are cheaper games worth it? (used games controversy)

[Vivi22]

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

I can't speak for a lot of other people, but yeah, $60 for a new game is quite a bit of money for me. It's rare these days that I'll spend full price on a game. I'll either wait a few months and get it used or new at a reduced price, grab it during a Steam sale or whatever else I can do to save money. Gaming isn't my only hobby which costs me money, and on top of that I've got bills debt, and am attempting to save up the down payment on a house, so if buying cheaper games let's me play more of the games I want to play then great.

That doesn't necessarily mean a price of $60 for new releases is too high. I actually don't have a problem with that. But the pricing models of many games do not adequately adjust over time to capture more price sensitive customers like myself within the first 6 months or so when the hype is still relatively fresh.

 

[Flames66]

I have never bought a console game new and I never intend to. The prices are way beyond what the game is worth to me. If I cannot buy games for prices I am willing to pay, I don't buy them at all.

 

[Audemas]

As a poor college student, I love the idea of buying used games. I don't always have $63.58 to get a game as soon as it comes out. Just recently I picked up Portal 2 and am playing it for the first time, even though most people have already played it and beaten it. I managed to get it for only $20.00.

While I do understand that developers are kind of getting fucked over, I think this is something they didn't plan for. We as a consumer cannot be blamed for that because if anyone can get anything for cheaper, you know people will. Gaming companies and publishers are out there to make money and consumers always try to find a way to pay less than full price for something. So I think that used games are worth it in general, but I can see why gaming publishers/developers dislike companies like gamestop.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Games will never be cheaper. Ever. Look at some of the latest AAA releases, ME3, Gears3 and Batman AC - all were released without a manual and still sold full price. Even though they saved on printing and distribution of said manual. Thats just a minor point.

PC games are always cheaper than console, im not a PC gamer (apart from xcom) so please correct me if im wrong, but PC titles are roughly £10 cheaper than the console equivalent, still they are pirated and sold second hand. If a person could get a game for free or for £20 used, then how are new copies ever going to sell unless they move their price point to match used game prices?

In the future they have said everything is digital distribution. I hate this.Look at places like Steam, if steam shuts down, does that mean i lose my games? I do i really own them if i have to be online to play an offline game? This i hate. If you look at digital distribution so far for books, movies, games and music - the prices are not that much cheaper at all. Yes they might bring the price of games down abit but ones DD becomes the preferred way the masses buy there games then the prices will go up. Then you cant shop around for your copy of Gears 5 or whatever, its full price or not at all. Which will lead to less sales.

My last point is, the companies idea that banning used sales will lead to more new sales is flawed. If i buy a game used, its normally because i dont think its worth £40 price tag brand new. Especially for a game that can be completed in 8 hours, especially as i have no interest in online gaming. So really, if the game isnt available used then people just wont buy it at all. An in some way, if a person buys a used copy of your title, then they may love it enough to buy the sequel brand new. Ive done this before.

Apologies for the wall of text.

 

[orangeban]

I call bullshit on the idea that getting rid of used games will make new games cheaper. How will getting rid of competition make games cheaper? If anything, it will make them more expensive, or at least encourage them to stay at the same price, since there is no cheaper competition they have to compete with. Basically, new games will have a monopoly, and why would a monopoly make itself cheaper?

Edit: Oh, and I think games are kind of expensive. I mainly buy on steam these days, which means I can get a lot of good games for less than £10. My most recent purchase was L.A. Noire, which was about £10 I think.

The idea of shelling out £40 for a game these days seems crazy to me, I've got used to very low prices. It is both a curse and a gift. Thanks Valve!

 

[Something Amyss]

Oi with the poodles already....

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

I hope that's not part of your definition of being a good consumer. The part below this fits, but a good consumer does not buy full retail if they do not have to. Consumers look for the best quality and price. At least, good ones, do. This more describes a loyal customer, rather than a good consumer. And your loyalty has been rewarded with online passes.

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

As I said, this is more inline with consumerism.

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

And the people who say that are ridiculous.

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

Australians get dicked on price due to the change in value of the aUS dollar, but the fact remains that you have better standards in terms of minimum wage and cost of living than your American counterparts. This is an important thing to remember when Australians say "STFU" about game prices.

We have horrible spending power over here. And while 60 dollars is not horrible, you have to consider your market.

