Then why aren't they doing it now? If they know a certain segment is sensitive to price, then why not just go ahead and lower the price?
Just because someone buys used doesn't mean they are going to buy new.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PA Report - The Xbox One will kill used games, that's good
- Thread starter hardcastlemccormick
- Start date
Then why aren't they doing it now? If they know a certain segment is sensitive to price, then why not just go ahead and lower the price?
Just because someone buys used doesn't mean they are going to buy new.
Open Source
Banned
XBLA was great until the consoles got too long in tooth. It used to be that no matter how terrible your game was, you'd still sell at least 25K.
I don't think PC gaming has been overshadowed by consoles, aside from 1st and 2nd party exclusives, despite the higher cost of entry onto the platform.
And then look at mobile. No used games there.
Open Source
Banned
They lower the price to $40, people buy used at $35. They lower it to $35, people buy used at $30. They can't capture that customer no matter how low they drop the price, so they don't bother.
Do you think there's not?
Yeah, but using the government example, a lot of the problems come from misappropriation of the resources they already have at their disposal.
How much of what is happening to gaming today with studios closing it's doors is due to a used game market, and how much is it due to just mismanagement?
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
People stuck with consoles because it has actual, meaningful reasons for them to do so. Ease of use, unified hardware, standardized online, etc. If those things aren't a factor (when, say, comparing console to console) then will people pick the one that gives them the least amount of options? If the PS4 doesn't have this account system, then why will people pick the Xbox One?
This is all very hypothetical, naturally, because we have never seen a console manufacturer change the nature of game purchasing quite as much as Microsoft has. This is very unprecedented. But the problem with Microsoft's plan - and assuming that people will change their buying habits - is that there is a way out: just buy the other console.
Of course, if the PS4 also has a system like Microsoft's, then sure, you might get people to change their buying habits.
Or XBLA started to do worse when there were more games available (over crowding), and less advertising and store space for them. Basically exactly the same problem as the console game market. Only it's the advantages of cheaper prices (XBLA) versus the advantages of being able to trade in old games for store credit towards new one's (retail console games).
And the funny thing about Nintendo and the bold text is their products are hard-pressed to receive a price drop because of perceived demand from consumers, this holds true for any consumer product which has lasting appeal.
What I'm trying to say is, maybe publishers should aim to produce compelling products with lasting appeal within very reasonable budgets. Instead they attempt this draconian approach of not adapting to the market and brute forcing a system where they have their cake and eat it too, all while being nearly completely unwaivering in their current methodologies.
The way the video games industry displays an undeserved desire of immunity from how general consumerism works just pisses me the fuck off, quite frankly
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
They haven't done it because of retail. They rely too much on retail now to sell games, and if they completely undercut retail they'd be fucked.
Yet, we won't see a major change in the pricing structure until retail is eliminated.
I know Steam and Consoles are different animals.. but if you were around when Steam got going it was the great indie/massive sale platform it is now. With retail destroyed, and DD became the norm (or only choice) we saw price become a form of advertising.. lower the prices every few months or so on a game and produce a bump in sales.
I strongly believe retail is holding back console pricing from becoming more flexible.
You don't think that huge skyrocketing budgets to make their games compete with COD and WOW has anything to do with it? I wonder how many of those buy other games. If you have to sell millions of games the first few days to even come close to getting in the black, somethings wrong and it's not used sales.
Where do you think those $35 dollar used games come from? That $ sign is a value estimate, if they lowered the price to 40 and the consumer valued the game at 40 as well, when the game started losing its value of course the people who bought the game used bought it for 35, because that is where they thought the value of the game was for them. There isn't some magical place where there is an infinite amount of used titles, the only reason why gamestop can supply all those used games, is because they sold them as new. Specially with the addition of DLC, should the used game market help companies even more. There is nothing outside of anecdotal talk, that the used game market is forgone growth for a company.
Oh wow...
but bargain bin prices are hurting the developers....
first they came for our used games
next they will come for bargain bin pricing
trust me on this one
this sentiment has already been said by EA as well as covertly mentioned by some game "journalists"
Don't even mention mobile games that cost 1/60th the price of new console game. Hence the reason parents are moving kids to tablets for gaming and entertainment. The current console business leaders are way behind the times. They don't see the long term or competition that is coming right at them from mobile. Nope they are going head first into making its products more expensive in a effort to make up for piss poor business practices. Instead of adapting to the new market conditions they are doubling down on the old approach. What MS is trying to do is like cutting your head off because you have a migraine. Sure it will take a way the pain but you are dead. Making games 59.99 with no used/lending might make them feel better but it will kill their business plain and simple. There are not enough people in this world willing to pay that much for games. Why do you think the used game market is so large? Because prices of games in general are to damn high. And there are more gamers so there is going to be more demand for both new and used games. We have seen for 8 years how they will treat prices of a DD product with no resale value in PSN and games on demand. How are those prices? Fucking stupid for the most part more expensive than retail by a lot in many cases.
