New US Online Retailer Will Give Game Makers 10% Of Used Sales
See Full ImageGameStop may not have any intention of sharing its pre-owned profits with publishers and developers, but they're not the only show in town.
Well, okay, they basically are, but there's a new fish in the sea, and this fish isn't afraid to give the game makers a little taste of the used game market.
According to GamesIndustry.biz, new US online retailer EKGaming plans to share 10% of their pre-owned game sales with the publishers and designers.
The company wishes to promote a "circle of life" in the retail environment, which includes this new revenue stream for the game producers. Said EKGaming CEO Mike Kennedy:
"Publishers are spending record amounts of cash on new game development. This increase in dev costs is steering them in directions that don't necessarily jive with gamers, causing them to take less risks on new and potentially exciting IP's or game mechanics and sticking with tried and true properties that are more of a guarantee.
We want to share our used game revenue with them so they can continue investing in new gaming experiences without worrying about the negative effects used games could be having on their operations."
Furthermore, the retailer says they will "guarantee" better trade-in credit for games; perhaps as much as 30% better. They can do this due to the low overhead of the online marketplace and could be in stark contrast to GameStop, a company that has enjoyed billions of dollars in pre-owned sales over the years. As an example of the higher trade-in values, EKGaming currently offers $40 credit for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, Assassin's Creed: Revelations, and The Witcher 2.
Well, it's a start. No matter how you slice it, game makers deserve something of those used game sales.
Tags: used games, preowned games, gaming industry, ekgaming
4/24/2012 8:22:44 PM Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (63 posts)
xenris
Tuesday, April 24, 2012 @ 9:30:50 PM
Reply
Then they had these gamer deals where if you beat the game in a week and returned it in 7 days you got all your money back in credits.
I like this idea though. I do think if they are going to sell used they could give the companies a little something.
3 up, 0 down
TheAgingHipster
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 7:33:59 AM
1 up, 0 down
BikerSaint
Tuesday, April 24, 2012 @ 9:41:01 PM
Reply
IMO, I think EKG should dole that 10% out as a 50/50 split with both the publisher, and the developer too.
Otherwise, how we really know that money-hungry publishers like Anti-vision, $E or even M$, would actually wind up parting with even 1 single penny of it.
Last edited by BikerSaint on 4/24/2012 9:42:13 PM
11 up, 0 down
DarthSayver21
Tuesday, April 24, 2012 @ 10:42:35 PM
idk how, idk why but that quote is the first thing that came to mind the second i finish reading your comment... o_0
Well it does hold truth lol
3 up, 0 down
parasitic
Thursday, April 26, 2012 @ 5:41:15 AM
0 up, 0 down
Oyashiro
Tuesday, April 24, 2012 @ 9:52:46 PM
Reply
4 up, 0 down
Bloodysilence19
Tuesday, April 24, 2012 @ 9:53:00 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
tes37
Tuesday, April 24, 2012 @ 10:02:04 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Palpatations911
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 8:26:25 PM
0 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, April 24, 2012 @ 10:06:50 PM
Reply
1 up, 1 down
Jawknee
Tuesday, April 24, 2012 @ 11:13:40 PM
3 up, 0 down
bigrailer19
Tuesday, April 24, 2012 @ 11:30:42 PM
1 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 2:08:13 PM
0 up, 0 down
DjStiv3
Thursday, April 26, 2012 @ 12:52:03 PM
0 up, 0 down
JackDillinger89
Tuesday, April 24, 2012 @ 10:42:19 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
karneli lll
Tuesday, April 24, 2012 @ 11:12:49 PM
0 up, 0 down
karneli lll
Tuesday, April 24, 2012 @ 11:14:22 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Lemon_Saint
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 1:32:53 PM
0 up, 0 down
karneli lll
Tuesday, April 24, 2012 @ 11:18:34 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Him
Tuesday, April 24, 2012 @ 11:46:08 PM
Reply
2 up, 0 down
Palpatations911
Tuesday, April 24, 2012 @ 11:58:22 PM
Reply
Secondly, allow me to give a different opinion on this matter. I know that many people would love to have more fresh and unique games but giving more money to the publishers isn't necessarily going to cause a 'trickle down' effect to the developers and ultimately to the consumers.
