are cheaper games worth it? (used games controversy)

[Vault101]

ok..here's somthing I have noticed

the rumours (rumours..at this point folks) surrounding the next gen consoles say that they wont play used games...effectvly making the description of current gen consoles as "dumbed down PC's" even more acurate

obviously this is a topic under heavy debate..along with online passes, DRM and digital distribution

the fact that games are a digital thing calls into question the Idea of "ownership" .Perhaps they will finally stop screwing around and just say "fuck it, games arnt products, they are a service" because that feels like the direction things are headed

anyway...personally, I am a good little comsumer

on PC I NEVER priate, I buy my games new at full retail price, I have no issue with this

BUT there is a line I feel needs to be drawn..I DO NOT agree with MY options as a consumer being limited

I dont often buy used games, I havnt traded any in..but the fact is I CAN if I feel so inclined, I have a whole bucnh sitting on my shelf

if I didnt have internet for my PS3 it wouldnt matter..I could still play games, if I watned to borrow or lend a game to my frend I could....I keep the hardware in good condition and theoretically all that is mine to keep

anyway usally I see two responses

"eh...dont care"

and

[b/] yeah, but if they get rid of used games/physical copies games could be cheaper [/b]

now I ask you a question....

are games THAT unaffordable? no seriously...I dont think they are, and Im Australian

waiting untill the price drops.....used games, other online scources is it really that bad? unless you have the urge to buy and play games on release day

my point is...regardless of weather or not you liek the current price model [b/] is having games that little bit cheaper off the press WORTH handing your balls over to the publisher? [/b]

you know...not owning your games, not being able to trade in your games...hell give it some time, purchasing games might just become a thing of the past...it will be a glorified digital rentals

$10 for 500 bullets..why not?

mabye Im exagerating..mabye this is all inevitable..but my point is I dont care if I pay $100AUS or $60AUS on a game...Id be speding that $60AUS on somthing I dont own

 

[Valanthe]

I buy used, or I buy from Steam. Unless it's a game from a franchise I can already safely assume I'll enjoy (See, Mass Effect), I'm not going to roll the dice on a $40-$60 purchase. $10-$20 is much more easily swallowed, and I don't feel nearly as cheated when I buy a game used and it turns out to not be in my taste (looking at you, Perfect Dark Zero).

Simply put, I will not support any company which restricts my right to practice First Sale Doctrine. I have no issue with project $10, I do have issue with -me- as their customer being blamed for the measure, and not the retailer, but after years of working on the other side of that counter, actually no, my experience tells me that you should -never- under any circumstances blame the customer for a policy, that's just beyond stupid. But anyway, this thread isn't about that.

If EA, Ubisoft, and Activision get their way, and all brick and mortar retailers go the way of the dinosaurs, making all games an -actual- service, and not a product they keep trying to pass off as one so they can be stupid and juvenile about it, I'll simply stop playing games, I don't need them to survive, and if I cannot enjoy my hobby at -my- leisure and convenience, then it's no longer -my- hobby anymore.

 

[Vault101]

Isnip.

I dont know if its the case with any other industry...but when EVERYONE involved seems to have to be screwing each other just to survive..you know somthings wrong

I guess they figure its our time to bend over

 

[Valanthe]

Isnip.

I dont know if its the case with any other industry...but when EVERYONE involved seems to have to be screwing each other just to survive..you know somthings wrong

I guess they figure its our time to bend over

Yes, because screwing your customers is a perfect way to ensure brand loyalty and return business! I swear these guys must have attended the same business school my last boss did, the one whom I walked out on after he got so far in debt my paycheque bounced.

The guy had amazingly hairbrained policies and schemes that were disturbingly similar to some of the crap software companies actually get away with.

 

[Lucem712]

~LE SNIP~

I never understood the connection between 'no used games = cheaper games'. Absolutely not. Publishers charge aussies an arm and a leg just because they can. There is literally no other reason. Are some people so dull as to think that some big publisher is gonna pass on the savings?

