[Aselith]

70% may go toward used games, but that's still 70% out of Gamestop's "currency" and not an actual currency. If Joe Shmoe trades in CoD4, CoD6, CoD8 and theoretically gets $40-50 trade-in value from Gamestop, that's not "real cash" that's store-credit. Gamestop is taking a hit from Joe trading those games in and "buying" CoD10 at $20 instead of the $60 retail price. I think that's where developers are getting up in arms, because Gamestop is eating the revenue by giving a "lower cost" to consumers with none of that currency/trade-in value being real. Or maybe I'm overthinking it. /And yes, I know you can get real cash for your trade-ins, but it's at FAR lower returns than the store-credit.

L
O
L
Time to go back to school, buddy, you got some learnin to do.

[Neki]

70% may go toward used games, but that's still 70% out of Gamestop's "currency" and not an actual currency. If Joe Shmoe trades in CoD4, CoD6, CoD8 and theoretically gets $40-50 trade-in value from Gamestop, that's not "real cash" that's store-credit. Gamestop is taking a hit from Joe trading those games in and "buying" CoD10 at $20 instead of the $60 retail price. I think that's where developers are getting up in arms, because Gamestop is eating the revenue by giving a "lower cost" to consumers with none of that currency/trade-in value being real. Or maybe I'm overthinking it. /And yes, I know you can get real cash for your trade-ins, but it's at FAR lower returns than the store-credit.

and where does gamestop get new games from?

[NeoUltima]

But who and how many people actually trade in games?

It's rich (relatively) people that are just looking to clear out their shelves and get newer games.
People that are poor (relatively) and thus more likely to buy used games, don't trade in their games cause they don't wanna get ripped off.

Publishers want to get rid of the second hand market to force the 'poor' people to buy new instead of used. 'Rich' people will buy new regardless.

[ciaossu]

Publishers/Devs aren't, I thought? I thought the retail system is "We pay you this much for this amount of shipment." However, if Gamestop/retail store eats the cost, they say "we had to sell at a loss, you get this amount instead of original amount." That's what I'm trying to say/figure out: If Gamestop's feeding revenue back into the new games system, where is the majority of that fake-cash/trade-in-credit going instead of to publishers. There has to be something in that fake system (besides it being fake) that the developers are up-in-arms about.

Publishers/developers want every purchase to be new. If Person A sells Mario Galaxy to Gamestop, Person B can go buy that copy from Gamestop. If no used game sales were allowed, Person B would be forced to buy a new copy. Thus more more for the Publishers/developers.

Gamestop is not some evil monster, just a middle man in used game sales. They make it easy to sell used games, some people still use craigslist and ebay which publishers/developers would also like to stop with online passes, etc.

[MikeHaggar]

Stat is pretty much meaningless as to what the issue with Gamestop is. The problem with Gamestop isn't where the money goes that people get for trading in games. The problem is the huge margin they make on selling used games which is money that just gets sucked out of the industry. Used games are actually good for the industry, what's not good is the used games middle man. Here's what ends up happening. Person A sells game to Gamestop for $30 and then spends $30 of their own money to buy a $60 game. Person B buys it from Gamestop for $45. $75 has been spent by consumers but only $60 of that goes to the new game. Ideal situation is Person A sells the game to B for $25 on Craigslist and then spends $35 of their own money to get a new game. $60 has been spent by consumers and $60 goes towards new game. A and B spend less money to get the same products and thus have more money for game purchases in the future.

this. i know several threads have popped up about this and it always amazes me how a lot of people don't seem to get it. i fully believe that 70% of trade-ins go towards new games. the problem is that another customer MUST be buying that traded-in game, instead of a new copy of it, in order for this business strategy to be profitable for gamestop. and gamestop has been quite profitable.

so, the question really becomes, do trade-ins account for more money paid to publishers/devs than the amount of money that they (publishers/devs) lose to used game sales at gamestop? the obvious answer is 'no' because gamestop would be losing money if that were the case.

