Ars Technica: Stopping the sale of used console games

[JackBurton]

Steam for the PC is a GREAT software distribution system. So why not implement something like that for consoles?

I'm all for cutting out the used game market. That just pads Gamestop's pockets for doing almost nothing.

 

[Gheris]

This is a back and forth argument that I doubt we'll ever agree on, but I'll say this. EVERYTHING costs money to make. What you are really saying is that devs deserve special treatment and protection as opposed to every other item manufactured and produced. The used market has been around much longer than software companies. Pawn shops do the EXACT same thing. All that doing away with the used market accomplishes is doing away with competition.

Look at this on a larger scale, not just from your DEV standpoint. If anyone is screwing the DEVS it's the software companies, not the used market.

As for your question. I wouldn't be opposed to that. If anyone deserves more money generally, it's the Devs. None of my comments are pointed at them.

I will file this under agree to disagree, but we both rather see the devs get some $$. Regardless, you made good points sir.

 

[alent1234]

and forgot, when i was looking at the bulletstorm previews last year i noticed that a lot of the art and layout looked very similar to GoW. it's not like these companies start from scratch every game, a lot of the content is reused with some changes in newer games

 

[Gheris]

Steam for the PC is a GREAT software distribution system. So why not implement something like that for consoles?

Agreed that's where I buy all of my pc games. Some people have had issues with it, but nothing is perfect.

 

[purbeast0]

Then why is Angry Birds so popular? I bet that didn't cost a fortune? People want value, not bloat.

such a stupid argument. angry birds is either $.99 or free, depending what platform you are purchasing it on.

comparing a $1 game to a $60 game is just stupid.

 

[ImpulsE69]

such a stupid argument. angry birds is either $.99 or free, depending what platform you are purchasing it on.

comparing a $1 game to a $60 game is just stupid.

Why? I don't hear them complaining that they aren't making enough money. The price has nothing to do with quality. Just because it costs $60 doesn't mean it's good. Are there games worth $60? For some maybe, however for some reason they've put this as the "entry" point for most games, regardless if worth it or not.

 

[purbeast0]

Why? I don't hear them complaining that they aren't making enough money.

i dont hear anyone complaining they aren't making enough money. we are just here speculating.

and it's stupid to compare them because $1 is an impulse buy and throw away money for basically 100% of the people who own a smart phone, and can be played on a device that is used secondarly as a gaming machine, vs a $60 purchase which is far from an impulse buy, that requires a very specific device to play.

also, angry birds cost much less to develop than a game like uncharted 3 or MW3.

comparing the mobile market in general to the console market is just apples to oranges.

 

[AstroManLuca]

do people really think games don't justify a $60 price?

Absolutely. I never pay more than $30 for a game. Usually more like $10-$20, and I'm always on the lookout for sales. I play more PC games than console games so on the PC side of things I either buy from Amazon (new or used, depending on prices) or wait for Steam sales. On the console side I rarely buy games anymore, usually when I get a gift card. Or I look for games that are a couple years old that I've always wanted to play but have never bothered to pick up.

Going to digital distribution is one way to cut out the used market. I just hope they keep prices reasonable and drop prices over time.

One scenario I'd like to see is for digital copies to be generally cheaper than disc copies. The extra money from disc copies helps cover the losses incurred by used sales. Digital copies can't be sold and cost nothing to deliver.

Of course that won't happen. Maybe they'll back down, or maybe they'll introduce one-time-use activation codes to play everything, even single player games, so you can't resell them. In that case I would choose not to play console games anymore.

Besides, from the other rumors circulating, I doubt an Xbox 720p (powered by Radeon 6670) would be worth owning anyway.

 

[Rage187]

Hold on a moment. Are the parts being locked out considered additional content, or extra content? Such as "free" DLC? If so they are in their rights to not give you free content if you did not purchase the game in a manner in which they recieved compensation. That would be something for nothing correct? When you buy a used game from Gamestop your no longer compensating the developer. Your compensating a corporate entity that is reselling a used product. You won't get the same treatment. When you buy a used item from someone unless the warranty is transferrable it's buyer beware correct?

DLC is tricky like that, and I am not a fan of DLC in general as I feel much of it should have been included in the games before release. However developers are put under deadlines and cannot always get in all the content they would like.

This is not DLC. This is content that shipped with the game. One specific instance, I can't remember the name of the game but the sewers were locked and you could use those to get around and also access some extra dungeons or encounters. I'll remember the game and post the name here.

 

[Rage187]

Agreed that's where I buy all of my pc games. Some people have had issues with it, but nothing is perfect.

Ant Steam routinely has sales where 1-2 year old games are under $5. Has MS ever done that? Nope, all their digital download games start at $20. Do you think they are going to follow Steam's pricing model? Hell no.

 

[Gillbot]

such a stupid argument. angry birds is either $.99 or free, depending what platform you are purchasing it on.

comparing a $1 game to a $60 game is just stupid.

the point being, more people would buy if prices weren't inflated. if you can make millions on a $1 game, why does a game have to be costly to produce?