Instead of just trying to victimize themselves, they should be figuring out ways to get those cuts away from game-stores. Maybe if there was an actual intensive for digital downloads (On PSN, at least), I'd buy that way. But what's the point of paying 60 bucks DD when I can get it brand spankin' new (or used, whatever) for cheaper, in a physical form?

 

[Vault101]

snip~

the Idea is that your taking out the "publishing cost" (I mean dont forget youve got to put that thing on a disk and in a case..then get it to the stores)

but yeah...publishers will charge us less out of the goodness of their hearts? pffffttt...not by much..

alot of peopel use DD for the convenece..which is fine but my internet is inadeque..and the download times are criminal [/quote]

[snip [quote/]

Yes, because screwing your customers is a perfect way to ensure brand loyalty and return business! I swear these guys must have attended the same business school my last boss did, the one whom I walked out on after he got so far in debt my paycheque bounced.

The guy had amazingly hairbrained policies and schemes that were disturbingly similar to some of the crap software companies actually get away with.

not to mention slapping your customers in the face with DRM..then saying "yeah? well your a filthy pirate!..you deserve this asshole!"

 

[Launcelot111]

A base of consumers as a whole will take the option that is most beneficial to them, not the one most beneficial to the producers. Some of you out there understand that developers get shafted by used game sales and buy new to support your favorite companies, and that's fine, but at the end of the day, Gamestop and the like are selling a product that is 9 out of 10 times exactly the same (the exceptions being collecters editions or games with one time use online codes) and they are selling this identical product for usually 75% or less of the new price, so consumers are going to choose that option, and it's the publisher's fault for not putting out a product that more people are willing to buy new. Consumers will only spend their money on things they value, and no one has the right to coerce people into buying something they perceive as less valuable.

I can't think of an offline method that could possibly oppose used games effectively, so online authentication has to be the way to approach this, which is a cosmic shame. I live in a very big city, and my internet is trash. If I get a used game that has been out a while, I usually have to put it in at night and then go to sleep, because it takes all night for the patches to download. When I go home, it's even more of a joke, because we still haven't found a reliable upgrade from dial-up. Any sort of process that requires online verification, or even worse, constant internet connection, would cut a huge chunk of customers whose internet is just not up to the wishful thinking of the publishers. Digital distribution runs into the same problem.

In short, any effort on the part of Microsoft and Sony would limit the audience for their systems far more than they intended. Their approach should not be to limit consumer choice but instead to add value to their own product in a way that makes it the better choice. Used CDs are often very cheap, but many people download from iTunes and Amazon because of the convenience and the fact that the prices between the two are much more competitive than the discrepancy between new and used CDs. If the Playstation store was competitive with Gamestop in terms of prices, I don't think we'd be hearing so much whining on the publisher's part because the people with good enough internet might enjoy such an option, but opting instead for more aggressive pricing strategies and for placing restrictions on how one can play their own game will just make both sides of the equation more upset

 

[Smeggs]

I'm almost sure that the prices for games would actually get jacked up if retailers who buy and sell used copies were shut down. Because game companies are a business. And they'll gouge us any way they can...I'm looking at you, EA.

"I mean what the hell are the consumers gonna do?" Says EA, sitting on their giant mountain of greenbacks, "We closed all the used retailers. The only way they can buy the games is by paying us. MAKE THEM $80, WITH $30 DLC AT HALF THE DEVELOPMENT BUDGET! EFFECTIVELY MAKING THEM PAY MORE THAN TWICE AS MUCH FOR HALF THE CONTENT! MOOOOONEY-MONEY-MONEY! MON-MON-MOOOOONEYMONEYMONEYMONEEEEEY!"

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

A few first notes. A consumer will, very generally, attempt to pay as little for a product as is possible. Thus the inherent question of "should games be cheaper" is silly - from the consumer perspective the answer is an overwhelming "yes". The other side of the coin is that the publishers attempt to get as much money as possible.

Of course, the trick if one hopes to maximize profit is to find that perfect spot where you get as much as you can out of as many people as you can. Thus one could possibly get a greater volume of sales at a given price point but depending upon the profit margin they could easily make less money.

