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

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

With the news that RAGE will lock content on used copies the debate about used sales in general has sprung up again.
I'm against what id is doing. There is a better way to combat used sales. Reward consumers who buy new instead of punishing those that buy used. It is a philosophy that would breed appreciation, not contempt. Use the carrot, not the stick.

Examples:
Record of Agarest War Zero and Disgaea 4:
They both have standard versions that are priced at 50$. 10$ below the industry norm. Both games also have "Limited" editions that sale for 60$ that come with extras like artbooks and cds. People who just want the game can buy it at a discount and fans can choose to support the publishers/developers by buying the games at full price and are rewarded with goodies.

I hope that strategies like this catch on in the industry. Publishers and developers can fight used sales without demonizing and alienating consumers.

Dicussion: Do you know of any other publishers doing things like this? How do you feel about it? Would you like to see this trend catch on? And do you have any ideas that publishers could employ?

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

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

Seriously, it's just how you say it.

It is content already in the game that they just locked. That isn't extra content.

 

[Hal10k]

How is free DLC a stick instead of a carrot? And, for the people who don't care about anything but the game, what's the incentive to buy the game new instead of used? I don't think that the existence of a collector's edition is going to solve the problem in any way.

 

[EasySt17]

the better way to combat used games is to make less shitty games...

 

[Josh Beall]

the better way to combat used games is to make less shitty games...

Most logical Statement on this topic ever. also its near impossible
Edit: There will always be shovel-ware, and people milking decent franchises to death

 

[Irridium]

If people aren't buying new in the first place, it's because either A) they don't have the money, or B) They just want to save money(probably so they can buy more games).

In the case of A, no amount of special items or locking people out of content or whatever will make them buy new, because they can't. And they probably wouldn't be able to pay the $15 or whatever to unlock more content, since, again, they're not that financially well-off. Since there's no way to get money from them, there's nothing you can do and you can just ignore them. No way to get money from them.

For B, well simply reducing prices would be a great way to get them to buy new. And with the money they save from reduced prices, they're more likely to buy another game. So, basically, lowering the price would be the best way to get these people, not locking out content or whatever.

Yes, games are a luxury, but if your profits are being hurt so much that you have to try and lock used buyers out of content, perhaps you need to reduce the price to sell more copies so you don't take such heavy hits to profits. You know, reduce prices if consumers aren't willing to pay the current asking price. Pretty sure that's business 101.

And if that doesn't work, well just like with A, there isn't a way to make them pay up, which means they're not really a lost sale, which means you didn't lose any money in the first place.

I also like your example. It definitely is sweet to get a bunch of goodies with a game. Like The Witcher 2, which is awesome.

 

[Hal10k]

For B, well simply reducing prices would be a great way to get them to buy new. And with the money they save from reduced prices, they're more likely to buy another game. So, basically, lowering the price would be the best way to get these people, not locking out content or whatever.

Yes, games are a luxury, but if your profits are being hurt so much that you have to try and lock used buyers out of content, perhaps you need to reduce the price to sell more copies so you don't take such heavy hits to profits. You know, reduce prices if consumers aren't willing to pay the current asking price. Pretty sure that's business 101.

Except, no matter how much you reduce the price of a new game, the used version will always be cheaper. That's kind of what the problem is in the first place. If you want to reduce used sales, there needs to be a particular incentive towards buying it new, which has to be something other than price, from a practical standpoint.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

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.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

Uhh I might be wrong but isn't that what Day One DLC is? Like Bioware and Bethesda games all having free DLC for those who buy new copies?

Didn't people ***** and whine about that as well? I think People will ***** and Whine. Period.

 

[ChildofGallifrey]

I think Todd Howard from Bethesda is on the right track, claiming that $19 is about right for new games.

If developers would adopt that attitude and actually implement it instead of justifying why their game is the exception to the rule (sorry David Jaffe, but a new Twisted Metal game isn't worth a full $60), then I think it would be a boost for the industry. If the average new game cost 20 bucks, I don't think I'm the only one here who would buy a hell of a lot more games, right? I'd take more risks and try stuff that I wouldn't normally buy. Sure, you'd have to move more units to make the same profit, but if games were a third the price it's almost a metaphysical certainty that each title would sell better.

 

[viranimus]

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.

 

[random_bars]

Or, just make the game worth what it costs: either make it longer than 6 hours with no replay value, or price it at more like $25 than $60. That way people aren't immediately rushing to trade it in, they're more happy to buy it at retail price in the first place, and because fewer people traded the game in they're less likely to be able to buy it second hand at all because the stores won't be filled with preowned copies.

 

[Stall]

It is content already in the game that they just locked. That isn't extra content.

Or it could be bonus content unlocked by buying it new, seeing as it isn't essential to the story or multiplayer. It isn't like locking out players from important quests or modes of play. Like the person you quoted said... it is all in the way you word it.

the better way to combat used games is to make less shitty games...

