New or used?

(Duraigo) #1

If i get brink used, am i missing anything. No redeemable code, no free giveaway? Or will all i be missing are those stupid little advertisemnt slips in most cases these days? Im willing to get it used.

(Hot-Wire) #2

You are not missing anything, since now you can get the preorder bonuses from the store.

(lobster) #3

Be warned you cannot play a used PC copy, as they are tied to Steam accounts once registered and installed. Of course unless the seller gives you the steam account with the game on it.

(L00fah) #4

go used, no doubt. I say that for all games, though.

(Jimmy James) #5

Good point, I had a problem with Steam accounts when installing Brink on Throbblefoot’s computer and mine (was logged into the wrong Steam account and the game code got assigned to the wrong Steam account).

However, I believe you can “gift” a game code to another Steam account. (Never tried it.)

-JJ

(zenstar) #6

You should technically buy new to support the gaming industry. Shops selling used games give nothing back to the developers/publishers while making ridiculous profit on the used games.

But there’s nothing special in the box. (Although note previous warning about PC version not being sellable).

[QUOTE=Jimmy James;377128]Good point, I had a problem with Steam accounts when installing Brink on Throbblefoot’s computer and mine (was logged into the wrong Steam account and the game code got assigned to the wrong Steam account).

However, I believe you can “gift” a game code to another Steam account. (Never tried it.)

-JJ[/QUOTE]

You can gift games to other steam users as long as they have not been activated / installed.

(gooey79) #7

If you buy used, you’re still supporting the industry. Just not the developer/publisher. Retail is still an important piece of the puzzle, regardless of what loud mouthed publishers would have you believe.

So, if you can’t get a cheap console copy new (and I only say that because I prefer to rip off the cellophane!) then go used. If it’s on PC, buy retail at the cheapest you can find new and add the key to Steam.

(Nail) #8

a good point of view is to buy everything but food, used

(zenstar) #9

If everyone followed that advice the only thing available to buy would be used food.

[QUOTE=*goo;377135]If you buy used, you’re still supporting the industry. Just not the developer/publisher. Retail is still an important piece of the puzzle, regardless of what loud mouthed publishers would have you believe.

So, if you can’t get a cheap console copy new (and I only say that because I prefer to rip of the cellophane!) then go used. If it’s on PC, buy retail at the cheapest you can find new and add the key to Steam. [/QUOTE]
First: If you buy new you’re supporting the entire industry including the retailer and the devs/publisher. If you buy used you’re supporting only the retailer.

While I would agree with you when talking about other industries, the used game market is so out of control (I’m basing this on UK here) that there are more used games on display in the stores than new games. Stock of new games is low (especially if it’s not a mainstream title) because the retailers know that they’ll be getting used games in a couple of days after release and most of these retailers are making pretty big profits to start off with.

They also make crazy profit on each used games sale (they buy low, often with store credit and sell much higher), and the game may come through their store multiple times. A small 2nd hand market (like the one the book industry has) is not a bad thing, but the game 2nd hand market is way too big. I know people who game exclusively on 2nd hand titles only. I worked in a 2nd hand computer / game retailer once (I was young and needed the money) and they made a killing (millions a year for a single store in the chain) and gave nothing back to the devs or publishers.
All this causes the developers / publishers to start doing things like releasing 1/2 the game and then selling the other half as downloadable DLC because it can’t be sold on. Or having single activation codes that unlock /2 the game or the multiplayer or whatever. And whenever a developer adds something like that people cry out as if they’d just bombed an orphanage without wondering what’s driving the industry in that direction.

Buy however you want. It’s your choice. But be thankful for the people that buy new otherwise there’d be nothing 2nd hand to buy. And if not enough people buy new then development houses close. A game can be a massive hit and the dev house still has to close because the same 3 discs are cirulating around the market and the money is stopping at the retailer (who buys themselves another diamond suit off the profit from those 3 discs).

