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.

End of the day, developers don't want the second hand market to blossom. Why would they? I can't imagine how much money they must lose from people buying second hand. However, I believe that the consumer should have the right to sell on the product that they've purchased, and that the next owner should have full access to all of the features in-game, without having to purchase anything extra. I can see where the developers are coming from, but if they want people to buy their games brand new, maybe they should start ironing out the multitude of bugs that can be found in games, and perhaps lower the price bracket to something more sensible (particularly refering to EA here).

*EDIT* It would also help if they stopped racking out games that are nearly exactly the same as their predecessor (EA Sports, Infinity Ward, Treyarch)

dav2612 wrote:
I'd have to agree with you there Pete. There was surely a much better way of wording that.

Yeah,it was pretty much sticking 2 fingers up to customers who buy their games second hand,that was my interpretation of it anyway.Think THQ must have attended the Gerald Ratner School of marketing!

I'd have to agree with you there Pete. There was surely a much better way of wording that.

Just been reading this doesn't seem to be a very good bit of PR to me.If a well known developer publicly claims they have 'no sympathy' for second hand games buyers then perhaps second hand games buyers should have 'no sympathy' for games developers?

THQ are the other games distributor (along with EA) who are releasing their titles with online passes.

Dragonlance wrote:

Would that be 'recycling money' then pete? :¬D

Could well be!, wish I could find a way to do that.

pete_21 wrote:
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?

Would that be 'recycling money' then pete? :¬D

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?

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?

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.

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!