Opinion

10

Opinion: Leave pre-owned alone

The Xbox 360 successor's rumoured "anti-used game system" could have dire consequences for the industry, says Nathan Brown.

Rumours of Microsoft's Xbox 360 successor have been swirling for some time now, but reports overnight claimed that the company's new console will feature "some sort of anti-used game system." Kotaku's source didn't go into detail on how such a system might work - single-use codes, perhaps, or linking games to a single Xbox Live account, something Activision is already doing with Modern Warfare 3 DLC - but either way, Microsoft would take on the second-hand game market at its peril.

The industry's position on pre-owned is, to a point, understandable. It robs publishers, developers and distributors of revenue, with the retailer retaining the entire proceeds of the sale. Bricks and mortar stores give great prominence to their second-hand stock for this reason, and on several occasions in the past we've taken new games to the till only to be offered a second-hand copy for a slightly cheaper price. Some are going even further than that: last year Game Group began taking pre-orders for pre-owned games, available a fortnight after release for a fiver off. Canada's EB Games merged its new and pre-owned stock and made them virtually indistinguishable from one another. The trend spread beyond specialist retail, with UK supermarkets seduced by the promise of greater margins.

But those within the industry often overstate the severity of pre-owned. Last May, Lionhead said sales of second-hand Xbox games were worse than PC piracy; in 2010, Blitz Games agreed. Epic Games' Rod Fergusson said pre-owned was a "culture that you have to actively fight against." From that perspective, thwarting the second-hand market at a hardware level would be a welcome move. Gamers, however, would likely argue the exact opposite.

Publishers and developers might complain that times are tough and revenues are down, but the same applies to retailers, and consumers as well. Rarely is it recognised that trade-ins are used to fund the purchase of new games; take away the ability for consumers to exchange their old, unplayed games for a new one on the weekend of its release and sales will surely suffer.

If increased sales are the goal, perhaps we could reduce our long-standing reliance on Q4. For the first time ever, more than half of UK retail revenue in 2011 - over £700 million - came in the final three months of the year. It is unreasonable to expect gamers to keep on top of new releases without giving them some way of offsetting the cost.

One could even argue that pre-owned is necessary because publishers ignore the sales potential of their back catalogues. Inspired by the Vita version, a recent attempt to track down a copy of PS3's Everybody's Golf: World Tour was met with frustration: only one online store had stock. Pre-owned keeps these games alive. That, it could be argued, is because there is no value in Sony committing to another print run of a four-year-old game if retailers only give store prominence to new releases. But a more compelling argument is that a reprinted Everybody's Golf simply wouldn't be price-competitive.

Because here's the thing: pre-owned games get cheaper. New games launch at £40, get discounted a month later in a bid to maintain or improve their chart placings, then go back up and eventually vanish. Walk into your local Gamestation right now and you can have four five-year-old games for £20. Why should a retailer give valuable shelf space to a 2006 release that's stickered up at £35 when no-one's going to buy it?

While platform holders understand the importance of reducing prices as their production overheads come down, game publishers who set trade prices seemingly don't. Look at the console distribution services: Mass Effect 2 was the first PlayStation 3 game to be released day-and-date on PlayStation Store and at retail. It should have been a landmark moment, a test case that showed once and for all whether there truly was an appetite for digitally distributed, triple-A console games.

It wasn't. Despite the removal of manufacturing, distribution and retail costs, the PSN version of Mass Effect 2 launched at £47.99. At the time, it was available on Steam for £19.99. Driver San Francisco was another simultaneous digital and retail release; that one cost £57.99. Is the aforementioned Everybody's Golf: World Tour, a firstparty-published game that's apparently impossible to find at retail, available on PlayStation Store? Of course not.

Besides, the industry is already doing plenty to combat pre-owned in a way that rewards loyalty rather than simply hampers consumer choice. The online pass system works, though we're no fans of it being used to put singleplayer content behind a paywall, as seen in Batman: Arkham City and Rage. Companies are now planning DLC support for up to a full year after a game's release, doing much to keep discs in trays and out of the pre-owned bins, as well as potentially monetising those that choose to buy pre-owned.

The solution seems simple. Give gamers a viable alternative to buying second-hand by ensuring the availability, and depreciation, of older games, either on the high street or the download services. Cut retail some slack by reducing trade prices as time goes on, giving them a reason to give prominence to new stock. Retailers have already expressed willingness to share pre-owned revenue with publishers in return for lower trade prices. Above all, stop treating potential customers like pirates because they really want to play your new game but can't afford to do so without trading in a few of their old ones.

Platform holders understand the importance of retail when new hardware comes around; Game Group's chances of survival rest on successful 2012 launches for Vita and Wii U. How odd, then, that Microsoft is reportedly looking into driving what would surely be the final nail into the coffin of an increasingly ailing sector when, soon enough, it will be in need of its services.

Comments

10
B³ano's picture

Surely something like a PPL or PRS license for corporate second hand retailers would help bring some cash back into the coffers?

Funnyman's picture

Excellent article and right on the money.

I have to say that Sony has been doing a pretty good job lately of pricing their online products and discounting them. And making available old PS1 and PS2, even import, games available online. But there will still always be a need for a used market for rare games or those hard to find.

