Supporting the publishers?

[Superchop]

Lately ive started reading more and more topics on how used games are killing video game companies and that devs are losing so much money per used game sale.  Because of this those same people say that we shoukd always buy games new to support the developer and everyoe else who had a hand in getting the game out.

Now im not against buying games new but I think its a bit farfetched that used games are killing the industry like they say...and it makes me wonder where their logic is even coming from since this type of mentality has only really risen up within the last year or so.  Is it cause of that "Indie" movie that these people are so against it?

[UncleBob]

Let's say you make a living selling paintings.  In order to live comfortably, you need to sell one painting a month (you're good enough that your paintings can command a price of $5k each).

However - someone comes along and says "Hey, instead of buying a new one of his paintings, I'll sell you this one I already have for 3K."  The first time that happens, you'll probably shrug your shoulders.

By the third or fourth month in a row, you're going to be getting hungry.

Now, let's say your biggest source for selling your art (we'll call them "ArtStop") starts displaying cheaper, "pre-owned" prints of your art right next to your new stuff - but at a 10% discount. And they give you nothing when they sell.

I'm not saying that used games should be illegal and I'm not saying that they're killing the industry - but let's at least recognize the fact that if you buy used, you're not helping the developer.  What's even worse is when it's a smaller title that really needs every single sell it can get - a few hundred sells could mean the difference between greenlighting a sequel or axing the series.  It really doesn't matter how many people play a particular game or how good the reviews are - it really boils down to how well it sells - and resells don't figure into that equation.

I buy used games, but prefer to buy new - mostly because I like knowing I'm getting something that's been taken care of.  However, when it comes to older generation stuff, I, of course, tend to buy used a lot because that's all there is.

[palmer6strings]

If they decide to do something stupid with the next gen consoles to where it's download only, or that you have to use 1 time use product keys to play the game, or anyway that there isn't a used game market anymore, I will not be buying the new consoles.

I detest the digital market since most of it is overpriced in my opinion. And what if you don't like it? Well your stuck with it now and they don't care since they got your money.

[wiggy]

This line of logic insists that someone would buy new if used wasn't an option, which simply cannot be assumed.  The music and movie industries have played the same card over and over to no avail.


I.e. Say I want a copy of the new Tomb Raider game.  Say I don't have any intention of ever paying 60 bucks for it.    Well, the publisher has lost zero dollars from me when I eventually pick up a used copy because I never would have paid full price in the first place.  Make sense?

By no means am I saying that we SHOULDN'T support the devs and publishers when possible, but rather that used games sales do not necessarily mean loss for for them.

[UncleBob]

There's no way it's a 1:1 ratio by any means.  But there's a definitive loss of sales - and when ArtStop GameStop puts the used copy next to the new copy at 10%, there's absolutely no way you'd ever convince me that the majority of people who are willing to buy new Call of Duty for $55 would draw the line at spending $60.

Considering GameStop is the main force behind this practice, it's obvious that it works - that people are willing to forgo new for used at such a small discount.

As for your Tomb Raider situation, would you be wiling to buy a new copy when it eventually drops to $40?  $20? How much of that would have went to the publisher/developer vs. buying it used now for $40?

Again, I'm not saying one should *never* buy used or that they should feel guilty for doing it or anything - I'm just saying that it needs to be recognized what is going on.

[mojoeskateco]

I try and support devs as best I can and will buy new if it's a game I really want to play now or if I know I will want to play it in the future and it's a niche title that needs sales to ensure more games of this type are being made.

i.e. I bought Etrian Odyssey IV for the 3DS even though I don't own the system yet.  I know I'll play it eventually and I want more games like this to be made.

I also agree that a used sale doesn't equate to a lost new sale.  

What I wouldn't mind them doing is having some sort of nominal fee (say $3 - $5) to activate a used copy of a game.

i.e. with the new Tomb Raider, I don't want to pay $60 as I have lots of games I can play while it drops in price, however, I would be cool with paying $20 used next year and paying $5 to activate it so that the devs still get paid.  

