Second Hand Sales and Their Effect on the Gaming Industry.

D4RK ONION

Probably one of the biggest, yet most subtle changes at the turn of this decade/century/millennium for videogames was the birth of a new sales technique. The "second hand sale". Perhaps you might not even think of it at first (or ever), but the sale of second hand games has had a big impact on the gaming industry.

Everytime you give a game in for trade in and it's sold again, one more person gets to play a game that hundreds of man hours went into (for cheaper, of course), but the developer gets zilch for the fact. The store however make 100% profit.

"So what?!" I hear you say, quite loudly "I gets my game, and the dev loses, what, €50?". Well, no not really. Lets look at one example, Crackdown.

"With Crackdown we sold about 1.5 million copies, but even at that we pretty much only managed to break even," says Realtime Worlds boss Dave Jones. "It was due to the amount of factors that were out of our control as the developer, influences such as GameStop's amazing used-game sales; we know 1.5 million new copies were sold, but it's likely there were 2.5, three million sold when you include used.

That's up to 1.5 MILLION copies they could have sold, that would have gone back into a fledging game company. If they sell the games to Gamestop for €35, that's €52,500,000 of lost revenue (obviously not all going to be profit, but you get the point, I assume.

So enough of me talking at you, what do you think of 2nd hand games? Is it good? Is it bad? Is there any way around it?

source: http://www.destructoid.com/crackdown-developer-hates-used-games-too-140057.phtml

ceegee

most people will trade the game in against a new game, Without 2nd hand sales the number of new games sold would be way down.

AlmightyCushion

I'd like to know where they got the "3 million total sales when you include used" part. Most likely they plucked it out of their ass.

If people want to give their game away or sell it once they're done with it then it's fine in my books. The only way to stop it is to add replayability to the game. Make a kick ass multiplayer that's more addictive than heroine and you'll limit the amount of trade ins.

D4RK ONION

Highly likely, a lot of people only bought the game in the first place to get the halo 3 beta I believe. Regardless of Crackdown it is hurting the industry, to an extent.

But that is a good point ceegee. But then those games they buy are sold second hand, and so on, it's a vicious cycle

mayordenis

I don't do it on the principal of the matter - firstly very rarely is there a good deal - the idea of even when you get the Gamestop offer of €30 euro off when you trade in a new game of making a €30 loss on that within about a month is pretty much something I'm not interested in.
And sure if you want to be short sighted like AlmightyCushion it's our choice what to do with something we bought - but the industry could be brought to it's knee's by something that only props up retailers, the Developers and generally the players are getting a poor deal on this.

Mossy Monk

It is something I don't do either. I couldn't bring myself to do so.

D4RK ONION

mayordenis wrote: »

I don't do it on the principal of the matter - firstly very rarely is there a good deal - the idea of even when you get the Gamestop offer of €30 euro off when you trade in a new game of making a €30 loss on that within about a month is pretty much something I'm not interested in.
And sure if you want to be short sighted like AlmightyCushion it's our choice what to do with something we bought - but the industry could be brought to it's knee's by something that only props up retailers, the Developers and generally the players are getting a poor deal on this.

Precisely. The only person who genuinely benefits is the shop selling it on. Money out of the devs pocket for their next game.

johnny_adidas

i would rather hold onto the games ive bought than give them up for a couple of euro and see them on the shelf for 4 times what i go (min). its the huge profiteering that annoys me more than the practice to be honest. that said doh, i rent a lot of my games, from gamesenders. its works out perfect for me as i complete them and then move on to the next in my list. however, is this the same thing except they make even more on the same initial purchase with multiple rentals?

Coriolanus

Second hand book sales haven't killed off people authoring books.

Plus, a second hand game buyer isn't automatically going to buy a game new if they can't get it secondhand.

Anyway, I collect games as much as books, so it's not something I do.

With digital distribution this problem is largely eliminated though, afaik. (for those games that are exclusively sold that way only, of course.)

Gummy Panda

Well think of it another way, what games would you have missed if there was no used games market?

