Pre-Owned games. You game?

[Archer]

I had an extremely bad experience with used games, one time being when I got a used Platinum copy it couldn't hold a save, so I had to play through the entire game without shutting off the power.

That's when you take it back to the store and demand a replacement. If they don't budge, you make threats to their physical well-being and store reputation. :D Trust me, it's worked before.

I wouldn't have an issue if the games weren't sold at such outrageous prices for a used product. Otherwise, the whole developers-not-getting-money thing is a bit unreasonable - is that to say that used cars should not be sold because the manufacturers lose money from fewer new sales?

Some people will also be inclined to buy games if they know they can get some of their money back after finishing. Which means more new sales.

 

[danno 507]

This is such a difficult topic for me! :O
I love pre owned games...assuming they're in good condition....cuz they're so cheap! But the bad thing is the developers loose out big time and I'm studyin game development at the moment, so in a few years it will be me who is loosing out :/

 

[Oryx]

Without those companies, they wouldn't be making those games that you love. ;)
If you are referring to the developers...​

​

Why should they care about the companies? The companies aren't doing this because they care about gamers, they're not a charity. They're doing this as a business, to make money. As much as people want to say "support the developers", it's not the consumer's job to make sure the developer makes a profit. That's the developer's job.

 

[Captain Fabio]

Why should they care about the companies? The companies aren't doing this because they care about gamers, they're not a charity. They're doing this as a business, to make money. As much as people want to say "support the developers", it's not the consumer's job to make sure the developer makes a profit. That's the developer's job.

Well, that is your opinion, so that is fair enough. This is just the stance that I take. Look at it this way, if EVERYONE just bought pre-owned games, the companies wouldn't have the profit to put back into making more games, then they would go into debt, then liquidation and then that would be that. Though, I can't remember the last time a company went into liquidation since they just stop producing game! XD

Either way, that is just my opinion on it and that is based on my experience with dealing with the gaming industry and working and creating games.​

​

 

[Cherrim]

There will never be an issue of everyone buying pre-owned. You need some people to buy new before you can have sold-back copies become pre-owned. :P There are still plenty of people who buy new games on the release date. Many of those people also sell the games right back a few weeks later, however. If the developer is not breaking even on their games, they need to recalculate the best price to sell those games at so the maximum amount of people will buy it new.

I can't drop $60-70 on every new console game and another $30-40 whenever a good game comes out. And I'm not even a high school student (the group I know plays games a lot). So for a lot of people the choice is either to pirate the game for a digital copy or buy pre-owned. At least pre-owned games are legal. :(

It's not always about money for me... but usually the only reason I buy a game new is if it's on sale for a good price or if it's on the release day (or within the week) and I can't wait to play it.

 

[Captain Fabio]

There will never be an issue of everyone buying pre-owned. You need some people to buy new before you can have sold-back copies become pre-owned. :P There are still plenty of people who buy new games on the release date. Many of those people also sell the games right back a few weeks later, however. If the developer is not breaking even on their games, they need to recalculate the best price to sell those games at so the maximum amount of people will buy it new.

I can't drop $60-70 on every new console game and another $30-40 whenever a good game comes out. And I'm not even a high school student (the group I know plays games a lot). So for a lot of people the choice is either to pirate the game for a digital copy or buy pre-owned. At least pre-owned games are legal. :(

It's not always about money for me... but usually the only reason I buy a game new is if it's on sale for a good price or if it's on the release day (or within the week) and I can't wait to play it.

Well, that is true, I guess. XD

One of the main reasons people are starting to turn to pre-owned games is, mainly, due to the price of them. They are very expensive, but that is due to the amount of production that has gone into the games and there is a hell of alot.

I might be going out on a whim here, but I can see a crash in the industry if they increase the prices of the games.​

​

 

[Cherrim]

I meant decreasing the price. :/ More people will buy titles if they're priced more around the $40-50 range. I realize I don't really have a right to complain about prices since Japan, Australia, and similar places are so much more expensive but... that's still a lot to pay! Especially if you try to keep up with all the blockbusters. There's usually a huge "must have" game every month or two, and that's not even counting handhelds and smaller indie/niche games or DLC.

Now I'm no expert at all on pricing structures but I imagine most places only price their games at such ridiculous amounts because they can. If one company can get away with pricing their blockbusters at $70, others are gonna try too. And if they know people will BUY at that price, they're gonna keep doing it. I'd give in and say they use all that money for packaging, printing, disc creation, distribution, etc. except the prices are exactly the same whether you buy it for download or on a disc. I know there's something amiss if I'm paying the same amount for a digital distribution game as for a full retail game. :| (A single-player retail game, at that, so they don't even have to recoup any online-play costs.)

