Is this the real reason Publishers are all up in arms about Used Sales all of a sudden?

[JediMB]

Gamespot marketing used games more effectively? Every damn gamespot commercial I've seen has been for pre-orders.

Every time I walk into a gamestop, they go "WANT TO PRE-ORDER SOMETHING? YOU SHOULD PRE-ORDER SOMETHING! DO IT NOW!!"

Probably differs by region, but I've seen nothing to suggest they're marketing used sales.

"GET EXTRA TRADE-IN VALUE! BUY THREE USED GAMES FOR THE PRICE OF TWO! BUY THREE USED GAMES AND GET XX AMOUNT OFF A FUTURE PURCHASE!"

Et cetera.

But, yes, probably differs by region.

Personally I was dumb enough to actually pre-order a game in the local GameStop, and ended up having to contact the publisher to get my pre-order codes... since the GameStop employees didn't know anything about the exclusive extras they'd used to lure me in to begin with.

 

[ElPatron]

*omits astronomical PS3 launch prices*

PS3 is the exception that confirms the rule. I omitted it for various reasons. Since I am a former Sony fanboy and I hated the PS3 since it's announcement, I thought I could refrain from bashing on Sony's policy and PS3's low "value for money" at launch.

Now if you will excuse me, I'll call the PS3 a steamy pile of horse manure. There. You forced me to do this...




Now, in retrospective, how would the PS3 alone prove that consoles are getting more expensive? I might not remember much from the early 90's, but I remember what you paid for a PSX is probably what you paid for a PS3 @ launch.

Anyway, I never lived in the US so I don't know how it translates to their reality. But 300 bucks was a lot of money back then.

 

[BlueMage]

many Wii owners are infrequent gamers.

Oi, I'm a Wii owner and I'm a bloody frequent gamer!

Of course, I tend to play more PC ...

 

[GonzoGamer]

So I know people will want a link for proof but I just did some searching:
Before it turned 6, the ps2 had sold 100 million units.
The 360 (which is just turning 6 now) has sold 57 mil.
The ps3 (which is turning 6 in what, another year?) has sold 51 mil.

Yet somehow, game sales keep breaking records, especially every time a new COD comes out.

And for the record, the Ps2 had a ridiculous defect rate, too. If you're going to count it against one base, count it against the other, too.

I remember the ps2 defect rate being high (the reason I didn't get one for a while) but the defect rate of the 360 was around 50% and that went on for a lot longer.

many Wii owners are infrequent gamers.

Oi, I'm a Wii owner and I'm a bloody frequent gamer!

Of course, I tend to play more PC ...

That?s why I said many instead of all.
I have nothing against the Wii (have one in my own home) but for the purposes of my point here: a lot of those big AAA games (like the ones they are adding online passes to) aren't on it.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Bla Bla Bla

Wikipedia is shit which is why I didn?t check there first but surprisingly, their figures for this jive.
But I?m curious, are you really that upset about not getting the original links in the post? If you don?t want to believe me or wikipedia or vgc, fine, state your displeasure then move on with your life.
It?s not a court case nor is anyone trying to get college credit here; it?s just a random internet forum. Seriously, get a grip.

 

[GonzoGamer]

They think they're getting screwed out of money when they really aren't.

The industry operates on perceived profits, not actual profits. They think they're losing money on used sales, but they aren't.

They're latest excuse is because "multiplayer servers cost money". Which they do, but they're still so full of shit.

On the PC, we have dedicated servers. The average cost of a slot on a server is $1. One US Dollar. For a person to use $10-$15 worth of server space(average cost of online passes), they need to play for 10-15 months straight.

And yeah, that $1 does add up, but companies like Sony and EA should easily be able to cover that cost. And if it is so damn financially straining on them, the smart thing to do would be to not put fucking multiplayer into the fucking games.

Yeah, they're full of shit. Or they're getting screwed by someone. Either way, nobody should have to pay for their shitty business practices.

