Nintendo claims customers dislike used items
This is severe disconnection from reality. The used game market is certainly an issue for the games industry’s business model, but claiming, as Reggie fils-Aime does here, that consumers simply don’t like used items, and that used items do poorly in other media is just… nuts. Did he really never browse a used record store while in college?
“We have products that consumers want to hold onto. They want to play all of the levels of a Zelda game and unlock all of the levels. A game like Personal Trainer Cooking has a long life.”
He continued: “Describe another form of entertainment that has a vibrant used goods market. Used books have never taken off. You don’t see businesses selling used music CDs or used DVDs. Why? The consumer likes having a brand-new experience and reliving it over and over again. If you create the right type of experience, that also happens in videogames.”
via Nintendo: Used games aren’t in the consumers best interests // News.
Of course, even for games, the proof is in the pudding; it wouldn’t be such an issue for the industry if buyers didn’t like to spend the money there. Not to mention that most games these days are not designed for replayability…
Edit: OK, first I thought it was real, then I thought it was an April Fool’s joke, then… I thought it was real.
15 Responses to “Nintendo claims customers dislike used items”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Man, it’s been a quiet year for April Fool’s jokes, glad to see a few popping up. 🙂
Used books have never taken off? Is he serious? And is he aware how much money Gamestop makes off used DVDs?
I don’t expect Reggie to be honest. He’s proven before that he’s a salesman, first and foremost. But saying blatantly ridiculous stuff like this doesn’t help him in that regard at all.
In any case, the Wii is more like a boardgame that’s pulled out at parties and on holidays than a traditional console. Like boardgames, I’d expect Wiis show up in a lot of garage sales.
“Man, it’s been a quiet year for April Fool’s jokes, glad to see a few popping up. 🙂 ”
Bah! I guess someone finally got me today. 😛
April firstness of this aside, it’s sort of an interesting point…just what is “replayability?” You could try to say it’s something that always offers a new or unique experience, and you’d be correct in some measure; to be sure, Every playthrough of X-Com reveals new nuance and I’m not the only one with a legendary rivalry with Nethack. But I’ve also played through the second Zone of the Enders probably ten times by now: It’s completely linear, but ends up being something I enjoy coming back to…why is that? Or Gitaroo Man, which doesn’t even have the liberty of any free-roaming environments; and I’m practically itching to go back and play Alundra again at some point.
I guess they have something that newer games don’t. I think I’m going to call it “fun.” 😉
Whoa… http://venturebeat.com/2009/03/31/nintendos-reggie-fils-aime-addresses-onlive-iphone-competition-and-used-games/
So, not a joke after all?
@Wyatt: For me, the most important aspect of replayability is dynamics which produce unique experiences. The sticky grenade in Halo, for example, is a simple dynamic that allows many players to play the same scenario and have different experiences… and allows one player to replay repeatedly for a fresh experience each time.
Not every experience has to be fresh. When fresh experiences are meaningful and memorable, the more common experiences are like paddling before the waves. Adventure necessarily involves unexpected events, and it’s those unique and unexpected events that become the plot… the bits that represent the whole.
I don’t have much experience on the Wii, but my impression is that most dynamics in Wii games are social (like laughing at your friend eat it in Mario Kart). Few offer a significantly fresh experience without fellow players to project dynamics onto the game.
Preeetty much. Wii games are more or less party games. the system itself isnt particularly entertaining without dropping 200 bucks on 4 wii motes and nunchucks, and having the social skills to get 4 people using them, and the best game for the system is probably the one that comes with it: Wii Sports, which is easily accessible by anyone.
Fils-Aime added, “…and this whole ‘public library’ thing. WTF? That’ll never work! oh, and EBAY SHMEEBAY!”.
Seriously, who does he think he’s kidding? Has he not walked into the Nintendo section of a gamestop?
Nintendo is just attempting to discourage something they see as bad for their own business by claiming that it’s a bad business model. Retail sales of used games likely drives higher margins. It’s a logical secondary revenue source for companies like Gamestop.
