129 réponses à ce sujet

[CulturalGeekGirl]

theSteeeeels wrote...

Walker White wrote...

theSteeeeels wrote...

but if you sell your game then its not putting any more pressure on the serves because after the transaction the same amount of people are using the servers

Not true.  They factor in how long people will play the game before stopping in budgeting for server maintenance. You may not like this, but the alternative is to charge subscriptions for every multiplayer game.

so we pay $10 on a preowned game because they need to know the maintence figures?

how about choosing the third option, were we dont pay for supscripton or the $10, like games have been doing since online gaming started

And then game companies go under more often, and sequels to great games never get made, or languish in development hell for half a decade (I'm gonna pour out a 40 of Nuka-cola for my homies in Van Buren). Getting a continuous money stream makes it more likely that the next game gets made, and made with a decent budget.

If you buy a game and you don't like it enough to care whether or not another game in the series gets made, you probably don't care enough to need access to a minor character and a few little bonus missions. If you like a game enough to care if a sequel gets made, then you might as well pay the $10 and get the extra character.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 26 avril 2011 - 02:58 .

[InvincibleHero]

What is this nonsense that publishers don't get paid for used copies? They got paid when the original owner bought it. Gamestop then invests money to repurchase games to sell for a profit margin. It is no different than E-bay buyers that find deals and rtesell for profit.

Now maybe it costs some sales because they might be forced to find a new copy to buy. However, I think people in the market for used games want to save money to begin with. I almost never pay full retail price for games. I'd rather wait till it comes down, or they release a compilation because at the same time I get patches available and pay less for my patience. I have been burned many times buying games and getting bugs where you can't play or even losing saves.

Making PC games $60 is greed. They don't have to pay royalties to anyone unlike on consoles and are just gouging.

[Saphara]

InvincibleHero wrote...

What is this nonsense that publishers don't get paid for used copies? They got paid when the original owner bought it. Gamestop then invests money to repurchase games to sell for a profit margin. It is no different than E-bay buyers that find deals and rtesell for profit.

Now maybe it costs some sales because they might be forced to find a new copy to buy. However, I think people in the market for used games want to save money to begin with. I almost never pay full retail price for games. I'd rather wait till it comes down, or they release a compilation because at the same time I get patches available and pay less for my patience. I have been burned many times buying games and getting bugs where you can't play or even losing saves.

Making PC games $60 is greed. They don't have to pay royalties to anyone unlike on consoles and are just gouging.

They may get paid when the original perosn bought it, but they certainly dont when the next person buys it used. 2 people getting use out of a single game is a loss on profit for the developers. 3 people getting use out of a single game is an outright net loss. This is why i support what they do to support new game sales.

If you dont want to buy it at 60, thats fine. People have budgets and that's not the issue. What is the problem is people want their cake (ME2 at a cheaper price as used) and eat it too (free Cerebus Network / New Game DLC). You have a right to conserve your money, just as a company has just as much of a right to increase profits by encouraging new game sales.

Modifié par Saphara, 26 avril 2011 - 03:14 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

InvincibleHero wrote...

What is this nonsense that publishers don't get paid for used copies? They got paid when the original owner bought it. Gamestop then invests money to repurchase games to sell for a profit margin. It is no different than E-bay buyers that find deals and rtesell for profit.

Now maybe it costs some sales because they might be forced to find a new copy to buy. However, I think people in the market for used games want to save money to begin with. I almost never pay full retail price for games. I'd rather wait till it comes down, or they release a compilation because at the same time I get patches available and pay less for my patience. I have been burned many times buying games and getting bugs where you can't play or even losing saves.

Making PC games $60 is greed. They don't have to pay royalties to anyone unlike on consoles and are just gouging.

