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

[GonzoGamer]

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.

But I thought that's why the games cost $60... and have less content...and sell dlc.

I understand that games cost more to make than they did but they seem to be using that as an excuse for way too many things.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Not sure if anyone brought this up or not, but I imagine that developers are getting their panties in a twist over used sales because games cost more and more money to make, but they can only sell it for $60. It means that they either need more people to buy each new game just to break even, or they can cut into used sales and try to get money from that area of game sales.

Edit: Apparently they did. Ninja'd.

 

[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.

But I thought that's why the games cost $60... and have less content...and sell dlc.

I understand that games cost more to make than they did but they seem to be using that as an excuse for way too many things.

They were roughly 60 bucks back then too. And had far less content lol

 

[GonzoGamer]

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.

But I thought that's why the games cost $60... and have less content...and sell dlc.

I understand that games cost more to make than they did but they seem to be using that as an excuse for way too many things.

They were roughly 60 bucks back then too. And had far less content lol

I remember buying new NES games for around half that price...and those are NYC prices. And it seems to me that most current games have a lot less content then the games I remember from back then. I could play through 10 current games in the time it took me to play through something like Zelda or an rpg from that time.

But that's not even relevant to the point. The point is not to dispute that games cost more to make now (everyone knows that they do) but that the smaller possible base of consumers buying games like Battlefield 3 (just for example as it has one of those pass things) is a bigger problem for EA than tradeins and piracy.
The problem I'm trying to point out is that the publishers keep trying to put the blame on the consumer and trying to get another $10 here and there rather than realizing that they, the console developers, and even the retailers deserve more of the blame than the consumers who do had over a considerable amount of money when you consider their numbers which seem to be shrinking rather than rapidly growing as they should be for a relatively young (not yet a lifetime old) activity.

 

[Scow2]

Because theres a chance they can make more money out of it, simple as

Except there really isn't, because they are alienating far more customers than they are making.

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

I think some of it's just the cost and time to make a new Triple A title I remember reading that when all said and done EA spent on the far side of 800 millions USD and four and a half years on the first Dead Space. That's a big investment for a company on a product that could not even make back a fraction of it's cost and with less than a dozen products coming out a year a massive flop can drastically cut into their operating costs.

 

[Worgen]

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

You might want to not list badly failed consoles when your trying to prove a point about cost. The jaguar and the saturn both bombed pretty hard and cost was a rather big factor.

 

[GonzoGamer]

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

You might want to not list badly failed consoles when your trying to prove a point about cost. The jaguar and the saturn both bombed pretty hard and cost was a rather big factor.

Good point but you should also remember that at this point in the last console cycle, the xbx/ps2 only cost $150 new. That's about $100 less then the barebones ps3/360.
I notice ElPatron left out the ps3 from that list; is that a "badly failed" console?

I bet price is a part of the problem; maybe just a small part. But I'm sure there are a shiton of factors affecting this slowdown for certain publishers: unexpected popularity of the wii, the BR/hdvd format war, notoriously defective consoles, poor support on other consoles, extra fees, and ironically enough used game prices.

Used games used to be really cheap. The fact that gamestop has gouged that market to near-new prices is definitely a factor keeping a couple of my friends away from the new consoles. Now before you say they shouldn't count because they buy used, I can say for a fact that they did occasionally buy a new game (if it was something they were really looking forward to, full price at launch) and they also got new games as gifts.

 

[Worgen]

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

You might want to not list badly failed consoles when your trying to prove a point about cost. The jaguar and the saturn both bombed pretty hard and cost was a rather big factor.

Good point but you should also remember that at this point in the last console cycle, the xbx/ps2 only cost $150 new. That's about $100 less then the barebones ps3/360.
I notice ElPatron left out the ps3 from that list; is that a "badly failed" console?

I bet price is a part of the problem; maybe just a small part. But I'm sure there are a shiton of factors affecting this slowdown for certain publishers: unexpected popularity of the wii, the BR/hdvd format war, notoriously defective consoles, poor support on other consoles, extra fees, and ironically enough used game prices.

Used games used to be really cheap. The fact that gamestop has gouged that market to near-new prices is definitely a factor keeping a couple of my friends away from the new consoles. Now before you say they shouldn't count because they buy used, I can say for a fact that they did occasionally buy a new game (if it was something they were really looking forward to, full price at launch) and they also got new games as gifts.

He might have left the ps3 out since it didn't start selling well till they cut the price, probably about 60%+ of its sales came after the price drop, I'm too lazy to look up the numbers.

 

[GonzoGamer]

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

You might want to not list badly failed consoles when your trying to prove a point about cost. The jaguar and the saturn both bombed pretty hard and cost was a rather big factor.

Good point but you should also remember that at this point in the last console cycle, the xbx/ps2 only cost $150 new. That's about $100 less then the barebones ps3/360.
I notice ElPatron left out the ps3 from that list; is that a "badly failed" console?

