Viewing Thread:
"Is The Second Hand/Rental Market Killing Gaming?"

Just watched this which I thought was very interesting.Arguments seem to stack up on all sides (Customer,Developer/Distributor & Retailer). Just wondered what you guys make of it, would you happily part with £40 of your hard earned cash for a game if there was no way to sell/trade it on when you were done with it? On the other side with games development costs constantly rising is it really fair that developers should not receive a penny from this part of the industry? (we've just witnessed the demise of Bizarre Creations could other developers be heading for a similar fate if things do not change?). As for EA's (and I believe now also THQ's) controversial online pass system, I think the fact that neither distributor seemed willing to comment on it proves that they must be only too aware how just unpopular it is with gamers. Perhaps games should be about £10 - £20 and any online features (mutliplayer,DLC) paid for on top of this? That way developers would get their share of the revenue, while people just wanting to play the basic game could do so without the need for waiting to buy a cheap used copy? One thing I felt this feature slightly overlooked was the plummeting cost of new titles, very often a game will be available for around half it's initial asking price and just a few weeks after it's release. What about rental?, apart from the revenue from the sale of each individual disc developers currently do not get any money from this. Then again you could argue if someone rents a game and likes it they may then buy it?, I know I have done that on quite a few occasions. There are many titles I own that I would definitely not have bought blind. While these mentioned practices may have become commonplace for many of us in recent years, could we pay for it in the not too distant future in the form of rushed substandard games? Be really interested to hear peoples comments on this.

Just watched this which I thought was very interesting.Arguments seem to stack up on all sides (Customer,Developer/Distributor & Retailer). Just wondered what you guys make of it, would you happily part with £40 of your hard earned cash for a game if there was no way to sell/trade it on when you were done with it? On the other side with games development costs constantly rising is it really fair that developers should not receive a penny from this part of the industry? (we've just witnessed the demise of Bizarre Creations could other developers be heading for a similar fate if things do not change?). As for EA's (and I believe now also THQ's) controversial online pass system, I think the fact that neither distributor seemed willing to comment on it proves that they must be only too aware how just unpopular it is with gamers. Perhaps games should be about £10 - £20 and any online features (mutliplayer,DLC) paid for on top of this? That way developers would get their share of the revenue, while people just wanting to play the basic game could do so without the need for waiting to buy a cheap used copy? One thing I felt this feature slightly overlooked was the plummeting cost of new titles, very often a game will be available for around half it's initial asking price and just a few weeks after it's release. What about rental?, apart from the revenue from the sale of each individual disc developers currently do not get any money from this. Then again you could argue if someone rents a game and likes it they may then buy it?, I know I have done that on quite a few occasions. There are many titles I own that I would definitely not have bought blind. While these mentioned practices may have become commonplace for many of us in recent years, could we pay for it in the not too distant future in the form of rushed substandard games? Be really interested to hear peoples comments on this.

That's the console arguement....all over again pete!

Had 'Console owning' friends at work and most of what I watched was their attitude - rent it or buy it for a day and then trade it in! The same is apparent throughout this forum!

This also doesn't include the 'dust-ridden' PC games on the 'shelf'. Too 'one-sided' as usual ha ha :¬D

Games are expensive and £40 for a game that can be finished in 3 or 4 days is not acceptable value for money.
Without the option to trade-in I'd be highly unlikely to ever buy a game (bad for business) without the possibility of rentals I probably wouldn't have even bought a PS3 (even worse for business). Now the games companies are trying to reclaim control with these online licences, a move that is doomed to fail and kill the 2nd hand market or online gaming in one fell swoop.
If you want people to buy games, you've got to make games seem like they're actually worth the price. GTA manages it, so does Little Big Planet, Gran Turismo, Final Fantasy, Arkham Asylum, Ghostbusters and various sports games. You either lower the price on shorter games or you make bigger games. Trying to screw the game shops and the 2nd hand market helps no-one.

DL,sorry if my post seemed one sided or specific to console gamers (although I do agree it's probably mainly console owners who rent/trade/sell on their games) but PC games can also be sold/traded on at places like CEX .Apologies if I sounded like I was alienating PC gamers,wasn't intentional.I would think you would actually be a very good person to comment on this after parting with your hard earning cash for a half baked PC version of Call Of Duty Black Op's.If you are totally fed up with it and never going to play it again you could always sell/trade it on rather than simply letting it gather dust on your shelf?

