PDA

View Full Version : Game manufacturers finally getting a clue about used game sales money?


shrike4242
06-05-2009, 12:52 PM
Sounds like they're more than a few years late on trying to get their cut:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/04/BUDA17R8RG.DTL


Video game manufacturers have long tolerated the practice of retailers reselling used games without any of the secondary sales going back to publishers and developers.

But the tough economy and the increasing number of retailers in the used games business are bringing a sore subject to the fore and contributing to a migration toward more downloadable content and full digital distribution of games.

At the E3 video game expo in Los Angeles, it's hard to get industry leaders to talk openly about the issue or its effects on future distribution plans, for fear of hurting relationships with retail partners. But more and more, developers are getting fed up with what they see as an unfair secondary market and they're looking at ways to maneuver around the issue.
"We would prefer to participate in the sale of our products, especially when we spend years putting one of these things together and we have to continue to provide support for all these new customers without creating any new revenue from it at all," said Pete Hines, vice president of Bethesda Softworks. "We're not big fans of that."

Retailers like GameStop, the largest seller of video games, new and used, have been buying and selling used games for years. The practice involves buying used games from customers and awarding them store credit, something GameStop has turned into a science.

Customers appreciate the practice because it allows them to sell back a used game, even just a couple days after buying it, and receiving 50 percent or more in store credit, which they can use toward another purchase.

After cleaning up the game, GameStop can resell the title, sometimes for just $5 less than the original price. On this sale, GameStop enjoys all of the profit after factoring in the cost of store credits offered in return. Game publishers do not see a cut of the secondary sale because it falls under the first sale doctrine, which allows consumers to resell software.
"It's a real problem right now and it's a loophole that people are using, and we're getting cut out of that model," Denis Dyack, president of developer Silicon Knights, said at a gaming conference in the spring.

Heavier scrutiny now
It's a subject that has long irked publishers and has gotten more scrutiny in the last year, in part due to the worsening economy, said analyst Colin Sebastian of Lazard Capital Markets. Sebastian said the fact that other retailers like Best Buy, Amazon, Wal-Mart and Toys R Us have thrown their hat in the used game ring earlier this year is also heightening the frustration.

"The game industry is doing good, but there are definitely losers and some of them are feeling the impact of the economy," he said. "In periods like this, it forces companies and executives to look at their cost structure and the retail channel is very costly."

GameStop denies that it's hurting its content partners and said its practice of selling used games actually promotes the sale of new games and opens up games sales to more price-sensitive consumers.

Tony Bartel, senior vice president of marketing and merchandising for GameStop, said internal studies found that 70 percent of store credits for used games are used for purchase of new games, enabling close to $2 billion of new sales each year. He said in the first 60 days of a new game's release, only 4 percent of sales are for used games, while 14 percent of new games are paid through used game credits.

"We feel it's a virtuous cycle," Bartel said. "The simple point is our trade policy helps make games affordable."

Bartel said the average selling price for used games is $14 compared with about $40 for new games, suggesting that used games appeal to a different type of consumer, while leaving intact most of the new-game market.

He said GameStop went on a road trip three months ago to visit most of the top publishers and share that data in an effort to address this growing "friction point." He said he believes the disclosure has helped prevent the friction from growing.

GameStop has an important stake in the issue because it enjoys a 48 percent profit margin on used games, which drives the company's overall profit.

Skepticism for GameStop
Some industry execs are still not buying GameStop's claims. One marketing executive, who did not want to be identified for fear of angering GameStop and other retailers, said the used game sale market is still depriving publishers of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new game.

"If they stopped selling used games, I guarantee our sales would go up," he said.

Video games are different from movies or CDs, which often hold more sentimental and replay value over games, which can be played through in 10 hours and then discarded. The challenge for the industry is to get consumers to buy games they'll want to hold on to.

Pushing for downloads
As a part of that effort, publishers are pushing more and more downloadable content - delivered on a timely basis - that extends the life of a game through map packs, weapons and new episodes and levels but requires the original physical disc.

Some like EA have included bonus perks in games that can be used once with an online code but must be purchased for a second time use. NBA Live 09 offers consumers dynamic information provided through NBA Live 365, but using the feature on a second console costs $10.

Others are pushing more multiplayer options for games, which require gamers to hold on to the game so they can play online with others. The upcoming Bioshock 2 includes a multiplayer mode, though its predecessor was hailed for its single-player campaign.

