Developers Say "Show Me the Money", Switchgames.com Answers

Hmmmm...interesting, but my warning bells are going off. This strikes me an awful lot like a publicity stunt. They make this announcement and get a fair amount of press through the gaming sphere right after they've relauched their site and are really trying to grow it as a business.

It also makes good business sense if Switchgames think they can make a serious run at the used market. If they could convince even a couple of publishers to partner with them on marketing by offering this, they could increase their reach dramatically and quickly.

I've said this before, and it's not going to be popular with devs, but: if the games had a better satisfaction guarantee, then there would be no such thing as used games. But just like DVDs and CDs - if you don't like what you bought, you're screwed...unless you buy a used copy which is refundable.

Vehicles have warranties and test drives, furniture has showroom models, and even movies are refundable at most movie theaters if they're bad enough. In this day and age, no developer or publisher should have anything to say about the used game situation unless they have provided a demo for every game they've presented; that's my opinion.

Regarding Switchgames, though -- leaving the decision with the consumer whether or not to share the profit is a great idea.

--- Replying to txshurricane -----

I'm going to have to disagree with the sentiment about a quality guarantee with games; being one of limited means, there are many games I WOULD purchase right out of the gate, if they weren't $60 a piece...

Demos have been a pretty good quality control thing for me, it's more economic from my standpoint - I just find it rude that the developer is completely pushed from this income. Also, "Quality control gaurentee" with games implies everyone likes the same things in the same games - there is no way to keep everybody happy content, graphics, music, story wise.

The biggest thing for me is, no other market does the original producer or distributor get a cut of the used sale.

Maybe somehow in cars, I'm not sure how that works when an official dealer buys back a car.

I understand they are mad because they subsidize advertising in stores, but again, I'm just not sure it's their right to get a cut of the sale.

Of course the biggest problem in all this is places like Gamestop, their policies, prices and methods are completely sleazy. So it's hard not to feel SOMETHING for the devs.

I agree about Quality Control can't be expected. But even used DVD and CD sales go straight to the company and not the developer or publisher.

Blockbuster buys their copies from the studio or publisher, then when space in a store needs to be freed for new content, BB destroys some of the DVDs & CDs, but are allowed to sell the some copies as used.

As far as I have seen though, most games go from Rental to Used, unless the customer rents it and never brings it back. I assume this is because there are usually less copies given to a rental store compared to the number of copies they get for DVDs.

Should developers & publishers understand they should back quality games that are not movie ripoffs, yes.

Should demos be incorporated into the development cycle so that it's common for games to release demos so that people understand the game mechanics...YES.

The industry is still in its infancy and there's going to be a lot to be done before its on par with any other industry.

If game developers want to undercut used game sellers such as Gamestop, they need to stop using static pricing.

If they start pricing their game down earlier in the products lifespan, they'll force gamestop to cut a lot of their profits, while also increasing sales of their new copies (see Steam examples such as UT3, TF2, L4D etc.)

--- Replying to Jackel -----

I honestly think developers have to keep prices high to combat losses in used game sales in the first place; which is a pretty nasty cycle. Unfortunately where corporations are concerned, profit is all that matters...

Why do people keep referring to used game sales as "losses" for developers and producers? The merchandise is paid for by distributors before it ever even hits the shelf at GameStop. Their profit per unit is already established and deposited...what GameStop chooses to do to maximize profit -- after they order in bulk -- is their business, not the devs'.

You can still find games at Best Buy for the full launch price that Target and Wal-Mart have marked down 50%...but you don't hear devs saying anything about that!

The second someone forces GameStop to share used game profits, you can bet on two things: #1 - we've just witnessed a violation of capitalism, and #2 - used game prices will go up to compensate for the devs getting a cut.

If we're going to bleed for developers and publishers, then what we need to focus on is the pre-order bullcrap that GameStop and Best Buy and Wal-Mart and Amazon.com ALL push -- because instead of ordering the usual bulk package from distributors, they're penny-pinching the amount of units they buy based on pre-orders, and THAT is hurting dev profits far more than used game sales.

Jim, I would argue that if someone was able to force GS to share used game profits with devs/pubs, it would just be capitalism adapting to new market conditions, not a violation. What it would violate is the First-Sale Doctrine, which I worry about in general given the way software is distributed, EULAs, licenses, etc.

That said, I tend to agree with the argument that if devs made games worth keeping (whether through quality, post launch support, great multiplayer modes, etc), that would do more to encourage new sales than anything.

The argument that developers put forth is they subsidize all the advertising and signage you see in the store.

It wouldn't be an issue...except...Gamestop pushes the used copy FIRST instead of the regular copy. While developers/publishers don't get any money directly from that sale, it's more of an indirect thing. Less sales means less chance of a sequel, bonuses, or further printing of the title.

Yeah, I see where everyone is coming from; there are so many angles in the business world.

I don't really see any way to fix it legally without infringing on Gamestops rights as a retailer. And that probably wouldn't even fix the issue.

It would be more effective for the publishers to band together to inform people of the effects of choosing to buy a used game over a new one.

Thinking about this more in terms of an ethical issue...it's a bit of a catch-22 for developers to keep watering down our games in order to pander to the "casual" crowd, because it's those same disconnected gamers (that are not in touch with the industry nor communities) that put their wallets first.

By my third (fourth?) post here, I probably sound anti-developer, which I'm not by any means. But I do know that when you can't force brand loyalty. Offer a quality product that appeals to 3 million hardcore gamers, and your sales will be strong...try to appeal to everyone, and you'll get 2 million people saying "meh, I'll wait until it's cheaper" and 4 million saying "my kids want it - got any used copies?"

That's just my theory based on my own spending habits and from what I see in the stores.

Quick reboot of this thread, anyone notice the news about Stardock trying to implement a used "license" system. Hard to call it it a used game system, when only the license is being traded:

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/03/30/gdc09 ... #c17976402

Something about this one rubs me wrong.

What does that mean trading the license?

It means that you'll sell the license for the game back to Stardock or the publisher, afterwhich your license won't be good anymore (and you won't be able to play the game). Stardock will then offer to sell that used license to someone else, for less than new, and they'll be able to download the game from Stardock and play it using the used license. Stardock gets a cut, the publishes get a cut and PC gamers get it for less than used.

Sounds perfect for MMOs