PS3 News: Dyack: Used Game Market Will Kill The Video Game Industry - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

Dyack: Used Game Market Will Kill The Video Game Industry

Industry veteran David Braben just recently said the used game market is to blame for keeping retail game costs high and now, another gaming vet echoes that sentiment.

This time it's Silicon Knights founder Denis Dyack, who told GI International that pre-owned games are a severe threat to the industry. In fact, he says if things continue the way they are, "there's not going to be an industry."

"If used games continue the way that they are, it's going to cannibalize, there's not going to be an industry. People won't make those kinds of games. So I think that's inflated the price of games, and I think that prices would have come down if there was a longer tail, but there isn't."

Dyack added that there's "no tail" to a game, in that a publisher and developer ca't keep making money, as the used copies of that title take the place of new ones and subsequently, the game makers lose out.

"Now there is no tail. Literally, you will get most of your sales within three months of launch, which has created this really unhealthy extreme where you have to sell it really fast and then you have to do anything else to get money."

Considering such statements, it's probably no surprise that current rumors say the next PlayStation and Xbox won't support used games. If it's really this dangerous - and it appears to be, given the slumping state of the industry - maybe it's long past time to ditch the pre-owned idea before the "cannibalization" goes too far.

Tags: used games, preowned games, used video games, game industry

3/28/2012 8:44:14 PM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (153 posts)

bebestorm
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 @ 9:37:27 PM
Reply

I find his statement to be extreme.

Agree with this comment 11 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 @ 10:50:23 PM

As extreme as you find them they are logical, make sense, and can be demonstrated by the almost total disappearance of the long tail - which I have commented on for about 4 years now.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 7 down Disagree with this comment

TheAgingHipster
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 7:38:47 PM

In the words of Kevin Smith, you tell 'em, Steve Dave!

Yeah, I'm personally an opponent of the used game market. Support the companies that make the games you love, and they'll stick around long enough to make more. Buy used, and they don't see a penny. Simple math.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

jaybiv
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 @ 9:40:10 PM
Reply

I'm sick of hearing developers belly ache over used game sales. The world is changing, so do they. The used game market is not hurting the industry. I've heard the tired argument of supporting the devs. I support them. I buy new and don't trade in. However, everyone doesn't have the disposable income that I have. I'm not going to hop on a high horse and pass judgement on folks who want to save a couple of beans.

You take away used sales and new game sales will drop. Some people will not take a chance om a game and it will sit on the shelf unsold. When onsumers know there is a market for a game they no longer want, they are open to buying more games. Maybe they should focus on controlling costs so they don't need as many sales to make a profit. Other industries are dealing with a changing economic reality, games should be no different.

Agree with this comment 11 up, 6 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 @ 10:43:28 PM

"You take away used sales and new game sales will drop."

This is illogical. If there is only one means of obtaining a game(new) every single used only buyer will not just abandon gaming. Some will suck it up and start buying new games. Therefore new game sales will increase as new sales will not only gain new customers but will likely retain most of the people who only buy games new.

Last edited by Jawknee on 3/28/2012 10:47:06 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 7 down Disagree with this comment

Veitsknight
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 12:47:03 AM

Well, look at it this way. Not many would gamble on a game. Especially with the amount of $#!+ they are currently throwing at us at $60. Without the used games or video game rental business, many games would be passed over for the more popular one. I rented alot of games. Some bad, some good. And those I enjoyed, I bought new.

Blocking used games is a double-edged sword. While it may probably boosts sales, this will force people to buy new games and chances are that they will end up with a 3-4 hour piece of crap with boring-ass MP for $60. Hell, even that isn't worth $40. This might also make people more open to the idea of piracy. And they will find a way to fight piracy that will piss-off legit gamers to no end. Stupid firmware updates...

Last edited by Veitsknight on 3/29/2012 12:52:02 AM

Agree with this comment 9 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

jaybiv
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 1:03:17 AM

Jawk, the used market is propping up new sales. If I know I can she'll a game back if I finish it in a few days or don't like it, I am more willing to take a chance on a game. If I have no recourse, I'm not buying a game that I'm on the fence. With the rumors that the next gen systems are going to choke off the used market and prevent gamers from lending games to friends, it look like Sony and MS want to recreate the video game crash of 1983. What a great way to celebrate a 30 year anniversary.

Agree with this comment 12 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 3:58:22 AM

developers are not getting paid for their work, thats not hurting the industry?

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Gabriel013
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 4:10:48 AM

To be honest Jawknee, I know I would buy fewer full priced games if I thought I couldn't trade in. D1P would be almost none existent for me.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 8:29:35 AM

Jawknee, just because there is only one option to buy a game new does not mean people who were buying them used are going to buy them new now. They might simply wait for a price drop, or just not buy the game because by the time the price drops there is another one they are interested in and they saved up for that one.

Its like when people get butthurt over how much there game gets pirated. Pirated copies DOES NOT EQUAL a lost sale. Most people who pirated werent going to buy it anyway and just want to try it out, OR they want to play it as a trial then they buy it. If anything piracy can increase sales because people will pay for quality products.

I agree with jaybiv and veitsknight. I take risks on games because I know I can get some sort of credit towards it if I trade it in. Also the total direction of the industry with its unethical DLC nonsense, I don't WANT to support the Publishers and corporations behind that. Which sadly means I'm going to be screwing the devs. If you think your money is going to the devs, well they get the money AFTER the shareholders, and THATS why studios get closed down.

Here is how they solve the problem. EVERY game needs a trial. A good meaty trial that shows off the features of the game. If they have a good game this shouldn't be an issue. Second, stop this annual 1-2 year development cycle just so your stupid shareholders can have a slightly bigger profit margin this quarterly. I honestly think games need a three year developement cycle. Not this two year, with planned DLC that makes a game cost double sometimes tripple its original price, and in the end gives you the game you deserved in the first place.

YES I say deserve, we deserve high quality games with lots of content, like FF7-9. Like MOST of the games from 2002-2005. Remember when you could unlock hidden costumes in RPGs from completing certain tasks? Now that certain task is shelling out 5 bucks on PSN.

Devs need to get their sh%^ together and start taking more time with their games. I am NOT saying that we don't get any quality games these days, we most certainly do. What I am saying is because of the corporate influence there is a lot of shovel ware being released, or games that are just sticking to the safe tried and true FPS war genre.

He also says if used games werent around prices would drop for new games....really? So why not just release games for cheaper now. Your going to be putting it into a more affordable price range for the masses, and you will probably end up profiting more in the long run.

Most games don't deserve to be more than 39.99, 49.99 for the really deep games with loads of content. There is a whole lot wrong with the industry and he decides to talk about one that really isn't a big deal.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 10:10:35 AM

xenris: Holy Christ...now the developers are taking several years to make a game because of the SHAREHOLDERS? You can't honestly believe that...you can't.

And you're complaining about the quality of games now, too? And you're demanding play tests for every game? And you're demanding price drops for new games?

Wow, that's all very nice. Glad to see entitlement has reached new heights of completely blind insanity. No explanation as to how we'll be able to turn around the fact that the gaming industry is hemorrhaging money in many ways, but you know, so long as you're happy. 'rolling eyes'

Agree with this comment 1 up, 7 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 11:35:16 AM

"jawknee, just because there is only one option to buy a game new does not mean people who were buying them used are going to buy them new now."

Wrong. People's economic behavior says otherwise. Gamers aren't going to just give up their hobby because they can't save $5 anymore on used games. Some will, I doubt most would.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 11:41:19 AM

Ben your ridiculous. You missed all of the valid points.

How about the industry is the most PROFITABLE out of all the entertainment industries?

Yes games ARE rushed yes its because of profit.

Yes games get rushed out because of shareholders pushing the publishers to release the game so they can get their money. Not only that but you just posted an article on how publishers treat devs like crap. Any publicly traded company like EA or activision is doing whats in the best interest of their shareholders which is....PROFIT over everything.

You missed the part where I said we DO get quality games, but we also get annualized FPS nonsense. Games becoming more and more generic because they are all trying to copy the CoD formula. Again you wrote an article about the RE6 developer doing this. That is ruining games more than used sales, and the money and greed behind the publishers is whats driving it.

Demanding? Yeah I guess, if you have a good product why can't I take it for a test drive? Cars, books, and Art you can "test" why can't I test a video game? I wouldn't buy a car that the car company selling it said "its amazing, best in its class, great features" without first testing it for myself. If they said nope you can't why would you buy it?

Would you buy a book from chapters if they were all sealed and you had to rely on critic reviews, and a brief description on the back? No you skim through it maybe borrow it from your friend if they like it etc. Games should be treated NO differently but they are. You buy games hoping that they are going to be what they were promised. That is not fair for the consumer.

Asking for a trial mode for all games isn't demanding. Heck it would probably equal more sales in the long run. How many games have you not purchased because you were unsure of? I know dozens that I haven't. Not to mention you can't trust MOST game review sites. No I don't mean this one, I mean IGN and the other big players.

