Close
Are you sure? Are you sure you want to report this comment? I understand, report it. Cancel

Retail

'Project Ten Dollar' will alienate consumers, warns retail

Fri 19 Feb 2010 10:45am GMT / 5:45am EST / 2:45am PST
RetailPublishing

EA, Sony measures to restrict pre-owned market by charging for access to content will damage sales

Sony Computer Entertainment

Sony Computer Entertainment is a Japanese videogame company specialising in a variety of areas in the...

playstation.com

Retailers have spoken out on recent incentives by Electronic Arts and Sony to deter pre-owned sales by including content vouchers with new games that can only be redeemed once.

In the case of EA, it has begun offering downloadable content to users buying a new copy of a game, which those with a second-hand copy will need to buy separately - a move it has labelled "Project Ten Dollar". Mass Effect 2 was the first game to include a DLC code, and the company has said all of its games released in fiscal 2011 will follow suit.

However, Sony appears to be going one step further with reports stating that online play in the latest SOCOM game for PSP will be locked until users redeem a code online. Players with a second-hand copy will need to purchase a new code at a cost of $20.

According to Chipsworld MD Don McCabe, the only people that will be affected directly by these moves will be consumers, who will find the resale value of their games is suddenly much lower than they're used to.

"The person you're pissing off the most is the consumer," McCabe told GamesIndustry.biz. "This affects [them] directly - they pay the same amount of money and yet the resale value is much reduced. From a retailer's point of view, they'll just readjust [the price] bearing in mind you have to buy the voucher."

Furthermore, he said that EA is one of the publishers most likely to be benefiting at the moment from pre-owned sales, as consumers trade in their older instalments of franchises for the new, most current ones.

"They are effectively what I call a franchise software house in that they upgrade their titles; FIFA, Madden all of these are effectively the same title upgraded each year. And people trade in last year's for this year's. You go anywhere and you'll always find second hand copies of FIFA 07, 08, 09 - it's one of the ones we get the most of."

It's an opinion backed up by Marc Day, CEO of SwapGame, a site which offer new and pre-owned games, as well as rentals.

"EA's Project Ten Dollar move is aiming to stifle pre-owned games sales, but what they don't factor in is the damage this could have for them in relation to new sales," said Day.

"At SwapGame, the majority of customers who trade in for cash or credit do so to acquire new games they could otherwise not afford. Through trading in, we aim to help the customer make gaming more affordable, providing them with a way to buy new games.

"The move to DLC exclusive content is an interesting step, and this obviously provides the publisher with another revenue stream. This move will definitely make the game less valuable on the pre-owned market, so it will be sold cheaper, meaning customers will get less value when trading in."

Another downside is that retailers will become more wary of publishers using these methods and more reticent about stocking their products, said McCabe, since consumers will need to register their details with the publisher after buying a game from their shop.

"You've got to bear in mind that when you sell this product, if they insist on online registration, what they're doing is collecting your customer data.

"On one hand they might be trying to reduce pre-owned sales, on the other hand they might be collecting data so they can email that customer directly.

"From a retailer's point of view, you're always going to have that in mind. Why should you give your customers over to an organisation that's going to compete with you? You're going to be less likely to want to promote that game."

A more positive viewpoint on the move comes from Igor Cipolletta, MD of online retailer ShopTo.net - a site that doesn't offer trade-ins.

He points out that if publishers are unable to make sufficient profit from the current retail model they will, for their survival, look at alternatives.

"We as retailers have to convince the publishers that the retail sector is still a viable marketplace for them," he said.

"I think that us retailers have a duty to ensure that publishers can get back their development costs and a profit that can in part be ploughed into future projects, and obviously the second hand market is not one which directly appears to benefit the IP owners and publishers, who are therefore trialling new ways to secure profit.

"I suspect that many users will be averse to some of the current and future methods," he added. "But at some stage in the not-too-distant future, many publishers may have been forced out of business and with it [goes] the level and quality of releases.

"Gamers would still certainly rather have the physical product to show for their money, so if we are to avoid going down a download only method of software delivery, we all have our part to play to ensure the market flourishes.

"EA's fairly strong message seems to be, stop selling second hand games or soon we will be looking at a download-only selling methodology and therefore the retail sector will have little to no physical product to actually sell.

"Only time will tell how this is received by the gaming public, but I can guarantee that certain key retailers will have a lot to say over this proposal from EA."

McCabe insists EA is responding to a perceived threat rather than a real one, adding that the catalyst for this new trial has probably been GAME and GameStop's decision to start segregating new and pre-owned sales in their financials. "They've perceived they're losing a lot of money," he said.

"It's fine it they want to try it - they might get it out of their system. People want a system that's as simple as possible - if companies start going down a variety of different routes to block second hand sales, online access - the thing Ubisoft are doing where you have to be online to verify the game - it's just going to turn people off. If they try to block pre-owned sales, they will see a reduction in those titles.

"Pre-owned is an integral part of the gaming landscape and if you try and block it then the person you're pissing off the most is the consumer."

"It will be interesting to see how this plays out," said Day. "Will customers simply cough up the full retail price to get the exclusive content and online play on day one, or will they wait to buy it pre-owned at a low enough price, then pay the additional $10 for the same content?

"If so the publisher could well shoot themselves in the foot. It is the publisher who is giving the customer the short straw."

64 Comments

Barrie Tingle
Live Producer

351 116 0.3
Wondered how long it would take retailers to step in on this one as new incentives are made to try and reduce 2nd hand sales.

Also interesting to see the only comments that don't say it is unfair or against the customers interests is the one from ShopTo who don't offer trade in. Coincidence?

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Barrie Tingle on 19th February 2010 12:54pm

Posted:4 years ago

#1

Claire Blackshaw
Lead Designer

16 2 0.1
As long as the incentive is not crippling I think this is a great idea.

Incentivising pre-orders or new purchases is fine, and the clerk at Game was positive about it when I bought Dragon Age. Its when the carrot turns into a stick people will complain.

Posted:4 years ago

#2

Jason Avent
VP, Studio Head

139 140 1.0
It's only a tiny portion of the games that are locked out at the moment. I'm sure that'll grow in time though. At that point the second hand sales price should come down to accomodate the reduced content.

"It is the publisher who is giving the customer the short straw." Really? Is it?

Is it really? Who is it that controls the price of second hand games? If retailers are worried about customers, they could share the burden. So far the publishers have been taking the hit. I find it really depressing when the sales clerk in GAME tries to hard-sell me a second-hand copy of a game I'm about to buy full price. Often it's only £5 less than the current rrp! They know the margin to the retailer is vastly higher for used stock so they push it harder than new stock. It's not sustainable for second-hand stock to exist at the same point of sale as new stock.

