bit-gamer.net

THQ: No sympathy for second hand game buyers

THQ: No sympathy for second hand game buyers

THQ has said it has no sympathy

Publisher and developer THQ has said that it has no sympathy for consumers who buy second hand games and find they then have to pay to access additional features that would have been available in the new games.

In fact, said THQ's creative director, Cory Ledesma, the publisher feels that it is "cheated" when the game is bought second hand.

"I don't think we really care whether used game buyers are upset because new game buyers get everything," Ledesma told CVG. "So if used game buyers are upset they don't get the online feature set I don't really have much sympathy for them."

"That's a little blunt but we hope it doesn't disappoint people. We hope people understand that when the game's bought used we get cheated," he added. "I don't think anyone wants that so in order for us to make strong, high-quality WWE games we need loyal fans that are interested in purchasing the game. We want to award those fans with additional content."

THQ has recently begun introducing one-time codes into their games which allow those who buy the game new to access DLC for free, while second hand gamers will have to pay for it.

EA was one of the first to introduce the system, where it became known as 'Project Ten Dollar', while Sony is now looking to implement it for first-party titles too.

Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

125 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Fingers66 24th August 2010, 11:21 Quote
Whilst I can understand game developers wanting to treat new game buyers differently from second hand game buyers (after all, you pay a premium for a new game which increases the profits of the developer), surely they must understand that second hand game buyers extend the life and popularity of a game?

The reason someone sells a game is because they have no interest in it any more, isn't it better to have a willing second hand buyer play the game rather than it not be played at all? They have already profited from the game (from the original sale) and have the potential to profit a second time from the second hand buyer purchasing DLC.

The most popular games have a life span far beyond the original development/release cycle.

Treating potential customers like they are second class citizens isn't going to make them many friends.
SlowMotionSuicide 24th August 2010, 11:22 Quote
Dimwits. They'd also lose a significant portion of their first-hand customers without the used game market.
AcidJiles 24th August 2010, 11:26 Quote
As usual developers don't seem to understand how a segement of the market works. 2nd hand demand actually drives new purchases. If a new buyer knows that if wants to get rid of the game in 2 weeks and its 2nd hand price is still reasonable he will buy the game new knowing his investment wont fall in value too much. Although a games value falls quicker than many other products a games 2nd hand demand is good for first time sales with buyers who want the game at release but wont hang on to it after a full play through.

The ten dollars or 7 quid or so in the uk for online and other content i don't find too objectionable as long as the game doesn't become gimped until this purchased. But this idea publishers are cheated by 2nd hand sales is myth they need to get over.
AcidJiles 24th August 2010, 11:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcidJiles
As usual developers don't seem to understand how a segement of the market works. 2nd hand demand actually drives new purchases. If a new buyer knows that if wants to get rid of the game in 2 weeks and its 2nd hand price is still reasonable he will buy the game new knowing his investment wont fall in value too much. Although a games value falls quicker than many other products a games 2nd hand demand is good for first time sales with buyers who want the game at release but wont hang on to it after a full play through.

The ten dollars or 7 quid or so in the uk for online and other content i don't find too objectionable as long as the game doesn't become gimped until this purchased. But this idea publishers are cheated by 2nd hand sales is myth they need to get over.

I really mean publishers not developers. Developers are often more in touch with reality than publishers.
Elledan 24th August 2010, 11:36 Quote
I'm a game developer, we publish our own games and I'd never say anything like this, even if we did sell physical products. It's just plain bad PR, no matter how you look at it.

I guess there's a reason why studios and publishers keep going bankrupt :p
BlackMage23 24th August 2010, 11:36 Quote
Good to hear another publisher talking out of their rear end.

I lot of people on low incomes will only buy second hand games because they are cheaper they new, if they could only buy new they simply would not buy them.
Pete J 24th August 2010, 11:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcidJiles
The ten dollars or 7 quid or so in the uk for online and other content i don't find too objectionable as long as the game doesn't become gimped until this purchased.

This. As long as the extra content is simply that (like ME2 for example) then I don't really mind.
liratheal 24th August 2010, 11:53 Quote
I don't care about second hand buyers either.

I've only bought second hand when new has been absolutely out of the question due to availability.
Hustler 24th August 2010, 11:56 Quote
Once again, the games industry does its spoilt little brat routine.......

When will these money grabbing shysters stop thinking they deserve special consideration in the free market...

Do you hear any other industry whining about 2nd hand sales of their products?.....

This is nothing to do with losing money, its to do with sheer greed.....and wanting to buy that 2nd Ferrari or that 3rd house.

This industry and its key players really need to grow up......
Plugs 24th August 2010, 12:08 Quote
there is a reason why people buy 2nd hand, maybe they cant afford 1st hand or think it isnt worth the 1st hand price

in reality getting rid of the 2nd hand, forces people to wait to buy
without resell value, 1st hand buyers will wait till the product is cheaper, and 2nd hand buyers might become 1st hand buyers once it has dropped to this lower price (or may just live without it)

depending on the variables used you can calculate if its better or worse
and i assume the publishers have done their sums

e.g
based on 4 million people buying (i know these numbers arent accurate)
4mil * £35
= 140
or

1mil * £35
1mil * £25
1mil * £17
1mil * £10
= 87
mclean007 24th August 2010, 12:08 Quote
I suspect most of the cash realised by first time buyers when they sell a game on is put back into buying new games, so I don't really see the issue here. Also, the second hand buyer has waited until the game was out for quite a while to pick up a second hand copy, so he's unlikely to have been willing to shell out £40 for a brand new copy at full retail price anyway. I really don't get why games companies make such a big thing out of this - movie studios don't complain (at least not so volubly) about the second hand DVD and Blu-ray market (actually they're just grateful if you're watching legit DVDs rather than pirate copies, as the games publishers should be); print publishers don't try to get every second hand bookshop in the land shut down; and nobody cares if I give an old CD to a mate. Why should the games industry be any different?
sub routine 24th August 2010, 12:10 Quote
They should`nt make sh1te games that aren`t worth the astounding £45 price tag they put on their merchandise.

I mean they say good quality wwe titles? Talk about saturating the market.
Maybe bit tech could do a article on weather 45 quid is actually a decent price point for games? I`m still astounded by the fact that titles are priced so high, especially when the pc market is smaller yet still sells at around 30 quid. Then a AAA title comes along and is sold for a whopping 45£ price tag when they know there IP is gonna sell sooooo much more copies.

Bring down prices, make better titles!!
Fingers66 24th August 2010, 12:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mclean007
...(actually they're just grateful if you're watching legit DVDs rather than pirate copies, as the games publishers should be)...

^ this. Killing the second hand market would lead to an increase in game piracy imho. What are they thinking?

Foot meet mouth...
tad2008 24th August 2010, 12:20 Quote
As far as I know, this only applies to console games since stores are too worried about people pirating copies of PC games and is likely why the PC games market is thriving for digital distribution and falling in stores.

So it seems developers are stuck between a rock and a hard place, on the one hand they can create a plethora of console titles till the cows come home and have to content themselves with the reality of the second hand market.

Alternatively they can work on PC / MAC titles and take their chances versus the pirates.

Surely having people register their games online and for this to create a key unique to that user and their computers hardware is a simple step that allows the game to check with the companies servers on start up, much like steam does. Allowing some flexibility in this to allow the player of the game to register authorised machines on their own network for the purpose of LAN or Co-Op gaming would certainly help developers keep a greater measure of control and also help their target audience.

With such a large audience with an internet connection available and with connections being more reliable, requiring an internet connection is surely not that much of a requirement to ask for.
SlowMotionSuicide 24th August 2010, 12:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tad2008
With such a large audience with an internet connection available and with connections being more reliable, requiring an internet connection is surely not that much of a requirement to ask for.

Absolutely not. Sure, internet connections are reliable and available to most people, but developers can't make their systems 100% efficient. I used to play wow for couple of years, and woe the raging I went through every time the servers had unscheduled downtime. And believe me, there use to be pretty much of it. Even scheduled maintenances starts to piss you off at some point when you start to think the amount of money you put into the game, every goddamned month.

Also, this was the point I stopped playing wow. God forbid me ever touching monthly subscription-based mmorpg filth ever again.

I have already had some trouble with StarCraft II, I'm definitely not amused by not being able to progress my single player campaign because battle.net has login issues.

Forcing broken DRM crap upon legit customers only promotes piracy.
infi 24th August 2010, 13:10 Quote
...no sympathy for THQ then either.
...oh, and no money.
Kiytan 24th August 2010, 13:18 Quote
the games market does seem to be the only one really bitching about this. (granted its possible others do I just don't know about it because I'm not as interested).

One of the other effects i thought about with second hand markets is sequels. Quite a few people hear about a new sequel without having played the original, so will go and buy the first one secondhand for a cheap price, to see if they want to buy the second. And this would be much, much harder without a secondhand market.
javaman 24th August 2010, 13:22 Quote
This will be abused I think. Release a half made game (a demo with 2 levels) then download everything else. Kinda like Rhynair model. Personally the more of this tripe that goes on the more I prefer a steam based system. Sony have a similar model but as usual sony screw up with poor selection and stupid pricing.
eddtox 24th August 2010, 13:38 Quote
I consider myself a gamer. I have spent hundreds if not thousands of hours playing games. However, I have never paid full release price for a game, and I never will. I might buy a game for £10-15, but if I can't get it for that, then I won't bother. My computer is not a £800 behemoth built to play the latest games.

The reason is simple - money. When I was growing up, money was tight. I simply didn't have much more than £10-20 a month. As I got older, I realised that limiting the amount of money and time I spend on gaming allows me to indulge my other hobbies and interests.

I know the game publishers don't care about me. And I don't care about them.

If a game doesn't seem like good value *to me*, regardless of whether it's new or second hand, and regardless of RRP, I won't buy it.
mrbens 24th August 2010, 13:43 Quote
Quote:
THQ has recently begun introducing one-time codes into their games which allow those who buy the game new to access DLC for free, while second hand gamers will have to pay for it.

What happens if you need to reinstall the game? Do you lose access to the free 'first hand' bits?

If not then what's to stop people giving the code to the person they sell the game to? If you have to authenticate it with THQ you can just say you had to reinstall windows or that you've bought a new PC and claim you are still the 'first hand' buyer.
hrp8600 24th August 2010, 13:48 Quote
seen it coming for years. As the Pre owned market grew.
Takes away a big pro for owning a console.
But hey welcome to the greed is good world of games.
On the plus side if they lose there console market they might get back to making great PC games.
Synay 24th August 2010, 13:53 Quote
I understand one-time codes and all but putting thing as they did is a bit off putting for me. After all if the game with this one-time code lays on the shelf for longer and gets discounted and we as consumer pay less then on the beginning, same as with used games. Developers are so often detached from realities of the market. After all I don't see hardware manufacturers doing the same. Take EVGA, you can un-register your hardware before you sell it and the buyer can re-register under his/her own name.

As I said, THQ saying that they don't care is never going to convince me (and I feel lots of people too) to buy their games.
UrbanMarine 24th August 2010, 13:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbens
Quote:
THQ has recently begun introducing one-time codes into their games which allow those who buy the game new to access DLC for free, while second hand gamers will have to pay for it.

What happens if you need to reinstall the game? Do you lose access to the free 'first hand' bits?

If not then what's to stop people giving the code to the person they sell the game to? If you have to authenticate it with THQ you can just say you had to reinstall windows or that you've bought a new PC and claim you are still the 'first hand' buyer.

They'd be like Microsoft and tell you tough ****, unless you can work something out.
alexandros1313 24th August 2010, 14:00 Quote
If publishers want to put an end to the second-hand market, it's quite easy. Just use a system like the one DD sites and services use on PC, with the games tied to a specific account. You buy a new game, activate it online and it gets tied to your Xbox or Playstation profile. Problem solved.
liratheal 24th August 2010, 14:02 Quote
There seems to be a lot of nerd-rage..

Almost as if people have forgotten that the second hand sales don't go anywhere near the publisher.

At all. That £35 second hand copy goes straight into the pocket of the establishment you bought it from. They typically make ~£10-15 on a reasonable condition, reasonably popular, game.

The publisher makes.. err.. £0 from second hand sales, why should they give a rats backside about second hand purchasers?
AcidJiles 24th August 2010, 14:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
There seems to be a lot of nerd-rage..

Almost as if people have forgotten that the second hand sales don't go anywhere near the publisher.

At all. That £35 second hand copy goes straight into the pocket of the establishment you bought it from. They typically make ~£10-15 on a reasonable condition, reasonably popular, game.

The publisher makes.. err.. £0 from second hand sales, why should they give a rats backside about second hand purchasers?

