Murdo and I don’t particularly agree on trade-ins, I will trade in and buy pre-owned without thinking twice, whereas, Murdo always has a long, hard think about the publishers and developers before trading in a game. Then we remembered that our good friend, Colin, was a trade-in aficionado, so to speak. So, we let him join in the debate, and what we found was… well, this.
Murdo: Times are hard, for both consumers and publishers. We’ve got one of the biggest booms in trading-in for years and some of the biggest companies fighting against it. The likes of EA, and even Sony, are being battled against by hordes of gamers and their right to buy and play second-hand. But maybe, the gamers are to blame for the battle? I certainly agree with the companies anyway.
Blair: I know the companies want to make money from trade-ins and I know that having online unlock codes is the only way to do that, but I’ll still buy a pre-owned game if it’s cheaper (although, I do prefer new games) and I’d definitely trade in one of my own games to make up the cash for a new one. If I can’t afford the latest game and I can trade in a game that I’m not going to play anymore, I will. I’d never trade in a game that I really love, I’ll always keep them in my collection.
Murdo: Ahh, online passes. That annoying bit of paper inside some of the latest games. The companies are right in what they are doing with it, though. The revenue of each copy of a game that is sold should eventually feed back to the developers. They’ve spent hours building and testing the worlds we play in so why shouldn’t we pay a little extra as a way of saying thanks. You’ve already saved quite a bit buying second-hand.
Colin: I do agree that the companies should try and earn some money back on pre-owned sales and trade-ins, perhaps with DLC rather than completely removing features. If removing features is the way companies want to go I think it is fairer on the consumer if they get a chance to try the aspects of the game they will miss out. By this I mean that features, like online multiplayer, will become inactive after a period of time unless a code is entered or a pass is purchased. The gamer will still then have to pay to fully experience the game but have had a taste of what they are missing out on.
Blair: Do you really save enough by buying second hand to justify paying to play online, though? I like the idea of the online ‘locking’ after an hour or so; but people would exploit this by opting for the cheaper, pre-owned games when they aren’t too fussed about the multiplayer, perhaps only wanting to try it out. I just like trading in games to make up some money for another game, can you really fault that?
Colin: This system may be exploited but I feel it is much fairer on the consumer and the publisher will still make money off of the used purchases. I personally don’t fault anyone who trades in or buys used, almost all my games are bought that way. It allows me to play new releases for a price I can afford, if the game is good enough then I will pay to play online. However, if I get to try the features I’m missing then I’m more likely to pay to unlock them.
Murdo: This would be a great way to pull some money from the pre-owned market. Digital titles like Battlefield: 1943 have already used this system as a demo and it certainly helped me to decide whether I wanted the game or not. With certain features blocked off, the most likely being online, an hour given to test it out would be very beneficial for both sides. Some people who wouldn’t have unlocked everything might then decide to after trying the features but I fear this could be exploited greatly, especially with disc-based games. EA’s use of their ID in online games could help to prevent this though.
Blair: I like the things you get in the new boxes, such as DLC, which you might miss out on with pre-owned games, but online passes are just a hassle. The idea of having a ‘trial’ before you give money to the people who made the game is good, but it’s just like downloading a multiplayer trial from the PlayStation Store or Xbox Live Marketplace rather than having the complete game, which in the end, you paid for.
Murdo: The entire reason I love buying new is the chance to receive extras or special editions. Unfortunately, my dream of a shop selling only the extras, such as the postcards or figurines, from special editions hasn’t come true yet, but these are the things that add to the experience. If a big game has a special edition, I want it. Looking around just now, I can see my new Modern Warfare 2 night vision goggles, Captain Soap figurine, Pandora’s Box from God of War and more. These are just not offered with second hand games and make the whole thing that little bit more special. It doesn’t have to be as extravagant as these though, with the extra characters in ModNation Racers swaying me enough to one retailer. Second hand doesn’t make the same impact on me.
Blair: I love Special Editions, too. Figurines and everything rule, I wouldn’t buy pre-owned if these weren’t included and I would never trade these in. In fact, I once saw the Fallout 3 Collector’s edition (with lunchbox and bobblehead) pre-owned. I felt sick… and tempted to buy it.