 

[Oryx]

I meant decreasing the price. :/ More people will buy titles if they're priced more around the $40-50 range. I realize I don't really have a right to complain about prices since Japan, Australia, and similar places are so much more expensive but... that's still a lot to pay! Especially if you try to keep up with all the blockbusters. There's usually a huge "must have" game every month or two, and that's not even counting handhelds and smaller indie/niche games or DLC.

Now I'm no expert at all on pricing structures but I imagine most places only price their games at such ridiculous amounts because they can. If one company can get away with pricing their blockbusters at $70, others are gonna try too. And if they know people will BUY at that price, they're gonna keep doing it. I'd give in and say they use all that money for packaging, printing, disc creation, distribution, etc. except the prices are exactly the same whether you buy it for download or on a disc. I know there's something amiss if I'm paying the same amount for a digital distribution game as for a full retail game. :| (A single-player retail game, at that, so they don't even have to recoup any online-play costs.)

Agreed, especially with the bolded part. Like I said, these companies are businesses. As much as people want to support them, if they weren't making money with the games that they're selling now, they would change the prices, production, or something else to make sure that they are making money. They think about used games, and try to predict how the market will flow - there are people that won't buy the game at all if they can't buy it used, so that's no money lost, and there are also people that would have still bought the game, so that is. They balance their prices to give them as much profit as possible.

I guess it might just be a disconnect for me, because no one I know is in the industry - in my opinion, I already know that they're trying to milk me for every penny they can get me to spend. If they could make the game 100 dollars and possibly get more profit out of it, they would do that whether or not I could afford it. Maybe a small, indie game that isn't on Gamestop shelves or well-established would go through the effort of making just enough to make the game better without much of a profit, lessening the cost to me, but I'm not buying that big-name game companies are really hurting for profit.

Nintendo's net income reported in May 2010 was 2.5 billion dollars, and that was down from their income the year before.

 

[Captain Fabio]

Now I'm no expert at all on pricing structures but I imagine most places only price their games at such ridiculous amounts because they can.

Well, that isn't completely correct, I guess. The sheer amount of work that goes into these games is mostly the reason for the price cost.

People want better graphics, better gameplay and so on, which means more man power, more hours and better hardware/techniques to puh the existing hardware. This is one of the main reasons the pricing is being pushed up.
You look back at the previous consoles, starting at Xbox and PS1. They were, iirc, £30s or there about? PS2 and Gamecube started to get more expensive at £40s and now with the 360 and PS3, the hardware is so much better, that developers have more to work with, but as a gaming community, we expect more.
We want better graphics, which means more development time in getting everything crisp, better DLC which means more work after the game and so on. (I speak more on an average on the gaming community and not exactly pointing fingers at any of you. =])

Yes, I agree, the don't really need to be as expensive as they are, but developers need to make a profit. I suppose it is the same as the companies who need to make a profit with the games that they sell. However, they aren't making them. xD
I guess it i just a never ending circle really.​

​

I meant decreasing the price.

And I know. I was just saying as a thought! :3​

​

 

[Luck]

I meant decreasing the price. :/ More people will buy titles if they're priced more around the $40-50 range. I realize I don't really have a right to complain about prices since Japan, Australia, and similar places are so much more expensive but... that's still a lot to pay! Especially if you try to keep up with all the blockbusters. There's usually a huge "must have" game every month or two, and that's not even counting handhelds and smaller indie/niche games or DLC.

Actually, if you're going by how much you pay over gameplay time, they're a bit cheaper than movies. Even FPSes are better than movies if they're singleplayer only and in the 8-10 hour range, and as far as I know games lower in price after becoming Greatest Hits(or being available during Steam sales) and movies just disappear for a while before going on DVD/Blu-Ray.

I do understand, however, that it's a larger risk to drop $60 for a game rather than $10 for a movie, but most people don't buy games on a whim.

Now I'm no expert at all on pricing structures but I imagine most places only price their games at such ridiculous amounts because they can. If one company can get away with pricing their blockbusters at $70, others are gonna try too. And if they know people will BUY at that price, they're gonna keep doing it.

It depends on the company. Square Enix actually lowered the price on their PSP games throughout the year, and Duodecim is for $30 despite the original Dissidia starting out at $40. They did, however, price some of their DS games higher than the $35 average.

