By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Do you agree with companies trying to rid used game sales?

 

Do you agree with companies trying to rid used game sales?

Yes 51 18.15%
 
No 167 59.43%
 
A little 34 12.10%
 
a lot but not completely 28 9.96%
 
Total:280
Lord Ciansworth on 29 January 2012
Khuutra said:
Lord Ciansworth said:
I think the problem with the used games market is its sheer popularity versus other similarly priced second-hand items. You never walk into your favourite clothes store and see second-hand clothes selling alongside new clothes, you never walk into a book store and see second-hand books selling alongside new books. We've heard many reports from developers (I'm thinking particularly of Quantic Dream and Heavy Rain here) where they estimate the used games market has accounted for roughly a third of the total sales of their game. I would be shocked if the second-hand market accounted for a third of the total sales of a particular book, for example.

I think games developers would worry less about the used games market if it mirrored other similarly priced second-hand markets in popularity. Seeing as the used video games market seems to be far more popular than others and, therefore, eats into their profits in a far more drastic way, they feel it is imperative that they challenge that market. I happen to agree with them and they are perfectly within their rights to do so.

I think people comparing the used games market to other used markets are really comparing apples and oranges as the same rules do not apply across the board.


Malarkey. The primary difference between used video games and say, used books, is that used video games are a better value proposition. They're above a certain threshhold of cost where saving anything is preferable to having a mint copy, which isn't usually the case for a $20 hardcover novel. Now, you get into the range of a $200 textbook where you can save 30% or more by buying used, and you'll notice that the used textbook market is absolutely tremendous in comparison to the standard used book market.

Neither textbooks nor (many) video games make a compelling enough argument for long-term ownership or buying a game new versus second-hand. If companies want to battle the second-hand market, they need to make their games something that people won't want to sell, or that they want to buy new. Offer the consumer a better value proposition, and that battle is already won.

Not sure why what I said is malarkey, seeing as your point seemed to supplement mine rather than directly challenge it. Also, what about any of that invalidates the right of the developer to attempt to shrink the used market in order to protect their investment?



Around the Network
Nyeguy81 on 29 January 2012

no. everything else is sold used why should videogames be any different. also how would i let a friend (or i myself) borrow a game? please note this is coming from a person who buys games first day and rarely buys used games. i also never sell my old games or systems i keep them. gamestop just grossly overprices new used games to almost new cost and gives you squat for them. dont sell your games to gamestop then.



Khuutra on 29 January 2012
Lord Ciansworth said:
Khuutra said:


Malarkey. The primary difference between used video games and say, used books, is that used video games are a better value proposition. They're above a certain threshhold of cost where saving anything is preferable to having a mint copy, which isn't usually the case for a $20 hardcover novel. Now, you get into the range of a $200 textbook where you can save 30% or more by buying used, and you'll notice that the used textbook market is absolutely tremendous in comparison to the standard used book market.

Neither textbooks nor (many) video games make a compelling enough argument for long-term ownership or buying a game new versus second-hand. If companies want to battle the second-hand market, they need to make their games something that people won't want to sell, or that they want to buy new. Offer the consumer a better value proposition, and that battle is already won.

Not sure why what I said is malarkey, seeing as your point seemed to supplement mine rather than directly challenge it. Also, what about any of that invalidates the right of the developer to attempt to shrink the used market in order to protect their investment?


The size of the used games market does not represent an endemic threat to the producers of games, it represents a value proposition that isn't high enough to most consumers. Disposable games are what gives rise to the used games market, and if game makers worry about the size of the used games markets then their games have to be less disposable. There' nothing inherently wrong with trying to combat used game sales, but of all the companies I've ever seen in this industry, very few ever get it right: and that's by making it so that each game represents a higher value proposition.

I mean, CHrist. Look. New Super Mario Bros. Wii and (especially) Mario Kart Wii have sold about as well as any Call of Duty ever, yet as a reseller I've seen less than 10% the number of used NSMBW and MKW as I have any Call of Duty. You know why? They were better value propositions, and they weren't disposable.

FIghting the used game market, in itself, is aiming at the wrong target. Make people want to keep your games. That is the only avenue to success.



freebs2 on 29 January 2012

lol NO ! If they want to get rid of used games sales they should just try to add value to their products, rather than producing - good for rental only- crap.
Also, from an economic point of view I agree to everything Kasz said.



Khuutra on 29 January 2012
RolStoppable said:

It's also the most desirable way for gamers. I mean, which kind of gamer would be against the idea of developers making better games?

"Better" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it; in the case of Call of Duty, it's jsut a point of fact that a large, large number of people are buying it for the multiplayer and not the campaign. Some people will stick with older Calls of Duty because they prefer certain aspects of those multiplayers, but the body of buyers hop onto the next one for new features, new modes, and to keep up with the transitioning community at large.

Call of Duty is made disposable not because it's not as good as other games, but because Activision makes it eminently replaceable by design every single year. They know there's no reason to hold onto old Calls of Duty! In fact they actually count on it. That's why they don't complain much about used Call of Duty sales: it's pretty close to what they want, which is the perfect synthesis between game replaceability and a complete lack of franchise fatigue.



Around the Network
Zlejedi on 29 January 2012

Am I the only one who can't belive how many people are happy with surrending their own consumer rights for well being of multimillion dollar corporations ?



PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB

Acevil on 29 January 2012
Zlejedi said:
Am I the only one who can't belive how many people are happy with surrending their own consumer rights for well being of multimillion dollar corporations ?


Maybe they just hate the other multimillion dollar corporation (the one selling the used copies) even more. 

I'm somewhere in between, but I do find it really sad that SP games (two titles come in mind) are starting to get Online Passes. 



 

Khuutra on 29 January 2012

I'm not directly affected by ME2 and ME3 having online passes but EA setting this precedent is one of the biggest dick moves of the generation. Eugh.



SecondWar on 29 January 2012

I think providing the incentives to buy new (like the bonus content in Batman Arkham City and Mass Effect) or to hold on to games for longer (like the Season Passes in games like Gears of War 3 and Forza 4) are the way to go. It doesn't stop people from buying second hand but rewards first time buyers. Homefront also worked in the way it implmented the online pass. Online multiplayer was still fully accessable to everyone but if you didnt have a pass your level was capped, which still allowed for the full experience and wasn't much of a competitive handicap.

Standard passes to simply access the online servers, such as for Dead Space 2 (where the multiplayer only existed so EA could put an online pass in the game) and FIFA where they offer no extra content are counter-productive.

Banning used game sales completely will just promote piracy, as would Microsoft's rumoured plan of stopping used games from being played.



Khuutra on 29 January 2012
SecondWar said:
I think providing the incentives to buy new (like the bonus content in Batman Arkham City and Mass Effect) or to hold on to games for longer (like the Season Passes in games Like Gears of War 3 and Forza 4) are the way to go. It doesn't stop people from buying second hand by rewards first time buyers.

Banning used game sales completely will just promote piracy, as would Microsoft's rumoured plan of stopping used games from being played.


Mass Effect's free content feels good on the surface, but keep in mind that you need a Cerberus Network code to get at their bad-ass DLC, too. Used customers end up spending a lot more on ME2 if they decide they like it enough to get more DLC. It's like some kinda trap. I steer people away from used ME2s (when we have them in, which is rare) with all the fervent passion of a thousand suns.