Should We Support The Second Hand Market?

VG247 Forum » The VG247 forum

Should We Support The Second Hand Market?

(27 posts)

Started 2 years ago by reask
Latest reply from The_Red

reask
Member

I mean should we really do this as gamers?
The guys at the likes of ND Bungie GG Insomniac to name a few make pretty OK games overall imo.
Sorry for not including PC gaming As my PC would not run pacman let alone a decent game. :)

I do mean all formats though.

So what am I saying here really?
Well as a kid I was in to various bands and went out and bought anything I could find my hands on to get more info or the latest record from them.
They were my pleasure in essence.

So we know the story here as adults.
Other people made the big bucks whilst the more naive ones perished.
Yet the ones that made it through the initial stages done pretty OK.
The Stones, U2, Queen, BB king, Sinatra.
You get my drift lol.

Yet today we have shows like American Idol Britain's got talent etc.
Nothing wrong with them as far as entertainment goes but the raw musician element seems to be gone.

So my long winded point here eventually.
Is the gaming business not another source of personal tastes?
We come on here and slag each other off about different games on different formats and which one rules.

Why?
Because we as gamers defend our tastes.

So the big boys get the money by selling second hand products of the games.
Does the developer get anything out of it?
I doubt it.

So for 10 bucks we make the choice here.
Do we support these guys to do better or do we just say ah well I saved a tenner so screw you?

Dont get me wrong here as I have bought many second hand games.
Yet the ones I like I tend to get new.
So your thoughts on it.
Should we just say feck it or should we support the artists we personally like?

Posted 2 years ago #
freedoms_stain
Moderator

The second hand market is pretty booming on the music side too dude, the difference is the margins aren't big enough for the major retailers to take an interest, so it's handled by dedicated shops. With gaming you can buy games off your customers for a pittance and jack up the price to the point where it's just barely cheaper than new knowing that a few quid means enough to enough people that it'll sell.

I think if you were to go into game or gamestation and quiz everyone buying preowned if they'd prefer new most would say yes, but they can't afford to buy every game new, or they buy the games they really want new then get older shit 2 for £20 preowned down the line.

If I cast a glance down my game collection Some I paid top spectrum bucks for and didn't really like enough to get that value out of them and maybe feel a bit cheated, others I bought dirt cheap either older or preowned and got hundreds of hours out of.

Theoretically if I had bottomless pockets I'd love to buy everything new ASAP, but in reality my gaming budget is limited, and sometimes preowned is the only way to go.

Posted 2 years ago #
reask
Member

I hear you on the reason for buying some games SH.
If something is average at best then why not hang around for a bit and get it cheap.

But the ones that are dedicated and are trying to achieve something that makes them personally satisfied as to there effort, surely they should be encouraged?

Why let it die or become so bland that the original fan turned away from it.
Take Steve Jobs, Gates, should they have been denied the chance to innovate?

To me there are certain franchises that I am a fan of.
Which means I will forgive it Its faults as long as the next one is vastly improved.
Talented people need the fans support to give them the chance to build on there ability.

Posted 2 years ago #
DrDamn
Member

I find it a bit of a strange question. The current situation may not be ideal for developers and publishers, but the second hand market is a part of the set-up. Game prices and budget are set with this in mind, people make purchases with this in mind. It is part of the system. They get more sales at the initial higher price because people know they can trade it in or sell it on. So what does should we support the second hand market actually mean? Regardless of what they say the devs and publishers do make money from second hand market, indirectly, what they lack and want is more of the money and more control.

Now if they want that then they need to give me the consumer more options. Evolve, don't just sit there stubbornly saying it's all unfair. Don't sell digital download stuff at higher prices than the high street, make the purchases more flexible. Move with the times and think about meeting consumers needs and requirements.

Posted 2 years ago #
mojo
Member

first and foremost we are consumers. not industry slaves.
So the answer is yes.
Although i never buy used or sell games (lazy arse is lazy) its fatal to believe the industry will suffer from this.
it is brainwashing!

Should the industry realy come to the point where it only makes sense to make AAA titles if everyone buys them new and fullprice then, well, let it die.
I wount shit on my rights for the sake of someones wallet.

but i tell u, they wount die.
Did the movies die due to horrendous piracy? no. instead u see bigger and bigger productions.
and im sure, the piracy on movies is even stronger then on games.

Posted 2 years ago #
Deacon
Member

@ DrDamn -
I was very much under the impression that all of the profit from second-hand sales stayed with the retailer??

