RF Generation Message Board

I've been reading some articles on the Internet about publishers/developers crying that used game sales hurt their profit margins. With the speculation of both the 720 and PS4 going new-game only or download only (impossible, imo) we could potentially be in the last generation of systems where all games can be purchased in physical copies.

I remember a few years ago when DLC was still fairly new-ish, that some publishers were claiming that the download versions of their games would be cheaper. Clearly this has not been the case. Instead, DLC is most often used for taking things away that should be included in the $60 asking price in the first place. Day-1 DLC and DLC already found on the disc are easy examples of how DLC is all about making more money for the publisher and taking away content from the consumer.

Certainly on sites like this one, the potential loss of used games is a relevant issue and might make part of the hobby of collecting video games for future systems a thing of the past. While not important to the average joe who only buys two games a year (Call of Honor: Battlefield Ops 8 and Madden) going to flea markets or garage sales might no longer be possible for us.

Do you think buying used games hurt developers? Is a $60 price tag too much or not? With today's 5-hour long games I often think $60 is way too much.

At the same time publishers have lost the casual gaming market that used to buy the occasional full price game to the smartphone and tablet users that don't expect to pay more than $0-5 for a game.

Thoughts?

Abstaining. Biased opinion.

I will clarify a point you made though: DLC is not often used to take away things that should be included in the price. It's just that a small minority of cases make it seem like that's the case. There is a 1-2 month process to certify a title, print and ship it for launch. In this time, patches and DLC are often worked on to be included at Day 1.

EDIT: Note that I'm also against punishment for used games vs. new games. Instead, there should be a reward for new game adopters. None of this Online Pass crap...fwiw, I voiced my opinion very loudly about it.

Well, everyone is biased in way or another, why not join in on the debate (if any)?

I know not all DLC is of the bad, money-grabbing kind, but there are certainly companies known for this. The problem is that consumers fall for this (because what's another $5, right?) and other publishers will certainly want to start using the same tactics. It's also regrettable how some games are released riddled with bugs because "we can patch it later".

I'm abstaining because I'm not dragging this discussion through the mud. I can go on for days, if not weeks, on this discussion on my own, and in the end it always boils down to consumers vs. developers, and which feel they're more important.

Obviously consumers. That's the case in any free market. The video game industry isn't a government supported socialist industry, where it doesn't matter if the products are being bought or the company is profitable. If you can't turn a profit then clearly you are either aiming too high or people just aren't that interested in your game.

The Kickstarter project that Tim Schafer did a few weeks ago (the one where they made like 10x the money they were hoping for) shows clearly that consumers will pay for a game they WANT, even unseen, as opposed to the same, lame carbon copy of Call of Duty that everyone seems to make.

Also, why shouldn't I be able to sell a game I bought 2 years ago for $15, to recoup some of my money? Nothing is stopping me to sell a DVD or a car second hand.

Downloadable games aren't owned, their licensed for use. I don't like that system, so I just avoid it where possible. Does used purchases hurt the market? For the original publisher and developers? Yes. For the publisher and developers that get the money from the new games purchased with the trade in? No.

I actually don't care a whole lot about day one DLC or online passes. I usually buy new games, just months after release when the price is at a reasonable range. New game prices drop like stones these days (minus Nintendo), and I can afford to be patient. I don't blame publishers for the pricing model. People that need it day one pay the price. They should just scale the price down themselves over time to ensure that new copies are being purchased instead of used. My 2¢.

Looking back in the past, haven't video game prices always been high? I can distinctively remember N64 games being $69.99 , and certainly PS1 games were cheaper, helping the PS1 be more commercially successful?  (You'd think companies would get the hint that consumers like cheaper goods, game don't have to hit $10 like downloads but even new DS games at $35 were usually doing better than a console game)

Yes, certainly it is a myth that video games were much cheaper back in the day, especially when you take inflation into account. But now, potentially, you will not be able to sell that $60 game anymore after you are done playing it. Most of us here are collectors and therefor less likely to sell off beaten games, but the average gamer certainly likes to sell his old games to help pay for new ones. Developers argue that they have a right to the $10 or $20 of the guy who buys a game used one year after release, but I think developers could loose both types of customers by restricting used sales. Not only will the used game buyer not suddenly spend $60, but the average gamer might not buy a game knowing that he can't recoup some of the money later on.

And if the new buyer doesn't want to buy the game for 60$ since there will be less chance of recouping losses the price point will drop faster to try and increase sales.

Stuff always goes on sale. Stuff always drops in price. There is almost never a reason to buy a game at full retail. The only things i can remember for sure paying full retail on "recently" are MK Tournament Edition, MK Kollectors edition, Dantes Inferno, Borderlands, Halo.

When Borderlands 2 comes out i plan on not only paying full retail but having the CE preordered too. That is an instance where i want to do a little more to support because i so thoroughly enjoyed the game.