3D Dot Game Heroes sold at $40 as well. I won't say that all companies do the same thing, but I think Fabio was right when he said that it was priced that high because it was expensive to develop.

 

[Zurenriri]

A major new release for the SNES ran about $40 at release. But that was only 15-20 years ago, and I find it hard to believe that inflation has had that much of an effect of prices, I mean, a gaming computer in 1996 cost about $1500... that's about what they cost nowadays.

So yeah I'd have to agree that prices are going up just because they know consumers will pay. Video game sales increase more and more every year.

 

[Captain Fabio]

A major new release for the SNES ran about $40 at release. But that was only 15-20 years ago, and I find it hard to believe that inflation has had that much of an effect of prices, I mean, a gaming computer in 1996 cost about $1500... that's about what they cost nowadays.

So yeah I'd have to agree that prices are going up just because they know consumers will pay. Video game sales increase more and more every year.

You can spec a gaming PC for less than that now. And regardless of what the price was when the SNES came out, they will always be expensive like that for a while. It is like the cost of a new console when it comes out. If it uses new disks, they will be more for a while.​

​

 

[Livewire]

I don't mind it, It's kinda helpful, especially if you don't want to shell out 70 bucks for both B/W games. The game companies will still make plenty of money, so I don't see the issue there.

 

[Altaïr]

I don't mind it, It's kinda helpful, especially if you don't want to shell out 70 bucks for both B/W games. The game companies will still make plenty of money, so I don't see the issue there.

Yes. The companies will profit from the original sale, and the store will profit from the resale. The original buyer gets his money back, and the new buyer gets the game he wants for cheap. Everyone's happy and that's how it should be.

 

[Luck]

I don't mind it, It's kinda helpful, especially if you don't want to shell out 70 bucks for both B/W games. The game companies will still make plenty of money, so I don't see the issue there.

Console companies have much more trouble making money unless their games are Call of Duty popular. Shenmue cost $70 million to make but it was a flop. NieR was a new IP that just about broke even, with a budget of $10 million. The company doesn't exist anymore now.

Yes. The companies will profit from the original sale, and the store will profit from the resale. The original buyer gets his money back, and the new buyer gets the game he wants for cheap. Everyone's happy and that's how it should be.

But not everyone is happy. That's why companies like EA created Project $10, so they can at least see some profit from their used games.

 

[Captain Fabio]

Yes. The companies will profit from the original sale, and the store will profit from the resale. The original buyer gets his money back, and the new buyer gets the game he wants for cheap. Everyone's happy and that's how it should be.

But then, that is unfair on the developers.
Look at it this way:
A gamer buys a game for £40. The retailer gets a percentage and the developers get most of it. So say 10/90. So the retailers get £4 and the developers get £36.
However, that buyer then trades it in for less than half of what they bought it for. So the retailer shells out, say, £15 on it. So they are -£11. However, they will mark that game at about £25 and make 100% profit on it. So, you add that up over 10 sales (9 of which are pre-owned sales), and they will have made (4-15+25)*10 = £140. Just from that, they have made nearly 4 times what the developers profited from.

Doesn't really seem fair, since the developers were the ones who made the actual game, and the retailers just shoved it on the shelf.​

​

 

[Oryx]

But then, that is unfair on the developers.
Look at it this way:
A gamer buys a game for £40. The retailer gets a percentage and the developers get most of it. So say 10/90. So the retailers get £4 and the developers get £36.
However, that buyer then trades it in for less than half of what they bought it for. So the retailer shells out, say, £15 on it. So they are -£11. However, they will mark that game at about £25 and make 100% profit on it. So, you add that up over 10 sales, and they will have made (4-15+25)*10 = £140. Just from that, they have made nearly 4 times what the developers profited from.

Doesn't really seem fair, since the developers were the ones who made the actual game, and the retailers just shoved it on the shelf.​

​

Wait, in 10 sales the retailer made 140 and the developer made 360...? That seems logical to me. A retailer doesn't just "shove it on a shelf", they're a business in their own right and have to rent their building, advertise, convince people to buy, hire employees, etc. They're not some shady guy in a van with a bunch of games in the back.

We can't really know whether or not the developer is actually losing money, because we can't know who would have bought the game new if it was unavailable used, and what kind of game loyalty they may have bought with that used game. What if one person buys a used copy of a Zelda game, falls in love with Zelda, and begins to buy every new game the day it comes out? That's a lot of money in the developer's pocket. I know myself that there are many games that I will not buy new, but I will buy used. It has nothing to do with the developer, or the game, just that I literally can't afford to buy it new. So if they take my used games from me, they're not going to gain any money. I just won't buy their games at all. On the other hand, there are people who would pay the extra 20 dollars or so to buy it new, but don't because they don't have to, since the used copy is available. Those people do make the developers lose money. But we don't know how many are in group A like me, or how many are in group B, and we don't know the buying habits of any of these people afterwards based on whether or not they enjoy the game.