The guy writing the article said used games are causing games to be more expensive. Wouldn't it make more sense for the company to sell the game directly from their website and drop the game in price? That way less people use gamestop and the devs get more money because all the money is going to them not a middle man. Steam does this and they do it well.

Yes a lot of games do NOT deserve 60-70 bucks. Not even close, you know this everyone knows this. Some games deserve it, but that number is dwindling.

Glad to see you take personal jabs at me and my apparent insanity instead of addressing all of the valid points. As for the industry that is hemorrhaging. Says who, the publishers? Yeah trust them, the ones whos main drive is profit. Used games does NOT equal a sale, and neither do pirated games, everyone knows this. If they want to eliminate them, make games more affordable from the get go and fill them with more content. Not set them up with planned DLC simple as that.

It would make a lot of people happy, it would make the consumers happy, but not the shareholders which is why they should be taken out of the equation. Look at how well Steam does, and how many sales they have. They can do this because they aren't publicly traded and don't have boys in suits telling them to make more profit. Whats incredible is they still make an astounding amount of profit in an ethical way.

You like the word entitled dont you? Its not entitlement. Its calling out what is wrong with the industry and the bigger picture in hopes that positive change can happen. Nothing I have said NOTHING wouldn't have a positive effect.

Cheaper games? Probably would equal more sales, because its reaching a new income demographic. Game trials? Everyone wins, you try before you buy. Three year development cycles? More time to make the game that you envisioned. Everyone wins right?


Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 11:43:47 AM

True jawk, but they might wait for a price drop. I see personally more people wait for a price drop and save up their money, BUT when it drops in price they have saved up enough for a new title and they forget the older one.

I know people wouldn't give it up, but if games were cheaper people would buy more of them. Micro transaction games, farmville etc show that if something is cheap you will impulse buy it. If its a commitment your more likely to wait it out. Also some people spend 100 bucks a week on farmville without realizing it and when they can't actually afford it -_-

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

playSTATION
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 @ 9:52:41 PM
Reply

i agree with the statement above mine.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 @ 9:53:43 PM
Reply

IMO, bad and just mediocre games, along with SP mode games that only last 5 hours long, are hurting gaming sales much more than any used games ever will.

So, I PERSONALLY say to all those developers....

"Either bring us your "A" game, or STFU!!!!

Agree with this comment 13 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Palpatations911
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 @ 11:15:27 PM

I see nothing wrong with bad games or a 5 hour long game. Just don't release it and expect us to pay $59.99 like a Treyarch or Naughty Dog game where we actually get our "moneys worth"

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 @ 11:24:51 PM

"Naughty Dog game where we actually get our "moneys worth"

Nonsense. The shortest Uncharted is at least 9 hours long and when you consider playing it more than once as well as having the option for multiplayer, the game has the potential for countless hours of play time.

Don't exaggerate to make an asinine point.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 12:03:26 AM

Oooops!!!! I think I misread your comment. My bad. XD

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Palpatations911
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 1:27:58 AM

No problem... But yeah my point is you don't hear treyarch or naughty dog or (insert triple a dev here) belly aching about used video game sales. no matter what anyones opinion is on those developers, we all know they're going to put out a polished product that will justify spending 60 dollars. Denis Dyack's Silicon Knights has not put out something worth spending 60 dollars on, so naturally his titles end up in the bargain bin at your local retailer



Last edited by Palpatations911 on 3/29/2012 1:31:13 AM

Agree with this comment 9 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 10:12:28 AM

Wrong again Palpatations, I will bet you every penny I own that if asked, Naughty Dog would ABSOLUTELY speak out against used game sales. ALL developers would.

They have no reason to because they have one of the few games that sell amazingly well. Uncharted is in the top 1% (or less) of games in terms of sales. If you honestly think that's common in this industry, you're out of your mind.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

JackDillinger89
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 11:00:24 AM

You hit it right on the spot friend. Look at all the games that sold well with hundreds of hours of gameplay, mw3, bf3, me3, skyrim, uncharted 3, mgs4, and many others. People want there moneys worth and if its a single player experience it better not be under 10 hours with dlc tacked on. Used games industry and games rental industry been around for decades and now there complaining? So their precious game dont sell like cod games they blame it on used games sales.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 @ 10:08:46 PM
Reply

Come on guys, what all these guys are saying makes perfect sense. We can't keep doing this. Sales continue to slide and maybe development costs wouldn't be such a problem if those developers actually made the money they deserve. And maybe publishers would be more likely to lend money and resources to talented designers if they too received money for their product.

This is just numbers. Saving a few bucks here and there isn't worth the cannibalization Dyack and Braden are referring to.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 9 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 @ 10:12:04 PM

I won't buy a used game unless I save a good bit of money, like $20, otherwise I always buy new.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 @ 10:12:34 PM

I think they are doing pretty well with their DLC, online passes, and holdout content. Nobody is starving at Activision.

Agree with this comment 8 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 @ 10:25:12 PM

No, but the NPD proves that ONLY the big boys aren't in any danger of starving. And that's never healthy.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 @ 10:53:13 PM

Indeed Be, it's not healthy and is a sign of the problems to come. There will be increasing consolidation, marginalization of small players, and at some point the market will reach the tipping point and all hell will break loose. Unless things like online pass help restore the longer term economics of games that don't sell 2 million + copies in the first 2 weeks.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Axe99
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 @ 11:43:06 PM

There was a study done a while ago that suggested that much of the money gained from trading in old games was used to buy new ones, so cutting out the new ones straight won't be the golden bullet some are thinking (ie, new game sales will drop). However, I suspect it is a better long-term solution, as it will give games a longer tail, which I think is healthier for the industry in the long run, as it'll support a wider range of genres. I doubt it'll mean a lot more money spent on games altogether, but I think we'll see more money spent on older games, and a bit less on a newer ones (think older game sales on Steam, for example).

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

jaybiv
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 1:14:59 AM

Ben, the video game industry need to be shaken to its core. The salaries are not sustainable if they are crying about used sales. The devs need to make games cheaper if they want to make money. They are no different than any other company. Apple produces their products for peanuts in Asia. I love video games as much as the next gamer, but I will not proclaim the industry to be so special that they need to get rid of used sales. They need to adapt to the times instead of trying to fight for the status quo like the MPAA and RIAA.

There is zero proof that someone buying a game used would buy it new at full retail. The used market is the same for every other industry. Someone other than the original creator is making money from the transaction. The greed in the industry is one step closer to killing their golden goose.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 8:49:02 AM

@jaybiv

Agree with what you said..I personally just don't believe that used games are the problem. The problem I personally believe is the quality of the products we are given.

We are at a stage in gaming that mediocrity is unacceptable. We have all played stellar games from Uncharted to Killzone to God of War. You can't seriously put out a game such as Operation Raccoon City or Ninja Gaiden 3 and expect it to sale in large numbers. Nor can you expect it to sale "new" down the line w/o a price drop.

This is again a way to dictate how a consumer spends their money. If you give me a product worth $60 then there's no problem. Not saying it has to be a 10 on the scale. In the world today not many are willing to pay top dollar for a game that they're unsure of.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 8:49:11 AM

Highlander and Ben I am sorry but you don't realize the real issue here. You do realize that the video game industry is the most PROFITABLE right now for shareholders? Its even more profitable than the movie industry now.

This is because MOST of the money we spend on our games goes to the shareholders, who then put more into the game BUT then want more return profit from the Product. This is why the DLC nonsense has gotten out of hand. The online passes, its for PROFIT NOT for the developers. It helps the developers marginally but in reality its so the shareholders can increase their quarterly profit margin.

The BIG BOYS ARE indirectly starving the little players Ben. People buy CoD and shooters every year, and its marketed to high heavens from the big players, which drowns out the little devs. This has nothing to do with used game sales. This has to do with the corporate stranglehold thats occuring in the videogame industry.

People have proven you can make amazing games on a low budget with a team of 10 or less people. That you can profit without selling millions of units. When I say you I mean the actual developers who aren't under a corporate umbrella.

The industry is going to crash, and used game sales will probably be to blame because that will take the eyes off of the real problem. Many have stated and its true, a used game purchase =\= a new game sale. Just like Pirated games =\= a lost sale.

If they want to help out the industry, every game needs a MEATY trial that showcases the games unique features, as well as the first hour of the game. Make games that aren't 4 hours long and an hour trial times isn't that big of a deal.

Second Drop the price of videogames. You want more sales make the prices more appealing to people who are in school and cant afford almost 70 bucks per game. With half of the shovel ware we are getting and the tired and rehashed war shooters, those games should be no more than 39.99. Not to mention they probably have 60 bucks worth of DLC you can get with them, some non essential others more essential. Solo only games with a lot of content should be 44.99. Because of less replay value and you cant trade them int so once your done your probably done. Online multiplayer only games should be 29.99 because we know they will get map packs and other DLC stuff to prolong them. Single player and multiplayer games that are of high quality should be 49.99 only if both SP and MP are really quality and polished.

Seriously used games are NOT the issue with the industry. This guy isn't looking at the real problems.