I know i would miss a lot of great titles from PS2 as they're no longer in print. Some games go out of print very fast and i'm not prepared to pay full price and get every game at launch.

I think the Devs and pubs need to change their model. COD4 maintained the best used price going well after release but there was not much DLC. They could have made a fortune from DLC for that game.

grizzly

Digital downloads – why don't the publishers offer bigger discounts for this? They would cut out the middleman very quickly. Too often the price to download and the price to buy the disc are the same. This seems shortsighted – once someone has bought the digital version it stops the disc from being sold on 5 times and hurting 1st hand sales.

I would like more profits going to the makers of the games – more profits would mean bigger investments in future titles. More investment would mean a bigger chance on projects that are a little more risky (but interesting) getting a green light. Instead of the safe bets only going through (Gears of War 12 or Uncharted 6 : Drakes pension)

noodler

mayordenis wrote: »

I don't do it on the principal of the matter - firstly very rarely is there a good deal - the idea of even when you get the Gamestop offer of ?30 euro off when you trade in a new game of making a ?30 loss on that within about a month is pretty much something I'm not interested in.
And sure if you want to be short sighted like AlmightyCushion it's our choice what to do with something we bought - but the industry could be brought to it's knee's by something that only props up retailers, the Developers and generally the players are getting a poor deal on this.

Shortsighted? Don't preach, we have arguably being paying through the nose for 50c worth of plastic and 49.50e worth of 'everything' else for way to long.

If theres a problem here it is to be solved between retailers and devlopers, say a cut of the shop's profits or a licence fee.

Don't expect the consumer (rightly imo) to hve too much sympathy.

Overheal

The problem started with 360's launch, when games were retailing for 60, even 70 euros per title. And Gamestop and the likes conned people into thinking that was going to be the new 'norm. And as a result, 50 has now become 60. When a game ages, it becomes 50 instead of 30. It gets resold for 40 instead of 20.

the problem is the barrier on buying new is just to thick for most wallets. But sure enough gamestop cornered that market too, like balancing out the other side of a goo tower, they started incentivising pre-orders in cooperation with developers.

Would it be as much of a problem if we went back to $40 new releases? I think not. Gamestop would sure have a conniption though. Likewise if the developers of Crackdown wanna moan, they should have set MSRP somewhere under 60. Honestly.

Shortsighted? Don't preach, we have arguably being paying through the nose for 50c worth of plastic and 49.50e worth of 'everything' else for way to long.

For ****s and giggles, I challenge those figures. Anyone in the know knows the developer and the humble code monkey get by leaps and bounds the smallest share of the net earnings. more than half goes to the publisher, and about 1/3 goes to the retailer, iirc. So thats over 80% of that sum that goes to "plastic"

Shryke

Digital downloads are one way in which you can challenge the whole pre-played business but there are those, such as myself who wish to own an actual hard copy of a game.
When a game is sold first hand a large slice goes to the publisher and then to the developer, also to the retailer. There are other smaller costs that also go into the package, such as the actual packaging, shipping costs etc. All of these add up.
Is it worth paying for? Most of the games I own were bought first hand. Some posts on this topic make me wonder if I've been shopping in the wrong places. I can only spit on the price of pre-owned games. Lets say a fresh copy is 50, the pre-owned is going to be forty five, forty at the least. It's disgusting. I'll gladly pay an extra couple of euros for a new copy knowing that some of that money will actually reach the developer. I wouldn't do it with any old game. But from any studio I respect or any game I'm looking forward to then certainly.

I'll only add a thankyou to Overheal. I haven't heard or thought the word conniption in years. Seriously. It's like welcoming a relative home.

D4RK ONION

I too am one of those people who likes to have a big library of games. I've only ever bought one pre-owned game and that was Burnout: Paradise because it was €20, and at the time that was a steal. I respect the amount of work that (usually) goes into making games, and that's generally why I buy first hand only. I've also never sold a game back to Gamestop. I reckon renting is the better option if you're going to go down that route.

