How many titles actually sell a million plus units in a given year?

#11Baha05Posted 12/13/2012 6:26:09 PM
silverbullt posted...
The price in which you pay for an used game does not matter. The developers don't see a cent from it. Each used copy of a game sold is a potential "new copy > devs profit" to that costumer had a used copy not been available.


Well there are always going to be used games no matter what. Fact of the matter is it doesn't hurt them that much.
---
"LOL fail, SMG and GTA5 aren't even from the same decade. gj." - War_Fail
#12Xeeh_BitzPosted 12/13/2012 6:26:35 PM
Baha05 posted...
silverbullt posted...
When people go to GS and pay for $55 for <insert new release here> instead of $5 more for a new copy, studios don't make a dime from it. Now if 1/3rd of a game's total sale comes from the used market(this ratio is much higher) you can imagine how much money devs are losing or how much cheaper they could actually sell the game for, say $40. Take your pick, either way the used game market is detrimental to the health of the industry.


Most people never really buy used games at that price though, and really the fact we have used games means they already made money on those copies.


The developer made money once, it would have been another sale for them if the person buys a used copy.

and yes, people buy it used for that price. It's a game and most people don't care about the "Free issue of Nintendo Power" insert that's in the game or 3 days of Free Xbox Live promo code in the game.
---
To be fair, the bible has more plot holes than ME3. I wouldn't be listening either - Pies12
#13Xeeh_BitzPosted 12/13/2012 6:29:57 PM(edited)
Baha05 posted...
silverbullt posted...
The price in which you pay for an used game does not matter. The developers don't see a cent from it. Each used copy of a game sold is a potential "new copy > devs profit" to that costumer had a used copy not been available.


Well there are always going to be used games no matter what. Fact of the matter is it doesn't hurt them that much.


26% of Gamestop's revenue is from used games. That's 25% that could be given to the publisher and developer

Example: Black Ops 2. 1 Billion in revenue, 26% of that would be 260 million bucks. That's not much is it, of course not!


---
To be fair, the bible has more plot holes than ME3. I wouldn't be listening either - Pies12
#14Baha05Posted 12/13/2012 6:30:00 PM
Xeeh_Bitz posted...
The developer made money once, it would have been another sale for them if the person buys a used copy.

and yes, people buy it used for that price. It's a game and most people don't care about the "Free issue of Nintendo Power" insert that's in the game or 3 days of Free Xbox Live promo code in the game.


Developers still make money, to say used games ruin it for them is stupid.

Also if a new game is $60 bucks + taxes no one is going to want to try to save a simple 5 dollars, people tend to wait for the price to drop and by that point the game would have already have sold enough copies that developers brea even or made a profit.

The only reasons why developers don't break even and go out of business is their own mistakes and making either making bad games or underwhelming ones.
---
"LOL fail, SMG and GTA5 aren't even from the same decade. gj." - War_Fail
#15silverbulltPosted 12/13/2012 6:30:01 PM
Baha05 posted...
silverbullt posted...
The price in which you pay for an used game does not matter. The developers don't see a cent from it. Each used copy of a game sold is a potential "new copy > devs profit" to that costumer had a used copy not been available.


Well there are always going to be used games no matter what. Fact of the matter is it doesn't hurt them that much.


Ever wonder why we have things such as "online pass". It's a way for publishers to discourage people form purchasing used copies since they will actually cost more than a new copy once you purchase the pass separetely.

Can't say i discourage the practice.
#16Baha05Posted 12/13/2012 6:31:29 PM
silverbullt posted...
Ever wonder why we have things such as "online pass". It's a way for publishers to discourage people form purchasing used copies since they will actually cost more than a new copy once you purchase the pass separetely.

Can't say i discourage the practice.


Yeah because EA is a greedy company, they are the ones that started it. They don't need the money from online passes as most if not all of their games make a profit.
---
"LOL fail, SMG and GTA5 aren't even from the same decade. gj." - War_Fail
#17Xeeh_BitzPosted 12/13/2012 6:32:08 PM
Baha05 posted...
Xeeh_Bitz posted...
The developer made money once, it would have been another sale for them if the person buys a used copy.

and yes, people buy it used for that price. It's a game and most people don't care about the "Free issue of Nintendo Power" insert that's in the game or 3 days of Free Xbox Live promo code in the game.


