| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (91)

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:03PM Mrguy you know that guy said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
The 3DS says hi.

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:08PM C1ph3rDivyne said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Mrguy you know that guy
Huh?
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:23PM Mrguy you know that guy said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@C1ph3rDivyne

Nah, just forget what i said, it was dumb.
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:07PM majorfalcon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Very interesting article. I agree that used game sales are parasitic. The publisher doesn't see any of that money.

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:14PM WiredKnight said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@majorfalcon

More importantly, the developers don't either.
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:15PM Van Redd said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@majorfalcon It is a shame that used games don't give any profit to publishers. I think they should look at how they slide the scale of older games to help people want to get it new rather then used.
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:17PM majorfalcon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@WiredKnight Exactly. The only people who profit are gamestop, or blockbuster or Johnny69 on ebay. I can't say that I've never bought a used game - Heck I buy more used than new - but they need to come up with some sort of system that makes me want to buy new.
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:20PM Kid Icarus said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@majorfalcon

"but they need to come up with some sort of system that makes me want to buy new."

That would be what pre-order incentives are for.
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:20PM Dance Love Pop said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
For me, it's less about the publisher and developer getting the money, and more about companies like GameStop making huge profits on them. Used game sales are totally fine, but IMO, they should be limited to c2c sales.

GameStop and their ilk are the parasites, used games should be no better or worse than any other material goods changing hands
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 11:03PM jrr said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@majorfalcon

You mean come up with things like DLC codes packed in with retail games for access to certain content? That's already happening, and not too many gamers seem to be happy with it (myself *not* included). And if you're one of the gamers that does fall in that category, I think you'll need to come up with some better incentives yourself and do what you can to make your voice heard.

Personally, knowing that my money is going into the hands of the people that deserve it is good enough for me. I've actually never bought a used game in my life and don't ever intend to (shit, wait... there's a tiny exception to that. I picked up SFIV used from ebay, though that was only because I was waiting to buy the game until I got one of the FightPads first. Meanwhile, FightPads were OOS everywhere for a long time and being resold at ridiculous prices. So when I saw one bundled with the game on ebay for pretty much the combined MSRP of each, I jumped on it. I had been getting pretty antsy waiting to pick up the game. Dammit, I almost forgot about that.)
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 11:45PM Cleric said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@majorfalcon

Not directly, but no one can work directly. Who is to say someone didn't buy Dead Space 1 used because they'd never heard of the game before and wanted to make sure it was good? then let's say they enjoyed it, and now they're going to pre-order Dead Space 2.

It's not like used game sales are a leach, just because they don't directly give money to the publisher/developer. Games are already overpriced as it is, you expect core gamers, much less casuals to want to go out and spend half of their grocery money on ONE game that they're not even sure of?
Reply

Posted: Jul 14th 2010 3:57AM Milky1985 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@majorfalcon

Its very very simple, if you stop the trading in of games, games sales on the whole will go DOWN.Yes some publishers will get more money for there games, but sales generally will drop.

The ammount of money people have is not limitless, and theres also the whole "this game might be bad, but i'll try it anyway and trade it in if i don't like it".

Stop championing used game sales as a destoryer of the industry, every single industry out there has second hand sales going on (excepot maybe the food industry)
Reply

Posted: Jul 14th 2010 5:05AM HR Pufnstuf said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Cleric Isn't that what renting is for?
Reply

Posted: Jul 14th 2010 11:13AM aristokrat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Milky1985
You can't possibly say that for sure, revenue-wise. While people don't have unlimited money, it's likely that the same amount of money would be spent on games because that's already in their budgets. People would probably play fewer games or wait longer to buy them. If people spend $5B on games now, and receive $2B in trade-ins, then it's reasonable to assume that $3B would still be spent on games if used sales were eliminated, but most of it would now go to the publishers/developers. There are many other factors at work, as well, and it's really impossible to tell what would happen.
Reply

Posted: Jul 15th 2010 8:37PM Its X with Guns said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Kid Icarus

Hah! Pre-order incentives are a misnomer. The "incentives" are usually content that isn't weighty enough nor meaty enough to make a difference after a videogame meal. Try "developer/publisher incentives for giving game retailers some worthless content". It ain't roll off the tongue, but it sure does get 'er done.
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:12PM Van Redd said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
He has some really good points, as does the GameStop exec. It is hard to justify $60 for a game you might be done with in a week in some cases, and especially in this economy having used game sales is a huge boon to cost conscious gamers.



Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:31PM Calcographer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Van Redd

What this guy said^

The last used game I bought was probably 8 years ago. I buy new, because I want the money to go to my favorite game makers.

