Lionhead Studios: Used game sales on consoles a bigger problem than piracy for the PC

[skace]

It is called an analogy because it is not perfect. In a lot of ways used video game market is very analogous to the used book market. They both use the same basic business model, and have the same results, only the new book market uses it as advertising while the video game market wants to try to kill it. So, I don’t think it is terribly off base to compare the two.

To accurately compare video games to books, we would have to compare the total cost of creation of a single book versus a single game. That includes labor, fees, etc. Then we'd have to compare the price of a new book vs a new game. Then we'd have to compare the price of a used book vs a used game and whether used books are used in the same way.

We also have to realize that books have a lot of additional avenues such as schools purchasing them en-mass to be used as a study subject.

The problem with books vs games, is not that the analogy doesn't have some similarities, it is that the analogy is disastrously oversimplified to win an argument without actually looking at whether the details match up.

We would probably find out that while a game costs millions of dollars to create, a book does not. Yet a book sells for 10-20 dollars and most people want games to only cost them 30 dollars. And while the used model for books enforces a lot of "wear and tear" and people are more likely to want a book in good condition, video games don't really exhibit the same "wear and tear" since the actual content is either readable or not readable on the CD and most used locations will guarantee at least that.

In other words, books and games might follow the same structure, however video games are stressing that structure to the extreme and simply stating the structure works by bringing up books is disingenuous.

 

[Ross Ridge]

In other words, books and games might follow the same structure, however video games are stressing that structure to the extreme and simply stating the structure works by bringing up books is disingenuous.

No, the analogy is apt and the differences you mentioned aren't relevent or significant.

 

[skace]

No, the analogy is apt and the differences you mentioned aren't relevent or significant.

Wtf kind of response is that? Generic statement of disagreement.

 

[Kabob]

Steam, Direct2drive and the console equivalents are the future. Digital copies eliminates the used market and cut out retailers (that $60 goes directly to Microsoft). All we need is better access to broadband across the country and cartridges / DvDs will be no more.

I think that with the next version of the consoles there will be an option to use a disc as well as to use some sort of direct download. Honestly the biggest way they could make that move is to offer a discount for downloading the game new ($50 vs. $60). They've got no packaging/shipping to worry about, that's money in their pocket.

As mentioned above, I've bought plenty of games brand new simply because I knew I could turn around and sell it and make the majority of my money back. My purchasing of new games will drop for sure if they implement some sort of digital distribution only or single-use codes, but at a lower price I'd be more likely to pick up new games in the first place.

 

[shortylickens]

Like I said, the thing about video games is they are a luxury item and I believe they dont always follow the standard supply/demand curve. American consumers tend to be emotional. If they feel they are being screwed they may ignore new games out of spite (not all of them, but enough to seriously hurt the game industry). Look at how popular cheap games have become, Peggle and such, even the consoles have tons of small indie games now because of Xbox live and such.
You can try removing one form of competition but in the software world its very easy to replace it. Some dude on the other side of the planet can make a game on his home computer, upload it to the World Wide Awesome, and then EVERYBODY can have it, at a price he decides.

I dont think large American game companies are in any position to push around console or PC gamers. They can maybe deny us certain things, not publish any new big franchise blockbusters, but they cant make us buy when we dont want to.
Granted, some of us are spoiled and have more money than we deserve, but with this economy there arent enough of those people to keep a poorly run business going.

 

[Soundmanred]

Funny how in the 80's Nintendo and Sega never had this problem.

I could never seem to afford the blank cartridges...

 

[BoberFett]

Okay, let’s see if I can find a better way to explain what I'm trying to say.
My base assumption is that is you remove the used game market you will reduce the amount of money out there at any one time for new game sales, therefore to get gamers to buy your game you will have to work harder to convince them that they should spend their more limited game budget on your product.
I feel that the used game market acts like a churn keeping money available for new game purchases. With out the used game market gamers would have to tie up their money in longer term purchases.
Right now when a gamer buys a new game they don’t like to much, or can be finished fast, they make use of the the used game market to recoup some of their investment and use that to buy the next big game. Take that away and they will become more discriminating buyers and tend to spend more time with each game.

You are exactly right. The average American consumer has a limited budget with which to purchase entertainment. Increasing the price of what they're purchasing by eliminating the second hand market will not increase their budget, it will simply mean fewer purchases. While the gross revenues of the video game market as a whole might remain the same, the gap between successful and unsuccessful titles would greatly increase, and as you said the costs of marketing could skyrocket resulting in lower margins. If they want to try eliminating used sales that's their prerogative, but I'm not sure it would turn out in their favor.

Of course these greedy bastards failing to increase profits would mean they'd just go back to the old piracy bogeyman, but that's a separate issue.

 

[Ross Ridge]

Wtf kind of response is that? Generic statement of disagreement.

Hardly. You can't invalidate an analogy by mindlessly listing irrelevent and insignifcant differences.

 

[shortylickens]

Hardly. You can't invalidate an analogy by mindlessly listing irrelevent and insignifcant differences.

You would never make it in Washington.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Funny how in the 80's Nintendo and Sega never had this problem.
Are Sony and Microsoft really that freakin greedy? Maybe their business model should not be set up under the assumption every game will sell 20 million copies.

Short answer, yes. As I said before, this isn't a problem for Bungie or Epic because they churn out good games without resorting to lying to boost sales, thus their sales are strong and they really don't care about used games because they will make it up on the back end with DLC and such.

I could care less what your corporation wants. Make a good game or lose money, those are your choices. Cost of development and prices of games compared to inflation are not relevant because YOU decided to make a game and NOBODY is going to pay $100 for their kid to have your game unless it's a Christmas present.