The games most prone to used sales are new IP's. And the reason for that is because the Publisher charges $60 for them, barely markets the thing, and sticks it into the holiday release period against the likes of Call of Duty, Halo, Battlefield, Fallout, and all the other huge AAA games.

Which also brings up a nice point. Sequels sell better than new IP's for a reason. I'm willing to bet that reason is because people buy the original used, love it, and then buy the sequel new. Nearly everyone I've talked to has done this, me included.

Publishers just can't seem to see past their own ass-hatery.

Here's an idea...

Publishers are fighting used games more aggressively now because of two factors:

1) GameStop and the like are marketing used games more aggressively.

2) They can.

Gamespot marketing used games more effectively? Every damn gamespot commercial I've seen has been for pre-orders.

Every time I walk into a gamestop, they go "WANT TO PRE-ORDER SOMETHING? YOU SHOULD PRE-ORDER SOMETHING! DO IT NOW!!"

Probably differs by region, but I've seen nothing to suggest they're marketing used sales.

It?s ironic because I got the feeling that the reason online multiplayer became a part of almost every game this gen was to discourage people from trading in. Since it usually sucks, people trade in anyway.
The problem is that gamestop wants you to either buy the game used from them (gets them the greatest profit) or to pre-order it from them which allows them to collect small amounts of money from many people long before they are required to actually get you your game. That?s just free investment capital for them. I can see why most of their stores require either/or, I?m just surprised so many fall for it.
I too have bought quite a few new games because I really enjoyed the cheap used/clearence copy of the last one in the series (or from the same devs). That?s just one of the many ways they?re shooting themselves in the foot with these schemes.
Another: they sometimes block the most marketable part of the game. I just rented Battlefield 3 and while the single player was fun for a couple of hours, the multiplayer would?ve had a better chance of convincing me to keep it. However, I wasn?t about to buy the online pass for a rental.
My only hope is that the greed shared between the software developers and the platform developers, doesn?t end up stunting the gamer market as it appears to be. At this point of the industry?s lifetime, it should be growing exponentially (as older people who never touched them die off and younger people grow up with them buy in) not stalling as it appears to be doing.

That's an interesting thought, though there are probably more factors involved. The industry is getting larger, so there's inevitably going to be greed, which can be seen elsewhere in the industry. It's not all greed though. The economic status of basically the world probably has something to do with it. All this used game hoopla is fairly recent, and so is the (at least public) faltering of the economic system. There's probably more factors too.

There are a lot of different factors involved for sure; this is just one I haven't heard others discuss yet.
Yes, not all of it's greed: some of it is the devs trying to one up each other which actually works out well for us. I just wish it was more of that.
You bring up a very good point though: it seems that games are slowly becoming a luxury market (as used games are discouraged and the prices of existing used games have been gouged so badly by gamestop that they are usually now near the price of a new title) and this is a terrible economic time to enter the luxury market... and you want to move units. These aren't limited like luxury real estate, these are machines and software they want to move many units of.

 

[Savagezion]

Consoles this Gen are a far bit more expensive than they were last time around though

No they are not.

1993: Atari Jaguar - $249
1995: Sega Saturn - $399
1995: PlayStation - $299

2000: PlayStation 2 - $299

2001: Xbox - $299
2005: Xbox 360 - $299 / $399

*omits astronomical PS3 launch prices*

Also @ the other guy who quoted me, as a rule they are - you think of the number of games hat are even 5 dollars more expensive for being on bluray - 5 dollars multiplied by an insane sales figure is 5x an insane sales figure more than before.

Xbox360 had shit for backwards compatibility. I was one of the people that got a PS3 fat model with backwards compatibility for $600 and I have already gotten my money's worth out of it. It was pricey but it was worth it.
When the BC PS3's were out going for 600 bucks people were like "I ain't paying that much for a console, that is ridiculous!" Sony took it out and lowered the price to 3-400 to compete in the market. People bitched "Hey, I want backwards compatibility if I am going to pay that price!"

