Digitally Downloaded writes: "But the simple reality is that the second hand games market is a problem, and Sony and Microsoft would be wise to stamp it out. Long term, it would ultimately benefit us as gamers, too."
How does blocking used software benefit customers?the person bought the physical copy and should be able to sell/trade in the product as wants..It also means that we could no longer borrow games from our friends&family members.I'm okay with not being able to trade/buy/sell digital software but it's a whole different story when it comes to hard copy...
You'll get more and better quality games as publishers don't have to compete with their own games.
Ahahahahahaha. Get a load of this guy and how naive he is! If you honestly think publishers would make better quality games if there was no used market you're completely and utterly delusional. Do you know what would really happen? We'd actually see worse games. If they knew customers could not sell their games on after buying them, and there was no threat from the used market, publishers would start putting less and less effort into games. More bugs and glitches from less strict QA, even more of a heavy focus on DLC (because they know people can't sell their games) and lower quality all round. As we've seen from this console generation, publishers will do absolutely anything that they can to screw over their customers. To see some idiot actually try to defend the disappearance of the used game market is utterly depressing, because I had faith that people weren't that foolish.
That's true. Gamestop has been around for quite some time and their primary income comes from used games. Imagine taking that piece of the pie away from Gamestop? I'm sure publishers would get a lot more money coming in. More money = more games.
The problem isn't used games. Even without specialty stores, the used market exists online through eBay, craigslist, kijiji, etc... People will always look for the better deal, it's up to the publishers to provide actual value for the dollar because people are willing to spend more money as long as they are getting their money's worth. All of us could write up lists of $60 games that should not have been $60 for what they offered, and that's on the publishers, not the users. Then you have these publishers making deals with stores like Best Buy, Gamestop, or Wal-Mart trying to get people to pre-order games when the stores like Gamestop are the biggest problem for publisher bottom lines. Removing the used game market will not bring forth higher quality games. What will in fact happen is developers will know that there's nothing for the consumer to do if they don't like a game they bought but to throw it out, so they can easily phone in the development. This will be responded to by a fundamental shift in buying practices by the general user base, and developers and publishers will lose a lot of money. Guaranteed there wouldn't be any price drops either. What would be the point? It would be a basic violation of consumer rights to be rid of the used game market.
that's a hunk of bologna! I wish publishers would realize that I can afford half of the games I get day1 because I'm able to take advantage of trade promotions and pay off my preorder with a traded in game. If they take out used game sales, I would buy a larger portion of my games later down the line... and I know I'm not the only one!
Anyone who thinks used games are a problem is crazy just as it is paying to play a game 'you have bought at full price which is online capable for a machine you have already bought connected to a broadband you already pay monthly for' ONLINE!!! ....simple answer as with the example I have just given why companies hate used games?.......GREED
Dunno why he has so many disagrees. Get rid of the greedy middle man parasite Gamestop. You should be able to give your copy or sell it to someone else, but it should be illegal for there to be COMPANIES to profit off OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK. They are screwing customers and creators of the games. They are a problem. 1. Publishers make more money to put more of that money into the games 2. New IPs are less of a risk because more people will be actually buying the games instead of waiting to find out what everyone else says about them and then buying a used copy 3. Less content has to be packaged separately into DLC since profits off the actual game are 100%. Not to say that there still won't be pricey dlc, but at least they dont need to use it so much as a tactic to get money for their work. I could go on, but why bother. Get rid of Gamestop next gen!!
I agree with dragonknight. I would buy a lot less games and really have to research which games are worth my money. Microsoft and Sony will sees their attach rates plummet if they implement this tech. Both companies really need to wait until consoles are digital download only which will probably be the generation after and this used game problem will work itself out. It would be a mistake to force it on us now.
Blocking used physical games sales is taking away your rights, reducing competition and making publishers richer. I don't see that as positive at all. In fact, it very much mirrors business software where you buy a volume license, get a lock in, can't resell it, and have to pay exorbitant prices for it.
no. They will just pocket more money.
No it doesn't. Quality isn't determined by amount of revenue. Good games that are well made are better games. Taking away used game sales will not effect this one bit. Money doesn't equal this. Same thing in hollywood. Bigger budgets doesn't mean more sales or a better movie. Or else Waterworld would have been the best movie of the 90's. There's also no guarantee the budgets would go up any faster than they are already if used game sales were removed. Why can't people think anymore? Teaching for tests apparently. Except every correct answer is 'none of the above'. Whether a game is good or not is determined by those that make the game, not where it sits on the shelf opened or wrapped. That just effects how much money is returned to the shareholder on wall street as they decide whether or not to sell the stock and open a short position.
