From what we've heard, original internal sales estimates for Quantic Dream's Heavy Rain were only a few hundred thousand.

But thanks to plenty of critical acclaim and excellent word-of-mouth, the innovative, compelling drama went on to sell well over 1 million copies. At last check, it was around 1.5 million; now, according to studio co-founder Guillame de Fondaumiere, the game has surpassed 2 million units.

On the downside, he also told GamesIndustry.biz that his company has lost a whole lot of money due to pre-owned sales. He says that based on information gleaned from the Trophy system, the total sales number is actually closer to 3 million, but of course, Quantic Dream never sees a dime from those secondhand sales. Despite this news, most gamers will just scoff and say the company made plenty and they have every right to save a few bucks.

There's always two sides to every issue, though. And we're not about to get involved.

Related Game(s): Heavy Rain

Subscribe
Notify of
137 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Vivi_Gamer
Vivi_Gamer
9 years ago

I don't know if it is that simple, I know at least 3 people who have borrowed the game from me + all the renting bussinesses there are I imagine this game was popular there as the main story was roughly 10 hours. So I dont think the statistics are accurate or even fair.

If anything I should be angry as I pre-ordered Heavry Rain so I could get the 1st of what I thought would be many extra DLC episodes, I was so dissapointed to find out that they we're cancelled.

Though I was Qauntic Dream well for Heavy Rain It was a very daring project to try appeal such a story driven title to the masses, but the game has already reached Platinum (UK's version of 'greatest Hits') So I don't think they have to feel so bad about their sales….

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

People with renting licenses return part of the funds of each rental to the publisher of whatever media they rent out. If they didn't, publishers of all sorts of media would be able to go after companies like Blockbuster and Gamefly for infringing on their end user agreements.

Technically speaking, lending it to friends would cost you in court, about $40-$60 per friend lent to. If not you, then they could be forced to pay that.

Problem is, court would cost more than that kind of cash. XD It's all a little silly, really, as the law hasn't caught up with technology. But it is still acceptable for Quantic Dream to consider that lost revenue.

tes37
tes37
9 years ago

If you're found guilty you have to pay court costs, so that can't be the reason. You just can't prove anything, that's what the problem is. The game I loaned to my friend shows he played it only by his trophies and game saves. It doesn't prove I loaned it to him or that he didn't buy it and accidentally break it and throw it away. Because I own it and my friend doesn't, but has trophies, is purely circumstantial. You would be correct to find me guilty, problem is you can't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

There appears to be some truth-sauce on your comment, tes.

FatherSun
FatherSun
9 years ago

Every disc has its own unique identifier that I am sure can be traced from purchase to console to console. Tracing the information may be tedious though. I couldn't fathom a circumstance that would require this level of investigation. On second thought, I probably can.

I wonder if GameFly traces stolen games if taken online? Or movies from Netflix?

Was Blu Ray not intended to be a more secure media?


Last edited by FatherSun on 9/12/2011 3:46:38 PM

tes37
tes37
9 years ago

The dumbest thing about my reply is the fact that you will never find yourself in this situation. That's something I didn't give much thought to, before replying.

FatherSun
FatherSun
9 years ago

@tes, actually that is the exact reason why the idea is not given much thought. I didn't either at first. Who would go to such lengths? For now anyway… The future is coming real fast.

Neo_Aeon666
Neo_Aeon666
9 years ago

wth since when is lending a cd or game to friend EVIL. Hell we used to have more than one PS3 in the house and I lent my games to roomates. Shit dood if they are going to be picky about that just make the game DLC exclusive and dump the physical media. At the moment they sell you a disc just so you THINK you own it but in fact you can't do crap with what you just bought O_O its not even yours and you can't resell it (soon) wooooo. Its just plain stupid.