The other thing people often overlook when discussions of price come up is the simple fact that games, at least those games that tend to generate significant discussion, cost a lot of money to make. Exactly how much tends to be rather secret but the running ballpark figure tends to imply that a AAA game requires 20 - 30 million dollars to make. If you consider that a publisher wants to make money on the investment, you start to easily see why the whole cost debate really has very little to do with people getting screwed.

The natural relationship between the consumer and the publisher is only symbiotic in the sense that they produce things we might want. Everything else is a conflict. The publisher wants to make their money back and generate a profit. Profits pay those people who took the risk and who poured years of their life into a product. And given the sheer volume of money at risk, publishers want to see big sales. Thus, the only real goals of a publisher are fairly brief: back products that people want to buy.

That part about products people want to buy is pretty important. People might get up in arms about various decisions that are hostile to the consumer desire to spend less. Project ten dollar is met with venom and plenty of people will complain about various DLC schemes from any number of games. But since that venom has, thus far at least, not resulted in these people refraining from purchasing things in sufficient number to overcome the increase in profits, there has been no reason to change. People complained when Call of Duty map packs increased in price by 50% and yet millions of people still purchase them.

Would I like games to be cheaper? Absolutely. But pursuing this end has a cost. And if you ignore all of the DLC schemes, the cost I speak of is the hardest one to overcome. Getting games on the cheap means waiting. It means missing out on the zeitgeist. It means missing the conversations. It means starting any multiplayer game at a distinct disadvantage.

The rise of the video game community made possible by the internet is the very thing that will ensure obvious grabs at money are easily overlooked. 20 years ago, there was no zeitgeist. There was an excited friend on the playground. Community is a powerful force when it comes to influencing behavior and you need look no further than the top selling core games to see that grim reality play out month after month.

 

[Rawne1980]

Getting rid of used games will not drop new game prices.

As I, and a few others, keep saying if you take used games away then some people just won't buy them at all.

I buy some games used I also wait a few months and get them cheap on Amazon. It's rare I buy a game sparkly new.

Why?

Well why would I want to spend £40 when I can wait a couple of months and spend £10.

I don't own any DLC that didn't come as part of a GOTY or Ultimate Edition. I never saw the point in DLC so I never buy it.

It's not because I can't afford it it's because I don't think it's worth it. It's not often I ply a game and think to myself that it was worth the £40 price tag.

I already know I won't be buying a next gen console.

 

[Sexy Devil]

~LE SNIP~

I never understood the connection between 'no used games = cheaper games'. Absolutely not. Publishers charge aussies an arm and a leg just because they can. There is literally no other reason. Are some people so dull as to think that some big publisher is gonna pass on the savings?

Instead of just trying to victimize themselves, they should be figuring out ways to get those cuts away from game-stores. Maybe if there was an actual intensive for digital downloads (On PSN, at least), I'd buy that way. But what's the point of paying 60 bucks DD when I can get it brand spankin' new (or used, whatever) for cheaper, in a physical form?

The reason Kangaroo prices are so high isn't because of some deep dark conspiracy, it is just a curious leftover of when your money wasn't worth anything.

I think extra credits did a bit about it.

Yeah, they couldn't explain it. They basically said what you said, and that now they're just doing it because they can.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

As much as I like cheaper games its not worth it and I doubt they would be cheaper anyway. I wouldn't mind if stores just stop selling used as long as I can still borrow/buy games off a friend.

 

[MercurySteam]

Depends on how poor you are. And with all this Project $10 business some people find it more worthwhile to buy the game outright. Of course things are always cheaper over the internet.

 

[Fleetfiend]

~LE SNIP~

I never understood the connection between 'no used games = cheaper games'. Absolutely not. Publishers charge aussies an arm and a leg just because they can. There is literally no other reason. Are some people so dull as to think that some big publisher is gonna pass on the savings?

Instead of just trying to victimize themselves, they should be figuring out ways to get those cuts away from game-stores. Maybe if there was an actual intensive for digital downloads (On PSN, at least), I'd buy that way. But what's the point of paying 60 bucks DD when I can get it brand spankin' new (or used, whatever) for cheaper, in a physical form?