Agree with this comment 7 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 9:50:26 AM

Xenris. 1 - this isn't a blame the corporate greed for the problem situation. Believe it or not, they are not the problem. 2. consolidation of small into large is a symptom of the problem, not the cause.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 9:56:27 AM

This is what happens when everyone thinks corporate greed is at the core of every issue. They sound very...selfish.

Sorry guys, but you're all dead wrong on this. I'll go with every last industry veteran I've heard speak on this issue, rather than those who are just annoyed at having to spend $5 more on a game.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 6 down Disagree with this comment

wiley_kyotee
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 11:50:42 AM

@ Axe99: In regards to your first sentence, I did not interpret from the PS Orbis rumors that used games will be totally blocked. Just that the used game buyer will have to pay a fee to Sony to activate the game. Therefore gamers that purchase their games new will still have the opportunity to sell their games to the used market. Obviouly we won't know for sure until more details come out.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 11:51:06 AM

You can see the effects the corporations are having on the industry. They lose a bit of profit quarterly and then you hear of studios shutting down. I really can't believe that you don't understand the effects it is having.

They annualized games in order to make more profit. They cut corners and rush games out before they are done so they don't have to spend more because that means less profit.

I don't buy my games used, but the used game industry is NOT destroying the industry.

I'm done though as I'm just repeating myself.

Selfish are the shareholders, not the consumer. This is happening with the food industry too, but you probably drink code red mountain dew and eat hotpockets so you don't really care about the quality of food your eating. Corporate greed is trickling into everything, its clear as day.

Last edited by xenris on 3/29/2012 11:54:47 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 12:03:01 PM

xenris, you've just completely invalidated your entire argument. Just vague nonsense about how all corporations are greedy and evil and all consumers are always in the right.

Go Occupy somewhere else. I'm sick of such mind-numbing, self-righteous, self-entitled ignorance.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 3/29/2012 12:03:40 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 12:21:00 PM

Lol, never said they were evil. They are greedy though. You got upset about the whole ME3 ending and artistic integrity.

Do you know how many decisions were made for ME2 and ME3 that were 100% corporate influence? They added ammo going completely against the ME1 established lore so it would appeal to shooter fans. They got rid of a lot of the customization so it wouldn't alienate shooter fans. They sexed up Ashley and EDI in ME3. They added Pecs McBenchpress aka James Vega to look like CoD MW2 main character, and appeal to the mocho man beef cake loving crowd.

This stuff is CLEARLY corporate influence, why would bioware completely go against half of the lore they set up in ME1? Because they had too. It happens in movies and tv series too. They want bigger breasts on X character, or this person to be blonde because thats whats "in" right now.

I've invalidated my entire argument? How so? The forbes did an article on corporate influence in video games. You can see it all around man.

I guess when people see something wrong in the world or smell BS we should just shut up and deal with it. Boy if everyone was like you we would live in a pretty terrible world.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 3:34:25 PM

No, everyone is like YOU and we DO live in a pretty terrible world.

Whiners and not workers. Maybe that should be your slogan.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

jimmyhandsome
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 5:14:14 PM

Xenris- Yes publically traded companies have a responsibility to shareholders, but you sound very paranoid in regards to how these companies operate. You should probably look into a company like Activision or EA's financial statements before you start spewing off information about how they run their business. And the video game industry isn't the most "profitable" in terms of overall income. I don't know where you came up with that.

You guys should read this article:

http://www.forbes(dot)com/sites/insertcoin/2012/03/29/the-coming-war-on-used-games/?partner=yahoofeed

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 5:48:57 PM

Last I checked people were losing their jobs not quitting them. You know for a fact that I don't work now? Because I see a load of BS in the world around me that I won't stand makes me somehow unemployed?

If you must know I run a business I am a personal fitness trainer, martial arts instructor and gymnastics coach.

We live in a terrible world because of crap like this, corporate greed and profit driven industries, that not only end up putting people out of jobs but destroy our planet in the process.

Keep thinking its jimmy who buys used games though ;)

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 @ 10:09:09 PM
Reply

I agree that used games are bad for the industry. The problem is they are great for consumers. Making consoles used game prohibitive doesn't solve the bigger issue though. Yea it would eliminate used games, but it doesn't necessarily mean sales will go up. Unless they can lower prices and more quickly reduce the new price. I don't see that happening, especially with games like CoD.

Last edited by bigrailer19 on 3/28/2012 10:10:27 PM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Gabriel013
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 4:34:10 AM

If some big releases were immediately priced at £20 (with no resale available) then I think a lot of people would buy them new and bypass the used market.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 @ 10:10:08 PM
Reply

Here's the problem with this idea, the same is true of every entertainment market, they get paid nothing for used movie sales and piracy and CD sales and MP3 sales that lead to copies etc, and other industries don't cannibalize themselves to death.

Also, there is no evidence that games would cost less if the used market was eliminated. I bet it wouldn't lower the retail costs a bit.

Killing the used game market could eliminate a big demographic of console purchasers altogether. PS4 could "win" the next generation if they let MS do this with Xbox3 but didn't do it themselves.

Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 3/28/2012 10:14:26 PM

Agree with this comment 13 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 @ 10:28:17 PM

That's true, but the used movie or CD market has never come close to representing the percentage of sales used games count for in this industry. Furthermore, the relative price of movies and CDs compared to games is much cheaper, which means consumers aren't as concerned about the cost of a new movie or album.

But when it comes into the $60 range, more and more people are seeking to save money. Furthermore, there's a ton more turnover in gaming; a game could sell fifty times over but I doubt that ever happens with any movie. For the most part, movies and CDs and all that is kept.

Gamers have been buying and trading like it's a bodily function for decades. It's a very different situation.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 @ 10:47:15 PM

Yeah gaming is a bigger investment but it would remain so even without used games.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Gabriel013
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 4:44:19 AM

Ben, don't want to put words in your mouth but from what you've said in this message the reason the market for movies and music is mostly dead is because they are so cheap per item in the first case SO if the games market followed the same past do you think that the same entropy of the used market would occur?

I'd like to think so.
I'd rather see the used market die a more natural death than be forced on us, by making games more and more affordable to buy new.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 9:01:08 AM

World you and others seem to get whats actually going on. Good on you.

Make games cheaper, more sales. Valve and Steam have proven this, you can see graphs on how they sell decade old games and sell half a million units by pricing it at 50-75% off.

Games are too expensive, and with DLC are borderline ridiculous. I agree they wont drop prices if they eliminate the used market. Why would they? They have a dominant position on the industry, which for all the big publishers is run by the shareholders who want what? PROFIT. There is no way the prices would drop, heck if they had this kind of monopoly on the prices whats stopping them from upping the price more? Believe it or not some people ARE addicted to games and would purchase regardless of prices.

Others would buy into the nonsense that it is inflation and that production costs just went up etc etc.

Half the reason why this generation of consoles is going to last so long is so that they can keep making profit, while not having to worry about new and higher hardware and software production costs.

I'll say it again, corporations are ruining the industry not used games. On a side note I do not purchase any games used unless they are old games no longer available new.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 @ 10:31:19 PM
Reply

Then why hasn't it already?

Last edited by Jawknee on 3/28/2012 10:35:08 PM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 @ 10:51:21 PM

Because the tipping point has not yet been reached. But when that tipping point hits, there will be a gaming crash that will make the last one look like a blip.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

Palpatations911
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 @ 10:40:57 PM
Reply

Why hasn't the industry faltered already? I'm 30 and used games have been available since before I was even born and the industry is still thriving!

Forget it, let's just prevent everyone from buying used goods. No more used houses, cars, DVD movies, Blu-Ray movies, tools, and clothing. Let's just have congress pass a bill that bans the sale of anything that a human has owned in the past and get Obama to sign it in to law in the United States and set a precedent!

This is typical corporate fear mongering and you should feel foolish if you believe anything this Denis Dyack guy spews from the hole in his face.

He's just PISSED because his piece of DUNG game "Too Human" was a steam powered hype train and his new game sales was derailed because of the used game industry. MAYBE if he created a game that wasn't absolutely horrible, he wouldn't have had people who were too timid to buy it new and ended up buying it used for half price a month after release! It was so cheap because no one wanted it brand new!

He was correct on the cannibal reference because his company will get eaten alive by other companies if he continues to make dung games.



EDIT: OK so his game wasn't horrible, but it was "blah". Average at best.



Last edited by Palpatations911 on 3/28/2012 10:42:48 PM

Agree with this comment 13 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

dbyzforce
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 12:10:36 AM

I agree with you Palpatations911...

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 12:16:57 AM

I really don't think you understand anything about this. The used game market is UNIQUE due to a variety of factors. Comparing the sale of a used game to the sale of a "used" house is...I'm sorry, idiotic on both an economic and logical level.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 8 down Disagree with this comment

Palpatations911
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 1:44:24 AM

If someone has the gall to refer to my statements as "idiotic", i would appreciate an explanation as to why.

