Do you buy second hand games/consoles?

Tropez

Percy1983 wrote: »

It hard to say a second hand sale stops a new sale, the effect of the trading in means more new games are sold, so in short if they stop second hand sales they will lose new sales.

How many new cars are bought with an old one traded in, the same effect.

As I said above, I haven't seen any data that supports this idea. I have seen the industry itself, and commentators on the industry such as TotalBiscuit make references to how the second hand gaming industry benefits retailers over developers.

In regards to cars, new car sales across Europe have been steadily declining for some time, while trade ins and the purchase of used cars has increased. It would appear most people trade in an old car in order to buy another used car.

I'm not out to change anyone's mind, my original comment was merely to point out that it isn't snobbery that is behind my decision not to purchase second hand games, it is my personal preference to reward the developer for their work. If you believe that the second hand industry is a boon to developers and that for the most part they just don't see it then that's fair enough but for me it's an argument that is based on supposition and perception, and my personal perception is that if I were to buy a second hand game, I'd be screwing the developer out of money least of all because I never trade games in anyway.

Percy1983

Tropez wrote: »

As I said above, I haven't seen any data that supports this idea. I have seen the industry itself, and commentators on the industry such as TotalBiscuit make references to how the second hand gaming industry benefits retailers over developers.

In regards to cars, new car sales across Europe have been steadily declining for some time, while trade ins and the purchase of used cars has increased. It would appear most people trade in an old car in order to buy another used car.

I'm not out to change anyone's mind, my original comment was merely to point out that it isn't snobbery that is behind my decision not to purchase second hand games, it is my personal preference to reward the developer for their work. If you believe that the second hand industry is a boon to developers and that for the most part they just don't see it then that's fair enough but for me it's an argument that is based on supposition and perception, and my personal perception is that if I were to buy a second hand game, I'd be screwing the developer out of money least of all because I never trade games in anyway.

I do agree it would be better if a part of the used game profit did go to developers.

As said its not all gloom, trade ins do help fund the buying of new games.

I will give a simple example of a friend of mine, he gets a new release and then trades it 3 weeks later gets £20 for it, puts another £20 in gets another new game. 3 weeks later he does the same. In this time somebody else buy the used games at £25 quick each.

So in that 6 week period we have 3 new sales and 2 used sales.

No lets go with the no trading idea.

He buys 1 game, 3 weeks later he only has £20 so saves it, there is no used game for the other guy to buy so he saves his £25. 3 weeks later he has another £20 so buys a new game and the other guy has another £25 so he buys a new game and has £10 left.

In both situations, the retailer sells 3 new games and the developers get paid, the only difference between the 2 is in the first example the retailer has £10 more and the second the second guy has £10 more.

Yes if we extrapolate the figures forward far enough it will eventually lead to a couple more sales of new games and of course I am talking just 2 people.

My point is not every used sale is a lost new sale.

Personally I mostly buy on PC so generally do buy new as it is.

bluenoseam

I would take anything regarding pre-owned impact on gaming with a massive pinch of salt - especially from TotalBiscuit who has this week promised to be more "up front" with regards to what games he's being paid to promote.

Here it is from the perspective of a long time veteran of games retail - without preowned there would be a massive chunk of the games retail market who would simply cease to be. Without it that chunk of the market simply wouldn't be able to afford to play, it's that simple, more so in a market where games are becoming more expensive. On top of that, without trading in, you'll find that specialist retailers will move out of the market - they can't make enough money on new release games to keep going. Ultimately that'd be the perfect storm which would kill off specialist games retail.

When that happens you're left with two options, get it online OR wait for Microsoft, EA, Activision & Ubisoft to insist on a 100% digital marketplace. That would in turn lead to you paying their price structure for games - which would be £60-70 for a new release XB1/PS4 game & £50-60 for 360/PS3. If you happen to disbelieve that, I'd suggest you check out the prices of major triple-A titles on XBL right now which will make your eyes water.

The problem games companies have with preowned is that it limits their ability to make profit as it means they get the money off the first sale only. I get that, but ultimately they fail to see the fact that without that people simply couldn't afford to play games & would resent being stuck with expensive goods of no value to them after playing them.

Tropez

Percy1983 wrote: »

I do agree it would be better if a part of the used game profit did go to developers.

As said its not all gloom, trade ins do help fund the buying of new games.

I will give a simple example of a friend of mine, he gets a new release and then trades it 3 weeks later gets £20 for it, puts another £20 in gets another new game. 3 weeks later he does the same. In this time somebody else buy the used games at £25 quick each.

So in that 6 week period we have 3 new sales and 2 used sales.

No lets go with the no trading idea.

He buys 1 game, 3 weeks later he only has £20 so saves it, there is no used game for the other guy to buy so he saves his £25. 3 weeks later he has another £20 so buys a new game and the other guy has another £25 so he buys a new game and has £10 left.

In both situations, the retailer sells 3 new games and the developers get paid, the only difference between the 2 is in the first example the retailer has £10 more and the second the second guy has £10 more.

