Should I buy Shift 2?

[DrJustice]

...I think opting to let the original comment slide is a good idea, or we'll all hear more of it.

You're a bona fide prophet, man

@ JJ72 : When I moved to where I now live, it so happened to be a Gamestop locally, so that's where I now shop games. The situation you're describing doesn't really fit my local branch AFAICS - there is a very limited choice of used games there. I also buy all my games new and keep them, or give them away, so it's not something that I have any experience with. I appreciate your concern for developers and end users though.

DJ
--

 

[RomKnight]

There are stores in Portugal on the same business... I don't use them because I'd rather GIVE a game to someone than selling it for 6€ and seeing them selling it for 10€ under the retail price when NEW.

I'm ok for profit but not with those margins a big board calling us MORONS has the same effect. My games are paid for so let them gain dust if there's no other way to get rid of them.

 

[Destinkeys]

they are making a remarkable profit from second hand trades, with each trade they are speeding up the process of the second hand market as it provides a reliable outlet for bad games to be traded.

The direct victim is the developers, since the ease of getting second hand games will hurt first hand sales, which means they will have to recover some profit by the means of unlockable content thru one time redeem codes, it's more and more often that you won't get the full game unless you enter a code that comes with the game, and that practice will in turn harm people who don't have regular internet access from their console.

And this business model also means game sales after launch is pretty much none, since everyone can get it second handed. Hence publishers do hype up games even more to ensure first week sales, since that is where most of the money will come from, it means we will see more time devoted on making glorified trailers rather than actual good games.

In a long term, everybody loses, while gamestop is making repeatable income, increasing its influence in how games are published.

I have no objection of buying second hand game from other people or passing it to your friends, however feeding a giant retail chain for minor convinence, and taking this trade for granted isn't good for the game industry.

As for rental, unlike videos which are protected by law that shops can't rent out retail copies, but instead have to buy a more expensive rental copy which grants them the right to be lend out (which is a logical protection of the video maker's benefit). Right now no law protects the publisher of video games, so unless it is put under legislation one day, you are practically renting games that the shop had only paid once, people can abuse the renting system and the publisher will get absolutely nothing out of it.

I actually see this as a PLUS for us, not a negative. The ease with which games can be traded back in MIGHT finally spur game designers to not release buggy, incomplete, boring games with no demo, and then string along the buyers with unfulfilled promises to fix everything 'soon'...

PD, you reading this?

 

[Luminis]

they are making a remarkable profit from second hand trades, with each trade they are speeding up the process of the second hand market as it provides a reliable outlet for bad games to be traded.

The direct victim is the developers, since the ease of getting second hand games will hurt first hand sales, which means they will have to recover some profit by the means of unlockable content thru one time redeem codes, it's more and more often that you won't get the full game unless you enter a code that comes with the game, and that practice will in turn harm people who don't have regular internet access from their console.

And this business model also means game sales after launch is pretty much none, since everyone can get it second handed. Hence publishers do hype up games even more to ensure first week sales, since that is where most of the money will come from, it means we will see more time devoted on making glorified trailers rather than actual good games.

In a long term, everybody loses, while gamestop is making repeatable income, increasing its influence in how games are published.

I have no objection of buying second hand game from other people or passing it to your friends, however feeding a giant retail chain for minor convinence, and taking this trade for granted isn't good for the game industry.

As for rental, unlike videos which are protected by law that shops can't rent out retail copies, but instead have to buy a more expensive rental copy which grants them the right to be lend out (which is a logical protection of the video maker's benefit). Right now no law protects the publisher of video games, so unless it is put under legislation one day, you are practically renting games that the shop had only paid once, people can abuse the renting system and the publisher will get absolutely nothing out of it.

Developers developing games that are good enough to be not traded in within the first month by the majority of player = not enough second hand copies for everyone = sales stay high.

Plus, the gaming industry is bigger than ever and games still sell well, don't they?

 

[deftonesmx17]

Hello "ADD"...
The modern gamer is not the same as an "old school" gamer. Modern gamers are bored after 4-8 hours.
This has not only increased trade-ins, but has also affected game quality.
Look at a modern FPS, campaigns are normally in that 4-8 hour range for first play through nowadays; it was not like this before.
I don't remember beating either of the Half-Life games, Descent, Duke3D that quickly on my first play through.

Game trading at places such as GameStop does indeed hurt the developers and the customers. It hurts the developers as already explained by JJ72. It hurts the customer because of such things as EA's Online Pass.

Say you buy a used copy of Shift Unleashed 1-4 weeks after release from GameStop. The developer only made one sale on the initial purchase. GameStop just made 1.5 sales. Now they are listing said used game for $50-55. Customer buys it only to find out when they get home that the Online Pass was already used. This means said person now needs to fork over $10 for Online Pass so the developer gets some kind of profit of that second sale.