Game publishers like EA and Activision are a lot like big record companies. They are apprehensive about spending money on musicians that are unique and fresh. No matter how much money they have, there will still be POP music and they will forcefeed you crap like Justin Bieber, Ke$ha, Drake and Lil' Wayne.
I think this Mike Kennedy guy is a corporate goon and I will praise him when he gives that 10% to INDIE developers and kickstarter projects!
That's how you get new and exciting games! Until then, enjoy the same ol same ol.
7 up, 3 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 12:31:17 AM
Indie developers are often "indie" for a reason. They tend to suck. You just never hear about 99% of them and only hear about the 1% that are really fantastic. There's a REASON the bigger publishers typically don't take risks on indie devs; you don't honestly think they'd pass if all these apparently brilliant independent designers are capable of producing fantastic products, do you?
Sorry, how you get new and exciting games is basically the same as it has always been, and the same it has been in other entertainment industries- Someone, somewhere, has to give you money. Otherwise, it doesn't work.
Sony published Quantic Dream's Heavy Rain, one of the most progressive titles of the generation. Sony has backed Thatgamecompany from the start. Without that big evil publisher, chances are, we would never have seen Journey or Flower. EA and Activision are big but they're hardly the only publishers out there; great games from all sorts of designers still find their way to the marketplace, IF they're good enough.
5 up, 6 down
Palpatations911
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 1:36:58 AM
...Wouldn't you agree that Sony is a bit of an exception?
1 up, 0 down
Jawknee
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 3:20:31 AM
1 up, 4 down
___________
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 5:23:23 AM
indie developers are not indie because they suck!
jump on steam and pick a indie game.
8 times out of 10 the game will be brilliant!
amnesia the dark decent, blacklight, super meat boy for instances.
indies have a far better hit and miss ratio then the rest of the industry thats for sure!
7 up, 4 down
xenris
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 9:01:05 AM
Second, saying Indie devs tend to suck is a bold statement. Even more bold claiming that only 1% of them are any good. Steam store would like a word with you. While not all indie games are good or appeal to my tastes, at least they are making different games for fans of different and sometimes "dead" genres. Heck in some cases they create a game that is its own genre.
Of course big publishers aren't going to take a risk on these guys, when have they EVER taken risks in the last 5 years? How many generic action shooters, have we gotten because they are "safe" bets? Even terrible FPS games somehow manage to sell way more than they should because for some unknown reason that is all the casual and majority of consumers(most of who are young gamers who never experienced even the PSX era of gaming), want to play.
You know why Sony backed those two devs you just stated? Because Sony wants to have a lot of unique games, they know that that will get them fans, and sell console units. Using sony and microsoft as examples for publishers as an example is flawed and heres why. Both sony and microsoft want to move console units, so they know they need variety and to stand out from the competition. Sony does this better than Microsoft in my opinion. Also both Sony and microsoft have the income from other sources, TVs, computers, Consoles etc. They have more disposable income so to speak and plan long term. Sony is really known for planning long term, just look how they were losing money on every PS3 sale in the beginning.
EA on the other hand(who is terrible at planning for the long term), has to rely solely on its software. They aren't going to take risks, they stick with what works for profit sake. When every quarterly you have to make more profit than last quarterly in order to keep shareholders interested your going to start running into some problems down the road.
Like I said before and I think Bevel linked it on a previous article, you can actually find online records of EA cutting funding from Research and DEVELOPEMENT, and putting that money into PR, and actually profiting from it. This means less money to the devs more to marketing, how cool is that ;) Not a very good or smart long term solution hence why EAs stock has been dropping consistently for the last while.
@Jawk,
Yeah there are a lot of Beiber lovers, however I think what he was saying is that all the other bands that have talent get drowned out by him and other generic pop artists whos music is tailored to reach mindless teens. Singing about themes that resonate with them. Why do you think the majority of pop songs are about the same thing and in some cases even have similar tempos and rhythms?