Yes if we extrapolate the figures forward far enough it will eventually lead to a couple more sales of new games and of course I am talking just 2 people.

My point is not every used sale is a lost new sale.

Personally I mostly buy on PC so generally do buy new as it is.

But that's just purely anecdotal evidence. I don't doubt what you're saying but it's taking a single example (or a handful of examples) and trying to apply it on a large scale and there is insufficient data to suggest that when applied on such a large scale it stands up to scrutiny.

It might well not be the case that not all used sales are lost sales but some of them are and I believe that's a majority of them. If I buy a second hand game, at no point does the developer benefit from it, only the retailer. You can argue that your friend traded in the copy I might buy and then went and bought a different game because it bumped up his petty cash but that second game might not have been from the same developer, so it doesn't benefit the developer I might want to support whatsoever.

All that happens is your friend buys a game for £40, trades it in for £20, buys another game from a different studio, I pay the £30 (because no retailer will operate on a £5 margin on used games if they coughed up £20 for it) and the developer who made the game I'm buying second hand has sold two copies of the game but only received one payment for it.

So we either have to assume that this takes place in a cyclical pattern, or that the numbers involved are so enormous that I would personally be seeing far more of my own friends trading games in.

It just doesn't add up for me.

Tropez

bluenoseam wrote: »

I would take anything regarding pre-owned impact on gaming with a massive pinch of salt - especially from TotalBiscuit who has this week promised to be more "up front" with regards to what games he's being paid to promote.

Here it is from the perspective of a long time veteran of games retail - without preowned there would be a massive chunk of the games retail market who would simply cease to be. Without it that chunk of the market simply wouldn't be able to afford to play, it's that simple, more so in a market where games are becoming more expensive. On top of that, without trading in, you'll find that specialist retailers will move out of the market - they can't make enough money on new release games to keep going. Ultimately that'd be the perfect storm which would kill off specialist games retail.

When that happens you're left with two options, get it online OR wait for Microsoft, EA, Activision & Ubisoft to insist on a 100% digital marketplace. That would in turn lead to you paying their price structure for games - which would be £60-70 for a new release XB1/PS4 game & £50-60 for 360/PS3. If you happen to disbelieve that, I'd suggest you check out the prices of major triple-A titles on XBL right now which will make your eyes water.

The problem games companies have with preowned is that it limits their ability to make profit as it means they get the money off the first sale only. I get that, but ultimately they fail to see the fact that without that people simply couldn't afford to play games & would resent being stuck with expensive goods of no value to them after playing them.

I'm aware of the prices on Xbox Live and if that were the only distribution system I wouldn't purchase an Xbox. If people are daft enough to buy into a closed distribution platform that holds them to ransom on prices then that's really their own lookout.

PC gaming was massively revitalised by Steam and other distribution platforms have created competition. Even stores such as Amazon, with limited digital distribution platforms for gaming, have gone right up against Steam at sale time price matching, or even beating Steam's one-day only prices for physical copies. Digital only distribution platforms can exist and can be competitive. Obviously, Microsoft and Sony would undoubtedly limit competition on their own platforms but as I say, I just wouldn't buy into those platforms anyway in the same way I've never purchased a game through Origin - the prices are ridiculous so it's cheaper physical copy, Steam copy, or GTFO as far as I'm concerned.

But here's the important thing - I've not criticised anyone who buys preowned, nor have I said it should all go away. I just said I want to support developers and it isn't snobbery that causes me not to want to buy preowned games. I want to show my appreciation for those who create entertainment and it's the same reason I've never pirated movies or music, and haven't even borrowed so much as a video or DVD from a friend since I was 14.

If others want to support the retailers, or they just don't give a damn and want the best deal then that's fine and dandy. I've no problem with what they do.

PenguinJim

bluenoseam wrote: »

When that happens you're left with two options, get it online OR wait for Microsoft, EA, Activision & Ubisoft to insist on a 100% digital marketplace. That would in turn lead to you paying their price structure for games - which would be £60-70 for a new release XB1/PS4 game & £50-60 for 360/PS3. If you happen to disbelieve that, I'd suggest you check out the prices of major triple-A titles on XBL right now which will make your eyes water.

The point you've overlooked with that assumption is that Microsoft/Sony's digital stores would be the only places to buy games. The move to account-based gaming doesn't mean the end of buying games in boxes - I still buy the occasional boxed Steam game. Taking Microsoft's Xbox One plan (before it was scrapped) as an example, you could still buy games in boxes from shops (but the disc would be token, assuming there was one in the box at all - it would still be an account-based game). You could also instantly buy games for your account from places like Amazon without needing the boxed version. And as a third option for exactly the same game version, you could buy from Microsoft themselves (possibly still at a ridiculous price, which isn't necessarily a bad thing: let those people overpay for games - plenty of investment in the industry - while anyone actually interested in games would buy from Amazon or Gamersgate or Tesco instead!).