The PS3's cost was much higher because your were essentially buying a PS3 and a PS2 emulator. You were paying for additional hardware. PS3 fatboys were doing something no other console had really done before it. It could play PS1, PS2, and PS3 games. Xbox didn't even really deliver BC for one previous console despite they were marketing the console as if it did. My PS3 is backwards compatible with every PS2 game I have tried to play except SW:Battlefront 2. It will play it but it will randomly crash somewhere in the first mission.

Also a $5 markup on a $60 item is not calculated that way. it is 1.08x the insane sales figure. Or +$80,000 for every $1m sold.

Overall, I see this thread as yet another thread where someone is trying to make me feel sorry for game developers to get me to sympathize with their bullshit actions and, as usual, it isn't working. This thread ignores the fact that the Playstation 2 was such a cultural success it got popular during Gamestop's rapid rise to what it is today having to battle against the same used game market, if not one with even more disparity between prices.

As well, for the past couple years (This generation), we have seen the game industry saying "We would rather you didn't buy our game at all - than have you buy it used." So much so that people who have no idea who Activision is have asked me about my take on it. So you'll excuse me if I take no pity on them, as I am sure there are people that made a decision based solely on that ultimatum. The sooner everyone (Publishers and gamers alike) accepts used games are never going to go away, the sooner we can move forward.

 

[poleboy]

The industry operates on perceived profits, not actual profits. They think they're losing money on used sales, but they aren't.

Like banks, credit companies, stock investors, recording labels and movie studios.

Yep, it's crazy world with all that invisible money floating around.

 

[Something Amyss]

I remember the ps2 defect rate being high (the reason I didn't get one for a while) but the defect rate of the 360 was around 50% and that went on for a lot longer.

That failure rate comes only from a GameInformer survey of little weight. People took it as gospel because lolconvenience.

It holds no real weight, and actual numbers are not known for either console.

Plus, it only went on longer if you took Sony at their word on the issue being fixed the first time...And again, you're taking one company at their word and the other not.

And still, games are moving in record numbers.

 

[DracoSuave]

Secondary sales don't make any money for the country or the company and thus make no economic value.

Wrong. Money changed hands. That's stimulation of the economy. Part of the margin of used sales pays employee salaries. Thus, yes, there is economic value.

As such... imagine the funds that could be added to the economy if another 20 billion were added from all the pirating that wasn't pirated?

The selling of something one owns is not analagous to selling something one does not own. Piracy and used sales cannot be compared to each other without fundamentally stripping people of ownership rights... are you a communist?

 

[Delsana]

Secondary sales don't make any money for the country or the company and thus make no economic value.

Wrong. Money changed hands. That's stimulation of the economy. Part of the margin of used sales pays employee salaries. Thus, yes, there is economic value.

As such... imagine the funds that could be added to the economy if another 20 billion were added from all the pirating that wasn't pirated?

The selling of something one owns is not analagous to selling something one does not own. Piracy and used sales cannot be compared to each other without fundamentally stripping people of ownership rights... are you a communist?

Every economics class and the test I just did on it disputes that.

It's like a transfer payment.

Giving money that is already someones to another person does not stimulate the economy. That's like saying birthday gifts stimulate the economy when giving money.

That's NOT how it works because it doesn't reach the proper sources that a new purchase would.

---

Whenever you call someone a Nazi or communist or Hitler it's usually because you have no point and you've lost.

Paying salaries is not stimulation, as it doesn't support the companies who made the products.

 

[RikuoAmero]

Bla Bla Bla

Wikipedia is shit which is why I didn?t check there first but surprisingly, their figures for this jive.
But I?m curious, are you really that upset about not getting the original links in the post? If you don?t want to believe me or wikipedia or vgc, fine, state your displeasure then move on with your life.
It?s not a court case nor is anyone trying to get college credit here; it?s just a random internet forum. Seriously, get a grip.

