Back in the early 80s, to young boys previously only interested in spiders and mud, the only perceived downside to copying a game was that the little yellow and blue bars took longer to go away before you could get your hands on whatever licensed movie title Ocean had managed to wrangle into 48k. Games cost more than the Beano, therefore simply laws of economics meant that those guys in suits in London would have to miss out on a sale because no element of guilt or social standing was going to keep you and a pixelated two colour Robocop apart.
When I was a little older, in the halcyon days of the Amiga, members of a computer club I joined for the sole purpose of learning Deluxe Paint and Octomed and schooling the kids graduating from the aforementioned creatures and dirt in the fine art of Kick Off 2 started ‘copying’ games for each other. These were floppy disks, and scraping a few hundred kilobytes from one to another – using something called ‘xcopy‘ – was normally pretty quick and painless, and the resulting duplicate caused no problems in relation to load times. Paradoxically, in fact, sometimes it made them shorter.
No problems, then, apart from the fact that for each copy of each game sold, the developers and publishers didn’t make any money. There’s the school of thought that says that the pirates (the title fits, regardless of your consciousness) wouldn’t have bought the game in the first place so there’s no sale lost; there’s also the rather more esoteric, exotic notion that people go on to buy a game after ‘trialing’ it for free. Statistics I’d trust for both concepts are harder to track down than UK hardware sales figures and besides, my thinking is far simpler: both are complete nonsense.
Thankfully, despite there being at least one new generation of gamer, one raised on N4G and top 10 lists of fat blokes in Halo costumes, piracy on my particular choice of gaming device is next to nill. The PlayStation 3, for all its niggles, issues and foibles, still hasn’t been ‘cracked’ – you can’t play pirated games on a normal PS3. Sure, the Xbox 360’s got problems in this area and the current selection of handhelds seem to be suffering more than ever, but Sony, for the moment at least, have got everything going for them with regards to home copying.
Which, you’d think, would make the console a haven for publishers: a sure fire checkbox, a bullet-point for anyone wanting to sell their latest blockbuster, but there’s a problem: the second hand game market. The ability to ‘trade in’ your unwanted games was first opened up to me when I bought a Nintendo 64 – having managed to bypass most of the NES and SNES era the notion that someone else would pay for a game I no longer wanted, and that I would get money for the transaction, was entirely alien. I’m the sort of gamer that likes to hang onto his games, but I have to admit, I’ve made the most of GameStation’s often generous trade-in prices more than once over the years.
Imagine, then, hearing that some developers and publishers have, in the past, objected against the ability for gamers to buy second hand games, and it might shock you to know that some equate the pre-owned market with everything we’ve discussed above. Yes, I’m talking about piracy. Epic Games apparently has a rule for its employees about buying second hand games, and the company’s Mike Capps has said on record1 that his company doesn’t “make any money when someone buys [them] used,” before confirming some figures: “way more than twice as many people played Gears than bought it,” he said.
There’s the relatively new concept of ‘unlock codes’ – a way of ensuring that at least some funds make it back to the publishers for each game sold by locking out the online portion of a game to anyone not buying the game new, with the waters tested by EA before swiftly being followed by almost everyone, including Sony. “Our primary retailer makes the majority of its money off of secondary sales,” said Capps, “and so you’re starting to see games taking proactive steps toward – if you buy the retail version you get the unlock code.”
Other developers are less obtuse, with Blitz Games’ Andrew Oliver suggesting2 that used games are a bigger problem than piracy. “Arguably the bigger problem on consoles now is the trading in of games,” he said. “So while retail may be announcing a reasonable season, the money going back up the chain is a fraction of what it was only a few years ago. This is a much bigger problem than piracy on the main consoles.” Trading in and buying used games isn’t illegal, of course, but is there really valid thought that the perceived problem of pre-owned games is ‘much bigger’ than piracy?
There’s a resurgence just now of the second hand market – it wasn’t too long ago that HMV jumped on board, their racks of bright orange plastic straining under the weight of similarly stickered games, testament to the notion that the gaming public are quite happy swapping their unwanted games with fellow gamers. But last week I noticed my local Tesco was also doing the same thing, an exercise in logistics, given the distance between the shelves and the nearest manned desk, I’d rather not think about. Still, there they were – second hand games, and cheap too.
But as the supermarkets, music retailers and specialist game shops embrace what is presumably a rather shaky market, it’s the publishers and developers that are really taking the initiative. Some may moan that Tiger Woods 11, for example, requires a one-time code from the back of the box before playing online, but the fact is that the publishers need some way of recouping at least some of the money each time their latest big budget game is sold on without profit to them, and I’m tempted to think that the current online locks might extend to the single player experience too before long.
And then there’s the console manufacturers themselves, with Sony’s PSPgo in particular at the forefront of the company’s way of thinking. The PSPgo only allows you to play games you’ve downloaded from the PlayStation Store – you can’t sell them on and you can’t trade them in – effectively it’s a closed market but it means that prices can be much more keenly controlled and even once massively reduced to the point of an impulse buy (relating loosely to the difference you’d pay if trading something in against it) the publishers still get something back for each sale.
