EA's new Used Games policy

[ProudNissanFreak]

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/108/1088634p1.html

Discuss.

[MinisterofDOOM]

The thing that bothers me most about this is the way it's presented. It's just like Ubi's DRM (no, we won't get into that again here, there are other threads for that...but this similarity is definitely relevant). Presenting something that's wholely BAD for gamers and customers as though it is being implemented in an effort to improve the customer experience is an outright lie. It's dishonest and crooked. It's scummy. It makes baby Jesus cry.

Just be straight with it. Just admit that you're getting your asses kicked by the used game market and you're scrambling for something to rein in initial sales. That's all it is. They want to sell more games directly. They want to incentivise it. They want you to look at buying used vs buying new and feel that buying used just isn't as good an option. And they want to find a way to still make money from used-game sales. Publishers make no money on used game sales. They already made their profit on that disc. But if they add that $10 "license" in, they can make $10 apiece on every used game sale. Suddenly the used games market changes from a competitor to a helper. Now they can make money on each disc MULTIPLE TIMES. The theory is totally ideal from a profit standpoint.
And it sucks for gamers.

The other major peeve with this, for me, is that new console game prices are already way too high. $60 is just ridiculous. If I had to pay $60 for HL2, I'd b**** about it. It doesn't matter how great the game is. $60 is too much. But it's a side-effect of the console ecosystem (to which gamestop used sales are unique, since they don't deal in use PC games). How about, instead of forcing an effective universal price hike on used games to level the playing field, you lower the price of NEW games $10. It's ultra-basic s***. Stores have sales. Walmart sells s*** for super-cheap, but they sell assloads of it. Sell more for less and you come out ahead. If you can't make money on your game at $50 per disc, you're doing something wrong. Maybe you shouldn't be developing huge budget games if you can't afford it. Over-investing in mediocre games, then asking gamers to foot the bill is just a crap arrangement. There's no good REASON games need to cost $60 a pop. Look at the Orange Box. Look at Steam, D2D, Impulse. I know retail has added costs but for hell's sake Bayonetta is NOT worth $60 new. So you can't expect people to pay it.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see this have the reverse affect of that desired. It could very well make both used AND new game purchases appear less appealing.

I myself don't do much game trading. I'm picky about what I buy, I buy it new, and I keep it forever. I generally only trade in games I end up disliking, which because I'm so picky doesn't happen very often.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

You really should start a Video Game Consultation company MoD...
I'm the type of guy who keeps the box and manuals of every game I buy. I have the original Half-Life fold-out box, Rainbow Six, etc...buying used doesn't make sense to me.

[ProudNissanFreak]

Yeah, paying extra for multiplayer, a feature already in the game, regardless of it being used or new is ridiculous. I don't tend to buy used games a lot, but if there's a really great deal on a decent one, then I'll grab it. If EA spans this across all their games and not just sports, they can go to hell. I know people who buy used copies of new releases, so the game ends up being $55 instead of $60. But now, they'll have to pay an extra $10? F*ck that.

[marlin29311]

The other major peeve with this, for me, is that new console game prices are already way too high. $60 is just ridiculous. If I had to pay $60 for HL2, I'd b**** about it. It doesn't matter how great the game is. $60 is too much. But it's a side-effect of the console ecosystem (to which gamestop used sales are unique, since they don't deal in use PC games). How about, instead of forcing an effective universal price hike on used games to level the playing field, you lower the price of NEW games $10. It's ultra-basic s***. Stores have sales. Walmart sells s*** for super-cheap, but they sell assloads of it. Sell more for less and you come out ahead. If you can't make money on your game at $50 per disc, you're doing something wrong. Maybe you shouldn't be developing huge budget games if you can't afford it. Over-investing in mediocre games, then asking gamers to foot the bill is just a crap arrangement. There's no good REASON games need to cost $60 a pop. Look at the Orange Box. Look at Steam, D2D, Impulse. I know retail has added costs but for hell's sake Bayonetta is NOT worth $60 new. So you can't expect people to pay it.

I usually agree with everything you say about gaming, but not here. Video games, if following inflation for the past 20 years, should cost roughly $90, assuming 3% average inflation over the 20 year period. I remember back in the early 90's video games costing $50...now, they are only $60. Sure, the market won't support a developer charging $90, but $60 is a fair target for a game purchase.

You also have to realize that it takes a crap ton of more dev's to make today's games than it did to make Mega Man 2. The fact that studio's are now trying to make these games with a measly extra $10 a game is very difficult...

I do realize that there is a much larger audience to purchase the games, but like i said, you have higher wage levels, more workers, etc...all trying to sell the game. I don't think $60 is unreasonable.

[MinisterofDOOM]

My point, though, is that model you use to defend modern game pricing is wrong. Not incorrect, just not justified.

Also, I'm speaking about console games specifically, which are a special thing due to console royalties and s***. But if you want to talk games in general, there are TONS of games that sell for $20 or $30 and are excellent games. Most PC games are still $40 or $50 new. A few huge ones are $60, but you'll observe that most of them are PC releases of console games (like MW2).

Back in the '90s. $50 was the TOP END of the pricing chain. Most stuff didn't cost that much. But today, EVERY SINGLE CONSOLE GAME COSTS $60 OR MORE. That's what I take issue with. It's not the top end, it's the bottom end. Unless you catch it on sale. But MSRP is ALWAYS $60. In the PC market you see fluctuation. Not on consoles. Why? Because the pricing model is based on what people are stupid enough to pay. And because console devs have to pay a royalty to the console manufacturer for licensing rights. BUT, they still don't need to cost $60.

And, anyway, inflation is only one side of the coin. Sales numbers today are astronomical compared to the '90s. Like I said, when you sell more, you can sell for less. And when you sell for less, you are more likely to sell more. Just look at all the pick-your-own-price indie promos that have been run over the past year. HUGE, INCREDIBLE sales numbers during the sales.

