 | Written by Dana Olson Published at 2010-05-19 14:25:23
|
4 
43 
200 
944 
By now, you've all heard the good news; EA, Ubisoft, and most publishers are simply fed up with used game sales, and they aren't gonna take it anymore. Even Blitz Games' co-founder, Andrew Oliver, stated that the business of used game sales is, quote, "worse than piracy."
I won't argue that equating customers (indeed, someone purchasing a used game is still a customer) with lawbreakers is pretty low, because that would partially be unfair to Mr. Oliver, as I don't think that's what his intentions were. However, he's not alone in thinking that this "problem" needs to be addressed.
EA's solution to the issue is to begin packing in a code with each new retail release, enabling those who purchase the game brand new to play online for "free." Ubisoft likes this idea, and will be watching the situation with baited breath. No doubt this is the holy grail solution that these publishers have been waiting for...
Single-player only games, which I happen to prefer (now more than ever), won't suffer this type of consumer control. At least, not exactly the same. Currently, you can purchase certain solo games which include codes for "free" downloadable content, which is nice - an incentive to buy new, and save a few bucks on add-ons down the road. I don't really have a problem with this. It is simply not the same thing as locking out a major portion of a game, such as the entirety of the multiplayer component. If you buy a game with such a code, you don't NEED to use the code to get content to play the game; you can be quite content never having touched the DLC. Not so with EA's new Online Pass system, as you will be required to use the code - or pay ten bucks should you not have a code - to do any sort of online play in afflicted titles.
If single-player games started shipping with gimped versions on disc, "fixable" via a pack-in code, companies like EA could call said code an Offline Pass. If you can't finish a game because you bought it used and you didn't get that code that lets you fight the final boss and see the game's ending, then you'll be experiencing the solo equivalent. Of course, we don't know if (or more likely when) this will start happening, so until such plans are brought into the light, this is just worst-case scenario conjecture on my part. Regardless, the Online Pass system is happening, like it or not.
You can't even argue now that it's "just EA Sports titles" with this blemish, as Ubisoft are pretty much on board this money train, and what sports games have they made lately that could even compare to, say, Madden or NHL games from EA? No, if/when they implement a similar policy, it will be for non-sports games, which make up most of their portfolio. Ghost Recon: Future Soldier, perhaps.
I'm not debating that there is an issue here - developers and publishers are not getting money when I sell one of my PS3 games to a friend. However, I no longer have the ability to play said game. If I buy a CD, and sell it to friend after I no longer want it, I can't listen to said CD anymore. If I buy a Blu-ray movie, watch it, and then sell it to a friend, he or she doesn't have to pay a fee to see the bonus features on the disc (oh no, I hope nobody reading this works for a studio and just had a light bulb pop up that says, "what a great idea!"). If I sell my car to some poor sucker, they aren't required to pay Mercury a fee because they didn't buy it new from a dealer. In all of these cases, I owned a physical piece of property, sold it to someone else, and now they own it and I can no longer use it. At some point in the chain, money went to the company which produced it, and after that, it's really not their concern what happens to it. Why should video games be treated more specially than any other physical object ever created and retailed to consumers?
I've heard all of the arguments. "Because they spent a lot to make it!" - Not my problem. They could have spent less. It's not the customer's fault that the entire business model doesn't work. We already saw a jump of about ten bucks on average for a game this generation. That doesn't cover it? Start reusing your game engines - that alone will save you a fortune. Killzone 2 looked great - why not reuse that engine and pump out a few other games? Some may complain that this would lead to less innovative games, but really, that's a whole other issue, and a debatable one at that. Good games will sell, innovative or not. Activision recycles with Call of Duty and Modern Warfare games, and you know what? They make tons of cash, hand over fist. You can barely notice any difference between Modern Warfare 2 and Call of Duty 4's visuals, so where did all that money go? The short, but polished campaign and multiplayer are not much different than the previous couple games, really. But people still bought it and apparently loved it, because I see people on my friends list playing it all the time.
Even I bought it, after having sworn off of Call of Duty as a whole. Which brings me to my next point: Games are too expensive. I bought Modern Warfare 2 because there was a launch-day sale at FutureShop. I saved over twenty dollars buying it new. I bet you a lot of people would buy a lot more games if they all launched at $39.99. Why would I bet on that? Because it's simply logical, and is the entire reason why a used game industry even exists.
Crystal Dynamics' global brand director, Karl Stewart, is the latest to speak out against the "evil" used games practice: "I think the model as we see it right now is a frail one." Probably right about that. "Having the used market is not beneficial to any of us." Wait, wait, wait. When you say, "us," you are surely not factoring in any gamers, are you? Because that's exactly who it is beneficial to, at least when done correctly.