[sixghost]

Then why, if that's the case, are publishers looking to kill trade ins? They want the maximum amount upfront? Maximising the return of the first 3 weeks after launch to inflate the numbers?

They don't want to kill used games, they just don't want you to trade in their games. They'd love it if you trade in games published by another company in order to buy their games.

70% may go toward used games, but that's still 70% out of Gamestop's "currency" and not an actual currency. If Joe Shmoe trades in CoD4, CoD6, CoD8 and theoretically gets $40-50 trade-in value from Gamestop, that's not "real cash" that's store-credit. Gamestop is taking a hit from Joe trading those games in and "buying" CoD10 at $20 instead of the $60 retail price. I think that's where developers are getting up in arms, because Gamestop is eating the revenue by giving a "lower cost" to consumers with none of that currency/trade-in value being real. Or maybe I'm overthinking it. /And yes, I know you can get real cash for your trade-ins, but it's at FAR lower returns than the store-credit.

Do you think Gamestop pays publishers with Gamestop credit?

[Slavik81]

If used games was really beneficial to publishers why would they go to lengths to try and mitigate it through DLC, Season Pass, etc. Gamestop CEO has access to his numbers, but maybe these publishers' internal numbers indicate otherwise, that used does have an effect on their bottom line. It's all about maximizing profit of course and I think developers and publishers have more skin in this game.

I would not assume that game publishers are infallible in their attempts to maximize their profits.

[RagnarokX]

It's the same backwards logic where devs keep prices too high and spend money to combat piracy when reducing price would be the best tactic. Devs see used game sales as 1:1 losses and don't realize WHY people buy used games. Without being able to trade in games or buy used, people will just buy fewer games.

[railGUN]

I don't buy used games, ever... But if any new console prohibits playing used games, I'll not buy that system strictly out of protest.

[IrishNinja]

as if fair trade doctrine wasnt enough reason: this is why we gotta get away from this scapegoat.

a broken business model does not improve by pointing at one if its single largest sources of revenue doing what it does every time shareholders want to know why the next AAA title tanked.

ps you know what DD future will fix? the fact that earlier this year when i finally cottoned to handheld gaming, i had to search all over town to catch up on all 4 phoenix wrights & dozens of other titles no one wants my money for as a new product.

[RagnarokX]

as if fair trade doctrine wasnt enough reason: this is why we gotta get away from this scapegoat. a broken business model does not improve by pointing at one if its single largest sources of revenue doing what it does every time shareholders want to know why the next AAA title tanked. ps you know what DD future will fix? the fact that earlier this year when i finally cottoned to handheld gaming, i had to search all over town to catch up on all 4 phoenix wrights & dozens of other titles no one wants my money for as a new product.

If games were DD only, you would not have even been able to play all 4 phoenix wrights & dozens of other titles legally if the developers decided to stop offering them for download.

[ElectricBanquet]

Stat is pretty much meaningless as to what the issue with Gamestop is. The problem with Gamestop isn't where the money goes that people get for trading in games. The problem is the huge margin they make on selling used games which is money that just gets sucked out of the industry. Used games are actually good for the industry, what's not good is the used games middle man. Here's what ends up happening. Person A sells game to Gamestop for $30 and then spends $30 of their own money to buy a $60 game. Person B buys it from Gamestop for $45. $75 has been spent by consumers but only $60 of that goes to the new game. Ideal situation is Person A sells the game to B for $25 on Craigslist and then spends $35 of their own money to get a new game. $60 has been spent by consumers and $60 goes towards new game. A and B spend less money to get the same products and thus have more money for game purchases in the future.

The thing is though, Gamestop's success with used games shows that people want a middle man. I think most people understand that they have the option to sell their old games through Craigslist or Amazon or eBay, and even that they're more than likely going to get more for their game by selling it one of those ways than by taking it to Gamestop. However, many don't want to deal with the extra hassle and with having to wait to get their money when they can just take it in to Gamestop and sell it with minimal fuss and put the credit toward a new game right now. If Gamestop wasn't there to act as a middle man someone else would be because the market demands it.