Posted:4 years ago

#3

Christopher Bowen
Owner, Gaming Bus

118 0 0.0
I don't think Project Ten Dollar - which balances risk and reward - is going to alienate consumers. They see the tangible benefits of buying new before the game is sold. In the case of Mass Effect and other EA games, before it's released. EA has been very upfront about what they're doing, and while I don't *LIKE* it - we got more complete packages in the last console generation than we do now, in terms of bang for our buck - I think it's a nice compromise against the secondhand market and Gamestop.

It's what Sony did with SOCOM that has me pissed. Sony didn't even talk about it until IGN found out about it, and even then, they spun the hell out of it (Consumers will be pleased? Really?), and beat around the bush, saying this was a "test case". This is the same kind of double talk they tried when we found out about their rootkits that came with their music CDs; ignore the problem, and hope the PR dies down.

I like what EA's doing. But Sony's crap needs to go, and I wish I could have retracted my SOCOM review.

Posted:4 years ago

#4

Kyle Rowley
Senior Gameplay Designer

23 12 0.5
"It will be interesting to see how this plays out," said Day. "Will customers simply cough up the full retail price to get the exclusive content and online play on day one, or will they wait to buy it pre-owned at a low enough price, then pay the additional $10 for the same content?

"If so the publisher could well shoot themselves in the foot. It is the publisher who is giving the customer the short straw."

Surely people buying the game second hand and then paying the publisher SOMETHING is better than the customer giving all their money to the retailer and the publisher seeing none of it? This stinks of retailers getting concerns over a possible decline in pre-owned sales. Possible naivety and bias towards developers and publishers from my end though.

Posted:4 years ago

#5
The preowned sales with big retailers are evil - the discount is so low that the onl yprofiting party really is the retailer. It has nothing to do with eBay sales of older games. In that regard included DLC coupon may have its purpose.

Much bigger problem with DLC is pricing versus content - What EA is doing is the same F2P MMOs are doing - for your money you wont get palytime but uber items and thats what should anger customers. not to mention how much you pay for an hour of entertainment with original game and then DLC - DLC may come out as 10 times more expensive than original game...

Posted:4 years ago

#6
The other viewpoint from a retail perspective is that the retail industry in order to compete has been slashing new games prices versus the RRP. The revenue model now is that pre owned games are providing the profits that would and should have been made on new games. Retailers are in some cases close to if not actually loss leading on new titles to retain customers knowing that the profit is going to come from those customers loyalty when it comes to trading in etc. If the value of pre owned games drops dramatically which a widespread roll out of these measures would cause I think that you will see retail price points of new games increasing back towards the actual RRP - which could well lead to loss of sales for the publishers.

Posted:4 years ago

#7

Christopher Bowen
Owner, Gaming Bus

118 0 0.0
The preowned sales with big retailers are evil - the discount is so low that the onl yprofiting party really is the retailer. It has nothing to do with eBay sales of older games. In that regard included DLC coupon may have its purpose.

That's fine, but here's a question: how does a company like Gamestop get all of these exclusive deals on new stock, then? These companies are fighting Gamestop actively, but give exclusive armours, characters, whatever through Gamestop preorders. I don't understand.

Posted:4 years ago

#8

Victor Perez
CEO

64 0 0.0
A new move forward to change the consumer habits, more and more EA feels comfortable in this DD world, and that gives me the feeling that DD will be a great shop but only those products with huge marketing will have the opportunity to survive. Perhaps everything will change to stay as usual?

Posted:4 years ago

#9

Stephen Woollard
Online Infrastructure Specialist

146 71 0.5
**Caveat - this post is entirely composed of my own thoughts and opinions and does not necessarily reflect the official position of EA or any of it's employees**

This is an argument I've always found interesting. One of the comments usually raised is that car manufacturers don't get a part of the sale when you sell your car on, so why should game studios? The answer to this is simple - a product like a car depreciates as it is used because as the miles go on it physically wears out, whereas code remains static - it doesn't matter how many times it's played or installed or whatever, it'll always be the same game.

The other issue that I have been given to understand is that some retailers are deliberately ordering fewer new copies of games from publishers because they know there are those who will buy it new, take it home, complete it in more or less one sitting and then take it back and trade it in, often within a very short timeframe, maybe even a day or so. They can then put this game back on the shelf with a very minimal reduction in price and sell it again even further increasing their profit and even further lowering that of the publisher. In my opinion this is the kind of practice these measures are intended for, not the guy selling his old copy of a game on eBay.

Another thing to bear in mind with DLC is how it can help to combat piracy. When the collector's edition DLC for Dragon Age came out I saw many forum posts from people who had pirated the DLC and then couldn't get it to work. The reason for this is because their EA accounts were not entitled to use it, so it didn't matter how many times they copied it they would never get to play it without paying for it.

Basically, programs such as this are intended to give gamers a real incentive to buy a game new rather than second hand or pirate it. For people who say they can't afford to buy new games, they'll still be able to get them second hand but with slightly reduced content. They may even get them cheaper. In any case, and this may sound harsh, but games are a luxury item and if you can't afford to buy all the new games you want then that is no excuse to expect to get them at a reduced price or even free. To go back to the flawed car analogy I can't afford a Ferrari but that doesn't entitle me to just take someone elses.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, as time progresses we'll see faster and faster broadband, games units and TVs with massive in-built storage and that will pave the way for true on-demand gaming. When this happens (and it will happen) then the retailers really will have something to moan about...

Posted:4 years ago

#10

Mark Raymond
Functionality Tester

20 0 0.0
Project Ten Dollar won't alienate consumers, as long as certain conditions are met. It has to be the right kind of content, and the message behind it must be consistent and positive. It should be "Here's a little something extra for your support" instead of "Now you can access content you should have had from the get-go".

And of course, retailers that deal in second-hand games are going to be against it. It's an attempt to reduce that market, after all, which they're profiteering off.

Posted:4 years ago

#11
@Stephen - I appreciate your input and I understand your reasoning even if I do not agree with it. The part about piracy is bull and I guess you know it - pirates do not have to worry about this 10 bucks project or paid DLCs, they will eventually get it free with no copy protection, regardless to the protection method used. Its only matter of time except for PS3 games.

Posted:4 years ago

#12

Sandy Lobban
Founder and Creative Director

310 195 0.6
Having been part of the Wipeout HD team, its clear to see that its a no brainer for consumers to make the move over to DD. Signing up to the playstation network just isn't an issue if there's something good to be had. Given the product quality is high enough, and its an attractive proposition in terms of the price point, people will buy it. Developers are here to make a living too, and investment in products brings future ideas and more great games. Recycling may be the future when it comes to waste, but isn't the future for games. As you can probably tell, I fully support the online unlocks. :)

Posted:4 years ago

#13

Tameem Antoniades
Creative Director & Co-founder

196 164 0.8
A necessary step towards full electronic distribution. This is good news for developers who make very little from the current way of doing things. Ultimately the consumers will directly suffer from any model where packaging, distribution and retailers take a huge cut of the RRP. Bring it on.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Tameem Antoniades on 19th February 2010 2:48pm

Posted:4 years ago

#14

Blazej Krakowiak
International Brand Manager

5 0 0.0
For me Project Ten Dollar and similar incentives can only facilitate the transition to Digital Distribution. Not only do 'electronic' customers get the same game quicker and hassle-free, there's also a little something extra with a new purchase. That little bonus is inevitably distributed digitally so why not the whole game that way from the start? Many customers are still distrustful of DD for some reason, this is another argument which can help win them over.