I bet price is a part of the problem; maybe just a small part. But I'm sure there are a shiton of factors affecting this slowdown for certain publishers: unexpected popularity of the wii, the BR/hdvd format war, notoriously defective consoles, poor support on other consoles, extra fees, and ironically enough used game prices.

Used games used to be really cheap. The fact that gamestop has gouged that market to near-new prices is definitely a factor keeping a couple of my friends away from the new consoles. Now before you say they shouldn't count because they buy used, I can say for a fact that they did occasionally buy a new game (if it was something they were really looking forward to, full price at launch) and they also got new games as gifts.

He might have left the ps3 out since it didn't start selling well till they cut the price, probably about 60%+ of its sales came after the price drop, I'm too lazy to look up the numbers.

I'm not going to look it up either but I think you're right. I didn't get a ps3 until the second price drop.
I get the feeling many are waiting for the ps3/360 to drop down to that $150 price.

 

[ElPatron]

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

You might want to not list badly failed consoles when your trying to prove a point about cost. The jaguar and the saturn both bombed pretty hard and cost was a rather big factor.

>thread about most selling consoles
>demands that unpopular consoles have to be included

What are you trying to prove, exactly? It has nothing to do with the fact that consoles were always "expensive" and the PS3's launch price alone does not prove that we are paying more for our games.

Good point but you should also remember that at this point in the last console cycle, the xbx/ps2 only cost $150 new. That's about $100 less then the barebones ps3/360.
I notice ElPatron left out the ps3 from that list; is that a "badly failed" console?

(...)

At this point? Okay. Then we have to wait until the X720 and PS4 get a few years under their belts before comparing.

I left out the PS3 and other consoles because of one thing. MATHS. Statistically, the values that appear the most are between 250-400. I assume you heard about Gaussian distributions.


Why would I include today's price in a comparison of launch prices?

 

[GonzoGamer]

At this point? Okay. Then we have to wait until the X720 and PS4 get a few years under their belts before comparing.

I left out the PS3 and other consoles because of one thing. MATHS. Statistically, the values that appear the most are between 250-400. I assume you heard about Gaussian distributions.


Why would I include today's price in a comparison of launch prices?

I wouldn't expect you to, honestly I didn't expect the other prices. Todays price is only really relevant to the price of the ps2 when it was 6 years old.

 

[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.

But I thought that's why the games cost $60... and have less content...and sell dlc.

I understand that games cost more to make than they did but they seem to be using that as an excuse for way too many things.

They were roughly 60 bucks back then too. And had far less content lol

I remember buying new NES games for around half that price...and those are NYC prices. And it seems to me that most current games have a lot less content then the games I remember from back then. I could play through 10 current games in the time it took me to play through something like Zelda or an rpg from that time.

But that's not even relevant to the point. The point is not to dispute that games cost more to make now (everyone knows that they do) but that the smaller possible base of consumers buying games like Battlefield 3 (just for example as it has one of those pass things) is a bigger problem for EA than tradeins and piracy.
The problem I'm trying to point out is that the publishers keep trying to put the blame on the consumer and trying to get another $10 here and there rather than realizing that they, the console developers, and even the retailers deserve more of the blame than the consumers who do had over a considerable amount of money when you consider their numbers which seem to be shrinking rather than rapidly growing as they should be for a relatively young (not yet a lifetime old) activity.

I bought both Dragon Warrior and Zelda 2 for 60 bucks a pop (BC prices). I won't deny there was some long games but it doesn't change the fact that there was a ton of 1 hour long games that were just so bloody hard that they felt like they were longer until you mastered them.

And I for one don't mind project 10 dollars (except for the input code nonsense). Nor do I mind DLC existing. I decide what I buy and if it is worth it to me. You won't find a 10 dollar map pack or a 5 dollar skin on my Hdd but you will find extra missions and packs that extend the SP campaign.

There is ways around project 10 and the likes if you are patient. I just bought Mass Effect 2 yesterday brand new for 20 bucks from a brick and mortar store. Paid the same as used and still got the code.

 

[GonzoGamer]

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.

But I thought that's why the games cost $60... and have less content...and sell dlc.

I understand that games cost more to make than they did but they seem to be using that as an excuse for way too many things.

They were roughly 60 bucks back then too. And had far less content lol

I remember buying new NES games for around half that price...and those are NYC prices. And it seems to me that most current games have a lot less content then the games I remember from back then. I could play through 10 current games in the time it took me to play through something like Zelda or an rpg from that time.