The final step is full digital distribution of new console games, something that's been done on the PC for several years but has been barely pursued on gaming systems. At E3, Microsoft moved the ball forward by announcing a new feature called Games on Demand for the Xbox 360, which will allow players to buy titles that are at least a year old, such as Bioshock or Assassin's Creed.

Other possible venues
On a different front, OnLive, a Palo Alto startup, showed off a streaming service in March that would allow players to play a video game on a simple PC or TV without the need of a console. Both digital downloads and streaming would prevent users from reselling their games.

All of these efforts, however, aren't solely designed to prevent used-game sales. But their effect on that market is something that pleases publishers.
GameStop's Bartel said he welcomes new features that make games more compelling. And he said GameStop is looking at digital distribution in the future. He expects GameStop to survive with or without used game sales.

"We have a great relationship with customers and we'll continue to leverage that relationship, whether in a boxed product world or a digital world," he said.

E-mail Ryan Kim at rkim@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page C - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Kuros
06-05-2009, 02:29 PM
Here's what I see from this:

1. Much whining about them not getting profit. They want strict restrictions on their games but don't want to abide by First Sale Doctrine. You can't have it both ways guys. On top of that, who the fuck are they to expect to get money from someone else selling their game?

2. Much bitching about Gamestop. Gamestop is just doing what has been around for hundreds of years, basic economics. Why buy a book for $10 when I can buy it for $5 and get the same experience out of it? Sure, it's a bit frayed, but the words are still there.

3. If they want more profit, they should offer the game at a lower price point to create more sales, (E.G.: Left 4 Dead saw huge sales when it went on sale for $20) offer a high quality game that warrants us purchasing the game for full price, (E.G.: The last game I purchased at full price was The Orange Box, well worth it), or try to bring in extra profit by providing quality DLC. Quality DLC meaning extra maps, skins, etc. at a fair price point, not Horse Armor or pretty much every DLC from Namco (Beautiful Katamari being the worst offender).

4. They can push for full digital downloads of games, but there are a couple of problems with that. The first is the storage space that is available on the current consoles. Either pretty much nil on the Wii or a small amount on the 360 or PS3. 20gb doesn't mean shit when your are downloading 3-6gb games, only the 120gb systems would have a substantial amount of room for downloaded games, but even then the hard drive will fill up fast. Add in the fact that not everyone has super high speed internet and that the downloads could take a few hours, I'd rather go and buy the physical game.

I do like the NBA Live 09 DLC example. Offer up someone a bonus for buying a game new, such as DLC and then offer the DLC to everyone for a minor sum. Someone buys the game for $50 and gets the DLC, the consumer is happy and the publisher is happy. Someone else buys the game used for $25, then buys the DLC for $5, the consumer is happy because he saved $20 and the publisher is happy because they still got $5 out of the deal. Now not everyone will buy the DLC after buying the used game, but for the ones that do, it's nearly pure profit for the publisher.

benjamouth
06-05-2009, 03:02 PM
It does seem like the game companies want everything their way, they hate the fact GS pushes used games but they love the pre-ordering racket that GS pushes as well.

There's no way GS could stay as big as it is currently (in terms of number of stores) on new game sales alone, so the game publishers can't have it both ways.

Also do they really think if they move to 100% digital distribuition people will still pay $60 for a new game they can't get any money back for, I seriously doubt it.

Blackout
06-05-2009, 03:23 PM
They should stop bitching and lower the price of games. None of these games are worth $60+ after tax. Half the games are broken on release anyway. Most games include an online component and it seems like every single game I have played this gen has had problems at launch that takes weeks to patch. Start charging less and actually release games that aren't broken pieces of shit.

manthing
06-05-2009, 03:33 PM
After cleaning up the game,:rofl:



"It's a real problem right now and it's a loophole that people are using, and we're getting cut out of that model," Denis Dyack

No, your problem is making a crappy game.


"If they stopped selling used games, I guarantee our sales would go up,"

Why does the entire entertainment industry cling to this fallacy?

LostRoad
06-05-2009, 04:14 PM
It seems over the years a lot if not all of these Devs think their games should be selling on the level of games like Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Halo ect. When in truth they are not that good. I really do not see if everything goes DD that the lesser games with be priced lower than these " blockbusters ". I think a lot of people wait for a price drop, or to find it used is because they do not feel the game is worth the MSRP that it put out. This in its self should tell them they need to rethink how they are making games for us the consumers.

