N4G's hypocritical fan base.

I recent submitted a news story from Eurogamer about an interview with Heavy Rain developer Quantic Dream. The co-founder Guillaume de Fondaumiere mentioned how he had lost 1 million sales due to the used market. Some thing caught my eye in the comments. The was a lot of support for the used game market. That is fine but not many brought up the big question. They lost at least 1 million in sales. To put this into perspective on a $60 game (£40 for me) lets say around 15% goes to the developer. So this is around $9 (around £6)per game. So they have lost out by $9,000,000 (£6,000,000).

It seems I have gone on a bit of a tangent. Over the times I have spent going on N4G one thing has struck me. Everyone complains about how there are no new innovative IPs. The users complain how X game is another Call of Duty mould. I ask you do you blame the developers. If Heavy Rain (a new innovative ip) lost $9,000,000 on used game (including piracy, lending) sales why would any other developer take the risk and not go for the easier highly profitable option. At the moment there is always going to be an area where sales are lost (from pirating, used games, giving them to friends). The lack of new ips is a trend that has become more apparent this generation with sequel after sequel and other games using the same formula as the most popular game on the market

Well how do publishers and developers counter this trend. I will tell you. In other stories there seems to be a massive hatred for online pass. To be honest can you blame publishers for introducing online pass.If a developer is loosing $9 million it would be interesting to see how much publishers loose also. I agree some online passes are not implemented well but in an age of used game sales going on the up you must understand they are loosing a lot of money per game. The online pass has become more of a deterrent than a method for increase profits. I was in GAME the other day and I decided to get Medal of Honor. It was £20 new and £15 used. I thought to myself it is only £5. The online pass on top actually make the game more expensive.

I hope you can see why I am getting at when I call the N4G fan base hypocritical. On the one hand they complain about no new innovative IPS and how everyone is copying COD and then on the other the publishers come up with a solution to regain their money so that it can be pumped back into games but there is mass hatred for it. You can't have new ips with a used game market that is taken the money away from these new ips. Those same people who complain about no new ips also strongly disagree with online pass and often proclaim they have bought a game used. There is a reason for the lack of no new ips and it is down to you guys.

Does the N4G users have a better option to keep a used game market and keep sales going to the developer so they can take risks and develop new ideas?. Come on N4G. Stop being a hypocrite.

[Pozzle]

Yes, but the $1 million loss was only an assumption on Quantum Theory's behalf. They are assuming that everybody who bought second-hand, rented, or borrowed the game would have bought the game brand new if that was the only option. But not everybody can afford to do that (I should know. I live in Australia and the average brand new PS3 game can cost around $100-$120 here), when those gamers might not have even considered buying the game if their only option was to buy it brand new.

I'm all for new game sales, but not everybody can afford to buy games brand new. And getting rid of the used game market isn't going to make more people buy brand new games. It will probably just exclude a very large group of people from buying games alltogether. IMO developers, publishers and distributors should come to some sort of agreement, so that they still make a profit off used and rented games.

[scotchmouth]

Pozzle nailed it.

Most people I know that buy used do so because they are budgeting their money. Not that it's necessarily tight but because they have other things it can be spent on.

A lot of people don't need the newest games all the time constantly. Some people play the waiting game and pick it up cheaper because they have other expenditures.

I saved myself tons of money buying used games and the used game market helps someone keep a job stocking and facing those shelves. I'm not worried about a dev that theorizes about how many millions they may have made if it wasn't for used games. I am worried about the kid putting himself through college at the used video game store that operates because of people like me.

[mastiffchild]

I think, and I'm not alone, that HR sold AMAZINGLY well at retail. In EVERY way it's a niche game-arty(wilfully), different in many ways from even other niche games in terms of game [play and storytelling-a more interesting figure might be just how many who bought HR rented, bought used or borrowed a copy of IP? The used market creates fans for niche game makers more than any other(percentage wise)and the amazing sales(new) for HR show this well.

As a musician I'd LOVE a way for used sales to be shared back with me too but, in truth, I HAD my chance and if people didn't find my work good enough to keep it's MY fault. Besides helping niche games used sales also create interest and future new game buyers as a lot of used game buyers are today's students with the buying power of tomorrow-do we wanna throw them away to more inclusive hobbies etc just for a pointless piece of cake that already gives back to the industry while looking like the most over entitled industry EVER?

[fear88]

The problem isn't the used game market though. The used games have the same entertainment value of normal games but a lower price. Thus their value is higher in the eyes of the consumer.

Not everyone can afford 180 a month for games, especially in this economy when money is tight.

Developers and Publishers need to realize they have to sell on volume rather than just throw a product out on the market without concern as to how expensive said product is and whether or not it merits any value at that price.

They need to think of how to get the game out to as many people and to get people to talk to friends about that product.