But that's not even relevant to the point. The point is not to dispute that games cost more to make now (everyone knows that they do) but that the smaller possible base of consumers buying games like Battlefield 3 (just for example as it has one of those pass things) is a bigger problem for EA than tradeins and piracy.
The problem I'm trying to point out is that the publishers keep trying to put the blame on the consumer and trying to get another $10 here and there rather than realizing that they, the console developers, and even the retailers deserve more of the blame than the consumers who do had over a considerable amount of money when you consider their numbers which seem to be shrinking rather than rapidly growing as they should be for a relatively young (not yet a lifetime old) activity.

I bought both Dragon Warrior and Zelda 2 for 60 bucks a pop (BC prices). I won't deny there was some long games but it doesn't change the fact that there was a ton of 1 hour long games that were just so bloody hard that they felt like they were longer until you mastered them.

And I for one don't mind project 10 dollars (except for the input code nonsense). Nor do I mind DLC existing. I decide what I buy and if it is worth it to me. You won't find a 10 dollar map pack or a 5 dollar skin on my Hdd but you will find extra missions and packs that extend the SP campaign.

There is ways around project 10 and the likes if you are patient. I just bought Mass Effect 2 yesterday brand new for 20 bucks from a brick and mortar store. Paid the same as used and still got the code.

Yea. I know what you mean. My wife kept the sims3 from gamefly and they sent the case with the code and everything.
Maybe they were charging more for nes games in Canada back then because I don't remember any nes game ever costing 60.
Listen, I have no problem with dlc or anything but sometimes they just hack off bits of the game so people will buy dlc and/or pre-order and that I feel hurts the integrity (and even additional sales) of the game.
Look at Battlefield 3, the most interesting part of the game (the part that might compel them to buy)is locked from renters & borrowers who are probably not going to pay $10 for a game they're renting.

 

[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.

But I thought that's why the games cost $60... and have less content...and sell dlc.

I understand that games cost more to make than they did but they seem to be using that as an excuse for way too many things.

They were roughly 60 bucks back then too. And had far less content lol

I remember buying new NES games for around half that price...and those are NYC prices. And it seems to me that most current games have a lot less content then the games I remember from back then. I could play through 10 current games in the time it took me to play through something like Zelda or an rpg from that time.

But that's not even relevant to the point. The point is not to dispute that games cost more to make now (everyone knows that they do) but that the smaller possible base of consumers buying games like Battlefield 3 (just for example as it has one of those pass things) is a bigger problem for EA than tradeins and piracy.
The problem I'm trying to point out is that the publishers keep trying to put the blame on the consumer and trying to get another $10 here and there rather than realizing that they, the console developers, and even the retailers deserve more of the blame than the consumers who do had over a considerable amount of money when you consider their numbers which seem to be shrinking rather than rapidly growing as they should be for a relatively young (not yet a lifetime old) activity.

I bought both Dragon Warrior and Zelda 2 for 60 bucks a pop (BC prices). I won't deny there was some long games but it doesn't change the fact that there was a ton of 1 hour long games that were just so bloody hard that they felt like they were longer until you mastered them.

And I for one don't mind project 10 dollars (except for the input code nonsense). Nor do I mind DLC existing. I decide what I buy and if it is worth it to me. You won't find a 10 dollar map pack or a 5 dollar skin on my Hdd but you will find extra missions and packs that extend the SP campaign.

There is ways around project 10 and the likes if you are patient. I just bought Mass Effect 2 yesterday brand new for 20 bucks from a brick and mortar store. Paid the same as used and still got the code.

Yea. I know what you mean. My wife kept the sims3 from gamefly and they sent the case with the code and everything.
Maybe they were charging more for nes games in Canada back then because I don't remember any nes game ever costing 60.
Listen, I have no problem with dlc or anything but sometimes they just hack off bits of the game so people will buy dlc and/or pre-order and that I feel hurts the integrity (and even additional sales) of the game.
Look at Battlefield 3, the most interesting part of the game (the part that might compel them to buy)is locked from renters & borrowers who are probably not going to pay $10 for a game they're renting.

I think using something like RAGE would be a better example of it gone bad. With BF3 you still get the sp campaign which good story or bad you still get the feel for the game and how the weapons/vehicles will feel in MP. It isn't you that have been locked out of on disc content (like RAGE or Batman AC) but locked out of their servers. That to me feels more fair than Rage or AC. And at least you know what you are paying for if you buy used. You could buy Rage used, waste the 800 points (or whatever it is) and not see what you paid for. But it would bother me if Ididn't get the content knowing that it is there but I am locked out of it so I would have to pay (if I was interested in RAGE that is). That to me is far dirtier pool than knowing I am locked out of the online portion of a game. Also this allows a consumer a bit of choice in the matter. Some people don't care about MP so this benefits them. Afterall they can buy it used cheaper and not buy the online portion so they aren't paying for something they don't want.

 

[GonzoGamer]

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.

But I thought that's why the games cost $60... and have less content...and sell dlc.

I understand that games cost more to make than they did but they seem to be using that as an excuse for way too many things.