For some reason you are exempting video games from the the free market rules that every other product lives buy.

The problem is that Gamestop got a good thing going and the game developers do not like it.

If there was a "Toolstop" i'm sure that Black and Decker would be pissed too. Lol.

I am interested in hearing why you think this topic is incomprehensible to me.

Last edited by Palpatations911 on 3/29/2012 1:49:59 AM

Agree with this comment 10 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 9:06:47 AM

Video games are unique because corporations have a hold on the industry. They want more profit and your buying this, used games are hurting the devs nonsense.

If they had it there way there would be ONE company as little employees as they needed to get a game made in as little time as possible, so they could make the most amount of profit. Thats why studios get shut down, not because timmy bought a used game. Devs get fired because the corporation is trying to find out how to increase their quarterly to make the shareholders happy nothing more nothing less.

Considering the videogame industry is THE most profitable industry right now, its a load of crap that they blame this on used sales. Its because the money we spend only a fraction is going back into the game, while the rest goes to the shareholders.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 10:02:03 AM

@Palpatations
He did tell you why. Read what he said again. lol

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 10:08:19 AM

GameStop has a "good thing going?"

LOL

Perfect example of crap entitlement. You're going to give THAT retailer the benefit of the doubt here? Are you serious? The same retailer that has been gouging you on used games for decades? In any other situation that doesn't involve YOU saving money, GameStop would be the bad guys. But because they put a price tag on something that's $5 or $10 cheaper than a new product, they're suddenly golden boys.

This is just getting...obscene.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 @ 10:51:28 PM
Reply

I buy new sequel games often because I picked up an old title used that I would have passed on completely at full price.

So what does this mean for basic price degradation? Do they want games to be full retail forever too?

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

THEVERDIN
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 12:26:13 AM

Sure sounds that way. 4 years from now would pay $60 for a game like Haze.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

wackazoa
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 8:33:07 AM

Nah... They'd make it a greatest hits and charge $20. But you'd have a TON of greatest hits.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 2:37:40 PM

I refuse to buy greatest hits packaging

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 @ 10:58:21 PM
Reply

I agree completely with Dyack and Braben. And before anyone else asks why it hasn't happened already, to some extent it has, but we might be fortunate if the online pass idea preserves the economics of games past the initial sales spike. The long tail is where developers and publishers have their regular cashflow. Otherwise it would be a complete famine or feast industry, and they don't work well.

But, as I say, things are already happening. Look at the number of people that justify the $1 POC games on iOS devices as if they are the equivalent of a $20-$40 game on a real gaming device. Look at the free to play crap with micro-transactions. No used games there my friends, and you could pay well over the $60 of a decent game in dozens of microtransactions that are gone immediately. Game publishers and developers are looking to adopt ways to defend themselves, and the industry is changing. if we don't look out, going to GameStop or Target to buy a game on BluRay could become a thing of the past.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 9 down Disagree with this comment

jaybiv
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 1:21:19 AM

Good points but the fact remains that evolution cannot be stopped. These companies have to adapt or die off. Survival of the fittest. Natural selection. They are fighting a losing cause. Their insistence on keeping the industry the way it was two years ago is pushing people to PCs and mobile platforms. In a perfect world I would be right with you. Unfortunately, times change, seasons change and so does everything else. They can cling to philosophical concepts or they can make the necessary changes to keep some money in their pockets. Nothing lasts forever.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

wackazoa
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 8:36:16 AM

The only thing I'd say is at least with free to play and or the iOS software you are expecting update fixes for the price. It is far to common nowadays for console games to be released with bugs and the idea of patch fixes day 1 or beyond. For $60 give me a FINISHED game not one your planning on fixing 2 months later.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 9:16:07 AM

Yes the long tail is where they make the majority of their money. At the same time you can't produce an average product and expect it sales months after release at full price. That won't happen. It's things like this that promote piracy. A quality product will always be purchased new by those who have the funds to do so. Yet why handicap those who are unable to at the moment? They'd likely buy their product and when they are financially able to, will likely buy the next productions by the dev at full price.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 9:52:27 AM

Folks, you're talking rubbish. Sorry, but you are. Games are on average of a far higher quality than in previous generations. All your reasoning here is simply justification for the expectation that games should somehow miraculously be cheaper and/or free. You're killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 12:11:47 PM

@Highlander

To say games are of higher quality than previous generations is not a very accurate statement. Meaning, most games put out this generation are supposed to be better than the previous generations of gaming. Yet we can't compare one generation to another for justification.

For example the PS2 era gave the majority of us games that were worth the money. Every generation has it's games that we can deem as not worth the admission. Used game sales were still around but I would say a lot of devs still raked in money.

This generation is different. Used game sales are through the roof. This generation we've been given more average to descent games then top notch quality games.

I will always say, you create a quality product then people will buy it. Even when I go into my local Gamestop I don't see too many top notch games used. The ones that are, you don't save much so it leads the consumer to buy new.

Pretty much for the devs to create a long tail I believe they need to price their product accordingly. Don't give me a Duke Nukem Forever and tell me it's worth $60. Nobody is going to buy it especially when a game is slammed in constant reviews. I just think devs are attacking used games as a sole issue when there is a lot more to it than that.

Last edited by slugga_status on 3/29/2012 12:12:53 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 12:14:38 PM

Slugga, one crap game at $60 hardly invalidates the statement; Games are on average of a far higher quality than in previous generations.

There were plenty of crap games last generation, and plenty more the generation before that. They all sold at full retail when launched too...

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 12:44:23 PM

Highlander, I totally agree that there were plenty of crap games last gen. I stated that in my comment to you as well..and the Duke was just an example, totally not what I'm basing my thoughts on.

But you hit the nail on the head. This crap has been going on for a long time in regards to putting out games that don't justify the cost. I think devs need to do more on their side to give a quality product. Or maybe the testers they have in-house need to do a better job? so many different variables here to consider

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Axe99
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 @ 11:46:13 PM
Reply

The good news for the industry is that, in the not-too-distant future, most sales will be digital, so there won't be used games any more as they are now.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 12:50:10 AM

I think they should just wait until that happens.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 3:21:21 AM

Yes exactly.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

79transam
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 8:13:47 AM

If they go all digital new games better be 45-50 bucks

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 9:53:17 AM

I doubt that will happen entirely yet because the copyright office has yet to decide how to handle the issue of the "doctrine of first sale" in the digital realm.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

THEVERDIN
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 12:08:40 AM
Reply

Why don't the developers buy back their games then they can resell them as used and they receive the profits!!!

Agree with this comment 10 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PAKINIPS
Friday, March 30, 2012 @ 6:24:49 PM

That's not a bad idea

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 12:50:47 AM
Reply

This would send everybody working at Gamefly home.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Gabriel013
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 4:50:14 AM

Also, if places like Gamestop thrive off the profit made from the used market and not the new sale market then shutting down that secondary industry would put how many hundreds/thousands out of work?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 9:58:59 AM

Oh give me a BREAK. GameStop has been ripping off the gaming public for decades with their used game crap. It's basically 300% profit on every game they take in; giving 1/3 of what they'll ultimately sell it for. Sometimes it's closer to half (was when I was working there), but that's getting rarer and rarer.

I really don't give one flying sh** about GameStop, as they've been jamming us for a VERY long time and pocketing billions by screwing both game makers AND gamers. You want to talk adapting? Let them adapt to something that's less overtly insulting.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 6:18:13 PM

I said Gamefly

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Veitsknight
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 12:57:46 AM
Reply

Argue all you want about who is right or wrong. All I see here is the drastic means the consumers will take to save a few bucks. Next console generation will probably have the highest piracy rate ever, especially since renting games is out of the question as well.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Veitsknight
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 1:06:33 AM
Reply

I hope you don't have to enter any code for online and full game access for new games. I hope they do all that shit internally now. It is a hassle to redeem an online pass every time you buy a game.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

D1g1tal5torm
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 2:37:14 AM
Reply

What is it with the used game band wagon?!

Simply put, used games will not kill the gaming industry. Period.

Total hysteria. Movies suffer with much more with piracy than you can shake a stick at, but do you know what's amazing?.....

....shock horror movies are still being made, by small and large companies alike.