Not only that, but MS's plan involved selling your account-based games if you wanted to. Now that would have been interesting to see. If it wasn't for that ridiculous 24-hour check-in (I wouldn't have minded monthly, personally), it really was a very interesting plan. Instead we're stuck with two more compromised consoles, where download prices are restricted from competing with disc prices too heavily.

Given how similar the Xbone and PS4 are, I'd have loved to see one take the account-based system and the other continue with the hybrid system, just to see what happened. I don't think anyone can argue against the fact that this console generation has been fantastically dull since the consoles released.

I think everyone can agree that Steam games are priced reasonably competitively. However, your evidence about "check[ing] out the prices of major triple-A titles on XBL right now which will make your eyes water" is based on the hybridised disc/account system, which is absolutely not an apples-to-apples comparison. Using Steam as a comparison for the downloadable future is a real-world, solely-account-based example, and we can see that while Steam prices are OK, it's also often far cheaper to buy Steam games from another store. For example, Amazon, GMG, Gamersgate, or old boxed Steamworks games from Game or airports.

I know some people are scared of a future without discs, and that's OK. It's fine to be scared of the unknown. But after a decade of PC gamers laughing at console gamers and the high price of console gaming, it would be nice if our consoles could make up some of the lost ground, and join PCs, iOS, Android and WP8 in the present of gaming.

bluenoseam

Think of the massive difference between PC & console gaming & realise how that impacts price structure.

PC is a 100% open marketplace, there are numerous options for digital, while there's arguably one dominant force, that dominant force is kept in check by several competitors. The problem is consoles are 100% LOCKED platforms, there is no competition and thus if we switch to a 100% full digital set up you're forced into paying their prices.

Forget the thought process that "oh if it's all digital they'll adapt" - no, if it's all digital they won't be adapting, they will finally get away with charging what they always WANTED you to. You can't compare PC gaming with console gaming in this respects based upon the base fact that Xbox Live & PSN are locked networks.

PenguinJim

Are you seriously suggesting that part of Microsoft's plan was for there to be no more games sold in boxes?

Do you have any idea what that would do to their sales? You say there's no competition, but Microsoft and Sony still have to compete against each other. Losing out on sales in supermarkets, sales in tech and game stores and sales from online retailers would be absolutely catastrophic.

Take a look at downloadable PSN games you can buy on Amazon (bearing in mind you've just said that Sony would never allow this). Take a look at GoD codes sold in stores and on eBay. That's just the tiniest taste of what things could be like.

Your idea that Microsoft and Sony do not compete against each other is possibly the biggest clue that you should take a few minutes to think this through.

StuC75

At the moment with the Xbox one, I favour the online marketplace - particularly when buying a game for My & my son to play - i.e. have 2 consoles, one at mine and one at his mothers..

With the new system and console sharing (xb live accounts are on each others consoles with one set as home console )we can both play at the same time on different consoles whilst only paying once to buy it from the market place - therefore lowering the purchase price - usually to a level that matches what we would have spent had we both bought new (or in my case if I paid twice!!)and then traded in a number of weeks later..

Tropez wrote: »

I'm aware of the prices on Xbox Live and if that were the only distribution system I wouldn't purchase an Xbox. If people are daft enough to buy into a closed distribution platform that holds them to ransom on prices then that's really their own lookout.

Percy1983

Tropez wrote: »

But that's just purely anecdotal evidence. I don't doubt what you're saying but it's taking a single example (or a handful of examples) and trying to apply it on a large scale and there is insufficient data to suggest that when applied on such a large scale it stands up to scrutiny.

It might well not be the case that not all used sales are lost sales but some of them are and I believe that's a majority of them. If I buy a second hand game, at no point does the developer benefit from it, only the retailer. You can argue that your friend traded in the copy I might buy and then went and bought a different game because it bumped up his petty cash but that second game might not have been from the same developer, so it doesn't benefit the developer I might want to support whatsoever.

All that happens is your friend buys a game for £40, trades it in for £20, buys another game from a different studio, I pay the £30 (because no retailer will operate on a £5 margin on used games if they coughed up £20 for it) and the developer who made the game I'm buying second hand has sold two copies of the game but only received one payment for it.

So we either have to assume that this takes place in a cyclical pattern, or that the numbers involved are so enormous that I would personally be seeing far more of my own friends trading games in.

It just doesn't add up for me.

I agree that the money might not go back to the same developer but the money is going back to a developer, likewise somebody may trade another developers game to buy one of theres.

As mentioned elsewhere some simple can't afford or are unwilling to pay £40-£50 to which they simple would stop putting money in at the bottom which feeds back to the top. Of course new games sell otherwise there would be no used to buy.

As said using basic logic and maths I am not saying used games don't effect new sales, just the effect is much lessor than a 1 to 1 relationship, I would estimate that one used sale loses between 0.2 0.3 of a new sale.

As mentioned there should be payback on second had games and hopefully this will happen one day, but the current system isn't completely broken or unfair.