GameStop: Used game buyers uninterested in free DLC

@Greatsam That's right, go back to sleep.

"You are asshole" -- sounds like a machine to me...

"Free or not. It's not even worth the time to play through most of them"

what do you mean worth your time? you're saying if a bit of DLC was free you wouldn't play it because its a chore? i thought the whole point of video games was to have fun playing them. anything that adds more play time (ergo fun) to my games i find valuable. obviously you have to look at every but of DLC individually and determine if it is worth purchasing but i don't really understand where you are coming from here.

I dunno how to best describe it, but yes, the smaller additions to games don't excite me too much. If I already beat the game, a couple extra hours of gameplay in a DLC, regardless of cost (or lack thereof), isn't going to entice me to play the game again on its own.

to each his own i suppose. i hate the stupid special armor or cars or limited edition weapons crap that is just designed to suck as much money from the consumer as possible. but stuff like Borderlands DLC is great. anything that adds more game play is a ok in my book.

Lol I WAS AT THREE HEARTS, WHAT HAPPENED??!!?

Naw jk jk. I came up with the perfect example to show my opinion. Half-Life: Oppposing Force was a fully featured expansion for H-L1, complete with new weapons, enemies, all new levels, and a branching story from the first game's setting. It was a good $30, but it was fantastic, and it wa almost as long as the original game. It was like a whole new Half-Life with just enough differences to make it feel fresh.

To clear up what might be confusing about my opinion, I'm not going to bitch if a
dev gives us free DLC - I would just rather see them put their resources into things like Opposing Force rather than a $5 or $10 2-4 hour alternate, unnecessary side misson. If I really like the game, I'd be far more excited to play through a fully featured, closer to retail-length campaign with an alternate story, something fresh that I won't finish in one sitting, as opposed to just one more mission tacked onto a game I've already finished.

I scorned DLC when I traded MW2 for ME2 through Goozex and after I play my used copy of ME2, I'll move onto something else. DLC only makes sense when you want to wring every last bit of value out of a your new $60 title.

uhhh....no?

And here I thought that $60 was generally the standard new price for games this generation. Thanks for letting me know that they actually cost $75 when they include free DLC. You're a big help.

Maybe Bugz means that when they offer up that "free" content with a purchase of a new game, it generally means you are really paying $45 for the game, and that "free" content you get with it is what makes up the rest of the price.

@Devilsei

You sir know what im talking about.

Uh, or it could be $60 minus any of the FREE dlc...

Basically new $60, used a few months later $30-$40. Buying at launch for that DLC costs an extra $20-$30.

The only difference is buying used games at GameStop. For a popular release, they'll sell used copies for just $5 off which pisses me the hell off. In fact, they open up new games to put on display and then sell you that same damned open box for a new price.

It's not worth buying used games at GameStop. If you want used games, eBay, half, and Amazon have better deals. Sometimes Amazon has cheaper new games that GameStop sells used.

@ Raiki: My experience has been more like:

Right at launch:
New: $60
Used: $55

Several months later:
New: $30
Used: $40-55

You *do* have to work to find that sale price of $30, but you don't have to wait as long as it takes for Gamestop's prices to come down, and I've saved so much money (about $100 this year alone) over Gamestop by buying my games NEW.

To address the issue directly, which is Mass Effect 2, it's already been available for X360 for $40 a couple of times 2 months in, and Gamestop is still selling it for $50.

$10?! It's usually only $5....have things changed since my last visit?

Yeah generally unless its a big used game sale, buying used really doesn't have enough incentive to make it worth while. Unless the game is a few years old and has been price cut several times over anyhow.

Looking at any new release game tho your usually saving around ~$5 as a person who buys games they intend to hold on to and treasure over years not just a flavor of the month sort of player, I'd just as soon buy the game new for the extra ~$5.

Now when you have a X% off or a Buy two get one or a Buy one get one sale .... thats when buying used is worth while.

