millions to make and they make their money back. A smaller studio, however, would not attempt to make a film like Avatar because it's too big a risk - it'd bankrupt them before they even got to the advertising budget. However, they'll make a different type of film at a lower budget.

    Now with games you also have the big budget titles and then you have the shovelware. The problem here is the big game titles cost too much to make and there's not a large enough audiance in gaming to warrent so many studios putting in such a high budget. With the top sellers, such as GTA4 and Call of Duty, they're going to make their money back. But there's so many big budget titles coming out every month and at £40 each. Cinema tickets cost around £6 and DVDs around the same (plus more people have DVD players than a PS3, XBox or Wii and everyone can go to the cinema). The shovelware, on the other hand, is just shit. It's not like with a low budget film where something like the Hurt Locker can beat the mighty Avatar to win best picture. Do you really think Crappy Dance Game 17 is going to win more awards than Call of Duty? Not a chance - because cheap in the games industry means cheap.

    What will happen is most of these companies will simply run themselves out of business. After that new ones will either replace them and repeat the cycle - or we'll start seeing an end to the big budget games being released every month. I mean in cinema the big budget films generally just come out in the summer or around Christmas - not all year round. Games companies should maybe consider releasing the odd high budget title and then some cheaper, but high quality, games inbetween. That way they can lower the prices, more people will buy them and the second hand market will become irrelevant - more people buy new dvds than second hand because there's not much difference in price.

    £40 is way too much - and they were way too much when Mortal Kombat came out too. I bought ALL my games second hand back then for the record, so I don't see how them being expensive in the past is any kind of defense against the second hand market.

  • Darth_Flibble #177 1 year ago

    I don't buy 2nd hand games from Game or HMV due to them being a rip off and they tend to pay pittance for trading it on. But I will buy a game a friend or someone on amazon etc if they have good rating. Even if buy the AAA games or ones highly recommended by forum people, you may not like it and I wouldn't want to get stuck with a game that I don't want and cna't sell (which will happen via DD).

    Even if the publishers and stores like HMV come to agreement have 2nd sales they will go after private sales as "its more lost sales" (to them) I've seen complete twats on various forums compare "lending games as piracy" as they don't get any money and may loose a sale.

    This is why they want digital distribution, 2nd hand sales is a factor but having complete control is the goal. For example The awakenings DLC for DA: origins was "exclusive" to Euro PSN (with no disc version) at the rip off price of £32. I don't think it ever come down in price. Devs and publishers must be wanking them-self silly at the thought at games and DLC that never drop in price permanently (its very rare that happens).

    Also (as it was mentioned) bizarre creations closed because the mis-handling of Blur by the Publishers and Bloodstone was crap.
    Its seems the industry is quite handy at killing itself
    Edited by Darth_Flibble at 03/02/11 @ 09:41

  • Machiavellian #178 1 year ago

    "Relationships are always more important than profit. Profits go up and down but relationships can last for centuries."

    They CAN, but in this business they're not going to. Bricks-and-mortar videogames retailing is coughing its last, and that has a huge impact on the relationship between the two parties under discussion. If you ever want to debate the actual thing this thread is about, feel free to join us. I can't be arsed with any more of your irrelevant sixth-form ethics, straw-man misquoting or meaningless EA stats, though.

    Just exactly how do you believe we are at this particular state in the games industry. Why do you think publishers cannot wait to go all digital and forget the current retail distribution and those retailer are so quick to break relations with its suppliers to grab as much profit as they can. Why do you see retail companies who didn't even do used games now offer them after so many years.

    You seem to have a lot of answers to questions you probably never took the time to actually think about which usually results in a incomplete picture and a narrowed view of the situation. Your whole ideal on how business works, comes from a person who appears to have no real knowledge of the subject but have a lot of opinion.

    What is this thread about. The way I see it, it's about how the retailer and supplier handle their business. How goods are sold, who makes a profit and who doesn't. Why both parts of the business do not cooperate which results in a unbalance between the two and thus a breakdown in the whole business structure. Relationships are strained probably cannot never be healed thus a total upheaval in how we will purchase our games in the future. I am sorry if this doesn't fit the narrow view you see as what is going on but then again this subject is bigger than the black and white statements you have presented so far.

    The fact that you dismiss EA quarterly results show you are not willing to even think about data that could provide a counter to your arguments. So one of the biggest games publishers are finding packaged games which are sold in those brick and mortar stores are not selling enough to make up the cost of production not part of the debate at hand.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #179 1 year ago

    "The fact that you dismiss EA quarterly results show you are not willing to even think about data that could provide a counter to your arguments."

    Sigh. By your own admission, you have no idea what those figures indicate. Companies lost money before preowned existed. You seem like a frustrated marriage counsellor rather than a business analyst.

