spectrum48k

I recently bought a used Xbox360 from a friend and have been using a local Blockbuster to attain games.

So far, I've bought used games I can't get for my PS3:

Mass Effect
Ace Combat 6
Bully - swapped for Dead Rising

And I've payed a grand total of £49 for them. In fact, I exchanged Bully for Ace Combat 6 and payed £2.00. None of the money found its way back to the game's developers or publishers.

So on the one hand its great value for the consumer who's working the system, but on the other hand, it poses some major problems for developers (and publishers)

I bet they can't wait to move to electronic distribution only.

Scooby-Doo

Why is this different to anything else second hand ? You don't give Ford money for a second hand car or Sony money for a second hand TV ???????

oli_w

i dunno if the devs would mind, as when u or whoever bought the game in the first place payed full wack which went to them?

ScoobyDoo555

This story comes up every few months (not from the OP though!)
I'm off the opinion, that it is a second-hand item. The developer/software house has had their full-price.

The same as with any used item available in a "commercial" sense - their are fixed costs that need to be passed on (including a warrantee - consumer credit act etc)

Fair game (no pun intended! )

Dan

StickyMicky

big business for second hand games!


what did you think of ace combat ?

i picked up a second hand copy on friday, and i am already on mission 11 (out of 15 wtf??)

ash002004

iTrader: (1)

Thats the same as me buying a vinyl and then the original artist charging me every time i play it publically....i dont get it? lol.

Doesnt it only cost like £1 a game to actually make all in all? then their sold for 40-50, theyve made their profit and then its owned by whoever bought it, to then do with it what they please

p.s OP my post isnt to patronise you in anyway incase i typed it in a hostile manner

DanPhillips

Oh dear where to begin.

When you buy a game you aren't buying the "game", you don't get all of the things that make up the game, you are just buying the right to "use" a copy of the end product.

It isn't like buying a car, the main difference being when you sell on a car it doesn't suddenly loose the miles it's got on it, it doesn't return to immaculate condition as if it just rolled off the production line, it has depreciated.

What used games stores do is sell it again at a slightly reduced cost, it's exactly the sam experience for the end user as having bought a brand new money goes to the people that made it copy.

Most developers will see between 3 and 7 pounds per copy, they then take out the cost of actually making it and there isn't usually a lot left for 95% of games.

Buying a cheaper version months after the original came out...that's fair, buying a 2nd hand copy the day after it came out isn't.

Cheers

Dan

mart360

When the games publishers/producers make the game they agree a set price to retail the game.

the developers/coders get a wage, not profit related pay. (as far as i understand)

the game is marketed and a cut is taken by each portion of the chain.

at the end of the day, ALL parties involved get what they wanted for the product.

If they want more, they set that out at the contract phase.


I worked for a company who produced an item and sold them to retail shops, the shop marked the item up by almost 300% yet sold them by the bucket load.

When i mentioned this to my boss, his answer, "yes, but its their premises, their sales staff, their distribution etc." we've made profit on what we produced. that's how it works. "if they then cant shift the product, its there problem, not ours, our moneys in the bank"

mart

RB5SCOTT

I suppose what the OP is saying that people buying the cheaper second hand games are not buying the original developers shop purchase. So the developers are getting the mark up they want on the game but not the sales as people are re-using and selling on, whereas if you could'nt buy second hand you would be forced to buy new, thus more sales and royalty's

DJ Dunk

iTrader: (5)

Bungie agree . . .

Bungie: Game companies should pocket money from used sales - Joystiq

StickyMicky

maybe the games companies should buy the games back off us, to sell on

HankScorpio

Non transferable licences are going to become far more prevalent where you don't actually buy software, you buy a licence to use it (maybe even for a defined period). The disk/download is only a method of getting the product to you and doesn't give any kind of ownership.
Subsequent "owners" will have to also pay for their licence.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Don't see the problem, I suppose the issue is that the game doesn't deteriorate, i.e. second hand as long as the box is ok its as new, however if I buy a brand new game, keep it for three months and sell it, its no longer a new game, thats what I paid for, say I paid £40 for it new, most you get after a few months is perhaps half of that. The games company will have moved on, possibly put it onto a budget range which devalues my copy further.

The developers have been paid for their efforts, its not like piracy where they see nothing, luckily the second hand game can only be played by one person in one place, the person selling it will probably have got bored of it and is ready to buy a replacement so the £20 they get back will most probably end up back with the games company anyway.

Also, how many times have you bought one and hardly bothered with it and left it on a shelf ?

StickyMicky

i bought "unreal 2" for the pc and never touched it, as far as i can remember i started playing it, and then never touched it since + uninstalled it

i only remember because i went through my things today and got the old discs out, i installed unreal tournament 2003 as i loved this game, pc gaming feckin sucks *****, my hands now hurt because i am not used to using the keyboard to move about (W = forward A/D = left/right etc etc)

i bought "screamer rally" for the laptop (how old??)
it never worked, and i still have it here in front of me

did not work in the pc either

DanPhillips

The developers get paid based on a royalty advance (some are purely work for hire...but there isn't any real profit in that, usually 10-15% but that's always eaten up with unforseens those companies don't tend to last long or make good games).

At the moment the whole development industry is "hit" based, the few high selling games make up the losses on all the others, its currently running at about 97% of games just break even or lose money.

Its interesting that buying the games back was mentioned, I foresee exactly that happening with digital distribution, Sony/MS/N will have an ebay style buy back scheme...remember it was me that told you (oh dear a quote from BB9)

So the biggest problem with it being a hit based industry?
Nobody is willing to take risks.
Games are just a re-skinning of what you've seen before because nobody can afford to not make some money back.

You want games to evlove, to get better? Then more money has to to go the developer! cos at the moment there are a lot right on the edge of existence...

Cheers

Dan

StickyMicky

get yer own "breaking news" about buying back games

how do you define "better games"

today i was watching some videos of super mario brothers and was amazed at just how far games have changed, but have they got "better" ?

they are different for sure, but "better" ?

better graphics and such, no contest, but are they more playable ?

braid ?

Dracoro

If I buy a game (say new) for £40 for life. I pay £40 for the right to play/enjoy that game.

If I sell, lose, give away that game, I therefore surrender the right to play it. I get paid by the buyer of the used game for surrendering that "right" - and the buyer gets granted the remainding "rights".

If the games developers want proceeds from me surrendering my "rights", they can pay for it!

Anyway, it's all a daft suggestion. Will used bookshops also be affected by the same logic? CDs, DVDs, jewellery and so on.

What if I buy a brand new car, then do 0 miles on it, a day later I sell it. Should I also pay the manufacturer?

Anyway, whether you agree or not, it's completely irrelevant as it's completely unworkable.

DanPhillips

You aren't paying for the right to sell it on though

Unworkable? How many used copies of Half Life 2 have you seen?

It's the future, the only people who will lose are EB Games et al.
The rest of us will get better games, and by better I mean more expansive, better supported and with more experimental elements, I can't wait

Cheers

Dan

bob269

They are trying to counter this by introducing dlc at a price to keep you interested, this is usually stuff that should be in the original release yet they feel they can milk you for more cash. If a games anygood you wouldnt need to trade it in, so maybe they should stop releasing crap.

The 2nd hand games market is no different now as it has been for 20 yrs, stop harping on about how the industry is losing sales.

As for Dan's post and the OP's post, none of the 3 games are 24hrs old, even so they are just like any other 2nd hand product so get over it.

And Bungie, they are not happy with $500million+ sales, along with numerous dlc revenue, classic

DanPhillips

No they aren't.

Most other products can't be controlled by the manufacturer after you have bought it, games can and they will be, completely. Sorry.

The way the games industry works at the moment you are losing out, games are too expensive and quite a lot aren't brilliant.

If they were available to download at half the price they are at retail but you couldn't trade them in so quickly but it was easier to do so, would that be so bad?

It would ensure much more of the money went to the people making the game, it would give them a cushion to make the games better instead of rushing to get them out, it would allow them to base a release more on quality rather than all on time?

I know what I'd prefer, it's coming.

Cheers

Dan

Dracoro

10 years ago I bought a game that I can still play.

Joe bloggs can go and buy that very game to play on his ageing console.

Will the developers still be allowing downloads to 5/10/15 year old games in the future? I doubt it.

What about those without broadband connection? No games for them?

Anyway, I can certainly see A future in downloadable games etc. but I'm not convinced it will be THE future.

MJW

I find it amusingly ironic that Bungie are moaning about "lost sales" due to 2nd hand games considering the amount of money they made out of Halo 3. My heart f**king bleeds for them.

Iain Young

I still don't see how is this any different from any other 2nd hand goods, especially things like cds and films. With those things you just buy the license as well, but that doesn't stop them being sold second hand. I don't see why the games industry should be treated any differently.

Maybe, maybe not. In this country we don't have the broadband infrastracture in place to support a digital model. Most of the current consoles don't support it well as a main form of distribution either (360 with no HD, Wii with little storage, PS3 with 40gb hard disk - mine is already full). I can only see this working on the PC, and I haven't bought a game for that platform for a couple of years now, (despite having a reasonably good rig).

Also note that if developers go to a digital download only distribution method, they effectively lose all their high street sales, which could be potentially more damaging than not getting any money from 2nd hand sales. Never underestimate the power of a shop window.

What evidence is there that more money = better games? I've played a few recently that cost a great deal to make, yet I thought were very average. MGS4 for example. I can't even be bothered to finish it. Looks pretty, but the gameplay is just a plain old on-rails shooter from 5 years ago, with bad acting thrown into the numerous lengthy cut scenes. Halo3 was boring etc.

So do I. And I sincerely hope the dd model fails miserably

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Remember when Sony put that Rootkit on CD's, that was popular....

StickyMicky

i can just imagine it now

little jonny, eyes wide open on xmas morning, opens a massive wrapped up box to find a ***** little card with a "download" serial number on it so he can play the game he has been waiting for

= fail

DanPhillips

Half Life?

It'll raise the average, it'll attract better/more creative engineers/artists back into the industry (banking or film work pay much better)

At the moment because the amount of money the developer gets back is so poor for the vast majority of games (97% remember!) they have to go for safe bets, no risks...if the money was better they'd take more risks.

Cheers

Dan

Iain Young

I presume you mean Half Life 2? Not a bad game, (although a bit dated these days). I couldn't play it on my PC because I had to do a reinstall of the OS and it wouldn't let me install it again. Just been playing it on the 360 instead which doesn't have those draconian installation rules.

I counter that with the recent Wipeout HD which of course is download only. It's still the same game I played over 10 years ago on the PS1. No innovation at all. Just fancier graphics.

Going digital download will not improve games at all. Developers will either produce a great game or they won't. If they get more money for it then all well and good, but generally they'll still continue to produce the same old stuff (and get paid more for it).

Artists are not the problem (the artwork in a lot of modern games is great). It's the gameplay that's the issue, and that's more down to the greed of the development houses (it's easier to shovel out the same old stuff again and again), and of course the lack of original ideas. They know what sells, so that's what they do. It's all about the mighty $

I know all about that (I am a software developer myself remember), but game developers are paid quite well compared to the rest of the software industry. In the current financial climate I'd be surprised if anyone was willing to take risks...

DanPhillips

No I mean Half Life 1, independantly funded, no release date to meet fiscal targets. Re-written twice to make it as good as they could make it. It was a massive leap over the other fps's of the time.
HL2 was just more of the same with Physics and better graphics...oh wait

It isn't easy to shovel it out? the amount of money coming in normally makes future planning and architecting re-useable tech un-economical, so people re-invent the wheel time after time (My job has been to make better foundation tech for re-use for the last 8 years, it's saved a bunch of money and allowed re-use with the game teams able to concentrate on the game and be much more productive)
The number of companies that have gone pop over the last 8 years would suggest the developers aren't making money (at least 97% of them aren't making a profit).

Wipeout HD is a cash in? I'm not sure I understand, you counter 1 good game that was innovative and good with one that is quite good, looks lovely but ins't innovative? I'm saying you won't get innovation without money getting into the hands of developers, Wipeout wasn't developed by some back street poor developer who'd had a string of ok games but just hadn't got the money from them?

They know what sells...yes and making something different doesn't pay. At the moment the shops get their 50% wether the game is innovative or not...but the developers won't (as long as people are willing to accept a lack of innovation!). So the model has to change for innovation to get a chance?

Or it can stay the same and we'll be playing MGS52 etc etc.

Cheers

Dan

Iain Young

When you mentioned Half Life I assumed you were using it to demonstrate the viability and "creative potential" of the download model, (HL2 was on steam, whereas HL1 was on cd).

Of course they may not be making a profit because of the naffness of the games they are producing. This has little to do with innovation however as I see the two things as seperate issues. Take EA sports for example. They shove out the same old games every year with just slight tweaks. There is little or no innovation, but the quality is generally there (which is why they sell). I can think of numerous examples from other development houses where the finished product is bug ridden, clumsy to play, or just plain boring. I suspect a large percentage of the failing developers fall into that category.

It made more sense when I thought you were using Half life 2 as an example of digital downloads

Possibly, possibly not. Innovation is a very expensive gamble for a company. The only people doing it at the moment seem to be MS and Sony owned / sponsored companies, (i.e. so they have the cash to throw at it). What we really need is a balance between the innovative titles and the money rakers to prop up the failures.

I thought we already were

Iain

mart360

Digital downloads..

utter blox

i payed £40 for a DL key for guildwars.

i got no manual, not artwork no music cd.

and when i had a problem, because i could no longer provide details of the

card i bought it on, the DL company wouldnt even entertain support.

when i asked for simple help like a pdf manual, it was a waste of time.


contrast with, my nipper buys the same game £9!!!!! gets a manual bonus artwork, bonus Dl extras, game CD and assorted other bits and pieces in the box.


digital downloads, never again




mart