Game Resales and Project $10
I’m slowly bouncing back from a period of incredibly hard work, followed by a complete disconnect and resting period. I should hopefully be back to posting regularly again now that the game has gone gold and we’re moving on to the next project. I still have some emails in my backlog of things to reply to — if you’ve been waiting for an answer, I’m sorry about the delay.
Anyway, retailers have spoken out against the so called “Project $10″, saying it will cause consumer rage:
“The person you’re pissing off the most is the consumer,” McCabe told GamesIndustry.biz. “This affects [them] directly – they pay the same amount of money and yet the resale value is much reduced. From a retailer’s point of view, they’ll just readjust [the price] bearing in mind you have to buy the voucher.”
This is an interesting development. For those who aren’t familiar with the concept, the $10 project essentially puts a code in the box to unlock additional content online for the game. The code can only be used once, which means that buying the game new has additional value over buying the game used.
Consumers who buy a used copy can still choose to buy the online content, but for a fee (one would imagine $10, considering the name of the “project”, but I think it’s actually $15 for the current titles). It’s been done with a few recent games including Mass Effect 2
“EA’s project $10 move is aiming to stifle pre owned games sales, but what they don’t factor in is the damage this could have for them in relation to new sales,” said Day.
Wow, what a complete misunderstanding. This has nothing to do with publishers wanting to stop resales — it’s simply a business model where publishers can earn some money off of resales.
There are interesting parallels to be drawn for me, between the console and PC markets. Pre-owned games pose much of the same problem on the console market as piracy does on the PC market. The end result of both is the same: people play our games without a single bit of money ending up with the people who made the game. In the worst case, we end up paying a lot of money to keep servers online, while getting no money at all from the sale.
There has been a lot of whining from publishers and developers about both issues. Those of you who know my stance on piracy should not be very surprised that my stance on pre-owned games is very similar. Whining about it or blaming people for it is not going to help — yet you cannot deny that the fenomenon in itself is causing major problems for publishers and developers (just as piracy is) — there is no getting around that.
However, trying to “clamp down” on used games sales or piracy is pointless. Piracy is illegal, but unenforcably so which means that it doesn’t really matter. Resale is simply a business choice. While you might think that it is a bad business choice and that retailers would be better off long-term by staying clear of business practices that will kill their providers, they are making a ton of money short-term. There is no way they wouldn’t fall for that temptation, and in the end, any business choice that works for them is a valid one. Whining or arguing about it isn’t going to help.
This causes an interesting problem for publishers. One way would be to move to direct online sales only, but this excludes large chunks of consumers who can’t download large games or who aren’t connected at all. Another version would be to require online activation and to bind the game to a certain console or live/psn account, which simply wouldn’t be fair to the consumer and would cause a never-ending stream of problems and well-earned gamer hatred.
The middle ground, then, is to sell a full game to people through retail, but to provide extra value with unlockable content to people who buy the product new. It should come as no surprise that retailers dislike this — it will certainly cut a chunk of profitability out of the resale market. It will lower the value of a game for resale, which means it’ll be worth less to trade in. Will this annoy some customers? I’m sure it will.
Many people seem to be taking this as the publisher wanting to be paid twice, which I think comes back as the default gamer response to anything developers or publishers do to earn money being horrible and bad. It sometimes gets to me to see this kind of attitude with gamers. We can’t make games as a charity, and making these games on bleeding edge tech is extremely hard work, and the people in the industry are incredibly dedicated to their art.
The other side of things is that buying the game used will be cheaper, creating a much better “try before you buy” environment, where you can potentially buy the game used and try it. If you like it, you can buy the DLC that you would’ve got from the new version. This is sort of a win-win situation for the publisher and the consumer, but of course not that great for retailers.
To publishers, this is the option that provides the best value to consumers while moving to a new business model that allows us to actually start making proper money from games again, which could halt the current trend of studios closing and developers being fired.
I’m sorry if that takes money out of retailers pockets, but I really do think that the talented people who sweat blood making these games deserve the money more than people who only know how to push people to buy used instead of new. It may have been a good dream for you, but it was still a dream and now it’s time to wake up.
And yeah, retailers claiming to stand up for the consumer is nothing new. But just as with music labels claiming to speak for artists, they are simply middle men that are slowly losing their value.