Bored of devs and publishers moaning they aren't making more money from consumers.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 4:20:06 AM
Reply

what i cant understand and find REALLY frustrating is developers are doing jack sh*t to stop it!
crying till your eyes dry up and face turns blue is not going to solve a problem.
stop your b*tching and DO something about it!
instead of punishing people for buying games used, reward people for buying it new!
and give customers a reason to keep their games!
only reason people trade games in is because 1 there too expensive and 2 theres no reason to keep them.
if game prices dropped to 50 bucks ( what they really should be here since the AUD is stronger then the USD but for some BS reason were actually paying double!) and developers gave customers a reason to keep their games then this would no longer be a problem!
instead of punishing people from buying used by forcing online passes, reward people for buying new by free DLC packs.
and then to make sure people dont trade in games release constant DLC!
that is THE biggest problem with games these days!

as i said the other day the ONLY reason why COD is so popular is because its THE ONLY game that caters to EVERYONE!
and its THE ONLY game thats so well supported!
no matter how you like to play your games, be it run and gun, team based, stealth, whatever your play style there is a class to suit you!
cant say that about any other MP games.......
and most games these days get 3 maybe 4 DLC packs and thats about it.
very few community events, competitions, gaming with the dev nights, double XP weekends, things to get people back to the game.
if developers properly supported their games with a years plus worth of DLC, and both SP and MP then people would never trade games in, thus no more used games to purchase!
simple, no?

as ted price and so many others have said the future of the games industry is a service.
you purchase a game, you purchase a subscription, and the developer gives you a constant flow of content to make you want to keep the game.
the days where developers spent 50+ million bucks creating a game, customers spending 100+ bucks on buying it, and them getting 3 or 4 MP packs, then the developer going to a new game, are over!
THANK GOD!
more and more now were starting to see developers split some go onto a new project and some stay on DLC for their previous game for a year or so.
how it should be!

support your game with a years worth of content, and it has to be both MP and SP based because some people like me dont play MP.
so if its MP only, then of course there going to trade the game in!
give customers a reason to keep the game!
if not then of course people are going to trade it in to help pay for the next 1 week wonder!
i really thought developers would of figured this out YEARS ago!

put it this way.
ive played hundreds of games this gen.
at least 80% of them id call totally worth the money.
so then why do i only have 6 on my shelf?

AC2, infamous, heavy rain and ledgend of zelda skyward sword, 4 of my favourite games this gen absolutely f*cking brilliant games!
but why are they not on my shelf?
because i have no reason to have them on my shelf, thats why!
no matter how much people enjoy something they can only finish it so many times before they get bored of it, and instead of looking at it as a investment they look at it as a hole in their pocket.
a hole you could use to pay for the next 1 hit wonder.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Squirrelicus
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 8:05:55 AM

COD is supported? Really? I distinctly remember a glitch in MW2 where people could hide in a rock and shoot out and not get shot. That went on for atleast five to six months. They may have fixed it now, I don't know haven't played it since Black Ops came out. That's not well supported for such a well known and easy to fix glitch. And if you are implying that the average game only produces 3-4 DLC releases and CoD produces more, you are once again mistaken. MW2 3 DLC releases, BOps 4 DLC releases, MW3 4 DLC releases split up to 20 DLC releases so Activision can milk more out of it.

There is no support for CoD, Activision is to busy keeping the dev teams in the sweatshop cranking out the next iteration.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 8:35:39 AM

wait, so people hacked the game and that makes it poorly supported?
im not even going to bother pointing out the problems with that logic!
heres a tip though.......
EVERY GAME GETS HACKED!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Squirrelicus
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 9:57:36 AM

It wasn't a hack, it was a glitch within the map. And it would have been an easy fix. And yes support does mean patching the game to counteract the hacks. Support is not making 12 maps and releasing a few of them every three months until the next installment is released (which by the way the dlc maps are probably made well before the game is released.)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Gabriel013
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 4:48:19 AM
Reply

Interestingly (Yes this is just me and it's just one example) I bought Fallout 3 brand new then traded it in for store credit and used that towards buying FO3 GOTY edition new. I might not have bought either had the used market not been available.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Laguna
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 5:31:00 AM
Reply

why is this only a huge issue now? Why haven't people in the industry been whining about this since the NES days?

I don't think used games are killing the industry, I think uninterested consumers are killing the industry.

If these AAA first party games continue to tank while people flock to call of duty, things will get ugly.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 9:46:02 AM

I don't see many AAA games flopping. I do however see games with high expectations not doing so well. I also see games that should get Attention, not.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 9:55:09 AM

They have been, but the used game revenue has never before accounted for such a high % of the total game market. The voices complaining about this have risen in volume in direct proportion to the % of sales revenue going to used games.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

79transam
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 8:05:50 AM
Reply

I think were all in for sticker shock once used games are non playable on new systems. $80 anyone?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Sir Dan
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 8:22:58 AM
Reply

Selling a game gets a video game customer in the store. Chances are this person is going to buy another game when trading in the old one. Who goes through the bother to go to game stop and leaves without buying another one. I'm sure the people that trade in games a lot are the more hard core gamer and the more games played the more of a fan base is built. I'm sure the person trading in is going to by a new game. It's about building and keeping a fan base and keeping those games moving. I see nothing wrong with used game selling and buying.

But if we really want to get rid of this, why not go to digital download only. Slowly over time, of course. Bring the price of brand new AAA games to around $45. With DLC they can get back up to $60 pretty easily, if the game is good enough. I'd be more more willing to take a chance on a $45 game than $60. You wouldn't be able to trade in a game downloaded to your console. Not that I'm aware of at least. I'm sure there is a way but it wouldn't be as easy as taking a disk to a store that's for sure. I like the games downloaded to my PS3. No disk loading. I always go through my list of games on the console before my pile of plastic when choosing something to play anyway.

In short, I like that used games can be bought and sold but if they want to end it, why not go digital download.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

wackazoa
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 8:25:08 AM
Reply

2 points...

1. Drop the price of new games

2. Why dont the developers get together and make a rival to Gamestop ?



Or do those make too much sense ?

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 9:43:19 AM

They won't drop the price of new games until used game sales diminish. Can u blame them? Problem is they probably wouldn't lower prices anyways. Games have always been expensive, developing for Blu-ray disks and other formats won't be any cheaper, plus all the game development costs.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 9:55:58 AM

drop prices, make even less money on a game that won't sell past 1 month after launch? Yeah, what odd planet do you live on?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

wackazoa
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 11:08:01 AM

How do car companies top there competition ? How do McD's,BK,Wendy's,etc. beat their competition ? How do Home Depot and Lowes ? By offering more and charging the same or less. I dont get the whole argument about losing money making games.

Ex... you have 100 employees making each $100,000 a year. Thats $10,000,000. Now you make a game, say sell 2 million cpies at $60 ea. Thats $120,000,000. So your telling me it cost over 100 million to make your game ? How so. You are creating the world, you are creating the actors, you are creating everything with computers you already have.

So I dont buy the whole we cant survive/ we lose money angle. Its all about making more money plain and simple. It has nothing to do with keeping as an industry.



Dont believe me ? Minecraft has made over 80 MILLION in profit. And it has the graphics of a early 90's game.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 11:14:45 AM

Ah! But Minecraft has protection on used copies!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

wackazoa
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 11:31:18 AM

Maybe so but the point I was making with minecraft was they made a game with a great profit without having to spend alot. So in saying these "industry heavywieghts" are talking out their ass when it comes to losing money.


And the fact you picked the minecraft sentence shows,I think, the validity of the rest of the post.

Last edited by wackazoa on 3/29/2012 11:35:06 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 12:38:48 PM

I spoke on every other point you raised elsewhere within the thread and then some. I'm not gonna retype everything 100 times over.

Your math in the bigger paragraph is just insane, though. The biggest projects have budgets in the $40-60 million range. Ever see the credits? There are many more than 100 people involved in a big production. And production on big budget games are typically at least 2 years. Sometimes more. Additionally, there are more costs than employment costs. Then there are royalty fees, publication costs, operative costs unrelated to salaries... And no one makes $60 a game. A portion goes to the publisher, game engine owners, developers, and the retailer. (And anyone else that shows up on your screen before you can click "new game".) And part of that has to go to distribution and shipping costs.

Typically speaking, in order to break even, a high end game needs to sell 1.5-2 million copies at it's peak price point in order to break even. If they wish to just push the franchise further and not develop new engines, etc. breaking even is fine. If they wish to expand, make more games as a company or make a bigger and better project for next time, they need to sell more than 2 million. If they want to get WEALTHY off something, they need to sell over 5 million.

If you're a lower end developer who can't push out more than 1.5 million-2.5 million, you are going to take a VERY long time to expand and have more resources at your disposal. And if you are only selling 1 million or so, you are simply funding and existing project to project. The only thing that you can do to be BETTER is to improve on your skills, because you ain't getting any more funding for extra bells and whistles.

It makes it so the little guys only have so much potential. How can a small team of experts with limited cash compete with a huge team of experts with unlimited cash? Most are stuck at a certain level, which is why we've already seen some devs move on to something like iOS... it's cheap development and there's more profit... a better retirement package so to speak.

Now, if each of these developers can increase their net worth after projects by even 20-25%, expansion and growth becomes very possible for the good game makers that are basically in limbo. (That 1-2 million selling range that a majority of 8.5+ rated games are at) All of a sudden, growth is possible!!! Used sales more than doubles the income of that of new sales. If used sales somehow contributed 15-20% to the original developers.... POW.... we have a much better funded industry. REMEMBER: Most devs do not get rich until they overcome a certain threshold... the current game MUST fund the next game, or else they go bankrupt. If you want to improve, you need to do MUCH MORE than break even.

I picked out the minecraft sentence because I just wanted to have a little fun with you. But now that you called me out a bit, I feel like I needed to flesh it out a little further apparently.

