2nd hand sales - good or bad for the industry?

[EvilBoris]

It's all a bit of an odd scenario really, I'm pretty sure that even if you were to buy a New game 2 years after release, no money would really end up going to the developer, because the retailer won't replenish said game from the publisher/distributor.

I'm fairly certain that all of the sales are made within the first 6 months of release, if a game is selling well then more copies are purchased to keep things going.

Both the gaming industry and other media formats, whether it be books or magazines or film has got many challenges to deal with when it comes to the future of making the change to digital distribution, which is going to become an increasingly bigger part of our life.

[ETC]

I think they should be happy we buy at all there are plenty of pirates for all current gen a guy I know blew his 360 then paid ?215 for a second hand system why because it was jtagged. I don't mind either way personally if it's new and I want it (and have the cash) its new day 1 if not new if I can find it if not pre owned will do, still love the way people are so oh the poor industry these are the same poor industry that deliberately raised prices at any chance they had in the 90's I still remember sonic 3 with its ?64.99 rrp or pilot wings 64 with its ludicrous ?69.99 bottom line is they will charge whatever they think they can get away with just look at the rrp for FIFA 12 or MW3 does a reskinned game justify ?55?

[EvilBoris]

I think that is a more sensible price for games considering the poor retail margins and the fact every month we see another developer closing due to poor cash flow.

If it's a game I really want, I will pay whats asked for it, as would millions of people, Fifa and COD have just confirmed this to their publishers.
It's already becoming a more common occcurance, Game were doing quite a few games over xmas at ?43 and I've seen things priced at full RRP of ?49.99 in Indies.

[ETC]

But to compare it to film (I know you can't really) but film can cost more than $300 million whereas game $30 million I can buy the Blu for ?10 why is the 10x cheaper to produce game 5x more expensive

[FelixofMars]

There are a lot of reasons, some of them down to the developers themselves (lack of tools/talent etc), some down to publishers input (not being quick enough to pull something, or adding daft wants). I wouldn't say it was down to greed in most cases just that it still takes more raw cash to generate a game than a film but then a film is 3 hours if your lucky and even the shortest campaign is 6 hours odd.

I am not defending it, just I know that it isn't as easy as saying a film costs ?10 so a game should cost say ?20 max. I think there is a real issue with how to price games at the moment. I would prefer a two tier system for retail games but who decides what in a full price game and which is a budget/lower cost game?

Would it be on length or quality or something else that defines a worthwhile purchase? and who sets these prices? I think its normally down to publishers or retailers when a budget title comes out at release. I do wonder if there does need to be some sort of advisement board not in terms of ratings but it terms of a proper review system. But then how to make it impartial because the actual reviewers aren't in any shape or form.

But to compare it to film (I know you can't really) but film can cost more than $300 million whereas game $30 million I can buy the Blu for ?10 why is the 10x cheaper to produce game 5x more expensive

[EvilBoris]

There are some big differences though between the distribution of games and film and the way that they are consumed.

For a ?10 Blu ray for example, there is a good chance that particular film has already made millions in the cinema, it then gets released on Blu ray and makes more money, that film at the same time will of been licensed for massive sums of money for Hotels, Subcription based TV services, Rental Copies, Air Lines , Streaming Video services etc.

I'd also say that in my experience, I can enjoy a good film no matter what decade it was made, whereas many games (moreso 3D games) date quickly regardless of how good they are and lose their shine so to speak.

Developers are looking hard at ways to create these additional revenue streams, but playing a game is always going to have a certain set of restrictions that don't exist for simply playing a film.
I think that is one of the very exciting things about this hobby, it's technology and art all rolled into one and it's changing so quick.

I would prefer a two tier system for retail games but who decides what in a full price game and which is a budget/lower cost game?

Would it be on length or quality or something else that defines a worthwhile purchase? and who sets these prices? I think its normally down to publishers or retailers when a budget title comes out at release.

I think the Vita's games are indicative of something like that becoming more commmon, a lower tier price band for the lower budget games.

For example, Ridge Racer with it's 3 tracks and 3 cars is ?19.99 and Wipeout is ?29.99

Whereas Uncharted, which must of had a budget comparable to many 360/ps3 games is coming in at ?39.99

I think this has gone on in the past, with publishers setting what they feel to be appropriately smaller RRPs, but the Game retailers choosing to charge the default ?39.99 because that is viewed to be the standard price.

[ETC]

True but is this extension of release not the very thing xbl games on demand and psn digital models trying to do (while retaining the full rrp)

[Family Fry]

Is this a viable option?

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/retail-stop-online-codes-and-we-will-share-pre-owned-revenue/089603

Retail sharing a percentage of profit from 2nd hand sales with publishers.

[EvilBoris]

If you have a look at the Games on Demand section of games on XBL, the prices are often really reasonable and there are a few titles on their which are hard to find in a store full stop, new or Preowned. Very few titles come close to the original RRP.

Of course you'll find ones that are ?19.99 from the marketplace that are ?9.99 in store, but give it enough time and that game will be gone from the limited floor space of your typical game store to make room for shinier newer release titles.

['Press Start']

Is this a viable option?

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/retail-stop-online-codes-and-we-will-share-pre-owned-revenue/089603

Retail sharing a percentage of profit from 2nd hand sales with publishers.

Tis what I suggested in the Mega download thread. It is the answer!

And stop the stupid exclusive content with certain retailers!

[EvilBoris]

Tis what I suggested in the Mega download thread. It is the answer!

And stop the stupid exclusive content with certain retailers!

I'm surprised that the exclusive content thing is allowed to go on, the monopoly commission looked very carefully at whether GAME group could buy Gamestation, but even now they can utilise their massive superior buying power to actually make their games more valuable than purchasing from elsewhere. I suppose that's business though

[DeathAdder]

I think they should be happy we buy at all there are plenty of pirates for all current gen a guy I know blew his 360 then paid ?215 for a second hand system why because it was jtagged. I don't mind either way personally if it's new and I want it (and have the cash) its new day 1 if not new if I can find it if not pre owned will do, still love the way people are so oh the poor industry these are the same poor industry that deliberately raised prices at any chance they had in the 90's I still remember sonic 3 with its ?64.99 rrp or pilot wings 64 with its ludicrous ?69.99 bottom line is they will charge whatever they think they can get away with just look at the rrp for FIFA 12 or MW3 does a reskinned game justify ?55?

That was Turok. Pilotwings was a penny under fifty quid, and the other two launch games, Shadows and Mario were 59.99 each.

Agree with the point, however.

[FelixofMars]

Boris made some good points in his reply, but I am not sure this is sensible. First as someone added in the comments its more work to do the admin on this and how can you make sure the correct publishers receive their cut. I can't see it being functional anyway, why would stores want to lose out of profits from second hand games? It sounds like if its to be believed they are already being squeezed.

Is this a viable option?

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/retail-stop-online-codes-and-we-will-share-pre-owned-revenue/089603

Retail sharing a percentage of profit from 2nd hand sales with publishers.