Neo_Aeon666
Neo_Aeon666
9 years ago

wth since when is lending a cd or game to friend EVIL. Hell we used to have more than one PS3 in the house and I lent my games to roomates. Shit dood if they are going to be picky about that just make the game DLC exclusive and dump the physical media. At the moment they sell you a disc just so you THINK you own it but in fact you can't do crap with what you just bought O_O its not even yours and you can't resell it (soon) wooooo. Its just plain stupid.

tes37
tes37
9 years ago

I loaned my copy to a friend, so there's one they can count as a freebie. 1 million is a lot, but not all of that is used sales.

Nlayer
Nlayer
9 years ago

I've also loaned my copy to a friend as well. It's one of the only games I've done so with, because I want all my friends to experience it! Haha.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

Not all are used sales, but considering how much revenue Gamestop derives from used game sales, it is fair to conclude that a very significant proportion (perhaps more than half) of those extra game users based on the trophy data come from used game sales.

If you sell 2 million copies and you have evidence to suggest that anything from 500,000 to 1 million copies of your game were played by used game buyers and you saw zero revenue from those game sales, you have a right to be concerned. 500,000 copies of a game at $60 is $30 million, something like 30-40% of that normally is seen by the publisher/developer so that's potentially $10-15 million in lost revenue that Quantic Dreams is seeing. I don't know about you, but that would cause me to lose sleep at night.

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

Hey Highlander… we agree on this issue every time it's brought up…

I dunno about you…

But I feel a giant, "Told ya so" coming on…

The glee of a well placed "Told ya so" is hindered by the feeling of regret that a few extra million dollars won't be able to be put into their next project… They deserve it.

Fane1024
Fane1024
9 years ago

I still say it's more likely that they sold 1 million *more* units new than that they lost 1 million sales because of the existence of the used game market, because many of the people who re-sold their copies or bought used copies wouldn't have bought the game at all.


Last edited by Fane1024 on 9/13/2011 4:23:34 AM

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

I know what you mean, Fane, but if I'm a dev who does this for a living, I couldn't care less about gaining fans that don't produce some sort of return for my hard work.

The same goes on the opposite end… who cares about losing fans that don't contribute to your profit?

Fane1024
Fane1024
9 years ago

I said "new" units (i.e., the ones that do provide income directly to the publishers/developers).

I'm sure that they care plenty if the game sells 2 million *new* copies rather than 1 million.

BigStack007
BigStack007
9 years ago

Maybe instead of crying about used game sales.These developers should release more DLC content and make more $$$ off of that.As a consumer i feel i have a right to buy a game used.If i need an online pass to play it i'll just figure it into the price of the used game.If that figures out to be too much then i'll simply buy it new.I don't buy used games from gamestop cause it's a rip off.I know they didn't give the person who traded it in jack S**t yet they have the nerve to try and sell it for $5 less than the price of the same game NEW.Must be alot of gaming suckers for them to still be in business.Most New releases,(probably 7 out of 10)aren't worth $60 to begin with.There's no standards when it comes to games.More lemons than gems.That's for sure..Plus places like gamefly who are in the rental business PAID for EVERY copy they rent.Maybe the dev's should offer free dlc to people who purchased their game new and charge the ones who bought it used.Just a thought.


Last edited by BigStack007 on 9/12/2011 10:29:29 AM

Vivi_Gamer
Vivi_Gamer
9 years ago

Wait, your encouraging them to scrape more rakes down our back with more expensive DLC. I disagree, If anything too many companies already are exploiting us by holding back parts of the game to release as DLC later, nowdays more than ever you hear about companies releasing DLC a month after the games is released (Dead Island, Deus Ex, Resistance 3….) It's becoming really unbearable.

But I do agree that these online passes with the new copies are unfair, like you said many games just are not worth the full retail price and if you can stand the wait a pre-owned copy is the only way.


Last edited by Vivi_Gamer on 9/12/2011 10:26:54 AM

BigStack007
BigStack007
9 years ago

Ok,so maybe not FREE DLC for those who bought it NEW but at least discounted DLC like 50% off or something like that and full price for those who bought it used.I kinda agree that developers should make something from used game sales.But isin't that like Chevy,Ford.ect making something off used car sales?They don't make a dime and you don't hear them crying.They just sell ya parts for it when it breaks down.

