Epic Wants To End Second-Hand: DLC For Endings?
The topic of second-hand (used) games seems to be growing as an issue in the video game industry. In short, producers and publishers want to take a big piece of the pie. Mike Capps of Epic, producers of Gears of War, was more than happy to offer his opinions on the whole ordeal.
I think DLC will be increasing in scope just because in the US we really need to make strides against the second-hand market,The secondary market is a huge issue in the United States. Our primary retailer makes the majority of its money off of secondary sales, and so you're starting to see games taking proactive steps toward that by... if you buy the retail version you get the unlock code,
I've talked to some developers who are saying 'If you want to fight the final boss you go online and pay USD 20, but if you bought the retail version you got it for free'. We don't make any money when someone rents it, and we don't make any money when someone buys it used - way more than twice as many people played Gears than bought it.
Honestly, I don't know how he could possibly think that DLC is the solution to secondhand games. What happens if someone buys a new system, but cannot transfer their DLC? In a far more critical situation, what if there is no internet?
The fact of the matter is instead of punishing people for buying second hand software, new-in-box retail purchasers should be rewarded. This has been suggested before and frankly, I think it is a capital idea. I have more art books, pack in movies, soundtracks and miscellaneous crap than I know what to do with. You know what? I like that crap. I eat it up.
Second-hand game sales are "a huge issue" - Epic [Gamesindustry.biz]
[via Videogaming 24/7]
Asterick
Posted to Video Games on 11 November 2008
· Comments (16)
Other stuff like this: epic, mike capps, the dilemma continues, used games
Stop charging 59.99 for 360/PS3 games, and maybe people will stop going to the second hand market for their games. Due to the increased cost of games. I can only afford to buy 1 game a quarter year now.
well the problem with "more art books, pack in movies, soundtracks and miscellaneous crap " is that they reduce the profit margin of the game. Sure they may get a few more sales in the short term, but they are also taking a hit on how much money they make on it. that's why the trend towards to be towards the big sellers, so that does not prove to be too much of a hit.
Crap is good. Crap makes me wanna buy the game new instead of used.
They need to do what they did with Thousand Arms. They included a coupon to send in for the extra crap. That makes people want to buy it new than used if the only way to get the shinies is though the mail.
There is also the option of having a second box packed with the game that contains the extras.
But then again, all these options may have to where places like Gamestop go "Minus 5 bucks if it doesn't include the extra stuff."
Personally, who gives a crap? They made their money the first time around when they sold the games. Nobody else makes money from second hand sales, and neither should they. Epic needs to suck it up.
'If you want to fight the final boss you go online and pay USD 20, but if you bought the retail version you got it for free'
This sentence makes no sense to me and I don't see its relevance to second hand gaming.
I can't think of any game where you somehow pay money online to get to fight the final boss.
Anyway, game developers are greedy bastards. Second hand is pure kapitalism. It's the consumers perogative to get a used version at a cheaper price.
This is the kind of crap that scares me. It's astonishing to think that these game developers couldn't have POSSIBLY ever rented a video game, or a movie. Or that these VGD companies think that we suddenly don't have an economic crisis on our hands, and everyone can afford to buy new copies. Some people are dirt poor, and the only way they get games is second hand.
If they try to do away with second-hand games, you're going to see console piracy inflate in ways that companies have ever seen...which piracy fighting is probably their intent.
You wanna know what happens when I have to buy the ending separately if I bought a game used? I don't buy the game at all.
Perhaps Epic should focus on creating a solid title and not one riddled with 15 minute match up times over xbox live...
I buy most of my stuff used. It was different last gen. Games were $50 and tended to be better quality and/or longer. Now everything is 5 hours or less, including rpgs and it's $60 or more.
Give me a reason to run out and buy it day 1. I bought Resistance 2 on day 1 for the LE. I should need to drop 80-90 for a game to get the extras that require a day 1 buy.
Ubisoft has it right by giving all preorders the LE for "free" with Prince of Persia (game looks like ass though).
So before companies go running their mouths, not all of us want to pay $60 for 5 hours of game play.
If it's an amazing game then so be it. Last 3 day 1 buys for me were Resistance 2, MGS4 and Bioshock. All were LE and all were totally worth the money and I've yet to groan about dropping the cash and seeing it 6 months later for 20-40 less.
Wow, this is certainly a very capitalist/lassez faire comment area. So, let's have counterpoint.
@Matt from California: It's lovely to think that way, but it's not reality. As long as they are $5 cheaper, people with buy the cheaper option, just because it's cheaper. ps2/gc/xbox games were $40-$50, and people still bought the used version. Heck, people bought the used versions of $20-$30 gba games.
@katsuya kaiba: while it incentivizes the purchase for you, you are the purchasing majority, and as Jamison already pointed out, those kinds of incentives just drive down the profit margin.
@BK: no one else makes money from second hand games? Maybe you should re-check where EB/Gamestop makes its money. Second hand sales are the reason EB/Gamestop is still in business.
