Used videogame/video game revenues dilema.

Blix · 07-12-2011, 09:39 PM

So I was reading an article on IGN about the PSN Pass that is being planned for the PSN(http://ps3.ign.com/articles/118/1181500p1.html). This is like an EA VIP pass thing where if you buy the game pre-owed you have to pay in order to get a code to get support for the online aspect of games and some other features. It seems EA and THQ are not the only companies worried over used games eating up their income. Now this article does have some valid points but I am still of the mind that used game sales aren't really a bad thing.

Now I was speaking to a friend yesterday who got me thinking with the following statement. He said that while plants vs. zombies cost a few bucks on the iPhone it costs $15 bucks on Xbox. I compared Xbox's price to steam and steam has it for $9.99 while both games are digitally distributed. And he blamed piracy on high prices. He is not the first person I hear blaming piracy on high prices but I've always thrown this argument out the window for various reasons: Jim Sterling presents my point of view fairly well so as not to get sidetracked in that I'll just post his video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQZSHpNcsRk
But the point he made about price differences I found to be quite valid. I know that console companies make money by charging royalty fees but could it be that they're charging too much? I don't have an answer to this I don't know how much the game development costs and how much companies charge to let them publish the games on their consoles because I don't read about video games as much as I used to. So I wanted to know your opinion on this subject. Are companies doing things wrong when charging for vip passes or is it unfair to treat them different from used car sales and other things were paying less means getting a slightly subpar product? Are companies (developers, publishers and console makers alike) charging more than they should and raising the price too much?

I look forward to your feedback.

Typhoid · 07-13-2011, 06:24 PM

I always just assumed they priced XBL/PSN games more than Iphone games/apps (that are available on all 3) because the (gaming) market for XBL/PSN is larger, so they can make more money by pumping the price up.

Professor S · 07-13-2011, 07:30 PM

I think people have the right to sell used games, and companies have the right to find alternative revenue streams to compensate. Also, you have to think that if many companies start this model, you'll see the cost of used games fall to draw more buyers who choose to purchase the new game. There is a tone of profit in used games, and that gives resellers a lot of wiggle room with pricing.

In the end, it just gives the consumer more choices.

TheSlyMoogle · 07-13-2011, 11:54 PM

Gamestop is evil. That is all.

gekko · 07-14-2011, 12:29 AM

What I always find interesting about this topic is how we seem to pretend this is a new problem. Used games and GameStop have been around since the first consoles, so while it may hurt the profit of publishers, it's been hurting them as long as they have been in business. The only difference I see now is the possibility to prevent it with digital distribution.

That being said, I don't think these "passes" are the best solution. It solely benefits the publisher, and I don't think most consumers really care how much money these corporations earn. I think we need to find solutions where the consumer gets a benefit for buying this non-resellable version of the game.

Blix · 07-14-2011, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gekko

What I always find interesting about this topic is how we seem to pretend this is a new problem. Used games and GameStop have been around since the first consoles, so while it may hurt the profit of publishers, it's been hurting them as long as they have been in business. The only difference I see now is the possibility to prevent it with digital distribution.

That being said, I don't think these "passes" are the best solution. It solely benefits the publisher, and I don't think most consumers really care how much money these corporations earn. I think we need to find solutions where the consumer gets a benefit for buying this non-resellable version of the game.

It's definitely not a new problem but games cost more and take more time to develop than ever before and I can only see that trend continuing. How much did a SNES or Genesis game cost to develop and how long did it take? And the companies responsibilities should end with the person who bought the game straight off the store. I have a mixed opinion on these passes. Like the article says, you don't expect all of the benefits from buying something used in anything besides video games. I am having a hard time deciding if it is OK to charge people for these passes for the online aspects of the game or if they're crossing the line here. Some games do have servers which need maintenance and the game itself keeps getting updated.

gekko · 07-14-2011, 11:05 AM

My main issue with the passes is it affects people who rent or borrow the game.

Angrist · 07-14-2011, 12:20 PM

THAT'S EVEN WORSE THAN BUYING USED GAMES.

magus113 · 07-15-2011, 07:34 AM

Ubisoft is jumping on the project ten dollar bandwagon now too. Driver: San Francisco is gonna use something called UPlay Passport to get online.

KillerGremlin · 07-15-2011, 03:46 PM

Hey, it's all part of the future as predicted quite accurately by this funny article:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18817...d-by-b.s..html

BreakABone · 07-15-2011, 08:17 PM

Awesome! My least favorite movement in gaming. I get to rant about this almost every week on the podcast.

That said, Project 10/PSN Pass/uPlay Passport/whatever company X calls it. Its shoring up a problem, that wouldn't be a problem if people focused on the actual problem and not the bottomline.

That's a fun sentence, but really this exists because most game companies are bleeding money. Most of it from the ballooning cost of HD development, the other is from chasing the Holy Grail that is Call of Duty, but the fact is they need a way to find another source of revenue. This is why we saw the emergence of DLC this generation, which isn't bad if done right. But then you have people like Capcom who just has you pay for content that's already on the disc.

So companies wanted to find another way to make money, and they say that GameStop is doing remarkable business so why not cut in on a piece of that pie.

The problem with that is numerous, but the first is that is 10 bucks really worth it to most people? At the end of the day, you will just limit your potential audience for online in general. which is a tough market to break anyhow.

The other one, even though the program is relatively new. We haven't seen an increase in new game sales for any game that offer it nor have we seen much in the way of increased profit for companies using it.

I'm sure they make some money, but who knows.

The biggest problem however, as Gekko pointed out, is it screws consumers on almost every level.

-Want to rent or borrow the game from a friend. Pay 10 bucks to get the whole experience or don't. Its potentially one less customer.
-People buy less used games, means stores/companies buy less used games. There's ton of gamers who use the trade-in system to continue their hobby and purchase new games. If that segment of the market dries up, used and new game sales go down.

magus113 · 07-27-2011, 10:34 AM

So it was announced that Ubisoft is not doing the Uplay Passport for the PC version in order to play online. Nope! You just need a PERMANENT INTERNET CONNECTION in order to be able to play your game as a DRM measure. How useful!

BreakABone · 07-27-2011, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magus113

So it was announced that Ubisoft is not doing the Uplay Passport for the PC version in order to play online. Nope! You just need a PERMANENT INTERNET CONNECTION in order to be able to play your game as a DRM measure. How useful!

They went back to that?

They tried it before with Assassin's Creed 2 (or something like that, a single player one), and what happened was THEIR server went down for a day, leaving everyone without a way to play games.

Companies really need to stop thinking with their bottom line as they screw over their most loyal customers.

Blix · 07-27-2011, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BreakABone

They went back to that?

They tried it before with Assassin's Creed 2 (or something like that, a single player one), and what happened was THEIR server went down for a day, leaving everyone without a way to play games.

Companies really need to stop thinking with their bottom line as they screw over their most loyal customers.

I remember that. And why has nobody learned from steam? It lets you play your games in "offline"mode. And even Games for Windows got some things wrong when they would not register your hard copy games on the service for downloading. If I misplace the discs then I lose the game. Also, some of the games for windows games ask you to insert the disc in order to launch the game. I think this is the developer's doing actually but when you play on pcs you think about applications and inserting the disc should only be necessary to install them. How can they get it wrong after someone already got it right?

Bube · 07-27-2011, 02:46 PM

There's a part that really really disgusts me on this subject. My brother and I share consoles. We buy only one game. Who gets to use the pass? Why do we have to play on one profile?