With that said, the issue is as previously stated. With the current economic climate, I can't really swing the 50 bucks for all the games I'd like to buy new (so I see alot less games than I'd like), and now with my moving exclusively to PC, it's starting to look even more bleak with the $60 price point that say Activision-Blizzard is pushing. Starcraft II is a game I considered purchasing, but I can't justify the amount of enjoyment I'd get from it at this time when I can put hundreds of hours into other games that cost the same and less.
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:58PM onan said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Van Redd

Gamestop exec says: "You NEED us! Without high-margin used game sales, GameStop would be out of business and then game industry would be forced to deal with stores that actually DON'T encourage customers to buy used copies of newer titles that put no money back into publisher pockets! It would be CHAOS! Cats and dogs living together!"

Yeeeahhh... not seeing it.
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 11:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@onan

you've never bought a new game knowing you could trade it in for 20 dollars a week or two later at GameStop? Thus cutting the price of said game by a third? If you haven't, you're either very wealthy or you just never realized that's how it works.

Gamestop, while they give nothing to developers, they do generally provide a service to customers. Without gamestops trade in offers, less games would be purchased all together. That's not a false statement. Many people trade in their old games to buy new ones and that leads to more sales for NEW copies of new releases. Get rid of gamestop, and less games will be sold.

just my two cents though.
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 11:16PM jrr said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Van Redd

Thing is, you don't have to buy used to avoid paying $60 for a game. Games drop in price, retailers do limited-time sales and gift card promotions, buy 2 or 3 get one free promotions actually happen pretty frequently (you can count on Toys R Us for it every holiday season), etc. If gamers actually exhibit a bit of patience and forethought, there's no reason why they can't be cost efficient while also actually supporting the industry they pretend to care about.
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 11:43PM Cleric said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@onan

Good luck running a store using only new copies. You do realize that's why Gamestop is the only major game specific retailer around right? Their prices are what they are because the game industry is an expensive industry. But I know how some people just like to yell fire and brimstone at something because they didn't give them a 'proper' price.
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 11:44PM jrr said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Your two cents are factually wrong, which is why that phrase is generally reserved for opinions and not definitive statements. One, your little if statement at the start fails to acknowledge people who feel it's more important to support the industry, as well as those who like to hold on to their games (be it for collection purposes, in case they get an urge to play again, or whatever). Two, how many used games do you need to trade in to pick up a new one? How many new-game sales do those used trade-ins end up replacing? I'll give you a hint, it's more than the one they lead to. Your argument completely disregards the people who go on to buy those trade-ins in lieu of new games.

Look at it this way. X + Y = Z, where X is the amount of money spent on used games, Y is the amount of money spent of new games, and Z is obviously the overall amount of money spent on games in general. Now, if used games were eliminated, gamers would probably still spend that same money on games, unless they're going to just be spiteful. So in other words, that scenario would leave us with y = Z, where y is the new amount of money spent on new games. Z is still the same, so obviously that means more money spent on new games Do you still wanna try and say that buying used games somehow means more sales of new copies? If so, you're either stubborn or an lack basic math skills. Or maybe when you said "less games would be purchased" you were including re-purchases, in which case the statement isn't false, but instead it's just completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Meanwhile, if someone's just going to trade in all their games anyway, then they should probably look into a little thing called Gamefly.Their wallet and the industry would be better off for it.
Reply

Posted: Jul 14th 2010 1:26AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@jrr

ok so in that scenario, everyone has to spend $60 on every game they buy. Which leads to less games being bought because they can't trade their games in anywhere and most people can't afford 60 dollar hits every time they want a new game. I recently just traded in two games and bought NCAA for 10 bucks. If i had to have spent $60 on it, i wouldn't have bought it. EA would have never gotten me to buy a copy. Thus, gamestops trade in service allowed me to buy a new game. i may be 'hurting' the publishers by trading in my games but thats the only way I (and im guessing many others like me) can afford to get a game I want when it comes out.




Reply

Posted: Jul 14th 2010 2:49AM Courtney said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@jrr

I'm not one to support gamestop, but if you're going to act all high and mighty about your math skills, maybe you should try actually proofing your logic.

True total dollars spent would look something more like this:

Z=A+B+C where:

Z=Total dollars
A=New game dollars
B=Used game dollars
C=Dollars spent earned from selling or trading games

Point of note: C dollars can be spent on both new and used games.

Therefore, under your new model:

Y=A+B where Y is the new total Dollars total. And not matter what the values of A, B, and C are, Y < Z. Now, whether or not developers make more or less money under one model or another is a different story. But total retail sales would diminish.
Reply

Posted: Jul 14th 2010 3:51PM jrr said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Courtney

Oh, irony, how I love thee.