  • AOFanboi #180 1 year ago

    It seems the publishers are between a rock and a hard place and choose to lash out at the end customers - buyers, gamers - instead of their real target. Which is the retailers which also act as second-hand shops - and prefer that business because it is more profitable. But would the retailers have the money to stock smaller, obscure titles in their shelves if they had only the smaller margins on first-sale retail games to live off? Would I have found Color Cross for the DS in my local GameStop if they hadn't dedicated half their store to used games trading? Or would they have had to fill their shelves with guaranteed blockbusters, leaving the smaller titles out completely?

    Second-hand sales will always be there, First Sale doctrine and all that. And all other media industries (books, CDs, DVDs) have learned to live with it, though sometimes after having a fit. But by claiming it's second-hand itself that is "evil" they are coming off as greedy, and alienating the gamers they depend on. They should rethink their arguments a bit... and learn to embrace change and realize noone owes you a success in business.

  • SpaceMonkey77 #181 1 year ago

    Its pretty simple in my gamer eyes, and as a game is like any other consumer product, I reserve the right to sell on something that I purchased, if I'm done with it, to a second party. So games industry, but as much as I love thee, you are all being pissy about this issue. If you look at it with the green eyes of a possible lost sale, you are clutching at straws, that if you get your way, will get ever shorter, and games sales will dip. And sure, while games cost a lot to make, this doesn't automatically buy them a 'no second hand sale' pass.

    Besides, I've always been in the mind that this is pure bullshit (pardon my language), because if the games industry really were interesting in offering the consumer a better deal and killing second hand games from game stores, they'd big up, promote and sell the likes of using Ebay or Goozex as more user friendly alternatives instead, wouldn't they (because profit isn't what the later two are about, just getting games to gamers that want them)?

    And if you get greedy and go all majority DLC games on us, well that's possibly when I stop buying, or go elsewhere for gaming. I still think physical and DLC games will continue to co-exist, though.

  • Lexmeister #182 1 year ago

    Would GAME/Gamestation have been able to fuel their growth over the years without the nourishment of the fat margins available from second hand sales of ~£40 new game prices?

    Seems the high RRP set by publishers also feeds those they look at as parasites... the retailer

    RE the car analogy: IMO the car analogy should remain if only to remind developers and publishers that consumers (as a collective) don't give a crap about supply chain problems.

    Devs and publishers would be better served finding a quicker, cheaper, more convenient way of getting games in my hands.

    At the right price, I'll buy all kinds of games that in truth I probably won't even play enough to find out they're crap :)

    \looks at app store and PSN\xbox live bills for last month

  • redcrayon #183 1 year ago

    Isn't the main retailer games sales growth in the online sector, where trade-in sales are still quite marginal? Amazon takes games in, but their branding for it isn't very prominent, and marketplace is clearly secondary to their brand-new copy in the listings.

    The only advantage a high street store has over online where trade-in are concerned is convenience, so who can blame Game and HMV for focusing on that when the people who would have been their best customers years ago now buy their media online?

    The sectorwill eventually sort itself out without any kind of meddling on the basis of ethics- it sounds harsh, but as Rev. Stuart says, the high-street stores are dying. Limiting what they can do with trade-ins will not save them. Eventually you wil only see second-hand game stores on the high street, which will have the market-balancing effect of those stores being unable to flog second-hand instead of new copies as they don't have any new copies- it's just not viable to sell them and maintain a store. Online retailers will continue to sell games at lower prices due to the competition there, and they struggle to have the same effect of upselling their second-hand copies without the face-to-face promotion of it at the till. Digital copies of games will continue to grow, and if you want to buy a console on the high street, you'll have to go to a large store that sells multiple types of stuff, like the supermarkets or a big electronics chain.

    I'm not that worried about supermarkets at the moment either- They don't carry a huge range, never will do, and have also realised that trade-in is more profitable than selling new games at a loss.





    Edited by redcrayon at 03/02/11 @ 08:32

  • kangarootoo #184 1 year ago

    @Rev. Stuart Campbell

    "The sole purpose of a business is to generate profits."

    Simply not true, and if you had ever ran a business you might understand why.

    The purpose of a business is to find and keep customers. Simple as that. You can even google that exact sentence and find numerous hits from all sorts of sources explaining why.

    A business can function perfectly well, employ plenty of people, reinvest all spare revenue in expanding the buiness and gaining market share, and never actually make a profit. What matters in business private is cashflow, and what matters in public business is share value (and share value isn't as tied to profit as you seem to think).

  • kangarootoo #185 1 year ago

    Can someone ask Campbell about his price fixing allegation. I think maybe he has me on ignore, and he still hasn't backed it up.


    Also, on a general note, the suggestion that games have been getting more expensive is a nonsense. When I was a kid, a top end Atari 2600 cart could cost you £30-40. £40 in the bloody 80s! And what did an N64 cart cost back in the day, somewhere around the same mark? And no other form of entertainment can give you 10+ hours (100+ in some cases) for £40.