Games should not cost $60 new. I feel as though at 40-45 is acceptable for me to buy a new game.

Deterring piracy is another concern but I feel that when a product is properly secured and has affordable entertainment, there is less incentive to pirate. There isn't a huge difference between 5 dollars and free, but there is a bigger difference between 60 and free.

I feel as though game prices need to come down and online passes need to increase in price.

Games should be 40 new and come with an online pass. Used games are fine but online passes by themselves need to be 15-20 to shrink the losses incurred by developers and to discourage buying used products by offsetting the better value in the used price.

Gamestop would have to cut their prices considerably on used products to stay competitive with new products on shelf which means they need to lower the buy back price. That means instead of getting $10-$15 from selling to gamestop, you would instead get $2 and it would discourage consumers from selling a game and opt to keeping it.

[Nate-Dog]

I get your point and agree with you somewhat. But I think that like some people have pointed out on that article you submitted the figures (and possible monetary figures too) have surely been blown out of proportion somewhat, although to what extend we don't know for sure. People can lend games to other friends, people can rent games, a household can have one Playstation with more than 2, 3, maybe even 4 or 5 accounts where they all try the same games on them all. I really don't think it's a sound idea to say that every account that has even just 1 trophy for a game counts as a possible sale, it just doesn't make sense.

Onto the issue of the used-game market. Well here's my own opinion on the matter. If it somehow was the case that Quantic really did lose between €5m and €10m on these used-game sales they claim happened, then yeah, that's a big loss and it seems unfair to the developer. If this was the case of a bigger developer or publisher such as Activision or EA or Capcom quite frankly I myself wouldn't care because they can moan all they want everyone knows how loaded they are and how much money they have been making on games (and on games that often aren't anywhere near worth the money they get). But in the case of the smaller developer I do feel sorry for them, but they do have to remember how expensive the gaming market is and how expensive gaming as a hobby is in general (which in fairness to him Fondaumiere said himself in that interview you posted, and said that that probably is the problem with the market since there's often such a large gap between the price of used-games and new games). If the price of new games decreases to a certain level, you close the gap between the price of used-games and new games. You might only decrease it by say £5/€7.5/$9 or $10 but that amount could make the difference for a large number of consumers giving their money to the developer rather than a game store.

Yet the problem I see with this is that (at least here, and in the UK from what I've seen from prices online) prices for games in the past few years have slowly (and by small amounts) but steadily decreased. Yet by the time these prices fall to a close enough level to the used-game market, I feel the next generation of consoles will be on us, and in fact I think that the next time we see any decent decrease in game prices (probably in the next 6-12 months) the next generation of consoles will be fairly close, which will mean a fairly large hike in prices once again to inflate the gap between the used and new markets for the games for new consoles.

[Nate-Dog]

(Exceeded character limit)

But I don't think it's fair to blame people that often buy used. Games are expensive and we've always gotten the short end of the stick. Look at all the problems that have been apparently happening with some of the latest releases like Deus Ex and Dead Island. I mean we're supposed to pay full price for an unfinished game that will probably be fixed and at the level it should be on release in around 2 months? It's disgraceful that we have to pay the sort of money we do for games in the condition that they often arrive to us. And what if we don't have an internet to download these patches? We just have to get on with it. For those people that always say with delightful elitism "I always buy games brand new and have never bought a used game, I hate people that buy used games", not everyone has bags of money like you, and even if they do not everyone likes paying that much money for something that might only last a few hours or maybe they don't like paying for broken games (like me even though half the time I still end up doing it if it's a game I've been waiting for for a while). You may buy one game used to see what it's like, get into the series (or that genre if you're just trying it out) and become a fan and then buy a number of games in that series or genre brand new, whearas if that used game was never there and the game was only there new for a high price, you'd have never tried it and the company would have never seen any of your money.

I don't know where this comment has come from so sorry for the ridiculously long reply especially if I rambled. To anyone that reads it thanks, hopefully it was worth it lol.

[Christopher]

Re: Having money vs not having money and buying new vs buying used

I see this very much in the way that I see WalMart coming in and taking over small businesses. People are ignorant on what it means when they spend their money in one location as opposed to another, and they don't care because they are being given the chance to get something that normally they would have to wait a few months more to get at a better price. That doesn't change the effect their spending decisions have on the market, though.

I buy new because I understand that I want that money to go back to the developer. I don't buy it because I have tons of money laying around, but because I understand what my purchase means to them. Even if that means waiting the 3-6 months before a game hits $30, the price I think it's worth.

Others, they don't have this same concept and they don't think about how their desire to have it now affects the market as a whole.

Personally, if you buy your games used, you are not a customer of the gaming industry. You have no say on what the gaming companies do or how they do it since you're already spoken with your wallet that you don't want to pay them for your services, whether you know it or not.