No, I absolutely stand by the fact that $60 videogame pricetags are s***. Inflation can blow me. Games didn't need to cost $50 new in the '90s and they don't need to cost $60 new now.

[marlin29311]

Mega Man 2 had 17 people make the game (per the credits screen, excluding the special thanks...with special thanks it was like 35).

Assassin's creed 2 had 450. No matter how much economies of scale you can muster from increased sales, it doesn't cover the massive overhead that you incur from additional developer support. Games cost so much more now to develop (I'm not getting into marketing and promotion, that's another issue) due to larger work staffs, higher wage levels, increased worker benefits (medical, retirement, etc...) that games are at a price level that is almost barely sustainable. So much of the world has changed over the past 20 years, but yet the gaming industry pricing remains relatively the same.

Why do you think so many games get the ax pre-release? Because of the fact that the pricing and sales are not going to be enough to support the sale of the game. If the dev is not going to be able to put food on the table, they're not going to make it.

I know you look at everything as a gamer. Yea, I'm pissed about paying $60 for a game, but in the long run, I know I darn well get my money's worth. Movie for 1 = $10...I get 2 hours of enjoyment. If I could watch that movie 6 more times to get to $60, I would only get 12 hours. I bought Bad Comapny 2 a couple of weeks ago, and have logged over 50 hours of MP time already...and I only paid $60. I certianly consider that a better deal.

Do I look at the business side too much? Maybe. But $60 is certianly a sustainable and acceptable price point. $15 DLC and $10 pre-owned game royalties are another story though...

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Marlin does have a point...mayhap you are viewing this situation from a 10 year old standpoint MoD? The cost per hour of enjoyment of video games beats any other form of electronic entertainment today.
That isn't the point here though...and I think royalties could really hurt sales of both new and used games.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Assassin's creed 2 had 450.

Which is F**KING ridiculous. FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY PEOPLE? No. Not necessary. If you can't develop a worthwhile game with less than 200 people, that's YOUR problem. That's exactly what I addressed above: over-investing in mediocre games and then expecting gamers to pay your entrance fee is A BAD SITUATION. How the HELL does it take 450 people to develop AC2? Valve doesn't even employ that many people TOTAL, and their people are divided up into separate dev teams for separate projects. Runic Games employs around 25, and they sell Torchlight for $20!

Nope, like I said, the model you're using to defend games prices is NOT NECESSARY, and not defensible. I mean, I could hire 1000 people to develop some random game, but that doesn't mean I needed 1000 people, or that I deserve to profit on such an unwise investment. Just because you make a game doesn't mean you get to make the arrogant assumption that you deserve to profit. Make good games, do it well, or find another industry to leech off of.

Why do you think so many games get the ax pre-release? Because of the fact that the pricing and sales are not going to be enough to support the sale of the game. If the dev is not going to be able to put food on the table, they're not going to make it.

It all comes down to what you invest in the game's development. If you can't be efficient, that's not the customer's problem. Learn to develop, noob.
The point is, I didn't make them develop those games. THEY MADE THE CHOICE TO TAKE THE RISK. And it's exactly that: a risk. They can't use my wallet as gamb|ing insurance. There are plenty of developers out there who manage to remain extremely profitable on only one or two or a handful of franchises. If you can't make it work, that's probably a pretty good sign you need to find a new job. It's NOT a good sign that I should be paying more for games to fund more trial-and-fail on your behalf.

I know you look at everything as a gamer.

Honestly, I don't believe I do. I think of everything in terms of development, which is if anything a more critical viewpoint. I know what it takes to make games on a variety of scales, and I understand the decisions that go into making games a reality on store shelves. And that's the perspective I criticize from. If you read most of my critical gaming posts, you'll see a lot of that. Why did they make this decision? Why did they not do this here? Don't they understand that this is a bad move? Etc.
I criticize every game from a "If I made this, how would I have done things and why" standpoint. Which is exactly where I'm coming from here.

Do I look at the business side too much? Maybe. But $60 is certianly a sustainable and acceptable price point. $15 DLC and $10 pre-owned game royalties are another story though...

Not the business side, but the profit side. Putting profits before other concerns is part of the problem with the modern gaming industry at large. When you put your product first, and do a good job, profits will follow. I know the world as a whole has largely adopted the profits-first viewpoint, but I still don't have to be happy that games have taken this turn.
Make a good game. Profits will follow.

[ProudNissanFreak]

450 for Assassin's Creed 2? Holy sh*t! There's only 140 people working on GT5

[MinisterofDOOM]

There's only 140 people working on GT5

140 people and it has STILL taken over 6 years and CONTINUES to be delayed. And Polyphony Digital actually appeared on a "best developers" list I read recently.
I'm amazed they still have jobs. This is exactly the kind of overinvestment I'm talking about. GT Mobile took WELL over 6 years to finally hit store shelves and when it finally did, it turned out to be not that great. And Sony continues to fund development at the studio!!!!!!! After GT Mobile and with the very similar GT5 delays, if I were Sony, I'd have cut them loose. Get out, throw someone else's money down the toilet. We'll hire some upstart developer for GT6 and do it cheaper and faster while you guys go twiddle your thumbs on someone else's dime. You had your chance and wasted it. GTFO.

[ProudNissanFreak]

Meh, I think it'll be worth it. Should be some good stuff at E3 including a release date. Last I heard, it was delayed because of 3D, which is pretty stupid.

[BusyBadger]

Should be some good stuff at E3 including ANOTHER release date.

FTFY. I'm surprised we haven't heard Yamauchi tell the PS3 crowd that his tamagotchi ate his game code.