Thursday Bloggedy Blog Blog: Formspring and Used Games
By maryvarn on August 26th, 2010Posted In: NPC Blog,NPC News,Random Geekiness
Hello, Non-Player Readers! (NPR’s? Hmm, not sure about that one…)
Just a couple things.
First, I wanted to let you know that I have a Formspring account, because I’m totally living in 2009. But I think this social networking trend is still going strong. I added a link in the sidebar to the left. You can use this to ask me whatever, whenever! And I’ll even answer you! You don’t have to sign up for anything to ask a question.
Second, this Penny Arcade comic and blog post stirred up some controversy this week, and I think it’s an interesting discussion. The gist of it is that the PA guys say that buying used games only supports GameStop and not the game developers, and therefore they’ve stopped doing it. A lot of people sent in tweets and emails, a few of which have been posted in the blog post and you’ll see them if you scroll down. Gabe’s twitter seems to indicate that a lot of the feedback was from angry gamers, thinking they were being criticized for buying used games. Sounds to me like a lot of people are being overly defensive, which is a common reaction when someone has made a personal choice to do something they feel is for the greater good.
I think the used games I’ve bought have been mostly out-of-print games, like old gameboy cartridges and PS2 games. I prefer to download games digitally if I can, and the $5 off a used game that came out recently just never seemed worth it to me.
I applaud the PA guys for supporting the industry. As independent creators, I’m sure they have a greater awareness of how publishers, developers, and creators of all types can stay in business.
Unfortunately I think the average consumer can’t always afford to think like that.
What do you think?
I’m not really seeing a difference between it and a used book-shop or a Video shop selling old rentals, so to me it’s very weird to suddenly enforce. How far back does it go – how about used copies of a 2008 game encouraging a younger buyer to pick up this year’s version? We’re supposed to keep old games, as doorstops?
I thought it was quite obvious that PA was poking fun at the ignorance of people who claim to be supporting the gaming industry by purchasing used games from a third party. I have no qualms over the used game industry, it is a quite understandable side product of the game developing industry. Video games are pricey, and worth the money for myself; however there exist a large group of people who will not pay full price for a game, when a less expensive option is available. This is a feature inherent in many consumer industries, ‘scratch and dent’ sections of furniture stores, used automobile lots, used bookstores, second hand record stores, etc, etc.
I don’t really shop in used game shops all that much, but I do practice time delay gaming. Paying full retail price for the latest shiniest thing is ridiculous at the prices the market is asking right now. I’ll give the developers my money, but they’re getting it two years later when the Game of the Year edition has come out with all the bonus content at a third of the original price.
Hmm makes me wonder if when I purchase that used CD at a garage sale, am I going to get hounded by the RIAA for copyright infringement. Just messing.
I totally understand that the publisher of games won’t back and game that is being bought used. To be honest you buy a car used and don’t expect the full warranty to transfer to you so why should we expect the same from a game that costs $50 to start with.
Think though… When they sold a copy of the game, they sold with it any support they intend to provide. If that game is (legitimately) sold to another, the publisher *may* have net increased costs in that they have to *continue* supporting that copy, but they have no increased responsibility. Consider, for instance, that the original user may have to reinstall after a crash, or after an upgrade. It’s the same support work.
When I buy a used car, I expect that part of the purchase price is to cover the added benefit given by the remainder of the term of any warranty. Specifically, the manufacturer’s warranty on powertrain or non-wear items. “Extended warranties” I feel SHOULD be transferrable, but … it’s why I read the fine print.
I think that the assumption that game developers get nothing from the used game market is fallacious. A lot of games have little or no replay value (although admittedly with online content, that is getting to be less and less of an issue.) However, if I know a game is completable in 10-15 hours, there is no way that I would consider buying it for 60 dollars unless I know there is a resale value at the end of my playing it. This brings the cost to me down to a more reasonable 30-40 dollars (at a minimum) and makes the demand for a newly released game higher for people like me who would otherwise wait for the game to come down in price. Thus the gaming industry sees a higher demand for their new releases than they would without the used game market.
