The correct (aka less jerkish) way to combat used sales.

[Frostbite3789]

RAGE offers extra content to those who buy it new. It's a reward to them.

Seriously, it's just how you say it.

From what I hear, that content is a sewer level. YMMV.

Personally I'm not too concerned, since I am blessed with the patience that so eludes the majority of gamers. I have no problem waiting until I find it for $5 to $20 new. Besides, as it is a shooter, I won't be missing much to begin with.

This. A million times this. I never understood the impatience with people. You're saving what? $5 if you buy used. Steam constantly has sales. Every single retailer sends out a weekly ad, that you can also find online, where they usually have at least one pretty new game on sale.

It's really not difficult, people are just lazy.

Snip

You're impatient but still want to pay less? You get a lesser product. That's like going to a used car lot, paying for the junker, then expecting the car with leather seats that's fully loaded. That has 0 to do with physical degradation. It's just video games are catching up on this kind of thing. And they're expensive enough to where it warrants it.

Also, it's not like this stuff isn't on the box. People that complain they didn't know, are in the same camp as people who complain that they don't see the ratings to me. With a used game, the box is pretty much always readily available. If it isn't, you can ask a sales associate to let you look at it. It's just another way they think they can ***** about how it's screwing them. How about they look in the mirror and realize they're screwing the developer? Take two seconds and think about someone other than themselves.

Also, this is exclusively a console thing. As someone who plays both console and PC games, it's funny to see console gamers call PC gamers a bunch of whiners, then see crap like this crop up from the console crowd.

 

[dystopiaINC]

Or better yet, these publishers can quit pretending like they are starving artists and accept that the used market is completely legal and legitimate means of ownership instead of thinking it is their right to more profits than every other industry that sells a product.

The used market might be legitimate, but that doesn't mean that publishers shouldn't be allowed to compete with other companies who are driving down their profits. What? Are publishers just supposed to say: "Hey used games industry. You guys are totally costing us money, and we are okay with that! You decrease our profit margins, but we like you guys a lot, so we are just going to let you be! Sure, our shareholders totally hate it, but what do they know!". Name any other industry that has just allowed some kind of competitor or ulterior market to bite into their sales. We are living in a Capitalist society (last time I checked at least)... there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with publishers wanting to fight the used game market.

Think before you talk sometimes. Legitimate doesn't mean it's okay, or that publishers should just bend over and take it.

That's not how the markets work. You don't fight competitors by stiffing them, you fight them by putting out a better product. There are laws in place to combat what you are advocating.

better product? isn't what they are competing against the resale of their product at a lower price and with no befit to them? it's the same product just cheaper and sold at no profit to the developers

 

[Beautiful End]

I know this will never happen but lowering prices would definitely convince me to buy new games again.

See, I used to hate used games because they were always in such a crappy condition. But ever since the prices started going up and I realized that every new game is 60 bucks, I had to weight my options. I started buying used games because:

-Some games can only be found used
-New games are WAY too expensive (A used copy of MW2 is $25. A new copy is $50)
-I'm not a millionaire
-I can do a little box and disk browsing before I buy the game

In order to solve all that, prices could be lowered. Not only that but if publishers continued releasing certain games new (Shin Megami, Silent Hill 2, even 3D Dot Heroes, you name it), I would certainly buy them new.

It's also true that if the developers reward me when I buy a new game, then I'll do so. Out of the few new games I've bought...

-I got Rockband 3 for the free extra songs
-I'm getting Arhkam City because of the extra map pack
-GoW Collection for $40 bucks? Hell yeah! 20 for each game!
-Modnation Racers gave me a Kratos and a Sackboy avatar and kart
-InFamous 2 came with an extra weapon
-MvC3 was a nice Special Edition for just 10 more dollars

So you see, it's not a matter of hating or loving a developer. It's a matter of moolah and that's what people don't get. I know that with today's technology and stuff, lowering the prices would not be the best move for developers. That's fine. But I'm also entitled to buy used games. Hey, whatever we have to do to survive.
And yes, developers do get a share of the money when people buy used. It's not a crime, people! Not getting into that because it will ignite another argument. Just sayin'.

 

[aashell13]

The whole question is wrong. Developers have no business combating used game sales, nicely or otherwise. once they sell the game the first time, it ceases to be their property and they lose all say in what happens after that.

