http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2068-Project-Ten-Dollar

Where to begin?

I cannot think of another industry that tries to suck money out of the used market for their product. If I bought a used car that was made by Ford, they wouldn't see any of my money, unless there was some kind of extended contract, a program for buying used cars directly from some kind of program Ford ran, or if I just felt like sending the difference between the used car price and new car price to Ford directly.

Let's say I bought a Focus. I sat down with the dealer for a new Focus straight from the factory, with the base options that come with the price, and then added every optional everything I could to it. I bought it to drive the kids to school or something, then after they grew up, I sold the car. Ford will never see a dime for that sale. Let's say I even sold it to a used car lot, and they turned around and sold it again. Ford would never see a dime of that deal.

Let's say I bought Mass Effect 2. I bought the game at a retailer, with the basic as-is game straight from the publisher. Then I bought every bit of DLC I could get my hands on. I bought it to play and beat the game, and after that, I sold it. Bioware will never see a dime from that sale. Let's say I even sold it back to Gamestop, and they turned around and sold it again. Bioware would never see a dime from that deal.

Developers are raging against the used game market. But why?

If every game you develop costs $30 and you need 1,000,000 sales per game just to start turning a profit, and you're constantly worried that you won't make your sales because the vast majority of games don't sell a million copies, and your sales and profit margin are so piss poor that you need to squeeze every dollar from every single copy of a game multiple times, you're doing it wrong.

There is one difference with games compared to movies, books and music. Those don't have the likes of Gamestop and Electronics Boutique actively competing with new sales. If second-hand sales were only on Amazon or eBay then it wouldn't be a problem but with games you go into a store and the second-hand games are right there next to the new titles. Second-hand game stores make an absolute fortune on games and they are actually harming new game sales.

When I used to work for CEX in London this wasn't a real problem as stores like CEX were rare and TBH frequented more by collectors than bargain hunters but now the big chains are in on the action it's seriously starting to bite into profits for publishers. Stores like Gamestop actively tell their staff to promote second-hand over new because of the larger mark up they make on them. One of the worst practices I was privy to was packbreaking where in this example CEX were stuck with x amount of copies of a new game and they broke the seals and sold them as pre-owned because what they lost on the initial cost they made up on the sales.

I never buy used myself. I'm all for supporting the developers when I can afford to do so. When I can't, I just wait until the next payday. Buying used seems... dirty. I don't trust used. I don't know where those disks, manuals or boxes have been, after all.

Besides, in this day and age of online activation (blerkh!), there's no telling which games will work, and which will hang you out to dry. Better to buy sparkling new in shrink-wrap, so I know what I get.

Edit:
I should add that the above is for newer games. For old vintage titles (usually a decade or older), however; I got no problems buying used. I still prefer shrink-wrap when possible though. But these games are so old anyway, you wont find them anywhere (legally) but on GOG. I would never do piracy whatever the age or price of the game.

I see several things wrong with the proposed model in that video:

1. It's open for horrible abuse by publishers.
2. Retailers will not sell games at the reduced price. If necessary they just won't sell that game at all, since that shelf space can go to something more profitable.
3. There is no discernable gain over getting a free code, one requires you enter a code in, the other requires you to enter your credit card details, and both require you to be online regardless of whether you are downloading something or not.
4. By selling parts of the game separately, the customer now does not know how much more he needs to spend to get the full experience, which brings us to point...
5. What if you buy a game during a sale? Does the price for the extra stuff go down? Of course not, its the retailers having a sale, not the publisher, and of course a year after the game is released and most retailers are selling it at a reduced price the cost of the extras will still be at the full price of release!

So in short, I think that video's idea is not only atrocious, it's downright dumb, and the guy who came up with it should be hung drawn and quartered. Unless it's an attempt by some publisher to convince people of how great an idea it is prior to them rolling it out, in which case the guy is probably gonna get a raise. Bastard.

EDIT: In addition, used is not better, its better priced. New has the disk and manuals and everything in good condition and not covered in semen or whatever. If you don't care about that then it is a better deal, but if you're like me and like to know that your purchase should be in good condition and whatnot then it's not.

If you want more games that you like then support the developers and publishers by buying new copies relatively soon after release. That's the end point of it.

I believe used sales should exist as a consumer right, and as a way to get out of print titles, but these people are not wrong when they say you are not supporting anyone but the store. PC gaming needs more sales right now... piracy, used sales, apathy, waiting for a Steam blowout sale... all these things contribute to lower sales revenue on the PC.

/thread

Seconded, oh so much. Make a better game, and more people will hurry up and buy it when it's released.

Games like Planescape: Torment and Sacrifice have shown us otherwise. It's not guarantees. :(

I think publishers need to change their business models.