Why? I don't hear them complaining that they aren't making enough money. The price has nothing to do with quality. Just because it costs $60 doesn't mean it's good. Are there games worth $60? For some maybe, however for some reason they've put this as the "entry" point for most games, regardless if worth it or not.

exactly, a game has one requirement, be fun to the point people want to buy it. I never pay more than $30 for a game, hell, I have a hard time spending $10 on one. I either wait for them to become so old that they are on the clearance shelf for $5 or I buy them used.

 

[Aikouka]

Then why is Angry Birds so popular? I bet that didn't cost a fortune? People want value, not bloat.

I was thinking about Angry Birds one day (I guess I don't have much to think about if I start thinking about a silly mobile game 😛), and I think I figured out one of the "hidden" reasons to why its so successful.

The easy one to see is that it's cheap. The game costs around $0 to $5 depending on what platform you're purchasing it on, and I would guess that the most common purchase is either $0 or $99. So, it's obvious that in regard to (possible) entertainment😛rice ratio, it's hard to beat.

The question that should come to mind next is... well, there are plenty of games that cost just as much but aren't nearly as popular. Why's that? I'm not sure of the best word to use for it, but I'll just say that Angry Birds is "more forgiving" than most physics-based puzzle games. Personally, I prefer Cut the Rope far more than I do Angry Birds, but I'm pretty certain that Cut the Rope wouldn't keep a kid's attention for very long because it would quickly reach a point where the game becomes too difficult to even attain one star. If you've played Cut the Rope, you'll know that some levels can require some really quick timing (with both hands) to get all three stars, and this is just simply not going to work with little kids.

Angry Birds is also a very repetitious game as it uses the same thing in every level. You use the slingshot and attempt to knock down whatever is on the right side of the screen. I doubt that kids care much about the abilities that each bird has or what fancy stuff they would want to do to properly beat the level.

This is probably a bit off of the original idea of the thread, but shhh... sometimes it feels good to say what's bouncing around my noggin. 😳

EDIT:

One specific instance, I can't remember the name of the game but the sewers were locked

By the way, that was id's RAGE.

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

I buy used games from Gamefly all the time, they probably make up half of my PS3 library. I don't really see a problem with it, and trying to squeeze it out of existence would only end up with landfills full of game discs due to the lack of a market to re-buy them.

It's annoying that game publishers somehow thing their products are above others when it comes to used sales. The movie and music industry both have used sales, and yet somehow they endure.

Eventually digital distribution will probably end the resale of console games, it's pretty much non-existent on the PC at this point due to Steam/Origin/etc. codes that are registered to a single account. If they want to do the same type of thing on consoles, they need to give console gamers an easy, convenient, and quick way to buy and download their games, as well as make those products available in some form when the next generation of consoles comes out. I rarely ever buy anything on XBL or PSN because I have no doubt there's going to be a day when I won't have access to whatever I buy.

Also, charging me $60 for a game in the store and then charging the same $60 for a digital copy online is ludicrous. There needs to be a significant price difference for a digital only copy, or I'm never going to buy into it.

 

[purbeast0]

the point being, more people would buy if prices weren't inflated. if you can make millions on a $1 game, why does a game have to be costly to produce?

the number of people involved in creating and marketing angry birds vs the number of people in creating and marketing uncharted 3 is not even CLOSE to the same.

prices aren't inflated at all.

you people complaining that $60 is expensive must have JUST started playing console games. economically speaking, games have stayed pretty much the same price since the 80's.

again ill ask, were you all complaining back in the day paying $60 or $70 for SNES games, that probably had like 5% (totally random number) the amount of people working on creating the game back then compared to the AAA titles now?

 

[ImpulsE69]

It's not that we won't pay that much, it's that they EXPECT us to pay that much. Uncharted 3 is one thing, but can you honestly say even a majority of games that come out at $60 these days is worth that price? I realize it's subjective, but user reviews really aren't that far off.

I'm not sure wtf you were buying your games back in the day but the only game I ever paid nearly that much for was FFIII (was right at $70 I believe), and it came with a lot more items, a plastic cartridge and while length can be accounted for by grinding, it still had more content than many of todays overbudgeted games. All that time they claimed that a majority of the price was due to distribution and materials. These days, materials are dirt cheap and distribution is quickly becoming a thing of the past. The other factor? You could trade, it with your friends, you could sell it to buy something else. See the difference? They are trying to take all of that away while retaining the same cost. This all equates to less value for the consumer. If you don't see that, wow.

As someone else stated, they spend more on marketing than they do on game development for many of these games.

 

[alent1234]

the number of people involved in creating and marketing angry birds vs the number of people in creating and marketing uncharted 3 is not even CLOSE to the same.

prices aren't inflated at all.

you people complaining that $60 is expensive must have JUST started playing console games. economically speaking, games have stayed pretty much the same price since the 80's.

again ill ask, were you all complaining back in the day paying $60 or $70 for SNES games, that probably had like 5% (totally random number) the amount of people working on creating the game back then compared to the AAA titles now?

i used to read the magazines and play a lot more but back in the old days they would code the engine from scratch for most projects along with the art. In the 21st century the devs reuse the same engine for years or just license the unreal engine.