Last edited by Underdog15 on 3/29/2012 12:51:52 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

wackazoa
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 1:16:34 PM

By the way UD not trying to have any beef w/ you.

So say you have Uncharted with it's HUGE development team, when they make a game the try to sell 10 million copies. Same with Resident Evil,Battlefield,COD,God o War,Gran Turismo...etc. They are making games with large budgets trying to make it big at "the box office".

Now the smaller studios dont have hundreds of people. Which is where I came up with the hundred person count. They generally make games that are more niche. So 1 or 2 million is maybe their target game sold.


As for the expanding part why ? Why is bigger always better ? Why not stick to what you can do and continue to produce a good/great product. My family has has a construction buisness for 80 years. When we started we had 50 to 60 people working for us. BUT we constantly had to have something to do to afford them. We now have 5 employees. We now have alot more leeway to "pick and choose" our work.


Point is if Bethesda or Naughty dog make a great game with 100 people (hypothetical) the wont necessaryily make a game twice as good with 200 people. The idea that they constantly need more money and people to make better products is dumb. More people can just muck up the process.


But my final point is how much money do you ACTUALLY need ? Do you really need 80% of the pie ? Is 50% not good enough ? And with the larger share coming in how much actually goes into the game ? Or the people who working on the game ? And how much goes to the investors ? Or the owner/CEO ? And do the customers that buy your game and thus allow you to grow your company deserve anything ?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 9:58:40 AM
Reply

Lots of entitlement minded gamers defending their right to pay a third party for the work that went into developing and publishing a game instead of paying the publisher/developer.

You are what Dyack and Braben are talking about, your short sighted entitlement mentality will destroy the industry as we know it. Tell you what though, to make yourselves feel better while it happens, blame big corporations and evil corporate lapdogs, and whine that gaming is too expensive - despite it being cheaper in real terms than ever before.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 7 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 10:04:33 AM

I also find it awfully interesting that these people are suddenly willing to DEFEND GameStop's behavior, as if they're innocent in all of this. As I said in my comment above, they've been taking advantage of consumers for decades. That retailer has single-handedly messed up how game makers get their money and now, even when sales are sliding and basically every last veteran designer in the industry is screaming that something needs to be done, these selfish gamers are STILL whining...

This, right here, is the reason why we're in trouble. Gamers not only need to grow up, they need to at least acknowledge that maybe, just MAYBE, the designers aren't sitting in their mansions needlessly complaining. That MAYBE they all have a point, and MAYBE the sales numbers are obvious indicators of the veracity of that point.

Here's a sad fact: Take any other subject, any subject that doesn't involve a consumer saving a few nickels, and everyone suddenly becomes more rational. They're willing to listen. They're not categorizing every single comment made by the "shady companies" as "corporate greed." But when it comes to their wallets...they all hold Economics degrees and are perfectly willing to send even the smallest struggling developer down the river.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 3/29/2012 10:05:28 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 8 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 11:06:20 AM

Completely agreed Ben, completely. You know we're going to be popular saying it though, right? ;)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

wackazoa
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 11:16:02 AM

I dont think it's defending Gamestop as much as defending choice...

When you give the consumer choice then yes more often than not they will be the happiest and make the more sound choice.(i.e buying a NEW game thats only $10 more expensive.) Nobody seems to argue about about saving "only a few dollars", if they are the argument doesnt make sense. But Gamestop has plenty of games for sale at $20-30 as well and thats where it works as a company.

Take away choice and you have Madden. Most football gamers will still say NFL2K was better. Take away choice and now we dont have a decision to make where we buy games. They all cost the same so you buy where it's close. Choice is the fundamental arguement here.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 12:01:26 PM

It's never popular to be on the right side of things, especially when it puts the masses in the wrong. ;)

Agree with this comment 1 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 12:36:04 PM

I can only speak for myself. Devs should not be able to dictate how a consumer spends their money. Only two things can happen A. Consumers comply or B. You lose a consumer. It's essentially playing with fire.

Ben and Highlander, I enjoy reading your post but on this issue it just seems as you only see the devs side of this. You both have made statements that are indeed correct yet others are correct as well.

I don't think people are defending Gamestop itself, they're defending their right to make a choice. I am one that believes a used game sale will likely earn a dev a future purchase by a consumer. I am an example of this as I purchased Uncharted used, loved it, and ND got my $60 for Uncharted 2 and 3.

Almost every industry has this issue of used sales or copies of their product being pirated. Video games are no different. Sure movies and cd's are cheaper. Yet what they found is a way around piracy and/or used sales to still turn a profit. They also market their products a lot better than the video game industry.

Money can still be seen by devs. I strongly feel that devs need to be realistic in pricing their products to provide it with a longer tail. I think they need to market their games a lot better than they have. Although I agree that used sales are part of the problem, I can't agree with saying it is the problem and to say that it "is" the problem is a cop out.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

79transam
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 2:03:16 PM

Seems to me entitlement is present on both sides.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Palpatations911
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 3:06:37 PM

Ben,

Since you have used terms that fox news uses such as "sense of entitlement", let me use a term that will be familiar to you - "This is an attack on the middle class"

Right now, you are campaigning against the used classified adds, you are campaigning against thrift stores, campaigning against little Jimmy letting his buddy Timmy from school borrow a game because his mom can't afford to buy him a new one.

Freakin evil, dude...Evil...

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 3:33:17 PM

Holy crap, you are DENSE. I'm doing nothing of the kind. I AM middle class, genius. Actually, I'm probably below that, given what "middle class" people make around here.

If you want to keep thinking the used game market is somehow even vaguely, remotely similar to the other markets you speak of, feel free. It's just WAY too stupid for me to respond to.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

PMartinNL
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 10:14:24 AM
Reply

Games have always survived with the used market, I really think this is just developers looking for another way to make every extra dollar. Think about it, if I buy anything, a car, house, movie, etc etc, I have the right to sell my property without the creator getting another cent from the original purchase.

Also, If there are alot of used copies of say Mass Effect available at EB/Gamestop, that tells me that the game actually sold really well NEW and that is the reason there are so many used copies available. The more copies that are sold new obviously the more copies will show up for trade in becasuse of the larger audience that purhcased the game.

My point being, if a game only sells 300 000 copies, please don't blame the used market, blame the game. Obviously, there will be more used copies of Uncharted or Gears of War available than say Resistance, you can't blame that on ''used'' game sales.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 10:42:39 AM

Dude, cars and houses don't get turned over and re-sold a hundred times a month. If they did, and the manufacturers weren't seeing any of that retail money, you'd see the exact same complaints.

These comparisons are so ridiculous, they're starting to hurt my brain. Seriously.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 6 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 10:46:56 AM

The problem lies in escalating development cost and a -GROWING- used market that dominates game sales now.

It's not a secondary market anymore. Used game sales makes more money than used sales. Hard to believe since there has to be an original sale in order to be used, but it's true. That's how bad it is.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 11:04:55 AM

And yeah, the used game market can't really be compared to other used industries. It's always good to be reminded of the kids we're dealing with when it's brought up, though.

I already responded earlier to the silliness of the used car industry comparison, and this guy completely ignored the points I made. Ben, some people are just happy being ignorant. Heaven forbid you confront them with objective information that challenges their own conclusions they've just barely reached due to the speed in which they scramble to protect that $5 bill in their pocket.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 11:08:30 AM

Video games are licensed software, not cars, homes, or anything remotely similar. This car and home analogy simple doesn't work on so, so, so many levels. The parallel with DVDs is closer, but not really because although copyright is involved in DVD contents, software licensing typically is not. The closest parallel is Windows licensing. How many used copies of Windows do you see floating around for $5 of the new price at GameStop?

Games are software, just like Windows.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

wackazoa
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 11:39:33 AM

A point on the car angle is that car dealerships that make the most money are the "licensed" dealerships. Not comparing the products but maybe game companies could just start licensing retail chains to sell used copies of their games.

Down here in FL we used to have at least 3 used chains in EB games,Rhino games, and Gamestop. Gamestop bought them out to silence the competition. Why not bring the competiton back and eat away at Gamestops profits.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 12:18:27 PM

Underdog;

"Used game sales makes more money than used sales. Hard to believe since there has to be an original sale in order to be used, but it's true."

When you consider a popular game that maintains it's original high price at retail but has a play time of less than 20 hours (or about a week for an average gamer, within the first month of sale 1 copy of the game could be in the hands of 4 different gamers only one of whom paid full retail. the other three will have paid GameStop $55 for a product they gave at most $20 each time. GS will net their margin on the new sale plus $105 pure profit on the used sales for those four gamers use of the one copy of the game. The publisher will get about $30, from the new sale (and nothing from the other three) which it will have to split with the developer. At least the On-line pass might allow the publisher to recoup $10 per player and drop GameStop's share a little. Assuming that a $10 online pass is needed and GS either drops the used price accordingly or bundles an online pass code, the numbers would look like this; GS would net their margin on the new game plus $75 in pure profit on the used sales. The publisher would get about $30 from the original sale and another $30 from the online passes. They would share the new sale revenue with the developer, heaven knows how they share the online pass revenue.