Prices are heavily based on development costs. That's why some games are cheaper - they cost less to develop (this is an oversimplification, there are other factors of course, but there's a significant correlation here). That's why Portal 2 costs as much for 8 hours of play as Mass Effect 2 does for ~30 or whatever. I'd bet they have similar investment to profit ratios. You want to pay $30 for a new game? That game will have half the conent that the $60 version would have. The original Portal cost $12 by itself, and was 1/5 as long as the version that costs $60 (or whatever... numbers approximate, prices keep shifting, etc. I bought portal as part of the Orange box, but it was released as its own game a few times at different price points).

I'm not saying people who buy used games should feel bad. I'm not saying that games shouldn't be sell-able.

When people say "the game company doesn't get any money from the used game" they're saying that the used game doesn't help the company stay in the black. This is a simplification, of course, maybe the first person who bought it only bought it because he knew he'd eventually sell it. But the point is this: if one guy buys a game new, and that game gets resold and repurchased 5 times, it's functionally no different from selling only a single copy, to the maker of the game. It's possible that the original company makes only $10 profit off of that game, and Gamestop makes $50.

Bonus new game DLC is just a way for the company that makes the game to reclaim part of that $50. If gamers know that they'll have to pay another $10 to get the extra content, Gamestop may have to factor that into their pricing. So the game will be $30 on steam (with DLC included) and $20 at Gamestop without the DLC. Now Gamestop is only making $5 profit per game sold, and people are more likely to buy it new on steam. People who do buy it used may still decide to buy the extra DLC, or they can choose to skip it... it's their choice. Profit goes toward the company that's producing a product, rather than toward the middleman. I see that as a win.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 26 avril 2011 - 03:28 .

[Cancer Puppet]

Vyse_Fina wrote...

It's funny that they had "technical difficulties" when they were about to explain how exactly one could take this out on Gamestop... Don't get e wrong, I am all for this, but I don't really see a way to get those 10$ from gamestop on used games, other than having some sort of used games tax. That'd cause some legal issues though I bet.

One thing I know for sure though: Having special content you get as preorder bonus only when you preorder at Gamestop will not make this any better. In fact it supports gamestop. What is this? They are actively taking some of your profit away and you SUPPORT them?
I know, there are issues that make this seem worthwhile (like having your game featured prominently in the stores or sth) but isn't that counterproductive? (an annoying for everyone who doesn't want to preorder in five different places to get all the content)

By having the content as a pre-order exclusive, publishers promote sales of new games. And in order for there to be used games, you must sell new games. So, both parties benefit from this particular type of promotion

[Knightsire]

aLucidMind wrote...

We're pretty much giving you the main reason why they do this, to make a profit and keep from going under as well as to be able to continue a great series. If 75% bought Mass Effect 2 Used then Mass Effect 3 would not be made.

Honestly, I do whatever I can to support a company that I trust with games. The only reason why I even bought the appearance packs and the weapon packs were so I can help support them. I never really wanted them at first, it was mainly just a "Thank you, keep it up" purchase.

I agree with this...a lot of games I wanted a sequel to died out because the sales were low near release.  Some games went on to be sleeper hits, but sold for way below full price and although the publisher was happy to recoup some of the losses they never gave a sequel a second thought.

[Cancer Puppet]

Also, let's not forget that gamestop isn't the only seller of used games. Check out ebay. In truth, if I'm getting rid of a used game I sell on ebay. If buying a used game? Ebay. It's really a better deal than gamestop for both buyer and seller. Why trade a game for $20 to gamestop so they can re-sell it for $55, when I can sell it for $40-45, make more money myself, and help someone else save a little cash? I'd rather give as little to gamestop (used) as possible. New games I have no problem with.

That was a bit off-topic I suppose, but that's my two cents anyway.

Modifié par Cancer Puppet, 26 avril 2011 - 03:47 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

aLucidMind wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

And then game companies go under more often, and sequels to great games never get made, or languish in development hell for half a decade (I'm gonna pour out a 40 of Nuka-cola for my homies in Van Buren). Getting a continuous money stream makes it more likely that the next game gets made, and made with a decent budget.

If you buy a game and you don't like it enough to care whether or not another game in the series gets made, you probably don't care enough to need access to a minor character and a few little bonus missions. If you like a game enough to care if a sequel gets made, then you might as well pay the $10 and get the extra character.

