GameStop will screw you.
The industry wants a piece of it.
Lately, the gaming circle has been talking a lot about used video games and how the publishers aren't getting any moolah for those transactions. That's fine, because they shouldn't and there are a zillion perfectly obvious reasons why. It's almost pathetic that bloggers are having to list them, but if you are a publisher out there and you really need it spelled out for you, let's have a basic economy lesson.
You already sold the game.
That's it. Done. You've sold it. You can't sell it again, and it's someone else's right to sell it if they don't want it either. If you want it to reach more people and want a piece of that, then lower the price to increase supply and hope that the demand covers the price cut by adding a few more gamers. Which brings me to...
You will make your community suffer for supporting you.
If I want to play a game of Battlefield, I damn sure hope that there are enough people playing to fill a server. If a million people buy a game, and half of them decide they won't play the game anymore because they didn't like it, then if they can't exactly trade their games in without it being a royal worthless pain, then statistically, only the half that do like it will end up still playing your game. Now, if you allow those people to trade in their games, then at zero cost to you, you have allowed the gamers to work out for themselves how to make your community stronger by turning those players who didn't like it into players that do like it.
Simple math formula, and we'll use approval ratings.
EA will be releasing FIFA 2010. They sell one million copies, and half of them don't like it. You have a 50% customer approval rating. Giving all incentive for the people who don't like it to trade it in for something they do like raises the likelyhood that you can turn that number around. Say there was a group of gamers that couldn't afford it, but they can definitely afford the used price. No matter what, you only get better numbers than 50% approval. 75% of your game-owning audience approves of the game, and you didn't have to raise a finger to change it. Those people will talk about your game and pass it on to their friends, your servers are filled, your tournaments are more competitive, etc.
NOT giving incentive to the 50% disapproving of the game will find you fending off thousands of gamers eager to passionately light your collective asses up. Servers will be harder to come by. Burnout Paradise, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, and even Counter-Strike are more than a year old, and you know what? Trade-ins keep those games thriving, and probably will keep those games in focus for a while longer.
You are only proving that you are too lazy.
You want to make money? Earn it. Offer a DLC. Offer bonus content. Do something useful. You sold your game already, and the only logical reason to ask for more money from those same gamers is because you are greedy and you have run out of ways to get more money from that game. Be inventive. Create something new for us. The Playstation Shop has hundreds of add-ons available for their games, and some of them cost money, but gamers who care about your game might just buy them.
It's your fault for putting out crappy games.
Ever wonder why a game like Bionic Commando plummets to $20 within a month or two of release? It's because the game wasn't worth the $60 you were asking. This is basic economy, and if you argue about this, you need to be fired. Now. You shouldn't be allowed to manage your own bank account, let alone part of a company. If you supplied a million games, and gamers didn't like it, the demand for that game is low. Having all that supply means you need to lower the price to increase demand.
This has nothing to do with used games. It isn't hurting your sales at all. Sure, I could have gone out and bought Bionic Commando for $45 instead of $60, but that doesn't reduce the value of your game. Crap is crap, and finding a way to turn crap into something else is just plain common sense. Would you rather your gamers hate you for being handed a bun with your greed-juices in it, or would you rather that they be allowed to at least get something positive out of the transaction?
GameStop
In case you didn't notice, GameStop is already screwing the trader over anyway. Not that the publishers have a right to complain, because they don't. I won't even get into invasion of privacy, but I'll just say that the government doesn't send IRS agents to garage sales, so get the hell out of my business. I've traded in stuff before at GameStop, and as a rule, if you don't go in there when an awesome deal isn't going on, or you aren't trading to get anything specific back, you just don't do it. A game that sells for $17.99 might net you $3.50. The fact that new GameStop's are popping up everywhere means that business is booming on that front, so you know they are purposely screwing you out of your cash.
The Madden's and the Hello Kitty games, I completely understand, but giving gamers more value to their trade-in will only get them in the store to try new games. If you're putting out crap, then you're only complaining because you're afraid. If you're proud of your product, then you should be encouraging GameStop to be helping the gamer out more. If I get $50 for two games rather than $20, then it's pretty obvious that I'm going to try out more games with the extra $30. I might just stumble across a game I never would've tried without that flexibility, and might buy the sequel or more from that company. I liked Odin Sphere, and I never would have tried that game if not for the trade-in system. Atlus might've just sold me a brand new game someday because I had that opportunity.
The entire argument is pretty straightforward, but hopefully these few examples make it into some iteration of the Idiot's Guide to Running A Game Company. From the sounds of it, it would sell well. I should look into this...
No comments:
Post a Comment