They were roughly 60 bucks back then too. And had far less content lol

I remember buying new NES games for around half that price...and those are NYC prices. And it seems to me that most current games have a lot less content then the games I remember from back then. I could play through 10 current games in the time it took me to play through something like Zelda or an rpg from that time.

But that's not even relevant to the point. The point is not to dispute that games cost more to make now (everyone knows that they do) but that the smaller possible base of consumers buying games like Battlefield 3 (just for example as it has one of those pass things) is a bigger problem for EA than tradeins and piracy.
The problem I'm trying to point out is that the publishers keep trying to put the blame on the consumer and trying to get another $10 here and there rather than realizing that they, the console developers, and even the retailers deserve more of the blame than the consumers who do had over a considerable amount of money when you consider their numbers which seem to be shrinking rather than rapidly growing as they should be for a relatively young (not yet a lifetime old) activity.

I bought both Dragon Warrior and Zelda 2 for 60 bucks a pop (BC prices). I won't deny there was some long games but it doesn't change the fact that there was a ton of 1 hour long games that were just so bloody hard that they felt like they were longer until you mastered them.

And I for one don't mind project 10 dollars (except for the input code nonsense). Nor do I mind DLC existing. I decide what I buy and if it is worth it to me. You won't find a 10 dollar map pack or a 5 dollar skin on my Hdd but you will find extra missions and packs that extend the SP campaign.

There is ways around project 10 and the likes if you are patient. I just bought Mass Effect 2 yesterday brand new for 20 bucks from a brick and mortar store. Paid the same as used and still got the code.

Yea. I know what you mean. My wife kept the sims3 from gamefly and they sent the case with the code and everything.
Maybe they were charging more for nes games in Canada back then because I don't remember any nes game ever costing 60.
Listen, I have no problem with dlc or anything but sometimes they just hack off bits of the game so people will buy dlc and/or pre-order and that I feel hurts the integrity (and even additional sales) of the game.
Look at Battlefield 3, the most interesting part of the game (the part that might compel them to buy)is locked from renters & borrowers who are probably not going to pay $10 for a game they're renting.

I think using something like RAGE would be a better example of it gone bad. With BF3 you still get the sp campaign which good story or bad you still get the feel for the game and how the weapons/vehicles will feel in MP. It isn't you that have been locked out of on disc content (like RAGE or Batman AC) but locked out of their servers. That to me feels more fair than Rage or AC. And at least you know what you are paying for if you buy used. You could buy Rage used, waste the 800 points (or whatever it is) and not see what you paid for. But it would bother me if Ididn't get the content knowing that it is there but I am locked out of it so I would have to pay (if I was interested in RAGE that is). That to me is far dirtier pool than knowing I am locked out of the online portion of a game. Also this allows a consumer a bit of choice in the matter. Some people don't care about MP so this benefits them. Afterall they can buy it used cheaper and not buy the online portion so they aren't paying for something they don't want.

Maybe it is more "fair" than the sp content schemes we got with games like Rage & LA Noir (I can't really tell because personally, I think they're both pretty stupid) but I'm saying that with a game like Battlefield 3, Online Pass probably cuts into their bottom line more than it helps. Someone who's played the multiplayer content would be more likely to want to get their own copy if they've borrowed or rented it. It's especially stupid when you consider that curbing trade ins was the reason online multiplayer has become so prominent in console games.
The fact remains that many of the companies that complain about used sales and have these online pass schemes were already making tons of money before they started making us punch in codes so there's another reason I can't really feel sorry for them.

 

[TheGreatAndPowerfulZOG]

It's more like the advent of our games being so intergrated with online systems and the rise of digital platforms have opened up forms of control over gamers that weren't possible in earlier generations, publishers want to capitalize on this by punishing gamers for buying used, ala online passes. After all it doesn't really matter how much the consumer hates the idea, noone wants to buy a game with its online features missing especially if its a big part of the experience like Resistance 3 which I'm told has an online pass.

For every major tech advancement there's always people who want to use it to squeeze a bit more money out of you and this has never been more true than in the videogames industry. Never forget the biggest concern with any released game is to make money, sure the design team may have wanted to make the best experience possible but it always comes back to money especially with publishers, used sales represent lost profits to them rather than fair competition and since they have the means to reduce them and make more money for themselves...why not?

NOTE: I don't endorse these measures in any way, I think they're wrong and will reduce a lot of sales in general but I can see the cold hard logic they're operating on to make more money.

nailed it. Publishers can now make it impossible to resell games, so of course they're making a push for it. One thing that strikes me about this though, if a product I want to buy can't be resold, then it's worth a lot less to me than if it can. If I buy a game via Xbox Live download, in other words, I'm not going to pay $60. It isn't nearly worth it. I don't know if publishers haven't realized this yet, or if they're just hoping that we haven't.