Because 2nd hand demand drives new purchases. Lots of gamers buy a new game at lanch and get bored after a week and then sell it back to a store of a friend etc. These guys know that they retain most of the value in the game if they sell back quite quickly so dont mind buying it new. If they couldnt retain the value in their investment as the game isnt worth anywhere near as much they may be alot more discerning with their purchases and therefore new game sales would go down. What the publishers are doing is more likely to dampen 1st time sales than promote them.
Bahaz 24th August 2010, 14:30 Quote
The rage is strong in this one.
Used game sales from one person to the other, be it via being friends, Facebook or through a (local) gaming website's forum adapts to this. BF: BC2 or ME2 with used codes? Worth less than a version with unused codes. The market fixes itself, as long as you stand up for yourself and demand the price lowered by the cost of the new code. Sellers are hurt a bit, but tbh, zero sympathy there, any money you get is better than nothing.

Who *is* hurt are stores buying and reselling games. I'm not sure how it is in the UK, but here in Belgium they rip you off both ways. Sell two week old game that cost you (at their own ridiculous prices) 55€, receive ~20€. Then they resell it for 45€. That's downright criminal, and I think publishers have much more of a problem with this versus 'private' trades or sales. Also: stop using the price policy of brick and mortar stores as an argument to vilify publishers.

New games devalue *incredibly* quickly, especially in online stores like Amazon and Play. FFXIII is £15 on Amazon right now, and there's plenty of other (fairly) recent games that are sub £20. Other than availability of older games, there is very little reason to go for second hand games.
Andy Mc 24th August 2010, 14:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler

Do you hear any other industry whining about 2nd hand sales of their products?.....

Not yet, no. But if this takes off then I'm sure you'll see an new "Feature" in Blu-Ray to stop 2nd hand sales.
liratheal 24th August 2010, 14:37 Quote
What the hell are you talking about. I don't care about the first hand buyers wallets here. I'm trying to say that the developer/publisher do not get a single penny from second hand sales. Yes, you're buying their game legitimately, but you are not paying them a single penny. Why should they care about you?

That's like dunking your balls in someones drink, and demanding free stuff off them. They're going to tell you to get lost, in much less charming words than that.

Second hand demand does NOTHING to drive new sales. Stores don't say "Buy the game new, complete it, sell it back to us, because this chap doesn't want to pay full whack for the game". They're facilitating a market they know they can make money in - And that is all they're doing.

They're lining their pockets, not passing anything to the developer.
BlackMage23 24th August 2010, 14:40 Quote
Lets hope the motor industry doesn't start moaning about second hand sales.
mark_dsp 24th August 2010, 15:12 Quote
Second hand games put money back into the pockets of the people who buy the new games. This then allows them to pay the high price of a new game and buy more new games.

Subsequently cheaper second hand games increase uptake of less popular titles contributing to a more vibrant online gaming experience. Less people playing your game online generally makes for a worse experience in my opinion.

By increasing the price of second hand games it makes them almost as much as a new game and therefore pretty worthless.

Why does the gaming industry think it can be so much different from every other consumer product out there that gets resold?
If anyone honestly thinks this kind of initiative helps anyone but those at the top they're most likely mistaken. Look at the call of duty team, the Foxconn workers or any other large corporation. It's about money and if they can get away with lining their pockets even more they will. Generally I'm a fan of capitalism but when it hits the global stage it seems to go horribly wrong.
scawp 24th August 2010, 15:15 Quote
The pre-owned games market does hurt publishers. But overpriced games hurt my wallet, a £55 price tag is common place these days where as I can pick up the same game pre-owned for £30. why don't you try selling us games at a reasonable price?

Here is some bad maths (not taking into account markup, production, etc etc).

5 people buy cod6
2 buy it new for £55 RRP
3 buy it pre-owned for £30
£110 goes to publishers (yes I know this is completely wrong just amuse me)

with a new pricing structure of £30 RRP

5 people buy cod6
All 5 buy it new for £30 RRP
£150 goes to publishers
EVERYONES A WINNER! (Except Gamestation, we've just royally f*cked them over)

I'm more than happy for you to put these codes into games but not if you think you can carry on ripping us off, we will just stop buying your games and you will be the ones that lose out in the end.
steveo_mcg 24th August 2010, 15:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal

Second hand demand does NOTHING to drive new sales. Stores don't say "Buy the game new, complete it, sell it back to us, because this chap doesn't want to pay full whack for the game". They're facilitating a market they know they can make money in - And that is all they're doing.

Actually economics 101 here, if you buy some thing for £50 and its still worth £30 when you sell it you've only spent £20 buy the same item with a resale value of £0 then you're £50 out of pocket.

Now you decide you want a new game do you get the one with a resale value or none? the one with no or limited resale value is much more expensive than the other. Thats why the second hand market drives new sales as the person who just got £30 for there old game only needs to add another £20 to get another.
AcidJiles 24th August 2010, 15:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by scawp
The pre-owned games market does hurt publishers. But overpriced games hurt my wallet, a £55 price tag is common place these days where as I can pick up the same game pre-owned for £30. why don't you try selling us games at a reasonable price?

Here is some bad maths (not taking into account markup, production, etc etc).

5 people buy cod6
2 buy it new for £55 RRP
3 buy it pre-owned for £30
£110 goes to publishers (yes I know this is completely wrong just amuse me)

with a new pricing structure of £30 RRP

5 people buy cod6
All 5 buy it new for £30 RRP
£150 goes to publishers
EVERYONES A WINNER! (Except Gamestation, we've just royally f*cked them over)

I'm more than happy for you to put these codes into games but not if you think you can carry on ripping us off, we will just stop buying your games and you will be the ones that lose out in the end.

This has been shown by how effective steam sales are in driving huge demand and jumps in purchases up to 1000% lots of times. Mircrosoft is making this mistake with Kinect as every xbox 360 owner would buy one for £50 but for £129 very few will.

Movie and music publishers are making the same error, blu rays, dvds and cds would fly off the shelves if movies and albums were priced at £5 ish to start off with. Instead people pirate when they would buy if the price was within a reasonable range. I'm not defending piracy here just that people have a limited amount of money to spend and if you can get it directed at your industry as you provide good value then your doing the right thing.
Fingers66 24th August 2010, 15:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcidJiles
This has been show by how effective steam sales are in driving huge demand and jumps in purchases up to 1000% lots of times. Mircrosoft is making this mistake with Kinect as every xbox 360 owner would buy one for £50 but for £129 very few will.

Movie and music publishers are making the same error blu rays, dvds and cds would fly off the shelves if movies and albums were priced at £5 ish to start off with. Instead people pirate when they would buy if the price was within a reasonable range. I'm not defending piracy here just that people have a limited amount of money to spend and if you can get it directed at your industry as you provide good value then your doing the right thing.

The point about Steam is a good one, it shows how price sensitive that games market is. Lower the price and attract loads of business - simple.

The point about Blu Ray is also true, they are the most popular DVD format in the States and this is basically due to the low price, in Europe they are just too expensive to see mass market takeup of the same scale.
liratheal 24th August 2010, 16:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal

Second hand demand does NOTHING to drive new sales. Stores don't say "Buy the game new, complete it, sell it back to us, because this chap doesn't want to pay full whack for the game". They're facilitating a market they know they can make money in - And that is all they're doing.

Actually economics 101 here, if you buy some thing for £50 and its still worth £30 when you sell it you've only spent £20 buy the same item with a resale value of £0 then you're £50 out of pocket.

Now you decide you want a new game do you get the one with a resale value or none? the one with no or limited resale value is much more expensive than the other. Thats why the second hand market drives new sales as the person who just got £30 for there old game only needs to add another £20 to get another.

Are you deliberately not paying attention?

"I don't care about the first hand buyers wallets here."

It doesn't matter what their wallet is doing, it's the second hand buyers that decide to remove sales from the developer/publisher by not paying them a single penny with second hand sales. The second hand sales market is so large that it is feasible for a person to not ever pay a developer anything, and yet still play the games. The developer/publishers are trying to recoup the loss that they are feeling when people, ill educated ones at that, are presented with a choice of "New for £40" or "Second hand for £35" (Which, regularly, is the difference in new games). The developer doesn't see a penny of the second hand sales, and the customer doesn't realise this, and feels right at home saying "I spent £35 on your game, give me DLC for free" when, in actual fact, the customer has given the developer/publisher, £0 for their game, and is demanding things for free.

Example:

Publisher A publishes Developer B’s game, they produce 400,000 copies of the game. They ship all 400,000 to Distributor C, and within a week those 400,000 copies have been sold. Now, say 150,000 copies are returned and resold as second hand games. So, there are 250,000 copies of the game sold and not “traded in”, and 150,000 available for, say, £10 less than retail. They’re going to sell faster because they’re cheaper. The Distributor isn’t going to order 400,000 for week two – They already have 150,000. It’d be awful business sense to buy another 400,000 when you have 150,000 already (If you don't believe me, here's an example from Starcraft II: 912,008 copies sold in the first week, 210,461 copies sold in the second). If you only wanted 400,000 at any one time, all you’re going to order is at most 300,000 (Some people will only buy new). That’s 100,000 sales lost already. A quarter of the total sales lost because of second hand games. Doesn’t sound like a lot, but when you’re fuelling a development studio, a quarter of your sales disappearing is a big concern, when you consider the amount of people that need paying.

THQ cut 250 staff after SR2 didn't sell as well as they expected, and a very conservative estimate for their yearly salary is $7,500,000 (Assuming $30,000 average for 250 employees). That is, effectively, a weeks sales for SR2. That's how little they get back from each new copy sold.

Second hand market gives them even less - Nothing at all.

Edit: What you described doesn't demonstrate that second hand demand is driving new sales, in fact, all it does is demonstrate that people are cheapskates and don't like paying full whack for new games. Second hand games are not guaranteed sellers - Just check the bargain bins for the umpteen million copies of previous years sports games, which is why the amount a store will give you for a game is so damned low, compared to what they ask for it.

THQ are saying, here: "Second hand buyers aren't paying us, why should we give a toss what they think." It is one hundred percent true, and utterly fair.
Flibblebot 24th August 2010, 16:11 Quote
This has been hashed and re-hashed before in other threads, so I'll just quote myself:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flibblebot
I really don't get the games industry's problem with the second-hand market - every other industry has it (just look at FleaBay) and you don't hear any of them running around shouting "OMFG! We're being ripped off by second-hand sales! It's evil and it's killing us!"

After all, the business model should include ongoing costs associated with the product - writing patches, supporting multiplayer, DLC and so on. It doesn't make any difference whether the product has changed hands or not because the support costs will be the same regardless of the end-user. The idea that extra costs to the publisher are caused by second-hand users is entirely fallacious - the transfer of ownership from one user to another is completely transparent to the publisher (DRM crap notwithstanding).

You could argue that second-hand sales prolong the lifetime of a product - while this may be true to a certain extent, I can't imagine that it would be by any significant amount and most games are supported for at least a couple of years after launch anyway with patches and DLC. I can't believe that the second-hand market significantly increases that time.

tl;dr summary:
No other industry moans about losing sales to the second-hand market; the games industry should shut up and stop trying to stifle the second-hand games market and just accept it like any other industry does.

To games publishers: it's not illegal, it doesn't (shouldn't) cost you significantly more to support, so just live with and stop whining.
StoneyMahoney 24th August 2010, 16:12 Quote
This kind of talk really pisses me off. THQ sell someone a copy of a game and they make their money on it. But what's this?! After this person finished their game, they sold it on to someone else! Argh! No! A sale of our product that we made no money from! Argh! We must cripple all our future games somehow to stop this kind of larceny!

This is just plain greedy. They sold (not rented or licensed or lent or leased) that copy of the game to the original owner and it is entirely up to them what they do with it after that. Any attempt to prevent that is really them just trying to circumvent our consumer rights.

My personal nightmare - pencils that come with a 20% royalty on anything you write with them.

Yeah, I'm pissed off.
steveo_mcg 24th August 2010, 16:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
Are you deliberately not paying attention?

"I don't care about the first hand buyers wallets here."


And you are using the same ridiculous reasoning the games pubs do :(

Not caring about customers wallets is just bloody stupid! Of course you need to be sensitive to your purchasing public or else you end up where the music industry is and the games industry is moaning about .

A non buyer<> a lost sale. There are >6 billion people on the planet should they all be buying **** Game Returns?

Put it another way if the game only costs me in real terms £30 i'll buy another if it costs me £50 I wont NOW that is a lost sale.
DriftCarl 24th August 2010, 16:21 Quote
I dont know why they are moaning so much, pretty much every other product that isnt food can be sold second hand and manufactures dont go round making statements that they feel cheated.
games developers have to realise that they are not special, they provide a product that is bound by the rules of everything else. You can sell stuff to other people, it is more economical buying a 2nd hand one over a brand new one.
mastorofpuppetz 24th August 2010, 16:44 Quote
What blows my mind is the prices for second hand games, 54.99 instead of 59.99 for new? LMAo, who is dumb enough to play nearly full price for second hand games>?


I actually dont mind this, Devs get nothing when you buy second hand, people who buy the full price, should get priority.
Phil Rhodes 24th August 2010, 16:47 Quote
Quote:
LMAo, who is dumb enough to play nearly full price for second hand games>?

Console owners.
Console owners are dumb enough to pay £50 for games in the first place.
Console owners are dumb enough to buy wrestling games.

