Ben-DutkaIt seems incredibly unlikely, as the removal of the used game market could absolutely cripple the retail industry.
But publishers have clearly expressed their disapproval of the way the pre-owned market works; retailers like GameStop can sell a title countless times over and keep raking in the profit, while the game makers never see another dime beyond the initial sale. Hence, the emergence of online passes from major manufacturers like EA, THQ, and Sony.
But that's mere child's play to what may happen in the next generation. The hot rumor involves Microsoft's next-generation console and according to Kotaku , the machine may actually block the playing of used games. How exactly, we're not sure. But if Microsoft and Sony incorporate such a feature in their next-gen hardware, used games may be forced to go the way of the dodo. There's not much game makers can do about it, either, if they're cut off at the source (i.e., the systems themselves).
Let's not forget that a huge portion of GameStop's profits come from pre-owned sales and with the increasing popularity of digital gaming, consoles that won't play used games could put GameStop in a critical position. After all, they're mastered the art of taking in a game for a certain price and selling it for three times the trade-in value. The profit margin is about 300% and of course, they don't enjoy any such margin with new products. Not even close, really. But what about consumers? They've become familiar with used games being available and fans seem to love the option, even if the pre-owned copy is only $5 cheaper than a new copy.
We're not sure how the next generation will pan out, but we should probably expect some significant changes. The death of used games is probably unlikely, but at this rate…who knows?
I hope this isn't true, but I won't be getting the new X-Box anyway. I do however feel as though the publisher shouldn't be deciding and going with what they like, it should be what their fans/consumers think and like. That's what can make or break a product like the new X-Box.
there's just one thing wrong though with what you said. how can people, who dont buy new/support the people who make the game or product, consumers? if i, as a developer, get screwed over by used game buyers then why should i care about you? sure someone bought it new first so i will cater to them, but you are using my product without me benefiting financially. to me, you are just a lost sale even though you bought my game. i used game purchase is as good as i new game lost for me. therefore, i wont care what you want.
Last edited by johnld on 1/26/2012 3:15:50 AM
your statement is WRONG on so many levels….. you should just put yourself in developers and publishers shoes. example, developers of HEAVY RAIN lost about $70-80 millions dollars because of second hand sales. I personally much rather give money to developers then Games Stop who offered me for for 2 months old game $18.00….screw them
Zabak, are you my long lost brother?!
It won't have a big effect. I'm sure you can still buy used, but you'd have to activate it online. That would ensure developer income and save on manufacturing cost.
All this is going to do is force Gamestop to sell used games at a reasonable price that ISN'T just $5 less than full price. They may sell it at $15 less than full price and include the DLC code that is likely worth $10 or so.
If anything, this will become more affordable for consumers anyways.
Additionally, DLC is already transferable to up to 5 accounts (movies excepted). So you'd still be able to swap games with friends, I'm sure.
Definitely not worth everyone getting in a tizzy about. (Not that anyone above this post has done that. I mean in general.)
Last edited by Underdog15 on 1/26/2012 8:26:46 AM
Zabak, while I too would rather give my money to the devs you can't really say that quantic dream lost 70-80 million because many of the people who bought heavy rain used would never have bought it new, so it's really hard to gauge how much devs are losing-if anything-from used game sales.
Matt-
All you have to consider is the amount spent on a used game, and the developers can consider that a *potential* loss.
I see what you're saying though, I did buy Heavy Rain used but I also got it like 6 months after it released, at that point I wasnt willing to buy it new for $60 when I got it used for $30. So QD probably wouldn't have gotten money from me until the game dropped in shelf price. I hate to say I bought it used cus after playing it I love the game and I absolutely would spend $60 on it new. At the time I just wasn't sure.
the best route for gamestop would be to negotiate with the publishers a set amount of money they will get back out of the used purchase, say 10-30% from it back to publisher and developer, hopefully also negotiating abolishing the stupid game pass ugh
I've been reading these headlines, too. I think Kotaku has one. Though, these rumors claim it isn't a flat out black out of used games. Rather, a more intelligent system of registering your game disc to your game system. I think the Blu Ray format already has technology in place to enforce such a thing. This would give credence to the next Xbox using Blu Ray. Supposidly, this move doesn't bar out Gamestop from selling game passes, allowing them to still maintain a level of marketability.
Personally, as I've stated in the past, I have no problem with publishers wanting compensation for server hosting, but I do most definately dislike the idea of prohibiting a game, particularly a single player game, entirely from a resell market. A self contained product boxed and sold, independant of any contingent services, should be treated as a freely traded commidity, if you ask me.