Of course some titles are only available used now (although lower production runs are also a side effect of the 2nd hand market) so you might not have a choice.

And ripping the cellophane off is awesome :slight_smile:

(.Chris.) #10

Makes sense, they are more older games than they are new ones…

Publishers stop producing games after a while so it makes sense that there is a second hand market for older titles.

Not because they know they wont sell many?

So? The publishers probably make way more regardless.

Excuses. One day it’s piracy the next its 2nd hand market, the following day it’s sun spots…

Again, so what, business is business, if them shops have found way tomaking a killing, good on them and if them developers had to shut down, perhaps they should have done better job and their game would have sold better rather than be relegated to the bargain bucket and second hard market.

(zenstar) #11

[QUOTE=.Chris.;377218]Makes sense, they are more older games than they are new ones…

Publishers stop producing games after a while so it makes sense that there is a second hand market for older titles.
[/QUOTE]
I never said older games. The used games are a range from older games to all the new titles. It’s actually difficult to find a title that’s a month or two old new. When I say “on display” I don’t mean the crowded shelf of all their 2nd hand games that you need to riffle through to see all the titles. I’m talking about prominent display in the same way that new releases are displayed because the used games on display are all recent titles. The old titles get relegated to the riffle shelves because they’re not worth the advertising space.
And publishers are stopping production earlier and earlier because they can’t sell slightly older games due to the second hand market being so prolific. Publishers are also less willing to risk money on IPs that will not make a confirmed “day one” profit since that’s really the only place they make their money anymore.

Not because they know they wont sell many?

No. Because they know they’ll get 2nd hand copies very quickly and they make more profit on 2nd hand games than new games. And because of this they’ll push the second hand games over the new games (“Oh we have that cheaper in our used section” when you’re trying to buy a new game). If they had more new copies they’d sell them all, but they’d make less profit.

So? The publishers probably make way more regardless.

The publishers make more because they sell to all the retailers. To compare profits you’d need to add up the profits of every single retailer’s games sales and then I’m fairly sure the difference wouldn’t be that great, or may even tip in the favour of the retailers.

Excuses. One day it’s piracy the next its 2nd hand market, the following day it’s sun spots…

No. Piracy results in restrictive DRM. DLC is pirated and codes that lock off parts of the game are cracked. DLC and unlock codes are more to battle 2nd hand games than piracy. There is very little a publisher / developer can do about piracy other than try not to have code leaked early and market things well and cram in DRM in a hopes to stave off piracy just long enough to make extra cash.
The 2nd hand market is a different kettle of fish and requires a different solution.

Again, so what, business is business, if them shops have found way tomaking a killing, good on them and if them developers had to shut down, perhaps they should have done better job and their game would have sold better rather than be relegated to the bargain bucket and second hard market.

To a point I agree. Businesses want to make a profit and will where they can. That doesn’t mean you don’t have a choice about where your money goes. You can vote on business practices with your dollars. If noone bought 2nd hand games the prices would come down and there’d be more new games available and possibly more variation in new games stocked.
And some very good games end up in the 2nd hand bin through no lack of quality at all. A lot of people are willing to wait a week and buy the game for £5 less used than they are to buy it new even if it’s the game of the year. This makes a dent in sales and is why marketing really overhype the games nowadays to try make everyone preorder and get it on release day.

The long game is the issue here. If everyone bought second hand then there would be no more games developed since there was no money going to reward the people that made the games in the first place.

At the end of the day you need to do your own research into the matter and make up your own mind, but as a developer myself (not in the games industry) I urge you to think about the impact of your decisions before you blindly grab the cheapest copy you can get. But at the end of the day it is your decision. I’m just suggesting what I think benefits the whole industry.

EDIT:
When I mean the 2nd hand market has become too prolific I mean things like the following example:
HMV sells CDs, DVDs and games (primarily). They have a huge 2nd hand section (bigger than their new section) for games. They do not sell 2nd hand CDs or 2nd hand DVDs. They are not a second hand store where one would expect to go and buy second hand goods and yet they have a big “used games” trade.
I’m not bashing them for tapping into a profit. But the fact that that market is so profitable is the issue.