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

There is negligible difference between these buying options, for the record.

They shouldn't be bad, though.

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]

I'm assuming this is hypothetical since:

-They won't lower prices just because used games stop existing.
-I'm not a fan of my balls and would gladly give them up
-The current model is based on attempting to add hidden charges to increase the price of games.

So that aside, no, it's not worth giving up your consumer rights for a potential slight cost decrease.

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

On the one side, it would end the current "product service duality" they're hiding behind. This is one of the most annoying elements of the whole debate, because when convenient, they're a product or a service, but not the other when inconvenient.

 

[esperandote]

Piracy is not as common as it was last generation... what was the question again? Oh right, of course cheaper games are worth it, expensive games are supposedly worth it then why would cheaper games wouldn't.

Getting rid of used games equals cheaper new games, not as long as publishers can avoid it.

 

[Unsilenced]

"If you give us more power to set prices, we'll sell our product for less. That's how capitalism works."

Sure thing, game companies. Sure thing.

 

[Savagezion]

You can rant on about evil publishers but at the end of the day, we have stores like GAME and Gamestop to thank for this. For years now they have been fucking publishers over, crossing the line - try to buy a new game at Gamestop and they will try their hardest to sell you a used copy instead, for instance.

I have never ran into this, first off and I have been shopping at Gamestop since 04. The worst I ever encountered is them asking one time at the counter if I would want to buy used due to a return policy on it. A simple "no thanks" solves it.
Don't think for a minute that if people solely used ebay instead publishers wouldn't be pulling the same crap with a different angle to the argument. It would most definitely be spun using "gold farmers" & "loot sellers" and how they ruin in game economies to how they are ruining real life economy. And yes, if people will believe this crap, they would believe that crap too.

So of course its no wonder publishers are turning around and saying they will take no more. And who pays for all of this? We do. At the end of the day we, the gamers, get fucked over once again and pay the price for other companies and their shoddy business practices.

We're getting screwed because the publisher sees us as the problem. Publishers of all people know that the consumer practices matter more than the business ethics. What Gamestop does could be much worse. What if used games cost $15 less than new? That would encourage even more people to buy used. $5 isn't enough for many people to care about. They could be really undercutting the publishers and making a much bigger impact against the industry. It's funny that EA has already began to make amends with the new owners of GAME. As well, if this was hurting the industry so bad, why don't they just refuse to supply Gamestop with new games?

 

[kyogen]

For consoles, I buy new for games I know I will keep. I buy used on those rare occasions when I want to try something without committing to it and there's no demo. So far, I haven't kept any of those for the PS3, though I have a fair number of used games for the PS2 since it was the only way to get a copy in some cases.

For PC, I always buy new, usually by digital download now, though I used to buy physical copies of everything (Steam activation keys on everything pretty much ended that but they didn't make me a fan of Valve). GoG is my preferred vendor, though I also have a Steam account. Don't get me started on Origin: never, never, never...

And despite my own preferences, I think attacking the used game market by hamstringing consumers with online requirements is bogus. There's no incentive, just intrusiveness.

 

[Squidbulb]

I buy used if the price for a new copy is too high. No way am I paying £40 for a game. £39 is good. I almost never buy games on release because of how stupidly expensive they are so I either wait till the price drops or buy it pre-owned.
On the other hand, I never download pirated games because:
a)I don't trust the websites
b)It's stealing. No, pre-owned games are not the same as pirated games. For every pre-owned copy someone must have bought it new, and only one person can use it at a time. The only reason people buy pre-owned games is because they either can't get it new or a new copy is too expensive, neither of which would be solved by getting rid of used games. That just means you have less people who have played your series, and therefore less fans. On the other hand, one pirated game can be spread to thousands of people despite only being paid for once. Pirated games are for cheapskates who don't want to give up their money for their own entertainment.

 

[blizzaradragon]

For me I'd actually be glad if the brick and mortar stores go down. Out of my last 10 used purchases from Gamestop, 8 had to be returned because the disc/cartridge was too damaged to read. It's one of the main reasons I mainly buy new or through digital distribution now: it essentially ensures that I get the product I'm wanting to spend my money on. If the new consoles go digital distribution as their way of "no used games", it'd make things easier for me at least so I don't see a problem. Like people here have been saying, being a good consumer means getting the most for your money. And anything that might be lost for me with the drop of used games will be made up for in what I'll end up saving in things like gas money or membership fees. Obviously I can't speak for everyone though.