I also see this being spun many ways. For one, MS or SOny could recognize it as being a used game and restrict it's functionality. For example, if a serialized match comes up false, the network, PSN/XBL will restrict it from achievements/trophies etc. And when the game is recognized as such, they'll make good effort to ask you to spend $10-15 to "unlock" full featured access to the game's content and reward measures.
Temjin, you make some interesting points, but hell, if this is the way the gaming market is going to be manipulated it is going to be a big concern for consumers I think.
Many people can only afford "used games". I think to simply block a product someone has already bought and wants to sell it on is almost criminal in a sense. It is taking the right away from the individual to do what he wants with the product he or she owns. Why not then simply go digital so no one can do anything anymore.
Another aspect to this will be feeding pirates and hackers with more reasons to create a black market for hacked and cracked systems and games. Hackers are sophisticated, they will not be beat by something like this.
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
I have little doubt of that, Qubex. I'm one of them, a used game purchaser. But I also suspect that like water flowing to a larger reservoir, as the pool grows, so too will the price offerings of distributed content, particularly digital. I've been observing the PC distribution promos over the months. Clearly, sales, price drops and promos happen very often, much more often and sooner than xblm or psn.I suspect this has something to do with how much of the PC market has transitioned to digital. Distributors are well aware of the consumers varied budgets, they'd no doubt make efforts to capture bottom feeder's income too.
temjin, the serial number locking sounds like a good idea but that would mean that every system would have to be constantly connected online. that means you need to be online to play even the campaign mode. if they put this security on the system itself then it can be easily bypassed/removed by the person who bought it. they would need to have the protection on their side so that they can implement actions like not allowing these people to access the network.
Why would it mean that? As it's rumored, the new tech is not there to blackout the playing of used games, rather, to provide a more controlled means of game passes (online play) and possibly other possible upgrades to the core assets provided by the host.
Anyway, the news of the Next Xbox running off of a 6670 is more concerning to me…. my laptop has a 6770. I already have a GPU more powerful than the new xbox, if rumors are true =p
Last edited by Temjin001 on 1/26/2012 10:55:42 AM
I wonder, Is it Microsofts intention to destroy the gaming industry as we know it?
You're just realizing that fact now?
lol, yeah really.
But this would only cause gamestop et al to sell used games at more reasonable prices. $55 for a used game? Gimme a break… No one is "saving" all their hard earned cash by buying it for $5 less. It's not even 10% off. If buying access code's is $10, they would HAVE to sell at a minimum $45 or at least provide the codes. Basically, it won't make any real difference to consumers beyond entering the code, but gamestop will take a smaller profit cut and the developer's get a piece.
It's a win for everyone. (This isn't going to put gamestop out of business. haha!)
BINGO!
Underdog,
To be fair, at least in our home country (at EB Games), you'd actually pay $49.50 for that $55 used game (before taxes) if you were a regular buyer of used games, so the savings is greater than 10% (17.5% off).
Last edited by Fane1024 on 1/27/2012 2:36:07 AM
I'm not trying to argue the cost points. That's not the point of my comment. I'm using numbers just to illustrate a point on how gamestop (EBgames) would adjust.
In Canada, at EBGames, you have to pay for that frequent used games card, I'm pretty sure. It's worth it if you buy enough, I'm sure.
Why would Sony do it, too? That would be a massive advantage over Microsoft.
My thoughts too.
Fanboy wars would be like "It only plays used games"
because it wont benefit sony either. console makers lose money with every system sold. they have to make it up from software sales. if people buy used games, they dont make money. like the ps3, it takes a while for every system sold to turn a profit.
I dont like this idea one bit, but lets look at it a different way.
Everyone knows Gamestop makes almost nothing on new games. Retails prices are set for them and the don't get a good price from the distributor. If all gamestop sold was new games and accessories they would be out of business in no time at all. More retail stores selling games means that more people will go reserve games and pick them up on day 1 – good news for the publisher. But what does GS stand to gain from this?
I feel like if publishers want to bi*** and moan about used game sales they need to lower their cost to stores. I do the purchasing for several departments at a local store (not a game store) and i'd push used sales if new only got me a slim % margin. Publishers seem to be looking out for themselves only without regard for anyone else. They dont care about the retailers, they dont care about the consumers (overpriced, day-1 dlc is evident of this). All they care about is getting as much money as possible and screwing over as many people as possible along the way.
The game industry survived with used sales since the Atari was king. If this generation is suffering from used sales then publishers are doing something wrong. Activision spends tens of millions on an ultimately mediocre game like MW3 then whine that they arent making enough back on their investment. Rather than spending their money smarter they just try to suck out wallets clean and destory brick-and-mortar stores.