Murdo: I would’ve!
Blair: I didn’t have the money…
Colin: I like special editions and the extras you get with them but I would much rather buy the game for a cheaper price. I have no problems trading in special editions either, if I’m not going to get the use out of them then I may aswell trade-in to get something I will play.
Murdo: Well apart from disowning Colin, I think we’ve done well here. None of us will be changing our ways any time soon but maybe we’ve made an impact on you. Next time you pick up that game in GAME, have a good think about what you’re buying into. Without the companies, we’d have nothing to play in the first place.
Blair: Anyway, while Colin and Murdo are bickering about trading Special Editions, we’ll pass it over to you. What do you think about trading in games and online passes?
gideon1451
I think it’s harsh, but fair.
I’m a poor gamer D:
cc_star
Trade-ins enable me to make new purchases.
I really can’t see peoples obsession with having products gathering dust on shelves.
Although Murdo is the man with a Mac, iPhone, iPad – seemingly everything ;) so perhaps he lives in a different world to me and can afford not to subsidise new purchases.
For me its a choice between trade stuff in to buy new games or to buy no games at all, and thats where the argument from the games industry saying pre-owned sales hurts revenues falls down.
gideon1451
I still have every PS3 game I’ve ever bought. All twenty odd of them, even the rubbish ones :|
That probably explains my lack of money.
bajere
I keep my games until i get to a point that i know i wont play them again, and i trade them. Sports games always go in at the end of summer before they drop the value of them, and i use the cash to get a new game. Next on the chopping block is Red Dead Redemption as i’m not going to play that again, and once i finish gay tony dlc ill do GTA as well. i just dont see the point in keeping games that i wont play again, or are not epic tales (ie MGS series i have all 4 still).
CaptainMurdo
I plan a lot of my purchases. I’ve got a GDoc with full prices paid, totals etc. I put a lot of effort into keeping up my purchases and plus, I’m a student. We have loads of free time and lovely relatives.
I also always know a way to make money from what I’ve got. It’s hard work buying all these nice things. :)
Crazy_Del
I always buy new games on luanch day because hell I love games =)
I also do love buying special edtions but it depends on the price, with these special edition games I would NEVER trade them for anything. I have sackboy, big daddy, VS Suit and Enzio and such they are bstunning on shelves with games. I do tend to trade in my games because it’s rubbish or short or no online working properly. When I do trade I sometimes get a pre-owned game as it is cheaper but on the bright side chances are a game may be cheaper when new if you go elsewhere ASDA is the place Iron Man 2 and Sega all stars are £15 barnd new!!! that is almost the price for a pre-owned in any game shop. I sometimes feel digusted when I sell my game and find out they would give me £9 for it and I accept it (I know I shouldn’t) but only to found out when I went back in the same shop the next day that game I sold for a £9 is on shelf pre-owned priced £20 – what the hell?!?!? I mostly trade in to save up money to buy off PSN credit either £50 or £20.
To sum up online passes is fair but having a friend over to bring a PS3 and we both play in the living room we also share games in order to have our opinion to purchase the full game, I always do that like there’s 3 new games out on luanch, I get Blur and my pal gets split/second and we share it to try get the best experience out of it.
Bilbo_bobbins
I used to keep every game, until I decided it was wasted money sat on the shelf, gathering dust. Now I trade them in to buy new games. The problem is, if everyone trades them in for new games, that has to stop at some point because no one will be buying pre-owned.
bunimomike
There will always be people buying second-hand. In every consumer sector that exists. Only manufacturers and publishers can stop that. Well… that and legislation.
bunimomike
We’ve been over this before but spread across god knows how many articles and forum threads.
If the publishers want to be brutal then be brutal. Charge a bit for online gaming and separate it from the single player experience if there is one. Don’t penalise people like me who only want single player.