Console owners are pretty stupid.
javaman 24th August 2010, 16:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
What the hell are you talking about. I don't care about the first hand buyers wallets here. I'm trying to say that the developer/publisher do not get a single penny from second hand sales. Yes, you're buying their game legitimately, but you are not paying them a single penny. Why should they care about you?

That's like dunking your balls in someones drink, and demanding free stuff off them. They're going to tell you to get lost, in much less charming words than that.

Second hand demand does NOTHING to drive new sales. Stores don't say "Buy the game new, complete it, sell it back to us, because this chap doesn't want to pay full whack for the game". They're facilitating a market they know they can make money in - And that is all they're doing.

They're lining their pockets, not passing anything to the developer.

Cause if they don't care about the second hand market Im pretty sure the consumer won't care much about the company when they torrent the game. If your in the entertainment buisness you don't piss on the people who you design the product for. Maybe a different model is needed but playing the role of the evil corporate giant stomping on consumers certainly isn't the way to go about it. ATM people feel the companies are just ripping too much profit out of games and with the current climate not everyone can afford a new game. I've pretty much stopped gaming over the last 6 months and only last week picked up 4 2nd hand PS2 games for under £20 in game. If developers made games for people rather than their bottom line then the consumer would more likely repay them being the game new in the first place.

On the other side of things, Game and gamestop have ever increasing 2nd hand selections. One game store in belfast only stocks chart PS3 titles new and chart and a handful of simulation PC titles. The 360, DS and wii games have more selection but the 2nd hand market for 360, PS2 and PS3 games is whats keeping that store afloat. A move such as this probably would nail the coffin for these stores that are loosing out to online stores and supermarkets as it is.
Tsung 24th August 2010, 16:55 Quote
I think people do not understand the point.. If Gamestation sell one NEW copy of {Insert game name here} the publisher/developers recieves some sort of payment for it. If they then resell it again 2nd hand, the publisher gets nothing for it. I don't understand why people think it's ok for the publishers to carry on supporting these 2nd hand sales when they recieved nothing for it.

It's the middlemen (Game/Gamestation/CEX) who make the real profits in the 2nd hand market. I dont hear them saying "Well we made £20 profit on that 2nd hand sale, so we're going to give £5 to the publishers/developers". (Maybe they do?)

If people cannot afford new games they nearly always end up at a reduced price later on (Either thro' special offers or budget ranges). If they buy them new they are supporting the industry who can then go on and make better games.

The "Any other product" argument is rather weak. If you buy anything 2nd hand and it breaks (or is broken) the original manufacture won't fix it or replace it for free. Yet developers are expect to support their 2nd hand games for nothing. Thus it ain't greed, if you buy it new you get all the features (including the ones that cost money to support). If you buy it 2nd hand you should have to pay for any additional support features (eg. online multiplayer servers).
liratheal 24th August 2010, 16:55 Quote
Sorry, but you are so horribly wrong it's gone beyond funny.

Someone buying a second hand copy DOES equal a lost sale. The game has sold, but the dev/pub has not been paid for it. These buyers are more than likely the first ones to moan that DLC isn't free. That's not just a lost sale, that's a moaning customer because they're not getting everything for damn near nothing. These games cost a lot to make, and they do see diminishing returns.

To put it into perspective:

Saints Row 2 sold, in 20 weeks, 2.97 million copies over PS3 and 360 platforms. Even with this sales figure, they made such a low net profit they had to cut 250 employees. 250 employees that had already been paid. They weren't getting an extra sum of money, they were unable to continue their contracts because they didn't make sufficient to do so.

The problem with second hand buyers not paying the developer comes when the developer releases DLC, patches, content etc. Most of these small items are negligible in cost, or even free, and the second hand buyers are getting it for nothing, or next to nothing, in terms of paying the developer. That is what they're taking issue with, and they can't go out charging for every piece of content as users like you moaning gits would cry foul that they were trying to make money.

To argue that a second hand sale is "not lost revenue" is so utterly retarded I cannot even begin to fathom.

As a side note: If you buy a new car, does (For example) Ford come along and add new things here and there, for either free or a negligible fee? No. Comparing games as they are now to car sales (second hand) is daft, because once you own the car the manufacturer makes no changes. Once you own the game, chances are increasingly high that the developer will be adding to it for a fair while, for free or next to nothing.

If you keep asking for everything free, you're going to drive them into such a loss of revenue that they'll simply close.

They're saying if you give them nothing, you've not given them a reason to give a rats backside about you, and fair play to them. They're not all making millions each, in fact, quite a large portion of the games development industry can be devilishly underpaid. Most people are just content to focus on the richest ones and forget about the rest, which is horribly unfair to the vast majority of the people that make the things that entertain us for hours on end.
Fingers66 24th August 2010, 17:14 Quote
liratheal, firstly chill out, this is a discussion, not an attack on you personally.

Secondly, I'm sorry, but your automotive analogy doesn't add up.

With a car, it gets sold second hand but the manufacturer will honour any warranty left. Ford would not start trashing the second hand buyers of their cars. Your analogy is like saying that Ford should get a cut of every second hand Ford sold. They actually do earn from the second hand market through parts and repairs. The game developers can earn through the second hand market via paid for DLC, which has been mentioned earlier in this thread, if they choose to do so.

With a second hand game, the developer will honour the "warranty" (e.g. patches) for a limited time but are not entitled to a cut of the resale. They have already got their cut of the first purchase price - do you think they should get a cut of the resale price as well?

If the game is good enough, more people will buy it new than second hand AND the second hand market will prolong the popularity of the game - thus rewarding the developer with a reputation for making such a great game. This is known as goodwill when buying a company and can lead to an increased share price of said company - would they complain? This also in turn will increase the demand for the next game they make (until they cock it all up ala CoD).

If the game is pants, maybe more will buy it second hand (after the new buyers get rid if it cos it's pants) or when the new price has dropped to encourage purchases. Not everyone has the dosh to buy a new game when they don't think it is worth the money, they would rather buy it second hand or at a bargain sale 6 months after release.
mastorofpuppetz 24th August 2010, 17:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes
Quote:
LMAo, who is dumb enough to play nearly full price for second hand games>?

Console owners.
Console owners are dumb enough to pay £50 for games in the first place.
Console owners are dumb enough to buy wrestling games.

Console owners are pretty stupid.

LOL, true.
calon 24th August 2010, 17:24 Quote
All's fair in love and war and economics.

2nd hand buyer don't give a flying pooh about the companies, they only care about keeping as much money in their wallet as they can, but will not say so because it's never fun to admit being cheapskate, so they'll usually plead that games are too expensive while plying on a 1k $ computer or on a brand new ps3 on a huge HD TV...

On the other hand, companies don't give a flying rat's rear about their customers except for getting at what's inside their wallet, but they usually shy away from admitting at being greedy *******s because it's bad PR to say it out loud when they're reaping historically huge profit.

So actually, having someone come out and say it is pretty refreshing imho.
steveo_mcg 24th August 2010, 17:44 Quote
liratheal, look at it this way: Why does the Games industry deserve this special protection the rest of the world doesn't? Not an attack just a question, in your opinion why does the games industry deserve that every product they sell should be brand new and they get the cut they believe they are entitled to? Ford doesn't, IBM don't, Nvidia don't. Only people who do are food firms and oil firms that is for fairly obvious reasons.

The fact they work on wafer thin margins and have to lay people off if their product fails to market is no different from any other firm or industry. If Glaxo lose a medicine because it doesn't pass the regulator they stand to loose BILLIONS and may have to lay staff off. This is written into the business model.
Sloth 24th August 2010, 18:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
I don't care about second hand buyers either.

I've only bought second hand when new has been absolutely out of the question due to availability.
Same. Only bought three games used (FFVIII, FFIX, Metal Gear Solid. None being made anymore), and only sold one game. The second hand market is one which I can't really understand the need for.

But hey! People are always going to want something from nothing. You've got to be careful arguing with people who think they are entitled to a luxury market. Take the arguments about used cars. Sure, plenty of other items such as cars can be sold second hand and all the car companies still do just fine. But that really doesn't matter if a developer feels like taking away that option, just because every other market lets you sell second hand doesn't mean that games devs are bound by some moral code to do the same. Yet people will always feel otherwise because they just don't get that games are not necessary and if devs feel like changing the market to something you don't agree with then tough cookies. Maybe they'll go bankrupt because of it, but that's life.
DragunovHUN 24th August 2010, 18:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackMage23

I lot of people on low incomes will only buy second hand games because they are cheaper they new, if they could only buy new they simply would not buy them.
So?
Fingers66 24th August 2010, 18:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
Same. Only bought three games used (FFVIII, FFIX, Metal Gear Solid. None being made anymore), and only sold one game. The second hand market is one which I can't really understand the need for.

But hey! People are always going to want something from nothing. You've got to be careful arguing with people who think they are entitled to a luxury market. Take the arguments about used cars. Sure, plenty of other items such as cars can be sold second hand and all the car companies still do just fine. But that really doesn't matter if a developer feels like taking away that option, just because every other market lets you sell second hand doesn't mean that games devs are bound by some moral code to do the same. Yet people will always feel otherwise because they just don't get that games are not necessary and if devs feel like changing the market to something you don't agree with then tough cookies. Maybe they'll go bankrupt because of it, but that's life.

In the interests of balance I can disclose that I have never bought a second hand game. I have only ever bought new games but that is few and far between, mainly due to time constraints and the fact that very few games are good enough to make me want to buy them.

However, I believe there is a place for the second hand game market. I do not think it costs a developer more to support the second hand market as this is the digital age - they are supporting it anyway - and they cannot distinguish between first hand and second hand copies of the game.

I do not think that a second hand sale is stealing from a developer, which seems to be the inference, unless you believe that a developer is entitled to a cut from the second hand resale price. If a developer wants to charge for patches to cover the cost of support, fine, let them do it but how do they tell the difference from the people who have bought new from those who have bought second hand? In addition, they would surely suffer a s**tstorm of bad PR wouldn't they?

I have no problem with them differentiating a product for a first time buyer - see the "veteran" tags in BFBC2 for example - and charging accordingly. What I do not want them to do is proactively punish second hand game buyers. If they want to charge the second hand market for DLC that first hand buyers get with the game for example, fine, let them. The market will decide if it works.

I do not support the argument that the second hand game buyer wants something for nothing. If they did, why would they pay anyone anything for the game when they can just pirate it?

Note to THQ: bad mouthing a legitimate market isn't good business practise.
mattbailey 24th August 2010, 18:24 Quote
I'll make THQ a deal - you generate a new game engine everytime you make a new game and i'll buy an original everytime - 2nd hand works both ways!
thehippoz 24th August 2010, 19:02 Quote
it's kind of risky I would think.. but given the target audience- who knows it might increase sales

they'd eat a stool if you waved it in front of their face xD ok bad joke
KayinBlack 24th August 2010, 20:18 Quote
I'm a game developer (PC only) and you know what? THQ will never get a dollar of mine again.

I buy almost exclusively used. Mostly because while I like a game, the people that publish it are dicks (like THQ) and do not deserve my money. I don't have a single console online, and I don't give three dicks in a blender about DLC. Normally, my purchases are something like Rogue Galaxy for 7 bucks. It's been out forever, I just needed a new RPG.

Do I think people will pirate my game? Surely. There's a simple thing that will help me keep people from pirating.

The book and the game are linked. Download it, and you'll be flying solo. The publication will include extra material the online doesn't. Flying solo on a big FF style game is difficult, to say the least. You also miss out on the artwork and game music. Give them a reason to want to buy, and you just might get them TO buy.
Krazeh 24th August 2010, 20:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by KayinBlack
I'm a game developer (PC only) and you know what? THQ will never get a dollar of mine again.

If you buy almost exclusively used games then I can't imagine they'll be all that upset about never getting a dollar of yours again. Find it strange tho that as a game developer you have no problem with buying pretty much all your games through a method that does absolutely nothing to support teh industry in which you work.
somidiot 24th August 2010, 22:00 Quote
That's lame, It's like a car manufacturer saying that used car lots hurt their sales.

Besides, if you get a game that you find you like used you might be willing to get the sequel or other games in the franchise. How is that hurting your business if the game would otherwise be sitting on a shelf somewhere, not being played?

I can understand the business model of one time codes but it seems a bit extreme.
steveo_mcg 24th August 2010, 22:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
If you buy almost exclusively used games then I can't imagine they'll be all that upset about never getting a dollar of yours again. Find it strange tho that as a game developer you have no problem with buying pretty much all your games through a method that does absolutely nothing to support teh industry in which you work.

I don't understand this reasoning that the gaming industry needs support its a multi million pound sector it no more needs support than car or processor manufacturing.
eddtox 24th August 2010, 22:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsung

If Gamestation sell one NEW copy of {Insert game name here} the publisher/developers recieves some sort of payment for it. If they then resell it again 2nd hand, the publisher gets nothing for it

Yes. Because - and get this - the publisher hasn't done any more work. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. No work - no pay. Your builder doesn't take a cut of the selling house. Why? Because he already got paid once when he built the house.