Its just like what happened with Call of Duty. Sure there is a huge market for it, but whats not fair is when it drowns out everything else in the industry and even worse starts getting publishers thinking they need to release games annually and make them more casual and action based, because they want some of Activisions piggy bank funders :P
7 up, 0 down
Excelsior1
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 9:07:08 AM
I really don't buy into the notion that game makers deserve special status of being exempt from a second hand market. No other enertainment medium enjoys that status. A second hand market is just a natural extension of a free market system. It's been the most profitable of the gaming companies like EA(recently voted the most evil/hated company in America) during the most lucrative gen in gaming that have pushed for this. That's why I find remarks from companies like Valve so refreshing. They think game prices are too high and believe that if they make a good game it will do just fine. They are not the only company that has went on record stating this either. So don't think for a minute that all gaming publishers hold the view that used game sales are bad.
I know several that buy a game new then beat it. They sell their games to buy another new, No way these gamers will buy as many new games without the ability to trade in their games. I have seen people at Gamestop trade in a small stack of select 360 games and not only get a new game but walk out the store with $116 in store credit thanks to the rewards program and the high value of the games they traded in. High profile titles will get you over $25 in trade in when using an awards card. Guess what these gamers do? They buy new games.
That's another reason I always find that $5 argument so damn weak. That argument only works when a gamer opts to buy used game at $55 used vs $60 new, but it sure the hell does not fly for the gamer who uses the awards program at Gamestop properly and trades in high value games. I called Gamespot once just to see how much in store credit I could get on some games I no longer play ...$217 with their awards program. Hell. I could almost buy a new system. Just be forwarned. Older games won't get you as much much although COD games hold their value for an eternity.
The $5 argument is just silly and only applies to those that pay the $55 instead of $60. Even that argument falters when Gamespot runs their buy 2 used games and get a 3rd free. The $5 anti used game argument falls flat on its face when used in combination with awards program plus trading in games.
The savings gamers can get are significant when they use the system to their advantage. Add in trade ins and it's way more than $5 a gamer is losing out on...It's not really something I do becasuse I have regretted trading in some games in the past but I admit I have walked out of Gamespot pretty dumbounded at the in store credit some of these gamers have received.
Don't get me started on a digital only system either. That bypasses another free market principle of supply and demand. Retailers are often forced to slash prices in order to make room on store shelves for other games. No such pressures exist PSN.
I have seen games like Mass Effect 2 up on PSN for MONTHS at the full $60 while a stores had it as low as $20. That has been corrected now but it took an eternity. Motorstorm Apocolypse still sits on PSN at full price while Target had it on sale $15 brand new fairly recently. I have seen the same game at $29.99 new at other places like Kmart and Wal Mart. 99.99% the new copy of the retail version is cheaper.
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 4/25/2012 9:25:38 AM
10 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 9:18:55 AM
Amusing that some of you who agreed with me about change are suddenly turning tail in the other direction...
Unfortunately, this company needs to be a catalyst... in other words, their actions alone won't fix it. They need to be successful enough to inspire change, in order to really make a difference. I still say that the industry needs much more dramatic change. But this is a good step in the right direction, even though it's just a small one.
Honestly... more money going into the actual gaming industry AND providing a more viable option for consumers... Why are there naysayers that I -KNOW- once upon a time, thought this would be better? How many of you said, "Oh I don't support gamestop! They're crooks! But used sales are the right way to go!" Well... here... someone who is offering a -FAIR- trade to consumers... and supports the industry.
What the h-e-double hockeysticks do you guys want, exactly?! This is PROOF that some of you just like to bitch and complain, and you LOVE to spread the evil corporation mantra no matter what evidence is in front of you.
Corporate goon, Palp? Are you serious? He's an entrepreneur! In a young company!
.... bunch of smart people acting dumb... quit it guys. You're smarter than that.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 4/25/2012 9:21:30 AM
3 up, 1 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 9:56:42 AM
If you give something small more money, it will get bigger. Eventually, it will become exactly that which you despise so much.
That's just one point. It's ironic and hypocritical that you say we should basically only support indie developers (when of course, the best games every single year do NOT come from such sources, but whatever), because if we do, they will in time become one of the big boys. Bizarre that you don't get that.