I've sold a number of my games in the past, mostly to friends. Don't get me wrong; trade-ins at retail stores are almost always scams. EB Games gives you peanuts for a week-old game, and turns around and sells it for $5 less than MSRP. I've even seen used games at EB selling for twice as much as new, sealed copies! This type of used business is certainly "not beneficial to any of us" - except for the retail outlet, of course. They make massive profits on these types of sales. I don't argue that, but there's gotta be a solution. Making it harder on gamers is not going to prevent GameStop or other big stores from engaging in this ruinous practice; instead it will simply screw over unknowing customers. You, as a supporter of the Online Pass and systems like it - either as a gamer or publisher - might argue that the store clerks will be educated and will pass on said education to the unknowing customer. Wrong. I've never been in a big-name game store where the clerks knew what they were talking about. They were usually pimply-faced teenagers who were pushing pre-orders so they didn't get canned, or they were older guys who didn't aspire to get higher education. I'm not judging them - I regret going to college, to be honest - but if you're going to be working at a game store, you should, you know, be in-the-know about games. And that's simply just not the case in the majority of cases in my own personal experience. The point here is, many people won't know any better, and they'll walk away with a game five or ten bucks cheaper, only to get home and find out they have to pay another ten bucks to play online - or to get to that last dungeon.
The times when I've sold my used games to friends was not done because I'm a big corporation trying to screw over game companies. It was because I was thoroughly done with a game and rather than have it sit on my shelf forever, I sold it to another interested party who maybe had low funds or whatever - the reason is really not important. The point is, I got some cash back, my friend got a cheaper game than retail, and everyone is happy. Outside of the emerging digital market, there hasn't been another that entitles a producer to a cut of cash every time an item changes hands. I'd argue that games should be no different. It's a reality, and one that shouldn't really be frowned upon - as if we just smashed a baby in the head with a hammer. Those of us who engage in the practice are not criminals.
Trading games is essentially the exact same thing. Is this a crime that should be outlawed as well? If I trade Killzone 2 to a friend, and in return I receive Red Dead Redemption, what is the difference if I sell Killzone 2 to a friend for $20 and then they turn around and sell me Red Dead Redemption for $20? Nothing. It's the exact same thing. You can't do this at a GameStop (usually), so straight-swapping doesn't get bashed on as hard as used game sales.
I don't do it very often anymore - I used to have bigger cash flow problems than I currently do - but the biggest reason was saving money. Saving money works three ways - I get money to put towards something else (usually another game), the purchaser saves off the MSRP, and there are no taxes (in Ontario, it's a little over seven dollars on a $60 game - that alone is a pretty big savings). If game prices were sufficiently lower than they currently are, there'd be less incentive for even private sales to go down, because there's less of a savings potential. But, based on the current $60-a-game model, let's take a look at how this can potentially impact gamers who are not too snobbish than to accept a previously-played game into their library.
To do this, let's look at a few of the 2009-released games that I own. Here's a list, so we know what we're looking at:
Killzone 2
F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin
Sonic's Ultimate Genesis Collection
Resident Evil 5
Wanted: Weapons of Fate
Guitar Hero: Metallica
The Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena
Trivial Pursuit
X-Men Origins: Wolverine - Uncaged Edition
Sacred 2: Fallen Angel
UFC 2009 Undisputed
inFAMOUS
Terminator Salvation
Red Faction: Guerrilla
Ghostbusters: The Video Game
Demon's Souls
Wolfenstein
Batman: Arkham Asylum
Uncharted 2: Among Thieves
Brutal Legend
Borderlands
Ratchet and Clank Future: A Crack in Time
Tekken 6
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
Buzz! Quiz World
God of War Collection
Assassin's Creed II
James Cameron's Avatar: The Game
The Saboteur
That's 29 games, all released sometime last year, that I own. Of the 29, I purchased only two of them used (technically, one of them was given to me). But for argument's sake, let's just say I bought all of them brand new, on release day, at full price (this is the case for most of them, anyhow). If you sum the original MSRP (let's not even factor in taxes) for all of these, you'll come to a figure at around $1680, which averages out to about $57.93.
If I had saved just five dollars per game by buying them all used, as one who would stick to pre-owned games at GameStop/EB Games would, the savings are not substantial - an average price of $52.93 per game brings you a total savings of just $145 on 29 games. It's not worth it for most people, myself included.
However, things get a lot more interesting if you can save ten bucks over MSRP. The savings then totals out to $290. Calculate that and you'll see that at an average of $47.93 per game, you could afford an additional six games - all for the same amount of money as the MSRP total. Now you own 35 games released in 2009 - a 20% increase in your yearly game library!