I definitely agree with this. I think it would just be better for everyone (except maybe game retailers) if companies got a small cut of their sales of their products. It may be difficult to manage, and it may make the prices of used games go up a bit, but I honestly think it would be better than shutting all of those stores down as a result of not being able to trade in used games for the new consoles.

 

[Savagezion]

~LE SNIP~

I never understood the connection between 'no used games = cheaper games'. Absolutely not. Publishers charge aussies an arm and a leg just because they can. There is literally no other reason. Are some people so dull as to think that some big publisher is gonna pass on the savings?

Instead of just trying to victimize themselves, they should be figuring out ways to get those cuts away from game-stores. Maybe if there was an actual intensive for digital downloads (On PSN, at least), I'd buy that way. But what's the point of paying 60 bucks DD when I can get it brand spankin' new (or used, whatever) for cheaper, in a physical form?

I definitely agree with this. I think it would just be better for everyone (except maybe game retailers) if companies got a small cut of their sales of their products. It may be difficult to manage, and it may make the prices of used games go up a bit, but I honestly think it would be better than shutting all of those stores down as a result of not being able to trade in used games for the new consoles.

If those new consoles don't have used games abilities they better have one bad ass lineup of first year games. More bad ass than any other release ever. I personally wont support a console generation that does this and will instead just go exclusively PC, but if they hope to make it stick they will have to give those that are still interested something worth a damn, and they probably won't.

 

[Oirish_Martin]

ok..here's somthing I have noticed

the rumours (rumours..at this point folks) surrounding the next gen consoles say that they wont play used games...effectvly making the description of current gen consoles as "dumbed down PC's" even more acurate

obviously this is a topic under heavy debate..along with online passes, DRM and digital distribution

the fact that games are a digital thing calls into question the Idea of "ownership" .Perhaps they will finally stop screwing around and just say "fuck it, games arnt products, they are a service" because that feels like the direction things are headed

anyway...personally, I am a good little comsumer

on PC I NEVER priate, I buy my games new at full retail price, I have no issue with this

BUT there is a line I feel needs to be drawn..I DO NOT agree with MY options as a consumer being limited

I dont often buy used games, I havnt traded any in..but the fact is I CAN if I feel so inclined, I have a whole bucnh sitting on my shelf

if I didnt have internet for my PS3 it wouldnt matter..I could still play games, if I watned to borrow or lend a game to my frend I could....I keep the hardware in good condition and theoretically all that is mine to keep

The major difference, as I see it, between the PC online market and the console online market is that the PC market isn't a monopoly. At worst you have a monopoly from big companies that self-publish like Valve, as they only sell their own stuff and it's all linked with Steam somehow.

Consoles, by contrast, control the only online source of games - XBLA, PSN. And not to put too fine a point on it, but their pricing is a fucking joke.

anyway usally I see two responses

"eh...dont care"

and

[b/] yeah, but if they get rid of used games/physical copies games could be cheaper [/b]

now I ask you a question....

are games THAT unaffordable? no seriously...I dont think they are, and Im Australian

waiting untill the price drops.....used games, other online scources is it really that bad? unless you have the urge to buy and play games on release day

Compared to how they used to be, I'd definitely say their value has gone up(notaneconomistmind). Been gaming since the mid-90s.

my point is...regardless of weather or not you liek the current price model [b/] is having games that little bit cheaper off the press WORTH handing your balls over to the publisher? [/b]

you know...not owning your games, not being able to trade in your games...hell give it some time, purchasing games might just become a thing of the past...it will be a glorified digital rentals

$10 for 500 bullets..why not?

mabye Im exagerating..mabye this is all inevitable..but my point is I dont care if I pay $100AUS or $60AUS on a game...Id be speding that $60AUS on somthing I dont own

Well, for the reasons you cited earlier - gamers generally not giving a shit - the prices WON'T come down, because trying to get the gaming community to boycott commercial moves like trying to knock out the secondary market is like herding cats.

I'm considering a move back to PC if next-gen used games aren't possible and the console's online monopoly sticks around. DRM I can live with, personally, but a lack of choice in the market not so much.