The Games Industry | slicedlime | 
Monday, February 22, 2010 5:21
11 Comments
Other Links to this Post
-
VIP what do you think? - Electronic Arts UK Community — Friday, February 26, 2010 @ 18:58
-
Exemplarförsäljning i en hyperdistribuerande värld // Skivad lime — Sunday, March 7, 2010 @ 18:17
-
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 - Mustang Forums at StangNet — Friday, March 19, 2010 @ 21:32
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Subscribe
By 1Bryce1, Monday, February 22, 2010 @ 7:33
Interesting, From a consumers initial view point, I see it as excessive publisher greed. And the only ones I see being affected are the consumers. Publishers made their money on the initial sale and are now trying to make money every time the game changes hands. This should only affect older games, which are usually discounted anyways. As for newer titles, if publishers would put more focus on putting out quality games over quantity that also have some long term playability then there wouldn’t be such a market for used games. Personally I have high standards for games that I will actually spend the $60 for. I treasure my good games like classic movies. Sadly there aren’t too many of them.
P.S. I also think the talented people putting their blood and sweat in the games deserve the money, not the publishers or the retail. If I could have ordered directly from DICE, I would have.
By Matt, Monday, February 22, 2010 @ 7:55
I think what upsets gamers is that you don’t see this attitude in other industries. If I buy a second-hand car then Toyota doesn’t get any money. Same thing if I buy a second-hand CD or DVD. So the question is, what makes the games industry so special that are entitled to a profit out of second-hand sales?
By Mark N., Monday, February 22, 2010 @ 8:20
My biggest problem with this is the damage it does to archivability, which is already quite bad for games compared to other forms of media. At least with a Commodore 64 or an Atari 2600 game, if I buy the game off eBay, now 25-30 years after it comes out, I get the whole game. If there were optional accessories, I can buy those off eBay too. If it starts being common that games contain components that cannot be purchased used, how will I get a complete copy of the game 20 years from now?
By slicedlime, Monday, February 22, 2010 @ 8:27
Well, the essential difference between a car and a game is that the main cost of the car is building the car, whereas the main cost of the game is making the master for the game, not the game disc. The same thing with cars would be if Toyota sold blueprints for cars. The value of the car is the metal and fiberglass; the value of the game certainly isn’t in the plastic.
CDs or DVDs have the same problem, that’s why you’ve got these 10-minute pointless “you can’t copy this or sell this and btw we own your soul” texts at the beginning of each DVD. Other than that it’s a question of scale. Used games weren’t an issue before the big retailers started actively pushing them over new games.
I don’t think it’s a question of being “entitled” to profit either — it’s simply a business reality. Current generation games are simply too expensive to produce under current circumstances, which is a huge part of why studios are closing left and right. Publishers and developers need to solve that problem in order to stay in business.
Besides, people act like the used games are people selling them to each others and noone making a profit… the reality of the situation is that GameStop and GAME are making billions off the used games market. What “entitles” them to that profit? I don’t think you can talk about “entitlement” in a capitalistic economy. This new model is something publishers need to do to be able to keep making games; I think it’s the best way it could be done for both parties. Retailers wont agree, naturally.
As for the car metaphor: if you buy a used car, it’s in used shape — not in new shape. How is that different from buying a used game and not getting it in “new” shape (missing some DLC that has been “used up”)?
By slicedlime, Monday, February 22, 2010 @ 8:29
@Mark N: The reasonable and simple way to deal with that is to release all DLC for free when support for the game is discontinued. Can’t tell if that’s being done currently, but if the will is there that problem is easily solved. That’s how online activation is being handled anyway.
By James, Monday, February 22, 2010 @ 9:15
You can make the same argument about books. The value of the book isn’t in the paperback. When the book is resold, the publisher and author don’t make any more money. Heck, individual authors may work *years* longer than individual game developers.
Should authors start selling “non-essential” chapters separately, with the customer’s name and credit card number stamped on the cover as a deterrent to resale?
It just seems like you’re stinging the customer for the actions of a retailer. When I buy I game I don’t want to have to figure out what random modules I need to play the game as it was intended to be played without accidentally buying crap like horse armor. The less fuss the better; the ideal system would be something the retailer had to mess with, not me.
By 1Bryce1, Friday, February 26, 2010 @ 19:09
Basically EA is selling you 75% of the game in the box and the other 25% is a digital download tied to an EA account and disguised as DLC.
By 1Bryce1, Friday, April 2, 2010 @ 2:50
So now I have to pay another $15 per VIP code for everyone in my house that wants to play BFBC2 or even use my other PSN names. what a scam!!! I can understand if it is actually DLC and is tied to a single console.