With this in mind, I'm sure some others are wondering as well. What exactly is the difference in development between PC and Console? PC games are always cheaper than console games, with very few exceptions.

We're straying a bit far from my areas of expertise here, but there are some basic factors I know play a part. You do usually have to pay a license fee and/or royalties to the console company, when making a console game (that's how some consoles can be sold for a loss, though really that whole situation has been exaggerated somewhat.) Also, in many cases the company can flat-out tell you where you have to set the MSRP, and what the wholesale price has to be.

So the prices on PC games can be more closely tied to their exact development costs, and prices can be shifted more easily - lowered dramatically once they've earned out, etc. Also, after a certain point they can be sold without physical copies, which increases what we call "the long tail," that is to say, continued small profits after the initial large profit fades. It costs money to reprint a game physically, and to ship and stock it.  It costs much less to put it up on a download service. As consoles have more and better dowload services available, these "long tail" prices may normalize costs somewhat.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 26 avril 2011 - 04:14 .

[Walker White]

theSteeeeels wrote...

so we pay $10 on a preowned game because they need to know the maintence figures?

how about choosing the third option, were we dont pay for supscripton or the $10, like games have been doing since online gaming started

Those would be the days of PC multiplayer, where there was no significant used aftermarket.  Consoles have created a new used game market that did not previously exist.  And that creates new costs for the developer.  They either charge money or shut down servers.

[InvincibleHero]

Saphara wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...

What is this nonsense that publishers don't get paid for used copies? They got paid when the original owner bought it. Gamestop then invests money to repurchase games to sell for a profit margin. It is no different than E-bay buyers that find deals and rtesell for profit.

Now maybe it costs some sales because they might be forced to find a new copy to buy. However, I think people in the market for used games want to save money to begin with. I almost never pay full retail price for games. I'd rather wait till it comes down, or they release a compilation because at the same time I get patches available and pay less for my patience. I have been burned many times buying games and getting bugs where you can't play or even losing saves.

Making PC games $60 is greed. They don't have to pay royalties to anyone unlike on consoles and are just gouging.

They may get paid when the original perosn bought it, but they certainly dont when the next person buys it used. 2 people getting use out of a single game is a loss on profit for the developers. 3 people getting use out of a single game is an outright net loss. This is why i support what they do to support new game sales.

If you dont want to buy it at 60, thats fine. People have budgets and that's not the issue. What is the problem is people want their cake (ME2 at a cheaper price as used) and eat it too (free Cerebus Network / New Game DLC). You have a right to conserve your money, just as a company has just as much of a right to increase profits by encouraging new game sales.

That can be argued for any product sold anywhere. What makes game companies the exception?  If i buy a table I can resell it to someone and the company did not make any money either same with anything, books, DVDs, furniture, clothes, toys, etc etc. To try to end that market will be like a self-inflicted gunshot. They will drive more people to getting it for free via piracy. Stupid is stupid.

I buy and pay for all my games and never buy used PC games for consoles sure.

I never said they should get extras that were for preorder.

[InvincibleHero]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...

What is this nonsense that publishers don't get paid for used copies? They got paid when the original owner bought it. Gamestop then invests money to repurchase games to sell for a profit margin. It is no different than E-bay buyers that find deals and rtesell for profit.

Now maybe it costs some sales because they might be forced to find a new copy to buy. However, I think people in the market for used games want to save money to begin with. I almost never pay full retail price for games. I'd rather wait till it comes down, or they release a compilation because at the same time I get patches available and pay less for my patience. I have been burned many times buying games and getting bugs where you can't play or even losing saves.

Making PC games $60 is greed. They don't have to pay royalties to anyone unlike on consoles and are just gouging.

