Jimquisition: Fighting The 'Problem' Of Used Games

[Irridium]

You make it sound like all games are made by these rich executives. How much does an indie developer lose when a game is mostly bought used? Also note: these are the games more frequently bought used, as big titles have many people buying on launch day. Other than this point, I agree with you, but I'd like to see what you have to say about this.

Because they're asking customers to spend $60 on a game they know absolutely nothing about and have most likely never seen before. Which is just fucking stupid.

A smarter thing to do would be to put those games up on XBLA or PSN or Steam and charge about $25-$20 for 'em.

People will be more willing to pay $20 for a game they don't know anything about, than they are to pay $60 for a game they know nothing about.

 

[Beautiful End]

Once again, thank the Maker for Jim. Wait, that's redundant: Thank Jim for Jim! (And kudos for playing Beatrix's Theme from FFIX! 8D )

I'm sorry but I do not intend to pay 60 bucks for a crappy game like Duke Nukem. I wanna play it out of curiosity but it's not worth that much. And why should I pay 60 bucks for it when I can buy it used at Gamestop, or from a friend or eBay or whatever, waaaaay cheaper than that?

I'm not saying buying new games is dumb. Hell, I WILL buy Batman brand new. Wanna know why? I get two goodies for preordering it and I get to have a special edition. Plus, I know the game rocks so yes, you bet I wanna have it brand new and I do wanna be buried with it, just like my FFVIII copy and my Megaman Legends collection. Like Jim said, those games didn't offered me anything extra when they came out, yet I would have never dreamed of buying that game used. It wasn't a matter of price, it was a matter of paying the right amount of money for a good game. So bottom line: Make a good game and you can have my wallet.

Now, all this bullshit about developers complaining about used game sales is so fucking retarded. I get that they want more money; who doesn't, right? But guys! You're doing it wrong! Taking out parts of the game that are basic to us now (Multiplayer) is just a dumb, dick move through and through! You're just alienating players that way. I shouldn't be told what to buy and what not to buy. It's just business. Used car sales are the same, used appliance sales are the same, so why are used game sales such a drag? If they want extra money, released some decent DLC, for example: Undead Nightmare or Blops' Map packs.

Do they really think that a mom looking for a X-mas gift is gonna stop and think about used game sales and their benefits and consequences before buying her kid a gift? Fuck to the no! She's just gonna buy what looks pretty and what's cheaper. So make sure to appeal to ALL audiences, not just people who have a bigger wallet.

Publishers need to be smart about it. Right now, all those passes feel more like a punishment rather than a reward. Not everyone is able to spend 60 bucks on a game. So if a kid has too choose between Uncharted 3 new for 60 bucks or Uncharted 2 used for 30 AND with online already included, guess what? Uncharted 2 it is.

I don't have an problem with used games, I have a problem with retailers like gamestop. Their whole business model isn't about selling new games, its about getting people into their store and onto the used game treadmill.

Unlike other retailers gamestop and similar "pawn shop" retailers leech off the marketing and promotion of publishers to attract customers, then when the customer is in the store try their damndest to get customers to buy used which parasitically sucks up the publisher's portion of revenue. Publishers are too chicken to just say "no" which leads to the endless whining cycle.

But isn't buying used games ultimately your decision? I know it sucks when people try to impose on you their products (Same reason why I'm against online passes), but it al goes down to this: it's just business. When I go to Wal-mart, they always offer me a Wal-mart card and I always say no. This isn't gonna change and it's irritating but I know I can get it over with as soon as I say No. Same when I buy stuff on eBay or when I go to Burger King.

I actually work at Gamestop and I do suggest people to buy used but only on certain situations. When they're buying a crappy game brand, like let's say, Homefront or Duke Nukem, I tell them that if they buy it used, they can always return it in about a week and get their cash back. And then if it turns out the like the game, they can always come back and buy it brand new. Believe me, 75% of the time, people come back and return a crappy game and they thank me for warning them or they return the game and get a brand new one. Games like Black Ops or whatever sell by itself. So I offer the used copies out of courtesy if they wanna save 5 bucks for a pack of gum or whatever. But I ultimately tell them that it's only a 5 dollar difference between a used copy and a new copy and that if they're sure about their purchase, they might as well get the new one.

Seriously, I have yet to hear of a publisher that has closed to their doors imply because of used sales. No, no collective reasons, just used games sales. They want their extra cash, but they just don't get it. Even if Gamestop closes, people are STILL gonna sell used games. Your cousin will, eBay will, pawn shops will, and so on. Same with car sales, book sales, etc. You can't stop it and you can't claim it's a crime or else every single person on Earth would be a criminal.