MyWorstNightmar
MyWorstNightmar
9 years ago

Ultima… *OR* "if you can stand the wait a" new purchase of the game at a heavily discounted price at the retail store is another way to go.

Games don't stay full price forever, and tend to drop in price rather quickly. Example, Deus Ex can be had for $35.99 brand new on Amazon and Toy's R Us this week. If you try to buy is used at Gamestop, they are probably charging $55.00 for it.

Vivi_Gamer
Vivi_Gamer
9 years ago

Indeed, but in general after them couple of months it is cheaper pre-owned unless a store is doing a special deal, which is rare especially of stores dedicated to games only.

MyWorstNightmar
MyWorstNightmar
9 years ago

Big, using Chevy and Ford as an example is not a good one. You can't say that since Chevy and Ford don't have a problem with used car sales then QD should not have a problem with used game sales.

Completely different circumstances.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
9 years ago

Spaces. There are spaces after periods.

Excelsior1
Excelsior1
9 years ago

@myworst

how about using movies, music, and books as example? they are an entertainment medium that is subject to the same second hand market that is a natural process of a free market system. i don't hear movie studios, music artist, or book publishers crying about not getting their cut off of the second hand market. what makes games so special that they deserve to double dip? i always found that to be arrogant presumption by the game publishers.

online passes are bad enough but at least they had a little validity becuase of the cost of maintaining online services. i say little becuase most console games don't feature dedicated servers. i think the online pass is mostly about combating the used game market. if its just about the online costs then how the hell did an online pass sneak in to me2? that was a sp game that locked out tons of content if you bought it used. rage has to be brought up as well for locking out the sewers that no one really wants to explore anyways. talk about a developer backpedaling to downplay an obvious attempt to screw over gamers. pretty disgusting tactic by id.

how about publishers make some games that have some length and replay value before crying about used game sales? we get tons of short games spammed with day1 dlc that should have been in the damn game anyways. i very much resent this attempt to slow roast gamers like a turkey squeezing out every last dime they can. poor way for companies to treat consumers and it has taken a little joy out of this gen of gaming.


Last edited by Excelsior1 on 9/12/2011 12:12:23 PM

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

I mean no offense to anyone, but in all honestly if you're so desperate to save $5 on the cost of a $60 game that you're willing to hand GameStop $55.00 and the publisher/developer a big fat $0 just to save the cost of a Starbucks coffee, you need a good kick in the pants. You save $5, and cost the publisher/developer $20-$25 lost revenue in that one game sale alone. Seems to me that if $5 is so important that you'll willingly shaft the game developer in favor of GameStop (or whatever other use retailer you select), you probably don't need to be buying video games in the first place.

Oh, I know that money is tight and all that, and yes students are poor, I was one once too, but come on, you're hurting the developer/publisher by saving your $5 when you could wait a few months and buy the game new at a heavy discount, or even forgo some other small luxury to afford the extra $5 to buy new. Either way, I can't believe people are so short sighted that they think that buying used is a great idea – unless a game is literally out of print, or impossible to find new at retail.

@Excelsior;

"how about publishers make some games that have some length and replay value?"

OK, so are you saying that they should only be paid for a game if it meets your definition of value, and if it doesn't you get to play it without paying the developer for their work? That is in practice what you're saying if you're saying that you only pay for a game new if it meets some arbitrary value judgement of yours, but buy used if it doesn't. If it's worth buying, then just buy it, if not, then don't, but buying used simply punishes the developer/publisher because you don't feel like paying them for their effort.