When a customer purchases a game they are paying for a licence for 1 (or two or 4 etc) person to play the game, usually for an indefinite time period. In most cases, the publisher the supports the game with patches/tech support for a couple of years.

If that customer decides to transfer (sell) his licence to somebody else, he forgoes his right to play the game in favour of the other party. However, this makes no difference to the publisher/dev as they still only have to support one user (the new one - because the old one no longer uses their services).

Therefore the publisher/dev doesn't have to do any more work than they would have to do for the original user. I.e: it does not affect them in any way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsung

. I don't understand why people think it's ok for the publishers to carry on supporting these 2nd hand sales when they recieved nothing for it.

What you may or may not understand has little relevance to the argument (look up the 'argument from ignorance' logical falacy)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsung

It's the middlemen (Game/Gamestation/CEX) who make the real profits in the 2nd hand market. I dont hear them saying "Well we made £20 profit on that 2nd hand sale, so we're going to give £5 to the publishers/developers". (Maybe they do?)

The middlemen make a profit because they have to purchase the games, restock them and sell them on. In short, they do work. The developer has no involvement in the process. Again - no work, no pay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsung

The "Any other product" argument is rather weak. If you buy anything 2nd hand and it breaks (or is broken) the original manufacture won't fix it or replace it for free. Yet developers are expect to support their 2nd hand games for nothing.

Most manufacturers have to provide some form of after-sale support (whether in the form of a warranty/guarantee or something else).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsung

If you buy it 2nd hand you should have to pay for any additional support features (eg. online multiplayer servers).
The publisher/dev has already been paid for that by the original buyer. They are simply transferring their rights to those services to a third party.

As for liratheal's comments - it's been a long time since I've seen so much incoherent blathering in a single thread. I understand you're foaming at the mouth, but unless you can put your points in some form of remotely logical framework, I'm just not gonna bother reading them any more.
Krazeh 24th August 2010, 22:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
I don't understand this reasoning that the gaming industry needs support its a multi million pound sector it no more needs support than car or processor manufacturing.

You can't compare things like cars or processor manufacturing to the software market. They create and sell their products in completely different ways and what you buy is completely different. In the case of cars and processors you're buying a physical product; when you buy software you're paying for a license to use the software rather than for the actual disk. The disk and information on it is of little commercial value, after all it's just one of thousands or millions of identical copies, it's the license which has the value.
steveo_mcg 24th August 2010, 22:33 Quote
And? If i sell my licence on how is that different from me selling my old CPU?
stuartpb 24th August 2010, 22:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
You can't compare things like cars or processor manufacturing to the software market. They create and sell their products in completely different ways and what you buy is completely different. In the case of cars and processors you're buying a physical product; when you buy software you're paying for a license to use the software rather than for the actual disk. The disk and information on it is of little commercial value, after all it's just one of thousands or millions of identical copies, it's the license which has the value.

I......must..................resist..................:D:D
Sloth 24th August 2010, 22:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fingers66
In the interests of balance I can disclose that I have never bought a second hand game. I have only ever bought new games but that is few and far between, mainly due to time constraints and the fact that very few games are good enough to make me want to buy them.

However, I believe there is a place for the second hand game market. I do not think it costs a developer more to support the second hand market as this is the digital age - they are supporting it anyway - and they cannot distinguish between first hand and second hand copies of the game.

I do not think that a second hand sale is stealing from a developer, which seems to be the inference, unless you believe that a developer is entitled to a cut from the second hand resale price. If a developer wants to charge for patches to cover the cost of support, fine, let them do it but how do they tell the difference from the people who have bought new from those who have bought second hand? In addition, they would surely suffer a s**tstorm of bad PR wouldn't they?

I have no problem with them differentiating a product for a first time buyer - see the "veteran" tags in BFBC2 for example - and charging accordingly. What I do not want them to do is proactively punish second hand game buyers. If they want to charge the second hand market for DLC that first hand buyers get with the game for example, fine, let them. The market will decide if it works.

I do not support the argument that the second hand game buyer wants something for nothing. If they did, why would they pay anyone anything for the game when they can just pirate it?

Note to THQ: bad mouthing a legitimate market isn't good business practise.
I certainly do not mean to imply that the second hand market is stealing, but will say that it hurts a dev's income which can be a bad thing. Obviously there are second hand sales all over in the world for other products, and there are no laws against it, so it's certainly not stealing. But there are plenty of cases where a person would buy a game first hand at full price, but chooses to go second hand because it's cheaper and has no downside other than an open box. Cases like that are lost money for the developer, and it happens even with good games. They want the money they could potentially be making and they are going for it. There is no real reason for them not to because, as I can't stress enough, gaming is a luxury market and THQ doesn't owe us anything.

Now, there can be downsides to buying second hand imposed by the developer. KayinBlack mentions the option for new games to come with features unique to first copies. Such incentives can certainly help first hand sales and is a much more positive method for detering second hand sale. In the same light, people such as myself don't care about gimmicky addons (I'm looking at you, soundtracks) for my games and those things have no value to me. No method is perfect.

Funny you should mention piracy, though! In some respects, piracy and second hand have similar effects on a developer's income. You've got me on the point of something from nothing being untrue if they're paying! Yet consider how much money a developer makes from a second hand sale: $0. And how much from a pirated copy: $0. In such a respect, second hand sales are just as bad as piracy. There are plenty of factors to consider in addition and this is an incomplete analysis, but the cut and dry is that a gamer with a desire to own and play the game is not contributing to the developer.


Personally, I just find it strange that so many people get so upset about a fee for second hand sales when half of us are going to buy our games on Steam anyway, and none of us play THQ fighting games.
Krazeh 24th August 2010, 22:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuartpb
I......must..................resist..................:D:D

No seriously go for it, I do love to hear how people who are against piracy because it deprives content creators of income have no problem with people doing the exactly same thing by purchasing second hand.
stuartpb 24th August 2010, 22:48 Quote
It was meant as a joke, and I think we have gone over that issue enough in the other thread. Obviously, the joke fell flat:(
Krazeh 24th August 2010, 22:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuartpb
It was meant as a joke, and I think we have gone over that issue enough in the other thread. Obviously, the joke fell flat:(

hmm, perhaps I should have used some smilies in my post also :p
stuartpb 24th August 2010, 22:53 Quote
Yes you should:D
eddtox 24th August 2010, 22:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
You can't compare things like cars or processor manufacturing to the software market. They create and sell their products in completely different ways and what you buy is completely different. In the case of cars and processors you're buying a physical product; when you buy software you're paying for a license to use the software rather than for the actual disk. The disk and information on it is of little commercial value, after all it's just one of thousands or millions of identical copies, it's the license which has the value.

Yes. Your point being? A license is just a sort of asset. When you acquire it you are legally entitled to use software, when you sell it, you transfer that asset and forego the privileges it grants you in return for financial gain. You do not create a new license or enable someone to use the software without one, therefore you are not harming the dev/pubs in any way.
Krazeh 24th August 2010, 23:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddtox
Yes. Your point being? A license is just a sort of asset. When you acquire it you are legally entitled to use software, when you sell it, you transfer that asset and forego the privileges it grants you in return for financial gain. You do not create a new license or enable someone to use the software without one, therefore you are not harming the dev/pubs in any way.

Of course not, I mean what possible harm could come from multitudes of people using someone's work without paying any recompense in a fairly short period after the work is made available? How awful of them to be even the slightliest bit bothered about the sales they're losing out on from people who won't go out and buy it from them but will wait a couple of months so they can pick it up cheap from a second hand sale.
stuartpb 24th August 2010, 23:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
Of course not, I mean what possible harm could come from multitudes of people using someone's work without paying any recompense in a fairly short period after the work is made available? How awful of them to be even the slightliest bit bothered about the sales they're losing out on from people who won't go out and buy it from them but will wait a couple of months so they can pick it up cheap from a second hand sale.

Ahh sod it, I couldn't resist, my ma always said I never knew when to walk away, here's to you ma:D

Krazeh, you are talking as if NO income has been generated from that unit. The dev has had his income from that unit, on the initial sale. The most he would ever make from the sale of that one unit is one unit price. Exactly the same as if I went out and bought a toaster and sold it tomorrow, or any other commercial product.

What are you saying, that second hand sales should be banned? Or that the dev should have some renumeration for the second hand sale?
Sloth 24th August 2010, 23:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddtox
Yes. Your point being? A license is just a sort of asset. When you acquire it you are legally entitled to use software, when you sell it, you transfer that asset and forego the privileges it grants you in return for financial gain. You do not create a new license or enable someone to use the software without one, therefore you are not harming the dev/pubs in any way.
This reply somewhat addresses your other posts, but I'm too lazy to multiquote them (the name isn't just for looks).

This is speaking from EA's perspective for Project Ten Dollar: A game containing multiplayer content will require extra work and effort on EA's part. The concept of work for money seems pretty important to you. When one player purchases a game at full retail price, the cost is expected to be enough to cover the content of the game. EA can also provide multiplayer support with such profit being provided, one might say this is a gift. When the copy is sold second hand, however, EA sees no money. They're still putting in the work to provide multiplayer content for the new owner, but that owner has not paid EA a single dime! So Project Ten Dollar was added implemented. The singleplayer content, which was only worked on once and only paid for once, is ready to play for the new owner. Good to go. However, the continued support and work put into the game which the new owner has the potential to gain access to, requires an addition $10 to EA.

On a side note, you rationalize the cost of second hand games as being balanced out by the work being put in by the middleman. If I sell a game to a friend for the same price as a second hand retailer, how is that rationalized? I didn't buy the game off of anyone, stock it and advertise it. I just hand it to him and take my money.
jimmyjj 24th August 2010, 23:23 Quote
If developers are missing out due to second hand sales they should consider their business model. Everyone bemoaned how the PC industry was in decline and how piracy would completely kill our hobby.

Along comes Steam and offer a new, exciting and creative service - which is a tremendous success.

Developers should consider how they can offer extra value for first time customers; and apply some creative thinking about how their games are distributed.

In the meantime however it is best not to insult legitimate buyers of your product. They are not pirates, they are people who have spent hard earned money on your product, it is not their fault that economics determine you do not get a cut of second hand sales.

Perhaps if you had released a great game it would inspire brand loyalty from those second hand customers, who would buy your next game first hand?

If is is hard to feel sympathy for second hand buyers, then it is harder to feel sympathy for developers of crappy console wrestling games.
Sloth 24th August 2010, 23:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyjj
If developers are missing out due to second hand sales they should consider their business model. Everyone bemoaned how the PC industry was in decline and how piracy would completely kill our hobby.

Along comes Steam and offer a new, exciting and creative service - which is a tremendous success.

Developers should consider how they can offer extra value for first time customers; and apply some creative thinking about how their games are distributed.

In the meantime however it is best not to insult legitimate buyers of your product. They are not pirates, they are people who have spent hard earned money on your product, it is not their fault that economics determine you do not get a cut of second hand sales.

Perhaps if you had released a great game it would inspire brand loyalty from those second hand customers, who would buy your next game first hand?

If is is hard to feel sympathy for second hand buyers, then it is harder to feel sympathy for developers of crappy console wrestling games.
Read back over your post, Jimmy! Steam is again the answer. You can't sell Steam games, ergo there is no second hand market to worry about. Notice that EA only implemented second hand fees on their sports games. Their console sports games meant for casual gamers. THQ is now doing this to their similar sports games. You don't see THQ doing it to DoW II do you? That's not often considered a crappy game (except for GFWL) yet it has no second hand potential at all! The bleeding edge PC gaming scene is largely digital now so they don't have to worry about it.
eddtox 25th August 2010, 00:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth

A game containing multiplayer content will require extra work and effort on EA's part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth

EA can also provide multiplayer support
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth

one might say this is a gift.

Multiplayer support is a feature users pay for when they purchase the game. Any publisher/dev takes the cost of after sales support including maintaining multiplayer servers into consideration when the price the game, and they will judge whether they will make a return. It is most certainly not 'a gift'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth

When one player purchases a game at full retail price, the cost is expected to be enough to cover the content of the game.
Yes, and the multiplayer experience is part of the content of the game.

If I buy a game and I choose to play it all day every day for the next 3 years - it's within my rights to do so (and indeed some do). What then is the difference to the dev whether it is me playing or someone else (provided we are not playing the game at the same time - unless specifically licensed to do so)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth

When the copy is sold second hand, however, EA sees no money.
The dev sees no money because they have already been paid for that particular copy(license) by the original buyer. In effect, they no longer own that particular license - it is not theirs to make money on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth

They're still putting in the work to provide multiplayer content for the new owner, but that owner has not paid EA a single dime!
The dev has been paid to provide the game content and any associated services which can be reasonably expected (after-sales support, multiplayer services advertised on the box) for 1 licensee, usually for an indefinite time period. Who that licensee is, and whether that person changes or not bears no relevance to the pub/dev's contractual obligation to provide such services for a reasonable time period.