Mr Freeze

I never buy used games. I never trade in really good games, I will hold on to them and replay them at some stage again.

But I do trade in any game that I don't deem good enough to be worth hanging on to, if I can get €20 off a new game.

Some games are hyped up by the developers and publishers beyond belief and have review embargo's, so we can't read a review before purchasing and we purchase the things on release day cause they looked so good in the run up to release, and they turn out to be unfinished buggy disasters. An example would be Alone in the Dark, I couldn't bring this game back to the shop to trade in fast enough, while thinking the testers and developers should all be sacked for letting such crap out (a tad extreme I know, but I was mad :mad:)

I completely understand what D4RK ONION is saying though, and if trade in's were gotten rid of, as a result I would buy less new games and I would rent more games. Now is Renting a game as bad as Trade Ins, it probably is.

noodler

Overheal wrote: »

Honestly.For ****s and giggles, I challenge those figures. Anyone in the know knows the developer and the humble code monkey get by leaps and bounds the smallest share of the net earnings. more than half goes to the publisher, and about 1/3 goes to the retailer, iirc. So thats over 80% of that sum that goes to "plastic"

What the hell are you replying to?

I said 50c worth of plastic (as in the actual physical cost of the material you are taking home) and 49.50e to everything else.

Why would I use plastic as an umbrella term for publishers etc?

Untangle your knickers, they are in a twist.

Absolam

Don't forget the near 20% that goes into the public purse.. Biffo loves video games too

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

This topic has a lot of twists to it.

It's very clear that without trading in there would be less sales of new games. People use them to offset the price of the new game.

Some would argue that the price of the new game is inflated in the first place to make up for the amount of times it will be traded in and resold. It was mentioned earlier that Gamestop / shops set the prices of the new releases but that isn't strictly true. The publishers set the RRP of the title and the cost price to the retailer who then decide what price to retail at themselves. In recent times the price of games has come down partly because of reduced cost prices and RRPs but also due to a reduction in margins that retailers are now doing to gain custom in the difficult times. Tesco have even been loss leading on some releases. Some of the publishers are now increasing cost prices and RRPS back to the €70.00 mark - Modern Warfare 2 being a prime example, even Nintendo are increasing the price of Mario Bros on the Wii when it releases later in the year.

Some say it's up to an individual if they want to resell their goods ( using the term resell instead of trade in as technically that is what you are doing - selling the game to the shop ) There is an argument that trading in is no different than trading in a car off a new car. This is an industry that relies on the reselling of it's products in order to drive ( pardon the pun ) sales of new cars. Some publishers feel that the trade of pre owned games has a similar place. There are others who argue about the loss in revenue etc. Publishers are now trying to get gamers to hold onto their games by offering downloadable content etc and expansion packs to increase the playabillity of the original purchase.

How much effect the trade of second hand games is effecting the price and supply of the new games is very hard to gauge. I personally think that there is a premium built into the new games to cover the pre owned reselling. If there was a scheme put in place where retailers split the profits on pre owned titles with the relevant publisher there could well be a price decrease but I can't see it happening.

Vegeta

Gamesnash.ie (Pat) wrote: »

If there was a scheme put in place where retailers split the profits on pre owned titles with the relevant publisher there could well be a price decrease but I can't see it happening.

Would you have the ability to try this with a publisher?

Increased sales for you because you have the cheapest games in town and an increase in profit for the publisher because they get a share of the second hand games.

Someone may do it, there's money to be made in it after all. Worth a conversation with them anyway I'd say

D4RK ONION

I agree. Out of interest, is a lot of your revenue made from second hand games or first time sales?

ScumLord

D4RK ONION wrote: »

Everytime you give a game in for trade in and it's sold again, one more person gets to play a game that hundreds of man hours went into (for cheaper, of course), but the developer gets zilch for the fact. The store however make 100% profit.

"So what?!" I hear you say, quite loudly "I gets my game, and the dev loses, what, €50?". Well, no not really. Lets look at one example, Crackdown.


That's up to 1.5 MILLION copies they could have sold, that would have gone back into a fledging game company. If they sell the games to Gamestop for €35, that's €52,500,000 of lost revenue

It's not lost revenue, I hate when companies do this crap making out their entitled to all kinds of money they would never have gotten anyway. It's whinging and childish. The reason people buy second hand games is because their cheap. They see it half the price and say I might as well give it a go.

They sell their product and that's it, that's all their entitled to This crying act is the usual disgusting corporate greed where companies want a cut of all kinds of money they have no right to. If they want to sell more games sell them for cheaper. It's obvious there's a cartel in the console market and overcharging is par for the course. They can't start complaining when the rules they set up to benefit them turn around and bite them in the arse.

People have the right to sell on their property if they want.

D4RK ONION

ScumLord wrote: »

This crying act is the usual disgusting corporate greed where companies want a cut of all kinds of money they have no right to.

Yes, those bloody devs. have no entitlement to the money that arises out of the game they may have spent 2-3 years making. It's not like they that takes any kind of skill or training. How right you are... yeah...

dreamers75

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I'd like to know where they got the "3 million total sales when you include used" part. Most likely they plucked it out of their ass.

If people want to give their game away or sell it once they're done with it then it's fine in my books. The only way to stop it is to add replayability to the game. Make a kick ass multiplayer that's more addictive than heroine and you'll limit the amount of trade ins.

Assume they know how many signed into Live or downloaded an update?



Buy a game for 60, trade it in against a new title which you get for 30 or 40, you end out paying nearly 100 quid for one game the more times you trade the higher the price of the one game your left with.

Would rather keep my games or lend/give to mates.

ScumLord

D4RK ONION wrote: »

Yes, those bloody devs. have no entitlement to the money that arises out of the game they may have spent 2-3 years making. It's not like they that takes any kind of skill or training. How right you are... yeah...

They make their money from selling the game to resellers. That's their money and they're perfectly entitled to it.

If I sold someone a table I wouldn't expect that person to give me a cut of the money when they sell it on again. That's the kind of business behaviour drug dealers get up to. I also wouldn't expect the table to be destroyed rather than sold on so that anyone who wanted a table would have to come back to me to buy a new one.

They're trying to blame everyone else for the problems that arise out of the business model they created.

gizmo

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I'd like to know where they got the "3 million total sales when you include used" part. Most likely they plucked it out of their ass.

Yup, looking at the unique sign-ins on Live and factoring in rentals would be accurate enough.

Gamesnash.ie (Pat) wrote: »

It's very clear that without trading in there would be less sales of new games. People use them to offset the price of the new game.

See I don't believe this for a second, especially when you consider how much people actually get when they trade in their games. This also relates to the offsetting of the price of a new game as, since they are getting so little for their traded-in titles, it wouldn't be that much of a disincentive for new purchases if it were abolished.

What disgusts me most about the practice is the profits that the stores are making versus the loss to the developer. While coming up with a system where the profits of second hand sales are split between retailer and dev/publisher sounds great I can guarantee you the major stores wouldn't agree with it, why would they when this outlet accounts for approximately 42% of a company like Gamestop's overall gross profits.

ScumLord wrote: »

They're trying to blame everyone else for the problems that arise out of the business model they created.

No, if anyone is to blame it's said retailers who have turned the operation into a money making scheme for themselves, where each sale is pure profit. Thankfully they had their chance to change and now it looks like with the growing popularity of digital distribution their ability to carry out this practice won't last for much longer.

Mr Freeze

gizmo wrote: »

why would they when this outlet accounts for approximately 42% of a company like Gamestop's overall gross profits.

42% of their gross profits!!!!:eek: It can't really be that high can it????

ScumLord

gizmo wrote: »

No, if anyone is to blame it's said retailers who have turned the operation into a money making scheme for themselves, where each sale is pure profit. Thankfully they had their chance to change and now it looks like with the growing popularity of digital distribution their ability to carry out this practice won't last for much longer.

That's business, I don't blame the retailer really. There job is to make as much profit as possible and the consumer is the fool if he gets ripped off.

GavRedKing

The thing that is hurting them the most is the fact the shop will give you about 5 quid trade in and sell it for lets say 30. Thats where the problem lies, and the shop would not get the chance to do is if we didnt trade in games which I think is here to stay as more and more people are willing to trade when the complete or get bored of something.

dreamers75

ScumLord wrote: »

the consumer is the fool if he gets ripped off.

Somehow the conusmer (well most i know ) treat it as a way of gettign a cheap game

Mr Freeze

dreamers75 wrote: »

Somehow the conusmer (well most i know ) treat it as a way of gettign a cheap game

Well I look at it like this, it is getting rid of a game thats just gonna be gathering dust in my house, because I wont play it again. I hold on to any decent game I buy, the small minority that turn out to be pants get traded in.

Better getting a couple of quid for it, instead of leaving it, never to be played again.

GothPunk

ScumLord wrote: »

They make their money from selling the game to resellers. That's their money and they're perfectly entitled to it.

If I sold someone a table I wouldn't expect that person to give me a cut of the money when they sell it on again. That's the kind of business behaviour drug dealers get up to. I also wouldn't expect the table to be destroyed rather than sold on so that anyone who wanted a table would have to come back to me to buy a new one.

They're trying to blame everyone else for the problems that arise out of the business model they created.

I think you're missing the distinction between developers and publishers that Dark Onion is making. This discussion would benefit from people understanding the differences between the two.

CKWPORT wrote: »

Better getting a couple of quid for it, instead of leaving it, never to be played again.

I agree but if you trade-in with GameStop they'll rip you off on the price you get for your wares. If you sold them on Adverts.ie for example you'd make more for each game, albeit with a bit more leg work.

ScumLord

GothPunk wrote: »

I think you're missing the distinction between developers and publishers that Dark Onion is making. This discussion would benefit from people understanding the differences between the two.

I think I am making that mistake.

GothPunk

ScumLord wrote: »

I think I am making that mistake.

I'm enjoying reading this discussion but I thought that people were getting their wires crossed. Developers usually make very little money as they are funded by the publisher for x amount of time on x amount of money. Publishers are the ones who make the profits, publishers are the ones who set the RRP, publishers are the ones holding back the digital distribution of games.

Whilst it seems like semantics or passing the book, I think it's an important point to make as I think that the actual hard working creators of the games make a valid point. Confusing them with the publishers whom you might not like and think are greedy is a shame.

For example, the quote in the OP comes from Realtime Worlds, who are a relatively large Scottish developer.

noodler

Selling between ouselves doesn't solve the problem for devlopers, it just makes it harder to measure.

They can lower the prices, make digital distribution ALOT cheaper, or they can talk to the retailers becasue, as I said, it is not our problem.

MooseJam

Unbelievable people complaining about the second hand market, do these guy's think they are special or what.

No other industry have I ever heard complaint bar these guy's - someone needs a sharp kick in the balls , might cop them on.

Whats the market in second hand cars , ever heard a complaint.

What about houses - those builders spent months building the things then they get sold on and they don't see a dime , oh the injustice.

gizmo

CKWPORT wrote: »

42% of their gross profits!!!!:eek: It can't really be that high can it????

Yup, here's the source along with some other interesting figures such as what that percentage actually represents in real money terms.

ScumLord wrote: »

That's business, I don't blame the retailer really. There job is to make as much profit as possible and the consumer is the fool if he gets ripped off.

You don't blame a retailer who sells employee used games to the public as new? Who offers pittance for traded in titles and then slaps on markups of up to 400%? Or what about GAME who have prices of second hand titles higher than brand new titles yet gives the former units the most prominent shelf space? I'm the first to wave the GO CAPITALISM banner but I also expect some form of responsibility on their part or even a modicum of respect for their customers.

That being said, it's still the developers who are being hurt the most by this either through loss of direct income to them or indirectly via their publishers...

noodler wrote: »

They can lower the prices, make digital distribution ALOT cheaper, or they can talk to the retailers becasue, as I said, it is not our problem.

They can't lower prices as development costs have skyrocketed in the last few years, they can make DD cheaper but not by as much as some people want - bandwidth ain't cheap after all, and they can't talk to retailers as they've tried that already and been stonewalled by the simple "outlaw reselling of games and we won't stock your new games anymore" threat.

Bearing all that in mind it's obvious why so many are turning to Digital Distribution but that still doesn't mean we as consumers should just throw our hands up and accept the situation saying it's not our problem. It is our problem when original IP titles don't get funding because publishers don't want to risk sinking millions into development costs for a title that may not succeed.

D4RK ONION

GothPunk wrote: »

I'm enjoying reading this discussion but I thought that people were getting their wires crossed. Developers usually make very little money as they are funded by the publisher for x amount of time on x amount of money. Publishers are the ones who make the profits, publishers are the ones who set the RRP, publishers are the ones holding back the digital distribution of games.

Whilst it seems like semantics or passing the book, I think it's an important point to make as I think that the actual hard working creators of the games make a valid point. Confusing them with the publishers whom you might not like and think are greedy is a shame.

For example, the quote in the OP comes from Realtime Worlds, who are a relatively large Scottish developer.

That's right, Devs make the game and the Publishers fund/package/pr and sell it. That being said most publishers have some sort of inhouse gaming dev, like Activision has Neversoft etc. but that's another topic for another day. Perhaps a poll would be nice, on how many here trade in, and those who don't?

MooseJam wrote: »

Unbelievable people complaining about the second hand market, do these guy's think they are special or what.

No other industry have I ever heard complaint bar these guy's - someone needs a sharp kick in the balls , might cop them on.

Whats the market in second hand cars , ever heard a complaint.

What about houses - those builders spent months building the things then they get sold on and they don't see a dime , oh the injustice.

Cars, being a much more extensive market, can support such an industry. BMW make new kinds/upgraded versions of cars every year, and they need people to sell on old cars so that there's actually a market for this. Game developers spend years making one game, and people are capable of storing more than one game in their garage, drawer. Also the price difference between the two is too different for this to be a viable comparison.

Houses, are a slightly more viable example, but it's still flawed. Builders get paid by the hour to make a house, then move on to the next one (up until recently), that next one was always there ready to be built. Devs need a game to sell well, because each bit of sale revenue goes back into development of the next game. On top of this, if a game doesn't appear to sell well (ie: massive second hand sales aren't going to show up on the balance at the end of the year), a publisher might not see the point of putting money into the next project, or worse still, the dev will shut down due to a lack of funding.

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

Vegeta wrote: »

Would you have the ability to try this with a publisher?

Increased sales for you because you have the cheapest games in town and an increase in profit for the publisher because they get a share of the second hand games.

Someone may do it, there's money to be made in it after all. Worth a conversation with them anyway I'd say

We would be quite happy to try it - as things stand cost prices to us coming in are going up all the time whilst the RRPS are coming down. If a publisher said to us here is a 15% cut in your cost price in return for a profit share of pre owned titles we would jump at it. It would make us more competitive and would ultimately increase sales for us.

D4RK ONION wrote: »

I agree. Out of interest, is a lot of your revenue made from second hand games or first time sales?

We make more margin on a pre owned game than we do on a new game. Our margins are as low as 7-8% for new games ( after postage, packing and credit card processing ) pre owned games are anything from 7-20% for us - this is heavily effected by the sale price - we have paid postage into us and then pay postage back out which costs approx €3.00. For example a game we sell pre owned for €9.99 will have a very low margin because of the relatively huge postage costs. That said we currently sell a lot more new games than we do pre owned. People are slow to trust posting off their games to a website

gizmo wrote: »

See I don't believe this for a second, especially when you consider how much people actually get when they trade in their games. This also relates to the offsetting of the price of a new game as, since they are getting so little for their traded-in titles, it wouldn't be that much of a disincentive for new purchases if it were abolished.

What disgusts me most about the practice is the profits that the stores are making versus the loss to the developer. While coming up with a system where the profits of second hand sales are split between retailer and dev/publisher sounds great I can guarantee you the major stores wouldn't agree with it, why would they when this outlet accounts for approximately 42% of a company like Gamestop's overall gross profits.


No, if anyone is to blame it's said retailers who have turned the operation into a money making scheme for themselves, where each sale is pure profit. Thankfully they had their chance to change and now it looks like with the growing popularity of digital distribution their ability to carry out this practice won't last for much longer.

I think that the how little people get for their trade ins is a bit general
I don't think for arguments sake that we take the proverbial with our trade ins but I am aware that Gamestops pre owned margins are approx 46%. Thats in my personal oppinion excessive but their resale prices for the pre owned games can be as little as €5.00 less than the same game new for the latest releases. But all that said if margins on new games are kept very low then stores are going to try and make as much as they can from pre owned trading - again it's a bit of a circle that could be broken if a system like I mentioned was adopted. All be it that the bigger players would most likely not want to go near it.

Just worth pointing out though that each sale is not "pure profit" to the retailer as they have given credit / paid for it in the first place.

gavredking wrote: »

The thing that is hurting them the most is the fact the shop will give you about 5 quid trade in and sell it for lets say 30. Thats where the problem lies, and the shop would not get the chance to do is if we didnt trade in games which I think is here to stay as more and more people are willing to trade when the complete or get bored of something.

I agree with you - that kind of mark up is crazy.

MooseJam

D4RK ONION wrote: »

Houses, are a slightly more viable example, but it's still flawed.

You are trying to suggest these people are special.

They are not special , there is a secondhand market in most things bar toiletpaper. Accept this and move on.

Now in Game New Supermario Bros - new price 39.99

2nd hand price 37.99 lol

ScumLord

GothPunk wrote: »

I'm enjoying reading this discussion but I thought that people were getting their wires crossed. Developers usually make very little money as they are funded by the publisher for x amount of time on x amount of money. Publishers are the ones who make the profits, publishers are the ones who set the RRP, publishers are the ones holding back the digital distribution of games.

The consoles contributed allot to the current situation allot by luring in developers with promises of great wealth and huge markets but it shouldn't have been to much of a surprise when the likes of Microsoft and the publishers did a runner leaving the people who did all the work holding the bill at the end of the night. That's what they do, that's why they've so much money.

It's not something that will change either it's happened so many times where developers worked their way up the ranks making great games for the open PC market, then they jump into bed with the big boys thinking they've made only to be rode like a cheap whore and bitch slapped out the door when pay day comes.

gizmo wrote: »

You don't blame a retailer who sells employee used games to the public as new? Who offers pittance for traded in titles and then slaps on markups of up to 400%? Or what about GAME who have prices of second hand titles higher than brand new titles yet gives the former units the most prominent shelf space? I'm the first to wave the GO CAPITALISM banner but I also expect some form of responsibility on their part or even a modicum of respect for their customers.

I'm the last to wave the go capitalism banner, it's the nature of the beast they will do whatever they can to make the most money. That's capitalism. It's people paying those prices that encourage them to act like that. It's quite simple really the only way people can stop them doing this is to stop giving them money. Complaining about it won't do a thing you have to vote with your wallet in this day and age. In business there is no moral compass and no right and wrong there's only profit.

D4RK ONION

Every product is going to have inherently different rules as to buying/selling demand/supply etc. If you insist on using the word, then yes, it's a special case, every second hand market is a special case. Just to clarify I'm not a sort of "G4MES7OP AR EV1L" type of guy, I buy most of my games in shop, but I do have reservations about the power of the second hand game market in the industry. I mean 42% of profits is a hell of a percentage.

PAT wrote:

We would be quite happy to try it - as things stand cost prices to us coming in are going up all the time whilst the RRPS are coming down. If a publisher said to us here is a 15% cut in your cost price in return for a profit share of pre owned titles we would jump at it. It would make us more competitive and would ultimately increase sales for us.

That's very interersting. Perhaps you could ask a publisher about it on a trial basis. Anything that gives you an edge and keeps the publisher happy at the same time has to be a good thing.

MooseJam

Why don't they just stick it in the EULA - not to be resold.

I'd be of the opinion that anything that is bad for consoles is good for PC.

citizen_p

sure shops make 100 percent profit anyway.... they buy games for 20 - 30 and sell them for 60...


look at the us its 60 dollars a game...
thats 40 euro..



and big games like cod 4.... that are still 60 70 euro is making them a fortune

noodler

Mousey- wrote: »

sure shops make 100 percent profit anyway.... they buy games for 20 - 30 and sell them for 60...


look at the us its 60 dollars a game...
thats 40 euro..



and big games like cod 4.... that are still 60 70 euro is making them a fortune

I am not sure the 60-70e game is as prominent as it was 2 or 3 years ago. So many of the big releases seem to be available between the 35 (In the case of FIFA 10 anyway) to 50e mark and thats not just counting online. HMV, XV, Argos and even Tesco seem to be offering solid alternatives to the specialist games shops.

ScumLord

noodler wrote: »

I am not sure the 60-70e game is as prominent as it was 2 or 3 years ago. So many of the big releases seem to be available between the 35 (In the case of FIFA 10 anyway) to 50e mark and thats not just counting online. HMV, XV, Argos and even Tesco seem to be offering solid alternatives to the specialist games shops.

That' just buying power. In the UK they'll always have the biggest new release for £10 in tescos (one time I was over there they were even giving away a free giant yorkie bar with the new release priced at £10, it was ridiculously cheap) but you won't get that price across the entire range of new releases just the one they know for a fact will sell. With the likes of Tescos it's just a matter of getting you in the door, the cheap price on that one item is just bait. Do the world a favour and don't ever buy anything in tescos.

Jazzy

i think a lot more crap games get into circulation with second hand. in all though i think its a good thing as its always the choice of the customer

D4RK ONION

Well it's good for the customer until devs. start colsing down due to lack of funding. Plenty of smaller devs either having to close or get consumed into one of the monster devs these days, and of course I'm not saying that's all second hand sales, but it's one of many factors. You are right to an extent though Jazzy.

ScumLord

D4RK ONION wrote: »

Well it's good for the customer until devs. start colsing down due to lack of funding. Plenty of smaller devs either having to close or get consumed into one of the monster devs these days, and of course I'm not saying that's all second hand sales, but it's one of many factors. You are right to an extent though Jazzy.

In fairness that's always happening. It's the nature of the beast, you're either good enough to survive or you die. There's always going to be a turnaround in artistic endeavour nobody or nothing is popular forever, even the big boys are destined to fail.

All any individual can do is support the companies they like with their cash and do everything they can to keep their money out of the pockets of companies they don't agree with. If that means missing out on games then so be it. I still avoid valve and steam due to half life 2 and the fact I still can't play the legal version of half life 2 I bought no matter how many times I email the support team and send them pictures of the case and every other hoop they make me jump through. I bought that game played it once and haven't been able to play it again due to the restrictions they put on it. I will do my level best to never, ever give either of those companies a single cent of mine ever again.

Jazzy

sounds like me with apple
i download a patch, it breaks my ipod, they charge me 120eu to fix it. get f**ked apple!
i know what you mean about smaller developers. i dunno tho, survival of the fittest

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

Mousey- wrote: »

sure shops make 100 percent profit anyway.... they buy games for 20 - 30 and sell them for 60...


look at the us its 60 dollars a game...
thats 40 euro..



and big games like cod 4.... that are still 60 70 euro is making them a fortune

It's a 100% markup in that case not profit sorry for being an ass about it.

The prices being set in the US and Europe are different due to the prices that the publishers set themselves to retailers. It's not a case that shops here are paying the same cost prices and making more profit.

As Noodler said recently the majority of titles have been given a RRP of less than €60 - main Sony published titles and the upcoming MW2 are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head that were left at €69.99 and they were available well below this.