1. Instead of throwing in tens of millions of dollars per game just to make it photorealistic, embrace cheaper but still gorgeous looking styles, like painterly, 8-bit, 16-bit, cell shaded, anime, cartoony, highly stylized, you know, like they used to do a lot more when graphics weren't the best so they had to get inventive. Concentrate on game play and story instead and people will eat it up no matter what it looks like, as long as it looks good in whatever style you choose.

2. Create better business contracts with retailers. If they want to sell any of your games, they are prohibited from selling used copies of new releases for a period of time analyzed to be the largest window of sales and profit for new games. That way, buyers could go to retailers and still get old used games, and go to sites like Amazon.com to get used copies from highly-rated and reliable third parties.

If better games meant better sales things would be much better in the game industry. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Some of the greatest games fly by practically unknown and become financial failures which is enough to make a person like me furious at the way the game industry is going.

Except that the majority of game buyers DO care about graphics. That's why these companies are spending so much time and money on making things look pretty...people want that. People won't eat it up regardless of what it looks like.

If I'm a retailer, and you brought that contract to me, I'd wish you luck with your games and walk out the door. You're essentially telling me I'm allowed to sell used titles, but only on your terms. And you also seem to be saying that online sites can sell the same used copies right away. Why would I possibly sign that contract?

Development costs of AAA games are insane. Most publishers have completely lost touch with both their target demographics and indeed reality. Their only drive is more, more, more. Which costs more and more to make.

Yet now there are indies that develop games on a budget AAA developers wouldn't even consider chump change who then go on to make millions. How? They actually take chances and aren't deathly afraid of creativity.

This is why major publishers lose so much money on so many games - resort to using increasingly draconian DRM and condemning second hand sales for the simple reason that it's not a market they have any right to touch.

They're increasingly remind me of Neil Gaiman's old gods. Thrashing around in the dark, forgotten by the people they once commanded fear and respect from. They're rapidly becoming both obsolete and detestable.

I buy mostly used games. I rarely buy them on day one, or even week one. I either pre-order it if I'm totally hyped, or I wait until it gets in a 2 for £20 at Blockbuster or something. If these guys try and make me pay extra for used, I'm going to pirate their games instead of getting them second-hand, simples.

In don't know what to say about his suggestion, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with buying used games. It generally benefits the economy in favour of the supply chain (developers, publishers, etc) - someone buys a new release at a premium price that he wouldn't otherwise accept because he is confidant that he can sell the game to somebody else when he's done. Without used games the suppliers would be lucky if both of those buyers waited until the price went down to an acceptible level (lower margin but potentially more sales, probably worse overall) and don't just forget about the game entirely (fewer sales AND lower margin).

The problem comes in when a particular orginisation tries to deliberately subvert the market by cycling used games and doing everything they can to choke off new sales. Gamestop has been doing this for a few years, and it has been causing more problems for the industry than all the pirates in the world put together.

It is reasonable that any owner of a game should be able to sell that game to another person without impediment. Then again, the situation is one of desperation rather than reason, and so responses to the problem will thus often be desperate rather than reasonable.

My personal suggestion - an rather imperfect one - is to allow individuals to sell games to other individuals as they see fit (as long as they don't run foul of copyright limitations) but regulate the commercial sale of used games. Whenever a used copy is sold by a commercial entity the sale must be registered somewhere, and may not sell the copy if that copy has already been registered (unless they get permission from the copyright-holder to do so). Kind of like one-time activation, except that it affects only used-game merchants instead of customers.

This would mean that you can always sell sell any game that you buy. You would be able to buy used games from Gamestop if you wanted, but they wouldn't be able to later buy that copy back from you and sell it to someone else.

I don't think that would be overstepping, but the fact that this plan would require a new law to be created is it's big weakness.

Good does not equal photorealistic.

They're bitching about Gamestop. Either Gamestop and the publishers and developers can work toward a compromise (and holding off on having used copies of AAA titles for a few months after first release isn't a terrible one), or the publishers can stop selling to Gamestop and they'll only have used copies, thus leaving it like Blockbuster in its heyday, or they can encourage more sales through better deals at different stores like Walmart, Target, Best Buy, etc.

The industry needs to learn to not spend so much on games. That would mean reusing resources as much as possible without being a cheep carbon copy. For example a pistol in an fps could be used as an enemy weapon in a third person game. Of course they should try to improve or change them when possible to make them seem different.

Another thing would be to look at sales in the long term instead of the short term. That would mean still supporting and selling a game and looking at it's life time sales. Of course they would also have to reduce the price for the game over time or bundle it with over games and software.

Selling games at lower prices would be even better as more people would feel comfortable buying it. $60 is too much for a standard price and $50 was the maximum. I think selling games at $30 - $40 would be good as publishers will still get a good amount but the customer maybe more willing to buy the game which will mean more sales and more sales equals more money. I remember reading a comment on this board about an xbox live arcade game called "I made a game with zombies in it" was sold for one dollar and has made over a million in sales and is still selling strong.