Preowned - It's Killing The Industry!!!

[Lorfarius]

Talk about resurrecting a thread from the dead! The first post was made before I even joined

If it was all doom and gloom like the original post said then surely something would have happened by now?

[Triple A]

retail topping technology takes time... i'm sure that big phil h has thought "fuck retail" if not already said it...

[Initial K]

In at least 2 generations time the games industry will soley revolve around downloads. Physical purchases, retail stores and preowned will become obsolete.

[joeplus]

Well, this bump led me to read the original post, and I think I really disagree. Small rant, veering into what's wrong with the games industry:

All pre-owned games were new at one point, yes? So the developers still get their chunk of the cash for all units sold (I'm assuming sales figures don't count pre-owned sales, but I might be wrong in assuming that). Whether that's true or not, it's still questionable that shops selling pre-owned games make these big markups. But it's not their fault! It's because the industry is set up to produce disposable games.

Games are expensive. Very expensive, in terms of the entertainment they offer. A £10 CD (ignoring, I think fairly, the piracy argument) will usually be kept for good by the purchaser. They offer something you can always go back to if you enjoy it. Games are £30-40 new, and usually, once completed, that's it. Nothing else to do, except replay things you've already done. Of course people will trade in games like these if they can: it's the only sensible thing to do if you're not in salaryville.

And it's something that really gets my goat. Why can't games be like albums? Why can't they remain a source of pleasure long after purchase? The trend in the market is towards long single-player experiences that have a definable number of "hours" of gameplay. I can't get into those sorts of games. The games people tend to keep, instead of trading in, give something that's actually fun to play, rather an experience purely based on unlocking new areas with the same gameplay and endless quests for pointless unlockables. Some developers seem to think that longevity comes in the form of new colours for your fuckin' car, rather than the desire to go back and re-complete bits because they were fun. Even good multiplayer games get ruined by this. Sports game series are just about update after update. If PES6 never got released, most of my mates would still happily be playing PES5, because it's great.

Games worth keeping, like Kororinpa, say, are dismissed as lightweight and short, when in fact I'll probably spend more hours on that game than Twilight Princess in the long run. I'll never get tired of rolling that little marble around, because it's a joy to do, and the levels are just worth playing again and again. Bloody online journalists, though, always pick up on the relatively small level count as a negative, and these games just don't get bought.

Big online games are also a good thing from this viewpoint. I don't see the appeal of GOW, but as it's a massive favourite on Live, people will keep it. It's got something more than "completion" to it.

So yes, I veered off. But pre-owned games are going to be rampant as long as games are "finishable" and over with in a set number of hours, instead of being something you dig up because you love it. Like a good album. Devs, and I think to a large extent players (including some of you lot), have this false idea that the life of a game is at all correlated to how much space it takes up on disc.

[El Stevo]

You don't go back to games like you do to music because of the time investment. You can skip to a three minute song on a CD and love it time and again. To get to a memorable boss fight in some games it might take several hours of slogging through a game that's less exciting than you remember without the thrill of discovery spurring you on. That's a problem with replayability in general - I always find I'm less tolerant of flaws and filler in games when I replay them because the motivation of discovering new things and/or a decent plot is lost.

Back on topic, I think DLC is definitely a way for publishers to make money even from second hand software. I was given Oblivion by a friend recently (he thought his disc was iffy, it was his 360) so 'the industry' has lost out there. But I'll still be shelling out £20 - £30 on DLC when I get around to playing it, meaning that a bit of gold ends up in Bethesda's chest after all. I think DLC will be pushed more and more in future until digital distribution becomes a comprehensive alternative to high street retail.

[Fry Crayola]

I'd like to echo Catachresis' sentiment. I have many games which I do enjoy, but I reckon I'm going to play them once and move on. I find it difficult to say that about the majority of the films I have on DVD, and certainly I can't say that at all about my music. I've finished Metal Gear Solid more times than I can remember because it's about six hours of my time and all of it is gold. I'll play Resident Evil 4 for a third time because it's a thrill from start to finish - I can barely see myself touching Eternal Darkness again, as much as I enjoyed it when I did play it.

The games that linger in my memory and call me back time and time again are the true classics in my mind. It's a real testament to the game's quality if I don't just play a game out of obligation, but replay it in the knowledge that I'm setting myself for another ride. If I find myself brushing aside a brand new, shrink-wrapped game, however good that might well turn out to be, in favour of yet another run of Ico or Silent Hill 2 then well fucking done to whoever came up with those moments of brilliance. I live for them.