Did you do the math? Customer just paid $60-65 for a complete used game; might as well of bought it brand new and supported the developer instead of GameStop.

Developers not making enough off a product is not going to increase quality products from them. It will do the complete opposite because investors will be reluctant to put money down for a company that is not making a profit, no matter how sound their new idea is. This is why you will see the continuing trend of for example a new COD every year with minimal differences.

Therefore, the customer is receiving a negative end result.

Also, the game industry can't be compared to the Movie or Music industry in regards to this. Movies make the majority of their profit from these things called Theaters, and sales as a bonus. The musical industry likewise makes money from performances and retail sales.

The game industry on the other hand solely has to rely on actual sales.

 

[Luminis]

The game industry on the other hand solely has to rely on actual sales.

Yeah, and what you lot seem to forget is the very simple fact that every copy that is sold used has to be sold first hand, either way.
If it was anywhere near the doomsday scenario you're describing, games like Gran Turismo wouldn't be selling millions of copies, would they?

Besides, stuff like online passes might as well be there to stop people from pirating games as easily. If you want to point fingers at someone for 'destroying' the gaming industry, try pointing it at software pirates.
I guess it's fairly safe to say that those are having more of an impact on the overall sales and state of the industry.

Plus, I doubt that the whole second hand market has any influence on how innovative today's games are. If a revamped game like COD X sells that well, that's all the reason a given developer needs to not go with something innovative.
And, lastly, games are a business case. Doesn't matter how many sales you lose to the second hand market or software pirating, if an uninnovative games will sell more than an innovative one, it's no wonder the latter isn't the one the developer picks.

Did you do the math? Customer just paid $60-65 for a complete used game; might as well of bought it brand new and supported the developer instead of GameStop.

See, the only thing wrong with GameStop is the lack of competition in that regard, forcing them to lower the prices a bit. That's all. But, there's a simple rule in business: If the customer is paying the price you're asking, you don't lower it.

 

[deftonesmx17]

Yeah, and what you lot seem to forget is the very simple fact that every copy that is sold used has to be sold first hand, either way.

Only big name games sell well. What you just ignored is that say one copy is sold first hand. Then say that same copy is traded and sold 20 times. The developer only made profit off one sale while GameStop just made 20 profits off the exact same disc. You have to look at the big picture.

Besides, stuff like online passes might as well be there to stop people from pirating games as easily. If you want to point fingers at someone for 'destroying' the gaming industry, try pointing it at software pirates.
I guess it's fairly safe to say that those are having more of an impact on the overall sales and state of the industry.

Many experts (not the RIAA or MPAA propaganda) are starting to understand that pirates are not really a lost sale as many of them would have never bought it in the first place. Look up some of the interviews with the Minecraft producer as he talks about this all the time.

Pirates are also unlikely to buy online pass considering they wouldnt buy the game in the first place; why would they buy something now? However, even if they do the developer is seeing some type of profit, not a GameStop.

 

[Imari]

However much you dislike Gamestop, what they're doing is just an extension of a right that everyone has. The right to sell the goods that you own to another person. I'm well within my rights to sell my old copy of Metal Gear Solid to a friend. Gamestop just takes that to another level, and jacks up the price.

Unless you think that selling second-hand should be banned totally, Gamestop is a necessary evil.

 

[Animal_Mother]

If GS sell a used game for 5 bucks less than the new one a couple of weeks after release, I'll just buy the new one. Not cause I want to support the developer or anything, I just like that new game smell. In my opinion, that's worth 5 bucks every time.

 

[Bourner]

Should you buy SHIFT 2? Check this YouTube channel out:

http://www.youtube.com/user/denisito74#p/u

The physics at the edge of control and the crashes are spectacular. They are almost on-par, if not better than GRID. Physics mode looks much improved, looking at the Telemetry data it actually has more information than GT5 easy but maybe even more than FM3.

The menus are so cool and fresh. The upgrades, especially Works, are just so exciting. One thing though, in SHIFT there were 2 or 3 Works body-kits. I think SHIFT 2 may only have one.

Online has custom public lobbies like GT5! But one thing to mention, I can't see a points system and not sure exactly if there is a way to ensure the cars are very well matched online, like in FM3.

Look at the in depth car Advanced Tuning, the likes not seen in a console racing game yet. I remember GTR2 or GT Legends on the PC having such complexity but FM3 and GT5 certainly do not.

It looks so realistic and spectacular.

Sound? Well it's mind-blowing!