Posted:4 years ago

#15
I hope it works as the retailers wonder why we all want digital. Second hand games are pushed in preference to new - where do the retailers think the money to create the great games comes from, it certainly does not come from them and the second hand sales. Perhaps if the retailers that think it is such a great idea shared 30% of the profit on second hand games to the publisher (and this is easy for them to account for just as it would be with any new game) then guess what - we would all support them as we would all receive payment every time the game is sold. So Mr McCabe, please respond to this as we ALL need to make money and us as developers dont see a penny from any second hand games, yet we work to create the games that you sell to YOUR customers. The publishers are OUR customers so lets have an even playing field...

Posted:4 years ago

#16

Jack Loftus
Contributing Editor

95 0 0.0
You know who wins in all this? Obviously it's not the customer. That's a given, no matter how hard Riccitiello spins his wheels and others in the industry blow smoke up his ass about how this is a fresh and exciting new way to address some mythical piracy straw man, and not some desperate way to boost profits for his broken publishing house (the running tally for profitless quarters at EA is currently 11 in a row).

And the winner is certainly not the used game buying customer. You know, the one who cannot afford $60 games or the one who's still confused about why most games got a $10 increase in 2006 to $60. There are millions of the these people. For most new games available today, I consider myself one of them. I paid $35 for Mass Effect 2 the other day because I was able to trade in Dragon Age (BioWare for more BioWare, yes, I know). I rarely pay $60 for any game anymore. Few, praised as they are, are "worth it" to me as a consumer.

In the end, the winner is probably Nintendo.

I mean, it's pretty clear: To see, just browse GameStop or GAME's online store. Many "new" first party Nintendo titles from 2009 and older, currently sell for 100% of their original retail value. I use the term "new" pretty loosely. Case in point: Mario Kart Wii? How old is THAT game? Doesn't matter. It's still $50. New in box. New Super Mario Bros. for the DS? Still $35. NIB. Hell, even Mario Galaxy, arguably the most "core" of Nintendo titles is $40, pre-owned (and I don't believe I've heard Nintendo complain about that used price. Correct me if I'm wrong). On top of this, GameStop's pricing model is confirmed as acceptable to consumers once we look at Top 10 lists. IIRC, and correct me if I'm wrong, but as recently last December NSMB DS was in the top 10 sales chart. Mario Kart Wii was as well. These titles are ancient!!!

EA would KILL to have this kind of success, but instead of figuring out how to do it consistently we have Riccitiello coming out to spin, "We need to boost profits, but in lieu of fresh ideas or smaller budget games or fewer core-pleasing bank-busting blockbusters, we're going to charge used game buyers $10 to $15 to unlock incomplete games."

So Nintendo games still sell at full value (or, as pre-owned titles, very close to original value), years and years after release. Customers continue to buy these titles, at these prices, and this is proven out in the top 10 sales lists. Dead Space, on the other hand (a great game, no offense to it), sells for $20 today. Left 4 Dead 2's used price has already dropped to about $32. I paid $35.

And I know, I know. NINTENDO. They're totally KILLING gaming. Totally destroying it with their non-depreciating video games--oh wait...

I'm surprised no journalists brought up Nintendo game resale value on the earnings call with Riccitiello. Also surprised no one asked why he thinks consumers believe Nintendo titles are worth $50 and his are worth $30-40 or less. Kind of surprising, really. Lastly, why does no one ask him to explain why consumers are selling GameStop his games at such a furious clip that it's made the used market large enough to apparently hurt his business?

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Jack Loftus on 19th February 2010 3:26pm

Posted:4 years ago

#17

Jason Avent
VP, Studio Head

139 140 1.0
To Jack Loftus:

Nintendo Wii consumers seem to be very different from PS3 and 360 consumers. It's not like EA haven't made good games for Wii. They have: Tiger Woods, Rock Band and Boom Blox are are in the top 20 metacritic for Wii. Nintendo consumers seem to trust Nintendo and no one else.

I wonder if the volume of trade-ins is generally lower than for the other consoles and lower still for Nintendo's own games. I would think that's why the prices can remain so high. Mum's and little kids perhaps are less savvy than older, more dedicated gamers.

Riccitiello has tried on Wii and didn't get anywhere. Like all other third party publishers.

Also, if you can't afford $60 for a game, wait for 1-3 months and it'll be $40. Another three months and it'll be $20.


Posted:4 years ago

#18

Simon Peter

9 0 0.0
^ I 100% agree with Jack. Other than Nintendo, some noteworthy examples should be Blizzard with WoW, Maxis with The Sims, and Firaxis with Civilization.

The common point is, that you can't "beat" these games in the weekend just to quickly resell them, and buy the next one, beat that one too, and buy the third one.
Even if I would get bored with Civilization IV, there would be no point in selling it, since I know that when I will be in the mood, I will play with it again, and it won't be like watching a film for the 6th time, or playing Mass Effect for the second time, (this time with evil dialogue options thrown in,) but it will offer a completely new, exciting experience.

People resell their games, because they don't want to OWN them. And EA can't force them to own their games, gamers would rather choose not buying them to begin with.

Posted:4 years ago

#19

Jack Loftus
Contributing Editor

95 0 0.0
"I wonder if the volume of trade-ins is generally lower than for the other consoles and lower still for Nintendo's own games. I would think that's why the prices can remain so high. Mum's and little kids perhaps are less savvy than older, more dedicated gamers. "

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. I'm less savvy because I hold onto a game I really like and don't try to sell it to offset the $60 price of Mass Effect 2? I'm MORE savvy for buying a one player game that I finish in a weekend, decide it's not compelling enough to ever play again, and sell it to GameStop? Very confusing logic here.

Traditionally, I've always assumed gamers held onto games they liked (or at least they revisit them with another purchase later on in life, like with a PSN download or Virtual Console). In this respect, I agree: Wii/DS owners ARE different than other gamers. They hold onto the games they like, this creates a shortage in the used games space, and GameStop can continue to sell these games, new, for full price.

So the questions remain: "I'm surprised no journalists brought up Nintendo game resale value on the earnings call with Riccitiello. Also surprised no one asked why he thinks consumers believe Nintendo titles are worth $50 and his are worth $30-40 or less. Kind of surprising, really. Lastly, why does no one ask him to explain why consumers are selling GameStop his games at such a furious clip that it's made the used market large enough to apparently hurt his business?"

