The death of the second hand games market

I greatly enjoy co-op games and since completing both Call of Duty, World At War and Gears of War 2 co-operatively, I’ve been seeking advice for my next co-op experience. Whilst I’ve seen some excellent suggestions, (Left 4 Dead is now definitely on the list), I thought I’d go over the Xbox 360’s back catalogue and see what co-op experiences were available from older titles.

A dim and distant memory recalled how much fun Simes thought Crackdown was. That memory sealed the deal along with the fact my usual co-op partner, Tony, still had the game in his back catalogue.

Since this was the first time I’ve attempted to pick up an old game, I thought I’d try my hand at purchasing a used copy. I was shocked at how little it cost; Gamestation were selling it with free delivery for a wonderfully cheap £4.99! A few days later, it arrived and I duly set up a co-op game which Tony joined. However, in order to continue, I needed to download the same content he had. I was pleasantly surprised to find that co-op play with players who owned the premium Getting Busy DLC was possible by downloading the eponymous Free-for-all DLC. The price of Getting Busy in the single player campaign is 800 MS points however and that, ladies and gentlemen, is £6.80.

Now I accept that second hand prices cannot be compared to DLC cost. However what I cannot accept is a game that I can buy brand new for £12.71 (from the same place I purchased it second hand) still has DLC at the same price point it was at release. This ridiculous pricing structure gave me a sobering thought.

It occurred to me that as DLC creates episodic gaming possibilities (e.g. Rockstar Games’ impending The Lost and Damned), it also creates a bypass around publishers’ loss of earnings through second hand purchases. If I give Gamestation £4.99 for Realtime Worlds’ Crackdown, do the publishers at Microsoft care about the lack of income if in order to get the DLC, I still need to pay them at least that much again? After all, DLC cannot be sold on with a game.

The counter arguments are obvious: I can still play the game without the DLC and I could buy another game instead but what concerns me is the bigger picture outside of Crackdown‘s fairness. If games become simple keys to access episodic content which everyone who wants to play together must buy, this surely spells the end of the second hand games market. After all, who buys a second hand copy of the WoW discs?

Gloomy portents aside, Simes was right. The game is enormous fun, so much so I’m considering renaming it Craicdown. If you haven’t already played the game, I highly recommend picking it up second hand before that particular market is performance managed out of existence.


Posted

in

,

by

Tags:

Comments

10 responses to “The death of the second hand games market”

  1. Dave avatar
    Dave

    Interesting stuff. I don’t think the second hand games market will ever die out – thanks, in part, to the current economic climate. People just aren’t willing to part with their cash on luxuries like games. The general feeling is that pre-owned is having affecting new sales in a big way.

    Developers only get money for the first time that game is sold, all pre-owned revenues is additional profit. If Gamestation trades and sells the same game pre-owned 20 times, it’s made well over 100% profit. That’s bad bedtime reading for some developers.

    I think pre-owned should die out for this reason, but it’s unlikely this will ever happen. It’s like Tomb Raider making a paltry £1.5 million so far, that’s incredibly poor. I’m interested to see how many gamers are just waiting to get it on the cheap instead.

  2. Sivad62536616 avatar
    Sivad62536616

    I am a fan of Crackdown aswell, very good game for Co-Op action and enjoyable on your tod aswell.

    As for Pre-owned games, I have bought a few myself over the years. Some have been worthwhile where as some have been quite poor. I bought my copy of Oblivion from Amazon Marketplace, but then I really could’nt tell you how much I had to fork out in gamerpoints for all the DLC (from Horse Armour to Shivering Isles).

    I do agree with Tony though, as games get older might it not be worth the DLC becoming cheaper? I would have thought a better way of doing it would have been “Buy now and pay full wack for the brand new DLC….or wait a few months and it’ll be free” Everyone ends up with the same DLC, but the people who want it straight away can have it, with the chaps who arnt fussed only have to wait.

  3. RayRay avatar
    RayRay

    Sivad62536616 is now RayRay…….didnt want anyone trying to remember numbers :p

  4. Dave avatar
    Dave

    DLC should be cheaper in some case, full blown expansions are the exception. Square-Enix’s The Last Remnant has a slew of free DLC for example, which, when you consider how much that game will make in Japan and from the Western fanbase, they can afford to do.