You know the irony, the better games aren't the ones getting turned in right away(within a week according to the article) for the 2nd hand market, at least not in sufficient quantity to make that big a difference on bottom line sales. They command a high trade in price even from GameStop because people want to keep them and play them. This article made a lot of assumptions, namely in the prices go down because of the used games market. That is completely untrue. Games go down in price because sales aren't as predicted, and retailers and publishers want to push out what product is already sent out in order to possibly sell more. Also newer titles on sale tend to sell better than older titles on sale. Also, if the only option for games is the new market, you can expect them to stay higher longer, which according to your article is what you want. I'm all for publishers and developers making their due, but I am more for consumer rights and advocacy. In the end, the consumers should come first, and it's up to publishers to find that happy medium where the consumer is willing to support them. The first step in doing that is making games that people want to play and keep longer. The 2nd hand market has nothing to do with game quality, it never has, and it never will.
If any of them do this I won't buy either of the consoles
But they will do this, and you will buy it,stop lying yourself. I remember reading same story's on the net for dlc, online passes, and drm pc games. The truth is that there are millions of people that have no problems with any of these things mentioned.
i am against this but you would be naive to think publishers won't find another way or making some of that money from used game market back used games sales is a huge issue first of all accept that 100%, and don't give me this crap about well i buy games so i should be able to trade. Issue isn't you its the people will will pay gamestop 54.99 for a used copy than extra 5 for a game that was just released to its developer/publisher. i don't believe this gen anyone will block used games sales but you better believe there will be more online and offline passes too. Kingdom of Amular had a Single player pass in a way where if you buy the game used you won't be able to get the single player missions unless you pay $9.99 expect online passes to go to $14.99 expect many AAA games to have single player content blocked codes. gamers only see their side and compare gaming to used car or music industry when its not the same. buy most of the games new even if you are buying a year after release. and by year 2020 when new consoles are in the market expect a 100% digital only see both sides of the coin before you decide who is right or wrong QD said heavy rain was sold about 2 million but than there was an extra million or so who bought the game used to play. so wouldn't sony be happier if game actually sold 3 million? would QD get a bigger budget for their next game?
People forget though that already in Germany there are gov't officials sniffing around Steam and forcing them to allow used game sales or trades. So while 'gamestop' might be screwed, the overall practice of selling games is not going to go away just because of digital games. Eventually it might even allow for trading games, though I expect a period where digital only game systems might not have this feature that first generation. Though at 34, I haven't traded a game to a friend in decades. Was a big thing with NES/SNES, so I expect kids and to some extent through college for it to be a big issue. But for anyone reading this, it probably won't be, because by the time it happens, you all should be out of college.
whoever disagreed with you are complete braindead morons
but I do occasionally too bought them used when I found a good deal here and there. so...it's a nice way to save money sometimes. but blocking used games also means blocking me from sharing games with friends, right? so...HELL NO! if they are still gonna do it, let Microsoft do it and Sony...you just stay out of it for now, damn it!
Exactly. It would be complete retardedness iF BOTH companies blocked games. The one that doesnt wins the console race as soon as it starts. Dont ever listen to any idiot journalist that supports this shit. They get free review games.
THQ produced triple-A single player games like Darksiders. They are now bankrupt.
If blocking used games means lower prices, I'd gladly accept it if the price was cut in half to say 30$ for a new AAA game. After all you can't sell it, lend it, trade it, etc.. So I think 30$ sounds about right.
The fact that they are eliminating used games is good! They are eliminating competition WITH THEMSELVES. Although consumers don't like this idea since they have to pay more out of their pockets, they will get a better return on their investment since buying new games will bring in more profit for producers, which will in turn lead to better quality games in the future (we'd hope)
i dont even care if they block used games. ill buy both consoles anyways. 65.00 for a game is not that expensive unless your jobless or just poor. Plus gamestop is trash good riddance
Since you seem quite happy to bend over for anyone and throw your cash around like a clueless buffoon (or is it your parents money?), would you mind giving me $50? No big deal right? I mean you're not poor are you, so you might as well hand it over.
i dont have parents and its my money. I dont have some low budget job. It has nothing to do with bending over. If you want $50.00 maybe you should get a job or a real job
65 isn't, but 130 is. 260 is. The problem isn't people not buying games at all, its people not being able to buy more than one game a month. "AAA" releases have lineups of games with 3 or 4 games A MONTH, you can't buy them all....