I've still yet to see a convincing reason why we, as consumers, are buying licenses rather than the actual product.

beemoh's picture

>The solution seems simple. Give gamers a viable alternative to buying second-hand by ensuring the availability, and depreciation, of older games, either on the high street or the download services.

At which point, retailers will collectively go "No, thank you, we'd rather continue to sell pre-owned games at a 90% profit margin".

A budget range similar to what there already is on PC would be a good thing, and is the obvious response to the "Games are currently too expensive"/"trade-ins are used to fund the purchase of new games" argument- in fact, I even bought it up in a post I made on a similar CVG article, but retail aren't going to do it unless they're forced to.

Project $10 is probably the best solution for retailers, certainly as far as genuinely practical solutions that I've seen so far go- a gradual devaluing of the used market which allows budget to develop has to be better than suddenly not being able to do pre-owned overnight.

liveinadive1's picture

"At which point, retailers will collectively go "No, thank you, we'd rather continue to sell pre-owned games at a 90% profit margin".

Its not 90% though is it, on average the price that retailers pay for second hand games seems to be between 40% and 60% of what they then sell it on for (e.g a £20 preowned game would have been bought off a customer for between £8 and £12), varying slightly for cash vs trade. Then there are overheads. Sale price minus bought for price does not equal profit!!

Preowned is a cash cow for retailers but don't go thinking it is a license to print money.

A bit of research suggests around 15% - 20% of a 'New' sale goes to the retailer, varying largely in retailer, publisher, and even game.

The games industry seems to deem itself different to other, similar industries such as music (CD) or Film/TV (DVD). The type of offers that can be seen on these media just simply are not mirrored in games. Granted release price is more for games but the deals could be scaled in a similar manner. HMV have a constant '2 for £10' on CDs deal running, Why do we never see 2 for £30 on new games?

If I am honest the games industries immaturity towards retail is only mirrored by it's dick swinging space marine obsession.

beemoh's picture

@liveinadive1:

>If I am honest the games industries immaturity towards retail is only mirrored by it's dick swinging space marine obsession.

...in the sense that neither exists? Anyway:

>The games industry seems to deem itself different to other, similar industries such as music (CD) or Film/TV (DVD). The type of offers that can be seen on these media just simply are not mirrored in games. Granted release price is more for games but the deals could be scaled in a similar manner. HMV have a constant '2 for £10' on CDs deal running, Why do we never see 2 for £30 on new games?

HMV used to do exactly that- (As in, "not pre-owned", rather than "just released") then they got into the used games business.

GAME have always had '3 for £20' on PC budget lines- a tier of games releases that doesn't exist for console because retailers want to sell used games instead.

The point, arguing about statistics aside, is that the pre-owned market is currently sat in the solution to pre-owned's seat. There is no incentive for retailers to lower prices, because high prices for new games keep the used market afloat. There is no incentive for retailers to stock back-catalogue games, because the rarity of older games keeps the used market afloat.

The only way anything that can supplant the pre-owned market, as far as retail goes, can emerge is if the used market is forcibly taken away from them. No retailer is going to take on anything that threatens their ability to rely on used voluntarily.

milezMayhem's picture

Quote:
The industry's position on pre-owned is, to a point, understandable. It robs publishers, developers and distributors of revenue, with the retailer retaining the entire proceeds of the sale.


how can any of the above complain about "lost sales" after the fact? If I sell you a car and you sell that car on to somebody else, do I deserve a cut of that sale?
They have to make a full retail price sale for the game to go into the pre owned pool, what people do with their own property after that is none of anybody's business.

frod's picture

Agreed. This idea that publishers, developers and distributors have any rights to the proceeds of second hand sales is laughable.

Even these online passes are ridiculous - when I choose to sell a game on, I also sell my right to play it online onwards as well. Arguments about server access are no different to accessing the offline game code. It's something that I bought, that I should be allowed to sell on.

Legz69's picture

Year ago before online passes the pre-owned games industry worked perfectly well - let's be honest you either traded a game in because:
A) you completed it
B) You were bored of it; or
C) You hated it....
and everyone lived in peace - we got bargains and the second hand shops like gamestation etc prospered.....

Now because the greedy corporations what more revenue they have targeted the second hand market and the only people who will loose out is the consumer and the second hand dealers....

At the end of the day we are not dense we know how much big titles make in profit so if you either made a game worth £40 of our money or sold them for less to get more market share then we wouldn't want to buy the cheaper option or trade a crap title in - you've already sold your game once - if you can't keep the owner interested within that business model, why do you deserve to get revenue from a business model you didn't create - we the consumer did.......

I just bought a limited Edition copy of Dark Souls online for £20 which make me wonder about direct sales margins in all honesty.....

simonmaxwell's picture

If this is true, and the third Xbox is unable to play second-hand games, I won't really care, as I doubt I'd buy the console in the first place. It's pretty much inevitable that the next Xbox will be sold with some form of Kinect as standard, and, as a Kinect-less 360 owner who wishes Kinect would just go away and die, I have no intention of buying an Xbox console that comes with Kinect as standard.

It has been easy enough to avoid Kinect games on the 360, but if the entire userbase of the third Xbox can play Kinect games then the market will be flooded with Kinect shovelware. It'll be like the Wii all over again.

hahnchen's picture

Second-hand will die. Digital distribution will kill it, and there's no coming back.

When second hand sales die, sales of full price games will fall, and so those prices will come down too.