What would you do about used game sales?

[Onyx Oblivion]

How about, making great games that people will not want to trade in the minute they finish it...

There will never be a game to please EVERYONE'S tastes, so trade-ins are inevitable.

That strategy of "make better games" really SOUNDS good, but you'll see used copies of AAA well-reviewed games on shelves a few days after launch.

I think they should just supplement lost costs with DLC packs, which inspire people to hold onto games.

I like "Project Ten Dollar", and EA's oft-ignored PS3 strategy of having Dead Space 2 come with Dead Space: Extraction on the disc. And Medal of Honor coming with an HD version of MoH: Frontline.

Online passes are just annoying, though, EA. That's not how Project Ten Dollar was meant to turn out. Stuff like Shale in DA:O, and Cerberus Network in ME2...That's a good incentive to buy new.

 

[CheckD3]

I still say that the use of DLC and patches to update and upgrade games isn't used enough, and even more so for the way that they don't "reward" people who buy new games.

What if when you bought a new copy you got a special code that gave you not only some extra in game stuff, but also got you a % off when you buy the DLC. Like for Fallout, if you bought the game new, instead of paying 410 for a DLC, you can get it for $8, pay $11 for a $15. The only thing that the EA Project 10 bucks does is punish those who don't buy new. Why not instead of punishing used buyers, reward new copy buyers?

Hard to support when a company wants to squeeze extra money out of you rather that proving they care about you

 

[Proteus214]

The solution really is quite simple: make smaller games to be sold at much lower prices. The failures and schlock get swept under the carpet and the better games will shine forth and be incredibly profitable.

 

[Powlee]

People buy used cars, used microwaves, used computers, anything that isn't consumable can usually be bought used without destroying their market. Why should video game devs get special treatment? Are they the disabled child of the global economy?

 

[Samechiel]

What would you do about used game sales?

I'd start by not making games that can be beaten in three hours and then charging $59.99 for them.

 

[veloper]

People buy used cars, used microwaves, used computers, anything that isn't consumable can usually be bought used without destroying their market. Why should video game devs get special treatment? Are they the disabled child of the global economy?

Because copying a car or a microwave is very hard. Even copying a book is alot of work and costs resources.

Data on the other hand is in infinite supply and is trivially easy to reproduce, so it has no real value.

The disc with the software is worth just a few cents and that's what a used copy would sell for if all consumers had brains.

 

[ManOwaRrior]

People buy used cars, used microwaves, used computers, anything that isn't consumable can usually be bought used without destroying their market. Why should video game devs get special treatment? Are they the disabled child of the global economy?

Because copying a car or a microwave is very hard. Even copying a book is alot of work and costs resources.

Data on the other hand is in infinite supply and is trivially easy to reproduce, so it has no real value.

The disc with the software is worth just a few cents and that's what a used copy would sell for if all consumers had brains.

True, but how come nobody has an issue with used movies or CD's? Those are even easier to copy than games.

 

[AnAngryMoose]

I like what EA did for BC2 with the VIP Code. Giving you all those extra maps and the Vietnam expansion for purchasing it new is a great deal and keeps the customers playing your game long enough for the sequel to roll out.

 

[Keava]

True, but how come nobody has an issue with used movies or CD's? Those are even easier to copy than games.

You can't really compare music and film industry to games. Movies for one, make most of money from their time in cinema's, you dot get DVDs out the same day. Music on the other hand is a bit more complicated with tours adding up to profits. Games are a full product you get to your hands. Imagine if instead buying a music CD you would have to buy a band to play it live for you.

Another reason is the fact that game consume money even after they went gold. You need to provide support and often develop patches - it costs money. Movies and music CDs once done are done.

 

[veloper]

People buy used cars, used microwaves, used computers, anything that isn't consumable can usually be bought used without destroying their market. Why should video game devs get special treatment? Are they the disabled child of the global economy?

Because copying a car or a microwave is very hard. Even copying a book is alot of work and costs resources.

Data on the other hand is in infinite supply and is trivially easy to reproduce, so it has no real value.

The disc with the software is worth just a few cents and that's what a used copy would sell for if all consumers had brains.

True, but how come nobody has an issue with used movies or CD's? Those are even easier to copy than games.

It's basicly the same thing going on there, but it's just less talked about, especially here on a gaming forum.
Still, same type deal with music and vids: you don't buy a product that costs significant money to produce; if you buy new, you're only giving your money (very indirectly) to the people who spent money on doing the performance and recording it.