This industry is hamstringing itself by not adapting to the market and instead trying to monopolize the market in order to maximize profits and reduce risks. When you do this it reduced the quality of products and consumers lost interest. I would quit gaming if it got to the point where developer/pubs/CORPORATIONS want it to be at. I want a physical copy of ANY new game I buy and if it is a digital copy it better be at a huge discount.

 

[trungma]

I see more self entitled gamers than self entitled developers. You don’t own the game, you pay to have the right to play the game. So if you don’t own it, you can’t re-sell it. I’m not sure why this is such a difficult concept to understand. The only reason why you can resell in the past is because of the distribution system. That is changing to digital download so you can say goodbye to used games. I see absolutely no problems with this.

Steam as a product delivery system works really well. If the game is good then people will buy it at full price. If it’s crap or is getting old, then they reduce the price. Seems like a win-win situation for gamers. If you can’t afford a new release then just wait for it to go on sale.

 

[Genx87]

It's not an issue, it's just part of running a business that sells tangible goods. Perfect situation for a Deal With It gif, IMO.

Are you discussing used sales or pirated copies?

 

[Genx87]

Steam, Direct2drive and the console equivalents are the future. Digital copies eliminates the used market and cut out retailers (that $60 goes directly to Microsoft). All we need is better access to broadband across the country and cartridges / DvDs will be no more.

Yup, Steam and netflix for me. Works great!

 

[skace]

Short answer, yes. As I said before, this isn't a problem for Bungie or Epic because they churn out good games without resorting to lying to boost sales, thus their sales are strong and they really don't care about used games because they will make it up on the back end with DLC and such.

I couldn't tell where most of your post was going. However I do completely disagree with this part of it. First off, the industry could never support multiple "Epic"s. Epic makes money off of other developers buying their licenses. In fact, every developer who successfully copied Epic would be effectively making Epic less successful by cutting into their profits.

Bungie on the other hand, was Microsoft's bitch. You might as well be swimming in money.

I'm not saying Bungie or Epic suck, however Halo and Gears of War are both the biggest examples of hype I have ever seen in my life. Neither series is worth the media they were printed on. There have been better single player FPS games, there have been better multiplayer FPS games, there have been better FPS games made with half the budget, and all had less market exposure, fan base and profit than those 2 piece of shit series.

Both of these studios, once upon a time, released FAR, FAR better games. Bungie had the incredible Myth series and Epic, one time, long ago, had a decent Unreal Tournament game.

If you were going to name an incredible developer who has stood on their own without hype, you should have mentioned someone like Blizzard, who consistently releases incredible titles time and time again. However, comparing every developer to Blizzard is not fair. Most developers have to take a lot more risk than Blizzard does at this point in the game. And if they can't afford those risks, they have to swear fealty under another banner, such as EA or the like. Then you have a publisher affecting the deadlines and potentially labor and design decisions dedicated to your project.

Then you have things like Xbox Live and Steam, that have allowed lesser developers the chance to get their Warcraft 1s, Marathons, and Unreal 1s out to the world, allowing them to grow.

Also, "making it up on the back end with DLC" sucks twice as much as used sales. I fucking absolutely hate DLC. It makes it a chore to keep my game current.

Oh and Shorty and Ross? Nice trolling.

 

[Via]

I see more self entitled gamers than self entitled developers. You don’t own the game, you pay to have the right to play the game. So if you don’t own it, you can’t re-sell it. I’m not sure why this is such a difficult concept to understand. The only reason why you can resell in the past is because of the distribution system. That is changing to digital download so you can say goodbye to used games. I see absolutely no problems with this.

Steam as a product delivery system works really well. If the game is good then people will buy it at full price. If it’s crap or is getting old, then they reduce the price. Seems like a win-win situation for gamers. If you can’t afford a new release then just wait for it to go on sale.

I know this is splitting hairs, but since you purchase the license shouldn't you be able to resell it?

It's still a product.

 

[skace]

I know this is splitting hairs, but since you purchase the license shouldn't you be able to resell it?

It's still a product.

Try working in the corporate world. See how far your purchased license on $150,000 dollar software goes when you try to resell it.

 

[Ross Ridge]

Oh and Shorty and Ross? Nice trolling.

Wow. And you accused me of making a "generic statement of disagreement".

 

[trungma]

I know this is splitting hairs, but since you purchase the license shouldn't you be able to resell it?

It's still a product.

It's a product but I see it more like going to a movie. I pay the entertainment. It's not like I can resell what I just watched. Of course I can buy the physical media later on but Netflix or something similar will change that too.

I'm also guessing if you read the license fine print it will say it's non-transferable.

 

[shortylickens]

I wasnt trolling you sexy bitch!

 

[skace]

I wasnt trolling you sexy bitch!

Fine, fine! I swing with a broad sword.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I'm also guessing if you read the license fine print it will say it's non-transferable.

If you read the fine print it does not even give you the right to play the game. EULA have become ridiculous (and are mostly unenforceable.)

Anyway there is the First-Sale Doctrine that prevents them from making hard copy's non-transferable. From Wikipedia:

The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell, lend or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained.

BTW- I worked for many years as a software asset manager for one of the largest corporation in the world. You can resell, sublet, and re-negotiate licenses. I did so on a regular basis.

 

[fantolay]

They need to make games that have more replayability so that people won't want to sell them.

Solution: make better games.

 

[Via]

The whole idea of licensing to use software is ridiculous.

If you pay for a copy of the software that copy should be yours to keep and do with as you please, as long as you don't break any laws.

When you buy a Corvette, you don't own any of the IP or trademarks associated wth the brand. You don't own the concepts regarding styling, mechanics, electronics etc

But you DO own that fricking Corvette. And as long as you don't infringe on Chevy's rights you can do what you want with it. I'm sure you could build a copy for your own personal use if you had the means.