 

[MisterDyslexo]

But I liked Dead Space 2 multiplayer :'-(

OT: The idea is certainly nice, but it begins to look like that the content is already on the game, and they're just saying "no, you can't have it". I liked what Mass Effect 2 did with Zaeed and a few of the weapons. You could download it for money, or you could get the game new. The content wasn't ready for release, so they say "You buy the game new, you get this for free, since we weren't able to give it to you in the main game". It sounds honest and is a respectful treatment towards the gamer that doesn't make it feel like it was already made, and is being excluded if they buy it used, since it wasn't ready. Of course, there are two problems, one being that it could already be finished, and they're withholding releasing it, or two, that they want their free stuff now. Personally though, I prefer real-life swag over in-game stuff when I pre-order. Black Ops poster? Sweet. Free BTM of Catherine? Sign me up.

 

[internetzealot1]

Uh, Jim? Rage isn't giving extra content to those who buy it new. Its taking away content from those who buy it used. And how can you stand beside Pre-Order bonuses? All it does is try to make consumers commit to a purchase that might not be a good one.

 

[Callate]

I'm still leery of what seems like a narrow and in some cases illusory difference between "bonus content" and content that's inaccessible to the used market.

Sure, there are places where there's an obvious distinction- when used gamers are completely locked out of multiplayer until they cough up an additional $10, certainly that's significant. Likewise, if a new buyer gets a gun that's bright pink and shoots out tracers that explode into showers of confetti, but does the same damage at the same range and with the same fire rate and accuracy as one of the default guns available to everyone, that's no big deal.

But there can and will be a hell of a lot of gray area in between. What if a particular boss is only readily killed with fire damage, and the so-called "bonus" weapon is the only option that does fire damage at medium-to-long range with readily available ammo? What if a "bonus" area is the shortcut between two other areas, without which the player has to trek through a longer route swarming with enemies? What if a "bonus quest" is the only thing that fills out a branch of storyline that will otherwise remain vague and enigmatic?

Sure, the second-tier gamers may still be able to get from beginning to end. That doesn't mean they necessarily got the benefit of the full experience. Indeed, they may have spent more of their precious time completing one that was less satisfying.

New skins and the like are one thing. But in general, I'm always going to feel a little cheated if the dev spent a significant amount of production time on the creation of assets whose primary function is to make late arrivals feel like second-class citizens. Post-release content seems to me like a better way to go, when possible.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Buy new, get free stuff that complements and adds to gameplay! What a novel idea!

Also, thank the assorted dead gods that I had $1 same-day shipping for the Saints Row the Third Pre-Order. This thread reminds me that I that will be amazing.

 

[Eomega123]

Splendid work Jim. I always enjoy your videos, only slightly more than I enjoy smiling smugly and shaking my head when my friend bitches about you and tries to get me to see the 'error of my ways'. As always, thank God for Jim.

 

[SemiHumanTarget]

chin chin means cheers in Canadian French... but it means penis in Japanese.

 

[cookyy2k]

Why not include in every new game a voucher of a certain value to be used on ANY DLC brought out for that game, current or future?

That would extend someone's play time so less likely to sell while not taking anything major away from a used player since they can just buy it.

 

[D_West]

Golden foreskins. That is all.

 

[Epona]

I think people tend to forget that it isn't the publishers that get all the extra money, the developers also need that so they can, you know, continue making games.

Is there ever an end to this tired argument? They have continued to make games before the $10 price hike, before DLC and before online passes. This gen has seen game prices (if you want the whole game) almost double or in some cases, triple. What was once $50 for an entire game is now $100 or even $150 if you buy the collectors edition. The more money they make, the more they want and the more they have to create schemes to get it.

Please retire this excuse for their never-ending greed.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

Sorry but you mentioned there that publishers won't be able to buy this and that, and it causes a slight inconvenience, but later mentioned how annoying it was to put in a 25 digit code. Seems like you were being a little childish here. Or maybe just desperate for argument leverage.

I still agree with most of what you said. Publishers are just greedy people in suits earning way more money than they deserve and then asking for more. And not even caring about gaming.

They're are exceptions (Valve pops into my mind), but for the most part they can all go to hell.

 

[Epona]

Sorry but you mentioned there that publishers won't be able to buy this and that, and it causes a slight inconvenience, but later mentioned how annoying it was to put in a 25 digit code. Seems like you were being a little childish here. Or maybe just desperate for argument leverage.

I still agree with most of what you said. Publishers are just greedy people in suits earning way more money than they deserve and then asking for more. And not even caring about gaming.

They're are exceptions (Valve pops into my mind), but for the most part they can all go to hell.