Flaws that become apparent in the replaying should be called as such. They're problems and I'd like to see them stamped out, eradicated and future games to be even better. I want a collection of titles that I'm going to go back to, time and time again.

[therealjohnpeat]

PLEASE can we not open this argument up again - it has this knack of going around and around and around and around - you cannot forbid people to resell their own goods without changing a law I'd really you rather didn't fuck around with as it opens up allsorts of horrible ideas...

As for online distribution - that whole concept, and the 'you don't own you just rent/pay a licence to play' thing is inevitable - but it's developing slower than a snail slides in superglue so I think 2 generations may be optimistic (see the Sony Online shop 'farce' for a laughably good example - 3 generations of playstation and they're still struggling to sell you anything!!).

If you MUST dig-up the pre-owned chestnut, perhaps take on the comments made by DVD Empire when they dropped out of the games market.

Apart from some side-swipes at the greed and ignorance of some publishers, they strongly criticised the lack of price-protection for games. They basically said that they were forced into stocking full price games in advance (e.g. before people knew they'd be shit) and before they could move the poorer titles the publisher had dropped their price and other places were selling them at a significant discount - forcing them into selling games for less than they paid for them in many cases...

They furthermore went on to suggest that such an industry was fundamentally broken and they were no longer gonna deal with it - they also said that 'bricks and mortar' businesses were better placed to sell such things - which I assume means "bricks and mortar shops get away with selling things for more money" - which I suppose is true...

Puts all this "pre-owned is killing developers" nonsense into perspective a bit tho - if the publishers themselves are undercutting/ripping-off the retailers and the industry is better served by bricks-and-mortar shops then - erm...

I know, for example, that the guy who runs Grainger Games (indie chain mostly in the North East around Newcastle) won't deal with certain publishers for new titles simply as he knows he'll get the same titles 20-50% cheaper within 2-3 weeks (Charlies - RIP - had a similar approach) - it's a bummer when you're waiting for a title (mostly the more obscure stuff) - but it does save you wasting your cash AND he deals in US imports for PSP and DS which balances it all out anyway

If I had to shop in the high-street chains tho - hell I'd take up another hobby - shops like GAME actually make me wonder why I even bother with games - we have a new one locally and it's just the least interesting shop I've ever been in!!

[northy]

There's either a revolution or a crash coming eventually. Gaming is now established well enough to be around forever and it might well be worth getting a painful market crash over and done with. The alternative being waiting years for the the industry to naturally correct itself into a sustainable mainstream entertainment market. The talent is always going to return to gaming but maybe a crash in the market might get rid of the money-grabbing fucks who see gaming as nothing more than a responsibility-free revenue stream.

[jonathanhoey]

PLEASE can we not open this argument up again - it has this knack of going around and around and around and around

Yes it has. That's exactly why I chose to necro this three-year-old thread, though, don't you see? Plus ça change and all that.

Well, that and the fact that dumpster has just had the Rocky-marked-with-a-security pen story published in a letter in this month's EDGE. (I presume the letter-writer is dumpster, otherwise someone's nicked his story.)

As for online distribution - that whole concept, and the 'you don't own you just rent/pay a licence to play' thing is inevitable - but it's developing slower than a snail slides in superglue so I think 2 generations may be optimistic (see the Sony Online shop 'farce' for a laughably good example - 3 generations of playstation and they're still struggling to sell you anything!!).

I don't know. Looking back to this thread's beginnings in 2004, one of the things I find really interesting is just how far online distribution has come in the intervening three years. I haven't used the Sony shop (although I saw the Penny Arcade strip about it) but I wouldn't have guessed three years ago that Nintendo would make it so easy to buy retro titles over VC, nor that XBLA would make it so easy to buy new titles.

Admittedly, you're talking nice, compact, fast downloads on both VC and XBLA, and they're both (arguably) serving the "casual" end of the market.

It'll be much longer before we start seeing mainstream ("proper") games being distributed primarily online, especially while Sony keeps making such a fuss over however many gigabytes we're supposed to think games need to take up. (The PC market is much more progressive, with stuff like Steam, but I digress.)

Coming back to the topic of pre-owned games for now, let's think about one of the major perceived problems with the current situation - namely that when you buy a pre-owned game, there's no money going back to the IP owners/creators/developers/publishers etc, only into the retailer's back pocket. Hence new games don't get funded, etc.

I do think Virtual Console is a great example of how publishers can avoid this and still get it right, especially since there are other companies' games on there besides just Nintendo (who've already been pretty forward about milking their "classic" IP - see the 'NES Classics' range on GBA, etc.)