Is the second hand market as much of a problem as we’re lead to believe? I don’t think so, no, but whilst it’s a blessing for a sometimes struggling retail market, it’s certainly a problem for the publishers who only see the profit from a game’s sale once, regardless of how many times that game is traded in and swapped. The question worth asking though is why is the gaming industry so outspoken on this issue – does the same rationale apply to buying a second hand motor car (which the manufacturer sees nothing of, financially), or, indeed, a house? Or, perhaps more appropriately, a book, or a DVD?
Could there be a future where the publisher still gets a small percentage of the pre-owned sale? Possibly, and if this could in some way extend to the hard working developers that put these games together too then I’d be a happy bunny. As it is, I’m off to go play in the mud and chase spiders.
Severn2j
I think the big issue here is that due to the arrival of fast cheap broadband, the distribution of software (one of the publishers biggest roles) has become fast, easy and cheap to the point of being almost free. This has reduced the publishers role to pretty much just marketing and almost their entire business model has become redundant.
.
I think the best solution for companies like EA and Activision, etc is rather than try to strangle the second hand market and sue copyright infringers into oblivion (99% of which, seem to fail, btw), they should accept that their role is no longer all emcompassing and change the business model to fit the current times. Instead of releasing at specific times of the year for £50 a time that only 10% of gamers will pay for, release whenever they are ready via digital download over Steam, P2P, PSN, any download medium they can for say, £10, which a lot more people will be prepared to pay for. Even if only 50% of gamers pay for it, it still makes a lot more money than the current system and if you are worried about people pirating a game that only costs a tenner, distribute the game for free, but lock it as a demo and charge for an unlock code (as has been done for quite a few games on PSN).
.
With games that cheap, the second hand market will become redundant and piracy would be reduced dramatically because people can afford to buy more games (obviously there will be people who pirate anyway, but they’ll never be your customers, so who cares about them?), as long as enough people buy the game to make profit and fund future titles, then everyone wins.. This is a capitalist market, if you want to make a profit, make people want to buy your product and make it easy to get hold of. Trying to lock down the market and squeeze your customers for every penny is just going to alienate them and make them unsympathetic when you complain about piracy rates and not making a profit from second hand games..
.
At the moment tho, Im surprised that the popular development houses like the ex-IW guys even need a publisher anymore, they could just do their own marketing and release via digital download.
cc_star
Most games end up being £25(ish) about a fortnight after release – its only launch day fools (I was one once, but I have seen the light) which are pumping up £40-£50 for a game.
the fact that games are widely available for 20something pound so soon after release doesn’t seem to have reduced the demand for looking to pay even less or download it for free.
I don’t think price is the issue – when an album has gone on for sale using the pay what you like model, more people paid 1p (or 1cent) than any other price… but even this number was dwarfed by the volume of people who downloaded it for nothing.
People have a sense of entitlement and no amount of reducing the price will help.
Obviously the 2nd hand market is nothing like the pirate market, but I think the fact everyone (obviously) has the desire to pay as little as possible for something will always win over
bunimomike
If a film costs £100 million to make, the BluRay (on launch) costs around £16. Green Zone recently came out for that figure. Why does that cost so much more than a game like Red Dead (which cost along the same lines to develop). If someone could explain the financial gulf that resides between the two, I’d be most thankful.
For me, if new (and full) games launched for £20 or so (each and everytime) I’d be tempted to buy a lot more within the first few days.
I’m curious to see when most titles do most of their sales? Is it a smoother line on the graph because of said initial costs, when compared to films?
Either way, this is a bizarre line of revenue for game publishers to chase when no other product behaves in the same way. Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy with them charging for online costs assuming they’re providing those services (as oppose to just match-making).
hazelam
media has been changing hands for centuries, there are books around now that have had dozens, maybe hundreds of owners, why are video games suddenly so different?
one of the most basic rights we have over what we buy is that we can sell them on or give them away, they want to take that away?
well fuck them, i’m not some exploitable resource to feed their ever growing fucking greed.
say they kill preowned sales like they want, it’ll do more harm than good in my opinion.
1: shops won’t have that revenue so they will be forced to sell games at the full rrp instead of cutting into their own profits to sell below rrp, which would likely mean less sales.
2: most trade ins are done to buy new games, stop that, and once again, less game sales.
3: dlc, only with trade ins do you get to sell another set of dlc for the same copy of the game.
and there are some games i would never have gotten to play without preowned sales.
the day we get bullshit anticonsumer drm like that steam filth on consoles that locks disc games to a single user is the day i stop buying games, on that day piracy will start looking more and more attractive.
you know, i used to use pirate games, you wanna know why?
it wasn’t about the money, it was about availability, the games i got pirates copies of, well that was the only way i could get them, games like parasite eve, final fantasy tactics, some japanese mecha game that i never managed to figure out how to play.
what i’m trying to say is, you restrict legal access, and people will find other less legal ways of getting access.
cc_star
Yep, they certainly will.
