New vs Used debate

[Hardcorhobbs]

So this is a long time debate, but earlier in the week a THQ developer made some comments which really blew the dust off the debate. Penny Arcade posted a comic about it on Wednesday, which opened it up even more (check out some of the comments here: http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/25/) Today Chris Kohler of wired.com and 1up's retronauts podcast posted this very thought provoking article: http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2010/08/used-games/.

Personally I try to buy new when I can. Sometimes I wait until it's on sale, but I still try to buy new to support the industry. IMHO saving $5-$10 isn't worth it to buy a used game over a new one. I also try not to shop at Gamestop. Not because the company is "evil", but because I can't stand some of their practices. Namely the sale of an open game and calling it new, or those giant stickers on the boxes. I've spent hours removing those stickers before adding games to my collection. There are however occasions where I have to shop at Gamestop. Generally it's when I discover a game I missed which is no longer in print.

Just my 2 cents.

[erilar]

I try when I can to support the devs and buy new. Also not crazy about GameStop, but mostly because the clerks they hire are usually unhelpful dipshits, but that's the mall in general.

Re GameStop's used games sales, it certainly doesn't help the devs. (And I also won't buy used to save $5-10.) On the other hand, the people running that company saw a niche and they filled it, and did so to great success. I'm sure they did not do so with any malice toward devs - it was simply a way to make money. Viva la capitalism, I suppose.

In the end, I look at the whole argument as moot. Digital sales will eventually make "used" games evaporate. The price of older, or poorly-selling, digitally-purchased games will fall due to market pressure. In the end, digital distribution will cut out the useless middle-man that is retail.

Personally, I won't be sorry to see it go. Go into Target (or even GameStop sometimes) and try to get some good info about a game you're interested in. The dork behind the register will likely be of little help.

Still though, I do use the Goozex trading service for the games I'm not all that confident in, but still want to try. So, I suppose I have a bit of a double standard there. When I think my wallet-vote of "hell yes" might help (Aliens vs Predator), or when the quality is virtually guaranteed (Bungie, Blizzard, Bethesda, and Bioware titles), I still buy new.

[Lars Porsenna]

Having my dad working for a game retailer has really spoiled me on the point; getting loads of free games and such will do that. I think that may have indirectly ruined me as a video-gamer, since most of the console games I've gotten over the past several years have been fun for about 5 minutes, then quickly get boring (there are exceptions: like Halo -- which I will undoubtedly buy new...probably at Target for that matter), but every time I look at the price of a game, I wonder what I could spend my $60 on that will give me more satisfaction in the end (and it's not hard; I'll just buy a few packs of minis or a model kit).

Damon.

[moths]

It's really weird seeing gamers speaking out in favor of being taken advantage of.

There's a lot of really crazy rationalization of some undeniable greed that companies are running, particularly with regard to content-crippling. "It's like a used car, there's going to be some rust so you pay less." The car analogy is used a lot, and is wildly misleading. This is a used car that isn't allowed to drive into the retail-exclusive DLC Berks county and can't carry passengers until you mail Subaru a check for 15% of the car's original sticker price.

There's a documented phenomenon where people have bias towards their purchases - I can't remember all the specifics, but it boils down to people rationalizing their decisions because it's uncomfortable to consider your decisions as foolish.
It's not hard to see how this extends into a status issue:
If I pay $60 for a game how was I just outsmarted by some dirty teen with a paper route who gots the exact same content for $40 one months later? Only a fool would throw away $20, and I'm no fool! Obviously that kid is screwing me and the industry somehow. By feeding a premium to the initial buyer (or hosing the secondary market), they help validate this mindset.

A lot of voices coming out on the pro-used side are even taking the tone of "I would buy games new, except..." and then rationalizing their decision to save money as if they're committing some sin to commerce.