You don't trade your vehicle in after two weeks or three months though. The people trading in Cars on a consistent basis are turning around and buying new cars. The people trading in games on a consistent basis are turning around and buying Used games that cut into sales of games that are still expected to be performing and turning a modest profit.

You can just make a generalization like this, no one knows for certain what EVERYONE does with there money. I know people who have traded in used cars TOWARDS used cars, and I know people who have traded in used games TOWARDS new games. Gamestop even has special offers to trade in certain games and get NEW copies of games for $20. They just did that for God of War 3 and Final Fantasy XIII.


I am all for companies getting some form of credit if the game is within a new release window, but if the publisher is no longer even manufacturing the game or shipping it to stores, it should be 100% profit for the buyer.

Why would you EMPHASIZE the word "towards" by capitalizing every letter? It wasn't the important phrase in that diatribe. I'm glad developers and publishers are including free day 1 additional content to burn used game purchasers. If you want to buy it used you get a crappier product than the rest of us civilized folk. Silly commoners.

I buy parts for used cars from the OEM. They at least get SOME money from me.

Why does everyone bring up used cars whenever they try to rip on publishers for wanting to actually make some money off of their investment? It's a fallacious comparison. Like Dr Blight said, car companies usually continue to get money back from the initial purchase in the form of parts that people buy in order to maintain their vehicles.

On the other hand software publishers and developers do not unless the game uses a subscriber system like MMOs. Add to that the fact that the actual period of profitability of video games is ridiculously small (only a few months, at best, for bigger name titles) and anyone should be able to see that publishers really take a hit from the used game market...especially when its pushed so hard by large corporations like GameStop. A good chunk of the money the title will conceivably make in its lifetime goes to GameStop instead of the people who actually made the damn thing.

Can't we all just agree that it would be for the best if Gamestop gave a portion of each used game profit towards the industry?

Well, that would actually be a nightmare trying to figure out what used game is owned by what company in some cases, but it would be the ideal method.

Actually, I'd like it if they could take their profits and use them to build even bigger stores. I would love to walk into one and see a dedicated PS1 section and a section dedicated to other things. I'd love to see them bring back older games as well.

New games have their strongest sales the first week of their launch. After the first 2 months, a game is moving next to 0 copies. That's even without used games as an option. Places like Wal-Mart and Target are not selling any copies of Bayonetta or games released before Christmas right now, they are actually moving games out to clearance and new games take their place, or in Gamestops case, those games get pushed to the bookshelf bottom rack and sit there for years.

I am all for games released within a 3 month period paying back a portion of the sale to the publisher during this time. People are playing them, building buzz, and it makes sence, but after that time, the game is only going to sell used because the people who want to ply it do not want to pay that full cost. The game isn't even going to sell new then, so it should be 100% profit for whoever buys it back.

I think publishers should recognize this window, new games should launch at a normal price, $60, but to keep sales flowing, they should do their first price cut, to say $40. I say this because the game Likely hitting it's sales wall, and the value gamer will now buy it new still giving the publisher direct profit.

To prevent people from waiting for the price drop, publishers could give out vouchers for DLC that are needed to be activated in that first 90 day window, and it could even be for a different game in the publishers catalog. Or you can have the choice of registering 5 codes and getting a free game. Have a shop with merchandise even. Like I said, all these redemption codes would expire after 90 days, and when the price drop hits gamers interested in just the game or saving money can still give directly to the company.

After a few months of that the game is probably going to be out of print and the used game sales won't hurt anyone. Anyone feeling that idea?

no but used car dealers do.

but why the hell does the government get to tax me when i buy a used car? you already taxed it when it was sold new! they are making way too much money of that!

That would kill the hustle though. Gamestop actually needs people to buy the games new so they can trade them in eventually, get a bag of peanuts and then re-sell it for a 200% profit.

"Obviously they will make more money if the customer buys new"

umm what? On a newer used game that traded in for $25 and re-sold for $55 they make $30 gross profit. I really doubt they make that on new games. I'd think $15 on a new game would be pushing it.