No pit stops, no dynamic day time or weather, no Ferrari, no individual aero upgrades, no rewind, no B-Spec. Some of these were left out intentionally but dare I say, and I know I'm going to get flack for this. I liked rewind in FM3 and B-Spec in GT5. Rewind helped me perfect some difficult corners, it helped me get some perfect replays saved for posterity and B-Spec helped me get loads-a-credits while watching TV or being at work or doing housework, etc...

Best thing about SHIFT that I can see: It's fun, it's not boring! Because let's face it, the grind and boredom level in GT5 and FM3 sometimes is mind-numbing.

 

[Imari]

Should you buy SHIFT 2? Check this YouTube channel out:

http://www.youtube.com/user/denisito74#p/u

The physics at the edge of control and the crashes are spectacular. They are almost on-par, if not better than GRID. Physics mode looks much improved, looking at the Telemetry data it actually has more information than GT5 easy but maybe even more than FM3.

The menus are so cool and fresh. The upgrades, especially Works, are just so exciting. One thing though, in SHIFT there were 2 or 3 Works body-kits. I think SHIFT 2 may only have one.

Online has custom public lobbies like GT5! But one thing to mention, I can't see a points system and not sure exactly if there is a way to ensure the cars are very well matched online, like in FM3.

Look at the in depth car Advanced Tuning, the likes not seen in a console racing game yet. I remember GTR2 or GT Legends on the PC having such complexity but FM3 and GT5 certainly do not.

It looks so realistic and spectacular.

Sound? Well it's mind-blowing!

No pit stops, no dynamic day time or weather, no Ferrari, no individual aero upgrades, no rewind, no B-Spec. Some of these were left out intentionally but dare I say, and I know I'm going to get flack for this. I liked rewind in FM3 and B-Spec in GT5. Rewind helped me perfect some difficult corners, it helped me get some perfect replays saved for posterity and B-Spec helped me get loads-a-credits while watching TV or being at work or doing housework, etc...

Best thing about SHIFT that I can see: It's fun, it's not boring! Because let's face it, the grind and boredom level in GT5 and FM3 sometimes is mind-numbing.

They have said that there is a class system for matching cars up of similar performance.

I don't remember multiple works upgrades for any cars in Shift 1.

And having B-Spec to earn you credits is pointless if you already earn more credits than you know what to do with playing the A-spec equivalent.

 

[tyl0r_r]

What is it that Gamestop are doing that is harming, and who or what is being harmed?

DJ
--

Walk into your local Gamestop. Tell me the percentage of floor space devoted to second hand games. At my local locations, that percentage is easily over 50. EASILY.

All the profit from second hand game sales go to Gamestop. Great for them, fine. They would rather sell you a used version of a game. That is why when you buy a copy of a new game they sometimes offer you the used version instead if they've got one in (has happened to me many times). Again, great for them.

But now imagine that they succeed, and suddenly more than 50% of the sales of the largest video game retailer in the country are from used game sales.

Now imagine that you're a game developer, who isn't seeing a penny from more than half the sales made at the biggest video game retailer in the country. Kind of takes its effect on your business practices and abilities, especially when it comes to risk taking and producing games that aren't an FPS starring a soldier from a current war or one in the distant future.

You don't have to come to a conclusion morally about whether you think what Gamestop is doing in this area is "good" or not. But, if you like the video game industry and want to see niche games continue to be made (which includes race simulators) then you'd be doing a lot of help by buying games new at any opportunity that you can.

Edit: This whole thread really means nothing until the game comes out . I'll check back after it's been released and someone can answer the OP's question.

 

[Imari]

Walk into your local Gamestop. Tell me the percentage of floor space devoted to second hand games. At my local locations, that percentage is easily over 50. EASILY.

All the profit from second hand game sales go to Gamestop. Great for them, fine. They would rather sell you a used version of a game. That is why when you buy a copy of a new game they sometimes offer you the used version instead if they've got one in (has happened to me many times). Again, great for them.

But now imagine that they succeed, and suddenly more than 50% of the sales of the largest video game retailer in the country are from used game sales.

Now imagine that you're a game developer, who isn't seeing a penny from more than half the sales made at the biggest video game retailer in the country. Kind of takes its effect on your business practices and abilities, especially when it comes to risk taking and producing games that aren't an FPS starring a soldier from a current war or one in the distant future.

You don't have to come to a conclusion morally about whether you think what Gamestop is doing in this area is "good" or not. But, if you like the video game industry and want to see niche games continue to be made (which includes race simulators) then you'd be doing a lot of help by buying games new at any opportunity that you can.

Edit: This whole thread really means nothing until the game comes out . I'll check back after it's been released and someone can answer the OP's question.

How is what Gamestop doing different to any other second hand goods dealer? They're taking unwanted goods, buying them from their owners and selling them at a profit.