    Although things like Oblivion horse armour are tricky, no one is forcing gamers to buy it at the end of the day. It all depends on the individual I guess.

    But yes, some DLC asking prices are an an absolute joke!

  5. Duncan Aird avatar
    Duncan Aird

    “I think pre-owned should die out for this reason, but it’s unlikely this will ever happen. It’s like Tomb Raider making a paltry £1.5 million so far, that’s incredibly poor.”

    To be fair, it’s not a very good game. At all.

    I can understand developers not wanting to lower DLC price since once the game is out there they have little controll over who gets it. But forcing people to buy it just to play with their friends is pushing the limit.

  6. Dave avatar
    Dave

    Each to their own, although aggregated scores of 75, 80 and 75 again for the xbox 360, PC and PS3 versions of the game on metacritic suggest positive reviews across the board.

    This, along with a hefty marketing push still wasn’t enough to get people to buy it.

    It suffered the same fate of many other games in December. Cast into obscurity due to the slew of triple-a titles. Too much to buy, too little cash to go around.

    I agree too, DLC enabling people to play online is ridiculous.

  7. Alex avatar
    Alex

    I’m a bit of an odd one with this. I hate having to buy add-ons for a game (especially if you can’t get certain achievements without them, grrr!!) so I avoid it altogether. I also am loathed to buy a game for under a fiver, then spend more than that on DLC.

  8. Ben avatar
    Ben

    When the Crackdown DLC first arrived I remember being really annoyed that I’d have to pay for something (despite me still seeing all the triggers of the new content in my version (rocket tag spots etc.)

    I think with the DLC pricing issue, it’s something that I expect to change numerous times not only over this year but next too. We had all gotten use to everything costing no more than 800MS points on Live, then Braid came along and changed all that.
    Now it’s not uncommon to see various things on Live for 1200MS Points.

    I think i’d like to see a system when the price was gradually reduced over time, say for the first 0-8 months it costs 800MS points, 9-15months it costs 600MS points etc, and then finish it up 16+ months on at 450MS points. It’s a system that could in theory work, but then why would a developer charge less when people would still pay the full price?

    It would also need support from both console and developer end, so Microsoft / Sony would then have to say, “ok, at xx intervals in time we’ll lower our percentage take in the product to reflect the price.”

    End of the day though, I don’t mind paying for quality DLC (I do happen to think Crackdown is that,) what I don’t want is really poor DLC that was evidently already on my game disk and I’m just spending money to virtually unlock the stuff.

    On the subject of DLC, feel I have to tip my hat to Criterion, they didn’t charge for the first few bits of DLC they release, which was quite considerable in size. Meaning that more and more people kept playing the game, and the urge to trade in was always put off by the fact “oh this huge patch is out soon, and it’s free, i’ll keep hold of this.” If more developers went down this road I do think it would be better for everyone in the long run, however in today’s climate short term is quite important and DLC = money in the bank, so from a Dev’s point of view, why not?

  9. Anthony avatar
    Anthony

    I agree that a better DLC pricing structure is required – full price or free is extremely limited.

    When we move in the same direction as music and get all our games digitally, I hope the second hand games market doesn’t collapse but perhaps it will be replaced with something else entirely new?

  10. Jonny/IV DemonJ avatar
    Jonny/IV DemonJ

    In my personnal opinion, i believe that DLC is the way forward. Didnt you use to hate picking a triple A game up full price and them completing it in a weekend? Sure you could trade it in and get a few pounds back for the inconvience, yet isnt it worthwile thinking that some new content is on its way just around the corner?

    For example Ratchet and Clank for the PS3 or GTAIV, both have an exceptionally long solo modes, GTAIV may edge it on the lifespan as well as multiplayer, yet isnt it refreshing to know that once an enjoyable game is completed that more DLC is coming available making the longlevity of the game more intriguing and special?

    Games like this are hugely enjoyable to play and many of us, including me, hate to see a good thing die…this is why we trade them in instead of replay it for the same retoricle experience, correct? So why not keep adding to the experience, for a small nomninal fee, i admit, yet this bridges the gap between sequels surely?

    http://demonjsblog.wordpress.com

Leave a Reply