Also, Murdo, keep in mind that a vast majority of us sell games to get money to buy other games. The people we buy those games from are looking to buy other games. New games too! There’s a hierarchy in play and it’s been working for years. If developers aren’t seeing enough money coming back on high-scoring titles then they need to look at charging more for the title in the first place. Not penalising the second hand market this way. If MW2 did really sell for £55 at launch then figures would’ve been massively reduced. Also, second hand prices (say, a month later) would’ve been far higher. Those that would be happy to wait could still do that. Those in no rush at all (like me) could get it when it’s £15 on eBay.
If prices were too high to make a good ROI then there’s a clear message for the publishers. The majority of gamers have hit their financial ceiling with what they’re willing to part with for a title. The publishers then need to realise that costs either have to come back down or that resources need to be skimmed a bit (eg. the games might not be developed to the same degree).
There’s a reason why handfuls of people buy Aston Martins and millions of folk buy Ford Focus’. Gaming needs to do the same.
The only tricky thing is when they want to charge for online gaming and all they offer is match-making. LBP for example, I believe. Media Molecule would offend many if they chose to charge for online as they don’t host the games.
Sorry, Murdo! I sound like I’m having a good pop at you again! Haha! Top article once more. :-)
jimmy-google
The problem is if they drop the prices of brand new games then the second hand prices will drop as well and they don’t gain anything from it.
The bizare thing is that you can often walk in to game and find the second hand copy is more expensive than the brand new one.
bunimomike
Ah, sorry fella. I didn’t explain myself well enough. On the massive games, like Dragon Age Origins, Oblivion, etc. I feel that they should be more expensive. For me, just like the car industry, the price of any given game should reflect the effort put into the game and the mileage that you’ll get out of it.
RRP examples
Eg. PJ Shooter – £6.49
WipeoutHD – £15
Ace Combat 6 – £20
MW2 – £30 (plus £10 for online compoennt)
Dragon Age Origins – £45
Oblivion – £55
If a game gets too expensive then break it down into a subscription model (like World of Warcraft) where they know they’ll make it back over time.
I know it makes the RPG games smart but it’s only fair. Oblivion took bloody ages to develop. In incredible number of man hours.
cc_star
Pre-owned games in GAME are £5 cheaper than their new counterparts. However special offers often reduce the cost of a new game to below that of the secondhand one.
jimmy-google
Oh, I agree with that. Prices you reflect the level on content you receive.
I’m keen see games sold in sections as technically I pay for the online component but generally never use it.
CaptainMurdo
I’m glad I spur you on to these long comments. That’s the whole point in these.
We are each entitled to our opinion, no matter how they differ. Glad to be able to read yours, dude.
bunimomike
Agreed. Short comments that never sprawl into anything other than a w00t-fest fail miserably. I just seem to be at odds with you again, ha! If I meet you we must fight. Spartacus style-ee!
TRiLoGY
I’ve never ever traded a game in (for the 25 years that i’ve been a gamer)! I just cant let them go as i might want to play them again.. :)
bunimomike
How many of those titles you finish do you revisit?
TRiLoGY
I would of said at least 80%, however I have found that the introduction of Trophies/Achevements have ruined it for me, because if i get all the Trophies/Achievements for a game, I see it as a waste of time replaying it if i’m now not going to get anything for it, If that makes sens :)
bunimomike
Ah, if you used to revisit, that’s great. Also, if you have enough money then don’t worry about trade-ins, etc. Then again, perhaps the shift in style (due to trophies) might prompt you to get rid of some titles. It’ll generate money for new goodies.
TRiLoGY
Yeah, I totally agree that i should probably trade-in some games now that my play style has changed! :)
jimmy-google
I keep all mine is the same way I’ve kept all my Teenage Turtles and Lego. So my kids can play them.
Every year or two we drag out the BBC, Spectrum or CD32 to play some old classics.
Trophies has runied playing modern games more than once though and as so many games have become so generic you often buy a new game and feel like you’ve already played it before.
3shirts
As I’ve said before, I do not believe that trade-in has suddenly started causing a huge problem, rather that some companies have spotted a way to make money out of second-hand game sales.
I don’t have a problem with that as long as they don’t take the piss.