So I don't think it's necessarily got to be just the same old discussion going round and round in circles...

[Asura]

maybe a crash in the market might get rid of the money-grabbing fucks who see gaming as nothing more than a responsibility-free revenue stream.

Couldn't you say that for Hollywood movies and popular music though? I don't hear anyone prophesying a crash from them.

In at least 2 generations time the games industry will soley revolve around downloads. Physical purchases, retail stores and preowned will become obsolete.

Although this is also my opinion, I don't believe it as strongly as you do. I think the success of gaming as a digitally delivered medium will balance on that of DVD rental stores. If, for example, Blockbuster manage to carve out some success with digitally delivered movies, that will forge a precedent for digital delivery in the mind of the common consumer.

Admittedly, iTunes has laid the groundwork, but movies will be the big step where we'll see once and for all if the consumer is willing to dump their physical media for digitally delivered flicks and software. Music, after all, works well on DD as it can then more easily be put on something like an iPod; and portable music isn't exactly new. However, games and movies aren't the same.

And, as we all know, we're surely heading for a mess of DRM in all of this.

It will be interesting to see how the next ten years play out, that's for sure.

[northy]

Couldn't you say that for Hollywood movies and popular music though? I don't hear anyone prophesying a crash from them.

We're living in a market which is still geared towards hobbyists with some true mass market penetration towards the end of the console cycles. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of movie-goers at an opening weekend are not film buffs but the general public looking to be entertained. Ticket prices have to be set at a level which allows this, whereas the entire publishing and retail part of games wants to expand the market whist charging hobbyist (i.e. inflated) prices. Sooner or later it's going to change and I'd rather a crash took down a few companies that the industry would be better off without e.g. GAME in the process.

[M.M.S]

Sooner or later it's going to change and I'd rather a crash took down a few companies that the industry would be better off without e.g. GAME in the process.

Can't wait for next Friday

[roadkill]

We're living in a market which is still geared towards hobbyists with some true mass market penetration towards the end of the console cycles. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of movie-goers at an opening weekend are not film buffs but the general public looking to be entertained. Ticket prices have to be set at a level which allows this, whereas the entire publishing and retail part of games wants to expand the market whist charging hobbyist (i.e. inflated) prices. Sooner or later it's going to change and I'd rather a crash took down a few companies that the industry would be better off without e.g. GAME in the process.

So very very true.

[dumpster]

Yeah, sorry about that - I just wanted a DS lite.

[Nick R]

I bought six PS2 games for £40 at Gamestation the other day (among them, ICO, you'll be pleased to know) - what are you lot talking about, preowned is brilliant! I rarely buy games new, because all those years of being several years behind everyone else (with a Dreamcast and N64 and a Win 98 PC when everyone else had a PS2 and Xbox and Win XP PC) have given me a warped sense of what feels like an appropriate price for a game. To me they should all be priced like Devil May Cry 3 Special Edition.

More seriously, I haven't read through the preceding 10 pages of comments, but I don't really think it's right that a game can be released for £30 and within a week be on sale preowned for £25, but if you buy the latter all of it goes to the shop and none to the developer.

Every time you buy a preowned game in Gamestation its name comes up on the receipt, so theoretically there must be some way they could direct some of that money back to the original publishers/developers - the problem is whether they would want to. The only other alternative I can think of is something extreme like banning shops from selling preowned copies of games within a month of it being launched, but it's probably illegal to make a restriction like that.

[dumpster]

The disks and packaging do say "not for resale", and the preowned approach totally contadicts the user licence agreement that comes with the software.

It's a very odd situation, for example, ROMS sites get closed down for being "illegal", whilst HMV sells Spectrum and C64 compilations off the shelf.

To me it seems that ripping off software developers and publishers is OK, (whether that's preowned, piracy, or whatever), providing that you do it from a brightly lit shop, and not a car boot sale or back bedroom.

[PopeSmokesDope]

It seems that EA is the only company that makes a decent profit off this industry.

Heres a hint why, they make stuff people are willing to buy.

Some developers seem to think they have a god given right to be in business. Fuck off. If you make games that don't sell, it's your fault.

[northy]

Heres a hint why, they make stuff people are willing to buy.

Some developers seem to think they have a god given right to be in business. Fuck off. If you make games that don't sell, it's your fault.