I definitely find very few games worth anywhere near the $60 price tag. I am not interested in the online features of most games and certainly not interested in any DLC content. Both are becoming increasingly commonplace so the retail games I buy have to have a very solid offline experience for me to consider dishing out that kind of cash.

I'm all for companies trying to figure out ways to encourage me to buy their games at full price instead of used, but so far it seems like their methods are having the opposite effect on me. Batman Arkham City for instance. I bought Batman AA new for $20 since I was late getting into the PS3 scene, but it was a very interesting game for me so I was happy to pay MSRP at the time and was just lucky it was relatively cheap. Loved the game and followed the Batman AC news fairly closely anticipating it greatly. Launch date is announced to be literally on my birthday, and the local EB Games had an open til midnight launch party for it. I had my $60 put aside ready to buy it day one. Shortly before the game gets released they decide to add the code in new packages that you need to unlock the Catwoman stuff. I have no desire to encourage that kind of strategy so I spent my $60 on NES carts and ended up buying Batman AC last week for $15 used.

Online passes, constant internet connection even for offline games and games like Resident Evil Mercenaries are infuriating ways to try and get me to purchase my games as new. I realize that as a collector I'm not the normal target audience, but these strategies are having the opposite effect on me and are pushing some of my new games sales into the used market now.

Regarding that kickstarter program you mentioned. I think its still to small a sample size to say that its a successful way to fund your game development, but I really do hope more companies (especially companies that are going they physical retail route) give it a try.

I'm basically at the point where the only games I will buy at full retail MSRP are specific cases where I want to make a statement with my money. I was very excited to see Catherine get as much attention as it did. I loved it, but worth $60.......... probably not. That didnt stop me from buying the "love is over" special addition to support Atlus for putting some solid effort into their game and marketing it well. Xenoblade Chronicles finally getting localized after a ton of online whining, they got $50 from me! Same will go for The Last Story and Pandora's Tower assuming they both make it to market over here.

Most games I'm willing to wait for the inevitable price cut, but in cases like I mentioned above I'm all for supporting companies that make a product with customers in mind.

I totally understand that game developers/publishers are in business to make money.  Therefore, I don't think that $60 is too high for a game (unless it is absolute garbage).  Games nowadays drop in price quickly anyway, so most of my game purchases are new anyway.  I have no problem with publishers wanting to charge $60 for a game, just like I have no problem with people who are willing to pay over MSRP on cars.  If they have to have the newest and best thing first, let them.

That being said, I think online passes are absolutely ridiculous.  The publishers deserves no part of any used game sale.  If they would like additional revenue from used games, they should spend their time developing quality DLC to keep people playing the game.  I was really saddened that Batman: AA required the Catwoman DLC code, but I felt the game was fantastic enough that I wanted to support the developer by buying it new (Granted, I bought it on sale, but still).

I also understand the developers standpoint for day 1 DLC and such.  I just find it ridiculous that people are willing to spend nearly $30 on costume packs which do nothing for me gameplay wise.  That being said, I refuse to buy DLC like that.

/endrant

As long as I have a tangible disk, $60 is a fair price for a new game. I remember Phantasy Star III for the SegaGenesis costing $69.99 MSRP because it required a special memory chip for all the data (from what I recall). People still bought the game.

Yes, it sucks that developers are starting to push towards consumers buying a game new in order to get the online access code. However, imo a 1-time fee to play it as much as you want, when you want, as long as there are servers to support it, is a LOT LOT LOT cheaper than having to pay a $9.99 or $14.99 per MONTH subscription fee to play a game (i.e. World of Warcraft).

An aftermarket for games on disk will continue to be there. Collecting games will not go away (people still collect vinyl records, for crying out loud). The thing the industry as a whole needs to be very careful of is that new consoles continue to support a physical media OF SOME KIND.

Imo, if people that rely on the ability to trade in games (and use it to fund purchases of new games) suddenly have that option taken away from them, there will likely be a significant crash in the console gaming industry the likes we haven't seen since the early 80's. Gamestop/EB may be vilified for many things, but since they are so specialized, they do provide accessibility to games to people that cannot otherwise afford them. This accessibility is priceless.

Another point is one that was mentioned before, when retail games get marked down, the price of the game available through your console for direct download is NEVER what you can get it for on the disk aftermarket or through retailers like Gamestop/EB or Best Buy. I've seen games that are $39.99 on the digital download marketplace get marked down at retail to $29.99 or less and the digital marketplace responds with?....(crickets chirping). The digital marketplace for retail games flat out sucks! They don't care about being competitive anymore when retail games go to their download service. The console gaming industry NEEDs tangilbe disks and an accessible trade-in aftermarket for no other reason than to keep pricing competitive among retailers and aftermarket accessibility.

I could rant some more, but I've got games to play...8)

They are just as ,likely to pull a poorly performing game from the market place as to put it on sale.