  • Mentat_Idaho #186 1 year ago

    One way that may help combat all this is to provide free or discounted DLC for anyone who buys a new copy of the game, and charging those who buy it second hand. If people knew that a game would be supported and expanded over, say, a year they would be more likely to hold onto it. I suppose EA tried something similar for BFBC2. I wonder what impact that had on second hand sales next to CoD:BLOPS? I'm only using CoD as an example, but say the map packs were 3 quid for people who bought the new copy and 15 quid for those who bought second hand? The developer would then at least get some money back from people who didn't buy the game new. Or maybe include Microsoft points, Steam points or PSN credit with new copies? People may be more inclined to buy an original if they could then download another smaller game for free. Not sure if either of these ideas would be feasible, particularly the second. What do you guy's think?

  • whoyouknow #187 1 year ago

    1. Compare second hand gamers to pirates.
    2. Compare second hand gamers to burglars.
    3. ???
    4. Never see a penny of whoyouknow's money ever again. Not that they've put out anything I ever game a damn about.

    Only the guy from CEX hit the nail on the head.

  • RobTheBuilder #188 1 year ago

    @Kangarootoo I get hundreds of hours out of some CD's. For a third of the price.
    I'm not saying games should all be a tenner, but I don't expect to pay EMI for selling it later to a friend or CEX.

    I tell you this though. I will buy one game now and again at £40. I would buy 3 or 4 at £20.
    If you halve your profit but sell more than twice as many...

  • redcrayon #189 1 year ago

    @Rob the builder
    I agree with your sentiments, but the maths is wrong. Halving the price doesn't mean halving the profit, depending on the margin it could mean no profit at all, making selling even 4 times as many a very bad move.

  • kongzi #190 1 year ago

    If the industry keeps up this whining on one hand and an overblown sense of entitlement I hope it does kill the industry.

    It's funny how they keep up the pretense of games being 'art'.. but most art of any value is being sold second(or tenth, whatever) hand. So if someone offers me the mona lisa for 5 quid I'm supposed to say: no thank you I'd rather build a time machine and buy mine directly from da vinci?

  • bazza #191 1 year ago

    08:34 PS1 games were £40? News to me.

  • Sanya #192 1 year ago

    It's a ritorical question,ofcourse they do,talented developers stop doing real games and go to social networks and make shit that sells better and it's much easier to make.
    Edited by Sanya at 06/02/11 @ 00:31

  • Dj_ade_76 #193 1 year ago

    In times like these, people want value for money.. I bought dead space 1 for a tenner pre-owned, liked it so much I got 2nd one new, full price.I traded in the utterly disappointing cack ops, which I bought new and felt a bit ripped off by. Most gamers will hang onto a game that is genuinely good. It's that game that you see very little of in pre-owned displays.

  • OliverH #194 1 year ago

    @kangarootoo #196

    Sorry, but that must have been a different planet. If you look at some games being at 69 Euros these days, that would have been way over 100 DM back in the days. They wouldn't have sold a single game back then at that price.

  • OliverH #195 1 year ago

    @Machiavellian:

    "That sounds all well and good if the split for games was 50/50 at retail for console games but it's not. If a developers spent 10 million and that's about average for a AA game, how many copies would need to be sold in order to just recoup development cost. Why would the retailer not still sell used games when you see games that are priced low like DS/PSP games have just as much of a collection of used games as the console games."

    In order to HAVE any used games, he'd have to have sold new games before. That's the point that's missing from your line of argumentation. It is patently impossible to push the sale of used games without games actually being on the market that have been bought new.

    And as for the cost of development, we've heard that whining long enough from M$. Lo and behold, when the strain reaches a certain level, they actually CAN sell Office at a reasonable price instead of people having to trade in their soul in addition to an arm and a leg. The margins are often far larger than one thinks, the question is who's pocketing them.... In fact, Office was a nice example of the market not supporting the price that was demanded.

    As for the developer spending 10 million for a game, you seem to overlook he only has to spend the whole cost once for any and all markets - while localization costs still apply in some areas, they're a fraction. So with those 10 million, you go not just only for the ~ 500 million people in the EU but also the 300 million in the US, the 130 million in Japan and parts of the 140 million in Russia and over 1 billion in India. If I just add the EU, the US and Japan, we're closing in on a billion people. If the game appeals to one in a thousand people (the equivalent to selling 80000 copies in Germany), you'r already selling a million copies, meaning you recover costs with a span of ten bucks per copy. And Fallout: New Vegas sold 5 million copies in no time. Assassin's Creed almost reached the 5 million. Bottom line: Make good games and you recover your money. Yes, of course there are games that sell dramatically less. But the key point is: There are reasons for that. With any R&D project, I have to estimate how much profit I can rake in and if the sales are likely to be limited, then I have to keep the development costs low as well. Not everyone can be Call of Duty 4.

  • Captain_Freya #196 1 year ago

    Green Man Gaming sells digitally downloaded games and lets you trade them in (resell them) when you are finished playing them/don't want them any more. The publishers get a cut of the sales regardless of new or used status so they're happy. You save money so hopefully you are happy, too! Check it out at http://www.greenmangaming.com/

    Most games I play, I get bored with once I finish them or play them a few times. (Well, with the exception of Railroad Tycoon - that's easily amused me for years.) I like being able to get games instantly and also resell them in a snap.