What if you can save $15 per game? Or even $20 per game? It's not unheard of, if you take advantage of sales or have a lot of friends who engage in private sales (you aren't going to find many used games dented by this much at a retail store). Just to give you a few more numbers: saving $20 per game, meaning mostly a $37.93 average purchase price (very close to my Modern Warfare 2 buy, for example), will net you a savings of almost six hundred dollars. If you turned around and reinvested this into your game library, you'd own about 44 games instead of 29 - this is an increase of over 50% in your 2009 game library, all for the same total price of $1680. And if you add in tax savings by buying privately, there are additional savings to be had.
"Having the used market is not beneficial to any of us." Do you see? It is very beneficial to people who either are budget-constrained or simply smart with money (yes, it is folly to simply throw it away). It really benefits the gamer who may be more of a collector than a gamer, or those who plow through games extremely quickly.
Take away the used game market, and my own collection and purchasing habits may not change that much today, but in this economy, who knows what tomorrow will hold? It's in everyone's best interest to lower the cost to make and purchase games. But you know, considering how used game sales are supposedly worse than piracy, maybe we should take that as a hint? I jest, but you know, I kinda believe they'd almost rather that because at least then these whiners would have a valid point to justify their complaining.
So what is the solution to the entire mess, from the producers' points of view? Screwing over budget-conscious customers is certainly one way, but I'd argue it's the wrong one. Incentivizing new purchases without completely breaking the game for used purchases was a good idea, but it must not have been working. The biggest problem lies in the major industry that megachains like EB Games/GameStop, amongst others, have built around the used games phenomenon. But at the same time, there are used CD stores, used DVD stores, used car lots, and those industries manage to go about their day-to-day business without sounding like whiny little bitches. The industry as a whole needs to come together and figure something out that works for them and for their customers - the gamers - rather than tries to simply work around a valid and fair right that has been corrupted by greedy corporations taking advantage of it. Take a look at what works in the movie industry, and how other businesses survive when their products are sold from one customer to another person. Reach an agreement that somehow protects the freedoms of private resale, but requires retail to provide a cut of used sales - they can afford it. Go all-digital and drastically lower prices due to no physical production overhead. Bring back arcades, hold major paid pre-launch parties, or bring back the boomerang controller. Something, I don't know.
There's a solution out there somewhere that doesn't involve a lubed baseball bat and sore gamers' rectums while GameSpot is swimming around in cash. Figure it out.
13 comments:
 |  Josh Rai
|
Solution: one console future and a Steam like service of digital downloads.
| Dana Olson
|
I'm not convinced that consolidating the entire industry to a single company's platform is going to solve this problem. When there's only one way to get games, there are no guarantees of fair pricing - you pay what they want, or you don't play at all. At least competition keeps pricing as low as it is - imagine if a company like, say, Activision, were allowed to price games at whatever they wanted because customers didn't have any option but to pay that price or go without... It's a scary thought.
| Josh Rai
|
@Dana Olson: one console future does not mean one company, similar to DVD and Blu-Ray players a group of companies would set a standard for minimum inclusion needed and then any company can make a system as long as it meets the requirements. The reason this would be beneficial is Sony and MS will no longer take the $12 out of the $60 which means that $12 can either be dropped of the price (not likely) in hopes that increased sales will compensate for money lost or that is just $12 more to the publisher. Also Activision could price the next Modern Warfare at $80 now, MS and Sony don't have a say (as long as royalties are paid) and stores will still stock them. Hell they already did that in Britain with MW2, they charged 10 pounds more then usual.
 | Brian Kamm
|
@Josh Rai: I could be satisfied with a one console future, provided there were multiple digital distribution services foster some competition (as Dana mentioned). Sony and Microsoft seem to be (slowly) moving in that direction. Lets not mention Nintendo.
I highly doubt this will drop prices as much as it ought to. Reduced expenses on the publisher side is too good an opportunity to pass up widening the profit margin.
| Dana Olson
|
@Josh Rai: A one-platform future is already here, and it's called the PC gaming market. Piracy is the big issue there, rather than used game sales. There are a lot of other issues, many of which would crop up if the big three merged into one unified platform.
If the platform holders will lose $12 per software sale, in addition to competing over basically nothing if everyone has the same hardware, and no innovation such as Natal, Move, or Wii Remote will happen going forward to set the platform offerings apart (otherwise it would not truly be a one-console future, now, would it?), the platform holders have simply zero motivation to cooperate. The billions of DS and Wii systems that sell each month is another reason why Nintendo wouldn't ever want to give up their cheap-ass hardware in favor of a single level playing field. This is why they need to work together, but retain their individuality and reach an alternative solution.