Side note: I agree with a lot of your complaints, Nate-Dog, especially with the need for patching, certain titles (not most) taking forever to reduce in price, etc. I could make explanations for these, but the reality is that companies look to perform a balance act between acceptable amount and cost of time and effort.

[admiralvic]

I think the author overlooks 1 key thing! Games are not always 60 usd even at launch. Deus EX for instance is down to 35 usd. Kmart gave 20 gamers credit with Resistance 3. Even if you cant figure out something; you can just buy a PSN card then some R3 DLC.

This alone could cause a simple disparage in pricing. Do you think that every copy of F3AR TRU sold at 30 on release day was included in the final figure? These are usually rough estimates based off basic Econ.

[LightofDarkness]

Simply put, the only reason people buy used is because it's cheaper, and people in general don't have a lot of money right now.

The numbers wouldn't add up in your example in the real world. People simply weren't going to plop down 50-60 USD/EUR for the game. So they wouldn't have lost out on the supposed 9000000 extra credits. They'd have to have dropped the price of the game to move the units anyway, at the store level.

Stores buy new games for pretty much full price. They don't make a lot of money on them, and thus don't buy many copies of a game new if they don't expect to shift them. This is also because the longer the game is on the shelf, the more it depreciates in value. So before any of these used sales can be considered, you'd have to consider that they'd need to drop the game's price by half of the original price before these people would even consider buying it, then maybe another 10-15 USD/EUR in a sale to finally be rid of all their extra copies.

Used game sales keep places like Gamestop, Game etc. open because each used sale is pretty much PURE profit. It prevents them from over-buying on new titles that don't perform relative to their hype level and leave a retailer trying to sell off a bad investment/expense for what could be years down the line. It means they can get a few new copies, have people trade them back in and then wait a few weeks for the price to come down to a level where the used gamers will bite. This process takes much less time than having to wait for brand new copies to come down or go on sale, simply because it puts everyone at a loss.

Of course, some might take a "down with Gamestop/Game" stance on all of it but think about that prospect: would it actually benefit anyone if those places closed down? Would you want to have to travel miles to find the nearest gaming enthusiast store in order to get "Obscure Game X"? Super market chains don't carry everything.

EDIT: Oh, and online passes are pure crap. See that part up there where I explain how stores already buy the games from pubs/devs at near full price? They already got the money from that sale. Online passes are effectively them being paid twice.

[-Alpha]

"Simply put, the only reason people buy used is because it's cheaper, and people in general don't have a lot of money right now."

And that's maybe their right as consumers, but gaming is an expensive hobby, not necessarily a right.

I keep coming back to what the pirate may say, and it's no different: "I don't have a whole lot of money right now, so I'll pirate this one game"

Not that I have never pirated anything in my life, but it's a very interesting debate.

[caseh]

I've pirated plenty of games but I've also spent an absolute ton of money on gaming in general be it consoles, games, accessories etc over the years.

Sometimes games make you curious as to whether or not its any good, if i decide to not buy it and maybe pick up a pirated copy personally I see no harm in that. The industry would never have seen any money from me anyway as i would never buy it. However, if that game was epic then that dev has potentially hooked me into buying future titles.

I borrowed my uncharted 2 to around 4 friends who would never have bought it due to them being sceptical about it being any good. Each of these people has now pre-ordered Uncharted 3.

Pre-owned games and even piracy can have a hand in future sales. If the product is good enough, it will ultimately sell well.

[SageHonor]

Okay I have a few things to say about this article

~ Start PROOFREADING your blogs!! I had to reread half of it because you mix up alot of words.

~ "Come on N4G" Stop being a hypocrite

Sorry but this will never happen. People like me and you watch this hypocrisy go on. I pay it no mind. This is just how it is. IT's just a matter of most gamers not really understand how the game industry works when it comes to business. I doubt most gamers even understand business at all. Supply and Demand anyone. The truth is, we were all better off in just shutting up and not playing the game. If you dont like it dont buy it and leave it at that. Dont even talk about it. Now everyone wants to ramble on and complain about things. The more gamers we have voicing their opinions.. The more things start to contradict itself. People should just learn to shut up at times.

COD is starting to get overhated. Sure, Activision mastered accessibility and hasnt really innovated. You know why? Because people KEEP BUYING IT! Say what you want but look at the sales.

But guess what? Most of the time on websites like these, people just say whatever the hell they want. It is pathetic but a fact at the least. Don't take it seriously. Not everybody can be pleased anyway.

[dinkeldinkse]

Is that there is no way to calculate that. It's an assumption. No one knows the actual number. Could be way more or way less so it is pointless to give a number.