There are many sides to this thorny issue and I doubt it’s going to be solved any time soon. There is no “easy” solution that everyone can agree on and because tens of millions of dollars are at stake the money only makes the problem more intractable. Its hard to tell people to purchase more for a product. Its counter intuitive to everything modern economics hold dear.
A few points.
1) I’d just like to point out that thank god the gaming industry is not the music industry. At least there still is a finnancial motivation for publishers to put out high quality games and feel confident that their intelectual property has some security.
2) Consumer Alleigance. I know for myself that I will wait perhaps a year or more to purchase games that look interesting to me. They are cheaper and there is less risk involved if the games turns out to be a dud. However, publishers such a Blizzard and Bioware (as two examples) put out such highly addictive excellent games that i am right there with my pre-order purchasing new games. They are worth it, and as such are not as effected as less quality publishers.
3) Solution. Publishers should give incentives to buying game material new. Bioware already does it sucessfully by including downloadable content only available to once to newly purchased copies. That leaves the option of paying for that extra content in the hands of the consumer and gives them an incentive to buy a new game.
Responses to each point in order:
1) The primary reason why they feel confident is because if/when you find a ripped copy of the game, it can only be burned onto a particular type of DVD in order to function, and the system will only recognize said DVD if you hack it to do as such. Even then, chances are the quality of the game will dwindle; I have a buddy with over a hundred Dreamcast games someone burned for him, and all of them skip and freeze constantly.
2) I feel the exact same way. Far too many gamers seem to just buy/play anything and everything, so it’s somewhat hard to influence the industry. We need more people who can buy wisely, wait for a mediocre game to go on sale, only Reserve when they know it’s something they really want, and knowingly support great companies.
3) DLC is the precise problem that brought this whole debate back to life. As I mentioned down below, the article that got PA’s attention was about THQ’s new wrestling game having it’s online function locked, and the only way to unlock it is either by spending $10 for a code, or by getting one for free when you buy the game New. While this does bring it do a pretty big low, it is, by all purposes, an incentive to buy new.
I have no qualms about buying second-hand. Doctrine of First Sale, and all. … and some of the corollaries:
- services attached to the game (IE subscription fees) are not necessarily part of the game itself,
- If the publisher deliberately restricts what parts of a game (outside of services) is transferable when you resell the game, that game is defective, and I will not buy it. That is, if I give up all my interest (copies, etc) of a game, ALL of it should transfer. DLC and all.
Similarly, I feel EULAs are unsupported by law when applied to anything other than continuing services. That is, a EULA for a WoW subscription is justified because of the continuing relationship. A EULA for a stand-alone, offline game is not. I already bought the game/book/whatever. You can’t tack on terms after that.
Having said that, I went out and bought a new copy of the DRM-free version of Civ IV specifically to support that business model.
I use my wallet to vote for the kind of game I want to see. I enjoy games that are quirky, edgy, or whimsical, so I buy those new *at release* so the sales figures look good to the suits and they hopefully release more of what I like. If I only mildly care about your game (or I know you’ll keep pumping out sequels regardless), then an awesome pre-order bonus or giveaway is probably your only way to entice me into buying. Otherwise I’m content to wait until it hits bargain rates. I have no moral quandary with acquiring most of my games second-hand.
I also don’t like purchasing used from the game shops, because their standards for buy-back are practically non-existent. I much prefer the open used market (ebay/half.com) where condition and completeness have an actual impact on the price. Best of all are the online trading services that let me connect with other adult gamers who treat their possessions well (<3 Goozex).
Here’s the thing about used games: They’ve already been purchased once, so the moneygrubbing game publisher has made their profit from it. After the gamer stays up all night beating it, it’s just taking up space. They can then trade in that game for credit toward more new games to get bored with, trade in for credit, etc.