The main issue I see is that when a console generation ends (i.e. PS3 to PS4) and they take away network support to register these games.  

Perhaps after they pull the plug on the network the fees could just not apply anymore.

If the industry wants to maximize their profits then they should make games that are so interesting that I just HAVE to play them right away.  For me, it was Ni No Kuni as I had been waiting forever to play a JRPG with a large world map that appealed to the old school roots of the genre.

[mojoeskateco]

There's no way it's a 1:1 ratio by any means.  But there's a definitive loss of sales - and when ArtStop GameStop puts the used copy next to the new copy at 10%, there's absolutely no way you'd ever convince me that the majority of people who are willing to buy new Call of Duty for $55 would draw the line at spending $60.

Considering GameStop is the main force behind this practice, it's obvious that it works - that people are willing to forgo new for used at such a small discount.

As for your Tomb Raider situation, would you be wiling to buy a new copy when it eventually drops to $40?  $20? How much of that would have went to the publisher/developer vs. buying it used now for $40?

Again, I'm not saying one should *never* buy used or that they should feel guilty for doing it or anything - I'm just saying that it needs to be recognized what is going on.

I cringe every time I overhear a Gamestop employee try and push a used copy for $5 less on a customer that has asked to buy a new copy of a game. 

At a difference between $60 and $55 I'd always take a new copy over saving $5.  They also try and add a few bucks for scratch protection to the used game and people take it which makes it even closer in price to a new one.

One thing I will say is that at least some of those used games were traded in to purchase new titles so the devs are seeing some cash there.  I know lots of people that aren't collectors who rely on those used trade-ins to fund future game purchases which is why banning used games completely could lower new sales.

[Moviefan2k4]

I really think the companies should quit trying to control the retro market. Digital downloads started because they weren't making money on 20-year-old carts to begin with. If I have a used copy of a game, and I sell it, that shouldn't be the developers' concern. If people want to continue supporting them after 20+ years, use the download. Otherwise, keep away from the carts.

[Beastman1975]

the scratch protection warrenty gammestop sells is a joke if you do happen to use it chances are your just goin to get a used disc back ( which may or may not  be in good condition )   if they do still have a new copy  of some games 6months later it will be surpirsing , and i dont buy the agument they devs are loseing money because of used sales, nine times out of ten people trade in their used games to buy the new game because of trade in bonuses , and like others have said for what is basically $5 savings ill buy new over used anyday, the problem is development costs have risen astronomically in the last 20 or so years  so the profit margin is alot less than these companies want so they point thier finger and say "Hey we are losing moneys because of ..." this is also why  you dont see that many  experimental ideas in games and everything is a COD clone they cant afford not to sell  X amount of copies  in this day and age . and  Sony is still mum on if the ps4 will play used games or not ( i hope to god they dont do it , it would destroy alot of jobs )

[Superchop]

I wont argue the fact that devs and everyone need to get paid and in the case of indie game makers every sale does count.  But I also understand that for there to be a used copy someone did buy it already so the sale was already made.  And if people are actively searching for used copies due to price differences then imo its safe to say that they werent gonna shell out the money anyway for the new version.

One recent example for myself is Asura's Wrath.  I loved the game and I did want to buy it new...but the price new to me was never justifiable considering that to get the real ending id have to spend an extra 15 or whatever it was on the dlc.  So I ended up buying it used and bought the dlc together for less then what the game ws going for new.  Now I wouldve loved to support the dev and all but at the same time why shoukd I be supporting them when they like to release games that are in a way incomplete and charge us an arm and a leg to make it complete

Im not saying I do this with all the games because I much prefer to buy new, but these companies cant expect everyone to buy new alk the time considering that nearly everygame has a lot of dlc or people find that for 60 bucks the game isnt worth it.

 In the case of gamestop I woukd never buy a used game for a measly few bucks less then what I can get it new but if the price difference is big enough to make it worthwile then I would get used.