And I'm fully aware of Activision's actions in Britain. They can get away with it because there are a lot of stupid people out there. See my post about the $15 map pack ridiculousnous. It's the same reason telemarketing works - people are stupid and willing to open their wallets. It's nice that some Tawkn users are waiting for an inevitable sale. It means our friends here are a cut above the majority.
| Josh Rai
|
@Dana Olson: The "one console" would be drastically different than a PC for one reason, closed platform. You can not modify a console as easy as you can a PC. Piracy would be no different then it is now on consoles. Also in a one console future there is no platform. MS, Sony, and Nintendo could make a box, but so could Panasonic, Samsung, or Apple.The major reason platform holders take the $12 is that they R&D the product and make it and sell it at a loss (at least for the first 2-3 years). However with a singular console, like TV's, DVD players, etc. the company that manufactured the box make a profit on each unit sold. And because a consortium split the cost for R&D that is not a factor either. Lastly Move, Wii Motes, and Natal would still exist as long as some one think they could profit from it. Nintendo could make a box and sell it with Wii Motes and Wii Sports. The Wii Motes would just be peripherals.
There are a ton of hurdles to get to a unified system and will not happen until there is another video game crash. Sony, MS, and Nintendo just won't let it happen until they go the way of SEGA.
 | Aaron Gagnier
|
This topic again? lol...well, my stance is probably fairly known since it's been discussed before. Selling used games in a retail setting IS worse than piracy in my opinion, but it's a choice that some consumers want.
Blah blah blah...Publishers this, distributors that...I'm not going to get too deep about it. Sure, the concept benefits the buyer slightly and corporation selling...but why would someone want to sell a game to store for $5 (usually at MOST) when they know darn well that as soon as they leave the store it's going on the shelf with a price tag that has $45 or $50 added on to it?
The code idea is decent, but a much better idea would be to develop high quality games with high replayability and continue to support them for a long time as to deter consumers from wanting to fuel the retail used game industry.
A classic example of this concept and it's success that everyone is aware of is Criterion Games with BurnOut Paradise. Personally, I don't really play the game much anymore, but it's a three year old title (which is fairly old in game years) and TONS of people still love it and play it regularly. As is the case with LBP and I'm sure ModNation Racers will also fall into this category too.
I guess to conclude, gamers have a much lower retention and attention span these days it would seem...but maybe I'm just speaking for myself. I prefer to keep the games that I buy or try to sell them privately since it's a better overall deal for me that way. Maybe alot of people just don't have friends to sell to since they either buy all the same games or, perhaps, just don't have friends at all and need to sell it to a store for less than 10% of the purchase price for whatever reason. I personally don't care what the industry decides to do because I don't buy that many games anyway, but when I do, it's always new and generally on sale...overall, I support it.
 | Jagged Doctrine
|
I agree with Dana on the one platform. Competition is what breeds innovation. Nintendo would have never made the Wii if it were not for how Xbox & PS2 were killing the gamecube and Nintendo couldn't keep up. So they had to think outside the box. They did and it paid off.
Rarely would we have a new system if competitors werent' working to one up the other to get our $.
If EA were smart and wanted to simmer the backlash of this $10 fee, they should sell the new games at $5 cheaper when they come out. That would pacify most complainers as the new cost would be at the cost of used games anyway. In the end their plan is still in place and as they introduce the next version of it (possibly limited 1 player model), it will receive less resistance.
The one downfall I see about implementing the 1 player model is that the only way to control the one player model is via Online activation of the code and not EVERYONE has online access that has a ps3/360/wii.
Now, they could use online control for the code. So, for example, Dana buys the game, plays 1 player mode..but he is also logged into psn at the time. The game automatically updates the database with his code. Then he sells it to me. When I try to play 1 player mode, I get dinged as having a used code because I also am logged in to the psn when trying to play.
So I then sell it to a friend who doesn't have online access..he's able to play the game with the code, because without having access to the database, his system never dings it as being a duplicate code.
 | BamBamBoozled
|
Sorry I posted my rant in the wrong place apparently but basically I agree with Aaron on the solution of just making games worth the money thrown at it and it will take care of itself. Also I think Josh is right that its going to take a big momentum shift to get everyone on the single platform but that could be in store too. 3DO was like $700 when it came out? 2 consoles from each psx generation has set me back more than that and this one does it in one. Throw in the backwards compatibility and well the idea starts to become less offensive than something like The Phantom on-demand style vaporware. It would be interesting to bring the focus back on developers rather than the big 3 themselves and then you really would have a fertile ground for creativity and ingenuity.
 | ralphie
|
to much words and maths
did not read
please reply, thenk you
sorry for my english, ia mdrom america.
 | CyanXVII
|
@ralphie: Why are you even posting on something that you didn't read. troll somewhere else
| ralphie
|
im not a stroll i did read it i was only jokbing
geez clam down man
sorry for my english, i am from america
Another annoying factor I see with this pass system is rental/gamefly users. I assume they love the idea of curbing rental as much as used sales. Many thing anger me in the game industry these days and this whole cash grab is up on the list.