I just bought heavenly sword for 7 bucks used. Care to explain to me how banning used games would've benefited me? I guess I could've bought it new from Amazon for around a hundred bucks, I mean I'm not jobless....
I have a job and I still want your money. Clearly your responsibilities are at an absolute minimum which would explain your foolish attitude towards a price hike for games. Some people have things like families and grown up expenses to take care of. We can't all evade the tax man Mr. Capone. How's your syphilis doing?
LOL! Good one DK... Maybe one day he'll grow up and have a family with responsibilities! I make 6 figures a year and I still struggle with the cost of gaming purchases, after shelling out money for cost of living, supporting a family's needs, plus paying for one child's in University and another going in 5 years time. I've seriously cut down on my gaming habit to the point where I seem to only game on PC's using Steam (for the thrifty gamer). Paying 1/4 of the price of a AAA game, with a little patience, which goes a long way on the pocket book. Plus, instead of me purchasing only one copy I can purchase 4, for my LAN at the cost of 1 console copy. Games seem to be better on the PC because of the modding community. They fix things that developers seem to give up on, a perfect example is Far Cry 3, the PC & console version are vastly different because of the modding community.
You're comment was; ignorant, demeaning, selfish, careless and oblivious. Congratulations. Enjoy your job while it lasts in this decaying economy.
Capitalism sucks ass!People must have the choise in there hands; from the moment i buy a game that product is mine to resell or do what the fuck i would want to do;i pay for it!Not everyone is rich and $60 or £39,99 or 69.99€ for a game its very expensive in my view!
What is the president of EA writing for digitallydownload.net?
Some people just don't get it. All games should not be $60 when they release. I only buy AAA games with lots of replay value for $60. Some dev/pub should be ashamed for charging $60 for a game. If we take game stop out of the equation then the pub makes more money and the games should go down in price, and we should get better games.
Games should be 40-50. 50 for the games we know will sell, and sell well, and 40 dollars for the games that want any sales around those big titles.
Yeah, if you remove the cost of retail, they could lower prices. Of course, they could just leave the prices the same. Look at dlc, how often do those prices drop? Never or rarely and when they do its usually for a limited time. Why would anyone think that would change now? I find it funny people rag on places like GameStop for trying to make money while giving people a deal (maybe not the best but still something) but are fine with Microsoft and whatever unnamed publishers that are supporting this move monopolizing your options and hoping they'll be generous and lower prices.
"If they remove retail" Then why are games still 60 dollars on PSN and Xbox Live, heck even the publisher's own stores (Origin) sell the games at full price with taxes now. These same stores will keep selling the game for full price (with the exception of oddball sales) years down the road when that same game is maybe 20 bucks at retail.... You can't blame retail, its the publishers that wanted the price point and wont change it. They wanted it because "it was too much to create a game" Yet we get rehashed games every year using the same engines and sometimes the same assets.
The argument of games being too expensive to develop is a bit misleading... usually about 60% of the cost goes to advertising. I just can't understand that COD keeps costing 100 mil to make when all it is, is a new coat of paint on the old wall. You can't tell me that they paid their devs 50 mil for 2 years of work. He's some basic math; Let's say that have 100 devs at say $100,000/yr (give or take some make more, some make less) That's around $10,000,000 give or take a few $100,000. For 2 years that around $20-$30 million, and they already have the all equipment (dev kits etc.) paid for. Where's does the other $70-$50 million go?
I don't mind downloaded games from PSN or Xbox Live, but I don't want to pay $60 for a DL game that I can't trade in or share with a friend when I'm done playing it. Give me a new DL game for $40 and I just may DL more games.
You know how we benefit from used games? I wouldn't currently own a Vita if I didn't trade in 6 games to help get it. I won't be able to afford a PS4 if I don't trade in my games. I wouldn't buy a lot of new games if I couldn't get a deal for trading in old games. Think about that publishers and console makers. Take away my used game market, I won't buy your console or games. Not because I don't want to, but because I can't.