What about when people buy good games used? How is the quality of a game any indicator of if you can buy it used or not?
I don't understand this argument...

 

[Stall]

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.

 

[Irridium]

For B, well simply reducing prices would be a great way to get them to buy new. And with the money they save from reduced prices, they're more likely to buy another game. So, basically, lowering the price would be the best way to get these people, not locking out content or whatever.

Yes, games are a luxury, but if your profits are being hurt so much that you have to try and lock used buyers out of content, perhaps you need to reduce the price to sell more copies so you don't take such heavy hits to profits. You know, reduce prices if consumers aren't willing to pay the current asking price. Pretty sure that's business 101.

Except, no matter how much you reduce the price of a new game, the used version will always be cheaper. That's kind of what the problem is in the first place. If you want to reduce used sales, there needs to be a particular incentive towards buying it new, which has to be something other than price, from a practical standpoint.

They could do both.

And when plenty of big [http://www.gamesthirst.com/2011/08/08/david-jaffe-60-is-way-too-much-to-pay-for-entertainment/] industry [http://gamerant.com/skyrim-prices-director-todd-howard-games-expensive-benk-98773/] people [http://www.destructoid.com/electronic-arts-thinks-videogames-cost-too-much-i-know-how-weird-that-sounds-51989.phtml] think that $60 is too much, perhaps it's time to just reduce prices.
Though of course none of them will do it. God forbid one of them tries to do something about the problem. No, they're all content to not do anything, then ***** about it.

So yeah, kind of hard to feel sympathetic towards them when the people who do the most in this situation decide to not do anything. Then try to do Project $10 or something.

Oh, and Riccitiello said that in 2007. Over 4 years ago. And here they are with their own storefront, in the best position to make changes for the better, and instead they choose to still charge $60 for their games.

Reduce prices, pack in some extras, and see what happens.

 

[Irridium]

I think Todd Howard from Bethesda is on the right track, claiming that $19 is about right for new games.

If developers would adopt that attitude and actually implement it instead of justifying why their game is the exception to the rule (sorry David Jaffe, but a new Twisted Metal game isn't worth a full $60), then I think it would be a boost for the industry. If the average new game cost 20 bucks, I don't think I'm the only one here who would buy a hell of a lot more games, right? I'd take more risks and try stuff that I wouldn't normally buy. Sure, you'd have to move more units to make the same profit, but if games were a third the price it's almost a metaphysical certainty that each title would sell better.

A shame old Todd Howard isn't putting his money where his mouth is.

Could you imagine what would happen if Bethesda charged $40, or hell, even $20 for Skyrim? It would be a game-changer the likes of which we've never seen. It would scare the living shit out of the competition(after all, if they could get something like Skyrim for $20-$40, why should they pay $60 for your game?). It would just be insane, and actually bring change for the better to the industry.

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.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I've an idea. Use DLC to get people to hold onto their disks

Lets say game A is getting released, and they plan to have $35 worth of DLC out over the course of 5-7 months. When buying new, you have a chance to buy a "online pass" of sorts for, say $25, and get all the DLC when it comes out. That rewards people for buying new. If you got it used, you can get the same code for, say $30. Both ways give people a reason to hold onto their disks for the next few months. Thus, at launch, there will be fewer used games competing with the new games. And at the end, when people DO sell off their games, it gives people a chance to play them and buy the DLC at full price if they want. Kinda combine the "Rockstar Pass" with "Cerberus Network". I would be fully behind this plan. If you think ?Oh, but then they would lose money because they wouldn?t make as much money on DLC?, consider this: If I spend $25 on content that is yet to come, I am most likely going to keep the game. This reduces the number of games resold, which will make them more money, because there are fewer copies of the game to buy used. Gamestop can still make money on sales from the kind of people who play a game in 3 days and return it for resale in order to get a new game, and devs/publishers give people more of a reason to want to keep the game if they like it.

That's my take on the issue. Give something small to those who buy new, which won't ruin the experence for those who get it second hand.

 

[AperioContra]

I don't know if there is one singular "correct," way to balance this issue, rather a series of things, my personal 100% unprofessional ideas are:

Offer non-narrative/gameplay insensitives: Such as unlockable skins/alternate characters or DLCs for free.

Throw in a coupon for another game, or a general "gift card" for buying DLCs. That way you can maybe get an easy return business.

Lowering the price of the game (marginally) for preordering it from the website.

Offering more Steam support, and open up deals for XBox Live and Playstation Plus. (Again at a reasonably lowered price).

Be open, honest, and speak to your customers often. We hear at the escapist know how far trust can take people.

These are just a couple ideas. Will all of them work? Probably not. But no matter what, until all games are DLC, the renting and used problem will always be an issue for developers. And even after, piracy will never go away. I guess the best piece of advice to keep your numbers up is "Don't be a dick."