(Nail) #12

Every used game sold was also sold as a new game, Ford doesn’t ask for a cut when I sell my used Mustang, why should a game publisher get money on a used game ?

(murka) #13

Stores maybe, but killing the 2nd hand market is like stabbing your own back. If person A buys a game, finishes it and sells for 50% of the original price, he will be able to buy 2x more games and support the gaming industry. Thanks to steam and the likes people won’t buy as many games as they used to because they are friggun expensive or that giving your user/pass to some russian guy to activate a cheap copy is too risky.

I remember some years ago when i bought games twice a year or even more often. Now the games industry comes up with these wacky prices that nobody can afford to pay more often than once a year. Looks like bloody idiots running the industry. Same with piracy. Most people try the game as such and quite often buy the game. CoD is a great example which thrived on the piracy market.

(gooey79) #14

So retailers shouldn’t be allowed to get too profitable but publishers should? This isn’t a case of the publisher not making enough money, it’s publishers wanting to make more money.

Edit

To add to what Murka said. I traded in a bunch of old games and now have pre-ordered Ico/SotC, Skyrim, Dark Souls, Battlefield 3 and took home Deus Ex: Human Revolution. The trades directly funded 5 games. How’s that a bad thing?

(RabidAnubis) #15

The maker does get cut I think. (Not sure, but we’ll assume no)

And also the relationship is different. Ford sells their cars to the dealers for let’s say $10,000, and they get sold to you for $17,000. So if Ford gave a thousand cars to dealer X, they would have walked out with 10 million. The dealer sells only 600 of them though. They still get $200,000 profit. I know the number’s aren’t right but the thing is the risk is on the retailer. (As it should be) And often new car places are owned by Ford, so it doesn’t matter. This is the same for most businesses of this type.

But, when a retailer gets a video game from the publisher the publisher doesn’t get paid by it. They only get money by sales of new games, and only WHEN they sell. http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/game-pie.jpg States that the money is split in an unfair way. Maybe the numbers aren’t right but the point remains the same. So in this relationship, store X receives 1000 games, but only sells 600. According to this though, that means that the publisher, developer, and marketing get %60 together, but they also have ALL of the expenses on them. So this means that they make 60,000 dollars at this store, and the retailer 7,200. This may sound skewed, but think about it this way, the retailer is selling every single game from every single publisher. And they have almost no expenses. (two teenagers full time low/minimum wage?) So if the game tanked, which unfortunately happens WAY more often then not, it might have only sold a hundred copies. So that makes 6000 dollars. That’s bankruptcy for you! But what about the retailer? They have NO worries, because CoD is going to come out and they are selling every game anyways! And if three fourths people buy used! Then the retailer gets ALL the money! Viva la vida!

TD;LR In car business, the risk is on the retailer. The expense is on the car maker, but they have a more guaranteed income. For games, the expense is on the game makers along with the risk. The retailer gets about an equal share of the money, but has no risk at all and close to zero expense. And when you buy that game used? Then all the money goes to the retailer. You wonder why there’s these new EA online passes and stuff?

[QUOTE=*goo;377309]So retailers shouldn’t be allowed to get too profitable but publishers should? This isn’t a case of the publisher not making enough money, it’s publishers wanting to make more money.

Edit

To add to what Murka said. I traded in a bunch of old games and now have pre-ordered Ico/SotC, Skyrim, Dark Souls, Battlefield 3 and took home Deus Ex: Human Revolution. The trades directly funded 5 games. How’s that a bad thing?[/QUOTE]

But many people buy used games with used game cash. This is a fine behavior. It’s just that so many don’t and it messes up the market. It’s not with the consumer, it’s with the companies the issue is at.

EDIT: I also remember people complaining at Rando that he said something about money in one of his posts. So many game developers tank that they were happy just to get by enough to start on their next game.