That's after alot of people take a big cut for merely getting to game to you.
The way we currently distribute games and movies and music is just very inefficient.
What we'd really need is a system where you only give something to the people who put effort and money into making the content you wanted. A way for consumers to contribute directly only to the actual development and not to the bullshit currently surrounding the distribution of games.

 

[Jodah]

Project 10 dollar seems to work well enough. Either that or make games overall cheaper but you have to pay to unlock stuff. Make the game 40 bucks but that only gives you single player content. Ten bucks more gives you multi-player. Ten more gets you the day one DLC.

 

[Keava]

That's after alot of people take a big cut for merely getting to game to you.
The way we currently distribute games and movies and music is just very inefficient.
What we'd really need is a system where you only give something to the people who put effort and money into making the content you wanted. A way for consumers to contribute directly only to the actual development and not to the bullshit currently surrounding the distribution of games.

Sadly that won't work any time soon mainly due to how corporations work. It's simply not in their best interest, and artist is a product, like anything else. We do have ways of such distribution however - it's called internet. Every artist can sell their own work through their own website, some musicians do it, some graphic designer do it, even some game devs do it, problem is majority of market is still held by big corps called publishers.

Why? Because apart from getting money the publisher is also responsible for promotion. In case of music industry it's getting a band to go on tours, creating promo materials, looking for interview opportunities, etc. All the background job that makes wide audience aware of given band. In case of games it's even more complicated.

Consoles are in full control of companies that are also big publishers. They have full control of what get's released on their platforms, you can't release a game without OK from Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft, even more so, you need to pay them royalty fees.
PCs, while having the benefit of being much more open systems, still are mostly bound to retail sales. Sure, digital distribution is growing, services like Steam are hub for ~2 million of players online at same time, but again Steam is part of Valve, not an open service.

To make money form a product, no matter what it is, you need two things: a place to sell it and way to tell people about the product. I doubt average gamer visits websites of all developer studios regularly to check for news and is constantly on the lookout for new products. You need read about them in gaming press (webzins included) or see a box in the shop (digital services included).

 

[Shilkanni]

Game companies are not making similar games over and over again out of a desperate greed. ...vs...
The economy is awful and they need to take fewer risks in today's market to stay in business.

We're kind of talking about the same thing here, just putting a different 'spin' on it.

'Desperate Greed' or 'Low-Risk ventures to stay in business' it boils down to the same thing...
Games which are derivative and not innovative or creative are usually simply not as good and not as much fun.

Just because we can understand why they did it doesn't mean it was the right choice. 'The economy is bad' is no reason to make bad games. Whatever their reasons we're well within our rights to criticize bad games.

Over the last year there were a lot of sequels but many of the biggest successes last year were doing something original (Alan Wake, Heavy Rain, Red Dead, Limbo, Minecraft).

 

[veloper]

That's after alot of people take a big cut for merely getting to game to you.
The way we currently distribute games and movies and music is just very inefficient.
What we'd really need is a system where you only give something to the people who put effort and money into making the content you wanted. A way for consumers to contribute directly only to the actual development and not to the bullshit currently surrounding the distribution of games.

Sadly that won't work any time soon mainly due to how corporations work. It's simply not in their best interest, and artist is a product, like anything else. We do have ways of such distribution however - it's called internet. Every artist can sell their own work through their own website, some musicians do it, some graphic designer do it, even some game devs do it, problem is majority of market is still held by big corps called publishers.

Why? Because apart from getting money the publisher is also responsible for promotion. In case of music industry it's getting a band to go on tours, creating promo materials, looking for interview opportunities, etc. All the background job that makes wide audience aware of given band. In case of games it's even more complicated.

Consoles are in full control of companies that are also big publishers. They have full control of what get's released on their platforms, you can't release a game without OK from Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft, even more so, you need to pay them royalty fees.
PCs, while having the benefit of being much more open systems, still are mostly bound to retail sales. Sure, digital distribution is growing, services like Steam are hub for ~2 million of players online at same time, but again Steam is part of Valve, not an open service.

To make money form a product, no matter what it is, you need two things: a place to sell it and way to tell people about the product. I doubt average gamer visits websites of all developer studios regularly to check for news and is constantly on the lookout for new products. You need read about them in gaming press (webzins included) or see a box in the shop (digital services included).

True and it's not like I can offer a better solution, I can only point at the problem.
Paying for a used game disc, or movie or CD track is still bullshit though.