Your proposed formula simply can't exist, because C is recycled money that is directly and entirely made up of parts of A and B. It's like saying "15 = 6 + 5 + 3 (but by the way, 3 is made up of a certain 1.5 from that 6 and a certain 1.5 from that 5)." I shouldn't have to explain that's not how math works.

Bottom line and formulas aside, there is a huge amount of gamers' money going solely into GameStop's pockets. That is money which would either remain in gamers' hands or go into publisher/developer's pockets. To try and say that elimination of the used sales market environment which GameStop has created would lead to less new games being bought, is absolutely ludicrous.
Reply

Posted: Jul 14th 2010 3:58PM jrr said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oh, and by the way, I'd just like to point out that the $60 price point which so many people hate so much is in part a result of the used game market a lot of people are so fond of. You're kidding yourself if you think that the rapid growth and threat of GameStop's used game market over the course of last generation wasn't a significant consideration when determining this generation's new pricing norm. Game companies gotta make up that money somehow, right? It's no different then the mark-up included in practically every retail product to make up for the percentage of sales lost to shoplifting, not to mention piracy for the products where it applies.
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:15PM RobS the 3rd said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I have one thing to say to his idea that social network distributed games are the future: Farmville.

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 11:57PM crash7800 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@RobS the 3rd If you're scared of online gaming turning into Farmville then I've got good news for you. Part of what we do at InstantAction is allowing full, complete versions of -any- game to run in a browser. Imagine that instead of having to play Farmville in your browser or Facebook you could play the full, unaltered MW2, Assassin's Creed, Civ 5, etc.

What Lou's talking about is distributing -real full- games as quickly and to as many people as possible, not settling for lesser works.

crash7800
InstantAction Community Manager
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:15PM Hawaii Jeff said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Um, maybe new games should just be $10 cheaper....?

Then more people would be willing to buy a "new" game.

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 11:09PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Hawaii Jeff
ding ding. Look no f'n further than Sniper Ghost Warrior! The game isn't great but it's selling because it's only $40. Most people see that and think "Hey, I'm sure it's decent enough for $40".

For all the hoopla about developers/publishers hating the used game market, you certainly dont see their prices very often.
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 11:18PM JonahStein said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Hawaii Jeff

You're totally right. For a long time the $60 price point sold well enough (and in some cases $80 for so-called Limited Editions), but now when sales are seeing a bit of a slump, we are regularly seeing high-profile games marked down to $40-$50 "sales" within a few weeks of release.
It's like paying that extra $10-$20 is a premium to be able to play the game early.
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 11:20PM JonahStein said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@JonahStein
I bet if AAA games had a pre-order list price of $40, with the option to pay $20 to get "early access" to the game, the majority of video game consumers would jump at the chance.
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:16PM Wiizer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report

Another awesome article! Keep'em coming, Kyle!

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:17PM Crayola Q Pants ESQ said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Doesn't seem to be part of his solution but its the prices which put me off. If I'm paying $120-130 (nzd) for a game, better believe that I'll only be picking up something which is damn near flawless (at least comparitively). I'd be willing to overlook a lot more if they weren't so expensive though.

Sure, I could wait a month or two when they've gone down in price, but by then I'm caught up in the hype of the "next big thing", or thinking it'd be better to wait for the game's inevitable sequel.

Compared to the retail releases I do buy an assload of Live and PSN games though.

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 10:08PM delicatessen lama said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Crayola Q Pants ESQ :: Same with me man. I live in AUS. Not only am I sick of high prices I am sick of region exclusives, and now just get simple 'casual' games through Steam. When I have a gaming PC it'll be sweet, latest AAA games at decent prices + the developers & publishers make more money from that too. I don't trade my used games in anyway, I couldn't too, since they are all imports.
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:18PM Kid Icarus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
For those (few) of us that haven't joined Facebook or other social networking sites and refuse to do so this isn't good news. I don't want to have to be connected to the world to play AAA titles if what Mr. Castle says holds to be true.

I don't like where this is all heading...is it really that much to ask to be able to go into a store and buy a physical copy of a game?

Posted: Jul 14th 2010 12:00AM crash7800 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Kid Icarus Fear not - I don't think Lou or any of us at InstantAction want for you to -need- a Facebook account to play. Instead, what he's getting at here is coming from the Developer/Publisher side, that if video games companies -want- to they can bring real, full versions of their games to the biggest groups of people. I don't think it's in anyone's best interest to make Facebook a compulsory part of that, though :)

crash7800
InstantAction Community Manager
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:28PM gatdorfl said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I feel a solution might be slightly cheaper launch price but more focus on paid DLC - the DLC for Mass Effect 2 kept me hanging onto what was essentially a play-through-once (but still amazing) experience instead of whisking it straight to the game store to trade in.

Well, that and I only got offered £8 for it two months after paying £40 at launch - maybe greedy game stores ARE a big part of The Problem.