I appreciate that. But if they get rid of bargain bin pricing and/or used games too, they'll only hurt themselves in the long run. Simply put, less games will be sold and less people will buy them.
Personally I think the big publishers with their massive budgets, churned out sequels, and huge advertising campaigns are doing more of the damage. Other publishers and Devs are over committing and spending just to compete.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
I dislike arguments that become so fragmented.
If we're operating on the argument that "game publishers are stupid," then you can't assume the prices will go down. Example? Look at Nintendo and how long it took them before they started lowering the price of their "Nintendo Selects" this generation. Nintendo is basically unfazed by used games (their resale value is fantastic) and yet they didn't do any of the things you claim they will.
The only thing that cannot be patched into the Xbox 360 that you listed was a bigger hard drive. Most of it's already there. What's stopping them?
If the rumors are true of an Xbox 360 mini that's entirely digital, this argument looks even weaker.
No it cannot. You're still ignoring all of the mass market retailers, small specialty shops, regions where Gamestops haven't permeated, toy stores, online retail, and eBay/Half.
Even if you could argue that Gamestop was a microcosm of the rest of the market, that's still a lot of assuming to think it will stay stable and remain a microcosm.
It's because their mid-tier stuff wasn't mid-tier anymore! THQ wanted their Darksiders to be AAA, they wanted their Red Faction to be AAA, and these games didn't have the sales brunt to support it! And those Japanese developers you mentioned are better at living within their budgets. It's more a fault of the market more interested in western IP's.
And EA and Activision close studios the minute the game goes gold, doesn't matter what the sales are.
I never assumed that; it has nothing to do with what we're discussing. You're putting words in my mouth.
But because you bring it up: there will be a group of people who, when faced with the higher cost of a new game, won't buy anything, just like there's a group of people who will put up the extra cash for the new game. It's not all black and white. Those used games won't become automatic sales. Some will, some won't. It still shrinks the market.
If we're operating on the argument that "game publishers are stupid," then you can't assume the prices will go down. Example? Look at Nintendo and how long it took them before they started lowering the price of their "Nintendo Selects" this generation. Nintendo is basically unfazed by used games (their resale value is fantastic) and yet they didn't do any of the things you claim they will.
The only thing that cannot be patched into the Xbox 360 that you listed was a bigger hard drive. Most of it's already there. What's stopping them?
If the rumors are true of an Xbox 360 mini that's entirely digital, this argument looks even weaker.
No it cannot. You're still ignoring all of the mass market retailers, small specialty shops, regions where Gamestops haven't permeated, toy stores, online retail, and eBay/Half.
Even if you could argue that Gamestop was a microcosm of the rest of the market, that's still a lot of assuming to think it will stay stable and remain a microcosm.
It's because their mid-tier stuff wasn't mid-tier anymore! THQ wanted their Darksiders to be AAA, they wanted their Red Faction to be AAA, and these games didn't have the sales brunt to support it! And those Japanese developers you mentioned are better at living within their budgets. It's more a fault of the market more interested in western IP's.
And EA and Activision close studios the minute the game goes gold, doesn't matter what the sales are.
I never assumed that; it has nothing to do with what we're discussing. You're putting words in my mouth.
But because you bring it up: there will be a group of people who, when faced with the higher cost of a new game, won't buy anything, just like there's a group of people who will put up the extra cash for the new game. It's not all black and white. Those used games won't become automatic sales. Some will, some won't. It still shrinks the market.
For a developer or publisher a player that buys a game used may as well not be buying it as all.
That's all that show's up on the company's financial figures.
My girlfriends dad quite likes to buy games for the DS or PSP, but he literally won't pay more than £10 for a game.
He was really dying to play the new Resident Evil games on DS, but was literally horrified at the idea of paying more than £10 for one, so instead he bought something else cheap and preowned.
Why bother chasing after the kinds of consumers that don't generate you any revenue, especially if the hardware you are selling is sold at a loss.
WrenchNinja
Member
I bought Gears 1 and 2 for 8 bucks used. Why the fuck are they $30 on GoD?
Dont give me that shit about how they cant undercut retailers.
Nintendo have been fined on more than one occasion for price fixing. I'm sure they have some practices that are responsible for this.