"Also, if you can't afford $60 for a game, wait for 1-3 months and it'll be $40. Another three months and it'll be $20."

I do, and I will. But why is the game dropping in price to begin with, while Nintendo titles do not? It's almost like the price is being price corrected, by the market, to more accurately reflect what a majority of people actually think these games are worth.

Posted:4 years ago

#20

Marcus Dinero
web designer

1 0 0.0
My viewpoint is that the gaming industry can take advantage of the business model of game trade-ins and use it with cloud gaming coming in the near furture.

Posted:4 years ago

#21

Christopher Bowen
Owner, Gaming Bus

118 0 0.0
@Stephen

I sincerely appreciate you taking time to come and address this. However, one thing you said bugged me: the code depreciation issue. Code DOES depreciate. Older games are typically worth less than newer games, or at least their worth is based on market forces.

I'll give you an example of games from your company, that I handled this weekend. I'm a HUGE sports fan, and typically purchase the majority of EA Sports games on release day. The exception is American Football. Therefore, I recently purchased the Collector's Edition of Madden '09, which came with Head Coach '09 and other assorted goodies.

What's important here is Head Coach '09. I just logged into the Playstation Store to check the price. It's running for $50 on that service. I can understand wanting a return on your investment, but $50 for a poorly selling game that is almost two years old?

That's one of my big concerns about the oncoming digital download revolution: prices will never adjust to the market, and I think as a result, the market is going to become over saturated. Nowadays, if there's a game that I'm leaning on, I'll often say "I'll wait until that price comes down". When the price comes down, I buy it new if at all possible, especially if it's a developer I really like, like NIS or Atlus. I'm savvy; I get how the system works. But if almost every game is going to keep the same price point forever, that's going to lead to a lot less purchased games, especially since they have no resale value.

At least Project Ten Dollar is giving a reward for supporting the company; I can get behind that, even if I don't really *like* it. What Sony pulled with SOCOM is what really has me upset.

EDIT: Know what's funny? I actually reviewed Madden '09 back when it was new, though I had to purchase my copy. So why did I just buy the Collector's Edition, therefore purchasing the game a second time?

I traded it in initially after I'd reviewed it.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Christopher Bowen on 19th February 2010 4:35pm

Posted:4 years ago

#22

Jack Loftus
Contributing Editor

95 0 0.0
"What Sony pulled with SOCOM is what really has me upset."

@Chris: Another Sony PR fiasco?! You don't say... ;-)

Posted:4 years ago

#23

Christopher Bowen
Owner, Gaming Bus

118 0 0.0
I know! It's like the rootkit issue all over again!

Meeeeeeeeeeeeeemorieeeeeeeees... :)

Posted:4 years ago

#24

Aaron Canaday
Envoronment Artist

1 0 0.0
I'll second that Caveat Stephen :)

**This post is entirely composed of my own thoughts and opinions and does not necessarily reflect the official position of EA, BioWare or any of it's employees**

I think its a great idea to provide additional content to the consumer - whether that is free, or for a fee (as long as players see real value in it). I see this system as being Burnout Paradise-esque content updates with two possible prices: Free and $10. I see no problem with that - I would gladly pay $10 (and have) for good DLC - and I would be even more pleased if it was free.

Point is, regardless of intention from EA to reward new purchases and discourage used sales, if the DLC is worth the price of admission, as a gamer I'm perfectly happy seeing this system implemented across all publishers.

Posted:4 years ago

#25

Stephen Northcott
Senior Consulting Engineer

76 0 0.0
Glad to see Sony's drive is for a better quality kind of DRM...

That's why their "Project $10" is a "Project $20", right?

But more seriously, the only people I know who buy second hand games are those that have limited budgets anyway.
So I kind of tend to think in the long term this will be about as effective as other attempts by big media to control digital content. i.e. It will barely affect those who buy full price media new, and drive people on limited budgets to game the system in other ways. The one thing it won't do is increase revenues for publishers by any significant degree.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Stephen Northcott on 19th February 2010 4:58pm

Posted:4 years ago

#26

Jason Avent
VP, Studio Head

139 140 1.0
Jack: What I'm saying is that Nintendo owners don't go and trade in their games so because of supply and demand the prices stay high. One reason will be replayability but others might be that they just don't bother because they're kids, mothers have more to worry about than to trade in games or that Nintendo games are somehow more collectable.

Nintendo's games aren't longer or better than games on other platforms. They just aren't. That's a silly thing to say. Zelda's no longer than Fallout 3 or Dragon Age - it's probably a little longer than Mass Effect 2 but not by much. Much of the other Nintendo evergreens are relatively short. Mario Kart can be finished in a weekend - except for multiplayer but then alot of the games that depreciate on the other systems have strong multiplayer too. There are evergreens on PS3 and 360 by the way - Modern Warfare held its price well, Demon's Souls is still £40. In general though, HD console owners tend to be older, more fickle and have more money to spend so games are more disposable.

Nintendo's games aren't better or longer. The market is just different. That's what I'm 'trying' to say.

Posted:4 years ago

#27

Patrick Williams
Medicine and Research

93 61 0.7
The problem with this article is that it compares apples and oranges. EA's project 10 dollar is not the same thing as Sony's SOCOM DRM tactic. I think its appropriate to think that Sony's tactics will backfire, but regarding EA's new idea, the retailers quoted have a conflict of interest that invalidates anything they would have to say on the topic.

Posted:4 years ago

#28

Swapnil Sheth
Sr. Financial Analyst

1 0 0.0
I refused to buy the argument that new game sales are going to be affected because of "Project Ten Dollars." I believe majority of core gamers are smart buyers in the sense that they buy games they enjoy playing. Resale value of a game is merely an afterthought. "Project Ten Dollars" is a first and much needed step in the right direction. Having said that, I do believe that publishers have to be very careful in not cross the fine line between rewarding customers for buying a new game and "punishing" customers that buy used-games.

Posted:4 years ago

#29

Jack Loftus
Contributing Editor

95 0 0.0
"Nintendo's games aren't longer or better than games on other platforms. They just aren't. That's a silly thing to say."

You're right, it is. Who said that? Sounds like whoever it was was offering up some kind of opinion. I'm simply pointing out facts:

1. The Wii audience, whatever it is (it's definitely not just "kids and moms" as you seem to think), does not sell back its games once they've been purchased. True. And,

2. First party Nintendo games do not depreciate on store shelves like most other games do. For example, Mario Kart Wii, new copy, sells at full price and there are very few reduced price used copies to be had. And, even if you do find one, it will probably be $40.

I appreciate many games, on many systems, as people can see from my comments. I don't take gaming personally. It's just that, when a company chooses to blame the customers for its inability to generate a profit for 11 quarters in a row, I'm going to start providing examples of why this behavior is ludicrous. One such example, I believe, is Nintendo. Its quality software simply does not depreciate as quickly as EA, et al.

So I suppose in this respect, yes, Nintendo's products are indeed better--much better--than the other software we're discussing here today.

PS - I wish people would stop associating "game length" with "game quality." It's one of many reasons, I think, why publishers can get away with explaining away the maligned $60 pricing model.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Jack Loftus on 19th February 2010 6:59pm

Posted:4 years ago

#30

lee mauroner
Analyst

3 0 0.0
Dragon age was the 1st game to include day 1 DLC, not Mass Effect 2. Even a cursory google search would have told you that.

Online unlocks for new titles is the way to go. More incentive for consumers to buy new and a better sense of title value. Retailers and used game swap sites are the ones who will be hurt, not the publishers. Enough of the free meals that Gamestop and Game'whatever' have dined on with used game sales. Anything that hinders their ability to sell games without cutting the publishers in on the profits is for the better of the industry.

the more interesting question is 'how will this incentive effect Gamefly?'

wipeout HD rocks



Edited 1 times. Last edit by lee mauroner on 19th February 2010 7:35pm

Posted:4 years ago

#31
The move to digital seems overrated right now. Broadband isnt as omnipresent as many would like tot hink - and US as a huge game market has huge areas with poor or no broadband. Broadband penetration in US is about 60 %. Would you like to cut off 60 % of your customers? How would your investors like it?

Pure DD has many drawbacks even for people with broadband internet - EA being the one showing it clearly with so many of their games having online support go down the drain. The same can happen with digital distribution services. Not to mention the simple fact that owning a license and owning a nice box are two completely different things (that said i do buy stuff over PSN, at gog.com and on Steam). And one more point - the huge cut retailers get from RRPs - its not being pased down to DD customers yet. Quite the contrary - many games on PSN or Steam are more expensive than boxed versions at retail.

Posted:4 years ago

#32

Joel Eckert
Game Designer

6 0 0.0
@ Jack Loftus and @Jason Avent
Jason give up now I don't think Jack is going to understand the concept you are trying to express.
Simple as it is, fundamentally the thought "it's definitely not just "kids and moms" as you seem to think" is actually incorrect. Based on the current titles offered on the WII, Id say that the large majority of Nintendo Wii owners are parents, look at nintenodes games, and the third party games sells. Why has many third party games not sold well on the WII, I think its rather simple, a lot of these third parties are targeting a market that is so small on that particular console its almost impossible to turn a profit.

So to sum up nintendoe games dont fall in price because their audiences dont return them, not because the product is better but because the consumer is one who either is not in the know about used sells, or has no reason to return a game their kid is still enjoying many hours after completing.

Posted:4 years ago

#33

Jack Loftus
Contributing Editor

95 0 0.0
Truly and utterly, I stand corrected.

Or not. No one seems to answer, or want to answer, why Nintendo games continue to demand full retail value years after their release. Then, related to that, still no one answers (with any kind of logic, anyway) why no used market has materialized around these titles, while it HAS materialized around EA (and now Sony) titles to the point where the CEO has to create a special campaign to screw over the used games market (and generate revenue/profit for fledgling EA in the process).

Now, since these Nintendo titles continue to crack the top 10 sales charts month over month (which I continue to point out), I can only surmise it's because demand remains high. Therefore, GameStop can continue to demand $50 for these titles because, in the eyes of the consumer, they are worth that price. Otherwise they wouldn't crack the top 10. See how that little circle works? Round and round we go. It's called logic. They teach courses on it!

Now, I realize this is an industry site, with industry members, and the bottom line reigns supreme, but at what point in time did it become OK to actively piss all over the customers and then justify the process as a completely normal business practice? Could someone Google that date for me?

And Lee, what exactly is it you "analyze" in the games industry? I only ask so I can avoid reading those reports!

Posted:4 years ago

#34

Joel Eckert
Game Designer

6 0 0.0
@Jack
Face Palm.... NVM sir....NVM

Posted:4 years ago

#35

David Amirian
Writer

59 3 0.1
Ok, retailers say that "games like this wont be valuable for consumers." So then they'll offer less when they buy it back, right? But then they'll have to sell it for cheaper because no one will buy it for a price that will become more expensive than new when they pay an extra 10 or 20 to the publisher themselves to unlock features they may or may not want.

Used game retailers can either not buy those games back or sell them at a low price. People who buy used games aren't consumers that publishers make any money off currently, and honestly I don't think they have any responsibility to them -- this will change it. Its not in the interest of publishers to make used games completely a retail benefit, and I think this sort of move is brilliant.

Posted:4 years ago

#36

Chris Nash
Compliance Technician

45 13 0.3
Customers don't care about how pre-owned sales don't benefit the industry - all they see is a cheaper product on the shelf for them to buy. And so they will take these measures as an attack, to prevent them from getting the best value for money. Far from persuading them to change their buying habits, this is more likely to demonise publishers like EA and Ubisoft in the eyes of consumers, and those publishers will see reduced sales.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Chris Nash on 19th February 2010 10:35pm

Posted:4 years ago

#37

Jeremy Glazman
Programmer

28 4 0.1
"On one hand they might be trying to reduce pre-owned sales, on the other hand they might be collecting data so they can email that customer directly."

That's really hilarious... when was the last time you bought ANYTHING from a games retailer that didn't first try to get you to sign up for that company's exclusive club membership? GameStop practically harasses you in this regard.

Posted:4 years ago

#38
The retailers are upset because they are going to make less money off of other peoples hard work and investment.

I still feel that as a means of combating piracy this method is way better than the current method of online access only. At the end of the day pirates will continue to steal games. The idea is to lure as many people as possible from stealing and not push them into it. I have a feeling people who purchase Assassins Creed 2 will go online looking for a crack. Even with a dedicated internet connection it can be spotty sometimes with downtime hours and paying $60 for something I might not be able to play when I want too sucks. On the flip side paying $60 to get extra content is a lot better.

I've gone slightly off topic. I really do not think that the consumer will be hurt by this. It is not like the retailers were paying exorbitant amounts of money to buy back games anyway.

Posted:4 years ago

#39

Private
Industry

1,176 182 0.2
Not sure about other areas, but at least in my area here you get barely anything for your used games anyway and if you want to buy them used they are at best 10 Euro cheaper then a new copy if the game isn`t that old. Even the Sport franchises if I look here at Game or Gamestop Madden/ Fifa/ NHL 09 are not really that cheap pre owned for the cheap pre owned games I need to look at the 08 and 07 versions.