This was days ago! I think I pretty much stated my displeasure then moved on with my life already. In fact, when I saw I had a message saying my post had been quoted, I honestly couldn't remember this article at all: just shows how far down the list of "Important things to remember" this post had gotten.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Total Hardware sales (world-wide) for last generation:
Gamecube: 22 million. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameCube#Reception_and_sales]
X-Box: 24 million. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Box#Sales]
PS2: 153 million [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2#Sales]
Total Sales: 199 million consoles sold world-wide.

Total Hardware sales (world-wide) for this generation (sales numbers rounded up):
X-Box 360: 58 million. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Box_360#Reception_and_sales]
PS3: 52 million [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3#Sales_and_production_costs]
Wii: 88 million [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii#System_sales]
Total Sales: 198 million consoles sold world-wide.

Um, I think you just MADE the OP's point.

Remember, the OP disicluded the Wii. If we also remove the Game Cube (to be fair to the Wii numbers) then the numbers look like this:

X-Box and PS2 combined: 177 million
360 and PS3 combined: 110 million

That's not quite as bad as the OP made it out to be, but it's still a drop of 67 million - that's practically a one third (1/3) loss to the relevant publishers.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

I think it's just a matter of wanting to increase the amount of cash the games industry takes in.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Total Hardware sales (world-wide) for last generation:
Gamecube: 22 million. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameCube#Reception_and_sales]
X-Box: 24 million. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Box#Sales]
PS2: 153 million [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2#Sales]
Total Sales: 199 million consoles sold world-wide.

Total Hardware sales (world-wide) for this generation (sales numbers rounded up):
X-Box 360: 58 million. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Box_360#Reception_and_sales]
PS3: 52 million [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3#Sales_and_production_costs]
Wii: 88 million [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii#System_sales]
Total Sales: 198 million consoles sold world-wide.

Um, I think you just MADE the OP's point.

Remember, the OP disicluded the Wii. If we also remove the Game Cube (to be fair to the Wii numbers) then the numbers look like this:

X-Box and PS2 combined: 177 million
360 and PS3 combined: 110 million

That's not quite as bad as the OP made it out to be, but it's still a drop of 67 million - that's practically a one third (1/3) loss to the relevant publishers.

No, I don't think I did. I just compared all the data. There was no one "big seller" this cycle, the numbers were more spread out. Also, the OP's argument hinges on the fact that he does not include the Wii in his hypothesis, which is just bad form. If you have to ignore data in order for your hypothesis to work, well... Maybe your hypothesis is not correct after all.

Besides, his reason for not including the Wii was crap anyway. His point that "most people don't purchase many games for it" could be made about the PS2 as well (I myself have known multiple people with only 5-10 titles for the system) and indeed any console (I have known quite a few people who use their 360 solely as a machine to play Halo/COD on).

 

[squid5580]

Used games have been around since the NES era. But games cost alot more to make now than they did then. Publishers need to make a profit off those Gazillion dollar titles.

 

[DracoSuave]

Secondary sales don't make any money for the country or the company and thus make no economic value.

Wrong. Money changed hands. That's stimulation of the economy. Part of the margin of used sales pays employee salaries. Thus, yes, there is economic value.

As such... imagine the funds that could be added to the economy if another 20 billion were added from all the pirating that wasn't pirated?

The selling of something one owns is not analagous to selling something one does not own. Piracy and used sales cannot be compared to each other without fundamentally stripping people of ownership rights... are you a communist?

Every economics class and the test I just did on it disputes that.

It's like a transfer payment.

Giving money that is already someones to another person does not stimulate the economy. That's like saying birthday gifts stimulate the economy when giving money.

But no one is giving any money to anyone. There is a good being sold, and money changing hands for that good. The good belongs to the vendor, and the money belongs to the buyer. After the same, the good belongs to the buyer, and the money belongs to the vendor.

The receiver of said money then uses that money to pay employees, who then, get this BUY GOODS AND SERVICES.

There is a buying and selling of goods here, and everyone who owns that property is getting what they want out of the deal. Where is this 'other peoples' money' you talk about? Explain that, without coopting property rights.

That's NOT how it works because it doesn't reach the proper sources that a new purchase would.