I really don't know why anyone would be for an online pass. I have played so many games this gen that were unfinished messes that should have been delayed or only cost $10, but instead cost $60. When developers/publishers screw the people that buy their games new, why should anyone have a problem with people buying used?

I don't have any problem with the people buying used because they do help the video game industry whether the publishers/developers like to admit it or not(like the used game so they buy sequels, people that sell their games to the people buying used are able to buy new games).

If you are wondering, I have not and will never buy a used game.

[Godmars290]

Its game devs who need to stop being hypocritical. If they're worried so much about sales; make games cheaper. They want to get rid of the used game market: introduce policies and methods to get rid of it. Such will likely effect sales of new games, limit creativity, but again if devs are so worried about sales then that should be their main concern. Not innovation or creativity. and certainly not the people who buy their games.

While you're at it, since the only thing out there will be COD, Gear and Street Fighter clones, why don't you stop making games altogether. Make the market less crowded at least.

[LightofDarkness]

I like it, Godmars. I'd like to see a few of the old giants down on their knees for a spell at least, let some of those old IPs fade a little and let the next generation and indie devs take some of the spotlight.

[Christopher]

***If they're worried so much about sales; make games cheaper***

They do. *looks at PSN and XBLA* If you're saying to make the same games with a $40 price tag, it won't matter, people have proven to still look for the better deal, which is typically used after one or two weeks after release. Only thing that will result in is less profit for them overall.

***Not innovation or creativity. and certainly not the people who buy their games.***

Wait... what? You do know that every element matters to them, right? They don't meet certain requirements, they don't get funding to make games. And, to tie in with your above statement, smaller, cheaper games have a much harder time of getting funding and also result in a lot less jobs in the market.

[LightofDarkness]

Honestly, I believe that all the money that this industry has been garnering and pushing around the last few years has attracted a lot of interest from people who have no interest in games, just money. And when those people are in charge, money is the only thing that matters. The more dough in the pot, the more vicious the players become.

Those people will always be in charge, to a degree, but if there wasn't so much bloody cash floating around the industry we might see the more unscrupulous sorts (the Bobby Koticks and Yoichi Wadas) begin to bow out.

Do games really need to have the enormous budgets that they seem to command? Do they need paid product placement in every prime-time TV show and ad slot? I hear people saying that games are so much bigger these days and they require so many more people to create them, well how about we trim some of the fat? Not every game needs a tacked on COD-style multi-player mode, nor do they need expensive CGI cut-scenes.

A crash sounds catastrophic, but honestly, "trimming the fat" might not be so terrible in the long run.

[Christopher]

Good reply LightofDarkness, but take a moment to remember what you hear on this site as well as the sales on $40 games that are produced.

1. People here are always pushing for better graphics and capabilities. Consumer demand for 'better' is always there and not meeting it gets met with comparisons to existing games that 'already do that but better'. It's the nature of the market, unfortunately.

2. Games that don't push these are oftentimes overlooked or labeled as failures for one reason or another. They get scored lower, they have lower sales results, and the price of them go down quickly. But, even when the price goes down to a reasonable amount after only a month after release, people overlook them for the 'better' titles that are coming out at that time.

3. Games that come to market at $40 (3D Dot Heroes, No More Heroes, HD collections) rarely sell as well or make as much money. And even these games are seen as "cash grabs" of one sort or another.

4. Don't forget the increase in XBLA and PSN games, which tend to be greater in number than disc-based game releases as it is.

I think it's easy to focus on the subject with a bit of tunnel vision, but a lot of the things people ask for are already there. Cheaper games are available, but cheaper games are also lower in quality and gameplay length normally.

[DragonKnight]

There is no way they could have lost any money because of the used market. For one, it's completely an estimate. He can't know who would and would not buy the game new or used, he's just complaining that he didn't get what he thought he would for it.

Second, developers DO NOT sell games directly to the consumer. They sell them to retailers. Every single bit of money made on the games that are released are from retailers buying up copies to sell in their stores. So how can you lose money when you sold all of your copies to a store WHO IS BUYING THEM BRAND NEW?!

There is a HUGE misconception of the used market as though it hurts developers, when the reality is that they are always paid in full for their games. They are just not happy that they can't take a single copy of a game and make profit off multiple sales of the same copy. I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. The only way that devs can circumvent this is to sell it from their own stores. You want money from the resale of a game you were already paid for? Then make your own store to sell games directly to the consumer, and rake in the used game profits. Otherwise, you have nothing to complain about.

If a game costs $60, that's what stores like Gamestop pay per copy of the game. If they order 60 copies of a game to sell in their store, that's $3600 the devs/publishers get paid by Gamestop for all of those copies. When Gamestop buys those games, that sale is final and they can sell those games to whomever they want since the bill of sales states that they own those disks. If someone decides they don't want the game anymore, what right does the developer have to get another, say, $53 for a disk they no longer have any right too since they were paid in full for the original?