Posted:4 years ago

#40

Sandy Lobban
Founder and Creative Director

310 195 0.6
Everyone should buy some online games and see for themselves the benefits. Its much easier. Lower price than a boxed product with all the additional manufacturing costs, less getting up off the chair to swap discs, no scratching of the discs themselves giving your product a longer life cycle, less hassle from your girlfriend for having dust collectors in the living room, no parking fees. Its all good!. Wipeout HD would be a great place to start :))

Posted:4 years ago

#41

Private
Industry

1,176 182 0.2
@ Sandy

Yes and no. :)

Boxes are nice, especially the steel boxes for some games. :) But the biggest issue is the not always lower price, as someone with a PSPgo I was so far a bit disappointed with the price difference between new releases on UMD and the download version.

But WipEout HD or Burnout is a nice start to get the digital distribution moving a bit forward. For the moment with the current internet connections still a bit concerned in regards to games that use up most of a Blu Ray as I`m one of those people who want to play a game as fast as possible after it`s release. Something like the pre download that Steam has to play games on release day would be nice on consoles.

Posted:4 years ago

#42

Michael Owen

1 0 0.0
@ Jack Loftus

"No one seems to answer, or want to answer, why Nintendo games continue to demand full retail value years after their release. Then, related to that, still no one answers (with any kind of logic, anyway) why no used market has materialized around these titles, while it HAS materialized around EA (and now Sony) titles to the point where the CEO has to create a special campaign to screw over the used games market (and generate revenue/profit for fledgling EA in the process)."

It's not so much Nintendo's products being of 'better quality', as you said previously, rather it is because they are fewer in quantity. For example, publishers such as EA have undoubtedly saturated the market over the years with countless updates, particularly where sports sims are concerned; while Nintendo, from a marketing perspective at least, release their games as 'brand new products' each time. As a result, EA's older games lose value much faster, because it's guaranteed that there will be another FIFA or Madden next year, while the next Zelda and what it'd be like is hard to predict.

And that's EA's problem. While they're making more than enough money on yearly updates, older versions become worthless as a result. FIFA games prior to the latest version simply cannot command a long life of high value because they do not hold that value. If Mario received a yearly 3D update then it would result in a bigger second-hand market because they'd be easier to mindlessly trade in.

(Jason Avent also has a great point regarding the 'savvy' consumers that (probably) don't play such a part in Wii's market.)

Effectively, the second-hand market is, to a publisher at least, stealing. So it's inevitable that CEOs are going to 'launch campaigns' to retrieve money lost in the hands of retailers. If publishers aren't receiving the money they 'should' per release, they will eventually become unable to soak up their expenses.

Lowering the RRP for new games is the only way to combat the second-hand market head-on. But how many companies could afford to do that is the primary drawback to that strategy.

Edited 3 times. Last edit by Michael Owen on 20th February 2010 1:17am

Posted:4 years ago

#43

Private
Industry

1,176 182 0.2
@ Jack

I would assume this is due to differences between the targeted demographic for Wii games and Ps3/360 games. No doubt there are hardcore gamers on the Wii that know well about trade in and so on, but sure the % is less then on the PS3/360. Plus it might be worth to mention that PS3 and 360 have a higher amount of good games that sell therefore some people might be more likely to trade in any of there PS3/360 games compared to Wii games where the support (at least from 3rd Party) is not very good as the console suffers from the same problem as the GameCube a low amount of good games (compared to the two HD next gen consoles). So I would say an average PS3/360 owner will be more likely forced (or wants to switch to a better game in the same Genre) to get rid of games in order to get new ones compared to Wii owners. From my point of view the Wii doesn`t have that diversity when it comes to games and games that share the same Genre so people might not feel the need to get rid of there old game to trade it in for a new one on that console.

Posted:4 years ago

#44
I have to agree with the retailers here. The immediate effect, is that stores will pay less for 2nd-hand units, which means consumers get less on a trade in.

This in turn will result in less initial sales, more people waiting for 2nd-hand copies (as the price differential between new/used is greater) - and less people playing it online.

Sony should focus on selling units to more/new consumers, and less on drawing those few extra dollars from the same consumers.

Posted:4 years ago

#45
Talk about milking the system, what are the gaming companies doing? looking for every inch of profit? are they going to start charging for the box aswell? how about pay per veiw trailers or time limited disks. I don't support these kinds of moves at all.

Posted:4 years ago

#46

Kevin Fairbairn
Standard Scripter

2 0 0.0
@ Jack Loftus

"I'm simply pointing out facts:

1. The Wii audience, whatever it is (it's definitely not just "kids and moms" as you seem to think), does not sell back its games once they've been purchased. True. And,

2. First party Nintendo games do not depreciate on store shelves like most other games do. For example, Mario Kart Wii, new copy, sells at full price and there are very few reduced price used copies to be had. And, even if you do find one, it will probably be $40.

... So I suppose in this respect, yes, Nintendo's products are indeed better--much better--than the other software we're discussing here today. "

I posit that, in fact, Nintendo games are so immeasurably bad that, upon playing, the customers are driven to destroy said games and throw them in the bin so as to purge their souls of the horror.

Same facts (no reseslling; the customer felt the need to destroy the game. Prices are fixed; the games become rarer after every purchase and are therefore worth more. Or at least, do not depreciate as quickly as easily available titles. Perhaps stories of how soul-crushingly bad the games are publicises the games and drives sales...), but different conclusion.

Obviously, all that's a load of baloney, but I feel it necessary to point out that 'facts' are easily mutable to support any claim, hypothesis or opinion. Your facts regarding Nintendo products are no different.

Now, I actually completely agree that Nintendo games are of a consistent and high quality. If anyone can be relied upon to churn out something of quality (in terms, as you pointed out, of design, structure, stability, and everything else that falls into the 'more important than graphics and length' category that so oft distracts the modern, core gamer) it's them.

However, here's some points:

1) The market for Wii owners is markedly different to that of the 'HD consoles'. It's not JUST "kids and moms" (I own a Wii, even if I don't actually play it anymore), but it's undeniable that Nintendo's successes can be attributed to bringing in people that weren't gamers in previous generations (or perhaps stopped being gamers). There's plenty of anecdotal evidence to back this up: my mum owns a Wii and a DS, and no other console. Plenty of my friends' and colleagues' parents and non-gaming friends own a Wii as their sole gaming device. Nintendo is basically selling to gamers that didn't know they were gamers. Part of this is...

2) Marketing. Nintendo has positioned themselves, more than once, as the company selling 'the must own product of the year'. A lot of this is down to their design philosophy and the marketing of that philosophy. Because they are so sought after by everyone (long-term gamer or otherwise), retailers can afford to keep the prices steady because the demand is always there. With 6.5 billion people on the planet, there are still plenty of people to sell to, and Nintendo is the only manufacturer that seems to be speaking directly to the needs of the majority, rather than the core gamer. This leads to...

3) The Wii owner. I'm going to talk in sweeping generalisations for a moment, so I hope everyone will forgive me. But many Wii owners aren't a part of the 'play game, trade game' cycle. Many of them, in fact, have secure, well paid jobs, and a certain degree of very disposable income. This means they can happily drop £50 on a game and leave it at that. They don't trade in because they a) don't HAVE to trade in, or b) have no desire to trade in (with all the accompanying 'going to the store, trading in the game, getting their details on file (do they actually still do this? Been a while since I worked retail)' that that entails). I'm sure for a lot of them, it doesn't even occur to them that trading in is a possibility.

It's also, as Michael Owen pointed out, that there are fewer games purchased on the Wii than HD consoles. To quickly expand: I'm not referring to individual sales of specific titles, but rather number of titles in the Top 10. As an example, the current best-selling 'HD' title (based on Chart Track information, so UK only) is Bioshock 2. Last week it was Mass Effect 2. Before that Modern Warfare 2. Assassin's Creed 2, Borderlands, Dragon Age, Forza 3, Dante's Inferno, MAG. All have featured heavily in Top 10 releases (and only in the last few months).

Compare that to Wii appearances in the Top 10 over the last year (or longer): New Super Mario Bros., Wii Fit, Wii Sports Resort, Wii Play, Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games (and very recently, Just Dance). These are typically the only Wii games to break the Top 10. They are always very high up the charts, so people are buying them, but that's ALL they're buying. People don't buy two copies of Mario or Wii Fit. So all those sales are also to new customers.

I'm sure I started writing the above section with a point, but I've just totally lost it. So here's a new one (or possibly the same one):

'HD' game buyers are consistently looking for a new fix; a new experience, a new narrative, the next iteration of the designs they enjoy (shooters, platformers, whatever). Perhaps because that's what they are conditioned to do. Wii owners are looking to buy a Wii, the above-mentioned games, and nothing else. As I refuse to believe that there are only six 'games worth holding on to' in the whole of existence, the conclusion I come to with the facts available is that great design, aesthetics and marketing can lead people to purchase certain items at a frightening pace. But that doesn't necissarily mean that the games are great experiences, or that Nintendo has done anything more than market a good product extremely well. Like Apple and its complete control over the .mp3 player market. Not does it mean that, were every company put out Nintendo-quality games, everyone would sell games at a 'Nintendo first party' level. Especially if those games were released on a non-Wii console.

And, while last thing I want to claim is that people are stupid and only buying Wiis because they're popular and they don't know any better, if driving sales via marketing and by putting products into the 'social conscience' didn't work we wouldn't have an advertising business worth, in the UK alone, £19 billion (according to the Advertising Association).

(And if you've stayed with me for THIS long, thanks for putting up with this horrifically long post...)

Posted:4 years ago

#47

Stephane Belanger
National director of business development

6 0 0.0
"This my personal opinion and not necessary shared by PNT". I like the idea for customers to be able to purchase additional content as long as this is additional content to a full finished product. I believe that our industry compare well with the car business on that regard. I like to be able to add "stuff" on my cars ie( nice mags, tinted windows...)but I'd be really pissed if the car manufacturer would like to play GOD with me by limiting my capacity to resale my car or do what I please with it after I bought it. I have a real hard time to see the Ford or BMW or Toyota car owners be real jazzed by such a Big Brother way of conducting business. The customers are buying the end product so let the market dictate what they can do with it when they are bored and what is the correct price to resale that product. If I am buying a car, I am expecting it to do what a car does, if I am buying a game, I am expecting it to deliver what it is suppose to deliver. If the publisher want to play this dangerous game with their customers, they better make it real clear ahead of time that these customers will be lock in some kind of bad deal. Doing otherwise is having a very bad knowledge of what is great customer service. But I guess it can happen if you're lock in an office for too long trying to play GOD. You loose perspective of what your customers are and are willing to pay for.

Posted:4 years ago

#48

Cobey Jones
Studying Game development

20 0 0.0
This can go one of 2 ways... either the 2nd hand market prices will come down to accomodate the added cost to play these games (goodbye GameStop, Hello Craigslist), or some new game buyers will be deterred from buying new and wait for 2nd hand market in order to take advantage of the new lower prices. I suspect a combination of the 2, but eitherway, it will hurt new game sales.

Posted:4 years ago

#49

Private
VIdeo Games

103 14 0.1
I'll be interested to see how this pans out..

I think incentives for buying games new is a good idea for sure, and of course people who make money from the second hand market are going to complain :)

Posted:4 years ago

#50

Haven Tso
Web-based Game Reviewer

255 8 0.0
I think this is another move for them to not only stop people getting second hand games but also push them to accept digital distribution as that is what digital purchase do not offer - second hand sales. The thing is 8 out of 10 games are usually trash so the effect will be people will be even more skeptical about buying new games as they don't want to risk to put their hard earn cash into paying for trash games.

Posted:4 years ago

#51

Ignatius Fernandes
Studying Computer Science

26 0 0.0
People who want to make money, make it in anyway possible. The only downside to this 'Project $10' is that resell value for games would go down dramatically.

Posted:4 years ago

#52

Carl Watkins
Podcaster and writer

3 5 1.7
I think this is all just silliness. Used sales really shouldn't be affected if what McCabe said turns out to be true. If the retailers adjust their prices to offset the DLC registration codes, it will end up meaning that the consumer will get less for the games. On the other side of this, used games should also cost less as well. As it stands, I think the sales that will get hurt the most are trade in credit used to purchase new games.

That being said... The easiest way for publishers to make this work for them is to adjust their pricing schedules. You can still release a game for $60, but after a month drop it down to $55. Then another month or so $50. So instead of waiting to make $10 and $20 price cuts, make more frequent and smaller price cuts. So now titles will perform over a longer period of time. If a person doesn't want to spend $60 on a game they can know that in a matter of a month or so, it will be the same price as the title is selling used. People already have to wait for new titles to be traded in to buy them used, why not price the game so it competes with used sales of itself? The average game usually takes a week or two to see any significant volume of units traded in. So get the consumer to start thinking "why buy a used copy of Madden for $54 when in two weeks I can get a brand new copy with additional content for $55?"

The combination of "Project $10" and faster price reductions should increase consumer's interest in buying new over used. In theory...

Posted:4 years ago

#53

Yiannis Koumoutzelis
Founder & Creative Director

358 187 0.5
I will reiterate that this is my personal opinion and in no way represents my studio :)


The DLC code from EA as it applied in DA:O and ME is the best step and i find it a very clever and fair move.

It is even fair in its application as people who buy Collector's edition get that little extra.

In addition, the incentive to buy Original Games in the form of extra added content, something like loyalty\fan reward is excellent!

I am talking about the way it applies in Bioware games specifically.
I enjoyed the extra content in DA:O, and the extra content my Dragon Age copy enabled in Mass Effect 2.

This is in fact something like a proper "Thank you for buying an original game" and is not restrictive in any way!

And in the case of the second hand sale the customer gets his game cheaper, he gets to play the game legit, and in full (since DLC is not necessary to enjoy the game), and if he wants the extra content you pay a little extra for the lost revenue of the publisher\studio etc from the second hand transaction.

The "$20 to unlock or no play" is a very aggressive and hostile approach. Sony should rethink their strategy.

Posted:4 years ago

#54

Rupert Loman
Founder & CEO

138 45 0.3
test

Posted:4 years ago

#55

Damien Robson
Studying Games Software Development

15 0 0.0
The games market, to an extent, is greatly supported by the pre-owned business. It is a system in which gamers who hung up their joypads years ago can get back into the swing of things for a relatively decent price. It also can help with the spreading of a series - games like Ratchet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, etc. can be re-introduced into gaming society in the hands of the younger generations who perhaps did not get the chance to play some of the truly great games from before their time. "Ten Dollar" will not only destroy this great tradition, but could also cost the industry greatly, as fledgling companies see themselves dying out due to a lack of availability of their software.

Posted:4 years ago

#56

Aidan Fitzpatrick
Artist

48 2 0.0
""The person you're pissing off the most is the consumer," McCabe told GamesIndustry.biz.

Somehow I doubt that. Given the tone of the rest of his comments, it's the retail guys like him who are most annoyed.
They've been rubbing their hands will glee this past while, raking in sales of preowned games picked up off customers for a pittance and often sold at a price point that is a mere couple of pounds/dollars shy of the new product. They are Pushing preowned games with a fervour before new games for huge profit. News of 'project ten dollar' and other initiatives make them nervous about having those profits dip.

I read in another article about how records of the amount of people who had played 'Deadspace' on consoles were double that of numbers who had actually bought the game 1st hand (the only revenue the devs got a share of) - this was due to trade ins by the way, not piracy.
What incentive is there for EA or others to publish or develop new and exciting IP like Deadspace when the are only getting half of the revenue generated by the title?

Concepts like 'project ten dollar' are just the first steps in a gradual move towards digital distribution.
If the retailers feel they are being pushed out, they have themselves to blame. There has been plenty of time to compromise with publishers over the preowned issue.

"retailers will become more wary of publishers using these methods and more reticent about stocking their products, said McCabe"

I find this comment rather amusing to be honest. I can just imagine one of the big games retailers declaring they are no longer willing to stock EA games, or Activision Blizzard games ahead of the next Call of Duty/Madden/Fifa/Warcraft etc coming out.
Unlikey.

Posted:4 years ago

#57

Pierre Vandenbroucke
Assistant de production

47 0 0.0
In France, at GAME a brand new title on HD console is 65-70€. Say, AvP Xbox360, 66,49€. That's more than 9 hours of work (legal minimum salary).

What's the difference between Fifa 09 and Fifa 10, sincerely (I'm not a Fifa player, though) that could apply to most sport licences (Moto GP, Formula 1, NHL and so on)

A few new 3D models (new players' face, new motorbike design), but how many eal changes in gameplay, handling ? Couldn't season 2010 be an 30€ add-on to all the people owing the 09 game ?

That would make a 65€ game live 2 years. I have NHL 2K6 or 7, can't tell, no reason for me to buy 2K10, I just play multiplayer with friends.

Publishers should concentrate efforts on packaging instead of the poor DVD box. Having a nice box, a artbook, something extra makes it very valuable to keep. Even if you want to trade the game in, you keep the extras and people ar less likely to buy it used, since the extra content is not here.
I bought the oblivion collector box for the coin, the DVD, the book, I was lucky to find it used and complete, but to get the add-ons that were available on DD, when my CD cracked (intensive use) I bought the GOTY version new cause I couldn't get the map and everything on a second hand game.

I'm not a trade-in person (the only games I sold were due to console changes).
Offering extra for the "first hand buyer" is a good thing. But it should not lock something to second hand player in my opinion.

Posted:4 years ago

#58

Kevin Clark-Patterson
Lecturer in Games Development

291 23 0.1
As a consumer I prefer physical media to hold, to load into my drive and ultimately trade once im finished – this is important to me a GAMER.

DLC being given a monetary value is fine (as it should be worth something right) BUT not at the expense of game content being deliberately held back to drive new sales or to charge DLC at premium for resale value.
However, I believe digital distribution will inevitably happen, whether due to publishers/developers pushing harder or console manufactures reacting to removing disc based drives as 1st party support is where a lot of money comes from for the big 3!

The other way of looking at it is that less mediocre games will get sold as people can afford less tat and therefore buy superior titles. The future is bright but it isn’t all that rosy for the retailers and ultimately the traders amongst us.

Posted:4 years ago

#59

Kevin Clark-Patterson
Lecturer in Games Development

291 23 0.1
As a consumer I prefer physical media to hold, to load into my drive and ultimately trade once im finished – this is important to me a GAMER.

DLC being given a monetary value is fine (as it should be worth something right) BUT not at the expense of game content being deliberately held back to drive new sales or to charge DLC at premium for resale value.
However, I believe digital distribution will inevitably happen, whether due to publishers/developers pushing harder or console manufactures reacting to removing disc based drives as 1st party support is where a lot of money comes from for the big 3!

The other way of looking at it is that less mediocre games will get sold as people can afford less tat and therefore buy superior titles.

The future is bright but it isn’t all that rosy for the retailers and ultimately the traders amongst us.

Posted:4 years ago

#60

Jayke Walker

8 0 0.0
They are trying to hurt gamestop's business. If this happened industry wide it might actually help.
Developers make no money on resale so they want to sell directly or through retail. It doesn;t mean games prices wont still reduce over time, but the resale market could be hurt if this becomes common place.

Posted:4 years ago

#61

Stephen McCarthy
Studying Games Technology

205 0 0.0
What the point of 2nd hand games now days, most shops sell them about the same cost of the game being new. What if I like to buy a game that not being sold now? do i have to pay more cash for a code just because i did not get it at the time?

Posted:4 years ago

#62

Jake

6 0 0.0
I'm sure it's been said before but.. What if I don't WANT to spend a little more money for a new game? Mostly I buy games new but sometimes it's not worth it. I don't want to miss out on content because of this. I'll just end up not buying the game at all (new OR used).

Posted:4 years ago

#63

Yiannis Koumoutzelis
Founder & Creative Director

358 187 0.5
EA with what they did with DA:O and ME2 is definitely going the right way with respect to the legitimate consumer!

Online activation etc by themselves don't help with preventing piracy or second hand sales.
The only way to go is give incentives for buying original and new games, without limiting the gamer from reselling the product if he so wishes.

This is the most fair solution anyone could come up with!

Posted:4 years ago

#64

Login or register to post

Take part in the GamesIndustry community

Register now