 

[BoberFett]

The fact of the matter is that preventing resale of an item it changes the value proposition. If I buy a game for $60 knowing that I can sell it a week later for $30, my total cost of ownership for the game is $30 and I base my purchase on that price. If I am not allowed to resell it, the game doesn't change, but the cost does. I now have to base my purchase on a $60 TCO.

I think publishers would find that people will only pay $60 for AAA titles with some longevity to them. Anything but top tier games will immediately plummet in sales and hurt industry revenue overall.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[Rvenger]

Also, what if I buy a $60 game and don't like it? Now I am stuck with it??

Part of the reason why people freely buy the games at the stores is because when they are done with it or don't like it, someone else can enjoy it. I see this happening already in books.

 

[thegimp03]

When I read about the record profits games like Call of Duty bring in with their yearly game releases, not to mention all the add-on DLC people have to pay for and gimmicks like "Elite", I have little sympathy for the software makers not being able to snatch profits off sales of used games.

 

[Mr. President]

I don't much care about the used game market but if they prevent me from lending out games to my friends and borrowing in return then I hope this crashes and burns along with the bastards responsible. It's bad enough having to rebuy an online pass when the stupid console fails (as happened to my friend) but this would deserve bloody murder.

When I buy games on Steam then I'm at least doing it by choice. And I can play them anywhere with my login ID. This is like taking away the best parts of digital downloads and replacing them with lost money.

 

[Gillbot]

the number of people involved in creating and marketing angry birds vs the number of people in creating and marketing uncharted 3 is not even CLOSE to the same.

prices aren't inflated at all.

you people complaining that $60 is expensive must have JUST started playing console games. economically speaking, games have stayed pretty much the same price since the 80's.

again ill ask, were you all complaining back in the day paying $60 or $70 for SNES games, that probably had like 5% (totally random number) the amount of people working on creating the game back then compared to the AAA titles now?

There is no need to have all these people involved in creating the game. Typical corporate bloat and overhead being passed to the consumer. There are plenty of free market games that are entertaining. As for the latter comment, I covered that already:

snip.....

I either wait for them to become so old that they are on the clearance shelf for $5 or I buy them used.

I just now got a PS3, so yeah, I stay well behind the curve and save money. Plus, if a game is crap I head about it ahead of time and don't waste my money on buying something i'll get stuck with.

 

[Sulaco]

I'm all for cutting out the used game market. That just pads Gamestop's pockets for doing almost nothing.

Right. Because Gamestop is the only retailer that has used games for sale. 🙄

Where did this "used game resentment" come from? Does everyone just slurp up whatever STEAM spoon feeds them? Or the current MSRP for every game?

I've recouped hundreds of dollars over the years on Amazon, eBay, or even these classified forums reselling my "Like new" condition games that I didn't care for but I could still turn a decent profit on. Similarly, someone else got athat "like new" game, played a handful of times (often barely touched) for less than HALF the cost of paying current retail for a new copy. We all won. Where's the downside for everyone again?

I can see the marketing and business reasons behind publishers wanting to remove this segment of the market, but for average consumers to cheer it on seems counter-intuitive and shortsighted.

 

[chalmers]

People talk of greed here but you have to look at it from every perspective. When you buy used games who gets the money? It's Gamestop, not the software companies who created the software. MS is doing this for the developers, and I gurantee you this will attract more developers to MS.

If a model was created where the software companies could actually get a piece of the used game pie it wouldn't be an issue. However Gamestop is being greedy and the software developers are suffering. One answer is digital distribution, but we are not there yet on the consoles.

Think about it. If you developed a game, and made a single sale from it....then see a store making constant sales off the game at $5 cheaper wouldn't you be unhappy? Your not seeing that $$. Therefore you have less $$ to develop new games. How many used sales take away from the legitimate sales? Used sales do not support the software companies that made the game, they line the pockets of the retailer.

Why do developers deserve to be paid on used game sales? They already got paid on the new game sale. Do you feel the same way about furniture and clothing manufacturers who don't see any of the money when their items are sold at yard sales?

People have been buying used items since the dawn of man. I've never heard of the original maker of said product being mad that they can't keep reaping profits after the first sale until this. What about when I sold my charcoal grill to my brother in law last year for $75? Does Weber deserve a chunk of that as well?

 

[Mr. President]

Once publishers stop charging ridiculous amounts for broken disc replacements then I'll start sympathizing with their cause against used games.

It seems you're only paying for a license to play the game when it suits their profits. Paying 20$ for a new copy of something that I supposedly have a license for is just a plain rip-off.

 

[waggy]

Once publishers stop charging ridiculous amounts for broken disc replacements then I'll start sympathizing with their cause against used games.

It seems you're only paying for a license to play the game when it suits their profits. Paying 20$ for a new copy of something that I supposedly have a license for is just a plain rip-off.

/this.

they wan't to claim you are paying for t he license. But if the disk goes bad you have to pay full price for a replacement disk. FUCK YOU. the companies can't have it both ways.

personally i would love to see the goverment step in. Say that if you purchase a game then it is yours. you can give the damn thing away/sale it or whatever.