[FoxSpirit]

If nearly all the money from traded in games is spent on new games... then who is buying all those traded in games??? Dunn dunn dunn...

[Yagharek]

If nearly all the money from traded in games is spent on new games... then who is buying all those traded in games??? Dunn dunn dunn...

I buy used games when I'm trying to find games I missed when they first came out. Also if its a bomba game with low circulation that is hard to find new.

And a lot of people buy used for their kids who are too young to know how to look after discs properly. Low risk, low loss if they damage it.

That end of the market helps fund the day one buyers who like to trade in their old games towards new releases, by providing the market that gives you $X for your trade ins.

[Mr.Wreckless]

I'd be very interested to see what the numbers on their used vs new game sales are for post launch week games. How many people are buying the $55 used copy over the $60 new copy?

Me as well.

[Terrell]

If games were DD only, you would not have even been able to play all 4 phoenix wrights & dozens of other titles legally if the developers decided to stop offering them for download.

Last I checked, I could still buy Phoenix Wright for every portable device I own, some as low as $5 in a compilation package.

As long as there is money to be made, the low overhead to offer something digitally makes the scenario you laid out less likely than the very real scenario of over-inflated used prices due to limited edition prints of games. So yeah... there's that.


As for Gamestop, all its going to take is some startup doing a gamer online swap-meet... THING to shut Gamestop out of the equation by offering used games at a fairer market value and taking a small overhead on all P2P sales to cover costs.

[OnceLostHorizon]

Maybe it's just a case of "fairness" in the eyes of the developers/publishers.
Maybe it doesn't matter how many new copies are bought due to used trades or whatever...they feel that, arguably, they deserve more of the money that their games generate no matter what.

For example physical copy# 15 of Call of Duty 4 is bought new for $60, then traded to GS and bought again, used, for $55, then sold back to GS and bought again for $55, then sold back to GS and bought again for $40, then again for $35, $20, and $10 through subsequent years of that copy of the game's life. That single copy of COD4 has generated $275 worth of revenue, and the people who actually brought the game to life received maybe $45 of that, when GameStop purchased the copy from them initially. Meanwhile GameStop has received nearly 5x that amount simply by taking advantage of lazy and/or stupid gamers who are willing to trade in a game for 50% less than they bought it for a week before.

Surely there can be a way to increase publisher/dev revenue without screwing the consumers by getting rid of used games? Maybe all the publishers start adding a caveat to retailers that they are entitled to 50% of all secondary profits for the life of the game, or something. If every time you bought a used game, you knew that 50% of that was going straight to the developers, wouldn't you feel a little better buying used?

[Yagharek]

Maybe it's just a case of "fairness" in the eyes of the developers/publishers. Maybe it doesn't matter how many new copies are bought due to used trades or whatever...they feel that, arguably, they deserve more of the money that their games generate no matter what. For example physical copy# 15 of Call of Duty 4 is bought new for $60, then traded to GS and bought again, used, for $55, then sold back to GS and bought again for $55, then sold back to GS and bought again for $40, then again for $35, $20, and $10 through subsequent years of that copy of the game's life. That single copy of COD4 has generated $275 worth of revenue, and the people who actually brought the game to life received maybe $45 of that, when GameStop purchased the copy from them initially. Meanwhile GameStop has received nearly 5x that amount simply by taking advantage of lazy and/or stupid gamers who are willing to trade in a game for 50% less than they bought it for a week before. Surely there can be a way to increase publisher/dev revenue without screwing the consumers by getting rid of used games? Maybe all the publishers start adding a caveat to retailers that they are entitled to 50% of all secondary profits for the life of the game, or something. If every time you bought a used game, you knew that 50% of that was going straight to the developers, wouldn't you feel a little better buying used?

Nice example and all, but Call of Duty sucks all the attention away from 99% of the games released each year and does far more damage to their chances of selling than does a used game market.

