By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Slimebeast on 14 February 2010
Edit Thread
RolStoppable said:
Slimebeast said:
Mr Khan said:

The only way they can stop sales of used games, outside of some really shady practices of intimidation against retailers, would be more pointless DLC, codes embedded with the games

 

Publishers and developers just have to man up and make games that are worth buying new and keeping, or stop complaining.

I think codes are cool. That could stop used game sales.

You are thinking wrong when you say they should make games with even more longevity. They do that already but the problem with those games is that players keep playing them instead of buying new games.

Basically it's unreasonable of consumers to demand games for only $60 that gives them several hundreds of hours without paying any extra.

Did you just say that consumers are wrong in demanding games that are worth keeping? Bad dog!

Mr Khan is right. The main problem of developers and publishers is that they are making games that are played through once and sold back to the stores within a few days. That's because most games are cinematic and thus are very similar to movies when it comes to consuming habits. Most people watch a movie only one time, either in the cinema or they rent it once it's out on DVD or Blu-Ray. Consumers don't see much of a point in owning a product that they'll never use again.

Logically the solution would be to make games that are worth keeping, but there's this misbelief in the video game industry that a game's life should be extented through online features (multiplayer, DLC). Local multiplayer trumps all of that easily, but it gets more and more ignored in industry games. I think they believe that they can sell more games if each player has to own his own copy of the game, but that's wrong. Local multiplayer exposes more people to the fun that can be had and that may spawn additional sales (this works wonders on the Wii by the way).

There's also no problem with people keeping to play a game for hundred or more hours. They will still buy new games while keeping their old ones. Ultimately it's up to developers and publishers to provide content that is worth paying for.

Well, a single player game with no replay value, usually cinematic games like u said, that's on the other extreme on the spectrum where the dev doesn't offer full value for those $60.

What I'm saying is that the business model should be designed so that it reflects value better. It's unreasonable that the typical 8 hour single player game and the 200 hour game both cost $60.