 

[Zurenriri]

You can spec a gaming PC for less than that now. And regardless of what the price was when the SNES came out, they will always be expensive like that for a while. It is like the cost of a new console when it comes out. If it uses new disks, they will be more for a while.​

​

You're right... look hard enough and a gaming computer can be yours for about $1000, a price decrease of 33% since 1996. On the other hand, major release games run $60 instead of $40 now (in the US at least, more expensive elsewhere). So that's a 25% price increase from the mid-90s.

It might have something to do with gaming being still somewhat of a niche market; there are those that simply don't enjoy video games versus computers in general which have now become part of living in the 21st century and it's pretty tough to not have one.

I don't know, but I just don't like shelling out 1/4 of what I paid for my system for just one game. Yet another reason why I am a PC gamer. Build a good enough PC and it can play new games for 10 years.

 

[Captain Fabio]

Wait, in 10 sales the retailer made 140 and the developer made 360...? That seems logical to me. A retailer doesn't just "shove it on a shelf", they're a business in their own right and have to rent their building, advertise, convince people to buy, hire employees, etc. They're not some shady guy in a van with a bunch of games in the back..

Sorry, I meant that 9 of those sales were the pre-owned sales. I knew I would forget something.
Since this is a pre-owned games thread, I thought some people might guess my logic, but my bad.

Compared to the effort that the developers put into it, it compares to "shoving it on the shelf".
Don't get me wrong. I know they are a business and the one thing businesses have to do to survive is make a profit. However, they were doing fine before pre-owned games were introduced.​

​

I don't know, but I just don't like shelling out 1/4 of what I paid for my system for just one game. Yet another reason why I am a PC gamer. Build a good enough PC and it can play new games for 10 years.

Thing is though, the PS3 is now 5 years old and the 360 is 6 years old and they aren't going anywhere for a while. So I think they will be around, PS3 might fall short, for nearly 10 years. The problem with PCs are they suffer from being just that, a Personal Computer. Unless you are updating every few years, then you will suffer from its usage and if you update, you are spending a fair bit on it. However, this is going off-topic. If you like, I am happy to continue this conversation on VMs. =]​

​

 

[Oryx]

Sorry, I meant that 9 of those sales were the pre-owned sales. I knew I would forget something.
Since this is a pre-owned games thread, I thought some people might guess my logic, but my bad.

Compared to the effort that the developers put into it, it compares to "shoving it on the shelf".
Don't get me wrong. I know they are a business and the one thing businesses have to do to survive is make a profit. However, they were doing fine before pre-owned games were introduced.​

​

How did the store get the 9 pre-owned ones in the first place...? Someone sold them to the store, right? How did the person selling them back get them? Buying them new. You can't have a pre-owned game without it being bought new at some point, even if it wasn't at the same place. So if in a set of 10 games, 1 was sold new and the other 9 were sold pre-owned, using your price parameters...

Developers get $36 per new game sold - they make $360 from all 10
Retailers get $4 per new game - they make $4 from 1 new game sold
Retailers buy games for $15 - they lose $135 from buying 9 pre-owned games
Retailers sell pre-owned games for $25 - they gain $225 dollars from selling 9 pre-owned games

Total developer profit = $360
Total retailer profit = $94

This is assuming that the retailer didn't sell the new games to begin with, just bought them and sold them as pre-owned excepting that one.

When did pre-owned games start being sold? I tried to look it up because I honestly can't remember a time that they weren't sold, and this thread came up as the fourth result on Google, lol.

I think your point on the work retailers do vs. the work developers do is entirely subjective. Should stores such as Kohl's not get money from other brands sold in their store, just because the other brand created the original product? Kohl's is stocking it, advertising it, making commercials to make people want it more, but they're obviously doing less work than the person who designed the outfits being sold, so they don't even deserve 1/4 of the profits. The same goes for a computer, that people spend a lot of time developing, testing, etc. They give it to Best Buy to sell, but Best Buy didn't develop the hardware and software for the computer, so they can't make a decent profit off of it? Nevermind the work that they put into displaying the computer, pushing people into buying more things involved with it, training employees to hype that particular computer, the commericals, the ads online, none of that is "work" compared to building the computer, right? ._.