Look at the car industry. A massive part of their planning is to make money in the longer term than simply selling the car. They have dealer networks, parts, servicing etc to make a bit of money several owners down the line.
What I object to is the way some seem to make out that buying and selling used games is some huge crime. I also have the argument that they need to balance the additional server load. If someone is playing online with a pre-owned game, the previous owner no longer is!
cc_star
Finally, someone who gets just how lucrative used car sales are for the big car companies.
People usually use the used car sales to argue the opposite (obviously, incorrectly).
With regards to your server load point, I’d counter that by saying its probably in a games business plan to have xxx number of servers for month 1, xx number of servers in months 2-6 and x number of servers from month 6 onwards – the secondhand market would impact that and the running costs would have a much longer tail.
I don’t think this is the reason for looking at the secondhand market though, its simply about seeing someone else getting some revenue that you’d like a slice of. Perhaps they way to do it is for publishers to set up shops which rival the standard retail stores and directly get a slice of the pre-owned market themselves (just like the car companies do)
3shirts
Excellent points. The server downsizing issue I admit I had not considered.
I love the idea of publishers setting up their own used market. Work with the market not against it.
bunimomike
The car industry is a decent enough comparison until we look at the product itself. One takes maintenance, one doesn’t. So (with the proliferation of online play) why not look at the subscription/online model. Want to play MW2 with mates for the first three months at launch? There’s either a Special Edition bundled with an online voucher covering said period or you can buy it separately (giving people choice and people like me an opportunity to enjoy the single player component).
Imagine if MW2 was £45 RRP instead. Then £10 online component for three months. After that, there could be a multitude of options for remaining online. Job done, surely.
cc_star
I think the online pass is adopted by Sony, EA, THQ, soon to be Ubi and others is fair.
That way if you buy the game new, everyone gets paid (retailers, publisher, dev, platform holder, marketing people, logistics everyone…) This happens whether you buy it at day1 for £40/$60 or a year later in the platinum/classics range.
bunimomike
As long as the online pass is optional, I’m ok with that. I wouldn’t want to pay for Uncharted 3 online passes when I’m not interested in them.
jimmy-google
I see the unlock codes as a kind of shop for developers to resell the game.
bobandbunny
I think charging for online content is a great idea – pre-owned versions of games in many cases aren’t cheap either – many because the likes of GAME are scalping to make their profits (i.e. buying the trade-in cheaps and selling at a higher price). If the likes of EA and Activision charge say £10 for access to the on-line features, then GAME might have to knock another £10 off their pre-owned games to make them worthwhile buying compared to the new. This can only be good for people who aren’t too bothered about the online elements
Asdafers
My biggest problem with the “pass” system is that it changes all games into a subscription. Sure, a life time subscription for £20 to £30 (buy pre owned and pass) is not much but still I do not like that idea.
I’m just worried that if they do introduce that and it works soon they will start charging all people every month to play on the online servers. It will probably be £5 or less. But multiply that by all the games you play and you’ll be soon into hundreds a year. Xbox Live Gold subscription will be a dream come true for us all looking back then :)
jimmy-google
That sort of thing would fail when developers realise no on is prepared to pay for every game online.
jimmy-google
I’ve never traded a game in myself but I have bought a few 2nd hand ones.
My preference now is to rent the game from lovefilm and if it’s good enough buy it later when it drops in price. Not not quite sure how the rental system works but I believe the developers do see some rental money as a rental agreement is required. I assume this is why somes games like MAG don’t appear on lovefilm.
If games eventually go digital only it should bring prices down as developers and publishers will receive revenue from every purchase.
The probablem with trade ins is that people buy them to get cheap copies but by doing so they keep the prices of games high and developers recieve income from fewer and fewer purchases.
I’d be happy to see an unlock code required for every game after the first hour of game play. Hopefully it would help drive prices down.
Modnation Racers for the PSP requires an unlock code for UMD versions. I haven’t see many trade in copies and the version on the PSN store (which doesn’t need an unlock code) is cheaper than most online shops selling the UMD one.