It doesn't make sense. I'm all for supporting devs so they can make more games, but this misconception of the used market is all about greed, pure and simple.

[Christopher]

There is a lot wrong with this post.

1. Money can be 'lost' if the stores no longer need to buy more copies of the game, which means the publisher (not the developer) is unable to sell anymore. This is called supply and demand. Demand is lowered when people are able to get it for cheaper from a second-hand shop. Lower demand due to second-hand market is oftentimes considered as an unquantified number of 'lost' sales for this reason alone. There is a direct correlation between rise in used game sales and lowering of new game sales.

2. GameStop and other stores do not pay $60 for a game. Otherwise Amazon.com and others that sell them for $52-55 at release are losing a ton of money.

3. Developers only take about $6-8 of a game sold new at the full $60 price. Less as the product is reduced in cost.

4. Publishers also take about $6-8 of a game sales sold new at the full $60 price.

5. GameStop actually does not have the right to 'sell those games to whomever they want' once purchased from the publisher. There are actually limitations on who they can sell to, such as secondary retail parties and the like. The role of the publisher is to act as the primary provider of the product in bulk quantities, not an unaffiliated B&M business. They are allowed to sell to any individual customer as they see fit and in the manner they see fit, though they are still beholden to the local laws regarding retail sales of software/entertainment products.

About the only thing you got right was your first part where you are correct, it is an estimate. But, this is how estimates and statistics are used in the business. Meaning, they use the numbers that best represent the viewpoint they are trying to sell. Just like how PS3 fanboys will claim that 360s still have a 50% failure rate or some 360 fanboys will claim that every PSN user's CC and personal data was stolen and their identities are being stolen.

[DragonKnight]

1. There is no guarantee that, even without the used market, that the sales numbers would be astronomically higher as well. With the variety of places to purchase these games, a lot of brand new copies are moved. It's just that places like gamestop are bigger and more recognized but it doesn't mean that those are the only stores ordering these games. The used market is not as big a problem as is being portrayed when there are so many ways to purchase brand new games. If anything, piracy is a bigger problem.

2. I was using $60 as the most recognized example. Of course they likely get bulk deals and such, but don't forget that lowering the price of a game by a couple of bucks will guarantee that people shop at your store more than at a place where the price is the full $60. That's how Wal-Mart is able to sell things so cheap. They buy in bulk, lower the price a bit under the standard MSRP, and rake in the cash.

3. And your point? That has to do with costs of production, it doesn't mean that the developers and publishers aren't getting paid per copy they sell to retailers. That point merely means that devs and publishers are just complaining they don't get enough. There are ways around such problems.

4. See point 3.

5. Again, I was using an example. Why would gamestop sell games to competition anyway? The point is that once the sale from the publisher to the retailer is made, it is final and legally binding. The publisher and developers lose ownership of the disk copies and have no right to demand profits from a resale since a brand new copy was not sold, nor made, costing them literally no money in production. They aren't making a new sale and have incurred no losses that would result from such.

The point is pretty simple. I wouldn't be able to demand profit share from say a car I built and sold to someone, who used it up and then sold it to his brother or something. I already made my money from the product when I sold it to the original buyer, and he gained the product he wanted. In this situation, the whining is about not being able to make multiple sales off the same copy. How is that right? By that logic, people who have been selling things at yard sales and garage sales owe all kinds of manufacturers a lot of money.

[Christopher]

1. See my final paragraph. I never said they were, but by industry standards that are used in all market areas (automobiles, electronics, produce, textiles, etc.), this is considered a 'loss' due to the potential being taken away.

2. It was a bad example.

3. It has to do with a __DEVELOPER__ talking about loss of potential sales. How much they get, because they aren't the publisher, is a key point of the topic since you are acting as if the $60 that it sells for goes back into their pockets or something similar.

4. See point 3.

5. WalMart sells to competing businesses all the time as they provide a 'warehouse' service wherein they buy in bulk and then sell to local businesses for a slight profit out of their local warehouses. It's actually very common.

*** I wouldn't be able to demand profit share from say a car I built and sold to someone***

Yes, but you would sell that one car at a price point to cover all your costs. This does not happen with video games. Someone that sells a car gets the full cost and whatever profit they designate out of it, meaning it pays for itself. It takes at least hundreds of thousands of copies of a game sold at full price to cover the expenses of a single video game.

***In this situation, the whining is about not being able to make multiple sales off the same copy. ***

Incorrect and a complete misunderstanding of what is being discussed. At no time did the person who mentioned the 'loss' of potential sales say to do away with used gaming or express a desire to get money off of each second-hand sale of the same game. They don't want money from the sales, they want people to buy the games new rather than used. He provided an estimate of how many people played the game without having to buy it. He then used hyperbole to express those people as used sales figures. Those people, regardless if they bought the game used or borrowed it, were able to experience the game without having to buy the game.