It really is simple, if they want to sell more games, and get full profit from them, then make better games. Or stop being so damn high on your own game and price it fairly. I have no problem with buying games day one for full price, and often do for tittles I know are worth it. Though with DD it seems I will have to buy a game at a higher price point then I think it is worth or not play it at all. With things the way they are now, I can simple buy games when they are at prices I think is more suited to the level of the game, while still buying day one tittles.

While I do buy things off of psn and the market place, hell even VC, I still prefer to have a real copy of the game. If everything went DD odds are I would look into getting games though a different means. Which is something I do not support at all right not, even emulators. I just like have a real copy of what I pay for. Just my thoughts.

mtxbass1
06-05-2009, 04:25 PM
I like how this is suddenly a huge problem, despite the fact that gamestop has been selling used games for what, 15 or more years now?

Allnatural
06-05-2009, 04:29 PM
I knew these arguments would come up. So, if a game is not worth $60, but is a good value at $50 used (I'm using hypotheticals here), would any of you happily pay a $50 new price when it was available for $40 used?

mooshie78
06-05-2009, 04:53 PM
I knew these arguments would come up. So, if a game is not worth $60, but is a good value at $50 used (I'm using hypotheticals here), would any of you happily pay a $50 new price when it was available for $40 used?

Most people, especially on a site called Cheap Ass Gamer, are always going to want the cheapest price.

Especially for people who aren't collectors. Why pay more for a new copy of a game that you're just going to play once and trade or sell?

But I do feel for the publishers and developer as they need to make money off of these. But second hand sales are just the way things are, be it games, books, cds, movies. People are going to buy stuff and sell/trade it if they have no further use for it.

Digital downloads are a way around this once the storage and broadband availability issues are resovled in the future. But they have to be careful with pricing. I probably would never pay more than $20 for any download game since I'd just play it once and not be able to trade or sell it to recoup some expenses.

If they price digital games too high, they may make less money as many more casual gamers like myself would likely just say the hell with gaming. On top of losing the collectors who have to have a physical copy or they're not buying.

LostRoad
06-05-2009, 05:12 PM
I knew these arguments would come up. So, if a game is not worth $60, but is a good value at $50 used (I'm using hypotheticals here), would any of you happily pay a $50 new price when it was available for $40 used?

Yes and I have done it many times before. You never know what kinda shape something is in used.

depascal22
06-05-2009, 10:45 PM
Why does the entire entertainment industry cling to this fallacy?

For the same reason that everyone holds onto their fallacies. If you admit that the fallacy is wrong, then you have to face some hard truths.

I really really liked Kuros idea of giving initial purchasers free DLC but I have no idea how it would be implemented. How do you know if someone is the first person to play a game without writing something on the disc?

rumarudrathas
06-06-2009, 12:41 AM
For the same reason that everyone holds onto their fallacies. If you admit that the fallacy is wrong, then you have to face some hard truths.

I really really liked Kuros idea of giving initial purchasers free DLC but I have no idea how it would be implemented. How do you know if someone is the first person to play a game without writing something on the disc?

Should be easy enough to implement, IMHO. Bundle the factory sealed games with a 1-time redeemable code for whatever DLC the game will be bundled with, or start pairing new games with a set amount of PSN, WiiWare, or XBL credits/points.

BTW, I buy plenty of games at retail, some of which don't warrant the "Next-gen" tax, or retail price period. For example, I think KZ2 is a waste at $60, but inFamous is a steal at the same price point. The point is, I don't think a lot of games that are out now are worth it even at around $50 or $40.

Coupled my subjective fact with the objective fact that most gamers are looking at ways to save a bit of cash, then you will have more consumers buying at used prices more so than retail prices. That's just the way it is.

I like the idea of Free2play games for the PC, like allowing the consumer the download a basic "core" copy of a game, and allowing us the consumer to spend money we think the game is worth (kinda looking into BattleForge right now, and I'm really tempted to buy the retail key).

Maybe they could implement something like that for consoles, allowing us to buy a game at around $30, and allowing us to "pretty" up the game buy spending some money for DLC content. Maybe sell a game ala-carte, where Multiplayer or Singleplayer can be bought separetly on a discount. Or do what Stardock is doing, an only allowing fully purchased game to received free updates, upgrades, and DLC

But whether people would be up to that idea, who knows...