Also, if the demand for a particular game is high enough, then the price of it isn't going to drop, this is another major factor towards why Nintendo games do retain their value.
There has been a huge change in this in recent years though especially in the Wii and DS era. You'd never see a Nintendo first party game reduced in price, but you see it all the time now.
$30!
GASP!
I remember paying at least double that for those games, are the different to when I played them?
The used game market doesn't generate revenue for them? Do you really think the 2nd hand market in any industry actually works like that? That used game sale was the result of a gamer who bought the game new, liquefying that asset in the hopes of spending that money on something else(in regards to gamestop, video games). The person who picks up that used title just took a used title off the market, thereby increasing the demand for the used game, the only way that used game demand can be met though is by someone who bought the game new and no longer valued the asset enough to keep it, but valued it enough to sell it.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Good thing new cars that don't get sold on the lot, the year they were manufactured, don't drop in price to send your point even more home... Clearly video games have a value that never adjusts, consumers clearly value that video game the exact same as they did 5+ years ago, because that is how the economy should work! Fuck value adjustments!
Exactly. The publishers and console makers pushing for the elimination of used games do simply that, eliminate. The seek solely to eliminate the obstacles which they are not profiting off of while continuing to perform original/current practices with no indication of future adaptation (Thus you get post like the one below, particularly the bold text, which proves my point).
Case in point: used games. Publishers don't lose any profit from used games but they also don't see any profit either (and rightfully so as per the first sale doctrine). However the latter is strangely seen to them as a obstacle, showing the extraordinarily entitled and misguided nature of the industry.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
A decade ago. From what I'm reading, it looks like they were preventing distributors from shipping games from countries where they were cheaper to other, more expensive countries. An unrelated topic.
We can't even look at the demand curve because Nintendo keeps the games priced high for so long that there's no in-between. The games go from $50 to $20 and that's it.
My point is that, in a sect of the market where there's the used games don't push down the price per the market's fluctuation, there's no incentive to drop the price.
Only in a twilight of the console's lifespan, once Nintendo wants to capture the value-gamer market.
$30 EACH. And if you don't think things depreciate in value over time, you should probably just leave the thread.
TheContact
Member
Just got back from GameStop and an employee told me that MS is giving GameStop codes for activating games, and once you return an XBO game the license becomes invalid and has to be registered to a new disc code (which is provided to them by MS) in order to work. He said ps4 had nothing like this, as they didnt get any codes from Sony
Delusibeta
Banned
It's almost like he's posting here as Open Source.
My mistake, were they $30 each when they came out?
I wouldn't expect to pay pennies for a music album from the 90's just because it's old music.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
Pennies? Why does have to be all or nothing?
I would expect an album from the 90's to be less money than a new album from today. If it's a high-demand record, then maybe $8-10. If it's a low demand record, then maybe $4 or less.
Note that Gears of War 1 and 2 are low demand games: their multiplayer communities are tiny, the games have sold a ton, been there done that. And yet, the digital pricing is still incredibly high.
EDIT: In addition, because games start at a higher price, there's more variance for what the market can think it is worth, compared to a CD.
As another note, people who compare prices today to prices 20 years ago (SNES games cost 70-80 dollars sometimes!) aren't considering the expansion of the audience since then.
That expansion occured in part with lower pricing. This is also, in part, how portables have done so well, and how iOS and browser games have exploded in popularity. We can adjust prices to account for inflation and make games cost 100+ dollars, but the cost of that will be massive contraction as many of the consumers who have joined the gaming industry over the past two decades either exit or seek entertainment from iOS or PC or 3DS. Anywhere but consoles.
If you want to distill the console market down to only the truest of believers, then sure, go ahead.
That expansion occured in part with lower pricing. This is also, in part, how portables have done so well, and how iOS and browser games have exploded in popularity. We can adjust prices to account for inflation and make games cost 100+ dollars, but the cost of that will be massive contraction as many of the consumers who have joined the gaming industry over the past two decades either exit or seek entertainment from iOS or PC or 3DS. Anywhere but consoles.
If you want to distill the console market down to only the truest of believers, then sure, go ahead.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
I doubt this is worth a thread (maybe if there wasn't so much Xbox One stuff already on the front page), but:
There's a very large, enormously critical post about the Xbox One that is taking over Tumblr. It's already gotten over 44,000 likes or reblogs in 22 hours - which means it's pretty massive.
This is the original post, as far as I can tell.
I don't think Tumblr is a hugely enthusiast gamer hangout, so it's remarkable that this post is making so many inroads. Make of that what you will.