This is, as he describes, a loss of potential sales to them and was a factor on DLC creation as well as their future IPs.

The problem is, they can't stop used sales and to recoup the costs with DLC, it would have cost them more or about the same to make it as they would have gotten back in profit. Meaning, they are in a no win situation with this specific game because the sales are in and there is no other way to make a profit on it regardless of how you bought the game.

[RegorL]

@cgoodno

"*** I wouldn't be able to demand profit share from say a car I built and sold to someone***

Yes, but you would sell that one car at a price point to cover all your costs. This does not happen with video games. Someone that sells a car gets the full cost and whatever profit they designate out of it, meaning it pays for itself. It takes at least hundreds of thousands of copies of a game sold at full price to cover the expenses of a single video game. "

I bet SAAB Automobile AB have been selling a lot more than one car of each model, but still think they enter bankruptcy any day.

Development costs are so high for most products that you need to sell LOTS to cover for it.

But I guess SAAB might blame the second hand market for their situation...

The real difference is that games do not age, they stay the same, as good or as bad, as when they were released. (Actually with online updates they will probably become better and better)

Online passes are fine, and will become more expensive.
If a game is 10 h single player, >100 h multiplayer and costs $60 - should't the online pass really be $50?

[Christopher]

***I bet SAAB Automobile AB have been selling a lot more than one car of each model, but still think they enter bankruptcy any day. ***

Because they create too many and waste their money on R&D more than other cars. Not because they don't make a good size profit on each car they sell to cover the cost of that individual car.

[SLLCKGT]

Problem is you have kids playing in an adult market. These kids think they are entitled to playing video games. Fact is this is just another business.

[caseh]

Adult market, since when?

[SLLCKGT]

Since when the hell was the last time you saw a 12 or 13 years walking around buying $200-$400 consoles and $60 games.

[caseh]

'Since when the hell was the last time you saw a 12 or 13 years walking around buying $200-$400 consoles and $60 games.'

Kind of a naive perception on the games industry. Its not the kids paying for all that, its their parents. In no way does that make it an adult market.

Video games have never been classed exclusively as 'Adult Entertainment' and in the same way with anything, for example a mountain bike will be paid for by parents if the person is too young to fund that hobby themselves.

The number of titles that appeal to a younger audience or no real age bracket far outnumber the games with 18+ certificates on them.

[JD_Shadow]

The outrage is because it's not JUST about the pass in of itself, but rather WHO has opted to add this. It's people like EA, THQ and Activision that has decided to do that. Neither of those three publishers have a good rep of consumer goodwill. They are known for doing a lot to monopolize the gaming market, and saying and doing things that many feel are anti-productive (and we all know Acti's boss Bobby Kotick has been known for saying things that no normal corporate head would be able to say without him risking being removed by someone). Quantic Dream, when Heavy Rain first came out, didn't put those into its game (though we now know that Sony is initiating these passes right after the highly controversial Geohot suit and the PSN hack in which Sony hardly did enough to inform or do anything to prevent it, so Sony has a bad consumer rep right now, as well).

If it was smaller publishers, or publishers who aren't viewed as evil as EA and Acti are, then you would see more support for online passes, especially on N4G.

And besides, you're talking about N4G. Many on this site have failed to show any consistency with what they say. They seem to forget that more mature gamers (like myself) REMEMBER what they've said in the past, and are not afraid at ALL about calling people out about that kind of thing.

[soundslike]

For the love of god? Use question marks? If you're asking a question? Commas are, your friend?

[theonlylolking]

Oh yeessss, N4G represents the whole sales of a used game.

[blaktek]

Who wrote this ? I mean I see your name up there, but I can't decipher the entity that wrote this.

Loss sales, markets... Are you financially tied to game developers ? And if you are, what in the seven hells are you doing here ?

We owe nothing to the game industry. They live because we feed them. They can whine all they want about the second hand market, but the fact is, they are no different from the music industry, the film industry, the book industry. People get tired of their products, and sell them back for a pittance ; then other people see those products that were not appealing to them at full price and feed the second hand market.

If anyone has done anything wrong in this scenario, it's the developer that failed to deliver a product with enough replay value to prevent a million of their customers selling back the game.

Second hand markets exist and will strive everywhere. The video games second hand market will strive too as long as we have physical supports to shuffle around.

As for online passes, they are a lousy money grabbing scheme derived from the stupid idea that video games are somehow above real world rules.

How is this industry any better than any other that they deserve to be paid twice for a product ? because you, me and millions of others like what they do ? Because they say so ? No friction with that either.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking you personally, mate. But your post, here, is built on quick sand. One last thing ; The video game industry is part of the entertainment industry, they make products, not services.