This is not the gaming i grew up with, and its not the gaming i love. This generation has caused the entire industry to devolve into a giant mess. The next generation doesnt interest me at all. I can't care about an industry that has made such a radical shift in such a short time. Its really disappointing.
The increasing cost of game development is a huge problem these days. It's rapidly getting to the point where only blockbusters are making any money at all. Therefore, I'm pretty certain nobody is in any position to lower the cost to anyone, anywhere.
It didn't cost a huge chunk of money and resources to put out a game in the Atari days. That's a very new phenomenon. If you want all these fancy games and still believe you can pay what you paid 25 years ago ($60 was the cost of some SNES cartridges), then you're just asking for far too much, IMO. By all rights, games could cost $100 apiece these days.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 1/25/2012 10:06:15 PM
yep, gotta agree with Ben. The nature of the market is different. If anyone remembers way back, Nintendo's Iwata got on stage during an E3 to foreshadow the announcement of the Wii Revolution. He stressed that the game's industry is headed down a dangerous road, where escalating game costs and the marketability of said games paints a grim landscape for the future.
So while we can take what we want from that, especially considering how much crap was shoveled on the Wii, it does illustrate quite well how there is a concern for such things and that really, for $60(and a dollar that's worth less than it was in the 90's) we should be saying thank you.
Do you think its right for gamestop to give someone $15 and then turn around and sell it for $55? I always buy games new anyways but I hate gamestop they rip people off. If sony or ms did this it really wouldn't bother me.
There's a damn good reason games aren't $100 a piece these days. Consumers would never pay that much for games and publishers know it. $100 games is just crazy talk.
Collectors editions, DLC, Game passes, Cerebus Networks just may add up to $100. They've fragmented out content to increase revenue, rather than increase baseline MSRP, and thankfully, too. I have little doubt the DLC for FF13-2 isn't being offered because they couldnt fit it on the disc media.
Big difference between a baseline $100 MSRP and optional collector editions and DLC which you correctly have pointed out.
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 1/25/2012 11:53:54 PM
$60 in 1992 is probably close to $100 in 2012.
…consumers seemed to respond back then. There just weren't nearly as many games.
Another thing to remember is those Nintendo cartridges were way more expensive to manufacture than the medium we have today. I don't know how accurate it was but I remember reading a N64 cartridge cost almost twice as much to produce when compared to the far less expensive cd format Sony adopted.
Excel-
Games today should probably cost $100 when you factor in everything that goes into them. We are lucky they don't. But I do agree that people probably wouldn't pay that much on every new release like some do now. They would be a little more reserved. I'd still buy games obviously but it would have to be a game like Uncharted or The elder scrolls. Something I know I'll enjoy for extended periods of time.
But we are not talking about CD's anymore. We have Blu-ray a much more sophisticated and definitely better format. The technology is well worththe price to say the least.
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 1/26/2012 1:53:17 AM
It's definiely way cheaper to produce even a Blu ray disc than those catridges ever were. No assembly required. The market sets the prices and I think there is very good reason we don't have $100 games today. Publisher's would charge $100 if they could but they would be pricing themselves right out of the market.
I put this question to fellow PSXE members before when this $100 game talk was brought up last time. How many of you feel like most games are even worth the full $60 asking price? The consensus was not even half the games on the market are really worth that much. The market would not be able to sustain a $100 game price point and publishers know this. Good luck even raising the prices $10 in this economy. $60 is pushing it in terms of impulse buys anyways.
Publisher's already have artificial ways of raising the price of games with DLC.
I've gotta agree with Excel, most of the games they put out these days arnt worth the full price , and it's a huge problem with this gen.
Quality, this is a thing most games lack this gen, with the odd exception here and there, and this is a major reason for why I only own 5 ps3 titles, when I've got well over 30 ps2, and about 60 ps1. Sure, games look better these days, no doubt, but there just isnt much soul in most of them, and when you see devs taking out content for dlc to make more money, or pumping out games as quick as possible to make a fast buck, it makes me sad for the future of gaming. This indusrty use to have to put out gold to pull in the cash, and it was a wonderful era for both consumer and devs, but my lord how things have changed with this gen.
Money, they want it as quick as possible, and quality be damned if it gets in the way, and they will whore themselves out for profit, this is why we get a new cod game every year, this is why FF is a dead title to me and most others now, and this is why we get day 1 DLC, or close enough to it, for most titles. So I wouldnt be shocked at all if both sony/ms did something like this, to try and make more…. though I wonder if it's the devs pushing for this so they can make more, or is it sony/ms that want more for their titles…
I'm not responding to everyone for obvious reasons, but bluedarrk asked if its right for GS to offer $15 for a game they sell for $55.
