The "new vs used" argument.

[Mike]

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=261330

 

Wouldn't be an issue if games didn't cost 60 dollars for three hours of content.

[Guest Stephen927]

Drop the price of new games and I won't buy second hand tbh.

 

Not bothered about the online play in a game like Smackdown. If I want to play it it'll be in my house with a bunch of mates.

[Clay]

This has to reach at least a thousand pages, so exciting

[Mike]

Mass Effect 2 got it right, imo. Pay for access to the cerebus network and download lots of free extra shit.

 

Telling me that if I don't buy your game new means I have to pay a cover just for access to your online content isn't going to make me buy the game new.

[Dave]

Since DVD writers became affordable I've wondered why they don't just create consoles that can write on as well as read from optical media. That way they could physically tie the game to your machine and nobody else could play it anyway.

[Spider Jerusalem]

I've stopped buying games on release a few years back, apart from those that I know will give me a lot of gameplay - the only game I have paid full price for this year was Red Dead Redemption and I've had about 30 hours of play out of that.  The only others I'm planning on for this year are Rock Band 3, Fallout:New Vegas and Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood.  everything else I'll normally wait until they hit sub-20 Quid.

 

I haven't traded any game in for at least the last six years as the last time I took a shit load of games back for trade I barely got enough store credit to get a new game.

 

The free-DLC thing isn't a bad idea, and it's not a bad thing when you can buy the game second hand and still have the option to buy it from the online store.  The problem of 'DLC-extras' comes from publishers having the content already on disc, but having to pay for a download to unlock it (I think that RE5 had this sort of 'DLC' last year and it kicked off a shitstorm, and the free DLC for RDR was suspiciously small as well .  I may be wrong though).

[Mike]

Street Fighter pulled that shit too.

[Clay]

So did ME2.

 

Two tiny little missions that could have easily fit on disc.

[Mike]

Never bought that Kasumi shit.

[Clay]

Ah, fuck them anyway, I'll go for the cheapest option everytime. The pre order bonuses and shop 'freebies' are what do my head in, pay the same as someone and get less stuff cunts.

[pedro111]

Absolute cunts. Like someone pointed out. Do Ford get a cut when someone sells on their Ford Focus? Do they fuck but they don't whine like these cunts. 

 

The games/music/movie industries all make far too much money whilst screwing over the consumer. I would like to punch that twat from THQ right in the face and I say fuck the lot of them.

[Spider Jerusalem]

The pre order bonuses and shop 'freebies' are what do my head in, pay the same as someone and get less stuff cunts.

 

 

Too right!  I ordered ME2 for my nephew and RDR from Amazon on release and got an e-mail for a code to download some armour for ME and golden guns for RDR - both remain unused.  The only pre-order offer I've gotten that was any real value was from Guitar Hero: Smash Hits last year - pre-ordered for £25 and got a free Xplorer controler which wasn't too bad.  In the US at the minute to pre-release offers for Rock Band 3 are ranging from three free DLC tracks ( ) to nice clothes for your in-game character to wear ( ).

[Kaizero]

I never buy second hand games.

[M4]

I have a bit of a mental block when it comes to second hand games. Don't really fancy them, would always rather have my own copy. But as I've mentioned before games here are 69€ for new releases which is quite insane. Never bought a new game in the shops, always gone through British Amazon.

 

If I didn't have that option I'd probably consider used games more often for sure.

[SEMTEX]

I'd be fine with buying second hand games in top condition from friends etc, but it does worry me that I'm gonna get a dud thanks to the Xbox disc drive.

 

Also, I often find that shop prices for second hand games just aren't that appealing. Often Game/HMV etc In-store used prices are similar to the cheaper prices to buy it new online.

[pedro111]

Blockbuster video are the worst for ridiculous pre owned game prices. I was in the other day and they had RDR brand new for £39.99 and they had it pre owned too for £38.99. Are you fucking shitting me? A difference of £1.

 

Blockbuster are absolute cunts with everything they do, like.

[Guest elbee909]

Absolute cunts. Like someone pointed out. Do Ford get a cut when someone sells on their Ford Focus? Do they fuck but they don't whine like these cunts.  

 

No, but Ford don't lose much via piracy.

 

The publishers have tried to get a cut from the secondhand market, and the retailers have repeatedly told them to fuck off, so it's not surprising this is the way things are going - as I mentioned in a thread some time ago, more and more of this will happen.

[Wullie]

What other industry expects people to fork out £40 a pop on either the same game engine as last year (and the ten years before that) with a few graphical tweaks and a smattering of updated content, or a new original game that can take 6-8 hours to complete and has little replay value? Or worse than the two, an absolutely shite game that costs exactly the same as the best on the market? The latter is not such a problem nowadays for sensible gamers who read reviews but I remember when I was a kid you could save up for weeks, buy a NES/SNES/Mega Drive game for top whack, get it home and it was virtually unplayable.

 

And how is anyone supposed to get hold of games for old consoles without a pre-owned market?

 

The companies aren't operating in the real world in terms of their pricing structures, is it any wonder people are finding ways to avoid paying them?

[Guest elbee909]

What other industry expects people to fork out £40 a pop on either the same game engine as last year (and the ten years before that) with a few graphical tweaks and a smattering of updated content, or a new original game that can take 6-8 hours to complete and has little replay value? Or worse than the two, an absolutely shite game that costs exactly the same as the best on the market? The latter is not such a problem nowadays for sensible gamers who read reviews but I remember when I was a kid you could save up for weeks, buy a NES/SNES/Mega Drive game for top whack, get it home and it was virtually unplayable.

 

And how is anyone supposed to get hold of games for old consoles without a pre-owned market?

 

The companies aren't operating in the real world in terms of their pricing structures, is it any wonder people are finding ways to avoid paying them?