I had to do the same thing for my Vita; trade some games towards one to reduce the price for new hardware. Something else gaming publishers need to realize; after a certain time games start to get scarce and hard to find at times. So if there's certain games we want, and "used" is the ONLY option, explain how we can still purchase a new copy if it's not available?
Every single XBOX 360 game with the exception of Too Human (cause the courts forced them to remove it) is available for digital download 6-9 months after retail.
GameStop CEO even said that 70% of the games traded in to them are used to make new game purchases.
"Why publishers/developers would benefit if Sony and Microsoft dropped used games" Fixed it for you.
Even they wouldn't benefit, people normally trade in to buy new ones.
FunkyTown is right. I entered this gen in 2008 and not once I payed full price for a game. And from what I played, I made the right choice.
Someone's got their digi glasses on if they see gamers benefitting from this sham.
There are two types of people I really don't like. 1. Those who think they are entitled to everything. 2. Those suckers who do whatever people tell them to. In this case, stupid xbox fanboy slaves
cool story bro. --> livejournal.com
Oh, this argument again. Good thing they at least didn't drop the "buying used games is a bad as pirating since the devs don't get any of the money" argument.
*deep breath in* No, it really isn't.
I'm cool with used games but i'm also ok with online passes.
DROPPED USED GAMES? Maybe more than 50% of Gamers are not rich people and they rely on used games which is why gamestop is making ton of money from it and that is why other big retailers online or in store are getting on the program. If these companies dropped used games, more of them would take chances on buying pirated games. They will lose more money than they could ever think of.
Personally as a core PC gamer, I'm in favor of this. But don't take my opinion for it because I'm a PC gamer, I used to be a hardcore Xbox player. I used to sell my games to Gamestop to pay off other games that were coming out, and I abused the hell out of the "Get back another 50%" bi-annual deal. The thing is smaller developers are really struggling in this economy and if we can set a new standard for them with the new-generation console then we won't have to worry about some of our favorite developers getting shut down. Bigger developers don't really benefit from this because their making gigantic profits...but for the smaller guys...sometimes they barely make a profit after giving their development teams a fair paycheck. For example Quantic Dream is a fairly small developer. Yet their game Heavy Rain ended up on a Gamestop shelf as a used game 1 in every 4 copies sold. That's an extra 25% potential profit. (Keyword is potential please don't misconstrue what I'm saying) If you can pay $40 for a game but not $60..then work an extra couple of hours and quit complaining.
Heavy rain didn't lose sales because of the used market, it lost slaes because it didn't appeal to a wider audience. It's not about having to work a couple of extra hours to afford a game. I'm sure everyone here has the ability to support their hobby. It's about devs/pubs constantly releasing crudy unfinished games and leaving consumers stuck with a $60 cup coaster.
The developers releasing practically unfinished games is somehow related to games being resold? And Heavy Rain didn't lose sales at all...that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if the system of games being linked to a system or an account, Quantic Dream would have sold a substantial amount more of games. Working an extra couple hours was a joke and I've heard plenty of comments on N4G in the past of people saying they buy Used Games because they can't always afford the $60 new copy.
ROFL 'work a couple of hours' You do realize we are living in an ever deepening depression (and the biggest one in the history of mankind) five year in and this is just the beginning. Some people can't. Some people already are biting the bullet and working fast food with multiple college degrees. It's pretty messed up in today's world to talk like it's 1960's america and all you need to do is find one of the great jobs out there. No the reason why used games sell more is that they are cheaper. If anything, get the economy right and less people would be inclined to save the $5-10 bucks you get by buying used....or to sell it back in the first place. Real easy to do. But don't ask the parties, they're clueless.
"The developers releasing practically unfinished games is somehow related to games being resold?" Huh, yeah. Games are resold for a variety of reasons and consumers are quick to trade/resale a product they deem broken or incomplete. "And Heavy Rain didn't lose sales at all...that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if the system of games being linked to a system or an account, Quantic Dream would have sold a substantial amount more of games." Pure speculation. It could just as easily have sold even fewer copies. I find it hard to believe MORE consumers would have taken a chance on an unknown product without the comfort and convience of being able to trade/resale it if it was not to their liking.