It's simply a case of those choosing to innovate currently living beyond their means. Like every other form of entertainment, innovation isn't going to appeal to a mass market audience until it's proven, the exception being when it's tied to a bankable commodity. The unfortunate thing for gaming is that in the general absence of big name "stars" (with the exceptions of mario, link, etc.) and directors (Miyamoto, Will Wright, etc.) you're only left with sources of inspiration from other media. Whereas films tend to find inspiration in literature and journalism, games are inspired by comics and animation. Until the game buying demographic grows up, innovative game design will always be shackled to shallow background material rather than deeper and more complex ancestry. The low standing of games as art also means the traffic is almost completely one way with games always being inspired rather than inspiring other media. Until this changes games will never normalise themselves into the positive reciprocal inspirational situation that's been around for decades with films, literature and music.

*removes wank hat*

[El Stevo]

*removes wank hat*

Keep it on, good post.

It needs something like the Wii to become ubiquitous so that that there's a market for better writing and adult content. Something for the parents to do when the kids go off to bed, maybe that isn't even a typical 'game'. I can't see enough people getting fired up over an FPS to make a prime time series out of it, however great the story is.

[Unofficial Who]

Some of the big chains are really starting to take the piss now though.

I was always a big defender of preowned, how else were you going to track down the odd gem that was pretty much out of print a month after release?

But now EB in Sydney devote more floor space to preowned than new. In fact, I'm more successful buying new games from JB Hi Fi and that's a chain of music stores. In the meantime EB are selling preowned games for a fiver less than retail.

Want Kingdom Hearts 2? Unavailable at EB unless you want to buy a preowned copy for the bargainlicous price of $90.

[Dimahoo]

Its the same in London. A complete rip off too. Many games are still only £5 less on the 360.

Game and the like take the piss. End of.

[therealjohnpeat]

The disks and packaging do say "not for resale", and the preowned approach totally contadicts the user licence agreement that comes with the software.

I could put "once you've bought this you may never have sex again" on the packaging - would you abide by that? Thing is, you see, those agreements etc. have no basis in-law whatsoever - hence why pre-owned continues to flourish...

It's a very odd situation, for example, ROMS sites get closed down for being "illegal", whilst HMV sells Spectrum and C64 compilations off the shelf.

The only 'odd' thing there is your lack of understanding of the situation really.

You have to presume the compilations they sell are made with the copyright owners permission (and presumably that they receive some income although that's a separate issue) - if they're not, they stand the same chance of being taken to court as you do when you download a ROM.

To me it seems that ripping off software developers and publishers is OK, (whether that's preowned, piracy, or whatever), providing that you do it from a brightly lit shop, and not a car boot sale or back bedroom.

I think you need to clarify your definition of 'ripping off'.

It may (or may not) harm the industry when GAME etc. sell Pre-Owned games - but as there's no law against it there's no reason they should stop doing it is there?

It may (or may not) harm the industry when you copy games for your own use, for your mates or even to sell on markets etc. - but as this IS against the law and you will be fined and possibly jailed should you be caught doing it.

So - the whole point of this thread is that some people are suggesting that the resale of games should be controlled or banned outright by legislation - an idea I find rather horrifying tbh.

Any industry which requires legislation AND enforcement just to continue making money (*coughs* music industry *coughs*) is a dying thing IMO - it would be FAR FAR better for the industry to put it's own house into order first surely?

GAME et al rely on the industry for their existence - similarly the industry relies on them to promote their products and get them into the hands of the 'seething masses'. It cannot be beyond the wit of these people to strike a deal so that both sides gain benefit surely - without resorting to laws which would effect other media such as DVDs where the problem doesn't even seem to exist.

[TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap]

It's probably mentioned before, but most people who resell their games to stores probably use the money to buy new games, supporting the industry. While the people buying preowned would probably not buy a full price game anyway.

In the end it's all supply and demand, and as johnpeat states that if you need legislation AND enforcement to stay in business, there's something wrong with the business as they're apparantly not able to present us with a good deal we, as consumers, feel happy about.

[Big Faced Boy]

Being a musician, I totally understand and appreciate the licensing issue.

Funny thing is, if you look around the shops, you'll find new titles for less than their preowned equivalents - like Gamestation selling Excite Truck for £25 new, and it's £31.99 preowned in Game...

Anyway, if Ubisoft crash and burn, I won't be upset. But as for smaller developers, it's totally comparable to the music industry, where small-time musicians and even some fairly big names struggle to earn a crust. The only people who care if you pirate a Brittney Spears cd are making so much money out of it that it is not going to affect them. Pirate a Planet Mu release and you're taking money straight out of a small-time musician's pocket.

Anyway, piracy isn't the issue here, but the principles are very similar in concept.

[dumpster]

I could put "once you've bought this you may never have sex again" on the packaging - would you abide by that? Thing is, you see, those agreements etc. have no basis in-law whatsoever - hence why pre-owned continues to flourish...