Also, another point: I’m glad that the guys at PA can afford to keep paying for new games. it must be great having a highly successful website that has its own bloody convention every year. Those of us with REAL JOBS and real bills like to save money every chance we get. Having to pay full price for the latest game that’s identical to most of the other garbage out there (except it has a higher Roman number or year after its title) is insane.
This is almost as bad as when they said software piracy would kill the industry…
I paid to go see Inception and Avatar once each, and those movies both made profits. Meanwhile, I paid to go see Scott Pilgrim only once, and it bombed. So what happened? I paid my money, why did those other movies make a profit, while Scott Pilgrim is still struggling to stay up in the Box Office?
Just because a game got purchased, and then subsequently sold doesn’t necessarily mean the game publisher made a profit of it. And for that matter, you’d really rather have Gamestop receive your business, even though the money they earn can’t and probably won’t go into making the games you play any better? Try selling the games you don’t want on eBay or Amazon; you’re guaranteed to get more back from them than you would even selling on credit to Gamestop.
Sorry, Scott Pilgrim Flopped, not Bombed. Terminology error.
well technically the PA guys are correct. I bought game awesome for awesome system…The store I purchased it in, the developers, producers and so on all made money off that purchase and that’s all they are expected to recieve. I beat game awesome which turned out to be not such a great game, but meh I went through it got all the achievements, trophies, cookies, lol shots. I take the game back to the store and “sell” it back to them…for store credit of course, which I then purchase game I heard this was awesome from the used rack. Now game I Heard This Was Awesome has already been sold once, at least. The store already made it’s money on it when it was purchased as new, as did the developers and so on. I’m buying it used. Usually the price difference is only like 5 – 10 bucks off of new, unless you are buying something way old. So I buy used game I Heard This Was Awesome. The only place making money on it is the game store you bought it from. Yeah I got it cheaper then usual because I used store credit from when I “sold” back my previous game, but that game is still sold twice. Once at original price, second time at “used” price. Used price is 98% of the time still way marked up over what it actually cost to recieve said game. So how many times does I Heard This Was Awesome get bought…sold back…bought again…and so on?
Which leads me to my next question. Why buy Games? It used to be, back in the day, that it was cheaper to buy a game and play it out and sell it back then it was to rent said game. But now with services like Gamefly….keep it as long as you like and send it back. You save money hand over fist.
personaly I don’t buy used games. I never have. Not just because it’s used. but why save 5-10 bucks buying a used game that will probably fail you when you get to that kick -ss part when you can just buy it brand new.
Why does my Dad buy DVD’s even though my Grandpa has Netflix and can rip-and-burn anything we could ever want? Simply enough, some people like the ability to own the actual thing instead of just renting or owning a copy of it. I, for one, love Square-Enix and Level 5, and will always buy their games New to show my support. I also don’t sell my games anymore, because I’ve found that A. I get a great deal of enjoyment playing them over again after a year or longer has passed, and B. any time I sold a game, I’d end up wanting to play it again after so many years have passed.
The only games I buy are ones I know I have enjoyed or know it will be a long -ss game. Examples: Batman Arkham Asylum Collectors edition, Every Final Fantasy Game, Fallout 3 Collectors edition for PS3 and Game of the Year edition 360 (I didn’t know the DLC was going to be 360 exclusive), Oblivion and I can go on. I actually have a good library of games. However I always rent my games to see if I’m even going to like it and if it will have any replay value. If I walk through a game and it takes no real effort, Dante’s Inferno for example, and I can walk through it even easier the second time, because I now know where everything is. it’s not worth buying. As for your example of your grandpa having netflix and can rip and burn whatever….I don’t support piracy, I don’t rip and burn any of the movies I get from netflix, in fact 98% of what I watch is on demand. I also don’t and have never sold my games off to a gamestore. I’m glad you could take an example and make it seem like it was something more then that. \m/@.@\m/
I’ll admit piracy is bad, but what my grandpa does is sort of low-end on the totem pole in terms of illegality; he pays for the service, he only burns them so he has a large collection of options instead of the handful of options Netflix allows him to keep at a time, and he doesn’t sell them. I don’t even think he passes them out to anyone, he only occasionally burns us a copy of something we want cuz we’re family.
