Do you buy second hand games/consoles?

GwylimT

I normally buy second hand consoles are a games, they are a luxury and personally I cannot justify the price of a new console. Back in the day when they were cheaper I would buy both new, but now it's very rare for me to buy a game new and I certainly wouldn't buy a console new.

Tropez

Percy1983 wrote: »

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.

The money going to a developer is neither here nor there. My point is I want to support the developer for the game I am buying. The unknown actions to me of Frank or Daphne is neither here nor there, especially if the second hand copy I buy was put toward a game I would have no intention of supporting, such as Call of Duty.

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.

Equally it could be argued that if the numbers of people who only bought new games because they could trade them in were anywhere near as substantial as people are suggesting, then if the trade-ins no longer existed and these people could no longer afford the price tag then the cost of the games would be forcibly brought down because it would drastically affect the dev's and distributor's bottom line just as the price of Blu-Rays plummeted as people were slow to adopt the format.

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.

That isn't basic logic and maths, that is pure speculation and guesswork that brings you to a conclusion that you have no verifiable hard evidence to support.

Co-founder of Blitz Games, Andrew Oliver, said in 2010 that the second-hand games industry effectively quarters the revenue generated for many developers and claimed that it is more damaging than piracy.

Lionhead Studios also went on record as stating that second-hand games sales were hurting them more than piracy.

Gears of War developer, Epic Games, said that based on their own figures, second hand sales halved their revenue on the franchise.

Codemasters CEO, Rod Cousens, said that he feels that the second hand industry is hurting gaming, calling it "destructive" and "negative to creativity and innovation."

He did also concede that to a degree it is acceptable but as it presently stands it is hurtful to the industry and a solution needs to be found sooner rather than later.

Former creative director of THQ, Cory Ledesma, said that he "hopes people understand that when [second hand] games are bought, [developers] get cheated." - THQ would later go the way of the dodo.

EA launched their "Online Pass" system due to second-hand games, other developers have followed suit.

Frontier Developments said that second-hand games will destroy the single-player gaming market (very important to me, I seldom game online) as companies will prefer to make online-only games to discourage trade-ins and second hand sales. They favoured a rental market structure on single-player games. Frontier's Denis Dyack also argued that the pre-owned industry "cannibalizes the industry" and raises the initial cost of games due to the fact that the second hand market cuts off the tail of revenue over time, with most developers receiving almost all of their revenue within the first three months of release.

Now, of course, the developers themselves have a vested interest in encouraging people to buy new games, I'm not going to deny that but a lot of the studios that are complaining the loudest about the second hand games industry are the smaller ones that need the revenue to continue producing quality titles.

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.

And I haven't said it is completely broken or unfair. I have said that I want to support the developer. I do not feel I am supporting the developer by buying second hand games. It is my opinion that purchasing second hand games bypasses developer credit. I've already accepted your argument that some people buy new games because they can trade it in, what I doubt are the numbers that do this make up for the loss of revenue for the developers due to the second hand industry.

I get it, you like second hand games but unless you can provide figures and statistics that show incontrovertibly that the second hand games industry doesn't take more than a few per cent away from the developers, then you're not going to convince me that I should start buying second hand games. I want to support the developers so I do what I do because of that. People are well within their rights to purchase second-hand games, particularly if they feel the developers themselves are just having a moan because they're not making as much money and it's all a load of hot air.

I'm just not going to do it myself. Now, if there was a system implemented that worked in favour of both the retailers and the developers, I might rethink that position but as it stands, no, it's just not happening.

Percy1983

I think you just wrapped it up, as you said if people could afford new games as they couldn't trade in then game prices would be forced down and there we have it again, less money to the developer.

In simple terms make a great game get it out for early reviews and you will clear up on day one sales, anything past that is a bonus, its just the way the market works.

Tropez

Percy1983 wrote: »

I think you just wrapped it up, as you said if people could afford new games as they couldn't trade in then game prices would be forced down and there we have it again, less money to the developer.

