It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Ubisoft copies bad idea, thinks it's good (Ubiplay)(144 posts)(144 posts)
(144 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
This is my favourite topic
Posted July 16, 2011
avatar
Hawk52: I dunno how often you've resold, but I can tell you straight up it significantly effects resale value.

Let's say I buy a $59.99 360 game, right? I try to resell it a month later. Naturally, price depreciation has taken in effect, but the game (supposing it's a GOOD game), still goes for upper 40's, low 50's.

Now, if it's a mutliplayer game, and a person getting the game second hand has to buy a code to use it multiplayer, the code costs $9.99. That is directly taken off the price of the second hand sale. A person who has to buy that code will not buy a copy of the game used that will equal the full retail price. It's simple economics and cause & effect.

And I've even seen it go farther down then just the $9.99. I've seen near brand new copies of multiplayer games going down as far as $30 dollars resold less then one month after release.

It has a substantial consequence on resale values, which lowers the incentive to resell at all when you won't even recoop more then 50% of your investment. Which is what they want.
avatar
michaelleung: But the thing is, you don't *have* to buy the $9.99 extra. If you do, you still save money, if you don't, you save ten dollars. Surely it won't change the way people buy used games. And furthermore, on console games, the multiplayer community usually fizzles out after the first two or three months (unless it's Call of Duty, Battlefield or Halo, which all follow a different kind of economics model from a parallel universe), so in reality the chance of paying for these "premium features" is quite slim.
You are arguing hypothetical. I am arguing fact. We're in two different realms.

I've seen what online passes do. I've been there with them and one time redeemable packaged DLC. They have a monumental impact on resale ability.

Reselling isn't so much about the consumer. It's about the seller. What these codes do is they significantly harm the resale value of a game. They drive down the price heavily. Which makes it less incentive for the seller to sell his game.

Some people will say a ten dollar knock off a resold game isn't significant or motivational for a seller. But I can tell you straight up when you need that money ten dollars matters a lot.
Post edited July 16, 2011 by Hawk52
Posted July 16, 2011
avatar
KavazovAngel: Well said... Buying used games for $5 and selling them for $20 is pure evil.
Wait.. what?

They pay you $5 for the game which they resell for $20.. that's not greed.
First they have to pay their employee to check over the game and find the price and help you, then put the game away and in to their system. Probably about half an hour in total.
Plus there's the overhead of their store, which may not be much per sale, but it's no small sum of money.
On top of that, they have no idea how long the game will be on the shelf (making the return off the purchase unknown), and also they don't know if the game will work (making it a gamble).
When the game finally sells, they also have to pay the employee to pick the game, box it and sell it to the customer.

All things considered, they're looking at maybe slightly over a 100% profit, after overhead. If that makes Gamestop greedy, then so is GOG.
I mean look, they charge you $10 for an automated system to deliver you nonphysical goods!!
Posted July 16, 2011
avatar
Hawk52: Some people will say a ten dollar knock off a resold game isn't significant or motivational for a seller. But I can tell you straight up when you need that money ten dollars matters a lot.
You sir, have a very valid point. But now stop and think about that from the perspective of the game company.

Every time someone buys a used copy of their game, that's money they don't get, and game companies aren't rolling around in money, lighting Cuban cigars with $100s. They're paying their employees, purchasing IPs, purchasing copyrights and trademarks, and .. well, they're a business so they are kinda in it to make money.

For you, you're on person who might make $10 less from a resale, that might suck.. but for most people, that minor reduction in value just means they have a little less spending money, it doesn't often mean the difference between eating 3 days or 5 days this week.

But the number of resales has a pretty direct effect on the game company, leading to them having less money to fund such things as further development of that game, creating patches and updates, or the development of new games. As games become less profitable due to resales, the game companies are forced more and more to stick to the 'guaranteed sales' franchises, instead of giving new concepts and indy developers a shot.

This boils down to game companies needing to do one of a few things:
Micro transaction driven games: "Hey lookit this fun little dingerwhipple you can get for only $.99!!!"
Franchise spam: "Hey look it's Big Name Game number 27!" which get abandoned within a year when Big Name Game number 28 comes out.
Constant expansions/DLCs: "Hey, here's another quest and new equipment, it's only $5!"
Or, this method.. Granted I will say that in this method I am somewhat against the idea of making a 2nd hand buyer pay for multiplayer, but I like how Dragon Age Origins did it. "Here's these DLCs free if you buy the game new."
Oh, or they go all-digital/Steam required so there's no resales.