Games get pulled without warning which i would guarantee bolsters sales for way many games than people would normally buy,.

As a GameStop employee, used games are a part of my livelihood, and if that market is to disappear then I would be out of a job.

The whole DLC/digital retail scene has it's ups (games like Journey and Fez getting a semi-fair shot at success, abundance of new, original IPs as a whole) and downs (inconsistent pricing with physical retail versions). For example, Persona 2 on PSP I believe is $20 physical, $39.99 on the PSN Store. Markup much?

As far as pricing goes, I say it should reflect the amount of content that is put into the game. Case in point- Asura's Wrath. Paying $60 for about 1 1/2-2 hours of gameplay is unacceptable, no matter how good the story is. Games like Skyrim, Borderlands, any games that you can pour hundreds of hours into, I feel are generally more deserving of that price tag.

It's kind of dated, but here is an interesting look at the cost breakdown for Gears Of War 1. The actual development is but a mere fraction of the costs. Since games are now achieving Hollywood status, much of the money is being used for promo, licensing, and other red-tape worthy aspects.

http://www.forbes.com/2006/12/19/ps3-xbox360-costs-tech-cx_rr_game06_1219expensivegames.html%C2%A0

^Good article!

My post maybe slightly unrelated. I don't want to get into a rant about my hatred of DLC or digital games.

I just wanted to touch on 60$ price tag. This gen I hear people moan about that often. In fact I used to as well. I remember working at GS back in 2006 and EA & Bungie relased these steelbook editions of Madden and Halo 2. Both 60$ and both companies admitted it was a test to see if people would pay 60$ for a game for next gen. Now one can get angry over that except one thing. Games these days not counting DLC (that maybe the point of the topic and I'm really just having a thought) but games are a fucking bargain these days
[img width=624 height=744]http://i.imgur.com/mdx9S.jpg[/img]

Awesome chart.

Home computers were also thousands of dollars in 1992, that doesn't make a $2000 run of the mill PC today a bargain.

Considering the amount of money a developer spends making mid-to-top tier games in this day, I would say the price is justified.  If people want to play games with outstanding graphics on day one then they are going to have to pony up that $60.  The only way that this trend will ever be bucked is to start at the bottom.  Like many of you when I want a game that I don't feel is worth full retail, I just wait a while for the price to drop.  For example, I've had both Driver: San Francisco and Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine on my list since they came out.  Both were released September of last year, and I managed to snap both up last week for only $11.98 each.


I think very few people point out that side of the whole "video games were cheaper in 19xx" argument.  Especially considering that most people posting in this thread (even if they were alive in 1992) weren't buying their own games anyways.


NES_Rules:  Ahhh! Only one more Karma point and you'll be 2^16!

Video game consoles were cheaper though. My Master System II only cost $99 and even had a built-in game!

You also have to realize that carts cost more to produce than DVDs. 

Yes they were. Production costs supposedly get cheaper all the time. But gas was much cheaper so shipping costs have skyrocketed over the years to make up for the cart savings i am sure ;)

I have three points I would like to discuss.

First, those charts which compare game prices from 20 years ago. They are rarely valid. In 1992, games were produced on cartridges which were significantly more expensive to produce. When you bought a Super NES game, literally $10 of the cost was due to Nintendo licensing and production fees. This is why first-party Nintendo games were always less expensive. A DVD or Bluray probably costs about a nickel to produce in China these days, and that includes the packaging and shipping costs to North America. The $10-15 in production costs saved by using discs has been replaced with large marketing and development costs in modern games.

Secondly, the idea that DLC is bad for the consumer. I agree that it is bad for a certain type of consumer: the collector. For pure consumers of game content, DLC is ideal. In fact, a perfect game would be served "a la carte", selling the base game for cheap (or free!) and only charging for the parts of the game the player desires. An episodic game could save quite a bit of money for players who never finish the game. Multiplayer mode being an optional DLC would save money for the solitaire gamer. Imagine offering the music as DLC, saving money for players who listen to their own music while playing. There could still be "complete" games offered, but certain genres would definitely lend themselves well to a pure DLC format.

Finally, online passes. When a company calculates the cost of "maintaining" a game, via customer support and multiplayer server capacity, it is difficult to estimate the indefinite cost. Used game sales mean a particular copy of a game could be actively played for a far longer time than with a single user. The publisher can't be expected to support the game indefinitely. One option is to shut down the multiplayer servers after a period of time. However, this harms consumers who wish to continue playing the game. An alternative is to charge a fixed fee per-user for support. This comes in the form of online passes. This benefits the consumer, since, theoretically, the fees collected from online passes keep the servers up for everyone. Given the choice of multiplayer being disabled, or having to pay a small fee, I suspect quite a few would be willing to pay to keep their favourite game online. Online passes give consumers the choice.