In simple terms make a great game get it out for early reviews and you will clear up on day one sales, anything past that is a bonus, its just the way the market works.

I just edited my post on that matter.

Denis Dyack, of Frontier, pointed out that you would have games like Sim City 4, Warcraft III, Quake, Doom and others that would still sell new copies for more than a decade after their initial release, creating a long-term tail of revenue for the developers. In his opinion, this tail no longer exists as most developers make the bulk of their money in the first three months.

So according to him, the second hand industry has changed the way the video games industry as a whole works. It wasn't always about Day One (or the three month) sales but because of pre-owned games the whole thing has been flipped and developers no longer have their residual revenue. He argues that is what pushes games prices up.

It can be more cost effective to sell larger numbers of units for less, than smaller numbers for more. 100,000 copies of a game at £40 is less desirable than 140,000 copies at £30. Reduced prices for brand new titles doesn't automatically equate to less money for the developer.

StuC75

Alternatively it doubled there exposure to game players. Supply & Demand curve - developers all want games to be the high £££'s grossing titles at launch (so would never sell them cheap from the start),

If it halved there revenue then it essentially means that a great % of those that bought it were not happy with the product so chose to trade it in after they had maxed out there enjoyment of it.. They would be well 'peeved' had they not been able to recover some of that outlay.

It also demonstrates that many felt the selling price was just too high to pay full whack and so enjoyed buying it at a discount to sample the game.

Your view of wanting to support a 'developer' is admirable, but quite the minority.

The way for developers to counter this is to use codes to enable play (call it season pass or whatever).. if the in pack code covers the first user \ system, and subsequent installs require an ingame purchase to unlock then that would ensure the developers still get a cut of the 2nd hand market \ game sharing - and push down 2nd hand prices as users would still need to factor in the cost of the code to be able to play the game..

Tropez wrote: »

Gears of War developer, Epic Games, said that based on their own figures, second hand sales halved their revenue on the franchise.

StuC75

For a 25% reduction in price, retailers and companies would want to see a far higher increase in the incremental sales - 40% would be a little flawed and too close to not benefiting. Not forgetting how many other parties you have within the supply chain process taking there cut along the way.

Most would rather take 100,000 at £40, with then 40,000 at £30.. were they to reduce the prices..

but lets remember we don't have mrp's in this country...

Tropez wrote: »

It can be more cost effective to sell larger numbers of units for less, than smaller numbers for more. 100,000 copies of a game at £40 is less desirable than 140,000 copies at £30. Reduced prices for brand new titles doesn't automatically equate to less money for the developer.

Tropez

Suffice to say the developers themselves don't share your viewpoint and are privy to more details regarding the nature of their revenue streams and the perceived effect of the second hand gaming on those stream than either you or I.

Until such a time when someone can provide more than anecdotal evidence and presumptions on how the second hand industry is beneficial to the gaming industry as a whole, I'm afraid that I shall heed the words of those who are directly affected and continue to only buy copies of games where the developer receives something for their trouble.

I don't really mind if that puts me in a minority because all I ever argued was that it doesn't make me a snob.

Percy1983

Tropez wrote: »

Suffice to say the developers themselves don't share your viewpoint and are privy to more details regarding the nature of their revenue streams and the perceived effect of the second hand gaming on those stream than either you or I.

Until such a time when someone can provide more than anecdotal evidence and presumptions on how the second hand industry is beneficial to the gaming industry as a whole, I'm afraid that I shall heed the words of those who are directly affected and continue to only buy copies of games where the developer receives something for their trouble.

I don't really mind if that puts me in a minority because all I ever argued was that it doesn't make me a snob.

All your 'solid' evidence is devs moaning they didn't make as much as they wanted and blaming used sales.

Do they really have records of how times there game has been sold used? if so it wouldn't be hard to implement pay for used copies.