Secondly, there is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that giving indie devs a ton of money is going to result in bigger and better games. There's no guarantee that a team of three that creates a fantastic game for the PSN, or Steam, or iOS/Android systems can staff up and create a fantastic big-budget game for consoles and PC. No guarantee whatsoever. It's a completely different world and publishers know it.
Proven developers understand what it takes to succeed in the bigger field. They understand the pressure involved, they understand what vast resources are required, and they understand the general process. Rockstar will give us Max Payne 3 and GTAV, Naughty Dog will give us The Last Of Us, etc, etc. It's not the same as saying such-and-such group of four or five did a great game for Steam, so THEY should get the money.
This is not how business works, and this is not how this industry works. The sooner you'll learn that not in EVERY instance are the small guys somehow superior to the big guys, and that publishers aren't just counting on established developers because they're biased, money-grubbing companies, the sooner you'll understand.
5 up, 2 down
xenris
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 10:54:20 AM
Not to mention sell games at a reasonable price, and have steam sales all the time.
I don't think its about only supporting indie devs, but when they make something super unique and super creative and super fun darn right you should support them. The fact that most awesome indie games are overshadowed by the same contrived Call of Duty nonsense that only does well because its marketed to high heaven is ludicrous.
Sure there is no guarantee that giving indie devs a ton of money would result in bigger and better games. But if the reason a wicked indie game was short and sweet was because they didn't have the funding to make it longer then, can't we infer that if they had the funding the game would have been bigger and better?
I do like some publishers. 2k seems to give the developers the time they need, like Bioshock and Borderlands 2. Both have been in development for quite some time. Rockstar is another awesome company, they take there time and have the "its finished when its finished" mentality. My only problem is from companies that are trying to make annualized franchises, and rely on unethical DLC models.
@Excelsior
I agree with your points on trading in games. If I couldn't trade or sell games, I wouldn't have been able to afford half the games I bought. I never buy used unless its an old title not availabe new anymore. I think this is a big factor publishers and devs don't look at. However I will admit if used game sales were in the billions then its a shame that some percentage of that doesn't go back to the devs.
Hopefully this is a catalyst that forces Gamestop to do the same thing.
4 up, 1 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 11:09:35 AM
1 up, 1 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 11:31:59 AM
You can try to rationalize WHY Sony and Microsoft support the indie devs all you want. It's entirely irrelevant. All that matters is that they do, which shoots your "all big publishers suck" theory right in the head, as Sony and MS are two of the very biggest.
Also, this "generic FPS" argument is nonsense. If it's not that great, it doesn't sell well. You can hate on CoD all you want and call it "generic" all you want; the facts remain. RAGE didn't sell anywhere near what it should, even though that's a mix of FPS and a few RPG elements. And Resistance hasn't done anywhere near as well as it should, either. Neither has Killzone. The idea that all shooters just sell, and that's all that publishers want is critically flawed.
EA isn't going to take risks? No? What do you call Mirror's Edge? Dead Space? Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning? Mirror's Edge was evolutionary in several different ways and remains one of the more unique titles of the generation. Dead Space completely rewrote the survival/horror genre; taking that sort of risk on a new IP isn't always advisable. Kingdoms of Amalur required EA to sign a virtually unknown studio.
And what about Take-Two? Should they be punished for being big and not taking risks? Should indie devs be given special treatment when TTWO gives us Max Payne 3, GTAV, Bioshock Infinite, etc.? Really? And what about big developers? They should suffer as well because they've sided with the big boys? So essentially, every last Game of the Year candidate won't get the benefit of used game sales, and that 10% will only go to indie devs...why? Just because? On the OFF chance they'll somehow create something like Uncharted if they got bigger?
As usual, your anti-corporate rhetoric has blinded you to logic and common sense.
5 up, 4 down
xenris
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 3:24:40 PM
I much prefer a well supported game every three years, instead of a poorly supported sequel game every year.
Never said all big publishers sucked you put those words in my mouth, like you tend to do. You also missed the part where I listed publishers I liked. I meant to put take-two in there as well. What I want is the corporate influence out of games and for some publishers to stop tampering with beloved IPs in order to get more sales while in the process leaving their original fans out in the rain.