Every method has it's problems, and any time a company uses one of those methods, people will jump on it and bitch about the company "nickel and diming the players" or "releasing unfinished products" or "releasing more of the same." or whatever. they can't make anyone happy..

Is it any wonder game companies don't seem to give a shit anymore?
Posted July 16, 2011
avatar
KavazovAngel: Well said... Buying used games for $5 and selling them for $20 is pure evil.
avatar
Zolgar: Wait.. what?

They pay you $5 for the game which they resell for $20.. that's not greed.
No its not really, the greed comes in when its something like eb games here that would buy a used game for 15 bucks and sell it for 95 in the hopes that the 5 bucks discount from a new one will let them reap more money in and get to keep it all without having to send it on to the people who did the real work. Seeing stuff like that gives me a bit more sympathy for the publishers who do this online pass stuff, even if it is stupid
Posted July 16, 2011
avatar
Hawk52: Some people will say a ten dollar knock off a resold game isn't significant or motivational for a seller. But I can tell you straight up when you need that money ten dollars matters a lot.
avatar
Zolgar: You sir, have a very valid point. But now stop and think about that from the perspective of the game company.

Every time someone buys a used copy of their game, that's money they don't get, and game companies aren't rolling around in money, lighting Cuban cigars with $100s. They're paying their employees, purchasing IPs, purchasing copyrights and trademarks, and .. well, they're a business so they are kinda in it to make money.

For you, you're on person who might make $10 less from a resale, that might suck.. but for most people, that minor reduction in value just means they have a little less spending money, it doesn't often mean the difference between eating 3 days or 5 days this week.

But the number of resales has a pretty direct effect on the game company, leading to them having less money to fund such things as further development of that game, creating patches and updates, or the development of new games. As games become less profitable due to resales, the game companies are forced more and more to stick to the 'guaranteed sales' franchises, instead of giving new concepts and indy developers a shot.
You could use your argument for any product sold. They aren't doing this to get more money to pay for development or updates or any of that they are doing it so they can tell their investors their great plan to create more revenue.
Posted July 16, 2011
avatar
Hawk52: What sucks, is Ubisoft has a game coming out I'm really excited for (HOMMVI), but the way Ubisoft handles their business is making me not want to support it. Ubisoft puts in oppressive DRM, abandons games, never fixes games so they work 100%, continually looks for new ideas to fuck gamers, and in general just act like the doucheist douches on douche street.
Yeah, it is almost like they just like to fuck gamers for fun or something with the way they are behaving.
Posted July 16, 2011
avatar
Zolgar: Snip
The thing is, though, that as far as customers are concerned none of that matters- the bottom line is that the company is now offering them less value for their money, and given that customers will naturally start seeking better value from other sources. Ultimately there are two ways to approach business in a highly competitive market. A business can try to align its interests with that of its customers, and thus drive profits by offering customers a better overall value than competitors, or a business can set its interests in opposition to its customers, trying to wring as much profit out of them as possible. The former method is far more sustainable, as it builds customer loyalty and sees quite a few repeat sales, while the latter method can result in higher short-term profits, before those profits tail off as a result of customers finding better value else-where.

And at the end of the day companies can complain all they want about how tough things are and how they need to do various things to increase their profits, but none of that matters as it doesn't change the fact that they're still offering their customers less value for their money. And customers are naturally going to be looking out for their own interests first and foremost, and it was the company's poor decision to set their interests in opposition to the interests of their customers.
Posted July 16, 2011
avatar
Zolgar: You sir, have a very valid point. But now stop and think about that from the perspective of the game company.

Every time someone buys a used copy of their game, that's money they don't get, and game companies aren't rolling around in money, lighting Cuban cigars with $100s. They're paying their employees, purchasing IPs, purchasing copyrights and trademarks, and .. well, they're a business so they are kinda in it to make money.

For you, you're on person who might make $10 less from a resale, that might suck.. but for most people, that minor reduction in value just means they have a little less spending money, it doesn't often mean the difference between eating 3 days or 5 days this week.