But here's some other things to consider:
- What happens to DLC when the company goes out of business / stops supporting the product? If you find a copy of The Saboteur on clearance in six years, you're not going to get the nude scenes.
- The company gets its money when it sells them to retailers. The PA cartoon says buying the game new makes you UBIsoft's customer, and GameStop's customer if you don't. This is wrong and not-at-all how commerce works. GameStop buys games (indirectly) from UBIsoft, and sells them to you at X profit. They then buy the same games back from consumers, and sell them at X+lots profit. Unless you're buying straight from the company, you are always GameStop's customer.
If cutting the cost of a game by 15% is all it takes to convince people to wait a month and buy the sticker-coated coffee-stained special edition, why not just lower the initial price? The problem is that GameStop has a better business model than the manufacturers, and are explicitly profiting from the shitty design issues that plague current-gen consoles. (Specifically lack of replayability, brevity, price, and homogeneous content.) GameStop isn't stupid, and wants to make money. If they can stock a used title for $3 in store credit vs whatever UBIsoft is charging, they'll maximize profit.
The companies are mad because they're competing with disaffected gamers for sales to GameStop.
When people don't like a game, they sell it back. The most expensive and cheap used games represent the extremes in disparity between demand and supply. FFVII one of the the most historically popular games, cannot be purchased for less than $50 used. Madden '0X you can't give away. But FFVII isn't in small supply because it's ultra-rare or limited release, it was crazy popular at its time - it's in short supply because people don't want to sell it to GameStop. They love it and it's good. Madden gets a new release every year. If companies would look at the bigger picture and make more FFVIIs and fewer Maddens, GameStop's model would not affect them. You get pennies-on-the-dollar for games at GameStop. If last year's Madden retained content worth more than $3, people wouldn't trade it in for that.

- Game companies are titanic assholes. My friend Bill Ulrich worked for EA Sports making them Madden '02. He was part of an all-new dev team, gutting the engine and rebuilding the game. After the game shipped, EA fired everybody. Your money isn't going into the hands of hard working guys like Bill shoveling pixels into the furnaces that smelt raw math into fun. Your money is going to his Thugee overseers who are presently trying to screw Infinity Ward out of their fair share of your dollars. The Games Industry is somewhere between Walmart and China in terms of how it treats its people.

For as much as I love the Penny Arcade guys, are they even buying games out of their own pockets anymore?

I'm far from GameStop's biggest fan, but seeing this pro-industry trend and gamers speaking against their own interests is just amazing. This is a huge step towards not owning things that you buy, and people are defending this as if it were good.

[Lars Porsenna]

One interesting thing I just asked my dad. As you all know he worked for EB (nee gamestop), and I asked him how they run the new vs used game model. They normally mark up a used game for an approx 50% margin. Thus that game for $50 sitting on the shelf normally would have been bought at $25. Not unusual in retail. Now for new games, the margins are much, much smaller. So that new game that costs $60 was probably bought by Gamestop from the manufacturer for $50. So according to that Gamestop's real money isn't in selling the new stuff, but the store stays afloat selling the used stuff.

Damon.

[Lars Porsenna]

I also want to say I finally got around to reading the Wired article, and I really have to agree with the conclusion, at least with the last part.

Damon.

[Hardcorhobbs]

Brendan, I've often seen the sports game debate used just how you did, however there's a big thing to consider here. Every year a new edition of the big sports games are created. They are slightly better than what came last year. Just enough to make the fans want to grab the updated version, which means all their friends who are even slightly into the game have to upgrade. Because of this, the previous year's game gets flooded into the market thus significantly dropping the price. However, unlike any other gaming genre, this is by design. The sports game company is just fine with this because it's the new game they are making money on, not last year's.

You also have to consider that the big sports games sell extremely well. Whey they are released they are always on the top 10 list. This is because they give you a lot of game for their price. Sure, most of us are not sports gamers, but I have a few friends who are. They play these games over and over, playing through multiple seasons until the new edition comes out. Then they sell the old one and pick up the new one. So the sports game companies do have a model where gamestop doesn't affect them. Comparing them with any other genre is unfair as they aren't designed and marketed like any other genre.

Also, while don't agree with what EA did to your buddy, you do have to consider it from their point of view. They produce a new Madden game every year. So while your buddy was working on 2002, EA already hired a second team to begin 2003. So by the time 2002 was done they had two options. Keep that crew on to work on 2004, or hire a new team with potentially more up to date skill sets. Essentially your buddy was a contractor for EA, even though they hired him as an employee. His project was over so they sent him on his way. Right? No, but thats how some companies do business.

Also, as for our money not going to the guy who made the game, sure it did. EA fronted all the development money to pay his salary. So when you buy the game, you're paying back EA who already payed the guys who made the game. If the game does well that doesn't mean the guys who made the game deserve more money. Hopefully the company will give them a bonus, but remember that the company is assuming all the risk. If the game does well then the company profits. If it does poorly they've already payed the employees, so the company looses.

[EvilGenius]

I completely disagree with the game developers, period.