"Used games are a problem" - is a word Publishers have been using for decades as propaganda and it seems some dummies are buying into it. If you believe used games are a problem, then let me tell you that. YOU are the problem. Publishers want to WIN on every title they release. That means they want to profit on every game they make. Doesn't sound unreasonable right? Well the whole point of making a product, spending time and investing money is known as RISK. And with RISK comes REWARD. But you see Publisher's prefer not to have any RISK but the market says otherwise (closing of publishers/devs across the globe). Someone has to lose, if everyone wins then the whole gaming bubble bursts. The whole point is all publishers compete on a level playing field. Some win and go on to make more games. Others lose and stop making games. That is how it has always been and shall continue to be so. So stop buying into Publisher propaganda. Furthering their agenda. Instead be on the side of the consumer. We are the one's who choose who wins and loses.
Well they are all Wall Street corporations. The place where no risk exists...until everything fails. They're just following the example laid out in front of them. Shift the risk to someone else. Well the public's butt is already full from getting shafted by everyone else. We're all stocked up here. Glass-Steagall
it's funny how gamers bend so easily.
If MSFT and Sony handle games like PC games had, it shouldn't be a problem. You get a key with your game, register it and play the game. If you sell it or lend it out, then other person does the same. You just can't have the 2 same key codes online at the same time is all. But if they make it that once the key is re-registered the original user can't register it again would be crap. I've been at lan parties where we install the same game and key to 8 machines them play on Lan and don't have issues as long as we don't try and connect to a public game. this was before syncing with Steam or origin though.
The biggest benefit would be being free from that stale smell/stank from unwashed game cases and disks that no doubt are a bacteria factory from unwashed hands handeling pizza, chicken wings, chips and butt scratches.
"Contrary to popular opinion, the reason that publishers and developers hate the second hand business so it not because they want to stop consumers from playing their games, and it’s not even the fact that they don’t make any money out of the transaction of the sale of a second hand game." That is not a sentence. Learn how to write then you can become a journalist? That too hard to understand?
That's a weird sentence, but... "Learn how to write then you can become a journalist?" ...this isn't a question.
Honestly with a lot of common and business sense involved the cons outweigh the pros. Everybody involved from Sony, Microsoft the game developers and gamers' alike would not benefit from this mad disconnect idea.
This is a great article. It stands to reason that the price of new games can,and will drop if used games are out of the picture as well -- thanks to capitalism, and competitive pricing. How many people, I wonder,realize that the reason digital games prices are the same as retail prices are due to contractual issues with retailers like GameStop (i.e. "we won't sell your games at all if you don't keep the digital price at full retail!"), rather than "greed"? The publishers KNOW they could rake in dough with cheaper digital sales, but they cannot risk losing the business from shops like GameStop. Without the retailer cut,and the cost-of-goods, the profit on a $30 digital download is the same as a physical $60 sale -- except you sell a lot more at that price! For reference, physical games are sold to retail at about $37 each. Games are manufactured at about $6-8 each. 3rd party publishers also have to pay $8-$10 per game as a licensing fee, to make a PS3/360/Wii game available on those systems. Because they buy them at ~$37, retailers make about $23 in profit on a new $60 game. Since they buy used $60 games for about $15 from the consumer (actually, they buy them for $15 store credit, which doesn't really equate to cash), they make $40 profit on a $55 used title. Hmm $23 per sale, or $40 per sale... which will the retailer prefer? It's a poisonous system that benefits the retailer far more than the consumer or publisher/developer. The middleman profits, while the entertainers and entertainees get screwed. I know it feels scary to stand against used games -- but that's *exactly* what the retailers want. They have you in the same stranglehold as the publishers. They are NOT looking out for your best interests.
Too add to that. If it's a Mom and Pop store. They have even less of a margin for profit from the new games as they pay more from a distributor which takes the $37 game and adds another $10 to it leaving them with $13 or less to make off of games. That is why most of them break street date to get those few extra sales before Gamestop or another large retail chain lowers the price in which they have no price protection from and have to either eat the loss or find some way to sell a game that is in Gamestop for $40 for $60 because they can't afford to take the loss. With used game the profit is greater and none of that has to be shared.
@ulf "How many people, I wonder,realize that the reason digital games prices are the same as retail prices are due to contractual issues with retailers like GameStop (i.e. "we won't sell your games at all if you don't keep the digital price at full retail!"), rather than "greed"?" I still fail to see how removing the used market would change the contractual issue between retail and digital pricing. Why would retailers drop their pricing when they no longer have to compete with the used market and they have an ironclad pricing contract to keep digital and retail pricing equal, the latter at which they have the power to set?