But the number of resales has a pretty direct effect on the game company, leading to them having less money to fund such things as further development of that game, creating patches and updates, or the development of new games. As games become less profitable due to resales, the game companies are forced more and more to stick to the 'guaranteed sales' franchises, instead of giving new concepts and indy developers a shot.
avatar
rcgamer: You could use your argument for any product sold. They aren't doing this to get more money to pay for development or updates or any of that they are doing it so they can tell their investors their great plan to create more revenue.
The same argument can be used for other industries, and every other industry also finds ways to increase revenues.
Did you know that light bulbs are manufactured to expire? They don't have to burn out, the companies manufacture them so that they will.
Same with almost everything else out there. And you notice.. home electronics are not built to be fixed anymore either. They're built to be discarded and replaced.

Why do car companies always love to advertise their leases? Simple, they get the car back in 3 years, without paying you a dime for it, netting them a good chunk of money, then they turn around and sell the car used to someone else.
And the used car market is still a boon for the automotive industry, 2nd hand buyers and people driving older cars, they have to buy replacement parts, little tiny piddly parts maybe, but those add up!

Notice how a lot of companies still use proprietary cables for their devices? Or how about proprietary batteries? Or worse yet, internal integrated batteries. Know why this is? To help ensure you have to go to -them- for replacement parts.

Tabletop gaming, the game companies are always producing add-ons and expansions for their big selling games. Why? Simple, to get more money after the sale, and for the chance of getting money off 2nd hand sales of the core game.

Practices like this aren't new, it's just the gaming industry catching on and catching up. Is it greed, or is it trying to keep the business profitable despite the tanked economy and ever rising costs? The only way we could actually answer that is if we were to get unbiased accountants to go over the companies books.

and Darrk:
That's the problem right there, customers are greedy hypocrites who want the best value for their money but don't stop and think for 2 seconds about the company also needing money.

Think about it, sure you want more money from your customer (the 2nd hand buyer), but from the game companies perspective, that's someone else playing their game, who didn't pay for it. it's a non-customer.

Yet somehow this method, which allows you to resell your game, is somehow much more evil and insidious than limited activations.. which could pretty well half 2nd hand sales if anyone thought for a second about it.

I say again, it's amazing game companies haven't just thrown in the towels and stopped even trying to please, as every time they try and do something, they're met with being bashed.
Posted July 16, 2011
avatar
michaelleung: Remember, these people are in it to make money. Ubisoft doesn't exist to serve you, the consumer.
Then... who DO they exist to serve? If they don't serve the consumer, the consumer (ideally) will take their business elsewhere. If enough consumers take their business elsewhere, Ubi don't make any money. So, logically, wouldn't serving the consumer be the best way of making money? Or am I simply being naive (which I accept may be the case)?
Posted July 16, 2011
avatar
michaelleung: Remember, these people are in it to make money. Ubisoft doesn't exist to serve you, the consumer.
avatar
granny: Then... who DO they exist to serve? If they don't serve the consumer, the consumer (ideally) will take their business elsewhere. If enough consumers take their business elsewhere, Ubi don't make any money. So, logically, wouldn't serving the consumer be the best way of making money? Or am I simply being naive (which I accept may be the case)?
What people are failing to see if Ubi is -trying- to serve their customers.

For the last 5 years video game customers have been bitching and moaning and slamming game companies for ever-increasing forms of DRM (and don't get me wrong, some of those were just.. wrong), now they're trying a different approach. The 'carrot' to encourage one to buy new, instead of the 'stick' to punish those who don't.

Which apparently also isn't a viable solution...