There's a very large, enormously critical post about the Xbox One that is taking over Tumblr. It's already gotten over 44,000 likes or reblogs in 22 hours - which means it's pretty massive.
This is the original post, as far as I can tell.
I don't think Tumblr is a hugely enthusiast gamer hangout, so it's remarkable that this post is making so many inroads. Make of that what you will.
Wow, ya, if I used tumbler I probably would turn it into its own topic... If it is new news it is always worth its own thread, imo.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Take those sales profits off the table for GS, and wouldn't that damage their ability to purchase new games and hardware for resale in the first place?
We live in a world where Valve sets the price that we pay for PC games, but that's not all bad is it.
How much does it cost to buy a new copy of Gears of War 1 and 2 now, surely that is a fairer comparison to be made against the price of Digital Games.
If I look at Gamestop's website they don't even have any stock of Gears of War 1 brand new, why would they? They have a constant stream of people offering them the game for 25% of the price of what they would pay for new stock.
They have Gears of War 2 in stock, low and behold, it's $29.99.
NullPointer
Member
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
Valve isn't the only one that sets prices on PC games. They have a ton of competition.
If you want to access the competition on the Xbox One, you'll have to sell your console and lose all of your games. Sucks.
You can get Gears of War 1 and 2 for $20 new.
Gears of War 2 alone is $30 because they don't print that anymore, hence it becomes a slight collector's item.
If the post keeps being as crazy popular as it is, I'll make a new thread in a few hours. I'm not looking forward to having to defend whether or not Tumblr represents a relevant sector of the market
Aren't the vast majority of PC games purchased or redeemed via steam though?
I understand that you can buy the codes from places like GMG and the like, what's the say that MS won't do the same?
Anyway, it looks like I am quite literally being "owned".
Time to crawl back to the cave
That 29.99 is online only and currently unavailable online... IF you think 29.99 is representative of the real value of the game. Well, think what you want. Also, valve isn't working in a walled garden. They offer a service that has to deal with direct competitors. Beyond that, the PC game market didn't ever have a 2nd hand market that helped support the industry, the comparisons are just not the same. And again, MS/Sony/Nintendo has given us no indication that they could properly handle a console market where there is no 2nd hand market to dictate value. And if the developer/publisher thought on used games is any indication, they are not economically smart enough to deal with it either.
And I can go to amazon and get gears 1 and 2 triple pack for 24.54. So get 2 games for less than the price of 1 DD version. And when it is beaten can sell/lend/trade it.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004JSDQPU/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Tumbler sold for 1.1billion this week, you dont have to justify shit. If people come at you for that they are morons.
faceless007
Member
I don't think it can be understated how much of a fatal blow to many people's gaming habits the absence of a viable used market will be. This is not just about Gamestop. Look at the broader picture. Think about the millions of people who buy used games from people on craiglist every month, and the sellers who sell their stuff on craigslist to clear out space and make a little extra money. Think about the millions of mom-and-pop vendors on Amazon and eBay who make a living (or at least a nice supplemental income) by selling old merchandise including games, movies, and books. Think about a college kid selling a couple games he's done with to a friend for textbook money. Think about the number of family members that give away their consoles and games to other families or their kids for presents. Think about donating video games and consoles to charities (including Child's Play) and the kids who start their gaming thanks to that.
Just consider the sheer number of people that are only able to participate in gaming because of the price discrimination offered by a healthy and non-fixed used marketplace. These aren't the hardcore day-1 $60 purchasers that need AAA gaming, but the more modest parents and families who buy a bundle of used games and a console as a cost-effective way of entertaining the children for months on end, or the college students who just want a few games for their dorm room. Killing used games means these people won't be able to buy into video gaming at all without spending more than they would be inclined to, and essentially locks them out of the market because they can't afford, or don't want to pay, full MSRP for every single thing.
Video game consoles are a luxury good, I won't deny that. So if MS really wants to position themselves as a super-premium device just for the gamers who are so hardcore that they pay full price for every game and never need to sell anything for cash, that's their call. But even within the space of a luxury good, used goods and lower price points help expand the userbase well beyond high-income early adopters (especially years into a system's lifecycle after its price drops considerably), and ultimately bring in many more people to the hobby which is good for the industry's ecosystem overall, because those people still buy new games as well. The PS2 was massively successful not on the backs of hardcore gamers, but on the backs of the large amounts of families that were able to build up large libraries of mid-priced titles after the system price had dropped.