As far as dropping prices, I don't see why this needs to be a big deal. Games are already cheaper than they were 10-20 years ago. Hell, I've had conversations with my dad about how much easier it is on his wallet to buy Wii games for my sister than it was to buy N64 games for me as a kid when he's still making close to the same salary as he did back then. Only way I could see it dropping prices though is again if they do digital distribution, because that throws out costs for shipping games to various stores worldwide and any materials needed to make discs/cartridges.

 

[daveman247]

snip

Getting rid of used games and moving only to digital distrobution would be terrible.

I can understand the publishers argument. Shops pocketing ALL the cash from used is a problem. The solution, i think, would be to make the shops share a small percentage of the money from the used game with the publisher. Problem solved, the publishers are at least getting SOMETHING from used games. Getting them to cooperate with eachother is the problem. Because, companies want all the money of course.


Making it all digital would be terrible because it removes competition. There would be only ONE place to buy games. And you bet those companies will take advantage of that. Because "trololol you have no other choice!" Then of course, as we see now. Digital games NEVER go down in price much. Loads of games on the marketplace now are STILL full price - several years later.

Never again would i be able to pick up an old game for £1. I would be unwilling to take a chance on games i'm not sure about anymore.

 

[veloper]

No, a copy isn't worth anything.
The disc and the case and the printed manual are worth together $1 at best, if you care about those.

 

[Something Amyss]

"If you give us more power to set prices, we'll sell our product for less. That's how capitalism works."

Sure thing, game companies. Sure thing.

I don't know, it makes sense. I mean, removing competition has generally led to lower prices in a free market, right?

You can rant on about evil publishers but at the end of the day, we have stores like GAME and Gamestop to thank for this. For years now they have been fucking publishers over, crossing the line - try to buy a new game at Gamestop and they will try their hardest to sell you a used copy instead, for instance.

Video games have some of the worst markups in retail. The games industry has made retail virtually unprofitable. They created a market where used games were one of the only ways for game stores to remain viable.

I've also never had anyone try and push a used title on me. Granted, I've only been to abuot a dozen Gamestops, but the most I've got is a suggestion. And they took no for an answer (If I didn't want it)

I can understand the publishers argument. Shops pocketing ALL the cash from used is a problem.

No, it's not. And suggesting giving the games industry a cut of used sales is asking for special privileges not afforded other media.

I don't see how treating the medium unlike any other existing medium is a good idea.

 

[daveman247]

snip

Good point, no retail means cheaper distrobution. But tell me this:


REAL shops, there are many companies behind them. Compete with eachother for the best price, to attract more customers.


If this was gone, and the only option was to buy from a digital shop (of which there are few) Such as steam, psn or xbox marketplace. Do you think they would price games cheaper? They have you now, only one - 2 places to buy games, there is no competition, why should they make it cheaper? There is no where else for you to go.

The only way this could work would be to have many digital shops, competing with eachother. While possible for PC, impossible for consoles.

Food for thought :/

 

[mjc0961]

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

I always thought it's the other way around. If they made games cheaper, they would greatly reduce the appeal of used games. If the games cost less in the first place, the trade-in value would be lower. Stores like GameStop wouldn't be able to make as much money off used games and wouldn't be as interested. It would help with people waiting for the prices to go down, too. Don't think that new game is worth $60 or you're just unsure if you'll like it and don't want to spend that much money? Waiting for it to drop to $40 or so first? If it sold for $40 in the first place, there would be no waiting. You could get it at launch new for that price.

Plus, people would buy more games new if buying new didn't get you the worst possible product. What happens when you buy new? You might have to dick around inputting a 16-25 character online pass before you can play. What happens when you buy used? You go to the menu on the game and buy an online pass quickly and easily if you want one. Why is it easier for the used game buyer to buy a pass than it is for the new game buyer to redeem their pass?

This is also the same reason publishers can't stop PC piracy with their crappy DRM schemes. What happens when you buy an Ubisoft or EA game for PC new? You have to tie it to your account and stay signed in at all times or else you can't play. And before any nitwits say "well I'm always online anyway so why is that a problem", the servers aren't always online, and that stops you from playing too [http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/02/08/ubisoft-drm-server-downtime-locks-players-out-of-anno-2070-driver-san-francisco-and-more/]. What happens when you pirate an Ubisoft or EA game? You get to play it without having to sign in, tie it to an account, and worry about if the servers are up if you want to play. Why are pirates getting a better product than people who bought the game? It's backwards.