Prices are heavily based on development costs. That's why some games are cheaper - they cost less to develop (this is an oversimplification, there are other factors of course, but there's a significant correlation here). That's why Portal 2 costs as much for 8 hours of play as Mass Effect 2 does for ~30 or whatever. I'd bet they have similar investment to profit ratios. You want to pay $30 for a new game? That game will have half the conent that the $60 version would have. The original Portal cost $12 by itself, and was 1/5 as long as the version that costs $60 (or whatever... numbers approximate, prices keep shifting, etc. I bought portal as part of the Orange box, but it was released as its own game a few times at different price points).

I'm not saying people who buy used games should feel bad. I'm not saying that games shouldn't be sell-able.

When people say "the game company doesn't get any money from the used game" they're saying that the used game doesn't help the company stay in the black. This is a simplification, of course, maybe the first person who bought it only bought it because he knew he'd eventually sell it. But the point is this: if one guy buys a game new, and that game gets resold and repurchased 5 times, it's functionally no different from selling only a single copy, to the maker of the game. It's possible that the original company makes only $10 profit off of that game, and Gamestop makes $50.

Bonus new game DLC is just a way for the company that makes the game to reclaim part of that $50. If gamers know that they'll have to pay another $10 to get the extra content, Gamestop may have to factor that into their pricing. So the game will be $30 on steam (with DLC included) and $20 at Gamestop without the DLC. Now Gamestop is only making $5 profit per game sold, and people are more likely to buy it new on steam. People who do buy it used may still decide to buy the extra DLC, or they can choose to skip it... it's their choice. Profit goes toward the company that's producing a product, rather than toward the middleman. I see that as a win.

You know all companies will charge the $60 not just those that need it. Budget titles that sell for $40 or less retail from the start are obviously lower quality to begin with. I wish more companies would try selling their AAA titles for less than full retail form the get go. If they sell many more copies they make up for asking for $10 less. I think sales will decline if $60 becones the norm for PC games. There is no correlation between hours playable and quality.

Using DLC is not bad but if it is mandatory as a means to kill resales, no way. I wouldn't even touch it. If they cut out part of the game and make you buy it to be playable then that is violating the producer/consumer compact. You know having a fully viable product sold in good faith.

[theSteeeeels]

Saphara wrote...

They may get paid when the original perosn bought it, but they certainly dont when the next person buys it used. 2 people getting use out of a single game is a loss on profit for the developers. 3 people getting use out of a single game is an outright net loss. This is why i support what they do to support new game sales.

so i can expect dvd companies to start making me pay extra for pre-owned dvds now to huh?

[InvincibleHero]

And who knows exactly how the industy works? If for instance Target gets 300,000 copies of ME3 how much did they pay? I would say they purchase them because 1-2 years down the road they are selling PC games for $10-20 or less sometimes and they take the loss. The devs already got their money.

How many copies will realistically work their way through that many customers? I buy a game and keep it and I am not the only one.

You cannot count lost sales because people are specifically buying used to save a little money. They are not willing to pay that $60. If you prevent them from getting their cheaper game then likely they steal it instead of buying from someone which should be seen as far preferable.

Again I reiterate no company get sales beyond first point of contact so why should game companies?

[Empiro]

From searching online, used games are about 2.1 billion dollars, while new games are 10 billion dollars (not including downloads).

So even if you somehow forced everyone to only buy new games, you'd only make about 20% more money. However, you wouldn't make 20% more money because:

a) some people were willing to buy the game at the cheaper used price, but not at the new game's price

some people who would have purchased the game will not, because they don't have the money that they got from selling games they purchased previously, and because they know that they can't sell this game if they buy it.

c) Some people, like myself, had lots of trouble getting at the content. It said that my code was used, even though I had bought the game brand new on release day. That not only annoyed me greatly, making me less likely to buy games with DLC codes, but I also had to file a support ticket, which costs them money to answer and service.

d) I also made it known to hundreds of people that I had trouble with the DLC, and many of those people will be less likely to buy games from EA in the future.

Modifié par Empiro, 26 avril 2011 - 05:43 .

[ExtremeOne]

I always buy new games

[habitat 67]

On newer titles especially, a lot of Gamestop's used versions are only $5 cheaper than the new price. For only $5 more, I'd rather the developing company see that money.