EG: if you pay me to wash dishes, it makes no difference to me whether those dishes are yours or someone else's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth

On a side note, you rationalize the cost of second hand games as being balanced out by the work being put in by the middleman. If I sell a game to a friend for the same price as a second hand retailer, how is that rationalized? I didn't buy the game off of anyone, stock it and advertise it. I just hand it to him and take my money.

You miss my point, I was explaining why the retailers get a cut from second hand sales while pubs/devs don't.
In the case of person to person sales the issue is even simpler: the person owns the license and is entitled to sell it at whatever price he wants. If you don't like it, buy it somewhere else.

eg. My phone costs about £500 new. I've had it for about 5 months. I wouldn't part with it for any less than £500 atm, because it is still worth that to me. Therefore, you might be better off going somewhere else.
Fingers66 25th August 2010, 00:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddtox
...lots of stuff...

+1 rep on this, I simply couldn't face the typing involved to say the same things (which would not have been as clear as you put it).

It is late here after all...
Elledan 25th August 2010, 00:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddtox
Yes. Your point being? A license is just a sort of asset. When you acquire it you are legally entitled to use software, when you sell it, you transfer that asset and forego the privileges it grants you in return for financial gain. You do not create a new license or enable someone to use the software without one, therefore you are not harming the dev/pubs in any way.

Autodesk would like to disagree with you on that one. They claim that you are not allowed to sell the software to anyone. No more second hand copies, only $999 new sales :)

Of course, none of us who actually use software like AutoCad, 3DS Max, Maya or other Autodesk software in a professional setting are very happy about this, and those who'd otherwise learn to use these applications on a second hand copy now are basically forced to get a 'liberated' copy. So much for goodwill and customer relations, I guess :)
Glix 25th August 2010, 02:05 Quote
I love these arguments. :>

Just so ya know, I echo eddtox's comments so far, and he's basicly repeated himself at least 2 times now since certain individuals are either ignoring his posts content or not reading them thoroughly.

It's called a chain: Dev -> publisher -> first consumer -> shop -> 2nd hand sale.
See dev and publisher only appear once in this sequence of the single unit sale?
mikeuk2004 25th August 2010, 02:24 Quote
I wonder if all the staff at THQ drive around in brand new cars?

So people are worried developers get laid off when there game does not make enough money. Therefore Second hand games are evil. So how many people are likely to get laid off from a studio? 250. What about all the staff in Game stores and your independent video game stores that are disappearing. What about all the game rental stores. There are a lot more people who will lose out on an income if the second-hand market disappeared.

Have people forgotten about the Rental Industry? With DLC codes being shipped with new games. How does the game rental industry work? I mean rental companies have to pay a higher price for games because they are for rental. But if you don’t get the full game, consumers will no longer rent?

I also find it funny regarding those that have commented saying that people who buy second hand don’t care about publishers and developers. I guess your implying that those who buy new do? I buy around 90% of my games new, and I couldn’t care less about the publisher or developer or about how much money they get.

All I care is that I got a game I won’t for a price I’m willing to pay which is around £20 or £30 if its special.
Tulatin 25th August 2010, 02:54 Quote
Oh THQ, you cards. If you'd like, some of us "Second Hand" buyers can just go ahead and not pay for the games at all. You know, since you care enough about the people who can't afford full retail as so to insult them.
GiantStickMan 25th August 2010, 09:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by KayinBlack
Give them a reason to want to buy, and you just might get them TO buy.

I think this is a valid point, I'll often pay more for a collectors/special edition if it comes with extra stuff that interest me, things like maps or art books or even figurines etc (the Dead Rising 2 SE is a good example of a collectors edition done well) and you can guarantee I will pay extra for that and there is a much greater chance I will hang on to it rather than sell it second hand.
This approach won't work for everyone but it is food for thought.
fingerbob69 25th August 2010, 10:51 Quote
It really is quite simple.

PunterA buys new game $50 ...that's $50 to THQ.

PunterA sells game for $30 to punter B.

PunterA adds $20 to that $30 and buys another new game for $50 ...that's another $50 to THQ.

PunterB's $30 was never going to be THQ's $30 because punter B doesn't buy brand new $50 games.

THQ have not lost $30 but gained a further $50 on another game.

THQ should officially patch the original Red Faction for win7 ...the lazy SOB's!
liratheal 25th August 2010, 11:30 Quote
This is going to be a long one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fingers66
liratheal, firstly chill out, this is a discussion, not an attack on you personally.

Secondly, I'm sorry, but your automotive analogy doesn't add up.

With a car, it gets sold second hand but the manufacturer will honour any warranty left. Ford would not start trashing the second hand buyers of their cars. Your analogy is like saying that Ford should get a cut of every second hand Ford sold. They actually do earn from the second hand market through parts and repairs. The game developers can earn through the second hand market via paid for DLC, which has been mentioned earlier in this thread, if they choose to do so.

With a second hand game, the developer will honour the "warranty" (e.g. patches) for a limited time but are not entitled to a cut of the resale. They have already got their cut of the first purchase price - do you think they should get a cut of the resale price as well?

If the game is good enough, more people will buy it new than second hand AND the second hand market will prolong the popularity of the game - thus rewarding the developer with a reputation for making such a great game. This is known as goodwill when buying a company and can lead to an increased share price of said company - would they complain? This also in turn will increase the demand for the next game they make (until they cock it all up ala CoD).

If the game is pants, maybe more will buy it second hand (after the new buyers get rid if it cos it's pants) or when the new price has dropped to encourage purchases. Not everyone has the dosh to buy a new game when they don't think it is worth the money, they would rather buy it second hand or at a bargain sale 6 months after release.

The issue isn't a cut of the resale. It's the fact that they often release things DLC wise for next to nothing, the man hours involved in creating these pieces of DLC breaks down what we pay them on an individual basis to pennies an hour, and it's only the sale of the items en-mass that make them worthwhile. Providing them cheaply isn't often an issue because they've received a payment for the majority of their work. This is simply not true for second hand sales, they're still providing their DLC for next to nothing if not free, and there are people consuming the additional content without passing a penny to the developer. This is where it becomes a problem.

The user is consuming and not paying the developer, for the developer it is not a financially viable option to be supporting the consumer with cheap/free DLC on the strong chance that the copy of the game is second hand, and therefore, the user hasn't paid the developer for their work.

Either the cost of DLC has to go up (Good luck getting that past game consumers today, who for the most part are baying for blood the very instant someone mentions DLC that costs money), or they have to start generating revenue to make up for the deficit.

FYI: I'm not taking any of this personally ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by calon
All's fair in love and war and economics.

2nd hand buyer don't give a flying pooh about the companies, they only care about keeping as much money in their wallet as they can, but will not say so because it's never fun to admit being cheapskate, so they'll usually plead that games are too expensive while plying on a 1k $ computer or on a brand new ps3 on a huge HD TV...

On the other hand, companies don't give a flying rat's rear about their customers except for getting at what's inside their wallet, but they usually shy away from admitting at being greedy *******s because it's bad PR to say it out loud when they're reaping historically huge profit.

So actually, having someone come out and say it is pretty refreshing imho.

Agreed. I've burned thousands on my gaming equipment in my time, and I still find the cash for games I want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
liratheal, look at it this way: Why does the Games industry deserve this special protection the rest of the world doesn't? Not an attack just a question, in your opinion why does the games industry deserve that every product they sell should be brand new and they get the cut they believe they are entitled to? Ford doesn't, IBM don't, Nvidia don't. Only people who do are food firms and oil firms that is for fairly obvious reasons.

The fact they work on wafer thin margins and have to lay people off if their product fails to market is no different from any other firm or industry. If Glaxo lose a medicine because it doesn't pass the regulator they stand to loose BILLIONS and may have to lay staff off. This is written into the business model.

It's not special protection.

If you go to Ford with a second hand car, and ask them to add something that, compared to the work involved, is damn near free (DLC) they are going to tell you to stick it right up your backside, and probably laugh like madmen.

If you go to IBM and say "My RS/6000 needs more RAM, I want it for a cost so small it's not really worth charging me" They're going to tell you where to stick your request.

If you go to Nvidia and say "My Fermi isn't fast enough, make it faster for free or next to free" they're going to think you've flipped and try to have you sectioned.

However, if you do the same to a game developer, they usually have DLC for next to nothing.

What I know of Glaxo SmithKline, they aren't going to give you the slightest hint of additional anything for cheap or free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fingers66
In the interests of balance I can disclose that I have never bought a second hand game. I have only ever bought new games but that is few and far between, mainly due to time constraints and the fact that very few games are good enough to make me want to buy them.

However, I believe there is a place for the second hand game market. I do not think it costs a developer more to support the second hand market as this is the digital age - they are supporting it anyway - and they cannot distinguish between first hand and second hand copies of the game.

I do not think that a second hand sale is stealing from a developer, which seems to be the inference, unless you believe that a developer is entitled to a cut from the second hand resale price. If a developer wants to charge for patches to cover the cost of support, fine, let them do it but how do they tell the difference from the people who have bought new from those who have bought second hand? In addition, they would surely suffer a s**tstorm of bad PR wouldn't they?

I have no problem with them differentiating a product for a first time buyer - see the "veteran" tags in BFBC2 for example - and charging accordingly. What I do not want them to do is proactively punish second hand game buyers. If they want to charge the second hand market for DLC that first hand buyers get with the game for example, fine, let them. The market will decide if it works.

I do not support the argument that the second hand game buyer wants something for nothing. If they did, why would they pay anyone anything for the game when they can just pirate it?

Note to THQ: bad mouthing a legitimate market isn't good business practise.

As far as the developer's concerned, the people buying second hand might as well pirate it, the developer gets exactly the same big fat doughnut of a return on it.

They're not talking about gimping the game here, neither is "Project ten dollar", but charging you an additional fee for online features and DLC that come with the bog standard new game.

You ask how they tell the difference?

One time use codes.

You talk about cost of continued support as if the developer created the patches ahead of time - Often it takes hours and hours of multiple peoples time to work out a patch, even longer for DLC (Well, unless you're Capcom and the game's RE5). It costs next to nothing to distribute, but they're not charging for the distribution costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
I don't understand this reasoning that the gaming industry needs support its a multi million pound sector it no more needs support than car or processor manufacturing.

It's only a multi-million pound sector because of people buying new games. Stop buying new games, income dries up, sector dies. It's not rocket science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddtox
Yes. Because - and get this - the publisher hasn't done any more work. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. No work - no pay. Your builder doesn't take a cut of the selling house. Why? Because he already got paid once when he built the house.

Try getting that builder to add something to the house for next to no money at all. Not. Going. To. Happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddtox
When a customer purchases a game they are paying for a licence for 1 (or two or 4 etc) person to play the game, usually for an indefinite time period. In most cases, the publisher the supports the game with patches/tech support for a couple of years.

If that customer decides to transfer (sell) his licence to somebody else, he forgoes his right to play the game in favour of the other party. However, this makes no difference to the publisher/dev as they still only have to support one user (the new one - because the old one no longer uses their services).

Therefore the publisher/dev doesn't have to do any more work than they would have to do for the original user. I.e: it does not affect them in any way.

What you may or may not understand has little relevance to the argument (look up the 'argument from ignorance' logical falacy)

The middlemen make a profit because they have to purchase the games, restock them and sell them on. In short, they do work. The developer has no involvement in the process. Again - no work, no pay.

Most manufacturers have to provide some form of after-sale support (whether in the form of a warranty/guarantee or something else).

The publisher/dev has already been paid for that by the original buyer. They are simply transferring their rights to those services to a third party.

As for liratheal's comments - it's been a long time since I've seen so much incoherent blathering in a single thread. I understand you're foaming at the mouth, but unless you can put your points in some form of remotely logical framework, I'm just not gonna bother reading them any more.

This isn't just about the resale of the game. It's about the fact that DLC is often offered dirt cheap, and the amount of work put into that is often not even close to how much the DLC eventually costs (Thanks to people crying foul at the price as it is, let alone how it could be).

Your argument that the developer does no work after sale is a silly one, and shows that you are simply not paying attention to what the developers are saying. They're losing money through the second hand market because they're supporting the game with DLC and so on, at the prices we demanded as gamers because, apparently, as a collective we're cheapskates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
And? If i sell my licence on how is that different from me selling my old CPU?

It's not the license, is the continued addition of nearly free DLC. The license doesn't make a difference, it's merely the fact that DLC costs so much in time to build compared to how much we pay for it, it's not worth them selling it to anyone who's not paid them for anything up until that point.

To continue a theme.

A builder builds a house, sells it for £200,000. Buyer wants another room putting on. Builder does not charge a few hundred quid for this, builder charges a few thousand, because despite being paid for the house (Product A) the buyer now wants Product B adding to Product A.

In the games industry, DLC is dirt cheap simply because there is a horrible outcry the moment DLC approaches a cost that reflects the time invested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuartpb
Ahh sod it, I couldn't resist, my ma always said I never knew when to walk away, here's to you ma:D

Krazeh, you are talking as if NO income has been generated from that unit. The dev has had his income from that unit, on the initial sale. The most he would ever make from the sale of that one unit is one unit price. Exactly the same as if I went out and bought a toaster and sold it tomorrow, or any other commercial product.