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:36PM DeeZeee said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Gamestop could die for all I care. Hell, I only go to the grocery store! Everything else, I buy online...

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:39PM snl25 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Of course he is going to say gaming is going that way, he has to, he is CEO of a company that does browser gaming. He has to find a way to push developers and publishers to think in his mindset so that his company receives more revenue for his company. He is simply promoting Instant Action.

I don't see gaming ever becoming "mainstream" with browser gaming (i.e. Facebook). That hardcore gamer will not accept such a format for gaming, the casual gamer would as they don't play games that much, or the types of games that hardcore gamers are into. Think of what this guy says as PR speak, that is all.

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:58PM ouenwoof said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

Also adding onto this point: casual gamers have a certain nasty tendency to suddenly lose interest in products when the next big sensation hits.

To sum that up metaphorically, making your bridge out of wood (casual games) is cost-effective and easy, but going to the effort of making it steel and reinforced (dedicated-audience games) will get you better mileage in the long run.
Reply

Posted: Jul 14th 2010 12:03AM crash7800 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified) Interesting ideas, but I don't see why InstantAction has to be incompatible with hardcore or casual gaming. We we allow for -any- game to played on -any- site with full capability including graphics settings, keybindings and fullscreen. So, if you wanted to play on InstantAction but not use any of the social features you could use it just like Steam, except that you would be able to discover and play games more quickly.

Interested in your ideas!

crash7800
InstantAction Community Manager
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:50PM LegendaryFluffy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Games should be like this: you buy half the game --half the campaign and limited MP-- for half the price and if you like it, you download the other half for the rest of the price.

Posted: Jul 14th 2010 12:06AM crash7800 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@LegendaryFluffy Funny you should mention that! We're planning on a rent-to-own service :) So, you'd be able to pay for a portion of the game, play for a portion of time/content and then buy the rest if you wanted to or not :)

crash7800
InstantAction Community Manager
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 8:58PM alkatrash said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The future video game distribution will be online. I see this mirroring the DVD/Blueray industry. Sure, you will still be able to buy the disc, but it will be cheaper and more convenient online.

I think its funny on how this article act like its new news. This started a long time ago, probably with Valve's steam.

As a consumer I actually like buying online games and don't care for a box. I have probably bought more PC games through steam than I've ever bought at a store. I end up buying games that are sleeper hits like Torchlight and Stalker on the cheap.

And haven't lost a one ; )

P.S. Please bring Steam to Linux.

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 9:02PM ouenwoof said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Is it just me, or is facebook and its' browser games turning into yet another dotcom-bubble situation? In other words, where something new and unexpected is suddenly successful, and instead of gradually making a shift into adapting it to their business model, large companies just jump on the thing like ravenous dogs without thinking about any of the consequences.

Guys like this need to realize that games like Farmville are only going to be profitable for so long. Things like that just aren't built for long-term success. At least PopCap keeps its' casual games at a consistency of quality.

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 9:15PM Fixious said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ouenwoof

I had that same thought earlier. Facebook, like MySpace, will eventually fade away. Relying on their service and it's userbase is silly, because it WILL eventually fail. But that isn't really an issue for InstantAction because they can implement their service anywhere on the web. So if PeopleNetwork.com became the next Facebook, IA could simply transfer over to that network.
Reply

Posted: Jul 14th 2010 12:14AM crash7800 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ouenwoof Having talked to Lou about this very thing, I can tell you that you are, in some respects, of the same mind. I know for a fact that we don't want to make "casual" games like Farmville and that we don't really want Farmville, as a game, to be the future of the industry.

What Lou -is- getting at is how Farmville's -distribution- has been interesting and effected perceptions of -publishing-. I think that makes sense? So rather than trying to say "Let's make every game like Farmvill because those games get played!" he's saying, "Let's find a way to drop great core games into a huge group of people and get them to play quickly!"

crash7800
InstantAction Community Manager
Reply

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 9:36PM Faenix said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
5-10% of used game sales should go to devs/publishers

I mean, they make like $30 per used game anyway.. (Buy for $15-35.. sell for $55 - 65) I doubt $5 or so per game would hurt, just to give back to those who made the game.

Posted: Jul 13th 2010 10:17PM hlarge4 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I'm not sure if anyone thought of this... and can't understand why they wouldn't but... is it maybe time the publishers start offering trade-in/used deals that keeps the market and cashflow within their wallets? I can easily imagine registering with EA or Nintendo, trading in a used EA game for credit towards another EA game. And for keeping the buisness coming to them, and as they are publishers, it should be easy to set up commited consumer rewards deals.

Seems pretty obvious really. Start up would be expensive, but its better than the nuclear warhead aimed at my favorite hobby.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW