Used games have been around as long as videogames have been around in general. So why is it only in the past few years have people tried to vilify the used gaming market and imply that used gaming is "killing" the game industry? In 2007 the video game industry made $9.5 billion. In 2010 it was $25.1 billion. So right off the bat you should be aware that the concept of used games negatively effecting the gaming industry is straight up BS. The video game industry isn't dying it's flourishing.
So what? it doesnt change the fact that the studios/publishers could be earning more while the near needless middle man drains the profits. I would rather support greedy publishers than useless middlemen like GAME.
The proposal that game developers are being "hurt" by used games is a fallacy on so many levels. First of all developers are paid up front for their work by publishers. It's the publisher, not the developer whose profits are determined by the quantity of games sold. Secondly, used games incentivize people to buy more games in general. A gamer can go to the store and purchase one of these short 3-4 hour games with confidence because they know that they can trade the game in after they are done with it and get something new. Without this incentive a huge portion of these games wouldn't be sold at all.
HUR DUR THE MORE MONEY PUBs MAKE THE MORE DEVELOPING STAFF FUNDING THERE IS (In Theory) more projects opened ect.
Gamers can purchase in confidence knowing they can screw over thier cherished game creators works of art because they want to save a few bucks at a rip off rate.
Publishers "need more money because the cost of developing games has gone up". So what? The cost of developing games has gone up and so has the profits. The most expensive video game ever made was Grand Theft Auto 4 at $100 million. Grand Theft Auto 4 went on to sell (as of Sept. 2011) 22 million copies. There's no way to be completely sure (unless you work as one of the higher ups at 2k games), but in all likelihood the profits from GTA4 we're double, triple maybe even quadruple what its cost was to develop; all the while used copies of the game were being sold. Now look at Too Human with a budget of over 60 million. Too Human barely sold 700,000 copies. Why is that? Everyone must have bought used copies right? Or perhaps it's because Too Human's developers were incompetent and the game was in "development hell" for ten years shifting platforms from the original Playstation in the late 90's to the Gamecube before finally landing on the 360 in 2008 in a state generally considered to be considered sub par. In other words used games had nothing to do with how Too Human performed commercially. Too Human didn't sell well because it was a pile of crap… Opinions may vary and a very vocal minority of pseudo elitists might argue that Too Human, (Metacritic score of 65) is a better game then Grand Theft Auto 4, (Metacritic score of 96). But all the development studios I've seen shut down or having trouble recently are the ones who've had a string of low quality (Zipper Interactive) or generic/bland (GSC) releases. Studios that make great games are flourishing. The best selling retail games are being sold and resold time and again because they are worth buying.
Yes, used game doesnt hurt sales .... all the same piracy doesnt hurt sales because some games still sell amazing and others still sell crap, well done for a crap analogy.
"Not all good games sell well though".Rarely will a good game will fail to meet its sales expectations unless it's marketability and demographics are completely taken out of consideration. For example Shenmue (development budget of about 70 million) was generally well received by critics (88 on Metacritic). But it's sales were a disappointment. In order to turn a profit, Shenmue would have needed to sell 2 copies for every Dreamcast ever sold. The Dreamcast never even sold half of what the GameCube sold in it's entire lifetime. Who decided to put far and away the most expensive game at the time ever on a console with a user base of only 10 million? No, not Gamestop. Sega. Sega was to blame for their own incompetence… And conversely yes there are games which are perhaps lower budget, (and by many standards lower quality) that go on to break sales records. Wii Fit sold 20-30 million copies despite not having the polish of other big budget games because Nintendo knew their market. The Wii was a console with a massive install base of people who bought it precisely because they wanted a more active video game experience. Publishers want to convince you that when a game flops commercially that it Gamestop's fault, or greedy gamers who want to lend, borrow or trade the games they pay for's fault. That it has nothing to do with the games quality, or the fact that too often it seems that they are brain-dead when it comes to who, what why when or how these games are being marketed.
These companies are running a business and they have a right to make money. Sure they do. Poor Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have the right to make more than the billions and BILLIONS they make every year. However it's the consumers' right to not indulge and these companies when they engage in ridiculous and exploitative business practices. Think about how silly a "no used games" policy really is. You buy a car you paid for it you can sell it! You buy a house you want to move you can sell it! The idea that you don't own the things you buy, that you are only permanently renting them- who would willingly subscribe to this madness? Buying is buying, renting is renting! These companies aren't renting your money! How subservient do you have to be to readily accept these billion dollar corporations declaration that you don't have the right to exchange any product that you pay for? These's something masochistic about people who subscribe to this thought process. Feel bad for them.
Pray_to_me
What a load of drivel.
Log in to comment