What are you saying, that second hand sales should be banned? Or that the dev should have some renumeration for the second hand sale?

Second hand sales should not be banned. If the second hand buyer wants the same service (In terms of cheap DLC) then the developer should get a nominal fee for providing it so dirt cheap.

They don't care about second hand buyers because second hand buyers have not given them a single reason to. They haven't supported them financially, and the cost of running a dev house, this is a very important thing. No income, no dev house, no games.
SlowMotionSuicide 25th August 2010, 11:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glix
Just so ya know, I echo eddtox's comments so far, and he's basicly repeated himself at least 2 times now since certain individuals are either ignoring his posts content or not reading them thoroughly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fingers66
+1 rep on this, I simply couldn't face the typing involved to say the same things (which would not have been as clear as you put it).

+1 on these, and have some rep eddtox mate for bravely putting up with that simply astonishing amount of ignorance this thread has sported so far.
minimad127 25th August 2010, 11:41 Quote
not really going down the right or wrong ideas that these types of things bring up,

just sat here thinking that this is yet another step towards the Steam type system for consoles where every game you buy will get linked to your 'console of choice' profile so you will then not be able to sell them on at all, and then they will offer the digital distrobution just like steam

and how wonderful would this be for the makers of consoles since it would kill off high street games stores and then they could get an extra cut of the profits from actually providing the distrobution method of the game
Blademrk 25th August 2010, 11:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeuk2004

All I care is that I got a game I won’t for a price I’m willing to pay which is around £20 or £30 if its special.

+1, tbh.

The game is sold as a license that (usually) only 1 person can use at a time (online multiplayer games obviously (with the odd exception), offline co-op/multiplayer allow as many as the game supports - and pub/dev still sees no extra cash for those extra players). The dev/pub has already been paid to support that copy of the game, it should not matter if it's the initial purchaser or someone thay have passed their copy on to.

As an aside, look at the value certain early games now go for on ebay. There is a whole world of classic gaming that would go up in smoke without the second hand market ('cos god only knows how impossible it is to get some of those games new now)

Also what about when games are out of print? no 2nd hand market would make it harder to track down those games.
Phil Rhodes 25th August 2010, 11:52 Quote
Quote:
All I care is that I got a game I won’t for a price I’m willing to pay which is around £20 or £30 if its special.

Y...yep, that's a console owner.

Somewhere on the internet is a picture emphasising the tininess of the distance between the alphabetic and punctuation keys - please imagine I've inserted it here.

P
steveo_mcg 25th August 2010, 12:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
This is going to be a long one.

The issue isn't a cut of the resale. It's the fact that they often release things DLC wise for next to nothing, the man hours involved in creating these pieces of DLC breaks down what we pay them on an individual basis to pennies an hour, and it's only the sale of the items en-mass that make them worthwhile. Providing them cheaply isn't often an issue because they've received a payment for the majority of their work. This is simply not true for second hand sales, they're still providing their DLC for next to nothing if not free, and there are people consuming the additional content without passing a penny to the developer. This is where it becomes a problem.

The user is consuming and not paying the developer, for the developer it is not a financially viable option to be supporting the consumer with cheap/free DLC on the strong chance that the copy of the game is second hand, and therefore, the user hasn't paid the developer for their work.

Either the cost of DLC has to go up (Good luck getting that past game consumers today, who for the most part are baying for blood the very instant someone mentions DLC that costs money), or they have to start generating revenue to make up for the deficit.

FYI: I'm not taking any of this personally ;)

But they have been paid, they were paid the first time round whether they support the initial purchaser or the second user is completely irrelevant the same work is required.


Quote:

It's not special protection.

If you go to Ford with a second hand car, and ask them to add something that, compared to the work involved, is damn near free (DLC) they are going to tell you to stick it right up your backside, and probably laugh like madmen.

If you go to IBM and say "My RS/6000 needs more RAM, I want it for a cost so small it's not really worth charging me" They're going to tell you where to stick your request.

If you go to Nvidia and say "My Fermi isn't fast enough, make it faster for free or next to free" they're going to think you've flipped and try to have you sectioned.

However, if you do the same to a game developer, they usually have DLC for next to nothing.

What I know of Glaxo SmithKline, they aren't going to give you the slightest hint of additional anything for cheap or free.


ORL? If you own a used gfx card are you not entitled to free continued support from driver updates? We all know software is at least as important and as costly as the hardware? Ditto from IBM in firmware updates. But any way to imply that gaming should be protected form the second hand market is protection.


My point over glaxxo is they have orders of magnitude more at stake over a failure.
Quote:


As far as the developer's concerned, the people buying second hand might as well pirate it, the developer gets exactly the same big fat doughnut of a return on it.

If the second purchaser pirates it the primary purchaser wouldn't be able to sell it there for the second hand market is reduced and there for the primary might decide the game is too expensive if they can't punt it on and not buy it, again there is a lost sale.
Quote:

You talk about cost of continued support as if the developer created the patches ahead of time - Often it takes hours and hours of multiple peoples time to work out a patch, even longer for DLC (Well, unless you're Capcom and the game's RE5). It costs next to nothing to distribute, but they're not charging for the distribution costs.
Again they have been paid primary or secondary they still need to support only one user.
Quote:

It's only a multi-million pound sector because of people buying new games. Stop buying new games, income dries up, sector dies. It's not rocket science.
And people can only buy used games if some one buys new ones, equally not rocket science but fairly basic economics. The exact same comment is applicable to any thing other than food and is basically irrelevant to this conversation. Ford is only a multimillion pound car company becuase people by cars, they also buy used ones and have done for a while.

Quote:

This isn't just about the resale of the game. It's about the fact that DLC is often offered dirt cheap, and the amount of work put into that is often not even close to how much the DLC eventually costs (Thanks to people crying foul at the price as it is, let alone how it could be).

Your argument that the developer does no work after sale is a silly one, and shows that you are simply not paying attention to what the developers are saying. They're losing money through the second hand market because they're supporting the game with DLC and so on, at the prices we demanded as gamers because, apparently, as a collective we're cheapskates.

see single user argument above
Quote:

Second hand sales should not be banned. If the second hand buyer wants the same service (In terms of cheap DLC) then the developer should get a nominal fee for providing it so dirt cheap.

They don't care about second hand buyers because second hand buyers have not given them a single reason to. They haven't supported them financially, and the cost of running a dev house, this is a very important thing. No income, no dev house, no games.

[/quote]

see single user argument above




Look at it this way, why are they entitled to a share of the second sale? What are they doing for the second user they don't have to do for the first?
Flibblebot 25th August 2010, 12:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
Again they have been paid primary or secondary they still need to support only one user.
...
see single user argument above

Look at it this way, why are they entitled to a share of the second sale? What are they doing for the second user they don't have to do for the first?
Absolutely. This is the point so many people are missing. From the publisher's/developer's point of view, the transfer of ownership is transparent: there is always just one person playing that particular copy of the game (i.e. the nett change is zero).

So, if the nett change in total users is zero, why should it cost the developer any more? It's not as though they're supporting any additional users.
AcidJiles 25th August 2010, 12:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg

Look at it this way, why are they entitled to a share of the second sale? What are they doing for the second user they don't have to do for the first?

Congrats on bothering to both read and then correct his flawed arguments. I would, but given how many times the point has been spelled out by other people more eloquent than me and he doesn't get I don’t think he will.
l3v1ck 25th August 2010, 13:18 Quote
Two things popped into my head when I read that story:
1) If people know they can't sell on games as 2nd hand, they won't be prepared to pay as much for them in the first place.
2) Games publishers wanting a cut from 2nd hand sales is a bit like Toyota coming to me and saying they want a cut when I sell my car on. It's just not on.
eddtox 25th August 2010, 13:25 Quote
I hope you don't mind if I break your post down into a couple of basic assertions, so we can analyse them more easily.

Assertion 1: The developers release DLC for 'next to nothing'
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
The issue isn't a cut of the resale. It's the fact that they often release things DLC wise for next to nothing, the man hours involved in creating these pieces of DLC breaks down what we pay them on an individual basis to pennies an hour, and it's only the sale of the items en-mass that make them worthwhile
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
they're still providing their DLC for next to nothing if not free
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
for the developer it is not a financially viable option to be supporting the consumer with cheap/free DLC
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
If you go to Ford with a second hand car, and ask them to add something that, compared to the work involved, is damn near free (DLC)
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
My RS/6000 needs more RAM, I want it for a cost so small it's not really worth charging me
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
My Fermi isn't fast enough, make it faster for free or next to free"
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
they usually have DLC for next to nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
they aren't going to give you the slightest hint of additional anything for cheap or free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
It's about the fact that DLC is often offered dirt cheap, and the amount of work put into that is often not even close to how much the DLC eventually costs
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
It's not the license, is the continued addition of nearly free DLC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
DLC costs so much in time to build compared to how much we pay for it
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
In the games industry, DLC is dirt cheap
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
nominal fee for providing it so dirt cheap.

Typically, DLC packs cost around £5 (AFAIK) each. On a £30-50 game that equates to 10-15% extra revenue - that is 10-15% of the price of a FULL GAME (which typically accounts for everything from engine development to artwork, distribution, advertising, 2+ years tech support and online services etc) for what is usually a few new maps, maybe a new character or two, and a couple of weapons.

That is most certainly NOT 'next to nothing'.

Whether the DLC is worth it to the consumer is a separate issue, but the publishers would not undertake the extra work if the returns didn't warrant the investment.

Not to mention that most DLC is not transferable (AFAIK), so the second hand buyer has to re-purchase the DLC, even though the dev/pub has already been paid once for it.


Assertion 2: They have received no money from the second owner
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
Providing them cheaply isn't often an issue because they've received a payment for the majority of their work. This is simply not true for second hand sales,
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
there are people consuming the additional content without passing a penny to the developer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
The user is consuming and not paying the developer,
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
the user hasn't paid the developer for their work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
As far as the developer's concerned, the people buying second hand might as well pirate it, the developer gets exactly the same big fat doughnut of a return on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
Try getting that builder to add something to the house for next to no money at all. Not. Going. To. Happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
They don't care about second hand buyers because second hand buyers have not given them a single reason to. They haven't supported them financially,

As I (and others) have mentioned repeatedly throughout this thread, the pub/dev has been paid for 1 copy of the game. Whoever plays that game, and however many times it changes hands, the pub/dev only ever has to support 1 user at a time - which is exactly what thy have been paid to do.

DLC is an additional commercial endeavour which is costed separately and undertaken voluntarily as a separate (but linked) venture. It is a low-risk strategy for making additional profit by 'piggybacking' onto an already successful product. (OR, in some cases a PR exercise designed to increase good will in the customer base by giving them 'something for nothing' - but it is a carefully considered investment which does pay off)

Take books as an analogy: producing a film based on a popular novel is not additional work done for the people who purchased the book, it is additional work undertaken voluntarily by the rights holder and producers as a separate avenue of pursuing a revenue stream which will be paid for by it's own box office and dvd revenue. It does not benefit the person who bought the book in any way - therefore they are in no way liable for those costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
lacuna 25th August 2010, 14:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by calon
All's fair in love and war and economics.

2nd hand buyer don't give a flying pooh about the companies, they only care about keeping as much money in their wallet as they can, but will not say so because it's never fun to admit being cheapskate, so they'll usually plead that games are too expensive while plying on a 1k $ computer or on a brand new ps3 on a huge HD TV...

I have no problem with admitting to that. I have a lot of patience and Im happy to wait until the price is right (i.e. cheap). If this is killing the gaming industry then 'meh' -there are plenty existing games out there that I haven't played yet and if games ceased to exist then I just do something else with my time.
Pete J 25th August 2010, 15:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fingerbob69
It really is quite simple.

PunterA buys new game $50 ...that's $50 to THQ.

PunterA sells game for $30 to punter B.

PunterA adds $20 to that $30 and buys another new game for $50 ...that's another $50 to THQ.

PunterB's $30 was never going to be THQ's $30 because punter B doesn't buy brand new $50 games.

THQ have not lost $30 but gained a further $50 on another game.

That is actually really good logic! +REP :)

Plus it isn't a wallpost, so I can be bothered to read it :P .
Tsung 25th August 2010, 16:17 Quote
Quote:
ORL? If you own a used gfx card are you not entitled to free continued support from driver updates?
Your not, simple.. Driver updates are a given and almost expect; but you have no entitlement to them (nor are the people who buy the card brand new). ATi/Nvida update their drivers every month, we are lucky they choose to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddtox
As I (and others) have mentioned repeatedly throughout this thread, the pub/dev has been paid for 1 copy of the game. Whoever plays that game, and however many times it changes hands, the pub/dev only ever has to support 1 user at a time - which is exactly what thy have been paid to do.