Posted 2 years ago #
DrDamn
Member

@Deacon
Yes it does, but the point was that as there is a second hand market then more people are willing to buy the game at the higher initial price. So there are more brand new sales than there would be if a second hand market did not exist. Therefore - indirectly - they already profit from the second hand market.

Posted 2 years ago #
Deacon
Member

Understood. Apologies if I didn't read your post properly!

Out of curiosity then, how many people here would buy a game full price at launch with the full intention of trading it in a week or two later?

Posted 2 years ago #
Crab of Thunder
Member

It might give you more confidence investing in the full priced game knowing if you don't agree with it you can fall back on the trade-in, which for a month or so is relatively high.

Personally I tend not to buy any full priced games anymore, seeing as they seem to drop in price rather fast these days. As for whether i'd buy it pre-owned or not, i'm not fussed really. :)

Posted 2 years ago #
tenthousandgothsonacid
Member

@Deacon I buy all my games brand new off the net on day of release then trade em in within a week or so. Sometimes I even make a profit doing this, but normally I get to play the new games for a couple of pounds.

I'm basically renting them for the week :)

Posted 2 years ago #
reask
Member

Some fairly diverse points and views there guys.
Yeah it was a bit of a strange question I suppose.
I was just pondering it in my head having rented a game out for a week and then buying the new copy of it.

I was thinking of it from the developers view in a way if you know what I mean.
Anyway I suppose it is the way of the world and Its good them avenues are there.
But I mean would you purposely buy a game new because you were a fan and felt obliged to support developer.

Anyway enough rambling from me. :)

Posted 2 years ago #
DrDamn
Member

@reask
I've bought titles where I haven't felt the game has hit the nail fully on the head, but where the devs have tried to do something new and interesting - in an effort to support and increase the chances of a sequel.

@Deacon
I do buy a fair number of games new, bit of a game whore, like the new and shiny. When I buy in the back of my mind I always think that for the price I'm paying I will tend to get at least £10 back in trade-in value - as I tend to trade rather than hoard games.

Posted 2 years ago #
reask
Member

@ Drdamn.
Here we differ as I have become more convinced that the price these guys give you on a trade in is just not worth it.
I used to trade but bit by bit I realised that the only ones making bucks out of it were the shops.

I now hang on to my games regardless.

Posted 2 years ago #
Crab of Thunder
Member

I think the price can be good. Say you buy a game for £40, the trade-in price for a week or two would be £25-£35ish so thats not to bad. When the games old though they tend to get devalued massively. For instance i sold my MGS2 (Ps2) to GAME once and got an incredible 50 pence for it, no jokes. >_>

Posted 2 years ago #
Phoenixblight
Member

I have no issues trading in my games, its up to the publishers to fight the second hand sales with online passes, day one dlc, etc. Amazon was pretty generous with Trade in and I usually go through them. They offered me 25$ for Fable 3! Gamestop was gonna offer me 10$. I traded in 5 game that release last year and they averaged at about 20$ a pop. Thanks to Amazon I will be buying Portal 2 and LA Noire without it breaking the bank.

Posted 2 years ago #
DrDamn
Member

@Reask
That's a little bit cutting your nose off to spite your face. Yes they profit from it, but you do too. Asda gives a reasonable price to the older games. Anything I can't get something decent for I give to charity shops who hopefully will.

Another side point. Whether you trade the game or sell it privately what do most people do with that cash/credit? Buy more games, sometimes at full price and thus giving some of that trade in profit - indirectly - to the game publishers again :).

Publishers need to rethink the models they use and come up with an attractive proposition for consumers, that is actually their job. If they are unhappy about the control they have over the second hand market then the solution is not to simply try and remove it. Think about why and how it currently works.

Posted 2 years ago #
Noodlemanny
Member

Alot of people here don't seem to really realise how much this stuff is hitting game devs and publishers. Think about all of the companies that have gone under recently, maybe its just because of the cash crash but still. Also places like EA wouldn't of set up there 10 dollar project if it wasn't a problem for them. Yeah sure there pretty greedy but there not that stupid.
Also again @Mojo
Movies have the cinema which isn't pirate-able (as in there aren't any official cinemas out there that don't make money for the films crew) and makes them a fuck load of money. "Why watch it badly pirated when you can watch it in a massive room with massive sound and a massive screen?". Games don't have anything like that.

Posted 2 years ago #
freedoms_stain
Moderator

@Noodlemanny, but this is competition. If you make poor or middling games that can't compete then you go bust, that's fair. You can't cry about 2nd hand sales if you made a piece of crap that got traded in a lot. It's not the 2nd hand sales that killed you, it was the fact that your games was a piece of crap.

Maybe you made a really good game, but tried charging £40 for something with <20hrs lifespan on it, you're competing for peoples money but offering them less for their money than the other guy, so you sell less copies, or due to the short life of the product it gets traded in at a higher rate and faster. You want to sell more new copies and have less 2nd hand copies on the shelf? Then make people want to keep your game.

As for EA, it's tempting just to label them greedy, and tbh it's probably a massive part of it. They're the Lords of the yearly franchise, literally to the point where a hefty proportion of those franchises actually have the year in the title, as a result huge numbers of last years sporting titles get traded in every year, this means that while EA are making money hand over fist from the franchise royalists who duly buy each new iteration on release every single year, they're also (sort of) "losing" money by running online services/dedicated servers for their older services which may be played by a relatively high proportion of pre-owned buyers whom EA never got any cash out of. The Online Pass addresses this, and is part of the reason why EA shutters online services for "old" (aka 2-3 year old+) games on a regular basis.

Posted 2 years ago #
Phoenixblight
Member

@freedom_stain

"They're the Lords of the yearly franchise"

Name a franchise outside of their sport games that are released yearly you know compared to activision? Blizzard release yearly expansions: check. COD: yearly release: check. Guitar hero: Every 4-8 months: check. Maybe EA once upon a time did that crap(90's) but Activision is the master of that shit now.

Posted 2 years ago #
DrDamn
Member

@Noodlemanny
I agree it's difficult times for the industry. Game prices have remained largely static for many year - even coming down. Whilst the market itself has risen significantly in this time so have game development costs.

They have to be more flexible in what they offer and how they approach the problem though. Whining and complaining about it now is not the answer, it has always been part of the model - it's not something which has just cropped up.

Good DLC is a way to offer extra content or features to those willing to pay. Craziness I know but try to ensure your game offers some longevity and replay value. If you are going to go the digital route then offer the consumer some better incentives because currently in the console space you are just offering them a shit deal and keeping all the associated savings to yourself. It could even be balanced with value which is low cost to the publisher - e.g. digital copy includes free access to a couple of DLC packs or extra content. Low cost to publisher and high value to the consumer. Also allows them to keep digital prices at a level which doesn't piss off retail too.

There are lots of useful things they can and should be trying to reach a solution. Whining that they are being ripped off and games are not meant to be sold on or reused is not one of them.

Posted 2 years ago #
DrDamn
Member

@Phoenixblight
"Name a franchise outside of their sport games that are released yearly you know compared to activision?"

Yearly expansions? The Sims
Yearly release switching teams? Need for Speed
Something like Guitar Hero? Rock Band maybe? :)

Both as bad as each other though Activision seems to have overtaken EA in the evil stakes more recently in most people's eyes.

Posted 2 years ago #
OlderGamer
Moderator

A few years back I wouldn't trade in a game for the life of me. I bought it, why would I give it away for pennies on the dollar? If I liked the game enough to buy it, I wanted to make sure the dev/pub knew it and knew the kinds of games I liked. Plus supporting them was a great way to keep the kinds of games I liked coming out.

But.

Times got tougher. And demos slowed down. Back on Dreamcast, I owned a subscript to their Dreamcast mag. With it I got demos on alot of stuff. Same when Xbox launched. Was even the same when xb360 came out. But now the demo have slowed way down. And most of what gets demoed is stuff I am not interested in.

So now, when I go to the store it is more of a risk. I haven't tried the game yet. Plus the price is higher then it is used to be. I remember fliping out over a 30usd priced Cannon Spike or Mars Matrix, Gaurdian Hereos was also 30usd. All brand new and at launch. Those games are games I still play today and they are half the price of a game released today.

And I have half as much to spend today as I used to be able to do.

So now I rent. That is just as bad as buying second hand, almost anyways. If the game is good, and I want to buy it, I click the "keep it" icon on Gamefly. At that point, I own the game, know it works, know I like it, and they send me the box and manual and any preorder codes(like EAs play pass) - so I get a like new game at used priced. And in a sense I have already demoed the game. Win win for me.

Maybe not so much for the dev/pub.

But then again maybe they shouldn't charge 60 usd for games either.

Plus I buy a lot of xbla, psn, and VC games. I can demo most of them b4 I buy, and they cost a lot less to own.

Posted 2 years ago #
Phoenixblight
Member

@DrDamn

I forgot about Sims but thats not new games those are actual expansions and they come out quite frequently because thats what the consumers want and it makes sense. Rockband is another thing that needs the continue stream of games because the consumers are obviously ok with it, Need for Speed aswell. These games have a consumer base that wants that. If this wasn't so they wouldn't continue to do so.

Same goes for Activision, the only reason why they pump yearly COD is because the consumers have no issues paying for it every year the amount of units bought goes up so no issue there. Business are there for money and will do anything they can to get paid. We as the consumers tell them whats fine with us with our money.

@OG

"But then again maybe they shouldn't charge 60 usd for games either."

Well someone has to pay the bill that goes into the research and development of not only the game but the hardware involved and manufacturing/distributing. You can't expect to pay 40$ while technology,gas etc go up.

MS and SOny are both losing money per system sold and not just dollar but hundreds of dollars. Its the whole razor and blade business model. They lose out by selling their system but make it up by their games (blades).

Posted 2 years ago #
DrDamn
Member

@Phoenixblight
Agree with all that but that wasn't the point or question you asked. You asked for examples and I gave you ones near exact matching the Activision ones you gave. Sims is expansions yes, but so is your Blizzard one for example.

Posted 2 years ago #
OlderGamer
Moderator

"@OG

"But then again maybe they shouldn't charge 60 usd for games either."

Well someone has to pay the bill that goes into the research and development of not only the game but the hardware involved and manufacturing/distributing. You can't expect to pay 40$ while technology,gas etc go up.

MS and SOny are both losing money per system sold and not just dollar but hundreds of dollars. Its the whole razor and blade business model. They lose out by selling their system but make it up by their games (blades)."

Of course PB, but thats my point entirely. Their current biz model is antiquated and broken. Only going to be so many trip-A CoDs out there. More big name games being made today either lose money or merely break even.

Companies should be exploring other options. Such as episodic games released as DLC. Demos that contain the whole game, people pay to unlock as much or as little content as they want. Scale back projects(stop trying to make your own CoD killer)(only enough room for one or two of those anyways). Promote/increase digital distibution. Make games for the PC(many games have proven PC is very viable - Steam/Blizzard/indie devs prove it).

As for MS/Sony/Nintendo they aren't going to want to change a thing. They like it just the way it is. Its up to the game devs/pubs to do something. After all I'd like to see a gameless console sell. The game devs/pubs have all of the power, they just don't realize it yet.

Posted 2 years ago #
Noodlemanny
Member

@ Phoenixblight
Activision is dying. It's only big bread wining game(s) is COD and as soon as people lose interest or they make one that's no good, Activision is history. I suppose its still got Blizzard (Which is hugely successful) but as soon as Activision stops being profitable Blizzards going to do everything it can to sever its connection and so, ultimately, Activisions life support.

@OldG More on topic I would say that the other problem is that the 'cash crash' obviously doesn't just hit the developers it hits us too. Alot of people just don't have the money to buy games new.

But many of your suggestions don't seem overly viable to me. I mean there's quite a hefty amount of people who completely despise DLC meaning if you were to do DLC episodic you could be cutting out that area of consumers. Also the Demo thing sounds interesting until you consider hacking. It would be considerably easier and less track-able for you to crack a game you have (but don't have complete access to). The idea that you can pick and chose exactly how much you want would probably make the problem worse because the more complicated it gets the more holes there will be.
Although they do already kind of do this with Arcade games, were you get the whole game but only access to a demo sequence then you have to buy it to continue.

As for the other things, that's what most publishers/developers are going for. More digital distributional (DLC, Arcade and things like Steam and Games on Demand). Deadly premonition has set off a wave of more budget games for both developers and consumers.

But then with PC... yes there is a pretty big space in the market for PC games but the problem is that there's a HUGE space for consoles. Consoles out sell PC like chocolatey muffins so its just more viable for you to dev on consoles. And anyway how does developing on PC's cut the cost for the developers, it costs the same on both platforms.

Posted 2 years ago #
The_Red
Member

I am against Second Hand market BUT I do understand the reason for its existence and also object the current prices and methods used by publishers. 60 dollars is too much for most games and it could be argued that even for a complete package like Modern Warfare, less than 60 would be acceptable.

Most people can't buy 2-3 new $60 games each month but the same group end up getting one over-hyped game new for 60 and then get other games on the same month for 40 or less. This leads to more and more overhyped sequels and lesser original or daring retail titles. This is the very method Activision has embraced and thus releasing only mega hyped COD titles that SHM doesn't hurt much while other and lesser big titles lose money due to the super huge SHM and not getting a single dollar from that group of customers.
IMO, the new games should be priced at 40 for singleplayer content with additional 5-10 dollars for the multi player component added to the package or vise versa (40 bucks for multiplayer conent and 5 more for the campaign part).

Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.