It's important for everyone to remember that the $30 or so the publisher gets from a retail sale of a game is already mostly spoken for because of the costs of production and marketing, and the developer's cut is what pays for the development of the game, it is not profit.

That right there is the problem.

Last edited by Highlander on 3/29/2012 12:22:48 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 12:55:41 PM

@Wackazoa

That's a little closer to the conclusion I think needs to be sought out.

If there's a licensing, or something to that effect, required to -sell- used games, then there is a percentage, even if it's just a small one like 10-20%, going back to the designers. And that's really a wonderful start to helping grow the industry. In it's current set up, developers seem to be held at bay. where they are barely making ends meet.

Most developers are not living in mansions. They really aren't.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

wackazoa
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 1:36:00 PM

Underdog

Idont think the "game delveopers", i.e. the actuall people working on the game will see a dime if the price is raised or more sales are new games. To me this is about the people who live in mansions, the CEO's or investors who would see more money from the company profiting. Thats why you dont have interviews from Joe the character designer saying down with used games. To me it's just the people who "run" things complaining about the used games and how they are killing the industry. Always founders and CEO's doing the complaining.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 3:48:07 PM

...'sigh'

David Braben and Denis Dyack do not live in mansions, and neither do all the indie devs who have been complaining about this for years.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 10:34:46 AM
Reply

Kill the industry?

No not likely.

Hurt it?

With it's current set-up, absolutely. You can't even logically conclude it won't.

As Ben said a while earlier, the used game market has so many other contributing factors and nuances that other used industries do not have. Additionally, other used industries have a maintenance aspect to them that still guarantee a residual income to the original designers and to the industry, even if things are purchased used. (ie. car industry. Automobiles need consistent maintenance. Original car makers own various parts plants. So even if a car is bought used, most repairs you need to make must have parts purchased through a sister company. It's why Kia parts and bands are not the same as Ford's or Toyota's. Games do not have those guarantees.)

In the end, it would be negative to completely wipe out the used market. But it NEEDS to change. And in the current model, for the sake of saving $5, we are ultimately damaging the industry. Only the big boys don't care. And only the big boys don't need to to care. That is -NOT- a sign of a healthy industry.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PMartinNL
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 10:41:19 AM

''Only the big boys don't care''

These guys are big boys because they relase a game that has great gameplay and or continuous enjoyment, either on single player or multiplayer. Like I said if the small dogs are only selling 200 000 copies, blame that on the game and not the used market.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 10:53:24 AM

Then tell me this: How do you propose these small developers find a budget equal to the big boys?

There's about 20 different issues you ignore. It's quite frustrating.

Why are only 3 or 4 companies home to rich publishers? Why are there only 1 or 2 rich developers? Why do most developers in the industry make a salary based on the development budget and -NEVER- make any capitol on top of it? How do you encourage console game makers to create more games for consoles and not switch to casual iOS games (which are locked to your id and cannot be sold used, fyi!)? How do you look at a developer struggling on consoles due to steep development costs to both fund their creative projects, make an overhead profit, and do so competing head to head with the publishers and dev teams that have billions of dollars at their disposal? Why are even Naughty Dog's bosses not millionaires?

I have more questions that are still popping in my head, but that would be rude to post many more. What is interesting, however, is that all of the answers can be tied to the used game market.

You also ignored my comment when I said the used game market shouldn't disappear. It needs to be changed. It's an objective fact.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

PMartinNL
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 10:47:01 AM
Reply

@ Ben, if you think that cutting out used game sales will somehow ignite a sales spike in mediocre game sales then you are just eating what these publishers are feeding you.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 10:58:15 AM

Wait... so if a game is a 7.0 on metacritic, they -DESERVE- to have their games bought used? Sounds like you're just scrambling for something to justify your own greediness over the $5 you saved. If it's mediocre, don't buy it. Period. Don't turn around, say they don't deserve sales, then buy it used from Gamestop as if they're somehow your salvation bringing angel. How do you not see an issue with that?



Here's the other thing that makes you, I'm sorry to say, downright foolish. Ben never said once that we should do away with used sales. Not once. I've read the whole thread and the article. The point of the article is that things need to -CHANGE-.

Of course, you've clearly ignored every good point I made in your response to me, as well. Funny.... you can't recount a single point I've made. You merely state your opinion as if it's a counter point to what I've said. But face it... you don't know enough about the topic to either prove me wrong or discount any points I, or Ben apparently, have made.


EDIT: You know your defense of a corporation that screws over gamers AND game makers makes it seem like you are being controlled by a piece of Eden, right?

Last edited by Underdog15 on 3/29/2012 11:02:10 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 12:00:35 PM

Yes. Because after all, what we're being "fed" is always lies and crap.

I never said it would ignite sales. I said you might want to consider what people IN THE INDUSTRY are saying.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

wackazoa
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 1:41:46 PM

Not arguing with Ben on this but "people in the industry" will tell you their side. I.e basketball and football players turning down millions of dollars because they need more to "feed" thier families. Owners bringing in a profit before the season ever starts but not spending on players to put a wining product on the field. Actors who make millions trying to be a advocate for the poor but not giving up any of thier millions.


Again not aruging on your last post but, the "people in the industry" are always looking out for thier bottom line the most.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

VampDeLeon
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 10:55:06 AM
Reply

As someone who only had a budget to spend $50 only two times a year growing up, it's quite a kick in the pants to be told how they're killing the industry. Thanks.. but at least I'm not in that situation anymore.

Now the real question is, what are gamers suppose to do when they don't want the game anymore after buying it? Throw it away and say "Your game was crap, but I'm still supporting you to make more :D"? Nah, most would sell/give it away. :P Used game sales won't ever go away because of that unless they make everything digitally sold. And not everyone is fully comfortable with not having a physical copy available.

It's not all on the consumer's fault on purchasing it used. If developers want their consumers to pay up the full price, then they just have to show us why! Develop promising games, then everyone will be hesitant to part with a game. As someone suggested, have special content that tempts people to get it new. They already have extra content for games if you pre-order them, well why not for when it's a new copy as well?

Gamers and shopping moms are willing to fork out the money if there's a good reason, otherwise it's just the patient people willing to wait for the price to drop or hunting on Ebay and other gaming stores (because Gamestop is not the only one willing to accept trade-in's) for the best deal.



Last edited by VampDeLeon on 3/29/2012 10:57:03 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 11:01:24 AM

No offense, but if your budget is only $100 a year, you're falling behind in good games anyways. You can buy brand new games at nearly $20 easily with the backlog you must have.

No offense, but gaming is not a necessity. It's a -LUXURY-. As such, you should treat it that way and spend within your means. "Because I can't afford it" isn't a good reason to afford an alternative that's quite literally only $5-10 cheaper.

On the other hand, I agree that used games sales should not vanish. But it does need to be changed. Gamestop making a 300% profit is asinine. Either they need to be fairer to consumers or to the game makers, or *gasp* both. Right now, they're ripping the gamers and the game makers off, and yet so many people here are quick to defend them.

It's crazy to listen to.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

VampDeLeon
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 11:44:21 AM

Erm.. with all due respect you just like inflated my small example of what my situation "was" like and minimized my main point. Kind of makes people scared to post now. :P

Of course games aren't a necessity, it is a hobby after all. It's still pointless to wave a finger at those trying to be frugal or not being environmentally aware of the consequences if they're basically promoting everyone to just throw out their games if they don't want it. Or be at risk of potentially losing the game if it's only available digitally. It will only cause more anger and feeling of entitlement.

Gamestop.. There's so many horror stories about them, yet not much is done against them. What they should do is maybe expand their collection on older and classic titles that the original developers could no longer gain profit from now.

They can then still gather their money from the older used titles and not have to worry so much on losing money from consumers looking to purchase titles new (and they can then stop placing 'used' discs in the 'new' game boxes). After all, most of their costumers that go in to trade in games use that credit to help purchase a new game.

Last edited by VampDeLeon on 3/29/2012 11:49:57 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PMartinNL
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 11:01:54 AM
Reply

@Underdog15 You bring up some fine points. I agree that games cost a Fu**in$ fortune to make, I just don't blame the lack of profit on used game sales. That is how I view this and is my opinion. Trade ins of used games also create purchases of new games, this ia a fact.

As far as the used game market being changed, it's already in the process with the adding of online passes, which is a great idea imo.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 11:09:44 AM

When the used game market brings in substantially more money than the new game market, it raises an eyebrow. When there are billions of dollars spent on used games, you have to wonder how much -COULD- have gone to the actual industry. Even if it's only 10%, that's like 200 million. $200 million is a budget for like 4-6 major and very huge games.

Again, I don't disagree there should be a consumer cost effective used game industry. But it's a sh!t-hole set up. The used music industry is just as bad of a set up, but no one buys music used. Not much, anyways. They combated that by going all digital. As a result, even new music retailers are going out of business.