The attitude that someone who purchases a used game is no better than someone who pirates said game is repugnant. Said another way, the developer is saying is that everyone who ever plays the game should be paying them directly and if you don't, you're stealing from them.

This is both absurd AND fallacious. The developers do not have an exclusive distribution model. Many people buy the game from Best Buy or Gamestop or Amazon. Maybe the developers get a kickback from 'new game' sales but that doesn't create any sort if obligation on the part of the consumer to help them succeed in their business model.

[EvilGenius]

I think it's completely valid for developers to point out that used sales do not directly contribute revenue to the development company. (the case can certainly be made that used sales do indirectly benefit the development company when purchasing a used game influences a decision to purchase a new game)

The part that is absurd is the developers attitude that they are entitled to the consumers paying top dollar for their game. Do they get pissed when people buy the game on sale from amazon or bestbuy? Do they think people are stealing from them when they buy the game 'new' from the bargain bin at said stores?

[Hardcorhobbs]

The attitude that someone who purchases a used game is no better than someone who pirates said game is repugnant.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you, but remember it was one radical guy who said this.

Do they get pissed when people buy the game on sale from amazon or bestbuy? Do they think people are stealing from them when they buy the game 'new' from the bargain bin at said stores?

This wouldn't be the case at all because amazon or best buy are cutting into their own profits on the game when they do this. Same thing with the bargain bin. The company is taking a loss on the game, but it's better than not selling the game at all.

[EvilGenius]

Do they get pissed when people buy the game on sale from amazon or bestbuy? Do they think people are stealing from them when they buy the game 'new' from the bargain bin at said stores?

This wouldn't be the case at all because amazon or best buy are cutting into their own profits on the game when they do this. Same thing with the bargain bin. The company is taking a loss on the game, but it's better than not selling the game at all.

Yes but that's my point. Purchasing a used game from gamestop is no different, revenue-wise, than buying 'new' eight months after release when sales have tanked because the game was no good and now the retailer is trying to dump stock.

The developers have already been paid for that game. The retailer didn't make their money. The developer still did. Very similar to buying used.

[Hardcorhobbs]

Yes but that's my point. Purchasing a used game from gamestop is no different, revenue-wise, than buying 'new' eight months after release when sales have tanked because the game was no good and now the retailer is trying to dump stock.

The developers have already been paid for that game. The retailer didn't make their money. The developer still did. Very similar to buying used.

If you put that many variables into the equation then sure I agree. I think however, the used purchases the game developers are concerned with are those in the first few months of sales. From their point of view, every used sale is one less for the numbers/revenue.

I agree with Chris Kohler's article Though. What would the removal of the used game market do to regular sales? The developers seem to think this would increase sales. However some people trade in old games to buy new ones. If they didn't have that option I'm sure they would buy games much less frequently. I know a ton of people do this. So would sales go up, or would they in fact go down? Unless gamestop starts tracking numbers of these kind of sales, the world will never know.

Again, just my $ 0.02. I'll continue down my path of using gamestop as a last resort (because I don't like various of their business practices), and mainly buying new copies (because I don't want one some kid beat the crap out of already).

[erilar]

EA isn't really the kind of developer that some of us are looking to support. However, the Gearbox's of the world are.

Still, this whole argument is simply a function of the strange product. The rusty car analogy doesn't work at all. A used game (if the disk wasn't trashed by some idiot) is 100% reusable. A car with 130k miles on it is not the same as a new car. But a used game that someone gets from me in a Goozex trade is EXACTLY the same as one purchased new.

The publishers simply need to decide how they want to deal with this. If they want to add free DLC or "bonus" stuff to help them "recapture" sales "lost" to the used market, that's their prerogative. The market will decide whether that was a bad decision or not. So far, it hasn't effected me (has felt fair), so I don't care.

Personally, I have stolen (pirated) A LOT of game software in my younger years. I love this industry. Therefore, I want Rebellion or Bungie or Gearbox to get my money. It's my thanks and support for producing the thing I love, and now that I can mostly afford it, I'm giving back to that industry whenever possible.

I do buy used, and also trade games. Those are usually the titles that didn't grab me enough to jump on them at launch. As Brendan said, if it's 4 months later and the retail price has dropped $20, hell yes I'll pay the sale price. But I do try to avoid the used bin. Will I wait until next March to buy Reach because it will be $20 less at retail? Hells no.