Developers still make money, to say used games ruin it for them is stupid.

Also if a new game is $60 bucks + taxes no one is going to want to try to save a simple 5 dollars, people tend to wait for the price to drop and by that point the game would have already have sold enough copies that developers brea even or made a profit.

The only reasons why developers don't break even and go out of business is their own mistakes and making either making bad games or underwhelming ones.


If you sign up for Gamestop's club thing, it's only 49.99 used and the devs and publishers make absolutely nothing on a used sale

You might as well just pirate the game if you're buying used because the only company you're supporting is Gamestop at that point
---
To be fair, the bible has more plot holes than ME3. I wouldn't be listening either - Pies12
#181shadetail1Posted 12/13/2012 6:33:06 PM
silverbullt posted...
1shadetail1 posted...
silverbullt posted...
1shadetail1 posted...
It *is* a bad business strategy. And it's precisely the reason why so many game developers went out of business over the past six-ish years. They made games with ridiculously massive budgets that needed to sell anywhere from 2-to-3 million copies just to break even, and of course they frequently never made it. So of course, the developer ended up going bust.


Developers go bust because of places like GameStop, not directly as a result of it being a high budget title.

Utter nonsense.


When people go to GS and pay for $55 for <insert new release here> instead of $5 more for a new copy, studios don't make a dime from it. Now if 1/3rd of a game's total sale comes from the used market(this ratio is much higher) you can imagine how much money devs are losing or how much cheaper they could actually sell the game for, say $40. Take your pick, either way the used game market is detrimental to the health of the industry.

Did you notice that important word, *IF*? Yeah, *IF* that many used copies sell, it might have an impact. Of course, despite what you say, there are absolutely no solid numbers regarding how many used copies change hands, or how big of an impact it really has, so this whole point is nothing but unproven speculation.

And on top of all that, even if it weren't unproven speculation, it doesn't in any way contradict the original point. What's really hurting the developer in this scenario is that the development budget was high enough that they need to sell a few million copies just to break even. Suppose they made games on a smaller budget, for example small enough that only 500,000 sales would let them break even. Then, even if your Gamestop scenario was provably true, it wouldn't stop them from making a profit.
---
Religion is like spaghetti: either stiff and fragile, or wet and limp.
#19silverbulltPosted 12/13/2012 6:33:28 PM
Baha05 posted...
Xeeh_Bitz posted...
The developer made money once, it would have been another sale for them if the person buys a used copy.

and yes, people buy it used for that price. It's a game and most people don't care about the "Free issue of Nintendo Power" insert that's in the game or 3 days of Free Xbox Live promo code in the game.


Developers still make money, to say used games ruin it for them is stupid.

Also if a new game is $60 bucks + taxes no one is going to want to try to save a simple 5 dollars, people tend to wait for the price to drop and by that point the game would have already have sold enough copies that developers brea even or made a profit.

The only reasons why developers don't break even and go out of business is their own mistakes and making either making bad games or underwhelming ones.


Ok maybe this will make more sense to you...

Would you like the price of new games to be $40 instead of $60? It's within the realm of possibilities of the used game market was to go way.

We consumer woul save 20 bucks and the devs would still make more money then they do right now. All you have to do is eliminate the middle man (GAMESTOP)
#20Baha05Posted 12/13/2012 6:36:24 PM
silverbullt posted...
Ok maybe this will make more sense to you...

Would you like the price of new games to be $40 instead of $60? It's within the realm of possibilities of the used game market was to go way.

We consumer woul save 20 bucks and the devs would still make more money then they do right now. All you have to do is eliminate the middle man (GAMESTOP)


Even marking new games for 40 dollars would not eliminate the used game market. There has ALWAYS been a used market for a lot of things. Does me going to a flea market to buy a CD for a dollar instead of buying a 12 dollar CD hurt the artists? Nope. Does buying a used game hurt developers? Not at all.

Simply removing Gamestop would not stop me from say trying to sell my own games at a yard sale or flea market.
---
"LOL fail, SMG and GTA5 aren't even from the same decade. gj." - War_Fail