 

[DustyDrB]

Scans thread. Word search: "entitled"

Seriously, there's two sides of things (The business acting in their own best interest, and the consumers acting in their own best interest). The people who toss around the word "entitled" so often seem to only get one side. Quit reading into people's criticisms of business practices. The idea is that if we don't support practices we don't like, they won't be profitable and won't continue. Most of us know it's ridiculous to think that companies are evil for trying to make more money. That's one of their goals. But when consumers look out for themselves, it's entitlement? No, that's one of our goals.

I don't know how many times I've said this on this forum now, but I support the tension of each side looking out for themselves. It keeps either side from being screwed over.

 

[natster43]

Let me try to explain something.

When I worked at gamestop they explained this to me, to sell a game, gamestop has to pay the company who made the game, they then have to pay for the shipping and other such things. And when they sell a game new, they give more money to the companies and they make very little profit, while the company has already been paid for the game. So to make up his little to no profit, they sell the games used. This makes up for their losses.

But the Game companies see this as stealing from them. So instead of working on ways to get more money from the initial purchase, they decide that the best course of action is to hurt the people who are playing their game but are getting it used.

If you notice,no place only sells new games. Wallmarts and Targets also sell other things, food, clothes, music, books etc. Gamestop only sells games. So while those places pay the same to sell these games as well, they have ways to balance out the costs. Gamestop does not have this, so they need to make money other ways.

Okay so that is my view on this and why this is happening. Please feel free to correct any wrong information. Please refer to my other post for my possible way to combat used game sales.

 

[robert01]

There is no less jerkish way to do it. Should they have to reward people for buying the game new? NO. I don't expect shit handed to me because I bought a new product from someone. They give free shit to people that pre-order because they are giving them money for a product that could be complete and total shit. Maybe one of the things they could do is explain that when you buy the game used they don't get any money. We know that because we follow the stories and media regarding games. WE MAKE UP A SMALL PORTION OF THE GAMING WORLD! I bet A LOT of people don't know that when you buy the game used ZERO money goes to the creators.

 

[robert01]

Let me try to explain something.

When I worked at gamestop they explained this to me, to sell a game, gamestop has to pay the company who made the game, they then have to pay for the shipping and other such things. And when they sell a game new, they give more money to the companies and they make very little profit, while the company has already been paid for the game. So to make up his little to no profit, they sell the games used. This makes up for their losses.

But the Game companies see this as stealing from them. So instead of working on ways to get more money from the initial purchase, they decide that the best course of action is to hurt the people who are playing their game but are getting it used.

If you notice,no place only sells new games. Wallmarts and Targets also sell other things, food, clothes, music, books etc. Gamestop only sells games. So while those places pay the same to sell these games as well, they have ways to balance out the costs. Gamestop does not have this, so they need to make money other ways.

Okay so that is my view on this and why this is happening. Please feel free to correct any wrong information. Please refer to my other post for my possible way to combat used game sales.

ERR there is a lot of missing fact to back up that they have to pay money to the companies that make the game from used game sales, plus GameStop sells a lot more then games, they sell hardware, merchandise, oh and that shitty reward club that is straight profit in their pocket. And the whole GameStop only sells games is a shitty argument anyways. They chose to only sell games, and nothing is stopping them from say, carrying software for PCs, or opening up a digital distribution service which are quite profitable ... oh wait. [http://www.joystiq.com/2011/03/31/gamestop-indulges-in-some-impulse-buying-no-seriously-it-bo/]. No you can't feed your family from NEW game sales alone, but that isn't the problem, the problem is they say FUCK YOU to the publishers and keep the $55 dollars in their pocket, for a game that has been out a week.

 

[electric method]

The whole concept is ridiculous in the extreme. Once the pub/dev sells the game to the retailer they have made their money. Asking for portions of the used sale, or locking certain aspects of the game then charging the person who bought used to access all the content already on the disc is just greedy. It all goes back to the intial sale. The dev/pub already made their money. It would be as if when the game is sold back used, it reverts back to being the property of the dev/pub, and that is clearly not the case.

It all comes down to this. If devs/pubs want to have more new game revenue, make better games. Period. Make games that are worth the buyers money in terms of content, replayabilty, and quality. An example of the opposite of the above is COD. These games keep getting shoveled out year after year, and each one is increasingly worse than the one before. However, the price for this nonsense is exactly the same. I have never bought a COD game new and I never will. I also bought BFBC and BFBC2 used. I was glad that I did buy them used. while decent games, they were in no way worth the "new" price.