[DarrienEmerald]

Now I wouldve loved to support the dev and all but at the same time why shoukd I be supporting them when they like to release games that are in a way incomplete and charge us an arm and a leg to make it complete

That's something else entirely.  I don't recall anything missing in the main game.  It was a complete game.  Just because they decided after finishing the game to create more stuff for it, doesn't make it incomplete.  Day 1 DLC doesn't sit well, true, but it's not (always) something just cut out of the game.  From the time the developers finish the game to the launch day, there is a window of time where they do something, whether it's work on additional content, or start a new title altogether.  Additional content =/= incomplete game, hell, even Assassin's Creed II's two sequences, which may or may not have been excised from the main game, I dunno, still weren't really required or adding anything of importance.  The game itself was still "complete," and if it had released like that on PC ten years ago, no one would have cared about buying an expansion pack for it.  It didn't become important to play those episodes at all until Brotherhood was released, as some of the DLC characters were in the new game.  By that time, in Europe at least, Ubisoft had released a budget version of ACII with the DLC packaged in on the disc.

I don't care if people wait until a game is cheaper to buy it and the DLC, I just get annoyed with this "incomplete" argruement...

[BadChad]

One recent example for myself is Asura's Wrath.  I loved the game and I did want to buy it new...but the price new to me was never justifiable considering that to get the real ending id have to spend an extra 15 or whatever it was on the dlc.  So I ended up buying it used and bought the dlc together for less then what the game ws going for new.  Now I wouldve loved to support the dev and all but at the same time why shoukd I be supporting them when they like to release games that are in a way incomplete and charge us an arm and a leg to make it complete

I can kinda relate there. I actually just picked up a new copy of Asura's Wrath for $20. I really did want this when it first came out too but decided to pass aswell. Not because of the DLC, but because of my lack of faith in Capcom these days. Theres no way I was going to pay full price for something I may not fully enjoy. It was actually a really good game IMO, and I finished it in 2 days. Seeing as how I bought it for only $20, I may consider buying the DLC Episodes and they'll make a little extra off me that way.

[Nacho3]

I can kinda relate there. I actually just picked up a new copy of Asura's Wrath for $20. I really did want this when it first came out too but decided to pass aswell. Not because of the DLC, but because of my lack of faith in Capcom these days. Theres no way I was going to pay full price for something I may not fully enjoy. It was actually a really good game IMO, and I finished it in 2 days. Seeing as how I bought it for only $20, I may consider buying the DLC Episodes and they'll make a little extra off me that way.

I actually bought this game new the day it came out for $60 because the demo was so damn fun. I also bought all the DLC and don't regret paying "full price" for any of it. I would highly recommend that you do pay for the extra content and for anybody who was curious but didn't want to spend $60, it is definitely worth $20.

[Doom]

Of note is Arkham City's day-1 Catwoman DLC. GameStop had a deal with WB to print codes for it on the receipt like they do with MS points.

All these companies want is a cut of the used game sales. That's fine. I think it has a side effect of making it harder to loan games to people and also re-sell them, and I think the companies like this side effect, too. I'm not as okay with that.

[larryinc64]

I personalty hate a lot of the stuff companies pull to combat it, such as always on DRM. I personalty have fairly crappy internet, It vocationally craps out on me, forcing a restart and at it just does not work. Even if my internet did work, their severs might not, look at Sim City. It actually encourages piracy IMO, because if the retail version does not work, a cracked pirated version might.

On the off topic of piracy, kinda tying in with what someone said. When someone gives the argument "A pirated copy does not equal a retail loss because they would not have purchased it at retail" I have to say that that is a realty BS reason. If the person realty wanted it, they would pay for it. If they do not want to, they do not get to have it. At least with a cheaper used game, someone already paid for it, was done with it, and gave it to someone else.
On that note, Imagine you are eating out at a restaurant, You are eating some fries, you are done with them, so you give them to a friend, then the waiter comes over and forces your friend to pay $5.

More on topic, I'm OK with online passes for the first month of a games release, That could help cut down on the $55 used games within a week, but after a month remove it, and have some one tome use code that you could enter on a friend's system if you bring it over their house.
I think the companies should make deals with GameStop, and not shove it on the consumer though.