[hamchan]

Maybe it's just a case of "fairness" in the eyes of the developers/publishers. Maybe it doesn't matter how many new copies are bought due to used trades or whatever...they feel that, arguably, they deserve more of the money that their games generate no matter what. For example physical copy# 15 of Call of Duty 4 is bought new for $60, then traded to GS and bought again, used, for $55, then sold back to GS and bought again for $55, then sold back to GS and bought again for $40, then again for $35, $20, and $10 through subsequent years of that copy of the game's life. That single copy of COD4 has generated $275 worth of revenue, and the people who actually brought the game to life received maybe $45 of that, when GameStop purchased the copy from them initially. Meanwhile GameStop has received nearly 5x that amount simply by taking advantage of lazy and/or stupid gamers who are willing to trade in a game for 50% less than they bought it for a week before. Surely there can be a way to increase publisher/dev revenue without screwing the consumers by getting rid of used games? Maybe all the publishers start adding a caveat to retailers that they are entitled to 50% of all secondary profits for the life of the game, or something. If every time you bought a used game, you knew that 50% of that was going straight to the developers, wouldn't you feel a little better buying used?

No, I would feel much worse knowing that the publishers have such a stupid caveat. Once they've sold the game in the first transaction to the retailer they have zero right to any revenue from resales. Just use a car analogy, or houses, or shares, or any product really, and think about how ridiculous it would be for the first seller to get 50% from any future sales.

[Vice]

Maybe it's just a case of "fairness" in the eyes of the developers/publishers. Maybe it doesn't matter how many new copies are bought due to used trades or whatever...they feel that, arguably, they deserve more of the money that their games generate no matter what. For example physical copy# 15 of Call of Duty 4 is bought new for $60, then traded to GS and bought again, used, for $55, then sold back to GS and bought again for $55, then sold back to GS and bought again for $40, then again for $35, $20, and $10 through subsequent years of that copy of the game's life. That single copy of COD4 has generated $275 worth of revenue, and the people who actually brought the game to life received maybe $45 of that, when GameStop purchased the copy from them initially. Meanwhile GameStop has received nearly 5x that amount simply by taking advantage of lazy and/or stupid gamers who are willing to trade in a game for 50% less than they bought it for a week before. Surely there can be a way to increase publisher/dev revenue without screwing the consumers by getting rid of used games? Maybe all the publishers start adding a caveat to retailers that they are entitled to 50% of all secondary profits for the life of the game, or something. If every time you bought a used game, you knew that 50% of that was going straight to the developers, wouldn't you feel a little better buying used?

No, no other form of media works that way and I don't feel games should be different. They have to learn how to survive with the used market the same way music and movies have.

[Yagharek]

No, I would feel much worse knowing that the publishers have such a stupid caveat. Once they've sold the game in the first transaction to the retailer they have zero right to any revenue from resales. Just use a car analogy, or houses, or shares, or any product really, and think about how ridiculous it would be for the first seller to get 50% from any future sales.

Don't forget to mail the developers a cheque so they can eat.

[Ravidrath]

The trade-in rate isn't the only reason publishers don't like used game sales - it's the cost of retail.

The wholesale cost of a $60 game is around $40 for Gamestop, and $7+ dollars of that goes to manufacturing the game, and then money has to be spent paying Best Buy for shelf space, etc.

If they made all games digital, they could reduce the cost to the consumer and keep a greater percentage of the money.

[Aselith]

If nearly all the money from traded in games is spent on new games... then who is buying all those traded in games??? Dunn dunn dunn...

People using cash/credit cards...

[Hero]

I don't have a whole lot of love for Gamestop but I understand how important they are to have around. Before this gen I thought Gamestop was the bad guy. However after all the shit publishers put us through with online passes, bullshit multi-retailer pre-order exclusive DLC, entire characters and levels locked on your disc until you input the code that is inserted into every new copy of the game, etc the publishers can go fuck themselves.

70% may go toward used games, but that's still 70% out of Gamestop's "currency" and not an actual currency. If Joe Shmoe trades in CoD4, CoD6, CoD8 and theoretically gets $40-50 trade-in value from Gamestop, that's not "real cash" that's store-credit. Gamestop is taking a hit from Joe trading those games in and "buying" CoD10 at $20 instead of the $60 retail price. I think that's where developers are getting up in arms, because Gamestop is eating the revenue by giving a "lower cost" to consumers with none of that currency/trade-in value being real. Or maybe I'm overthinking it. /And yes, I know you can get real cash for your trade-ins, but it's at FAR lower returns than the store-credit.