I get that idea entirely; makes sense except... The developer is not supporting 1 customer per sale anymore, they are supporting one customer and several non-customers (to them) per sale. Time is not free, for every re-sale the cost of service increases with each new user as you are increasing the time you have to supply the service. The service may be tech support/multiplayer servers/persistant stats/websites/hosting/forums/maintaining patch available. It all costs money, the only ways to cover these costs are :-
a. Plan for it and charge for it in the full price product.
b. Charge users of the additional services.
c. Create lots of DLC to keep paying customers onboard. (or monthly charges)
d. Decide a cut-off point and stop services then.

I'm not against the 2nd hand market, however I do think if people are using a service they should pay for it.
Fingers66 25th August 2010, 16:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsung
Your not, simple.. Driver updates are a given and almost expect; but you have no entitlement to them (nor are the people who buy the card brand new). ATi/Nvida update their drivers every month, we are lucky they choose to do that.



I get that idea entirely; makes sense except... The developer is not supporting 1 customer per sale anymore, they are supporting one customer and several non-customers (to them) per sale. Time is not free, for every re-sale the cost of service increases with each new user as you are increasing the time you have to supply the service. The service may be tech support/multiplayer servers/persistant stats/websites/hosting/forums/maintaining patch available. It all costs money, the only ways to cover these costs are :-
a. Plan for it and charge for it in the full price product.
b. Charge users of the additional services.
c. Create lots of DLC to keep paying customers onboard. (or monthly charges)
d. Decide a cut-off point and stop services then.

I'm not against the 2nd hand market, however I do think if people are using a service they should pay for it.

But eddtox's point is simple, when a game is sold second hand, the number of users doesn't increase, it stays the same - what additional support costs does the second hand user incur that weren't already being incurred by the original game buyer (who is no longer using the service)?

The individual person behind the keyboard may change but it is still one user per game unit. It doesn't stop the developer cutting off services at a future point in time or are you saying that games should have a finite and planned life span that makes them unusable at the end of that life span (decided by the developer)?
steveo_mcg 25th August 2010, 16:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsung
Your not, simple.. Driver updates are a given and almost expect; but you have no entitlement to them (nor are the people who buy the card brand new). ATi/Nvida update their drivers every month, we are lucky they choose to do that.

Quite right, entitled was too strong a term. Though its not luck its a business decision to keep up with each other and to make sure that the next card you buy will be theirs due to the on-going support. If after you buy the card you only get one update you might just go to the other guy, the same goes for "normal" software. Also just becuase this copy/card is used doesn't mean next time i'll not buy it new due to the fantastic support.

Quote:

I get that idea entirely; makes sense except... The developer is not supporting 1 customer per sale anymore, they are supporting one customer and several non-customers (to them) per sale. Time is not free, for every re-sale the cost of service increases with each new user as you are increasing the time you have to supply the service. The service may be tech support/multiplayer servers/persistant stats/websites/hosting/forums/maintaining patch available. It all costs money, the only ways to cover these costs are :-
a. Plan for it and charge for it in the full price product.
b. Charge users of the additional services.
c. Create lots of DLC to keep paying customers onboard. (or monthly charges)
d. Decide a cut-off point and stop services then.

I'm not against the 2nd hand market, however I do think if people are using a service they should pay for it.

Again this is not about customers its about licences. What ever happens after the original sale the dev is still only supporting the same user base. So i'll ask once more: why are they entitled to a share of the second sale? What are they doing for the second user they don't have to do for the first?
Elledan 25th August 2010, 16:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg

Again this is not about customers its about licences. What ever happens after the original sale the dev is still only supporting the same user base. So i'll ask once more: why are they entitled to a share of the second sale? What are they doing for the second user they don't have to do for the first?

Artists (or rather their labels and managers) get paid a license fee every time their music is played. Authors of books get paid a fee every time you borrow a book at the library.

At least these groups seem to have little to worry about when it comes to the second hand market. Now if they could just stop people from not spending their money on other things than their products and services... :)
veato 25th August 2010, 16:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flibblebot
Absolutely. This is the point so many people are missing. From the publisher's/developer's point of view, the transfer of ownership is transparent: there is always just one person playing that particular copy of the game (i.e. the nett change is zero).

So, if the nett change in total users is zero, why should it cost the developer any more? It's not as though they're supporting any additional users.

I agree 100% with this.

The (misplaced) argument from the devs though is that they're missing out on a sale as user 'B' bought the game preowned. Is it so difficult for the devs to understand though that:

1) user 'B' would never have bought the game new - and as above - by passing the game on is costing nothing extra
2) user 'A' now has more money to contribute to buying another new game
Tsung 25th August 2010, 16:56 Quote
It's time, lets say as a publisher thinks the game has a life with the original purchaser of 3 months. After 3 months* of playing the game, they will have completed it and moved on (remember software is consumed). The game is sold based on this 3 month assumption however in reality every copy sold gets resold another 3 times. Sure your user base hasn't increased, but the time you have supported them will do (12 months).

All the publishers are saying is.. If you use the additional services you pay for them; that to me doesn't seem unreasonable. Another way of them selling this is to sell the full price game with it clearly marked on the box "Additional services require additional payment" . When you buy the game, you can opt to pay the additional payment. Everything is very clear then. Second hand sales are unaffected becuase the box will still be clearly marked.

*3 months is just an example.In the case of Fifa games I guess 1 -> 2 years is realistic. We have been spoilt by the likes of Blizzard who still support their games years after the original release (Starcraft/WC3). But now I notice even they are starting to lock CD keys to accounts (thro' battle.net).
steveo_mcg 25th August 2010, 17:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elledan
Artists (or rather their labels and managers) get paid a license fee every time their music is played. Authors of books get paid a fee every time you borrow a book at the library.

At least these groups seem to have little to worry about when it comes to the second hand market. Now if they could just stop people from not spending their money on other things than their products and services... :)

Not by individuals though, EMI don't get a fee every time i play my Clash ep that i bought down the market nor did they get a cut of the money i paid. I don't know about blockbusters licensing scheme but i'll bet it has more in common with the library than the second hand market when i comes to renting games.
Blademrk 25th August 2010, 17:10 Quote
TBH, of the games that have been released there are not that many where the game is continually patched / has DLC beyond a given shelf life.

Given that a developer of one of these games is no longer actually supporting it beyond this date, do you still think they deserve to get a cut of the 2nd/3rd/nth hand sale?

What about a game that the developer forgets about as soon as it's out the door? there's no additional development costs, no DLC costs.

Another example, EA drop support (and servers) for a lot of their games a year after release (sometimes not even allowing that long). Do they deserve to get a cut of the nth hand sales of those games?

And as for tying software to a single console or PC, that is just stupid -

How many people have gone through several X-boxes with hardware faliure? (I'm on my 2nd now).

How many complete PC upgrades have people gone through?

And tying games to single accounts is just as selfish, a family with 3 children has an Xbox, how many accounts on the 1 console? are they expected to get several copies of the same game? How likely is that to happen?
Dude111 25th August 2010, 17:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elledan
I'm a game developer, we publish our own games and I'd never say anything like this, even if we did sell physical products. It's just plain bad PR, no matter how you look at it.

I guess there's a reason why studios and publishers keep going bankrupt :p
Exactly!!

Couldnt have said it better myself bud!
wafflesomd 25th August 2010, 18:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal


Almost as if people have forgotten that the second hand sales don't go anywhere near the publisher.

And I honestly don't care. All I care about is getting the game at the lowest possible price.
eddtox 25th August 2010, 19:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsung
Your not, simple.. Driver updates are a given and almost expect; but you have no entitlement to them (nor are the people who buy the card brand new). ATi/Nvida update their drivers every month, we are lucky they choose to do that.

It is not an automatic entitlement, but it can be reasonably expected and it is budgeted for it when deciding on the cost of the card.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsung

a. Plan for it and charge for it in the full price product.
b. Charge users of the additional services.
c. Create lots of DLC to keep paying customers onboard. (or monthly charges)
d. Decide a cut-off point and stop services then.

I guarantee they do all of those things, in different measures.
ZERO <ibis> 25th August 2010, 20:33 Quote
If only second hand car sales worked the same way. Oh your car is used, if you want to go over 50mph your going to need to fork over for a new car.
sharpethunder 25th August 2010, 23:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blademrk


And as for tying software to a single console or PC, that is just stupid -

How many complete PC upgrades have people gone through?

Well PC games are now getting tied to a single account with steam and soon console Games will be the same. Also i doesn't matter how many Pc you go though because you can still use the same os as much as you like
Glix 26th August 2010, 00:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharpethunder
Well PC games are now getting tied to a single account with steam and soon console Games will be the same. Also i doesn't matter how many Pc you go though because you can still use the same os as much as you like

Am starting to be cautious of the games I buy on Steam etc.

Tying games to one account = only one person plays one game.

I'm betting 6 people are going to troll me saying "wheres the problem, that doesn't affect me, why would you need to play 2 games at once?"

Here's the thing, people usually get into games when their young. Say you have 2 brothers. They have just managed to scrape together enough to buy 2 pc's together.

One brother wants to play TF2, the other wants to play CSS. See what I'm getting at? 2 separate games, but one is inaccessible due to the other game being in use (you get booted off the server with the message "this account is in use in another location" I believe).

Course some tard is going to walk in and say if you can't afford it tough...

Console gamers, you want to hold on to your 2nd hand market!!! Keep it going. It's a luxury you have that pc gamers don't any more!
mikeuk2004 26th August 2010, 00:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes
Y...yep, that's a console owner.
P

What is it with people and labels? You are correct. I am a console owner. I am also a PC owner hence i am typing this on a personal computer.

I am not a console gamer or a PC gamer. I am simply a gamer. I have enjoyed thousands of games for more than 20 odd years across most platforms. I had 80% of all consoles released and personal computers as kid through the 80's and 90's.

I do not care about a platform, I care about games and having the opportunity to experience any game I wish to purchase.

Normally, any games I buy second hand are games that I left too late and can no longer purchase new as they no longer make them. One example was Marvel Ultimate Alliance. It had been out for a year and became impossible to buy new or even second hand. It took me another year to locate a copy.

The other second had games I sometimes buy are those that never really appealed to me or I had doubts about because they did not have demos available. I usually pick them up for £5 as I don’t mind loosing that much money on something I never really wanted to buy. If there was no second hand market then i would never of bought the game or ever experience the game. Therefore I would not be interested in any possible sequels.

One example is Kane and Lynch, I had my doubts about it but picked it up second hand for £5 and enjoyed it. I now intend on picking up the sequal very soon new.
Toploaded 26th August 2010, 11:31 Quote
In cases where shops like GAME sell a 2nd hand games for £2 less then the original asking price, I can see the publishers point of view. If someone is paying less then a pint of beer for the game that's been out for less then a month or two, and the publisher does not get any of that, where as the buyer would have no doubt brought it new if they had not seized this 'bargain' discount. But blame the retailers, not the consumers.

If companies like this want to offer intensives to those that buy new, fair enough, that's sensible business, but god knows why they would put out such an anger provoking statement like this. There's a 2nd hand market for pretty much everything apart from toilet paper, so they need to get over it.
eddtox 26th August 2010, 12:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toploaded
In cases where shops like GAME sell a 2nd hand games for £2 less then the original asking price, I can see the publishers point of view. If someone is paying less then a pint of beer for the game that's been out for less then a month or two, and the publisher does not get any of that, where as the buyer would have no doubt brought it new if they had not seized this 'bargain' discount. But blame the retailers, not the consumers.

If companies like this want to offer intensives to those that buy new, fair enough, that's sensible business, but god knows why they would put out such an anger provoking statement like this. There's a 2nd hand market for pretty much everything apart from toilet paper, so they need to get over it.

'£2 less than the original asking price' is not 'less than a pint of beer'.
roland777 26th August 2010, 16:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuartpb
Ahh sod it, I couldn't resist, my ma always said I never knew when to walk away, here's to you ma:D

Krazeh, you are talking as if NO income has been generated from that unit. The dev has had his income from that unit, on the initial sale. The most he would ever make from the sale of that one unit is one unit price. Exactly the same as if I went out and bought a toaster and sold it tomorrow, or any other commercial product.

What are you saying, that second hand sales should be banned? Or that the dev should have some renumeration for the second hand sale?

I think you're completely right to say that there's nothing unfair about 2nd hand sales. If you've bought a game you surely have the right (as with any other product) to transfer ownership of that game to another in return for a financial reward. (And please don't be too concerned that I actually agree with you on this :D )

Publishers are starting to see things a little differently though - for every 2nd hand game sold, they see a missed opportunity to sell a new game. If 100,000 people want to play their game, they will want to sell 100,000 new copies of their game. If 70,000 people buy the game new, and 30,000 wait to buy the game 2nd hand (from one of the 70,000), the publisher will feel they have lost out on the revenue from 30,000 sales. Hence the comment about being 'cheated' by 2nd hand game sales.
eddtox 26th August 2010, 18:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by roland777
Publishers are starting to see things a little differently though - for every 2nd hand game sold, they see a missed opportunity to sell a new game. If 100,000 people want to play their game, they will want to sell 100,000 new copies of their game. If 70,000 people buy the game new, and 30,000 wait to buy the game 2nd hand (from one of the 70,000), the publisher will feel they have lost out on the revenue from 30,000 sales. Hence the comment about being 'cheated' by 2nd hand game sales.