Nin,I agree mate.If I could not sell/trade a £40 game once I was done with then I doubt I would buy hardly games at all.I also do not agree with EA's online pass system.If they dropped the price of their titles to compensate then fair enough,but for a £40 title I think it is extremely unfair.Also think back to a few recent EA titles (FIFA 11,NFS : Hot Pursuit) they have quickly plummeted in price (both new and used), coincidence? I would still buy an EA title if I REALLY wanted it but will most definitely pass on others which I might otherwise have given a go.As for rental,I do that as well.If it's a game I've played through in a few nights and completed then it's perfect for me.Argument is though,how is that helping games developers as I have (in their eyes) basically played through their game for free?.But if it was a £40 purchase or nothing,for me it would have been nothing so they wouldn't have had any revenue from me anyway.Perhaps some kind of pay to play system will surface,£5 to download and deletes itself after a week or something?

Cheers for the comments guys,interesting stuff.

Morning pete, no malice intended mate :¬) True, I'm not going to entertain it again and the £15 does seem reasonable (CEX price) but (and I'll play devil's advocate here) how does the new owner play anything else but the SP game. Wouln't have thought they could have played the MP game, as I have already 'registered' it. Not that that would be my problem as the seller :¬)

In general though I do have a lot of sympathy for console gamers regarding the high price of games. Having said that BOps for the PC was one of the highest prices I've seen for a PC game! But I'll still return to the old adage, if it's originally created on the PC and then ported to console - why the huge jump in price? There is certainly no intricate 'coding' required - all consoles have basically the same 'stuff' unlike even your average PC - stick disc in and play unlike stick disc in and 'fart' about for hours ha ha :¬D

Dragonlance wrote:
Morning pete, no malice intended mate :¬) True, I'm not going to entertain it again and the £15 does seem reasonable (CEX price) but (and I'll play devil's advocate here) how does the new owner play anything else but the SP game. Wouln't have thought they could have played the MP game, as I have already 'registered' it. Not that that would be my problem as the seller :¬)

No problem DL,no need to apologise though as no offence was taken in anyway.I just wanted to point out that PC gamers can sell/trade their stuff as exactly the same as console owners.

Welcome to the dark side! :)

PS. No idea how the multiplayer would work on a used PC game if the online access code had already been redeemed? Perhaps you would need to buy a new access code? (as with EA games). If that is the case then the used option would seem to be less attractive to PC gamers. I would give it a try but my PC would have trouble running Pac Man!

I'm a gamer that generically only buys second-hand goods - purely because the game _play_ hasn't changed in so long I don't see the point in propping up these outfits that churn out the same game year after year (EA). I could have purchased the 2009 FIFA for 98p the other day - why would I buy 2011 one for £40? EA especially have found the "dark side" of the market: little investment by them and massive returns by the those that "must have" the latest version.

I spend less than £20 a month on games and I keep them all and I have a massive collection to return to. I have a Wii & PS3 and a smattering of games for them, some even paid for at full price first-hand! Have I had the same value out of these games as an equivalent £40 on second-hand? Not on your nelly!

Once I was in a position to buy as many games as I wanted all on day of release but times change and I can't do that anymore. I barely have a collection anymore, the majority of my games are traded in once I've completed them and I rely on this trade in value in order to buy new games and in some cases new consoles, both my PSP Go and Wii were mostly paid by trade in credit.

If the trade in market is ever removed then I'll buy less games. And I will also be very careful about what games I buy and at what price so in that respect, the games industry loses out from my input.

I do understand the thinking behind the online pass system and I don't think it is wrong but online play is not something I bother with a lot so it doesn't affect me.

Interesting to see other peeps on here with similar buying habits to myself,cheers for those comments.My next couple of planned purchases are funnily enough both EA titles and I have very differing views on them both.One is Dead Space 2 which I am not bothered about the online multiplayer,so a sub £20 used copy will do me just fine (once the game hits that price range).The other title is Bulletstorm which I intend to buy new as I do intend to play that online (as do a few of my friends) and I also want to get on the Gears Of War 3 beta (the Epic Edition of this game comes with an invite).So you could argue that in one case EA has lost business and in the other gained?

Had another thought about this today,is trading in/selling on stuff (therefore finding it a new and welcome home) basically not a form of recycling which we are all preached at to do?