[trenso1]

i always buy used if the game came out already saves money plus i get 10% discount on used at gamestop it isnt much but it helps. my best friends only buys new game beacause they thinks used games as if they were like getting aids. i find that ridiculous and tbh buying used can help you get into a series. which is another thing they miss out on since they dont buy the game new and dont want it used but dont have money for a new game so dont buy anything at all. i on the other got into sly,jak,kh and other franchises from used games it allows me to play the game with out breaking the bank and see if the series isnt for me to be honest not buying used from to much pride is a stupid thing to do imo

[PixL]

First of all, I did buy Heavy Rain. I bought the collector edition because I knew this game would be something special. I do not regret the purchase nor playing the game. Even the price though the game was expensive. Why? Because you play it once. The creator himself advised so and I agree with him. HR is a one-time experience, hence no replay value.

I lent the game to a friend. Did the developer lose money? No. My friend would never pay half of his weekly earnings (yes, I'm not mistaken here) for a game you can beat in about 10 hours. He can't simply afford such luxuries. I know, he could have waited half a year and got the game for half price. But imagine avoiding spoilers for such a long time, almost impossible.

Do I feel bad about lending the game? No, not at all. I'm glad more people enjoyed the experience they wouldn't be able in any other way. How about Quantic Dream, how do they feel? They promised me more DLC for the game. I'd see it as natural choice if you can't really experience the game for longer than one run through the story. They promised, then they left me with my day 1 purchase price.

You can borrow a film, a book, a car, a flat, anything. Why should games be different? I don't see any reasonable argument. I understand online passes if you use their servers. That costs money, you use a service and you pay a subscription for that. I'm glad in most cases it's still one-time purchase. But please, devs, don't talk about lost money because it's not lost. At least not this generation when we still have physical media distribution. Sooner or later we'll go digital and I'll be even more cautious about spending my money.

[Tigerfist]

Here we go again... First of all this is pure speculation. Think for a second, how are we supposed to know or retrieve sensible data on the matter? You simply can't, one can only speculate and even so It'l be by a very slim chance of reality.

And also the developers have been supported by someone in the first place. That person will (for example) decide that the game is not worth to their collections and will therefore sell it. The revenue was already made by the developer, the consumer will regain some of is money and someone who will actually enjoy the game will buy it back at an affordable price.

Now I'l ask you this:

What if a person can't afford the retail price?

What if a person can get a better deal?

What if a person just does not care about the game and decides to "unsupport" the developers by selling the game to someone else?

What if a person wants to do whatever I want with our own personal belongings?

And how about old used games or editions that aren't manufractured any longer? That's part of the used market too.

It's capitalism, it goes both ways so deal with it.

And as for the online pass I won't support it for I think it is pure bullshit. So says "the consumer". If they want to counter this issue then find a way to appease the consumer. Afterall, it's for the consumers that they work for it isn't the consumers that work for them.

[iamnsuperman]

You have totally missed the point. I suggest re-reading it. Its the contradiction everyone makes. How they complain about no new IPS but happily buy (and proclaim about it) used games over new and cubically hate on online pass saying it is just another means to profits. They both go hand in hand. Its the contradiction I am getting at. You can't have new ips and massive used game sales. Companies are not going to take the risk any more especially if online pass doesn't exist

[Tigerfist]

I didn't miss anything. That's just the way she goes and the companies are the ones who have to work their asses off to appeal to the consumers. If they expect to save their profits the easy way then they might just have a big surprise... Of course there is a risk to all of this, but who says the consumers are going to support every single new thing, even with the issue of used sales beeing gone?

Alas the used sales thing is just another windmill that people decided to chase for a while now. It's just like that piracy discussion: If one does illegal downloads then one is "stealing" but if one is stealing would he even be buying it in the first place? And seeing as there was no direct material loss could it even be considered as stealing?

It's not exactly the same situation but it sure is taboo and the same usage of the "what if" that the piracy argument used. It simply is more discussion based on speculation

And again I'd like to point this out: As a consumer I simply don't give a fuck. I have the money, I want the product, I demand quality and I want it now. The one who appeals to my demands will get the prize. That's the world of capitalism I don't have to make excuses for it and neither do I have to be called and hypocritefor always beeing on the lookout for the best deal.

PS: Sorry for the double post, I've already asked someone to do something about it.

[maniacmayhem]

@superman

Waitaminute...

Are you saying that the reason companies don't spend money on creating new IP'S is because of the second hand market?

Did I read that right?

Because that is total B.S.

Companies can't afford new IP'S because of the cost of production. It takes millions of dollars now to make a new console game. And for a company to risk that on a new IP that fails is a huge loss. That is why we get the milked franchises and then maybe one or two new IP's. Guaranteed sales on an established title, then a release on risk title. Sometimes that risk pays off (Mass Effect, Dead Space, Borderlands).