they need to be able to both serve the consumer, and turn a profit. A company doesn't turn a profit and they stop making games.
Posted July 16, 2011
avatar
Zolgar: That's the problem right there, customers are greedy hypocrites who want the best value for their money but don't stop and think for 2 seconds about the company also needing money.
Why should the customers think about the game companies needing money? That's none of their concern. And throwing around accusations of people being greedy in a business context is just silliness- of course people are going to be greedy, they're doing business, not running a charity. This applies to both the game companies and customers. They're both looking out for their own interests, trying to get the best deal possible for themselves. However, the one with more control over the product and the transaction (the game company) can shape that transaction to either try to align those interests, or to set them in opposition. Some companies like GOG and CDP have gone in the direction of trying to align their interests with those of their customers, while other companies like Ubisoft have gone the latter route. And now they're reaping the consequences of doing so. Cry me a fucking river.
Posted July 16, 2011
avatar
Zolgar: That's the problem right there, customers are greedy hypocrites who want the best value for their money but don't stop and think for 2 seconds about the company also needing money.
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: Why should the customers think about the game companies needing money? That's none of their concern. And throwing around accusations of people being greedy in a business context is just silliness- of course people are going to be greedy, they're doing business, not running a charity. This applies to both the game companies and customers. They're both looking out for their own interests, trying to get the best deal possible for themselves. However, the one with more control over the product and the transaction (the game company) can shape that transaction to either try to align those interests, or to set them in opposition. Some companies like GOG and CDP have gone in the direction of trying to align their interests with those of their customers, while other companies like Ubisoft have gone the latter route. And now they're reaping the consequences of doing so. Cry me a fucking river.
GOG.. aligning interests.. when you're slamming Ubi for making resale less valuable?

I'm sorry, but in the resale department, there's only one digital distributor that is even remotely aligned with the consumers interests.

"But the games are cheaper on GOG!" Yep, because they're OLD, most of the games on GOG, you either can't buy retail, or if you can.. they cost about the same as they do on GOG. So wait until Ubi's titles are bargain bin to buy them.

"But GOG is digital distribution." Yep, it sure it, and I'm sure you can get Ubi's games digitally too.. problem solved.

No argument you can make will change the fact that a reduced resale value is better than no resale at all.
Posted July 16, 2011
avatar
orcishgamer: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/35900/Report_Ubisoft_Introducing_Its_Own_Online_Pass_System.php

Yep, these guys are tools.
Man, this is totally insane.
...
On the other hand, I'm happy GameStop/EBgames will have their butt kicked hard.
Post edited July 16, 2011 by habit79
Posted July 16, 2011
Perhaps I should have been clearer- I wasn't focusing on resale ability, but on overall value (and on how much focus companies put on providing that value to their customers). This factors in product quality, ease of purchase and use, quality of support, total cost, etc. I personally think GOG does pretty well on overall value, and since you're here I'd assume you also think they do alright. Now consider what Ubisoft's latest move does to overall value. The resale value of games will decrease significantly, as has already been touched on, and for those who resell their games this increases the total cost. Basically it's the same as if Ubisoft raised the prices of their games by $10-15, and since customers aren't getting anything additional in exchange for this the overall value proposition is decreased. And it should go without saying that a result of this is fewer people willing to buy the games.

As much as the egos of some people in the game industry may drive them to think otherwise, games are quite fungible. Not just with respect to other games, but with respect to other forms of entertainment as well. And in the current highly competitive market for entertainment many companies are looking to attract customers by increasing the value proposition of their products (either through better products, lower prices, or a combination of the two). When a company like Ubisoft basically does just the opposite in such an environment... well, I don't see it working out particularly well for their sales numbers.
Posted July 16, 2011
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: As much as the egos of some people in the game industry may drive them to think otherwise, games are quite fungible. Not just with respect to other games, but with respect to other forms of entertainment as well. And in the current highly competitive market for entertainment many companies are looking to attract customers by increasing the value proposition of their products (either through better products, lower prices, or a combination of the two). When a company like Ubisoft basically does just the opposite in such an environment... well, I don't see it working out particularly well for their sales numbers.
There's one small thing you're forgetting though:
consumers are blind idiot sheep who don't pay any heed to things like this, they go "OMG ANOTHER HOMM!!!!" and buy it.

the comparative number of customers who 1: buy physical. 2: pay any heed to things like this. and 3: plan to resell.. is such a small part of their clientel that even if everyone one of them didn't buy the game (which some will still) the loss of revenue will probabaly barely be noticed, and be countered by the 2nd hand buyers paying for the multiplayer support.

(Also I admit in most other areas GOG is very much built for gamers, however the whole thing people have been harping about on the Ubisoft thing is the reduced resale.)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Ubisoft copies bad idea, thinks it's good (Ubiplay)(144 posts)(144 posts)
(144 posts)