That being said, places like Gamestop or EB have as much to fear from digital distribution as Blockbuster does from Video on Demand type solutions. Digital distribution doesn’t really do “used”, thus Nintendo may be right but not for the reasons they claim.
“Not to mention that most games these days are not designed for replayability…”
That’s actually the interesting part. Street Fighter is replayable. Games that focus heavily on narrative tend not to have the staying power of games that focus on mechanics. I’m not saying that narrative is bad, but most of the old classics with staying power are more about solid mechanics than story.
Gene, I think it’s actually leaning closer to being their primary revenue source, which is kinda bad. ><
They go out of their way to sell used games over new ones. There’s at least as many used games on shelves as new games, if not more. And the PC games section is a tiny fraction of what, say, BestBuy has, even though their console section is twice as large (and the fact that you can’t resell PC games almost certainly has a lot to do with that). So they’re kicking stuff to the curb to make more room for the second-hand market. That crowding out effect is really dangerous, and it shouldn’t surprise us if it moves developers to digital distribution faster than they would have otherwise. In effect, the used game business model is self-destructive.
Reggie is dancing around it, but honestly, because it hurts developers, it hurts gamers. Lower margins on products mean less funds for new ones. He just can’t say it like that without sounding like he’s a greedy developer. You’ll notice how his explanations actually aren’t addressing the lack of value to he customer, but are non-sequitors dealing with how Nintendo customers interact with Nintendo games? His comments aren’t arguing toward used games being bad, instead they’re about why used games aren’t necessary. The argument why they’re bad is implicit; it hurts developer income. The argument against the market being valid on the other hand, is harder to make, but necessary if you want that market to go away. This is calculated PR.
Buying used games is frequently a question of financial necessity for me. I only have so much gaming money. One new game or two used games? Easy enough choice to make. There are a few developers out there where I will buy their games new (Sucker Punch, for one.) This is because I understand they won’t make anything if I buy their game used and I want to reward their good work.
I’m not sure that the library analogy is totally apt. Libraries serve as a huge market for buying new books. Publishers and authors get money from library sales. Gamestop has evolved into something more similar to a book trader-type store where they mainly buy used games and resell them.
Digital delivery will hurt this market as it continues to spread. But older games do have a value. Not everyone can afford, or chooses to buy, the newest game system. Used games are also the only choice for a lot of great sleeper games – Disgaea, for example.
I think nearly all of my books and DVDs are used. Maybe I’m cheap, but I’d rather buy them for $0.10 than full price.
And Nintendo owners certainly do like used items. I sold all of my Wii games and the system for full price months after I had purchased them. And I actually used that money to buy used games for another system.
The most busy bookstore in Austin…
http://www.halfpricebooks.com/
Used video games are a successful market for GameStop because games are mispriced.
Developers should not be complaining about “lost” revenue. The theory of first-sale implies that you have captured the revenue from resale when you set your initial price so high. The example I usually see is with cars. If you weren’t able to resell your car, it wouldn’t be worth $30k. If games were $10 rather than $60, a lot fewer people would bother to return them for $5 store credit. Similarly, if Gamestop was selling used games for $9 and new ones for $10, customers would be much more likely to go for the shiny new over the used.
This is where digital distribution can really kill the Gamestop model. It lets the publisher slash the price without the overhead of boxes/shelf space and recapture the used game market.
In Nintendo’s defence, Japan does have a high resistance to used items compared to North America. It is very difficult to dispose of used goods there. On the other hand, the nintendo ds is one item which most stores would sell both new and used (and the used only being about $10 cheaper)
There are a great many games which I would never buy new but which I will snag out of the bargain bin (or used, for console titles). Maybe the publisher and developer doesn’t get money from that transaction, but they wouldn’t be getting that money anyway. On the upside, if it’s a solid, enjoyable game, I WILL buy the next title in that series or by that designer for full price, and I’ll also buy DLC or expansions for that game.
We’re in a world where the only form of advertising with any real traction is that which offers entertainment or other value. In that context, a good “used” title, like a solid demo, is a billboard for your entire line.