You don't understand how retail works, do you? Gamestop first has to BUY every new release video game from a publisher before they can stock their shelves. These publishers and companies make their money at this point. What Gamestop does with the game afterwards is up to them. They sell a bunch of copies but someone will come in and give them a bunch of games they think are more valuable than the cost of the game they are essentially trading. Remember retailers don't pay 59.99 for video games. It's probably closer to 50-ish. If Gamestop gets 5 games that they can sell used for 19.99 each, they'll make 100 dollars which is enough to cover the cost of the new game they traded away and the rest is pure profit for them.

The trade-in rate isn't the only reason publishers don't like used game sales - it's the cost of retail. The wholesale cost of a $60 game is around $40 for Gamestop, and $7+ dollars of that goes to manufacturing the game, and then money has to be spent paying Best Buy for shelf space, etc. If they made all games digital, they could reduce the cost to the consumer and keep a greater percentage of the money.

This was a common notion beforehand but I don't see this working out this way. Books on iTunes are often more expensive than are for paper or hardback in Barnes and Nobles.

Aside from that there are always going to be way more consumers purchasing retail than digital. I don't foresee this changing for a few generations (people generations, not video game system generations).

[ElectricBanquet]

this. i know several threads have popped up about this and it always amazes me how a lot of people don't seem to get it. i fully believe that 70% of trade-ins go towards new games. the problem is that another customer MUST be buying that traded-in game, instead of a new copy of it, in order for this business strategy to be profitable for gamestop. and gamestop has been quite profitable. so, the question really becomes, do trade-ins account for more money paid to publishers/devs than the amount of money that they (publishers/devs) lose to used game sales at gamestop? the obvious answer is 'no' because gamestop would be losing money if that were the case.

I don't think that's the case at all simply because at some point a publisher stops producing new copies of a game. So, some percentage of those used games that are being sold are necessarily going to be games that are no longer available to buy new. We don't know what that percentage is, but my guess is that it is substantial (I mean, the article mentions that people are still buying used PS2 games).

You could argue, I suppose, that someone buying a used game would otherwise buy some new game if used wasn't an option, even if it wasn't the same one. I'm not sure though that even that's always the case. I believe there is a segment of people who would stop buying games (whether that means turning to piracy or just not gaming anymore) if the option for used games was taken away.

[OnceLostHorizon]

No, I would feel much worse knowing that the publishers have such a stupid caveat. Once they've sold the game in the first transaction to the retailer they have zero right to any revenue from resales. Just use a car analogy, or houses, or shares, or any product really, and think about how ridiculous it would be for the first seller to get 50% from any future sales.

It would only need to be for specific "cannibal" retailers like GameStop. If you wanted to sell your own copy to another consumer, there shouldn't be a fee that goes to the publisher. It's also not common practice to buy new houses, cars, or shares, and then completely willingly take a 50% loss a week later and give all of the loss to a company for "convenience", so you can't really compare used games to other products like that. I think it should come down to 2 things: consumer rights, and dev/pub rights. Companies like GameStop deserve to make some profit for the service they provide, but not 500% profit compared to the people that actually made the game. *IF* a game is going to make lots of money over it's lifespan, more of that money should go to those who deserve it.

[Galactic Fork]

Stat is pretty much meaningless as to what the issue with Gamestop is. The problem with Gamestop isn't where the money goes that people get for trading in games. The problem is the huge margin they make on selling used games which is money that just gets sucked out of the industry. Used games are actually good for the industry, what's not good is the used games middle man. Here's what ends up happening. Person A sells game to Gamestop for $30 and then spends $30 of their own money to buy a $60 game. Person B buys it from Gamestop for $45. $75 has been spent by consumers but only $60 of that goes to the new game. Ideal situation is Person A sells the game to B for $25 on Craigslist and then spends $35 of their own money to get a new game. $60 has been spent by consumers and $60 goes towards new game. A and B spend less money to get the same products and thus have more money for game purchases in the future.

Yeah, in a real ideal situation I don't have to put a game on craigslist, wait for someone to want it. Then wait for the paymen, and then ship to them, AND THEN go to a store with part of the payment for the game.

Also in an alternately real ideal situation I don't have to search craigslist for a game I want, send payment, wait for shipment, hope I really get a working game, or a game at all, and not a box full of pubic hair.

Gamestop sells convenience to both the person getting rid of used games, and the one looking for them.

[Corleth the Fey]

Parasitic entity defending its behavior, to be expected. Is this twice in two days he's being out there making comments? Sounds worried.

I think with the digital download future, publishers could be thinking to take back the license for a game you want to 'trade in' - then give you credit towards or money off a new game. Cuts out the middle man, everyone happy - apart from Gamestop/GAME.

[hamchan]

It would only need to be for specific "cannibal" retailers like GameStop. If you wanted to sell your own copy to another consumer, there shouldn't be a fee that goes to the publisher. It's also not common practice to buy new houses, cars, or shares, and then completely willingly take a 50% loss a week later and give all of the loss to a company for "convenience", so you can't really compare used games to other products like that.

Yes you can, games are just another product on the market. If you really want to though compare games to something closer related, like someone else brought up just a few posts ago, movies and music. Why can't video games deal with it like movies and music?

I think it should come down to 2 things: consumer rights, and dev/pub rights. Companies like GameStop deserve to make some profit for the service they provide, but not 500% profit compared to the people that actually made the game. *IF* a game is going to make lots of money over it's lifespan, more of that money should go to those who deserve it.

GameStop deserves the money because they earned it. They are providing a service to people and they aren't breaking any laws. Really, they deserve the money because they were smart enough to think of a good business model and are executing it well.

[TCKaos]

Not sure if anyone's mentioned it yet, but I could have sworn that one of the reasons devs hate GameStop was because the used market inadvertently killed creativity. You have a very short window that only lasts 2 - 4 weeks (depending on the dev) for when people will buy your game new. Otherwise, it ends up getting bought used and traded in, and then bought used yet again, leading to tons of cult titles (Madworld and No More Heroes, for instance) but because the devs aren't getting the money from these used sales the publisher has less incentive to green-light their games.

So the model is to create a clone of a popular title. Today it's Call of Duty. Every game is trying to play like and look like Call of Duty. Why? Because it's safe. The audience is large enough.

RAMBLE RAMBLE RAMBLE

TL;DR:
Used games market > cult status > shit sales > no monies
Used games market> Cawadooty > hhnnnngg sales > dosh

[IrishNinja]

If games were DD only, you would not have even been able to play all 4 phoenix wrights & dozens of other titles legally if the developers decided to stop offering them for download.

it's always a possibility - i'm not gonna get legit digi copies of Moonwalker, Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!!, or Outrun Arcade at this point. companies going under makes stuff like Nier tricky downt he line, too.

but looking at GOG, steam etc show me most companies want my money, and are down to offer their catalogs for a reasonable price, versus getting nothing. you honestly think capcom wouldn't have the whole saga up? they love this kinda thing.

[Vice]

It would only need to be for specific "cannibal" retailers like GameStop. If you wanted to sell your own copy to another consumer, there shouldn't be a fee that goes to the publisher. It's also not common practice to buy new houses, cars, or shares, and then completely willingly take a 50% loss a week later and give all of the loss to a company for "convenience", so you can't really compare used games to other products like that. I think it should come down to 2 things: consumer rights, and dev/pub rights. Companies like GameStop deserve to make some profit for the service they provide, but not 500% profit compared to the people that actually made the game. *IF* a game is going to make lots of money over it's lifespan, more of that money should go to those who deserve it.

Why don't they deserve to make that much. Used book, music and movies store give their customers extremely low amounts for trade-ins and sell them for a nice profit. The market for used games just happens to be a lot more lucrative since piracy, for consoles, isn't as easy as it is for other mediums.