I do see how that line of reasoning will make most pubs/devs (hell, most people) think "Holy Smokes, Batman! We've lost (30,000*£50) 1.5mil's worth of business!"

However, they must be very careful with that assumption as there different factors affecting that theoretical loss.


Real (Net) Cost, Perceived Value, Impulse Purchases, Demand, Market size and Retail price:

A non-zero percentage of customers buying a game at release for £50 will reason that they can finish the game in a week or two, and sell it on for £40 or so. That is perceived as good value, as the net cost to them is only £10, for two weeks' entertainment, and the rest they can put towards their next purchase.

A high perceived value increases the likelyhood of impulse purchases and drives demand as well as being conducive to increases in overall market size, without requiring significant decreases in retail price

In contrast, if the game had little or no resale value (if, for example, the license was non-transferable), the net cost to the customer is £50, which, for most people is out of the impulse buy region. Each purchase would therefore be much more considered as the customer is effectively 'stuck' with their purchase, and most likely won't be able to make another for a while.

This could lead to a decrease in demand for new games as people have less money to spend. It could cause the market size to stagnate or even decrease as people perceive gaming as expensive and poor value, and/or it could force devs/pubs to lower the release price of games in order to tempt buyers, thus reducing their profits anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anecdotal Illustration:
I pre-ordered the kindle ebook reader for £109 (WiFi only version). My reasoning in doing so was that if I don't like it, I can sell it on, and I'm unlikely to lose more than £20-30, and I would have satisfied my curiosity. That put it in the "Oh, I'll give it a try.." impulse buy category for me. Whereas, if it had no resale value, I simply wouldn't have been willing to 'gamble' that amount of money.

I have no business training, so this is all just off the top of my head, but it does suggest the the relationship might not be as simple as 100 played, 70 paid = we got cheated out of 30.
The second-hand market could well be crucial to the gaming sector as a whole and it's removal could a) make no difference to their profit margins or b) actually be detrimental.

PS:Some have mentioned earlier in the thread that they have never bought a game second hand. I wonder how many of them have sold a game on, and whether they have used that money to buy other games.
bigsharn 26th August 2010, 18:51 Quote
If developers came out with decent games that you couldn't complete in a matter of six hours then *maybe* people wouldn't be so eager to buy second hand.
Flibblebot 26th August 2010, 19:57 Quote
Or sell them so quickly, either ;)
Elledan 26th August 2010, 22:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flibblebot
Or sell them so quickly, either ;)

Indeed, I bet most people still got their original copies of Half Life from the late 90s, yet piles of shovelware will have been sold on a few dozen times since then. It really separates the good games from the mediocre and bad in how often they change hands :)

If publishers really hate second hand sales so much, maybe they should focus on selling games people would actually want to keep longer than a few months :p
roland777 26th August 2010, 23:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddtox
I do see how that line of reasoning will make most pubs/devs (hell, most people) think "Holy Smokes, Batman! We've lost (30,000*£50) 1.5mil's worth of business!"

However, they must be very careful with that assumption as there different factors affecting that theoretical loss.


Real (Net) Cost, Perceived Value, Impulse Purchases, Demand, Market size and Retail price:

A non-zero percentage of customers buying a game at release for £50 will reason that they can finish the game in a week or two, and sell it on for £40 or so. That is perceived as good value, as the net cost to them is only £10, for two weeks' entertainment, and the rest they can put towards their next purchase.

A high perceived value increases the likelyhood of impulse purchases and drives demand as well as being conducive to increases in overall market size, without requiring significant decreases in retail price

In contrast, if the game had little or no resale value (if, for example, the license was non-transferable), the net cost to the customer is £50, which, for most people is out of the impulse buy region. Each purchase would therefore be much more considered as the customer is effectively 'stuck' with their purchase, and most likely won't be able to make another for a while.

This could lead to a decrease in demand for new games as people have less money to spend. It could cause the market size to stagnate or even decrease as people perceive gaming as expensive and poor value, and/or it could force devs/pubs to lower the release price of games in order to tempt buyers, thus reducing their profits anyway.



I have no business training, so this is all just off the top of my head, but it does suggest the the relationship might not be as simple as 100 played, 70 paid = we got cheated out of 30.
The second-hand market could well be crucial to the gaming sector as a whole and it's removal could a) make no difference to their profit margins or b) actually be detrimental.

PS:Some have mentioned earlier in the thread that they have never bought a game second hand. I wonder how many of them have sold a game on, and whether they have used that money to buy other games.

It's just a shame that some large publishers seem unwilling to look at the big picture (or indeed at anything beyond short-term profit).
roland777 26th August 2010, 23:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elledan
Indeed, I bet most people still got their original copies of Half Life from the late 90s, yet piles of shovelware will have been sold on a few dozen times since then. It really separates the good games from the mediocre and bad in how often they change hands :)

If publishers really hate second hand sales so much, maybe they should focus on selling games people would actually want to keep longer than a few months :p

I think part of the problem is that publishers want gamers to be bored with their purchase after a couple of months, so that they'll be ready to buy the next Generic FPS (or whatever). What they don't want is gamers playing the publishers' old games when they could be buying their new ones.
Fiyero 27th August 2010, 19:37 Quote
Quote:
We hope people understand that when the game's bought used we get cheated," he added. "I don't think anyone wants that so in order for us to make strong, high-quality WWE games we need loyal fans that are interested in purchasing the game. We want to award those fans with additional content."

Hehehe.
So they expect to regurgitate the same old crappy engine, with a marginally updated roster, and to get £40-45 a shot every time?
And then DON'T expect said crap product to then be regurgitated into the market cheap for people to buy 2nd hand?

Oh dear.
Elledan 27th August 2010, 19:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
Hehehe.
So they expect to regurgitate the same old crappy engine, with a marginally updated roster, and to get £40-45 a shot every time?
And then DON'T expect said crap product to then be regurgitated into the market cheap for people to buy 2nd hand?

Oh dear.

They're about as worthy of pity as those poor, starving RIAA/MPAA executives. How dare we not buy every single CD and DVD they put out? Imagine all those potential sales... lost forever!

In this case it's somewhat personal because it's someone who is in the same branch as my company making retarded statements. I'd like to apologize for it. Apparently every industry has a few nutcases with egos too grand for their little minds :)
MaverickWill 27th August 2010, 20:58 Quote
Dear THQ,

We, as consumers, have poured a not-inconsiderate amount of money into your general coffers over the years, spent over a variety of top-class and questionable titles on a number of systems.

I still own a copy of Conker's Bad Fur Day on the N64, some classic Broken Sword titles, and when you announced you were submitting a THQ Complete Pack to Steam, I promptly opened my wallet, and coughed a giant wad of cash your way.

I want my money back.

I could live with the broken port of Saints Row 2, because deep down, I knew there was a fun game in there, just like the dumbed-down Xbox version I had the fortune to play. Company of Heroes was decent enough as part of the pack, but not enough to stand on its own merits. For every great game, there was a terrible one, but on the whole, I didn't feel like I'd been ripped off, and you know why?

I got these games on sale. A rather sizable Steam sale. So, I could weigh up good games against bad, and then think "Well, I can't complain. I got this lot for less than half price! So what if a third of the games are broken?"

The only problem I see here, is that Steam (and Valve themselves) state that sales are entirely down to publishers. So, you're quite happy to take such a massive hit on your games by your own volition, but horrified of the thought of one person buying a game at full price, trading it in for another game, and then someone else buying it, possibly getting hooked on a series of games you create?

My brother owns every single PS2 Spongebob Squarepants title going, mostly pre-owned as it was impossible to find them new anywhere. He's also a regular purchaser of your Smackdown Vs Raw games for the 360 (and goodness knows why - they're all absolutely identical with a couple of name-changes and some new grunt sound effects recorded), which he gets at release. His pre-owned purchases keep the game stores that sell your terrible spin-off merchandise open, and his new game purchases ensure that the staff at your studios are well-paid. Without one, the other would fail.

The horrible attitude exhibited by your spokesmen, without rebuttal or retraction from yourselves, only serves to show how little you think of your consumers. I do not wish to do business with a company that is happy to label its market as "cheaters".

Yours faithfully,

Will Scanlan
bigsharn 27th August 2010, 22:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaverickWill
...
My brother owns every single PS2 Spongebob Squarepants title going, mostly pre-owned as it was impossible to find them new anywhere. He's also a regular purchaser of your Smackdown Vs Raw games for the 360 (and goodness knows why - they're all absolutely identical with a couple of name-changes and some new grunt sound effects recorded), which he gets at release. His pre-owned purchases keep the game stores that sell your terrible spin-off merchandise open, and his new game purchases ensure that the staff at your studios are well-paid. Without one, the other would fail.

Yours faithfully,

Will Scanlan*

*+1
M1lt0n 4th September 2010, 11:49 Quote
Let me get this straight....... developers want to reward first time buyers for purchasing the game at full price by giving them access to free DLC. Does this mean that for all games that have these unique codes to allow you to play online etc the first time buyer will get all DLC for free??

I don't think so! charging second-hand buyers for DLC - fair enough. You haven't made the money on the sale but you can still make the money by charging for the DLC. Generally, the prices for DLC are too expensive, especially when you have paid £40 for the game brad new, and allowing free DLC via a unique code seems a fair idea to me.

Also, what happens if you want to rent a game from blockbuster to give it a try to see if it is worth you paying full price for it? Your the 2nd person to rent the game, you fire up the multiplayer as this is main point your wanting to buy the game for, only to find out someone who rented it first has already registered the code! (Kind of a side point, but a valid one nonetheless).

I fear that with these codes (which i'm sure every developer will eventually utilize) will result in us buying half a game, and then being forced to buy the remaining half as DLC. This will be a sure way of killing off the games market, and will almost certainly result in massive losses of sales, and many more people resorting to pirated games.

Finally, not everyone earns 50, 60, 70 thousand pounds a year and doesn't have to worry about spending money like there is no tomorrow. The majority of people save money up or go without something else to buy a game, and shouldn't be ripped off by greedy developers/publishers.
IntPropIsBS 5th March 2011, 20:28 Quote
Just make DLCs chargeable, like in Fallout 3. Patches should not be taken into consideration as, if the games were made properly in the first place, would there be bugs to patch or overlooked features that should have been there in the first place?

If I could earn 10 million dollars in nett profit from the sales of a piece of software, but ended up earning only 8 million due to 2nd hand sales, piracy, etc, etc, than it is not a loss (I still made an obscenely huge profit), it is a reduction in profit. A loss is when the income generated is less than the capital invested to create a product. Then again, recycled game engines don't really qualify as a "new" product if you ask me, not to mention that artwork such as images, meshes and textures etc can be reused with minimal or no modifications and rework. How much work really goes into a game nowadays (except for those using an entire new set of components) for the developers to have the right to shout about being ripped off? It's gamers who are ripped off for basically what is the same game with slight changes. Look at Fallout 3 and Fallout New: Vegas. They can practically pass off as the same game.
AnarchoS 22nd August 2011, 10:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by roland777
I think you're completely right to say that there's nothing unfair about 2nd hand sales. If you've bought a game you surely have the right (as with any other product) to transfer ownership of that game to another in return for a financial reward. (And please don't be too concerned that I actually agree with you on this :D )

Publishers are starting to see things a little differently though - for every 2nd hand game sold, they see a missed opportunity to sell a new game. If 100,000 people want to play their game, they will want to sell 100,000 new copies of their game. If 70,000 people buy the game new, and 30,000 wait to buy the game 2nd hand (from one of the 70,000), the publisher will feel they have lost out on the revenue from 30,000 sales. Hence the comment about being 'cheated' by 2nd hand game sales.

They sold 70,000 and 30,000 of people that bought that game were not happy with what they got, and sold it on.

They should be more worried about those that did not like their game after they bought it and what they did wrong to loose so many costumers so quickly.
Blademrk 22nd August 2011, 16:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
No seriously go for it, I do love to hear how people who are against piracy because it deprives content creators of income have no problem with people doing the exactly same thing by purchasing second hand.

Look at some of the older generation of systems: Atari VCS; NES (Famicom); Master System; SNES (Super Famicom); Mega Drive (Genesis); N64; Dreamcast;

Now look at some of the games on these systems, There are loads of classics - many of which you were probably unable to play upon release. And most* of them you cannot play on todays system (ignoring emulators on the PC for the moment - see Here for why).

I don't know how many games for these systems I missed out on when they were current, but I do know that without the 2nd hand market I would have missed out on a lot more than I did.

Also there are quite a collectors out there who buy old games (look on ebay for how much some of these go for).


*a very small number of these games are available on the Wii's marketplace or get re-made for current hardware but the fact remains the majority of them are obsolete.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums