Court ruling could kill used game business

[Ravager]

Found on digg:

http://digg.com/news/gaming/court_ruling_could_kill_used_game_business

I don't personally buy used games, but my opinion of the big wigs in industry has reached a new low. Any thoughts?

[Cez]

I think they have it well deserved, to be honest. As a developer, I want the money of a game sale to go to developers. The way Gamestop publicizes and promotes selling the old games is nasty " Hey, you can get it used and save 5 bucks" WHAT? I roll my eyes at them everytime they tell me it. Of course, I know it's not the fault of the particular guy selling it to me, but still, irks me as hell. The fact they reduce the price 5 bucks, but still sell the game at 55 bucks, and developers do not see a dime out of this, irks me in every way.

I have a sneaky suspicion as well that gamestop also buys a few copies of the games themselves and puts them out for "used sale"  at the release of games just to promote the idea of buying used games. 

It also gets worse. After the game has been out for a year or so, and the price starts dropping, they do not carry new copies of the games anymore, only used ones. I could never find a new copy of Assassins Creed last year when I was looking for it. I had to order it at amazon.

I don't have a problem with them reselling old games that nobody sells anymore. And I don't have a problem if a particular person wants to sell their game copy. But to blatantly make a business out of the work of a studio? That's just not right.

Big studios are struggling with it. Imagine how devastating this can be for smaller studios. We already have piracy to deal with to also make some sort of legal piracy take another chunk of the effort of a studio.

[Baggins]

b******s... I generally buy my games new, if the option exists. I rarely buy used copies, because the chance of scratches and missing manuals... The only time I buy used is if its a game out of print... (if its in print but at reduced price I opt for the new copy). Occasionally I'd opt for the used copy, if the only "new" copies of an out of print game cost more than the game when it was first released. If they take away my options to get out of print games, I will probably be forced into breaking the law/piracy...

I'm also a big fan of digital download. If I can get a game that's physically out of print, but digitally available I'm quite happy. I'd like to see more consoles offer digital options to access games.

I'd be especially happy to see cartridge/card based systems like nintendo DS offer digital download for the entire game catalog (I.E. Virtual Console). I understand 3DS will probably getting that. Previously I've found it difficult to track down used copies of DS games, in some cases I've gotten ahold of shabby bootlegs. Luckily I had gotten through Amazon, and was able to get money returned via there A-Z insurance.

[darthkiwi]

At first, I was firmly on the side of used game sales. I saw big corporations saying "The consumer is killing us by doing what they have the right to do! We have to restrict those rights or us big, money-filled monsters will die!" Which seemed bizarre: how are games any different from books or films, which have no problem with used sales?

But, having thought about it some more, there are some issues.

1) Games have millions of dollars poured into them. They can't be compared to the book trade, where much of the work is done by the individual sitting at home writing: the creative aspect of games costs a lot of money.

2) Unlike films, games do not have a "Box Office" period where you can ONLY buy the product at source. When a film is released, almost every person who sees that film in the first few months after release will HAVE to see it at the cinema. This is not true of games: as soon as the game goes on sale, it can be bought, played for a few days and then resold. And that's not even taking piracy into account.

Personally, I think the best option by far is digital distribution. If you use something like Steam or Greenhouse then the developer gets a percentage of every single copy sold (even if that's dented by piracy).

Having said all this, I still don't have a lot of sympathy for the big companies. They're still making these games, using extremely harsh piracy measures (Assassin's Creed II on PC, anyone?) and distributing them the same way they always have without considering mass distribution by something like Steam, or even their own distribution system, while charging £60 for a new game which you can often play through in less than 10 hours. I see their point of view, but I still don't *like* them very much.

[Cez]

well... you do pay 10-15 bucks (plus whatever extra on ripping off concessions)  to watch a movie that runs for 1:30 hours If you were to multiply that, you are still paying more for the movie

I know games in Europe tend to be a lot more expensive than here in the US though.

[Lambonius]

I must be an extremely immoral person, because I will go to any lengths to pay the absolute least while getting the absolute most.  I could care less about the studio, designers, or the corporation.  They all still get paid in the end.  I almost never buy new games if I can help it.  It's the American way!!  

[kindofdoon]

I agree with Cez in theory, but Lambonius in practice.

[Lambonius]

I agree with Cez in theory, but Lambonius in practice.

LOL...I knew I couldn't be the only one.    I will often wait MONTHS or even over a year for the price to drop on newer games before I even THINK about purchasing them--and usually even then only if I can find them used.  As long as the price of new console games keeps skyrocketing, I will keep looking for ways NOT to have to pay full price.

I do like digital distribution of games--and of course, the main reason I like it is because the games tend to be so much cheaper.  I love that I can get a full Telltale game season for 20 bucks, or sometimes MORE than one season for that price or less--provided they happen to be having a special going.

[kindofdoon]

Yes indeed. I've never paid more than $20 for a game, and I'm proud of that record.

This is especially apropos: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cutting_edge.png

[Cez]

I don't find any harm in waiting until the price drops to get a game. I actually been trying to get better at that since I have games like Mass Effect 2 that I haven't played, and are much cheaper now than when I got it. As long as that money is going back to the developers, I'm happy. Being cheap is fine, but if you are going to buy an used game, you may as well download a torrent

To be fair, I didn't think this way until I became a professional developer. Then you sort of do it for solidarity. Nowadays, I still buy a new game on release if I want to support the developer. I'm sure Bioware/EA doesn't need my money, for example, but I will get Gray Matter in whatever way it gets a bigger return to the developers. Because I'm sure that, in that case, it does make a huge difference, and to me, it may mean seeing another game from Jane Jensen in the future.

[kindofdoon]

Speaking of which, I just checked and found out that it's been delayed...again.

[tessspoon]

Speaking of which, I just checked and found out that it's been delayed...again.

Guess it'll be worth the wait though if it makes the game better.

[LadyTerra]

As of now, I don't have a lot of money.  And I am pretty much like that guy in the xkcd comic.  I'll borrow games from people if they have what I'm interested in or rent if it's available, but I'll end up getting said games at least five years after they came out.  And since most of the games I look for tend to be out of print by then, there's really no other way I can get them unless they're used.

Do developers accept donations?  That money would at least get past the publishers and console companies and be tax deductible.

[kindofdoon]

I'll borrow games from people if they have what I'm interested in or rent if it's available...

I was thinking about getting Super Mario Galaxy 2, then I saw it was $60 new...So I'm borrowing it from a friend.

[Lambonius]

Yeah, seriously.  Gaming became a rich man's hobby with the last generation of consoles, and it f***ing pisses me off.  I don't see why the f*** games would be any more expensive to produce nowadays than 5 or 6 years ago when last gen technology was new.  It's just a case of f***ing moneygrubbing corporations trying to make excuses to milk the consumer.  Oh!  But the tech is so much more advanced now!!  SO THE f*** WHAT?!?  Developers have ALWAYS and EVER been developing for the most advanced video gaming technology--there is NO f***ing REASON AT ALL why THIS gen should be any f***ing different.  Those a******* can take their f***ing profits and shove them right up their fat, cushy board room a*******.  Fucksticks.

[Cez]

To be fair, there was a time where games could be 100 bucks a piece, wasn't there? I remember Phantasmagoria was 70 bucks when released.

But, in perspective, it does take a lot more money to make a game nowadays. Back in the day where you could make a game in a year, and with a lot less people, games were still 50 bucks. Now you need hundreds of people and 3-5 years in the making to make a game like Mass Effect or Final Fantasy --yes, access to bigger tech means you need 4 weeks to make a game model as opposed to 2 for example. It really is no wonder that a game is priced 60 bucks. If you see it that way, 50 bucks 15, 10 or 5 years ago was a much bigger rip off than 60 nowadays (of course, one could argue reach is a lot better now than what it was back then, and popularity also factors in).

I paid 14 bucks last week to go watch Resident Evil, I guess because of the 3D and glasses/whatever. Now, that is a bigger rip-off than a new game at 60, because a game you can wait until it drops down in price and you will get the same experience. Movies do not drop down in price, and if you want to wait for the DVD, you miss the silver screen experience.

[darthkiwi]

Being cheap is fine, but if you are going to buy an used game, you may as well download a torrent Smiley

I can't help thinking that's going a bit far. If you buy a used game, you'll be buying it from someone who probably bought it new. The money you give them may well end up going to developers when *that* person buys a new game. Whereas a torrent has zero cashflow so no money goes anywhere *near* the developers.

[Ravager]

If it come to pass, I think the court ruling will only apply to the US. I wonder how other countries will react.

[kindofdoon]

The money you give [used games sellers] may well end up going to developers when *that* person buys a new game.

I don't understand how this is possible. Can you explain?

[Lambonius]

It really is no wonder that a game is priced 60 bucks. If you see it that way, 50 bucks 15, 10 or 5 years ago was a much bigger rip off than 60 nowadays (of course, one could argue reach is a lot better now than what it was back then, and popularity also factors in).

Yeah, but we're not talking about the difference between 1995 and 2010--games changed price all of a sudden with this generation specifically.  I don't really see how the cutting edge technology of the last generation of consoles would have been any less costly to produce for than this one.

And look at the prices of the consoles themselves!  Remember when the PS3 was released and priced at friggin' 700 bucks??  I mean, that's just totally ridiculous--it wasn't anywhere NEAR the pricepoint of a traditional game console--or even the other consoles of this generation!  Granted, I suppose the consoles DO more nowadays, what with all the online stuff--but that's really only a gimmick to keep gamers continually paying into the console companies' pockets.  

You are definitely right about one thing though--games in the NES generation were ridiculously priced, especially considering the fact that around 75% of them were total junk, because most developers didn't know what the heck they were doing yet!