 

There'll still be a pre-owned market. 

 

The industry has looked at what people get out of e.g. online play, and decided if you want that then you need to pay more for it.  There aren't many points at which the publisher can charge for this so they're doing it at source.  It's irritating that what may have been free before isn't always going to remain so, esp. with development costs what they are.  The cost of a flop these days can be closure.

 

In terms of how much enjoyment people get out of games, if you think a game isn't worth the price for six to eight hours of play, then don't buy it.  I waited until Fallout 3 was 18 quid and had literally days of play out of that.

 

I'm not really sure what the game industry is meant to do about shit games anyone bought in the past.  I can't believe I paid all that money for Mortal Kombat 2 on the SNES but it was a decision I didn't have to follow through on.

 

[SEMTEX]

In the instance of SD vs Raw, it seems ridiculous that if someone bought it pre-owned, that they don't get the option of paying x amount to be able to play it online. Not that I'd ever pay it.

[Wullie]

What other industry expects people to fork out £40 a pop on either the same game engine as last year (and the ten years before that) with a few graphical tweaks and a smattering of updated content, or a new original game that can take 6-8 hours to complete and has little replay value? Or worse than the two, an absolutely shite game that costs exactly the same as the best on the market? The latter is not such a problem nowadays for sensible gamers who read reviews but I remember when I was a kid you could save up for weeks, buy a NES/SNES/Mega Drive game for top whack, get it home and it was virtually unplayable.

 

And how is anyone supposed to get hold of games for old consoles without a pre-owned market?

 

The companies aren't operating in the real world in terms of their pricing structures, is it any wonder people are finding ways to avoid paying them?

 

There'll still be a pre-owned market. 

 

The industry has looked at what people get out of e.g. online play, and decided if you want that then you need to pay more for it.  There aren't many points at which the publisher can charge for this so they're doing it at source.  It's irritating that what may have been free before isn't always going to remain so, esp. with development costs what they are.  The cost of a flop these days can be closure.

 

In terms of how much enjoyment people get out of games, if you think a game isn't worth the price for six to eight hours of play, then don't buy it.  I waited until Fallout 3 was 18 quid and had literally days of play out of that.

 

I'm not really sure what the game industry is meant to do about shit games anyone bought in the past.  I can't believe I paid all that money for Mortal Kombat 2 on the SNES but it was a decision I didn't have to follow through on.

 

Indeed, but my point was there's just as much shit on the market as there ever was, there can't be any market as flooded with utter rubbish as the gaming industry, all costing money to make and all retailing at £40rrp.

 

If the games companies concentrated on quality instead of quantity, instead of wasting development costs on producing drivel, maybe they wouldn't be worried about people buying pre-owned games.

 

As for "if you don't think it's worth it, don't buy it", well why don't I just buy it pre-owned then I can have the best of both worlds? Are you saying that if I want to buy a very short but very good game, I should just not buy it as some sort of favour to the games companies?

 

FWIW, I don't generally buy pre-owned games, I prefer to buy new as it happens, but then I don't buy many games anymore. If I were still of the age where I had to save my pocket money for weeks to buy games, then I probably would.

[Guest elbee909]

But you will still be able to buy games pre-owned.  The pre-owned market will still exist.  This is just the sort of measure that publishers are taking in order to get their cut of it.  It's publisher driven, and in my opinion they make too much money out of the industry over and above what developers get.

 

In terms of dross, I think you're right - there's far too much crap, but the same goes for films, TV, everything.  Quality is expensive to produce and therefore inherently risky.  Most of what's put out will be done in less time, for less money, and generally won't be as good.  Games in the old days never took anywhere near as long to develop as they do now generally, but there'll always be mediocrity propping up the good stuff.  You'll be hard pressed to find otherwise anywhere else.  Most music seems crap to me, for instance.  So much direct-to-video film exists, but it does exist because they can make money - not much but they get by.  Same goes for games.  I'd argue there is less crap now than there used to be and you've filtered it out, as I have.

 

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, more than anything - I agree that games are too much these days but it's clear that games don't stay at the 40 quid mark for very long.  Look at the game I worked on and which came out last year - you can pick that up for a tenner or so.  That's a total bargain.  The pricing schemes slide over time so obviously these days, that it's amazingly rare I'll buy a game on its release date.  Those who can afford to and want to, do that.  They clearly don't have to these days.

 

If you want to buy a very short game and you don't value whatever it is about it that's been crippled due to it being secondhand, then you have every right to buy it secondhand.  This isn't about the elimination of the secondhand market; this is a desperate measure by publishers to get a cut of the secondhand market, by the only way they can after retailers told them to do one.

[SEMTEX]

Cheapest I've found it for is £14.99! I'm waiting for it to get nearer ten then it's MINE.

[pedro111]

What other industry expects people to fork out £40 a pop on either the same game engine as last year (and the ten years before that) with a few graphical tweaks and a smattering of updated content, or a new original game that can take 6-8 hours to complete and has little replay value? Or worse than the two, an absolutely shite game that costs exactly the same as the best on the market? The latter is not such a problem nowadays for sensible gamers who read reviews but I remember when I was a kid you could save up for weeks, buy a NES/SNES/Mega Drive game for top whack, get it home and it was virtually unplayable.

 

And how is anyone supposed to get hold of games for old consoles without a pre-owned market?

 

The companies aren't operating in the real world in terms of their pricing structures, is it any wonder people are finding ways to avoid paying them?

 

Top post. Yeah, I am of an age where I can remember nagging my mam and dad to get me a SNES/Mega Drive game for top whack while not knowing if it was any good or not.

[Mike]

NES russian roulette. You could come home with a Metroid, or a Bayou Billy.