That's a direction I don't want the game market to go in.

But it will at this rate. Without change, it -will- mimic the music industry, and we will have even LESS control of our content.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PMartinNL
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 11:07:45 AM
Reply

@ underdog

First of all I buy 90 % of my games new, and I didn't mention anything to do with game ratings. A mediocre game to me might be a fsntastic game to you and vice versa. Game ratings don't always justify the game. I'm just stating my opinion, which it seems like you can't really do without getting hammered on here.

Ohh, and for whatever reason the ''reply'' icon isn't showing up for me, hence the @

Last edited by PMartinNL on 3/29/2012 11:10:26 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 11:12:31 AM

Opinion is one thing. But it's frustrating to be even a little bit ignored to the point assumptions are made about you.

How many times now have I said that I don't think the used game market should disappear? Even Ben never said the market needs to die. We've been saying it needs to -CHANGE-. But some people and their "opinions" are assuming we think it needs to die... because they simply aren't reading before they respond. -THAT- is extremely frustrating.

See my response above about the music industry comparison. I really don't see the current market contributing to a positive future.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

COBB
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 11:50:40 AM
Reply

Why don't the big three merge (S,M,N) and form one sister company, take over Gamestop, run it the same, but restructure it to have Devs recieve a percentage of used sales. Share holders still make money, nobody loses their job, new games prices drop, which in turn could increase both markets, new and used sales.

Peeps would take a chance on new game at $40-$45 if they could trade it in get 50% back, which allows for a used sale of $30-$35, everyone would still profit, just not in big lump sums like now, but if you increase transactions it levels out to be about the same profit.

I myself buy some used games from Gamefly just to add to my library, mostly I wait for Amazon to offer them onsale new.

I refuse to trade in a game at Gamestop simply because they won't give me 50% return, especially a game thats not even a month or so old. They want to give $20 towards the purchace of $60 game, that means I just paid $80 for the new one, the $40 I lost on the trade and the $40 I paid for the new one.

Last edited by COBB on 3/29/2012 11:51:32 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 12:06:05 PM

GS used game revenue runs into the billions. Their revenue from used games is almost certainly their single largest revenue stream. It's easily their largest profit center. Essentially their used game operation is a huge money vacuum cleaner that sits between gamers and developers/publishers.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 12:24:50 PM
Reply

Okay, this is going nowhere; I don't want any other replies in this thread unless it's to reply to the following:

Nobody really knows what would happen if used games disappeared. Nobody. We can all guess but that's it. If you step back, there are actually very few facts, but the facts are these-

GameStop makes billions on the sale of a product that the makers of the product don't profit on. That's a problem, regardless of product or industry.

Industry veterans who have been part of video games for decades are all saying exactly the same thing. Exactly. So, in order for everyone promoting used games to be correct, either every last one of those designers is wrong, or every last one of them is lying to keep the money rolling in (which, for most of them, it ISN'T).

This is all we really know. Now, you are free to twist things around a hundred different ways from Tuesday, and philosophize and predict, but when all is said and done, we are left with only two facts. Two. Developers and publishers aren't making money on the repeated sale of their product, and game makers EVERYWHERE, all around the world, are telling you this is a problem.

If you don't wish to believe them, fine. But you had better come up with something viable that goes well beyond "all corporations are evil." By the way, if you really do believe that, you should be condemning GameStop for taking advantage of you.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 7 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 12:59:28 PM

Now that you mention it, I'm surprised I never brought that last point you made up before...

Gamestop is even bigger than Activision!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 1:09:41 PM

Singing to the choir Underdog...been singing these same words for years now. No one listens.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 1:22:59 PM

Everybody seriously needs to stop bagging on Gamestop as if they're the only source of used game sales. While we're at it can we stop the "save $5" argument as most games receive a cut of more than $5

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 2:41:09 PM

But Gamestop is evil, and industry veterans have a personal stake in saying used games must go.

Find me an analyst that has the numbers and projections to back these claims and I'll be convinced.

Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 3/29/2012 2:43:11 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

anjpikapp3
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 3:01:30 PM

All I can say is there are 3 ways we can stop this...1) do not buy/sell anything to/from gamestop. I don't and I never will. 2) if you chose to sell the crap game you just bought, sell it online (e-bay and craigslist still work). or 3) Create a new store (possibly named Stop Games) that buys games at a higher rate and sells them at lower cost giving a % to the developers (lest say 10%).

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Palpatations911
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 3:16:31 PM

You win via wall of rhetoric.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 3:35:44 PM

You're the idiot who thinks used game sales have anything whatsoever to do with the "middle class."

You're a ridiculous hypocrite. Everything you've said is "rhetoric." No facts anywhere. I'm the only one that ever mentioned facts.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

Phoenix
Friday, March 30, 2012 @ 12:58:06 AM

While I agree if the used game market went away, it would prolly help the devs... for a while. But I think the bigger problem these days is that most of the games that get put out, arnt very good, certainly not worth the 59.99 price tag, and they cost more to make. yeah, we've had the odd AAA game that's been good, but most have been pretty bad IMO, or havent really lived up to expectations.


Another problem, is DLC, it's one of the worst things that could happen this gen, and you see the greed with almost every title put out now, hell some dlc is already on disc and they still try and ding ya for $10 to unlock it. I've got no problem paying for content developed after the game has launched, but when it's on disc, or day 1, they just need to gtfo with that crap, it needs to stop.

Anyways, back on point, used games. I would love to see some proof that the used games are single handedly destroying the industry, dont get me wrong I think it takes it's toll, but I really dont think it's the only reason they arnt selling games, as mentioned above. It's easy for them to point the finger at the used game industry, but perhaps they need to look at the QUALITY of the products they're putting out. But dont get me wrong, Quality doesnt always equal profit, and sometimes a complete shit game can make a ton of cash.....yes I'm looking at you COD, but I think if the dev team puts the love into it, and does it right, you can really get a gem outa it, take MGS4 for example, beautiful game.

I harbor no love for gamestop, or any shop that resells a game, nor do I buy used, unless I have no other option ( and most the games I'm after are 16-bit or below, and GS doesnt carry that old stuff anymore lol ), but I understand the need for it, as perhaps some people cant afford to pay the full price, it's easy to say just save up, blah blah, but you know what, it's a shitty world, and it's hard to make a living, so sometimes that extra $5 or $15 just might be out of reach.

Last edited by Phoenix on 3/30/2012 1:03:46 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

79transam
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 2:06:01 PM
Reply

Is the solution to allow used game sales and to ensure the devs get a slice to have activation codes much like the online code?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 8:29:15 PM

Devs have a salary, they don't make more money when their content sells more, the publishers do.

But depending on your position you can earn 50-80,000 per year. Used game sales can't touch those salaries in any way unless the company fails. But that's business.

Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 3/29/2012 8:33:34 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Laguna
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 2:41:38 PM
Reply

I don't buy used from gamestop unless they have a killer sale.

But if they pull this crap I will switch to nintendo.

used games should always be an option

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 3:36:18 PM
Reply

I asked before to stop responses to the thread. There will be no more, or there will be consequences. The entitlement freaks are getting out of hand.

It's also amusing that they're all right and all the developers are wrong. ...I'm always amazed at how "the people" think they know more than anybody involved in the industry in which they're discussing.

Seriously, NO more replies.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 3/29/2012 3:46:47 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 6 down Disagree with this comment

bluedarrk
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 6:10:28 PM
Reply

I'm curious with used games banned how much of a price drop would new games be?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 6:54:07 PM
Reply

I said no more replies. Anyone want to test that again?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Veitsknight
Thursday, March 29, 2012 @ 8:47:19 PM
Reply

I love how everyone is so well spoken in this site.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PharaohJR
Friday, March 30, 2012 @ 2:54:28 AM
Reply

ok..... i read a fair amount of comments about this & lol alot to the feedback about it. when a item such as a game is purchased...... that user throws down the full retail price correct..... so the company has now recieved the funds they expected from the product.

for whatever reason now the consumer is no longer satisfied with the product so they decide to return at a place that will give either exact cash back or a certain amount of funds back based on the demand, & time the product is found marketable. the place then puts the item back on shelves for sale lower then retail price but this time the company that produced the game wont see no funds since they recieved there worth when originally purchased..........

ok.... somebody with sense please explain break it down now where is it money is being lost for the orgin company that produced the item......... cause what i get from those selling the item used is they have to give the consumer a reasonable price the item is worth based on state found in the market then resale again at a lower then new price since the item been used already.

is it a problem cause developers have to deal with the different branches that say we get a cut cause we have to do this & etc for it to reach shelves while the retailer that sell their used product doesnt?

is it cause the consumer is buying a product less then retail price & enjoying the full product?

what is the problem?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Friday, March 30, 2012 @ 9:43:01 AM

The problem is called software licensing, not the sale of a physical artifact.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

Do you regret buying the PS4 so early?
Nope, I love it!
Not really; I still play it plenty.
A little, I was hoping for more games.
Yes, I could've waited.

Previous Poll Results