But – One of the reasons for piracy of music was they it was just too damned difficult to download something from iTunes, play it on a portable player… play it on another portable player, play it in the car and just generally do what you want with it.
Music is generally available completely free of DRM now from online music stores in unprotected file formats that people can move between devices, burn to discs – do whatever they want with.
And has the resulted in lower piracy? No.
Freeloaders will always be freeloaders, even when companies bend over backwards to give them what they want. They’ll just invent another excuse to justify their unlawful actions.
tinman9
I brought a few used ones of off ebay, and so far have been pleased with them, but on the whole I usually buy everything off Amazon from new. With their superb prices you can’t go wrong.
Colinbarr66
I buy and trade in used games all the time due to the fact I can’t afford to splash out £40-£45 on a new game every few weeks. I never pay full price for a game, I either buy it used or trade in against a new copy.
The restrictions and one time codes haven’t affected my purchases as of yet. The only time it has affected me is when I rented UFC 2010. I couldn’t play online or try out any of the new online features which put me off purchasing it.
Unless the prices of games drop by quite a bit, which won’t happen, I’ll continue to buy and trade used games. Even if there is an online restriction I would rather trade in and pay £20 for the game plus a couple of quid to play online than £40 for a new copy.
bunimomike
Same here, fella. Just sold Resistance 2 for £6 or so yesterday. What a great game for someone to enjoy when it arrives tomorrow. I’ll be putting that money towards a newer title. That title might be bought from someone who’s about to fund a brand new purchase. Developers and publishers see my money. Just indirectly.
Colinbarr66
When I trade in towards a game and the difference between pre-owned and new isn’t much, less than £4 or £5 maybe, then I will buy it new.
dazluss
Perhaps there should be legislation to ensure that retailers can only sell a game at 10% mark up of what they paid you for it. This stops retailers making massive profit out the pre-owned market and stops the publishers complaining retailers are making massive profit.
I wouldn’t want to be the one that audits this system mind.
STILLCANTTHINKOFAGOODPSNNAME
who said these people should stop conning old dears and give gamers a go, the last game i bought full price was Demon’s Souls BPedition because it was worth every penny. traded cod4(duffed up 360 version for £7 :P) and AC2 for RDR on the argos deal(never would of bought it otherwise as all i wanted was a bridge game). traded MW2 and AVP for 3D DGH. bought MW2 at midnight release for £32 from asda.bought AC2 brand new. got my brother to buy me AVP as a late birthday present. bought UC2 top$ day one. why did i trade in all these brand new games simple they where overpriced overhyped mediocrity (AC2 was good but how many times can you play it…once) stop games making shity lazy mind numbingly simple offensively patronising void of creativity not fun OVERPRICED gimmicky safe. and more people will buy new, M.R joe gamer blogs is never going to spend £40 for a game he plays once (with a tacked on multiplayer that isn’t close to cod4) if they want joe to buy their games new then they need to make him WANT to buy them new not punish him for doing otherwise.
P.s. when did all the square eyed geek with dream’s of creating their game for all die and become just another pig selling orphans down the down the coal mine
deadwelsh
wow, OCEAN – completely forgot about them!
Also Kick off 2, XCopy, Deluxe paint, just needs supercars 2 in the list!
Piracy is an issue, i’ll admit to having done it during the 16bit era, but i think that was mostly down to being a kid and £5 a week doesn’t stretch that far.
Nowadays i wont blink at spending £50 and a new game, and i am quite happy to get up half that back on a trade in.
I do think though that although the online code is fair, it would be harsh to penalise someone for the single player game. How would this work if someone isn’t connected to the internet?
Maybe single use discs that install to a hard drive would be an option, although i am sure these would have more problems than benefits.
Why don’t game publishers offer players the opportunity to send back there old games when finished and get some form of payback/discount? This would take the games away from the 2nd hand market, ensure a repeat sale, and also tempt the customer into trying one of the other titles of their catalogue which then may lead to further increased sales.
3shirts
The best way to combat piracy is making it easier to do it legally. I know loads of people who used to pirate music because it was so easy but now it’s 10 times easier with iTunes and the like so they do that. The same with films and games.
Even PS2 game piracy required ripping, decrypting, burning etc but you can now just click a link in the store and you have the game in a few minutes. You need to appeal to the value people put on their own time.
I work hard and value my free time highly so would rather pay a few quid for an easy/quicker way of doing something
bigdon_23
I think this kind of thing will only create more piracy problems, more people will turn to Xbox or Pc just to prevent themselves from being ripped off, people dont like being ripped off!
And most publishers do make extra money anyway (DLC is non transferable so if the new owner wants it they have to buy it again)
They are only hurting themselves in the long run, people have bills to pay and will always buy preowned and not pay the extra tax!