@Nexus: The proposition is new. When you buy the game, you receive a means to play the end boss, but if you are not the original purchaser, you have to pay to unlock the final boss. And yes, publishers (and by extension, developers) are greedy. Here's a quick crash-course in video game economics, as far as I know:
Publishers/Developers put the money up front to pay development and release costs (that means salaries) for 2 years before the game is made. So when a game is rushed out, it's because the publisher runs out of money and simply can't afford to pay the staff to continue working on the game, then the game is released, and they hope they make enough to cover the costs they already paid out to make the game, have a profit, and enough to make the next game. Essentially, a game needs to make at least twice as much as it cost, otherwise, the next game doesn't get made. Naturally, publishers and developers are anxious to make as much money off a single title as possible, if at the very least, to relieve some of the stress of raising capital for the next project.
@stellarvelocity: oh, boo-hoo, some people are dirt poor: get a cheaper hobby.
I don't know if you all realise how games are funded, but, the
@hephaestus,
When I said nobody else makes money from Second Hand sales, I ment other companies that originally made the product. For Instance:
If I'm selling a BedFrame at my garage sale, the company that originally made the BedFrame isn't going to get any of the money I made from selling it.
The same thing should go for Second Hand games, nobody should make money except for the seller, which is Gamestop, because once the product is purchased once, you are obtaining the full rights of using the product under fair use laws. I actually think Epic trying to do that would get a lawsuit, since it would possibly violate fair use.
For me, its not an issue of how much money the developers may or may not make. Its just a simple fact of consumer's rights. When you buy a game, you OWN that copy of the game, and are within your right to sell that game second hand in its entirety.
If developers don't like that, then they need to redefine their business plan... rather than cheating consumers.
If you buy a toaster second hand, you would never expect to pay extra to restore your toasters ability to actually make toast. It would never be accepted, and it shouldn't be accepted with games either.
I think DLC is the way to go for the games industry, but NOT in the way they're talking about.
Its very similar to the music industry and the way thats going now is for music downloading to be the main source of income. If second hand games is really that big of a problem, then simply start releasing games IN THEIR ENTIRETY for download. Having half on a physical disc and the other half as DLC will only be cheating consumers.
If video games aren't so expensive when they first come out I would have no problems buying new games. But when games cost almost 100 dollars when I can buy 5 used games for 100 dollars I would rather buy 5 games then one. I don't know the real details of the industry maybe they cost more because it takes more time to produce. Or they cost more because video games are the newest trend and they like to people pay up the ass for it.
I have to agree that it's quality that will get people to buy new. I will go out and buy any game fresh if it gets gonzo reviews on all the sites and the boards are lit up with praise. If the game sucks, I'll probably be able to get it at Target for $19.99 in two months anyway, I can't imagine the developers are making any money off that kind of mark-down.
Make good games, people will buy them new.
Also, there is a hidden value to second-hand sales. They allow people to play older games, generating interest in sequels. For example, I bought Kingdom Hearts for $14, played it, liked it, and bought KH 2 on day 1 for $50. I wouldn't have bought KH 2 at all if I hadn't played the first one. Silent Hill, same thing. God of War, same thing. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
This second-hand business is also a major environmental issue. If everybody would buy everything new - and especially games, the majority of which are only played through once by each player - we would very soon drown ourselves in almost unused junk.
I totally support selling games I have no desire to play again forward. Not only does it allow poorer people to play them as well, but as said, it's also an environmental act (although not buying anything would be even more environmental).
Anyway, if I was a game developer, I'd be more worried about piracy and illegal spreading of the games through the internet.
The biggest problem about locking second hand buyers out from content is that in ten years when the game is starting to become retro nobody will be able to play it to the end since the retro market is 95% second hand items. So we loose a part of history if this becomes a standard.
Some good points,
however you have developers who are seeing bad sales numbers because people are waiting for the used version. His Gears of War 1 example clearly exemplifies that.
take for instance that game developer creates a game and sells 10 copies of it at one gamestop.
now 4 months after release date that same gamestop says they have sold the game used 100 times.
The developer, on top of possibly thinking they may not have put enough content in to hold interest for long, sees that 110 people played the game, but they only made money off 10 of them. You don't think they are going to try and figure out a way to make money off those 100 others?
also, people seem to think games make them so much money.
a game is new at $50.
typically that means the retailer payed $35 for it. Meaning the publisher got $35.
The publisher then, on average, has to turn half, or LESS, to the developer. So that means, on average, a developer will have gotten $17.50 for a game.
if we take a very low number and say a developer can have only 5 people working on a game, from low programmer, to project manager. lets average out their salary at $50k each (high for some, way low for others). Let's also assume it only took one calendar year to create the game. That means before they make one dime of profit, they have to make $250,000 off that game.
that would be 11429 copies of the game before they saw a dime.
nowadays most games cost millions to make and produce. It is not a high profit product unless you can move volume. If you want games to keep coming out, you are going to have to accept that most companies are going to do what they can to move volume.