You know what the biggest problem is with putting the codes in? It's that you are being conditioned to put in a code with every new game purchase. Right now, it's optional, you can skip the online stuff and ignore the code but soon it will be just like PC's. Soon, all console games will require a code before you can play them at all.

It annoying when you have a full keyboard, it worse than annoying trying to put in a code with a controller. PC users who buy from Steam don't have to worry about that anymore and indeed that is an advantage to Steam.

So think back to your post when you are putting in your 30th code in a year or two.

 

[Smackerlacker]

I have an idea about how to fight used game sales.
Make really, really good games so that A) people won't want to trade them away, and B) people won't want to wait to play them.
That's the right way to fight used game sales, and the only ethical way.
If your game sucks balls so much that no one is willing to pay full price for it, well then guess what, you don't deserve any money.

 

[Mister Linton]

I think the simplest but best argument made in this series is that USED GAME SALES HAVE BEEN AROUND SINCE THE INCEPTION OF VIDEO GAMES. The ridiculous argument that it is somehow hurting the games industry NOW is so patently false as to be laughable.

I agree the best solution is for the industry to stop being whiny babies and MAKE BETTER GAMES. Ever notice how really good games with replay value fetch a much higher used price for much longer than typical shit games do? Yeah, figure out why.

 

[Jumplion]

I think people tend to forget that it isn't the publishers that get all the extra money, the developers also need that so they can, you know, continue making games.

Is there ever an end to this tired argument? They have continued to make games before the $10 price hike, before DLC and before online passes. This gen has seen game prices (if you want the whole game) almost double or in some cases, triple. What was once $50 for an entire game is now $100 or even $150 if you buy the collectors edition. The more money they make, the more they want and the more they have to create schemes to get it.

Please retire this excuse for their never-ending greed.

Movie theaters have turned in somewhat of a profit since before the digital revolution. Doesn't mean the model shouldn't change so they can still compensate for it.

Games are quite expensive to make. Games that don't make it past the 1 million mark often have their developers shut down. Developers have been denied bonuses at the last second because the publishers won't give it to them in the first place. Considering that publishers go for a 80-20 split in profits [http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/lets-talk-about-publishing] (I'm inclined to trust Portnow considering he's had much more experience in the industry than Jim), I don't understand why anyone would begrudge a developer for just trying to scape in a few more bucks. Doesn't mean you have to like it, of course, but heated words like "schemes" and "greed" make me think that people don't understand business at all.

Think of it, not so much that it should be fine to charge more for the product, but that the developer should get more of the cut in the first place.

 

[Cain_Zeros]

But... Alright, hang on a second. I don't get this. How is it that Locked Away Content A is being taken away from used buyers, but Locked Away Content B is being rewarded to new buyers?

Why couldn't you equally say that systems like the one Rage has are terrible because they mean that people who buy the game new are locked out of some content because publishers are dicks and all that, but online passes are a great alternative because they reward the new buyer for their allegiance, etc etc?

Because Locked Away Content B isn't half the game, or even an important part of the game.

 

[eezaak]

Jim, you sooo need to get a pimp cup and cane.

 

[Epona]

I think people tend to forget that it isn't the publishers that get all the extra money, the developers also need that so they can, you know, continue making games.

Is there ever an end to this tired argument? They have continued to make games before the $10 price hike, before DLC and before online passes. This gen has seen game prices (if you want the whole game) almost double or in some cases, triple. What was once $50 for an entire game is now $100 or even $150 if you buy the collectors edition. The more money they make, the more they want and the more they have to create schemes to get it.

Please retire this excuse for their never-ending greed.

Movie theaters have turned in somewhat of a profit since before the digital revolution. Doesn't mean the model shouldn't change so they can still compensate for it.

Games are quite expensive to make. Games that don't make it past the 1 million mark often have their developers shut down. Developers have been denied bonuses at the last second because the publishers won't give it to them in the first place. Considering that publishers go for a 80-20 split in profits [http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/lets-talk-about-publishing] (I'm inclined to trust Portnow considering he's had much more experience in the industry than Jim), I don't understand why anyone would begrudge a developer for just trying to scape in a few more bucks. Doesn't mean you have to like it, of course, but heated words like "schemes" and "greed" make me think that people don't understand business at all.

Think of it, not so much that it should be fine to charge more for the product, but that the developer should get more of the cut in the first place.

They have gotten greedy this gen and it needs to stop. No more appeals to the poor developers, I've had enough.

If publishers are shutting down devs for one failed game, blame the publisher and don't keep giving them more money. Do you reward other industries for bad management? If a game can't be successful without a million sales then the budget should have been smaller.

I am sick of guilt trips being thrown on gamers because publishers are getting greedier and consumers are resisting. We have already seen prices double since last gen, enough is enough!