Sometimes it doesn't. But it when it fails it has nothing to do with second hand it failed because no one bought it in the first place or not enough people bought it to make a big enough return.

[iamnsuperman]

@maniacmayhem You have totally missed the point I am making. Let me just copy and paste from my comment " Its the contradiction I am getting at".The gamers complain about no knew ips but go out and proclaim to buy used games which do not support the developers. Its the contradiction that this blog and my comment is about. I agree that some publisher go the easier route for making money but what i am saying is if gamers complain that there are no new ips and activity do not support develops by buying used games

[blaktek]

You are still using the magic link between the lack of new IPs and the used games market.

It's like explaining the numerous empty suburb houses by saying that it's hot outside.

As for the online passes, try to find one sustainable reason for their existence. I can help with that one : there is none.

[maniacmayhem]

@superman

That is not a very good comparison or even a smart contradiction.
There has been many new IP'S that have succeeded when released. i named a few in my last post.

your comparison makes little sense and has no factual justification. Just because people buy second hand games doesn't mean they never bought a new IP game.

Like i said the proof is in Dead Space, Darksiders etc, etc these games succeeded and not because gamers bought it second hand.

And support the developer? You forget that we are the consumer and they should be supporting us. We are the ones who put food on their table and they repay us by charging us for DLC, a sequel 6 months later or other crap.

I said this a while ago but i'll ask you the same.

Since you support the developer do you think they should buy back the game when they stop the dlc, shut down servers, or stop with the patches? How about when they release a sequel, shouldn't they buy back your old game?

Naw, they won't. They don't give a f**k what you do with it as long as they got their sale. But lord forbid you buy it second hand!

[Tigerfist]

Here we go again... First of all this is pure speculation. Think for a second, how are we supposed to know or retrieve sensible data on the matter? You simply can't, one can only speculate and even so It'll be by a very slim chance of reality.

And also the developers have been supported by someone in the first place. That person will (for example) decide that the game is not worth to their collections and will therefore sell it. The revenue was already made by the developer, the consumer will regain some of is money and someone who will actually enjoy the game will buy it back at an affordable price.

Now I'll ask you this:

What if a person can't afford the retail price?

What if a person can get a better deal?

What if a person just does not care about the game and decides to "unsupport" the developers by selling the game to someone else?

What if a person wants to do whatever I want with our own personal belongings?

And how about old used games or editions that aren't manufractured any longer? That's part of the used market too.

It's capitalism, it goes both ways so deal with it.

[kramun]

I bought the game second-hand, and if I hadn't got it cheaper (it cost me £10) I doubt I would have bought it at all. I buy a lot of games new that I really want, but this was not one of them. So you can scratch me off that mystical 1 million lost sales list because I wouldn't have bought it any other way.

[Christopher]

Not even if sitting next to the used copy at £10 was a new copy for £10?

[kramun]

Obviously. I was willing to take a punt for £10.

[Christopher]

I think the reality of the situation is that developers and publishers, primarily the latter when it comes to their bottom line profits, are unhappy with the ability for people to not be forced into buying a game in a manner that ensures they are putting money into their pockets. Not that this isn't the thought that most businesses out there have. It's common.

This means that going into the next generation, they will be working to implement concepts that ensure that they are always getting their bit of money that they think they deserve. And you can bet that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are working with these people to make this happen, because every time a publisher or developer gets money, so does the console maker.

Looking at PSPGo, it's a sign of what they want to do. The problem is that, unlike the PSPGo, completely digital is much harder to ensure and maintain high sales when you're talking about full release games. Especially if their goal is to maintain a 10-year life cycle similar to the goal of this generation and continue to push their other digital media upon users. And then you throw in DRM and security.

Seeing this desire to ensure they get paid and yet how they just aren't ready to support a fully digital environment, I am worried a bit at what it may mean. Will they sell single player games at a lower cost and force you to buy the unlock for multiplayer components via their respective store fronts? Will games start to come with license codes and limited use licenses?

[Peaceful_Jelly]

You people talk like if buying games used were such a great deal. Used game only cost like 3 maybe 5 bucks less than a new one!

[RegorL]

Depends on the game... Those who sell it second hand will charge whatever they will get. Second hand prices are the real indication of what a game is worth. I have bought several games for about $10 - but I really do not play them...

Some prices of popular titles, Swedish prices in USD
CoD BO XBOX $45 ($82 new) - no way!
GTA IV PS3 $14.80 ($37.26)
Heavy Rain PS3 $22.30 (no current stock of new or used)
Uncharted Drake's Fortune PS3 $22.30 (no stock of new)
Assassins Creed II PS3 $14.80 ($44.71)