Doesn't anyone remember the era of gaming where you put your money up, paid for a game and took it home and played it for months? One played those games for months because of the length of content and the quality of the game. Now-a-days, most games can easily be consumed in a matter of hours and pubs/devs have tripled or quadroupled the price of games new. I understand there are cost associated with development, but seriously, are we as consumers supposed to expect that we should pay more to get less content/game in comparison to games we bought 10 years ago?

Before the, well what about multiplayer content question arises. Multi-player cannot really be considered "content" for the sake of this argument. Nor should mutli-player ever be used as a justification for 6 hour campaigns. I say both of these things because of the nature of multi-player; it is repetative and the experience is completely driven by players, not the devs/pubs. It's a cop out, a way to charge ludicrious prices, while simultaineously offering truncated campaigns, stories and plots that are brief and usually only topical at best.

So it can be summed up as someone has already stated: Devs/pubs want more money from new revenue? Make better quality games with lasting appeal. Make games that people want to inhabit and explore and not just turn back into gamestop after the usual same old, same old.

 

[Pandabearparade]

But no, of course his game has to be $60. Everyone's content with talking big. But nobody seems to be willing to bite the bullet and actually walk the walk.

To be fair about this, Skyrim is likely going to be a massive game that is actually worth $60. It isn't Duke Nukem.

 

[Delsana]

Giving easier access to future content that is not simply held back for extra money is probably the best way.

I admire the Cerberus Network but it didn't do it very much justice because it then went to the OTHER SIDE of DLC.

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

Wait, hold up guys, isn't the second-hand market perfectly natural for ANY retail business? seems kinda.... I don't know, slow for the VG business to be attacking them now of all times?

Also, imagine someone 10 years from now deciding to pick up one of the legendary(?) games of 2011. Only to find out some content is LOST FOREVER?

And this seems rather backwards to restrict business of a market that, you know, carries out the games said VG companies made as a safe house for great old games and trash bins for shitty games?

I don't understand the details, but it still seems odd to attack natural business models.

EDIT: better yet, why not just make DLC free for those who bought it first-hand?

At least that way we won't feel ripped off as much.

 

[s0p0g]

Or better yet, these publishers can quit pretending like they are starving artists and accept that the used market is completely legal and legitimate means of ownership instead of thinking it is their right to more profits than every other industry that sells a product.

Thats the easiest way to fix the problem. Stop trying to change games and evade the laws in order to gain more profits. By not viewing it as a problem, it eliminates the problem and this is certainly the non dickish way of doing it.

Will it happen? no. Should it happen? It shouldnt even be a question in the first place.

amen to that. i wondered for quite some time now how the game industry is crying big tears over used games, while i never heard of an anti-used-films/CDs/books campaign

or what about cars? most younger people i know, and others who aren't that rich, or feel the need of an up-to-date car, buy used cars. the automobile industry isn't a crybaby, either.

 

[balooneybob]

1) Make games cheaper to buy new.
2) Make games more replayable so that players are less likely to want to trade it in.
3) Make money through ingame stores.

Instead of discouraging people from trying the game in the first place with an expensive 'new' shelf price, developers should make it more worthwhile for consumers to try the game in the first place. Then its up to the game itself to rope the player in and encourage them to invest more in the game through in-game content stores; additional levels, expansion packs - whatever. But the number of times you shell out $100 for a game and it turns out to be crap is just not an incentive to buy new games.
Games are just to expensive to buy new all the time, and in fact - making them cheaper to buy in the first place is likely to reduce the number of people trading in and/or reselling their old games, to make some of that initial investment aswell.

 

[Wintermoot]

like you said offer two versions
or offer special reskins for people who buy stuff new (like a golden gun or something)
and OFFER FREE PUBLIC DEMO,S!

 

[Zeh Don]

Actually, I'm kind of OK with the "Free DLC" incentive plan that was used for Mass Effect 2.
Before I'm burned at the stake, let me clarify: obviously, Zero Day DLC is a bad thing - it's content that should be in the box, but isn't. However, if it's simply free DLC and just needs to be downloaded, it doesn't really create problems - unless you don't have an internet connection. Which is where this plan falls down - you're still paying extra, however you're not getting anything for it.

In any case, I'd rather them "reward" people for buying the game new, than punishing people for not buying it new.
Having the entire multiplayer component locked is insane - that's literally breaking the product to ensure first party sales, or additional revenue. Considering that very same multiplayer component will closed down in two or so years, it doesn't seem ehtical. Customers have the legal right - at least in Australia - to re-sell their purchases if they so chose; attemping to disolve my government-given-and-army-defended-rights isn't something I'm prepared to tolerate. Rewarding loyalty, however, is something I'm very much ok with.