Last edited by TheHighlander on 9/12/2011 12:06:38 PM

Excelsior1
Excelsior1
9 years ago

@highlander

it's not about the stupid $5. it's about the principle of it. like i said i think the second market is a natural part of a free market system.

i'm not saying developers don't deserve to be paid. i just don't believe they deserve special status that other entertainment mediums don't enjoy. they are subject to the same 2nd hand marrket forces as everything else.

yeah i griped about replay value and length. there are a lot of games out there that aren't worth the full $60. you bring up the $5 dollar savings but i bought fallout 3 goty edition second hand for $18. that's way more than just a $5 savings. the fact is if you are patient you can pick up a lot of used games at a significant savings. sometimes it's games you can't even find new anymore. gamers would not get to play the same amount of games without the used market. it's not just about $5.

i know you are somewhat sympathetic to publishers but i noticed you were no where around on the id locks out sewers thread when everyone was up in arms about that. i'm just sayin.


Last edited by Excelsior1 on 9/12/2011 12:39:11 PM

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

What principle?

What is more principled paying the person that wrote and published the game, or paying the schyster that ripped off the first owner only to gouge the second owner?

Don't talk about principle when you weigh that $5 so heavily that you won't pay the maker of a game for your purchase and use of it.

If you want to start throwing bricks my way, that's fine, I'll throw them back. I wasn't in the thread talking about the locked out sewers because iD doesn't make games I play any more. As it happens, I don't agree with what they're saying. But I understand their point.

You know, if it were me, I would make my games so that the initial purchaser has a free online pass that enables the full game, and for used purchasers, I'd make it so that playing the game without the online pass causes the rendering resolution to be dropped to 480i, and disable the online patching of the game. When you buy a used book, car, item of clothing, or other used physical article, it's not the same as new, it's is used, and is of lower quality than the new product. If you buy a game used, you should similarly get a product that is clearly used and of lower intrinsic value than the new item.

Without wanting to get into the entire discussion again, the provisions under copyright for used sales of books and other copyright works are built around the obvious and inescapable deterioration of a physical product. So that the used sales of copy right items are less damaging to new sales because they are inferior to the new item. With digital products on discs that do not scratch that is no longer the case, and it breaks the balance that copyright law and used sales of copyright items are built on. If publishers/developers do something to reduce the intrinsic value of a used game, all it does is restore that balance.

Whether you like it or not, there is a balance that needs to be struck, and whether you agree or not, the balance is currently very much against the publishers/developers.


Last edited by TheHighlander on 9/12/2011 12:55:11 PM

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

Ok kids. Time to put your type 2 moralities away and listen to Highlander.

Some of you have barely gotten past your Id's, I'd say!

*Checks watch*
Yup… it's about time someone uses the awful car analogy and think it makes sense, despite it not being remotely similar to software licenses…


Last edited by Underdog15 on 9/12/2011 12:56:35 PM

Excelsior1
Excelsior1
9 years ago

@highlander

the principle about games not deserving a special exemption from natural 2nd hand market forces. how does a dvd or cd detiorate any differently than a game disc?

please tell me why games deserve this special status that other entertainment mediums don't enjoy.

actually don't becuase i doubt you and i will ever agree on this. i am going to opt for the suggestion temjin made to me once becuase i think i'm just spinning my wheels here.

i guess we have some pretty different views on this topic. that's okay. that's what threads are for…opinions. thank god you are not in charge of publishers becuase i think your ideas up there are pretty nuts. the market would flat out reject those aggressive tactics.


Last edited by Excelsior1 on 9/12/2011 1:16:28 PM

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

@Excelsior

Ah, but that's just it. They do have a special exemption! And for good reasons, too! I'll explain:

All software is exempt from the 2nd hand sales laws. Buying Norton Anti-virus or a Windows Operating System is the same. You own the box, the case, and the disk. But the software is not yours. In fact, before you can use or install it, you have to agree to the terms. Games have that warning on their boxes, usually, and it takes effect once it's opened. Windows OS, for example, allows your license to be used on "X" number of systems.

By agreeing to the software terms, you are bound by contract and understand that you merely have a non-transferable license to operate the software. You get to use it however you see fit. BUT, you cannot transfer ownership. You can sell it, trade it, whatever you want! Because you own the physical disk. But, the buyer is not allowed to USE the software, because they don't have a license. YOU have it. And it cannot be transferred.