[Hero]

Not sure if anyone's mentioned it yet, but I could have sworn that one of the reasons devs hate GameStop was because the used market inadvertently killed creativity. You have a very short window that only lasts 2 - 4 weeks (depending on the dev) for when people will buy your game new. Otherwise, it ends up getting bought used and traded in, and then bought used yet again, leading to tons of cult titles (Madworld and No More Heroes, for instance) but because the devs aren't getting the money from these used sales the publisher has less incentive to green-light their games. So the model is to create a clone of a popular title. Today it's Call of Duty. Every game is trying to play like and look like Call of Duty. Why? Because it's safe. The audience is large enough. RAMBLE RAMBLE RAMBLE TL;DR: Used games market > cult status > shit sales > no monies Used games market> Cawadooty > hhnnnngg sales > dosh

Unfortunately that's the way the market is. When gamers latch onto a game and don't let go it's great since it sells millions of copies. The problem there is they might not buy any other games because they're playing their favorite/popular one. When gamers don't get hooked onto a game they will just wait for a price drop before picking it up. This is how the industry trained us.

You want the brand new game all your friends are playing? Pony up 60 bucks. You want to wait for a price drop or buy used? Fine, fuck you and buy an online pass for 15 bucks before we let you on the server. You waited too long? You missed out on pre-order DLC.

This harkens back to Nintendo since they create valuable software and why their games take forever to drop in price. Also Nintendo even spoke about this a few years ago how the industry needs to stop training consumers into waiting 1-3 months and having the same game be at half price or worse since it'll be bad for everyone.

To note I haven't bought a single used game this generation but I still support Gamestop and other retailers that do trade in programs. I won't support any game hardware that doesn't allow used games to be played on it.

[mrklaw]

Then why, if that's the case, are publishers looking to kill trade ins? They want the maximum amount upfront? Maximising the return of the first 3 weeks after launch to inflate the numbers?

wouldn't work though - if you're mainly in the market for used games, you aren't going to start buying full price in the first few weeks, you'd wait for price drops on new.

Maybe a compromise would be to agree not to sell used titles within a certain period of the game going on sale. So eg the first two weeks are new sales only.

[carfo]

I've never really had problems with GameStop. They get a lot of shit, mostly because of minimum wage employees, but I still buy all new games from there. I'm past the point in my life where I need to trade old games in, but I don't go to Best Buy or Walmart to buy new games.

[90TilInfinity]

Of course they would want ALL the money and not just 70% of it.

The point is that alot of people who buy new games may not be able to buy as many as they did without the discounts their used games provide. The way you look at it assumes everybody who trades in their games already have the funds and are willing to buy new with cash only but choose not to. One can't simply assume that's the case. Used games have created a mini-economy which some would argue is helping the gaming industry.

Publishers are so consumed with the possibility that someone is trading in their game to buy another one (by a rival publisher) new, that they ignore the fact that at the same time someone is probably trading in another used game to buy their game new.

[Drek]

Stat is pretty much meaningless as to what the issue with Gamestop is. The problem with Gamestop isn't where the money goes that people get for trading in games. The problem is the huge margin they make on selling used games which is money that just gets sucked out of the industry. Used games are actually good for the industry, what's not good is the used games middle man. Here's what ends up happening. Person A sells game to Gamestop for $30 and then spends $30 of their own money to buy a $60 game. Person B buys it from Gamestop for $45. $75 has been spent by consumers but only $60 of that goes to the new game. Ideal situation is Person A sells the game to B for $25 on Craigslist and then spends $35 of their own money to get a new game. $60 has been spent by consumers and $60 goes towards new game. A and B spend less money to get the same products and thus have more money for game purchases in the future.

Ok, so lets do the math here:
Example A is $75 consumer dollars spent with only $60 going to the games industry.

Example B is $60 consumer dollars spent with only $60 going to the games industry.

So how exactly does plan A negatively impact the video game industry, unless they can somehow assure themselves that the $15 dollars left over in Example B will be saved up and spent on a future game purchase?