It's not a simple equation of one used game sale = one new game sale lost. I would never have bought F1 2010 new because I didn't trust that it would be good (a mistake on my part in hindsight), but I was happy to pick it up cheap used.

I agree that it's important that people buy games new when they want to support that developer. But saying that second hand sales is killing the industry is just not true. What's killing the industry is games with no replay value that players are happy to trade in after a month or so.

 

[reaperman]

But now imagine that they succeed, and suddenly more than 50% of the sales of the largest video game retailer in the country are from used game sales.

The thing is that gamestop is easily the the most prevalent retailer in my market with more stores in my city as walmarts, targets, and best buys combined. They use the profit from used video games to put stores (which also sell new video games) in areas that normally couldn't support such a specialty store.

Additionally Gamestop's product selection is generally better than their competition. Not just because they take more chances on oddball games nobody else sells, but because they also sell out of print titles used.

I'm not a huge gamestop fan generally (I do online shopping), but if they weren't around, the gaming industry as a whole wouldn't be where it is. It's their primary distributor here.

 

[Patrick]

If you guys wanna talk about GameStop and them selling second hand games. Create YOUR OWN thread. This is about Shift 2.

 

[Destinkeys]

Let's leave moderation to the moderators, eh..?

Look, Gamestop can't sell a used game if no-one trades it in...

Used games have ALWAYS been traded and sold. But, in the past, because the internet couldn't be used to update them, game developers made DAMN sure that games were released pretty bug-free and solidly playtested. Can't say that anymore, can we...?

If game developers want to release buggy, incomplete, unfinished half-games and then string us along with unfulfilled promises to fix everything 'eventually', maybe they DESERVE what is happening to them...

If GT5 were what we expected (at LEAST as good a game as GT4, with as many events and logical gameplay), how many of the traded in copies would STILL be sitting in people's PS3's?

 

[tribolik]

I for one aint trading any good games like F1 CE, Shift 1, Dirt 2, GT4 even F1 2010 (im not so sure about this one)

TDU2, GT5, those I will probably trade

 

[TheDabbinDave]

they are making a remarkable profit from second hand trades, with each trade they are speeding up the process of the second hand market as it provides a reliable outlet for bad games to be traded.

The direct victim is the developers, since the ease of getting second hand games will hurt first hand sales, which means they will have to recover some profit by the means of unlockable content thru one time redeem codes, it's more and more often that you won't get the full game unless you enter a code that comes with the game, and that practice will in turn harm people who don't have regular internet access from their console.

And this business model also means game sales after launch is pretty much none, since everyone can get it second handed. Hence publishers do hype up games even more to ensure first week sales, since that is where most of the money will come from, it means we will see more time devoted on making glorified trailers rather than actual good games.

In a long term, everybody loses, while gamestop is making repeatable income, increasing its influence in how games are published.

I have no objection of buying second hand game from other people or passing it to your friends, however feeding a giant retail chain for minor convinence, and taking this trade for granted isn't good for the game industry.

As for rental, unlike videos which are protected by law that shops can't rent out retail copies, but instead have to buy a more expensive rental copy which grants them the right to be lend out (which is a logical protection of the video maker's benefit). Right now no law protects the publisher of video games, so unless it is put under legislation one day, you are practically renting games that the shop had only paid once, people can abuse the renting system and the publisher will get absolutely nothing out of it.

Good luck finding a new copy of GT3, GT4, GT5p, or even Shift 1 on any store shelves.

It's a vicious cycle. Devs and distributors are getting away with putting crap on shelves for $60 which is really worth about $20 - $40. Perfect example MADDEN. Or any other yearly game being churned out by the industry.

GT5 put out a $100 Collectors Edition (bought 2, one as a gift) and a $300 Signature Edition. And what did we get? A game that is a shell if it's former self. Simply count the events in GT5 compared to GT4. PD is really on the ball to roll out that DLC containing classic tracks that were SLASHED out of GT5.

I have friends who are new to gaming. If I want to buy them a few games (on the cheap) that have not been on shelves in years. What do you suggest I do without going to a used store???

The early adopters (people who buy games at launch) are, as usual, taking the biggest risk of getting raked over the coals. See, NOW we know why PD was so hush hush with information about GT5 before release. It's like a chocolate bunny, and not a solid one.

Should you buy the game? Why do you want to? Why do you not want to? (trust or distrust has a lot to do with it). I bought Shift 1 as a "keep it" after about 2 months from GameFly. I really dislike the game. It feels disconnected from the track. Unlike GT5p did.

I'm buying Shift 2, hoping that it has been fixed as they said it has. I'm hoping it and NTG will make up for what GT5 failed to deliver.