See, you may have the opinion that it SHOULDN'T be that way… but the fact is… it IS that way. If I believe that murder isn't wrong when someone looks at me funny, that doesn't change the fact that it's actually wrong. You might think it's not wrong, but the law says differently. Why? Well, to people who understand the law, they know why. We all know why murder is wrong. But all of a sudden when a law isn't against 1 specific person, people gain some weird entitlement issues… like the consumer is greater than the hundreds of jobs affected by their decision to save $5.

You are bound under CIVIL law to the contract. If you make copies and distribute software, then that's criminal law. But used games are civil law. In other words, police don't get involved. The owner of the software (the publisher) has to seek you out, take you to court, and PROVE you used software without a license. Then the court will award them from you the cost of the license… and if they're lucky… the court costs. In other words… they'd have to take each person to court individually over $60 each….. yeah… not worth it.

It's not worth it to go after you. And since it's not illegal to sell the physical disk, they will never go after Gamestop (notice, Gamestop doesn't test their games!!!!!! loophole!!)

It's why major rental companies pay dividends to publishers for software, and it's why game rentals are more expensive than movie rentals (typically).

It's true… the law hasn't caught up with theft of licenses. But there is enough in place to show that it is wrong. It's additionally disappointing to me to know that billions of dollars are going into a CEO's pocket and NOT back into the industry. It's just another factor of why smaller devs who take risks release cheaply made DLC and never bigger disk-based releases. You can control DLC.

I'm personally disappointed QD is missing millions of dollars to put into future projects. That bothers me.

You speak of principle… but it's a contradictory one. One that says "The consumer is always right". A nice thought… but it's never true.


Last edited by Underdog15 on 9/12/2011 1:24:20 PM

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

Excelsior,

I didn't say that games have a special exemption. I was talking about digital content on discs that don't scratch – in other words content on BluRay and newer DVD disc that are much more scratch resistant. Your whole post is built on you assuming something I didn't say. You are right to doubt whether we will agree, because from where I stand you look like you're condoning not paying the developer/publisher for their work.

Underdog's post is spot on, because software is licensed and you cannot transfer the license. However with software there is a unique situation because software that is sold on a disc is a physical expression of a copyright work – which expressly can be resold. The entire doctrine of first sale is build around the presumption that reselling a physical embodiment of a copyright work doesn't harm the creator because the article sold is inferior to a brand new one.

Software is licensed, and if it's not sold on a physical disc, the license terms are completely binding. The license terms on a game disc prevent you from copying what is on the disc and passing it on to anyone else, that is forbidden in the license. But the doctrine of first sale allows the physical disc to be resold. It's kind of a grey area in the law.

However this was all set in law long before the digital age arrived, and long before copyright works could be sold on a physical media that doesn't deteriorate.

So there are two points here, as Underdog says, software cannot be resold unless the license terms allow it. But the physical disc can be resold – including the content of the disc. But selling the disc to another person does not transfer the license for the software to the other person.

My fundamental point in this is always this;

If you spend time and money creating a great game, and you then publish that game at great expense, are you not entitled to be paid for that work? Is it not fair that everyone that enjoys the fruits of your labor should compensate you for your time and effort by paying you for that work?

In terms of pure right/wrong, fair/unfair. I cannot see how anyone can claim that it is fair to the publisher/developer of a game that many people can purchase and play their game, without them seeing a single penny in return. Yet that is precisely what happens with used game sales. Pure and simple it's not very fair to the people who make the games. Let's ask ourselves a question. As gamers, who do we want to reward for making games, the people developing and publishing them? Or the people gouging for second hand games? Do you want more game in the future? If so then why allow retailers like GameStop to skim billions of dollars of revenue from the game publishers and developers just to save your $5 on the purchase of the latest game? Wouldn't you be making it more likely that a developer and publisher will make more games by making sure that they are paid for their work?