Yes. Its called capitalism. They can offer your $5 for it if they wanted to. Consumers need to be intelligent in the whole process as well. I was was selling my car and somebody offered me half of what its worth i just wouldnt sell them the car. I definitely wouldnt sell them my car then whine about their low offer like they ripped me off due to me being a moron. Everyone wants to be a victim instead of doing the intelligent thing.
Consumers let companies treat them like crap then whine about it like its everybody else's fault.
Yes, development costs have risen, but so have sales. You didnt see SNES titles selling millions of copies on launch day. The fact is that publishers arent making as much money as they'd like, and rather than ask themselves how they can do a better job they ask themselves how they can make more money from the same product by screwing over retailers and end users. When profits for my departments at work start to decline i dont try to charge customers more for the same product, i make sure me and my staff arent slacking off and missing opportunity. Its not really a difficult concept. Game companies have no service standards.
And as far as development costs go, its not just as easy as saying games cost more to make unilaterally. MW3 was one of the most costly games to make and theres a massive absence of quality. Yet Uncharted 3 blows it out of that water in every way and cost less than half as much to make with probably 1/10 the staff. Giant publishers arent spending their money well and are willing to pass that cost and inconvenience on to the customers rather than fix their own problems.
The only game i bought this fall was Dark Souls because the other games i wanted were riddled with dlc and online-pass BS. Its amazing, but you *dont* have to buy a game if you disagree with the business practices. Stop supporting companies that treat you like a walking billfold and things may actually change for the better.
The consumer price point is a major factor. Its not that I can't afford $100 for a game (I can, I work), its that I don't see even a $60 value in most games. I say that not because they aren't great games and deserve the money, but becasue I don't have time to play (I do work over 45 hours a week and come home tired most of the time).
I do understand how they publishers don't make any money on used game sales, so I propose a different system: Pay to play. This system would work where you pay so much to play so long on a particular game disc. Say 250 hours come with a brand new disc, and then you can buy 250 more hours on that disc when that first amount expires. After buying more time, then it will go to an unlimited option, where the price for it will be great enough that people don't just get unlimited and continue to make a profit for themselves.
You guys are looking at it from a consumer point of view "most games aren't worth $60" makes me think your referring to the game itself, not what went into developing it. Sure I agree with everything you guys are saying, I'm a consumer also. But the fact is technology has changed and something like motion scan and 3D is expensive to utilize in a game, driving up costs. You don't have to look at it this way because as a consumer you want the best price. All I'm saying is we are lucky, we don't pay more wether or not the game was worth it doesn't matter, the developer still had to fork out X amount of dollars to make it.
Excel- you missed my point. I don't care how much it cost a developer to make a cartridge, if it cost more or less doesn't matter. My point is a cartridge let alone a CD doesn't hold near a much data as a Blu-ray disc, it doesn't have the ability for 7.1 surround, HD, and most games today wouldn't come close to fitting on one. That in turn costs money to develop for though, and with all that technology and content on one disc, well again we are lucky we don't pay more. This isn't about what it's worth, because I have games I wouldn't pay $60 for again, but I at least acknowledge the money that developers have to put into a game for it to go gold.
I probably did miss your point but the point I was trying to make is those cartridges were expensive to make so that contributed to the $60 price point of cartidges back then. Then, we went to the CD/DVD era and game prices dropped. Most PS1 games were $40-50. Companies made money and the gaming market did great. PS2 games were $50 and companies did fine again. Publisher's got a $10 price hike this gen and the gaming industry is bigger than ever. Games sales have risen significantly. Publishers already have their short games witth DLC and Online passes. How much more do they need? They are doing just fine for the most part. They just don't like the used game business.
There are some publishers like Valve that actually think game prices are too high.
Ofcourse I am a consumer and want low prices but the truth is I do think a lot of games aren't worth $60. It's not because I'm cheap but because they just are not worth it considering what I get out of them. There are probably many who feel the same way. That's a problem for any price hikes. Consumers just don't see the value.
There are select games I will gladly pay $60 because I know what I will get out of them.
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 1/26/2012 10:10:11 AM
The idea that games cost more to develop on a cartridge is ridiculous. The sheer amount of money and resources – hundreds of people, thousands of man hours, years of development – is a hundred times that of anything 20 years ago. They were just TOYS. Plain and simple. Even the designers will tell you that. It was not the industry it is now, and not only because of size; the goals were extremely different.
They sell more now because gaming has gone mainstream but this doesn't change the fact that if publishers AND developers want to make money, one million in sales is probably a bare minimum for a big-budget game. Plus, given inflation, $60 absolutely is $100 today so the argument doesn't really matter, anyway.