Um, saying that RAGE didn't sell what it should have was my point exactly. That game is way better than CoD, and deserved to sell more. How is it that the not so great CoD sells more than any other game, if not so great games don't sell? CoDs online is buggy, has terrible hit boxes, and the single player is 4-6 hours. Any other game would get murdered for these things, but not CoD. Shooters regardless of quality will sell more units than another genre of game thats of the same quality unless said games are literally broken. But my main point was, that CoD and other alleged blockbuster games overshadow quality indie games, heck quality games in general.
However, that being said who is defining what poor sales are? The publishers that need increased profits every quarter? Rage sold 500,000 copies on the xbox in its first month alone, Those are not bad numbers at all when you factor in PC and PS3 sales. Killzone 3 sold over 2 million copies since its release last year, not too shabby if you ask me. Resistance 3 has sold over 1 million as well, and while both of these games definitely deserve better sales they still made money. Those numbers are from VGchartz. Of course these are terrible numbers if your trying to get the sales that CoD gets. Why can some companies get these numbers and be super happy and continue to make more games, when other companies look at these numbers as failures?
EA doesn't take risks, you listed three games out of dozens and dozens that they publish. Mirrors edge was the only risk, and look at how hungry they are to get the sequel started ;) EA was more than willing to sign an unknown studio(which has huge talent in it anyway)in order to get a piece of Bethesdas Elder scrolls fans and I think they succeeded. Not to mention it was already planned to be turned into an MMO which EA can use as a piggy bank, another reason why they signed this Unknown studio. Did I mention it was filled with industry veterans, plus RA Salvatore? Hardly any risk there.
As for your last two paragraphs you seem blinded by anger or something. I never said anything about special treatment, never said that big developers didn't deserve that 10%. In fact I said it was a shame that a percentage of used game sales didn't go back to the Devs.
I totally agree with this whole article and idea of giving money back to the Devs for used games. But I think it should go to the devs not the publishers, however thats unlikely to happen.
4 up, 1 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 3:38:50 PM
Call of Duty doesn't suck and never really has. Get that through your head and then restate your argument.
And exactly how are the big games from EA and Activision unsupported? There's a ton of DLC for the biggest titles out there...oh wait, that's right...you just don't want to pay for that support. "Rushing" titles? What exactly has been rushed? What? Any of the Assassin's Creeds? We were always worried and yet, it doesn't seem to happen that we get crap, and this year's hardly looks "rushed" to me. Battlefield? This year's Medal of Honor? Upcoming games like Dead Space 3?
Outside of Madden, I'm having extreme difficulty coming up with franchises from EA or Activision that are ACTUALLY annualized. CoD doesn't even count, as two separate teams work on each installment, essentially giving each team two years - not one - to produce the game. ACIII took three years despite the fact that we've seen an AC title in each of the last three.
You haven't a leg to stand on by saying that games from big publishers are rushed and poorly supported. It's only what you want to believe because it fits your politics and yet, it's just plain false.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 4/25/2012 3:40:27 PM
3 up, 0 down
xenris
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 5:06:56 PM
Map packs are not support when there are tons of balance issues with your game in the first place that need to be addressed with patches. You would think with all the money activision makes they could pay someone to patch there freaking game no? BF3 on the consoles is sorely in need of a patch too.
Call of Duty hasn't been good since CoD4, its been the same game every year with little innovation. If you think its great fine, I think its terrible when compared to a vast amount of other shooters and games. But I forgot your opinion was fact sorry. Also forgot you don't look at real facts and evidence showing the games problems, like I provided above. Oh well.
Games do feel rushed. ME3 felt rushed in several parts, from the crappy 2d background sprites, messed up facial system, copy and pasted assets, the weird way side quests worked and obviously the ending. I don't think two years is enough development time. You can see the difference in quality when they are given even an extra year.
MW2 got 3 patches before they abandoned that and just pumped out map packs. Even though there were tons of glitches and bugs still in the game. Guess what game still gets patched for bugs and exploits? Counter-Strike:Source, a game from 2004. The top selling game franchise of all time cant support there game more than a handful of times throughout the year before they release the next game? Not to mention can't fix some of the fundamental problems that have carried over from game to game even though they are using the same bloody engine?