[AbsolutGrndZer0]

Homey C-Dawg wrote...

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote...

They already got paid, yes.  Now, bear with my prices here I'm making the math easy for me to figure and you to understand (or just me, I hate math)

Say they spend $1,000,000 to make the game.  They then charge $10 for the game.  In order to JUST BREAK EVEN they must sell 100,000 games.  

So, say 75,000 people buy the game brand new.  50,000 keep it forever, but 25,000 sell it to a place like GameStop. Then 25,000 people buy it used. So, while 100,000 people bought the game, the company only got the money for 75,000 sales.  So, they get $750,000.  Well, that puts them $250,000 in debt.

 

Well if thats the case it just reinforces my greed theory, since in your example they only actually sold 75,000 copies (the 25,000 who sold the game obviously didn't keep their copy). Sure 100,000 ended up playing the game, but 25,000 of them had no intention of buying it new or they would have. So it comes back to EA wanting a cut from every single person who plays the game which, as much as I like Bioware, I cannot get behind. I think thats exerting too much control on a post-purchased product.

Again I wonder how the used car market would work if Hondas or Toyotas required you to re-purchase the stock heater/AC/stereo/speakers every time the car was re-sold. After all, you don't really need that stuff to drive it.

If this does not help it make sense to you why "they already got paid" isn't a valid argument, then you just refuse to accept the facts.

I'm not "refusing to accept" any facts, I'm simply trying to account for all factors while forming my opinion. Thanks for the response still.

You obviously missed the part where in my example the company spent $1,000,000 but only sold enough games for a $750,000 return. Which, means there will not be a sequel because the example company can't afford to make any more games.

An incentive to buy new instead of used is not greed, it's good business sense.  If you choose to buy it used, you don't get the incentive, but if you want it, you have to pay for it.  It's simple, and it makes sure the company doesn't go bankrupt.

[AbsolutGrndZer0]

Empiro wrote...

From searching online, used games are about 2.1 billion dollars, while new games are 10 billion dollars (not including downloads).

So even if you somehow forced everyone to only buy new games, you'd only make about 20% more money. However, you wouldn't make 20% more money because:

a) some people were willing to buy the game at the cheaper used price, but not at the new game's price

some people who would have purchased the game will not, because they don't have the money that they got from selling games they purchased previously, and because they know that they can't sell this game if they buy it.

c) Some people, like myself, had lots of trouble getting at the content. It said that my code was used, even though I had bought the game brand new on release day. That not only annoyed me greatly, making me less likely to buy games with DLC codes, but I also had to file a support ticket, which costs them money to answer and service.

d) I also made it known to hundreds of people that I had trouble with the DLC, and many of those people will be less likely to buy games from EA in the future.

Well, part of that problem might be GameStop and companies like them.  Maybe your GameStop doesn't, or you didn't buy it at GameStop, but other than pre-orders I am reluctant to buy from GameStop because of their policy to open boxes and keep the discs and all insert materials behin the counter.  You take them the "New" box, and they give you the "New" contents.  It's been proven that in some cases, dishonest GameStop employees have stolen codes.  Most don't, but a few have, and that breaks it somewhat for me... New to me means FACTORY SEALED.  Also, sometimes with this mistakes can happen. I know of guy who bought City of Villains Collector's Edition.  He got the HeroClix figures and all that because they were left in the box.  Only the disc and the registration card were removed. So, he got home, installed the game, entered his code.   Then, when he reached level 20 he did the mission to unlock capes, then went to put on the special Arachnos Cape... only to find it wasn't there... he asked NCSoft and they told him his code was for the regular version, not the Collector's Edition.  He double-checked, and sure enough GameStop had charged him $80 for the Collector's Edition, but given him the $40 regular game.  He tried to fix it with them, but it was past 30 days, so he was just screwed.

Modifié par AbsolutGrndZer0, 26 avril 2011 - 06:43 .