Erm. Yes, if you have to agree to a license before installing the software. Of course, in that example, I wouldn't agree, so I'd have to take it back. I love sex, me.

The only 'odd' thing there is your lack of understanding of the situation really.

You have to presume the compilations they sell are made with the copyright owners permission (and presumably that they receive some income although that's a separate issue) - if they're not, they stand the same chance of being taken to court as you do when you download a ROM.

That's the point. It's been proved these compilations were not made with the copyright holders permission. The Spectrum ones contained a lot of Codemasters stuff, for example - stuff you cannot get on the web easilt because Codemasters do not allow the distribution.

GAME et al rely on the industry for their existence - similarly the industry relies on them to promote their products and get them into the hands of the 'seething masses'.

Lets just think about that, because that is the main point of the original post. The situation as it stands at the moment involves a large element or risk on the part of the developer. Billy sees an advert for Halo 3, decides he has a spare £50 in the bank and wanders into Game to buy it. He sees loads of preowned games, and decides to buy one of those instead.

Or.... Billy sees an advert for Halo 3, so he switches on his console, and downloads it via Xbox Live. One of the key points in any sales training involves the concept of "barriers". The customer decides they want a product - you have to remove as many things that change their mind as possible. Every customer that wanders into a shop to buy a game should be earning money for everyone involved in the creation of that game. If they change their mind and buy preowned, then everyone except the shop loses out. The developer and publisher will surely choose not to take that risk and deal directly with the customer. The shops need the people to make games - but the developers don't need shops any more.

It's probably mentioned before, but most people who resell their games to stores probably use the money to buy new games, supporting the industry. While the people buying preowned would probably not buy a full price game anyway.

People buying preowned 15 years ago probably would not have bought new. These days, the price of preowned is so similar to the price of new it's crazy.

[Lothar Hex]

Personally I don't buy that many pre-owned games anymore, but I do use the trade in value to purchase new games. Just recently I traded F.E.A.R and Starfox Command to purchase the latest Phoenix Wirght game, with a £19 credit note left over which shall be getting used either for Earth Defence Forth 2017 or God of War 2. If I do buy a pre-owned game it's usually one that's been out a while (rather than on the day of release like I usually buy) that I'm not that bothered about, OR it's a title I've been trying to get a hold of for a while that is simply not available new, i.e. the Sly Cooper games.

The preowned pricing is getting very silly now though because of the competition between stores. New 360 games are regulary being discounted a tenner, bringing them to £39.99...the price a lot of those new games will be 2nd hand for the first few weeks of their release. In that sense, I encourage people to buy new, it's the same price so why go for pre-owned?

All in all I'm in favour of the pre-owned system, however I agree that some sort of reperation should be made to the game's creators.

However, and issue arises. What about people selling to other people directly via eBay or even our own trading forum? Do such things also hurt the industry, you could argue they do, since again it's going straight into someone's pocket...just not a store. I dunno if that makes it better or worse depening on your view.

[northy]

If there's a game I really want on release the chances are it'll have been pre-ordered on the web for significantly less than high street prices or imported for even less if it's a DS game. If there's a game I'd like I'll wait until it's sub-£25 new and buy it then. I suspect these tactics are shared by many on this forum.

When it comes to your average punter in the street, however, I think they're much less likely to be sure exactly what they're going to buy when they walk into a high street store selling games. I think the combination of friend and staff recommendations makes it much more likely they'll buy something more impulsively thus being able to save £5-10 on a pre-owned version much more attractive.

Obviously there's a huge amount of middle ground and I'm not for one minute suggesting there's an "us" and "them" situation. But I do feel that GAME et al know that the kinds of people who walk into their shops (cash strapped kids and casual gamers) are the ideal target for selling pre-owned stuff to and the simple fact they are making any saving at all on buying the game new means that they are able to sell pre-owned at ridiculously high prices.

When you look at it like that, it's hard to argue they aren't giving their customers what they want. It's also hard to argue that they have much long term interest in the stability of the publishers and developers when they are removing so much of the cash actually spent on game purchases from production side of the industry.

[JohnC]

Sony are trying something with the PSP

http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/sony-tr...game-hits-used/

The new SOCOM can only be played online after being linked to one PSN account. If you happen to buy it used, you also need to shell out $20 for another online "voucher" to play multiplayer.

[Meh]

Like anyone buys PSP games brand new or second-hand anyway.

[moosegrinder]

EA are doing that with Bad Company 2. You get a code to access the store and DLC for free, you don't have a code you pay.