This isn't about what fits my politics, its whats blatantly obvious if you pay attention. I've given you evidence of publishers(EA) influencing game development, I've given you evidence of EA cutting funding. So its obvious that evidence isn't what your looking for.
Titles that felt rushed.
Mass effect 2 and 3
Dragon Age 2
Medal of Honor
Prototype 2
Soul Calibur 5
Marvel vs Capcom 3
Need for Speed, The run
Assassins creed brotherhood
Off the top of my head I could probably think of more. Crysis 3 already looks like a game with copy and pasted assets and recycled enemies. But I won't say that looks rushed until I play the final product.
Your right I shouldn't has said annualized, the proper word was rushed, even two year games sometimes end up feeling rushed depending on the scope and scale of the game.
5 up, 1 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 8:45:34 PM
You accuse me of saying my opinions are facts, and you spend an entire post lecturing me about YOUR opinions being fact? Call of Duty "hasn't been good" since CoD4? Good. I'll let most every critic on the planet know of your "factual" analysis.
And that's a nice list there. Some of the highest rated games of the past few years. All "rushed." Mm-hm. A few of them didn't turn out that great but then again, development time wasn't exactly short on games like Soul Calibur V.
And you're ALSO already passing judgment on Crysis 3? This is downright comical. So basically, you're just going to tear down what you want to tear down, pretend that somehow your OPINIONS make everything you say factual, and then turn around and accuse someone else of doing the exact same thing?
Right. I'm done with you. It's too idiotic and freakin' self-righteous for me to read anymore.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 4/25/2012 8:46:59 PM
1 up, 3 down
Excelsior1
Thursday, April 26, 2012 @ 5:22:23 AM
Sometimes I think there is a pretty simple market principle that is overlooked. The consumer is lookihg for VALUE. They always do. It's just their nature, They are trying to save money and stretch their gaming dollars. A used a game market lets a gamer get more value. I'm not going to judge a gamer for using the second market to get more value.
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 4/26/2012 5:26:40 AM
2 up, 0 down
xenris
Thursday, April 26, 2012 @ 10:14:36 AM
One of the reasons I stopped looking at review scores was because of CoD. Which is why I loved your article on review standards. I've said it before, why can CoD games get away with things like a short campaign, and bad writing(looking at MW2) and other games like homefront for example get bad scores because its single player was somehow too scriped generic and short? Meanwhile CoD games since MW2 and especially MW3 feel borderline like Rail shooters and are heavily scripted, why don't critics care when its CoD is all I'm wondering.
The list was certainly my opinion never claimed it was fact. Just listed some reasons why ME3 felt rushed to back up my opinion. I could list examples from the other games but ME3 is the freshest in my mind.
I said crysis 3 looks like it might be another example, but I in no way passed judgment on it already, I said I will wait till I play it.
Last edited by xenris on 4/26/2012 10:16:35 AM
3 up, 0 down
xenris
Thursday, April 26, 2012 @ 10:23:30 AM
Last edited by xenris on 4/26/2012 10:25:11 AM
3 up, 0 down
Gabriel013
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 1:39:36 AM
Reply
Maybe by giving EKGames some of the online passes to put in the used games they sell on, thus making this retailer even more appealing than the current highstreet alternatives.
3 up, 0 down
___________
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 5:26:02 AM
Reply
i wish retailers would give into this and give publishers a piece of their pie that way this war against used games can end!
its not fair that customers are being punished for retailers decisions!
both ways too, buy used and your punished and buy new like me your still being punished because your friends refuse to buy the game because they dont buy games with stupid online passes!
3 up, 0 down
Ludakriss
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 6:16:36 AM
Reply
But, if they do manage to pull this off. Not only automatic cudos but we, as gamers, will finally be able to say that certain publishers and retail utlets are truly GREEDY!
I'm off. Peace.
0 up, 0 down
DeathOfChaos
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 7:42:15 AM
Reply
4 up, 4 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 9:22:58 AM
Last edited by Underdog15 on 4/25/2012 9:23:37 AM
4 up, 0 down
Robochic
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 8:17:32 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
telly
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 9:24:51 AM
Reply
I agree 100 percent. And if game retailers like gamestop don't start to do it, they will have no one to blame but themselves when Sony, Microsoft, et al take drastic steps to restrict or prevent used games from working on their new consoles.