There are some really short sighted people in this thread, people that value a comparatively small 'saving' to them, over the success or failure of the developer that makes the game.

tes37
tes37
9 years ago

Highlander, that's the first time I've ever read anything like your idea of lowering the resolution of a game to make it look used, so that it matches other products across the board that are used. Everyone compares the used market as a whole when speaking about used games and according to their way of thinking, your idea all of a sudden seems fair. I laughed my a** off when I read that. I don't like it, but it was funny and most of all, a brilliant idea.

What I would support is, once I spend my $60 that's all you get. If you make something else for the game, fine, let's have it for free or move on to your next game. It'll stop all this theft that's going on, that the developers and publishers are willingly participating in.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

@Tes,

My idea would leave the entire game on the disc playable, but would prevent users from using any DLC. They wouldn't be able to patch the game, and although completely playable off-line, it would clearly be in an inferior quality mode. So you still get the gameplay, and game, but the new copy of the game is obviously more valuable. That way, used game buyers are buying a functional game, but there is an incentive to buy new, or buy the online pass. It would also serve to bring the price of a used copy of games to something much more reasonable. I hate the GameStop business practice for used games. Let's say you buy Madden 12 on release day. Take it home, unwrap it, open the box, look at the shiny new disc. You put the disc in your PS3, and play the game one time. You used the online pass to activate your game and download the latest rosters, just in time to find out that Peyton Manning is out for the season and is no longer on the roster.

Well, as a Colts fan, you're already pretty devastated, but with no Peyton, how will you rule the AFC? So you take the disc back out of the PS3, noting that it looks just as pristine as it did when you removed if from the packaging. Then close the box and take it back to GameStop. You decided you weren't really into football after all, not with Peyton Manning on the sideline and the Colts getting slaughtered by the Texans. Time to trade it in. Gamestop will give you less than $25 for the game. All you did was remove the shrinkwrap and enter the online code, but that cost you $35 or more. However, you give in and trade the game anyway. Gamestop then turns around, while you are standing right there in the store and sells the same copy for $55 to a customer who pre-ordered the game *used*. How is that right? How?

If the game were restricted to 480i without the online pass the used game would never sell for $55. GameStop would still have to give a reasonable value for the game at trade in, or else no one would ever trade a recent or popular game, they'd sell it on ebay. So if what I am saying were to happen, the trade in might still net $25, but GameStop would be unlikely to be able to sell the game for much more than $35, perhaps less. Of course they could bundle the online pass with the game and sell it for a bit more, but the point is that the resolution reduction could prevent the shaft/gouge cycle that trading games at such retailers actually represents.


Last edited by TheHighlander on 9/12/2011 5:10:56 PM

Excelsior1
Excelsior1
9 years ago

why is qd assuming all the extra trophies are used game sales? i imagine rentals would account for a lot them on an experimental game like that.

even if a lot of those extra trophies are used game sales i have a hard time having a problem with it. ofcourse i'm just a consumer that thinks used game sales are natural part of a free market system. why can't qd look at this way? they had 2 million copies sold on a new ip and a million extra people wet their appetite for qd's next game.

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

They never said there were 3 million trophy sets. They said it seems like there should be 3 million sold.

Licensed rental companies give dividends of rented software to the publisher. I'm sure QD knows this. I'm willing to bet there's more like 3.5-4 million trophy sets.

D1g1tal5torm
D1g1tal5torm
9 years ago

It's pretty simple to dissect why QD have only 2million in nums.

No replay after 100% completion.

Unless you're keeping it for posterity, it's going on the bay/blockbusters/lending to mates pile.

This highlights exactly why DLC and multiplayer are important facets devs/publishers use to increase sales numbers.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
9 years ago

Are you insane? The number of endings are in the double digits based on what you do. No replay? hmph!


Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 9/12/2011 11:03:58 AM

D1g1tal5torm
D1g1tal5torm
9 years ago

No replay 'AFTER 100% COMPLETION'.

ZettaiSeigi
ZettaiSeigi
9 years ago

That is subjective. There are games that are worth playing again even after 100% completion. I personally would play Heavy Rain again after getting all the endings, but not necessarily right away. And for a game I enjoyed that much, it's worth the $60 I spent for it and deserves a permanent spot in my collection.