MS is making a very large bet that essentially those people don't matter. They're betting that the lost revenue from all of those people not being able to participate in the marketplace at all will be more than compensated by even more hardcore day-1 $60 purchasers and more DLC and skins and digital crap. They're betting that their hardcore crowd will be so locked in to the Xbox ecosystem that they'll not only buy as many games as they did before, but they'll spend even more money within the system to do so. They're narrowing their focus exclusively to the super-hardcore enthusiasts and early adopters with high disposable income, and shutting out everyone who isn't. They're not just marketing their system as a high-end device, they're explicitly saying "If you can't afford the cost of full-MSRP games on this platform, don't bother. If you could only afford to buy our games by selling off old ones, you're not invited."
Rather than expanding the market, they're deliberately contracting to an even smaller segment under the ridiculously naive theory that all those hardcore fans will more than make up for smaller userbase, and the revenue that would have gone to used games will now go directly to them. But of course, it won't. If people can't afford to buy games at the price point they desire, they'll just buy something else. Given the increasingly significant threats to console gaming not just from mobile and tablets, but from YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, Facebook, and the thousands of other services out there all competing for our free time (which is increasingly becoming as much of a scarce commodity as money), consumers can afford to be as picky as possible in much they want to pay for disposable entertainment.
It's an arrogant, exclusionary, elitist, and short-sighted move by a corporation more interested in nickel-and-diming consumers than creating a healthy, vibrant long-term industry, and it deserves to fail.
Just consider the sheer number of people that are only able to participate in gaming because of the price discrimination offered by a healthy and non-fixed used marketplace. These aren't the hardcore day-1 $60 purchasers that need AAA gaming, but the more modest parents and families who buy a bundle of used games and a console as a cost-effective way of entertaining the children for months on end, or the college students who just want a few games for their dorm room. Killing used games means these people won't be able to buy into video gaming at all without spending more than they would be inclined to, and essentially locks them out of the market because they can't afford, or don't want to pay, full MSRP for every single thing.
Video game consoles are a luxury good, I won't deny that. So if MS really wants to position themselves as a super-premium device just for the gamers who are so hardcore that they pay full price for every game and never need to sell anything for cash, that's their call. But even within the space of a luxury good, used goods and lower price points help expand the userbase well beyond high-income early adopters (especially years into a system's lifecycle after its price drops considerably), and ultimately bring in many more people to the hobby which is good for the industry's ecosystem overall, because those people still buy new games as well. The PS2 was massively successful not on the backs of hardcore gamers, but on the backs of the large amounts of families that were able to build up large libraries of mid-priced titles after the system price had dropped.
MS is making a very large bet that essentially those people don't matter. They're betting that the lost revenue from all of those people not being able to participate in the marketplace at all will be more than compensated by even more hardcore day-1 $60 purchasers and more DLC and skins and digital crap. They're betting that their hardcore crowd will be so locked in to the Xbox ecosystem that they'll not only buy as many games as they did before, but they'll spend even more money within the system to do so. They're narrowing their focus exclusively to the super-hardcore enthusiasts and early adopters with high disposable income, and shutting out everyone who isn't. They're not just marketing their system as a high-end device, they're explicitly saying "If you can't afford the cost of full-MSRP games on this platform, don't bother. If you could only afford to buy our games by selling off old ones, you're not invited."
Rather than expanding the market, they're deliberately contracting to an even smaller segment under the ridiculously naive theory that all those hardcore fans will more than make up for smaller userbase, and the revenue that would have gone to used games will now go directly to them. But of course, it won't. If people can't afford to buy games at the price point they desire, they'll just buy something else. Given the increasingly significant threats to console gaming not just from mobile and tablets, but from YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, Facebook, and the thousands of other services out there all competing for our free time (which is increasingly becoming as much of a scarce commodity as money), consumers can afford to be as picky as possible in much they want to pay for disposable entertainment.
It's an arrogant, exclusionary, elitist, and short-sighted move by a corporation more interested in nickel-and-diming consumers than creating a healthy, vibrant long-term industry, and it deserves to fail.
Anyone placing bets on how months it will take the hacking community to come up with a software hack that spoofs the "call home" part? I say two months, since hackers will be very driven to do it. The more you try to prevent piracy, the more it will exist and the more persistent people will be. Limitations and rules are meant to be broken, especially crazy and idiotic ones.
One of the major side-effects of the prevalence of used-games and rentals (and other factors to be fair) that no-one seems to be talking about is that, for better or worse, the perceived market value of A-AAA console games has depreciated significantly in recent years. At the start of this gen it felt like paying full price for a new copy was the norm. Now it's the exception.
That's pretty damn popular.