Add to that the fact that they don't have to send ANY money from a used game sale to the publisher and you can see why GameStop pushes used sales so hard and why publishers/developers hate the practice so much...the pubs/devs make all the investment in making the product, and GameStop goes out of their way to make sure that they get as little profit back from the investment as possible.

"Add to that the fact that they don't have to send ANY money from a used game sale to the publisher"

This is not the film industry, this is retail. In retail you (the retailer) buy the item from the producer of the item and that's all, no royalties, no "sending money" after the customers have bought it. Those who get royalties from retail items get them from the producers of the item based on a percentage in their contract for the price of said item.

If I seem rude, it's the only way I can explain it simply enough for everyone.

On topic, devs complain far too much about used sales in my eyes. They seem to want us to believe used = piracy, but in used sales somebody had to buy the game new at some point, and there can only ever be as many used games as have been bought new, then sold (obvious as hell) to a second hand store. With piracy, one copy can technically be infinitely reproduced. Either way, both those things will exist so long as games are made.

Yeah devs really hate used sales (as do I in terms of GameStop alone since they rip off their customers), but it's true that the devs should be making people want to buy and KEEP the game, rather than return/sell it a few days after they beat it.

Today I went to GameStop for the first time in a while, and I noticed that the games they had the most of used were short single player games. Lots of Darksiders and Bioshock 2 (I don't really count the multiplayer for Bioshock 2 as multiplayer, not very fun in my opinion). Probably 10 or so boxes of each just laying there with used stickers (selling at like $55 no less).

@ColossalHat
Completely missing the point. Every time someone buys a used game, the only one seeing a profit off of the purchase is the retailer. Publishers get ZERO from that transaction. That's an additional person playing their product who is doing so without providing anything to the publisher's bottom line. In that sense, the used game market might as well equate to piracy.

Now consider the fact that games make a sizable percentage of their profit in the first two months after release, after which sales taper off dramatically and you have to see why publishers and developers don't like the fact that Gamestop pushes used game sales almost as hard or harder than new game sales almost immediately after the game is available. Gamestop's practices are pushing people who very well may have made a purchase that could benefit the publishers into dumping their money into the retailer's coffers, exclusively. Frankly, I don't understand how you can't see how messed up this is.

As far as devs complaining too much, until you've worked 10-14 hour days for weeks/months at a time in order to get a game out with the hopes that it will good enough to attract gamers and subsequently earn enough profit for the publisher to earn you and your team a bonus for all your collective sacrifices only to see the new sales fall short of target because a large chunk of the public who are playing the game bought it used, you really have no place to talk.

Doesn't help that sometimes their employee's don't either.

Ha!

But this is a case where the games come with the DLC when bought new, usually within the first few months of release, these releases when bought from GameStop used will cost you about $5 less and you wont get these DLC for any less than $5-$10, if at all because most are exclusives to the purchase of the game as a new product, and I can guarantee you that if for some reason or another the person sell GameStop the game with the code still intact you won't get that code card.

Yeah, I call that a broken game. I have no hesitation to say that DLC should have been included in the game from the start. The programmers are stripping stuff out and labeling them "DLC" to convince us a value is at hand for an expensive investment.

If I can land a game half off or more, I'm not caring.

To the posters that claim the buyer doesn't know anything about DLC, I do. And if the DLC was compelling from the start, I'd pay full price. The DLC is never compelling. So, it's a moot point to complain about not getting something that I never intended to use.

i think they're right, I buy most games used and rarely get DLC even if it's free.
A few free maps wont tempt me to pay $60.

gotta agree with you.....and I gotta disagree with the GameStop guy's statement too....Im interested in DLC if its a game I am highly interested in or plan on keeping for a while, and usually you could still find the free DLC code in used games, unused, due to the fact that some either are unaware of it, or they do not have online access. so not only would I save money, I also potentially get the same benefits as buying new. Its kinda using common sense in a way

you are correct sir.