Forgive me replying to Deacon before this one, I didn't have time to go over the whole thing. (It was 1am, give me some slack)
collegestudent22 wrote:But the gap isn't closed at all, really. All the money that is spent on used games comes, eventually, back into new games. Like I said, Crackdown 2 was only a big success because of the used sales for Crackdown. I, and many other gamers like myself, commonly trade in games to purchase brand new ones - and that has become harder to do.
It had nothing to do with the massive marketing it had to back it? Or even the fact that everyone who bought it got into the Halo 3 MP beta (Cocaine, essentially)?
It's the broken window fallacy here. Publishers look and see that EA made $15 million off of Online Passes and don't realize that it probably lost just as much as people didn't have the extra $10 bucks they needed to make their purchase of the next years game happen.
Here's an example. I only have $100 to spend on games this school year. Because of trade-ins, that is actually enough to get me Skyrim, Forza 4, Halo: CEA, BF3, Assassin's Creed: Revelations, and Mass Effect 3 before next May - all brand new. Without trade-ins, I would be getting Skyrim, and maybe also Halo because that is only $40. Online Passes have already caused me to not be able to get FIFA 12 as well, due to the lowered trade-in value on games that have them.
Another example: let's say that I am buying a used game with my $100. Perhaps it is FIFA 11, which costs about $35 (after tax) used. Now I like that game, so decide I want to play it online. I pay another $10 for the Online Pass. Now, even assuming that I didn't have to buy Xbox Live points in $20 increments, I only have $55 left. I guess my newfound love of FIFA will not be enough to get me to purchase FIFA 12 new, despite the fact that I really want it after playing last year's version. In getting that $10 from me for that Online Pass, they have incurred the hidden cost of a lost sale of a new game - which is worth more than $10.
Are you entitled a "try before you buy" scheme now? It's a sensible idea, convenient too. Publishers disagree.
If you happily bought Fifa 11 preowned, what's to stop you from buying Fifa 12 preowned too? These games last a year, don't they? Are publishers to simply take your word for it? Let you try the first one for, as far as the publisher sees, free before you decide if it's worthing giving them money for their merchandise?
Now, I know these scenarios don't apply to everyone. But they do apply to some people, and I think that it is enough people that, when combined with the people that just stop playing your games (because they choose games without the need for the Online Pass), the publisher is, in actuality, merely breaking even, if not taking a rather significant hit to the bottom line.
I couldn't possibly give an educated guess ratios. Please don't try to yourself.
And now, I'm not playing their games. Many others aren't either. In fact, excepting FIFA and Battlefield, I will not buy an EA game with multiplayer new anymore, and I will not pay for an Online Pass - and it has nothing to do with price. And even with FIFA, I only buy a new one when the one I have is being taken off the servers (I used to get FIFA every year or two, depending on my financial situation). Many people don't buy PC games because they cannot be traded in - you have to be prepared to lose every cent you put into the purchase price of that game. Making console games work the same way will only reduce demand, much like stringent DRM has done.
As far as I am aware, you are in the tiniest of minorities in that group.
As far as PC games go, it's my experience that they're cheaper on average thanks to services such as Steam etc.
I can't say for America, but here in the UK I pay roughly £30 for a PC game and £40 for a console game(new). My point being that plenty of people do
buy PC games, and trading in doesn't even cross their minds.
Then again, most people I know that play PC games don't usually bother with console games or trade ins or whatnot, maybe it's a cultural difference, for lack of a better phrase.
I think the biggest point I can make here is this, though: the biggest games sell in the tens of millions without these stupid passes. If you really want to get people to buy your games new, make them good. Make them the next Halo, or CoD, or Uncharted, or what have you. Don't punish some of the consumers because they bought a product someone else traded in. It's roughly like having a used book store like Hastings cut out the end of each used book and then have the publisher sell it on their website for an additional $2.50. Total bollocks.
Yes, because publishers don't deserve their due unless every single game they make is game of the year.
As for the book store similie, I don't possess a retort but it feels inaccurate somehow. Let me get back to you on that.
Many games today are like rentals. They play like rentals. You have a 6-8 single player campaign that you can blow through on a Friday or Saturday night, and then its multiplayer until you get bored of it - and that happens fast if you haven't made Halo, Battlefield, or CoD. Of course they trade in their games. If publishers actually hired developers to make decent games that people would want to play for a while - a game like Oblivion, or Portal - they wouldn't lose so much to used sales. But if you release a game that seems like it is destined to end up on a used game shelf, then you have only yourself to blame when it ends up there.
Because only crap games no-one wants to buy get traded in?
collegestudent22 wrote:Nonsense - used media is just as likely to be damaged as a used car, through scratches on the disc, etc.
Please don't be like that, it doesn't become you.
Broken media, like a broken car, are unusuable and frankly not part of what we're talking about.
A scratch on the disc will not effect the media experience in any way. If it does: Firstly, what the hell are you doing to your discs? Secondly, it's broken, not simply "used". I buy used media myself, don't get me wrong. Only on a rare occassion has there even been noticable scratches on it.
My point is, that media is very much a Works/Broken deal, whereas cars are a more gradual degradation that, in turn, lowers it's value.
If I shown you 2 movies on DVD, one new and one preowned, you could watch that movie both times, and you'd never be able to tell me which one was the preowned one.
Furthermore, when comparing a used car to a new one, there is a difference in the year - and thus the new car has fancier things associated with it. This also applies to games - a used copy of FIFA 10 is considered inferior to a new copy of FIFA 12, any day.
A new copy of Fifa 10 is also considered inferior to a new copy of Fifa 12.
However, a new copy of Fifa 10 is identical to a used copy of Fifa 10.
Apple and oranges, I don't care if they both have "Fifa" in the name.
Good lord, now I know why I never join these forum debates, so much typing!
"The IQ of a group is equal to the lowest individual IQ divided by the number of people in the group."