The seller receives money, and that money works to pay for employees. Employees spend money. Any economics class that tells you that employees aren't paid and don't spend money is either flawed, or you failed to understand it.

---

Whenever you call someone a Nazi or communist or Hitler it's usually because you have no point and you've lost.

When one is refering to the seizure of basic property rights, actually, making an accusation of Marxism is just as appropriate as making an accusation of Naziism is appropriate to someone who wants to burn Jews. Calling someone a communist because they want economic freedom or socialized medicine is wrong. Calling someone a communist because they want to abolish basic property rights is bang fucking on correct.

Paying salaries is not stimulation, as it doesn't support the companies who made the products.

I find this absolutely appalingly shortsighted and myopic. Paying wages absolutely does stimulate the economy. I won't go into too much detail except that people who get paid for their work buy things and it is the things they buy that stimulate the economy for fuck sake.

Taken your assertion that paying people does not stimulate the economy to its logical conclusion, the most viable economy would be one with a 100% unemployment rate. WOOHOO LOOK AT THAT ECONOMY GO


Assuming that your school taught you this, and not that you simply failed to understand it... I'd ask for your tuition back.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

No, I don't think I did. I just compared all the data. There was no one "big seller" this cycle, the numbers were more spread out. Also, the OP's argument hinges on the fact that he does not include the Wii in his hypothesis, which is just bad form. If you have to ignore data in order for your hypothesis to work, well... Maybe your hypothesis is not correct after all.

Besides, his reason for not including the Wii was crap anyway. His point that "most people don't purchase many games for it" could be made about the PS2 as well (I myself have known multiple people with only 5-10 titles for the system) and indeed any console (I have known quite a few people who use their 360 solely as a machine to play Halo/COD on).

The OP ignored the Wii because for a reason - the publishers who are complaining about used games aren't making any games for the Wii.

His point wasn't that fewer people are buying consoles, it was that fewer people bought the consoles that those publishers make games for.

Case in point, if you're EA, you make few (if any?) games for the Wii - most of your titles are for the X-Box/360 and Playstation 2/3.

Between last gen and this gen, the number of people who own consoles that can play EA games (not counting PCs) dropped by 67 million (using your numbers).

That's what the OP was saying. Nintendo isn't complaining about used games, because their market share quadrupled. EA is because their sales have dropped by around 30%.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Bla Bla Bla

Wikipedia is shit which is why I didn?t check there first but surprisingly, their figures for this jive.
But I?m curious, are you really that upset about not getting the original links in the post? If you don?t want to believe me or wikipedia or vgc, fine, state your displeasure then move on with your life.
It?s not a court case nor is anyone trying to get college credit here; it?s just a random internet forum. Seriously, get a grip.

This was days ago! I think I pretty much stated my displeasure then moved on with my life already. In fact, when I saw I had a message saying my post had been quoted, I honestly couldn't remember this article at all: just shows how far down the list of "Important things to remember" this post had gotten.

Sorry, hadn't been on the site for a few days. Glad you got over it.

I remember the ps2 defect rate being high (the reason I didn't get one for a while) but the defect rate of the 360 was around 50% and that went on for a lot longer.

That failure rate comes only from a GameInformer survey of little weight. People took it as gospel because lolconvenience.

It holds no real weight, and actual numbers are not known for either console.

Plus, it only went on longer if you took Sony at their word on the issue being fixed the first time...And again, you're taking one company at their word and the other not.

And still, games are moving in record numbers.

Both consoles had a fail rate problem, but you have to admit there was more widespread outrage over a longer period of time over the 360 rrod; at least it seemed that way to me. However (personally), I know more people with ps2s than 360s and/or ps3s.
Do you mean that overall video-game sales are up including iphone games and things like that? Or do you mean that sales of full price games on disc (I mean the kind of games that usually get some anti-used sales scheme attached to it) are rising? If the latter, by how much?
I'm just saying that if that's the case, it should be cited to companies like EA and Sony who seem to want to make these "pass" schemes a regular thing.