Tropez

Percy1983 wrote: »

All your 'solid' evidence is devs moaning they didn't make as much as they wanted and blaming used sales.

Do they really have records of how times there game has been sold used? if so it wouldn't be hard to implement pay for used copies.

I never described the evidence as solid. I even quite clearly stated that I was well aware that developers would have a vested interest in encouraging people to buy new copies.

However, and with no offence intended, comments from people in the industry directly affected by the sale of pre-owned games carry more weight with me than the anecdotal evidence of what your friend does that you have provided.

And many developers have indeed moved to "Online Passes" (I mentioned EA was the first to implement it on a large scale, others have followed suit), however, this can be quite costly for the smaller developers. My employer maintains a database with millions of records that is required to be always online, operating so many passkeys and whatnot that I couldn't even imagine how many there are - it costs the company money every day that is online.

EA who can chuck $200m on an MMO that largely failed within a month and is only probably just about clawing its money back about now, it's not a big deal to them to run Online Pass services (it might be if they keep chucking $200m on failed MMOs but that's another matter). Some small developer, who has to produce games with vastly reduced budgets may not have the financial capabilities to operate such a service.

I completely grant you that it is the ideal solution in theory - retailer sells its pre-owned title which keeps it in business (and I don't doubt that retailers do benefit from the pre-owned market), developer sells a licence to use that pre-owned title online, or if it's a single player title, to use content in that game that is frozen out (like how Mass Effect 2 had a DLC character that was given free to anyone with a Cerberus Network key) but it might be beyond the budgetary limits of some developers to implement such a system.

So instead, we have you who supports the retailers by purchasing pre-owned games and we have me and the rest of the people in my minority that likes to support the developers by buying new copies of the games, even if those new copies are reduced in price somehow. It's not ideal, really, but at least it's better than me buying a pre-owned game, wouldn't you agree? You get what you want, I get what I want, until such a time that an improved and better system is implemented for all developers to benefit from.

sqwgglz

Percy1983 wrote: »

Do they really have records of how times there game has been sold used? if so it wouldn't be hard to implement pay for used copies.

Interestingly, some developers have. I remember hearing about this so I did the research and found this article (I'll copy and paste most of it for the jist):

mcvuk.com/news/read/heavy-rain-dev-lost-10m-to-pre-owned-sales/084551

Quantic Dream estimated that it lost anywhere between €5m and €10m to pre-owned sales of its PS3 hit Heavy Rain.

It came to this number by comparing the number of players registering Trophies on PSN and the game’s actual sales.

“On my small level it's a million people playing my game without giving me one cent,” the studio’s co-founder Guillaume de Fondaumiere told GamesIndustry.

There are mitigating factors to consider here, of course. Firstly, a pre-owned sale does not automatically equate to a lost sale. A consumer willing to pay, say, £10 for a second-hand game may never have been prepared to spend £40 on the new version.

Secondly, how many legitimate sales of the game would have been lost had consumers not been able to trade-in against it and reduce the cost? de Fondaumiere acknowledges the second point.

It goes on a little more so I'd say have a read of the full article.

I for one hate pre-owned. I'm sure this is why we're getting half-finished games and I'm sure this is why DLC and Season Passes have come into play in a big way over the last two or three years, since the developers have to recoup some of the revenue lost through pre-owned.

I see the reasoning though. For example: customer can buy... Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag pre-owned for a better price than new and Ubisoft sees no profit. But they manage to sell some of the DLC and got £5-£10 off that player! Also, more importantly, you've probably introduced that person to a franchise they like enough to spend MORE money on. Possibly enough for them to buy the new edition on Day One brand new? Even better! And then after a year or two, sell

On the flipside, I'd hate to do away with pre-owned since we'd also lose the retailers. Just selling new does not make retailers enough money to support the store, and pre-owned certainly fills that gap!

Business is business I'm afraid, but companies need to make money to keep on giving us the things we like.

And they only get it by us buying the things we like, whatever way we can!