(RabidAnubis) #16

[QUOTE=*goo;377309]So retailers shouldn’t be allowed to get too profitable but publishers should? This isn’t a case of the publisher not making enough money, it’s publishers wanting to make more money.

Edit

To add to what Murka said. I traded in a bunch of old games and now have pre-ordered Ico/SotC, Skyrim, Dark Souls, Battlefield 3 and took home Deus Ex: Human Revolution. The trades directly funded 5 games. How’s that a bad thing?[/QUOTE]

But many people buy used games with used game cash.

(zenstar) #17

I’m not saying the makers should get a cut of used games. I’m saying that the second hand market for games is so out of control and large that people are shifting a large amount of money away from where it goes back into developing new games and into the retailer who is not helping develop new games.

Publishers and retailers deserve to be profitable (as long as they’re doing their job) and you’re the one who decides which one is more profitable by what you buy. If everyone bought new games retailers would still make a profit. Maybe a bit less than they do now but they’re not going to make a loss selling new items (unelss they’re badly managed).

A normal sized second hand market is not a bad thing. Look at my post again and see where I talk about the 2nd hand games market being too big. This is the major issue with second hand games and continuing to feed it is only going to deepen the cracks.

But I’ve pretty much stated the points I wanted to so I’m not going to turn this into a massive argument. Do me a favour though and please look into it for yourself. I really do not mind what you choose, I’m just asking you to inform yourself properly before you choose.

TL;DR: Please inform yourself of the market situation before making a decision on what you should buy. I’m not posting any more on this (if I can help it :slight_smile: ).

(MrFoxer) #18

Kind of a dumb question, brink doesn’t have a special edition, why would you get anything extra?

(RabidAnubis) #19

[QUOTE=zenstar;377316]I’m not saying the makers should get a cut of used games. I’m saying that the second hand market for games is so out of control and large that people are shifting a large amount of money away from where it goes back into developing new games and into the retailer who is not helping develop new games.

Publishers and retailers deserve to be profitable (as long as they’re doing their job) and you’re the one who decides which one is more profitable by what you buy. If everyone bought new games retailers would still make a profit. Maybe a bit less than they do now but they’re not going to make a loss selling new items (unelss they’re badly managed).

A normal sized second hand market is not a bad thing. Look at my post again and see where I talk about the 2nd hand games market being too big. This is the major issue with second hand games and continuing to feed it is only going to deepen the cracks.

But I’ve pretty much stated the points I wanted to so I’m not going to turn this into a massive argument. Do me a favour though and please look into it for yourself. I really do not mind what you choose, I’m just asking you to inform yourself properly before you choose.

TL;DR: Please inform yourself of the market situation before making a decision on what you should buy. I’m not posting any more on this (if I can help it :slight_smile: ).[/QUOTE]

Personally, this is why I like steam. They sell their games cheaper, because they can cut out the middle man, and they STILL make more profit per sell per game.

Heck, if we just went DLC it would be $45 new and the publisher all the richer.

(gooey79) #20

[QUOTE=RabidAnubis;377310]
But many people buy used games with used game cash. This is a fine behavior. It’s just that so many don’t and it messes up the market. It’s not with the consumer, it’s with the companies the issue is at.

EDIT: I also remember people complaining at Rando that he said something about money in one of his posts. So many game developers tank that they were happy just to get by enough to start on their next game.[/QUOTE]

It ‘messes up the market’? This isn’t about Publishers not making any money. It’s about them feeling they don’t make enough money. EA, Sony, Bethesda and Ubisoft are four big ones now doing it. I highly doubt any of the cash will go to the developers. It’s more cash in the publisher’s coffers,

If people don’t have reason to hold on to new games, they should address that by adding value to the product. If retailers need to top up their earnings by different means due to the way the split works, they should address that by sorting out the supply chain - not punishing the customer. The second hand market is both legal and legitimate, let’s not forget that.

Actually, Brink does have a Special Edition. See?