News
Braben questions game prices
Ed Fear Aug 3 2008, 12:09pm
Comments (6)
DEVELOP 08: Solution to pre-owned dilemma may require retailer cooperation, says Frontier honcho
During his otherwise relentlessly positive design keynote at the 2008 Develop Conference, Frontier founder David Braben said that problem of pre-owned sales cannibalising the industry isn't going to go away - and we need to work on the issue ourselves.
Rather than simply whine at the retailers for essentially cutting developers out by selling and heavily promoting pre-owned games, Braben suggested that the development industry needed to find its own solutions to the problem - and that we could help retailers too.
"We need to help retailers," he suggested. "In fairness, they're probably doing it because they're struggling. But there are ways of tracking and deterring pre-owned sales."
One option, he posited, was to use unique codes on boxes - such as those found on PC online games - to ensure that those games can't be resold.
Perhaps more practically, he also suggested offering incentives along the same lines to not erase the value of pre-owned but to make it less attractive than it currently is.
"Another option would be to offer extras - or even part of the game itself - packaged in with the game as a unique code on a scratch-card. If you do this, then those extras could only be obtained once."
Braben said, however, that he felt online would be the main route to market - possibly within the next five years time, but likely to be so in the sixth generation of consoles. This will inevitably help solve the resale problem - but, as many would point out, retail is unlikely to die completely in the forseeable future.
Comments
“Here's an idea:”
Posted by: THWIP71 - Aug 3, 7:46pm
How about making better quality games, for starters...and not charging $60 for crap. The MAJORITY of video games made, are in the 6/10-7/10 range in quality; that's not deserving of a $60 retail price. The biggest offenders, are the biggest publishers: EA, UbiSoft, Activision...they all crank out sequel after sequel of the same crap, on a yearly basis. How about making a quality game, then only releasing updates/DLC for that game, until a true sequel is ready? It's worked well for Bethesda (horse armor notwithstanding), and a few others.
“Re: Here's an idea:”
Posted by: Monk - Aug 4, 4:40pm
"Another option would be to offer extras - or even part of the game itself - packaged in with the game as a unique code on a scratch-card. If you do this, then those extras could only be obtained once."
So a bit like Nintendo do with their first party products (even if the points you get from them seem to only be able to go towards rubbish wallpapers most of the time)
“Re: Re: Here's an idea:”
Posted by: Narcogen - Aug 5, 5:07am
I rarely buy used games.
I accept the reasonable terms of EULAs-- I'm not going to copy a game and give copies away. I'm not going to sell my original and keep a copy for myself.
However, if I've played a game and I'm done with it, I should have a reasonable right to give or sell it to someone else. If I can do it, so can the retailer.
If the used game market is more profitable for retailers than the new game market, then the new game market needs changing-- not the used game market.
It's called "right-pricing".
“Re: Re: Re: Here's an idea:”
Posted by: Toaster - Aug 7, 3:47am
It's called the FREE-MARKET! Who are you to say they can't capitalize?
“Re: Re: Re: Here's an idea:”
Posted by: Toaster - Aug 7, 3:48am
It's called the FREE-MARKET! Who are you to say they can't capitalize?
“Well...”
Posted by: Jackamo - Aug 7, 3:24pm
In all fairness it wouldn't be so bad if links between retailer and distributer weren't already so strained.
I conceed that they have the right to capatilize however I firmly believe that they would severely cut their own profits but doing this. I know that a good amount of smaller games make money in their sequels only because people bought the trade in of the original. Take this away and you essentially cut the users willing to invest in your product.