2 up, 0 down
slugga_status
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 9:48:10 AM
Reply
At this point the new Gamestop procedure that was mentioned a week or so ago here seems like the better deal. The 10% kickback can fluctuate and is never solid so Pubs can't bank on it. They can see anywhere from $1 to $6 at the max while Gamestop is going to provide $10...
0 up, 0 down
79transam
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 10:01:11 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
DjEezzy
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 10:20:47 AM
Reply
3 up, 0 down
CH1N00K
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 10:21:04 AM
Reply
A lot of industries rely on used markets, from houses and cars, to electronics and books. But no other industries seem to make such a fuss about it like the gaming community.
And we already know where this is headed. Take a look at the music and Movie industries. They have all but gone digital now. Sure they still put physical copies on the shelves, but a price for a new CD or DVD/Bluray has dropped significantly from what they used to be. The issue however they are fighting now isn't the used industry, but Illegal downloads..
Even still when CD's and DVD's were in their Hay day, I don't remember such an uproar over used sales as we're seeing this time around with games.
My mentality behind the whole thing is simple. If you make a good product or have a history of making a good product, people will be willing to pay for it. But if all you're doing is rushing a product to market and regurgitating the same old recycled crap to make a quick buck, then expect your customer's to return the favour by paying crap for your product. That's just business. Gaming isn't a niche market anymore, and it's not just a handful of devs making games anymore. If you want to survive, you have to stand out above the crowd, or die off....
3 up, 0 down
bluedarrk
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 11:00:15 AM
Reply
3 up, 0 down
PS360
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 11:54:46 AM
Reply
And please don't give me, well EkGaming must really care about the publishers-developers.
1 up, 1 down
PS360
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 1:14:33 PM
Reply
I know it's two different industries, but if a game is well advertised, well anticipated, well worked on, good story, then it will sell well imo.
2 up, 1 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 3:10:11 PM
The only problem, imo, is that advertising costs nearly the exact same for either both. If they do the same advertising, they get charged the same.
17 million cars makes a heck of a lot more money than 17 million games!
But I agree. There is a lot they could do to improve their overhead. The only problem is that they need to have money in the budget for it. And if they don't sell many games, it's hard to justify making room for it in the budget...
0 up, 0 down
COBB
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 1:44:47 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Lemon_Saint
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 2:00:16 PM
Reply
Had I just held onto some of those games, I would have some crazy expensive collectible games on my hands which fetch a decent penny on eBay and the like. Since the PS2, I stopped trading in my games. I have a library of PS2, Gamecube, Xbox, PSP, DS,and Sega CD games and systems that are lovingly filed away in an enormous fire-proof filing cabinet, right next to a Radio-Shack TV Scoreboard, (PONG), and a Vectrex system. Sure, I could have played these games and traded them in for pennines on the dollar like I had done before, but now, some of these games are selling for hundreds of dollars in collectors market, (for individual titles).
The point of this is I like the collectibility of games. The fact that these games on an open market can sell for ludicrous amounts of money is testament that others share the same passion for these older games that I do. Once companies start meddling with DRM and download codes and system lockouts my collecting days end, because new games won't have that scalability. The reason for the previous two paragraphs is that if a startup has a solution, or at the very least, an idea that will keep games collectible for years to come by keeping developers happy, than I am all for it.
Trading games isn't my cup of tea, but for millions, it is a reality that keeps their hobby funded. If this is what needs to happen so I can still have a physical copy in my hand that will increase in value over the years, than so be it.
3 up, 0 down
Comic Shaman
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 5:30:24 PM
0 up, 0 down
BikerSaint
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 8:41:26 PM
My my oldest console right now is a Telestar Alpha.
0 up, 0 down
Palpatations911
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 @ 8:24:53 PM
Reply
Now, on the other hand I can appreciate Biker_Saints idea to do it 50/50 with the developers.
Last edited by Palpatations911 on 4/25/2012 8:29:33 PM
1 up, 0 down
DjStiv3
Thursday, April 26, 2012 @ 12:49:53 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Killa Tequilla
Reply
Tuesday, April 24, 2012 @ 9:22:49 PM