D1g1tal5torm
D1g1tal5torm
9 years ago

Very few and far between – I argued that HR should have been given solely goty, as opposed to sharing it with gt5.

To my mind the only campaign game I have gone back to after platting is Uncharted 2.

ZettaiSeigi
ZettaiSeigi
9 years ago

It's not that sparse, I think. Until now, I still play Uncharted 2, Heavy Rain, Mass Effect 2, Infamous, Demons Souls, and my personal list goes on. I'm not trying to contradict you every step of the way, really. I guess what applied to you did not on me.

Gabriel013
Gabriel013
9 years ago

There's the key. Make games that people don't want to trade in then there will be very few available to supply the pre-owned market.

Why not give away free story dlc to those who paid the full price? That may make them more inclined to keep the game and subsequently anyone who want's to play it has to buy it new.

How about dropping the prices to be more reasonable? If I'm dropping $60 on a game I want to be damn sure that I can get some of that back when I get fed up just like I can with everything else I buy which isn't a consumable. If new games cost $20-$30 then not only would I see no reason to trade in nor to buy pre-owned, I'd also be more inclined to buy games on a whim because at that price, it's worth taking a shot.

If game Devs want to maintain this strange relationship with their customers which NO OTHER BUSINESS INDUSTRY has, whereby we seem to feel the need to 'support them' then they need to get back to their roots of primary aim being to get your creative product in as many hands as possible.

Robochic
Robochic
9 years ago

I loved this game bought it day 1 and enjoyed playing it but I was hoping for more DLC for it as once you have beaten it a few times it just sits on the shelve so I can see how they have lost money on it.

Gabriel013
Gabriel013
9 years ago

Yep, so why shouldn't you feel the right to sell this unwanted product on to someone else?
Some here seem to think you shouldn't be able to do that.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
9 years ago

Here's the thing though, now that QD has proven this whole interactive drama as being viable to many a skeptical gamer (not me I knew it would rule) they will likely rack up more new game sales for their next project. That's how this business works, there's no crying in video games.

StubbornScorpio
StubbornScorpio
9 years ago

I will echo the sentiment of many here in that I preordered Heavy Rain in the hopes of seeing more downloadable stories, but since they wanted to focus more on Move functionality, so be it. I pretty much never buy a game used, but I'm more than willing to purchase a title new at a discounted price down the line.

As long as Quantic Dream doesn't follow Capcom's method of battling used game sales, they can complain all they want.

DrRockso87
DrRockso87
9 years ago

Wait, isn't this the SAME developer that said we should "only play Heavy Rain once"? Seems strange that he would encourage customers to purchase the game for 60 dollars, only play it once ever and then be skeptical that people sell it afterwards to Gamestop or wherever.

Used sales are normal and ironically help developers as much as hurt. Games are expensive enough nowadays so the only way to purchase a new one would be to trade in an old, unwanted one. What's the problem? If we didn't have credit for selling games then we wouldn't be able to purchase new ones (like Heavy Rain).

maxpontiac
maxpontiac
9 years ago

Great news on the 2 million sales mark.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

Good news on the sales. That's an interesting use for Trophy data, but as others have said, it no doubt includes some that borrowed the game from a friend.

Whatever the percentages are though, it's fair to acknowledge that a significant fraction of the 1 million additional users purchased their game used. Considering that Gamestop makes billions of dollars each year in revenue on used game sales, but publishes no sales numbers, you have to know that there is a significant revenue gap for publishers thanks to used game sales, but it's difficult to quantify. This use of trophy data certainly sheds some light on the scale of the used game purchasing, but the picture is less than clear because there is no way to determine how many of the additional ones are people that borrowed the game from a friend.

Qubex
Qubex
9 years ago

Would it not be better to make the games a bit cheaper in the first place and shift more volume?

If games were $40 dollars, rather than $60 I am sure sales volumes would be stronger overall and you would make back profit by simply selling more…

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"