This is the real reason why publishers can't beat piracy and used game sales. They're going about it all wrong. All of their schemes to try and force you to buy new or force more money out of you if you buy used only make the product worse for their paying customers, which only serves to drive paying customers away.

Oh, and don't forget the DLC too. Disc-locked content, day-one content that even if it is developed separately and thus quite fair to ask for more money is still asking you to pay another $10-$20 immediately after you just paid $60, and most of all, GOTY/Complete editions for games with lots of DLC. The industry has basically trained us all to wait for the GOTY version with all the DLC to come out before we spend any money so that we get the best deal, and then they wonder why nobody wants to buy their game with no extras included at launch for $60.

Basically, big name publishers are so out of touch that it's not even funny, and they don't even realize it. They just keep blaming the consumers and digging themselves a deeper hole.

Good point, no retail means cheaper distrobution. But tell me this:


REAL shops, there are many companies behind them. Compete with eachother for the best price, to attract more customers.


If this was gone, and the only option was to buy from a digital shop (of which there are few) Such as steam, psn or xbox marketplace. Do you think they would price games cheaper? They have you now, only one - 2 places to buy games, there is no competition, why should they make it cheaper? There is no where else for you to go.

The only way this could work would be to have many digital shops, competing with eachother. While possible for PC, impossible for consoles.

Food for thought :/

We already see this on Xbox Live, Playstation Network, and Nintendo platforms, actually. But Steam was a terrible example. They have sales all the time despite the fact that they probably don't have to. Yes, they have some competition, but they're the big guys, they're the ones everyone knows about.

So I don't know why you even brought Steam into this. What you said will happen on consoles is already happening on consoles, and it's already not happening on PC.

 

[daveman247]

I can understand the publishers argument. Shops pocketing ALL the cash from used is a problem.

No, it's not. And suggesting giving the games industry a cut of used sales is asking for special privileges not afforded other media.

I don't see how treating the medium unlike any other existing medium is a good idea.

Yes it is, because the publishers dont see a penny of a used game sale.

And the games market is totally different to other media, thats why.

- Films make most of the money from its cinema release - games do not have these.

- Music artists make most of its money from live shows - games do not have this.

- books have never had this problem because the price of making a book is reletively low.


Online passes are not the way to go because it makes borrowing a pain.

 

[Jodah]

Anyone who honestly thinks removal of used games or piracy will lead to cheaper games is a fool. It isn't going to lead to cheaper games, it is going to lead to higher profits for the publishers. Why would they sell a game at a lower price if they know they can get away with the higher one? Basic principle of economic here folks, you sell your product at the highest price to maximize returns based on sales. Eliminating used sales has not lowered the starting price for PC games, it will not lower the price for console games.

 

[blizzaradragon]

snip

Good point, no retail means cheaper distrobution. But tell me this:


REAL shops, there are many companies behind them. Compete with eachother for the best price, to attract more customers.


If this was gone, and the only option was to buy from a digital shop (of which there are few) Such as steam, psn or xbox marketplace. Do you think they would price games cheaper? They have you now, only one - 2 places to buy games, there is no competition, why should they make it cheaper? There is no where else for you to go.

The only way this could work would be to have many digital shops, competing with eachother. While possible for PC, impossible for consoles.

Food for thought :/

While that may be true, Sony and Microsoft will still be competing with each other at the very least. If Microsoft decides they want to raise prices for their games while Sony stays the same, for example, Microsoft would start losing customers to Sony because they'll be saving money. They also will still have the PC market to compete with as well, because the convenience of playing on a console will only keep people for so long if the prices become ridiculous. Maybe it's just me being an optimist, but I'd like to think that with fewer competitors it'd make the competition between them more fierce as they try to win over as many people as possible. It won't be "Oh they'll go buy the game from Walmart instead of Gamestop" where the company makes the same amount regardless but customers feel good because they saved $2, it'll be "They'll either buy the game on my distribution store or we've lost a customer entirely" when they realize they're either seeing money or not. Less competition, but steeper stakes so to speak.