Top
40°

Epic Games' war on Trade-ins to Ruin Gaming

Gameplayer analyses Epic Games proposed plans to destory the Trade-in business and the affects it could have on gaming in this hard-hitting article.

"Scoring a second hand copy of a videogame is one of life's greatest pleasures. Not only does it show the world that you are equipped with a zen-like patience, but it also lets you be smug in the knowledge that you're a smarter shopper."

Read Full Story >>
gameplayer.com.au
The story is too old to be commented.
d2dahoopa3390d ago

all im going to say is

Cough * Spore * Cough DRM cough

that could of sold soo much more

dragunrising3390d ago

Destroy used game sales and games will be cheaper for all. Also, without used game sales, Gamestop will go out of business or wise up and sell games for cheaper. If there weren't so many incentives to trade in games, the used game market wouldn't be a problem. Because used games are the principle form of income for Gamestop, they push them like their better than new. There is something wrong in selling used games for $5 less than new. 100% markup, the consumer getting jiped and the developers/publishers not making any money. I applaud Epic in creating incentives for new purchasers. And why not? If you purchase the game for new and full retail price, you should be able to get something to show for it. Support the game industry and buy games new. Regardless of whether you purchase the game right away or not, the game will fall in price eventually and you can get the game for a more palatable price in shrink wrap.

Chris3993390d ago (Edited 3390d ago )

If I buy something - according to eula - it is effectively mine. To keep or distribute as I see fit. The grey area here is when it comes to applications/ software (ala Windows). However even windows, the pinnacle of restricted use software allows me to use it on a couple of other computers once I have purchased the retail disc.

This sort of draconian behavior is worse than DRM. Once you purchase something physical, it should be yours. And where does this line of thinking end? Do we move onto machines next? Is my pc/ console/ handheld "locked" to my account/ personage forever? I can't lend it to my friend or sell it to a buddy for fear that he won't be an "authorized" user.

Protect your rights as a consumer. I'm all for DRM and hard-copy protection, as it prevents piracy, but what is being suggested by this article is ridiculous.

Cheers,
- C

P.S. Regarding your comment over the $5 markdown, that really only applies to a title that is within a month or so of it's release. All software drops dramatically in shelf and trade-in value the longer it is out. I picked up a copy of Mass-Effect (brand new) for $14.99 the other day. The used copy was $5. That said, there are gamers/ consumers who cannot even afford reduced, older titles. For them the $5 version is the only option. While you and I may be well off enough to afford the luxury of new software, it is narrow-minded to ignore the rest of society.

Truplaya3390d ago

good point. If you buy the game 2nd hand for a cheap price you dont get all the content. Pay full price if you want all the maps - What's the problem here?

If you buy it 2nd hand you still get the whole game, just not the bonus maps. Its not like its the last half of the campaign you lose or anything.

dragunrising3390d ago (Edited 3390d ago )

If you remove used game sales, games get cheaper. With every game release the publisher factors how many games will sell and the percentage of which will end up in the used retail market in 6 months. The more incentive to hold onto the game and prevent second hand sales, the more it can be assured that people will actually give credit to the developers/publishers and purchase new.

Chris: if you don't want to pay full price...wait a couple of months. You offered a perfect example of buying new: purchasing Mass Effect for $15. In other words, the purchase benefited the game maker and you the consumer. What people fail to realize is that they are purchasing a license. You have the ability to do with it what you choose, however that doesn't mean your decision is beneficial towards the game creators. Have you ever asked yourself why games are $50 and $60 dollars? In the case of console manufacturers they make a royalty of $10 to 15 dollars off the top (reflected in the markup versus PC). Otherwise the rest of the money goes towards marketing, support, and development. Why support an individual that purchased used and didn't pay you for all of your hard work? I would argue that there is very little incentive to support software in which the majority of users are second and third hand users. This creates a ripple effect: the less support dedicated to a game, the faster the publisher has to curn out new game releases. We have too much shovelware and too few AAA games. We get shovelware because of our culture of trading in games as soon as we become disinterested; for some people, within a week is typical. I am not arguing against the abolition of second hand sales; only the culture of "trade in's" and company's that exist only because of them.

Chris3993390d ago (Edited 3390d ago )

I am talking about consumer-purchasing rights. When I own something, a video game in this case, it is mine to do with as I please. The actual code is not. This is covered in most eula agreements (which no one ever really bothers to read).

And I also do not know what information/ studies/ articles you are basing the assumption on that: "If you remove used game sales, games get cheaper." Really? This logic is flawed. Used/ unwanted copies of games floating around are basically what DRIVE the prices down in the first place. If a retailer is forced to charge full price for a game, they will order less and order safer (more bratz, party, and fps titles) - otherwise they will be eating the cost of these full price retail titles rotting on their shelves.

I agree that downloadable content etc, can be purchased in addition to a game - an excellent way for a developer to continue to make money off of a title.

But in the article that we are discussing the writer refers to convesations he has had with developers where the developer in question is talking about charging for an actual ENDING to the game - i.e. 'in order to fight the final boss, you must pay $20 and download the unlock code', sorta thing. Should we have to pay to see/ download the ending to a movie if we buy a used dvd? What about the last 1 minute to every song on a used cd? Please not that I kept my comparisons to physical entertainment media, so it is actually comparable. We're not talking about houses or cars or things like that.

Again, a critical part of the gaming economy are used sales. They are what drive the ticket price down in the first place. And really all this talk of developers loosing money? Honestly. Read that sentence again. Most game developers working for established studios are hardly scraping by. Gaming is one of the largest if not the largest and most profitable industries in the world.

We have already entered the age of nickel and dime transactions. Selling out our basic consumer rights would be a terrible mistake.

I'm really not trying to argue, but I think that some of you should read the article again and examine what is actually being said.

Also the closing point that the writer of the article makes really hits home. If you want people to buy your game, simply make a really, really good (or saleable) title. Basic business. As long as we are preventing piracy and legal copies of the game are being bought and resold as consumers desire, all this talk of "protecting the developer/ giving back to the developer" (we're not charities people, this is buisness), seems a little silly.

Cheers,
- C

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3390d ago
Mr PS33390d ago

Are the BoTs trading Gears 2 in already

Shane Kim3390d ago

I think Capps was just an undercover. The real "genius" behind this idea must be Cliffy.

Tyetan3390d ago

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Make games that are worth $59.99!!! Gamers look @ the perceived value of a game and not the actual cost. If we perceive that the value of content is high enough to warrant $59.99 then we'll most likely pay it. Recently a lot games have released even though they lack content and polish. This trend has made gamers gun-shy when it comes to buying new games. It's ultimately the developers and their publisher who are to blame for the increase is second hand game sales.

Show all comments (15)
The story is too old to be commented.