Perhaps something like the Nintendo Club system - register your games and consoles to receive 'points' that be used to purchase merchandising, or DLC Packs.
Anything is better than "This Feature Is Locked As You Bought It Cheaper Than We Think You Should Have Paid For It" message boxes.

 

[TeeBs]

Wait, hold up guys, isn't the second-hand market perfectly natural for ANY retail business? seems kinda.... I don't know, slow for the VG business to be attacking them now of all times?

Also, imagine someone 10 years from now deciding to pick up one of the legendary(?) games of 2011. Only to find out some content is LOST FOREVER?

And this seems rather backwards to restrict business of a market that, you know, carries out the games said VG companies made as a safe house for great old games and trash bins for shitty games?

I don't understand the details, but it still seems odd to attack natural business models.

The Content will never be lost for ever, Older PC games have been revived through steam, I wouldn't doubt console gaming will soon fallow suit. I mean hell its hard to find a old good nintendo game which isn't already published on the Wii Market place.

No industry is alike, that is what most people don't get about this situation. I heard a car comparison earlier. You buy a used car, you do not expect the makers of that car to honor there warranty, no call BMW with a used BMW trying to get them to pay for something that broke and they will say whatever fuck you is in german. Why? because they lose money, not in the sense that you will not buy a BMW, but the repair costs them money. When you buy a used game, what does E.A. get from you using up there server space? Something they have to pay for.

Also it is in the wording, you can say they locked up content on a disc you bought, or you can say the content is a free gift given to us as a benefit of us buying the game new conveinently place on the disc for a smaller download.

 

[RadioactiveMicrobe]

Also, imagine someone 10 years from now deciding to pick up one of the legendary(?) games of 2011. Only to find out some content is LOST FOREVER?

Yes, thank you. At least I'm not the only one who sees this. I JUST bought Max Payne for the original Xbox. I just turned 17, and I've been trying to keep up with the current market, and catch up with the old at the same time. If this was the same story a few years in the future, and I was buying Rage, won't I be screwed over, and basically unable to play the game?

 

[Yopaz]

Or better yet, these publishers can quit pretending like they are starving artists and accept that the used market is completely legal and legitimate means of ownership instead of thinking it is their right to more profits than every other industry that sells a product.

The used market might be legitimate, but that doesn't mean that publishers shouldn't be allowed to compete with other companies who are driving down their profits. What? Are publishers just supposed to say: "Hey used games industry. You guys are totally costing us money, and we are okay with that! You decrease our profit margins, but we like you guys a lot, so we are just going to let you be! Sure, our shareholders totally hate it, but what do they know!". Name any other industry that has just allowed some kind of competitor or ulterior market to bite into their sales. We are living in a Capitalist society (last time I checked at least)... there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with publishers wanting to fight the used game market.

Think before you talk sometimes. Legitimate doesn't mean it's okay, or that publishers should just bend over and take it.

That's not how the markets work. You don't fight competitors by stiffing them, you fight them by putting out a better product. There are laws in place to combat what you are advocating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

"Section 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine....

Section 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine...."

According to this antitrust law of USA (The article about the European was outdated so I wont include that) there is nothing against it according to the law. There's no monopoly, there's no conspiracy.

OT: if you buy a used copy of Windows 7 what do you get? You get a disc with the dats to install the OS, but you can't use it at all. Yet we're all complaining when one developer cuts one mission in one game for those who buy it used. How many of you are using Linux? How many decided that since you can't buy an OS used you would boycott all of them? I'm sure that's less than 10% of all the users here.
What I think publishers should do to combat used game sales is that they should collectively boycott retailers that sell used games that are still in production. The retailers doing so would soon end up with a stock of nothing but used games and old games. This would give them a choice. Either stop selling used games, sell only used games or go bankrupt. Yeah, I am aware that this might be illegal, but if all publishers stood together and said they would it would make all these retailers break a sweat.

 

[FalloutJack]

You know what? Screw it all. It doesn't MATTER if it's to be read as extra or something cut out. It is still wrong. And my line of thinking is forget the question of used VS new and OPEN THE SUCKER WIDE. Developers need to understand that they're losing either way. The question is, which one's a bigger loss? Do you lose some cash to retail places? Or lose cash to retail places and pirates? The big picture is that you either run with it or get left behind.