I don’t have the ability to rent, only because my parents don’t rent anything and won’t cough up the cash to let me subscribe to Gamefly, so I have to be a bit of a cautious shopper when looking for a new game. I only have a PS2 and DS, though, so on one side it’s buy used or buy nothing at all, and on the other not only am I far more prone to find it New if I’m looking for it still in the box, but the difference in cost between new and used is even smaller than console games, so I’ll usually just get it new. My collection houses most RPG series, such as the Final Fantasies, Dragon Quests, Suikodens, Pokemon and Tales, as well as various Megaman, Castlevania, and Zelda/Mario games.
I buy used games because I don’t see the price of a new game as justifiable.
This is not true for all games just for the ones I by used versions of.
OK, it seems most of the people here didn’t read any further than what PA claimed on their site. Tycho has a link to the article that sparked everything, and in it, THQ, the culprits claiming the used game purchases cheat developers, have decided to “lock out” the online capabilities of their new wrestling game, and when you buy it new, you get a one-time-use code that unlocks online; if you don’t buy new, you have to pay an additional $10 or so for online play. This is less about the all-encompassing matter of used sales vs. new sales and lies more in the domain of DLC, and how it both “lines the greedy developer’s pockets” while simultaneously “screwing” anyone who buys the game used.
With the options of waiting a few months after release and/or buying used being utilized to their utmost extent by most consumers, the developers are probably earning less and less for each game release in these last few years. DLC affords them the chance to persuade people who would otherwise just go with used to be convinced to buy new, and ensure they receive a growing profit from whatever games they make. Although it may seem “underhanded” or “greedy” to most, if a gaming company earns more, they can then put more into future developments. I’ll admit, I’m looking at this rather optimistically, but then again, I don’t just buy every game I find looks/sounds interesting anymore. If I can ever afford to buy a new game – be it New or Used – I always try and get the best deals I can, both in cheap price and amazing gameplay.
You know what? The game devs are mostly paid by the company that employs them – even if the game totally tanks. And in any case, if they can’t figure out how to entice me to pay full retail for the game when it’s new (like Blizzard does – OMG I want the Collector’s Edition of EVERYTHING Blizzard!) then it’s NOT MY PROBLEM if they have to flip burgers instead of developing more crap games.
When the price is equivalent to a used game, I’ll buy it new, too. I bought Portal new for $10. I bought the Orange Box new later – for $20.
Make the game packaging worth something; otherwise, used games make a lot more sense than “new” games.
Thanks for the good discussion, and keep it coming.
I don’t think either party is “the bad guy” here. The game devs, publishers, and retailers, are just trying to operate a good business and turn a profit so they can stay in business, keep people employed, and grow. And the consumers are just trying to make the best choice they can for themselves, taking into consideration countless options.
I personally dislike the chain video game stores in general. Lack of knowledge in product, and cookie-cutter sales people just bugs me. That having been said, I am trying to open a gaming store where I intend to sell new and used video games in addition to other gaming supplies. Buying used from your local gaming store that is trying to make it, and make a difference in the community, is a good thing. Think of your purchase as supporting us. I know I am completely biased in this discussion, but I have always tried to buy my games from independent retailers.
/off soapbox
I think there is one thing the PA guys aren’t considering, which is that the economy sucks. Spending money on used items keeps money in circulation, keeps the kind of people employed who tend to have more spending money than “responsible” money, and that keeps more things being purchased as well. I support the economy, and for me it’s better to buy a game used than to not buy one at all.