Used games can die tomorrow for all I care. That's the long and short of it.
Bandit, you're so wrong . Of the retail price of a game, approximately 1/3 goes to the retailer, of the remaining 2/3, another third goes to the costs of manufacture and distribution, and the remaining third is split between the developer and publisher.
You also wrote
"bluedarrk asked if its right for GS to offer $15 for a game they sell for $55.
Yes. Its called capitalism. They can offer your $5 for it if they wanted to. "
That's just the worst excuse ever for this BS. You're saying it's OK for GS to gouge people senseless, but it's not OK for the people that make the games to try to recover some of the revenue lost to used game sales? So GS version of capitalism is more valid than that of the creators? BS, that's rationalization to excuse GameStop's practice of screwing the customer, nothing more, nothing less. At least be honest about the fact that you are excusing them.
Last edited by TheHighlander on 1/26/2012 10:31:39 AM
I'm in agreement with NoSmokingBandit. The bottom line is alot of consumers are just plain stupid. They will blindly go to Gamestop to trade in a 1 month old game for $20 thinking that it's worth it, allowing Gamestop to turn around and sell it for $55 because another dumby is willing to "save" 5 bucks by buying a used game.
People need to be smart about trading in used games and buying used games. Personally, I buy most of my games new (usually off Amazon after the price drops $20 within a couple of weeks of release). Meanwhile, Gamestop will sell a game $55 used well up to 6 months after its release. I have no idea why people are willing to pay that. If you look around on places like Amazon or Newegg you can usually get the same game much cheaper NEW.
I do however, take advantage of trading in my games, especially through online outlets like Amazon because they offer MUCH more money than gamestop does. I bought Rage on black friday last November for $30, played it for about a week and came away disappointed. The next week I was able to send it back to Amazon for $24. Basically paid for a $6 rental. Unfortunately most people are either to lazy or stupid to look for the better deal, and would just be happy trading it into gamestop for $9.
Also, as Excelsior says, alot of games aren't worth the $60 price tag. Just because a company has high development costs, doesn't mean that the consumer should pay for something that is overpriced due to lack of quality. Everyone is different, and everyone should be capable of valuing a product based on their past experiences or tastes.
All that being said, I feel that if Microsoft and/or Sony decides to block out used games would be a huge mistake. The market, like any market, will adjust to what the consumer is willing to pay. People like me who buy a game new, knowing that if I'm not satisfied with the product I can fall back on trading it in to recoup my losses, will be alot more hesitant if that used game market no longer exists. I think that alot of consumers aren't willing to pay the $60 (or rumored $70 for next gen games) price of admission for each and every game released.
Gotta agree with Highlander, having worked retail where hardware and software were sold together, the profit margins on software generally stayed around 30+ percent, sometimes higher, on consumer entertainment products. Computers, on the other hand, were not uncommon to be sold around 5-10% markup, and during rare sales, even negative margin.
NoSmokingBandit just means that it's ultimately the consumers choice to get ripped off by GameStop. They don't have to do business with them if they don't like their trade in values. THAT'S captitalism.
I think bandit is right on this issue, if the store offers $15 for a game then tries to sell it for $50, well I think it's fine, they've gotta make profit somehow dont they? And, should they try to rip people off with the prices at which they buy games, well it's up to the owners to decide its worth to them and if they want to sell it for the price. I think you could even put more of this on the consumer buy saying, dont buy games that you might sell down the road. I know that despite a game being great or bad, some gamers trade in anyways, but I think to those that dont and trade in just because they didnt like it, well they need to research a game better, we do have the internet these days, there is usually loads of info on just about anything, it just takes some time to find and read/watch/listen.
Now, on topic, there are those that side with devs not getting money from used sails, and those that think it best that the used market dry up and die, however I think we should all remember that in order for a used game to exist, it had to have been bought new, and the devs have already seen the profit from that purchase, should they really see more income from the same disc again? I dont think that is fair, this is an industry that makes quite a lot of money as is, and they are just simply crying because they lose a small amount to the used market.
I have said it before, and I will say it again… this new global economy will hit the video game industry even harder in the next 12 months unless something dramatically changes.
I don't like GameStop, but I love used games. Imagine if the PS2 had implemented something like this. If this is true (though it probably isn't), no one is going to be a fan of the console once it's over with. When the lifespan is over with or at least getting near its end, it will be impossible to get games. It would also damage Microsoft's reputation as a console maker for sure.
If the next generation of consoles implement some way of blocking used game play I expect it to be the last generation of consoles.
Agreed World, I definitely won't be part of it either!
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"