I mean, if you take all the running expenses of the average gamer and broke them down into percentages I'd bet that video games run well south of 10% of annual expenses. So even then you're talking about maybe $1.50 or so of quantifiable "loss" on the industry's part.

Gamestop's used games model works because consumers prefer it over having to do the leg work of craigslist, ebay, etc. themselves. When consumers trade in to Gamestop they are implicitly stating that they would rather get a little less money back for greater convenience. The mark ups are entirely on the consumer side, and it isn't any business of the games industry how consumers spend money.

In any realistic economic model the games industry bitching about used games sales is comparable to them bitching about movies, music, and any other media they might compete with for consumer dollars. The only difference is that the used games industry 1. increases consumer awareness about game brands and 2. helps drive a large portion of it's revenue into new games sales which do directly benefit the games industry.

Bitching about used games is a straw man that the games industry beats up on as an excuse for why their game didn't sell and why they need day one DLC, online passes, season passes, etc.. Its exactly the same as PC devs bitching about piracy crippling their sales and forcing them to use heavily anti-consumer DRM, yet there isn't much of a DRM defense force around here. Why is there such a strong anti-used games movement?

[News Bot]

Then why, if that's the case, are publishers looking to kill trade ins?

Because they are short-sighted, corporate-minded idiots.

[Plinko]

Fuck, dude. Gamestop's recent pro- used game tirade is making me think they have some inside information regarding the new consoles.

I thought the exact same thing. It's worrisome. First we got the rumors about the new systems being anti-used (through whatever means) and then as time has gone on Gamestop has become more adamant about it.

I think in this case where there is smoke, there is fire.

[Neuromancer]

Parasitic entity defending its behavior, to be expected. Is this twice in two days he's being out there making comments? Sounds worried. I think with the digital download future, publishers could be thinking to take back the license for a game you want to 'trade in' - then give you credit towards or money off a new game. Cuts out the middle man, everyone happy - apart from Gamestop/GAME.

Parasites don't greatly help the health of their host. Gamestop is either the #1 or #2 seller of new games in America; without it publishers would not sell nearly as many new games. That's a fact. I think the term you're looking for is a symbiotic relationship.

[Dragonzord]

Yeah, as someone who's worked there, and obviously YMMV, but the kind of people who buy used games don't pre-order things.

The kind of people who pre-order things trade in games with no stickers(IE, they preordered those games too. Or bought them new). And it's not like Gamestop doesn't encourage buying new. Most of their specials are bonus trade ins for buying a new game. It's two seperate markets.

[bryehn]

This most definitely applies to myself, especially given they almost always have a "get 30% more towards X game" or "trade 3 for $50" type deal on.

[DoctorWho]

This is exactly what I do.

[shintoki]

What a foreign concept.

[see5harp]

I'm not necessarily saying he is lying so much as I think he is probably bending the truth. People come in, trade their games in and walk out with a game that didn't previously own, aka a new game. No lie told but he still gets to make the same point, especially if he considers GameStop part of the "games industry" that is reaping the benefits of the $1.8 billion dollars of cash being injected/circulated. I'm a cynical prick though, it's likely that I'm wrong and he is speaking purely about brand new games. If that's the case though, I'd love to know how much cash GameSpot 'withdraws' (I'm using that term loosely before anybody gets their panties in a twist) from the games industry when the customer uses the money to get another used game. I'm guessing that number would be pretty damn sizeable as well and it would also offer the answer, in part, to the question people are asking about why game companies want to kill off the used game market.

Publishers want to kill the used game market because they are too idiotic to figure out how to profit on their own and want a piece of the Gamestop pie. They create games with budgets that are too high too succeed, they gamble on long term MMO projects with little chance of ever getting an audience, and then they run back with their tails between their legs and convert to free to play. I have no sympathy for the pubs.

[monchi-kun]

I would not assume that game publishers are infallible in their attempts to maximize their profits.

Lets look at this issue from the cold lens of business. If the used games business of the scale that Gamestop and Best Buy delivers real/substantial benefit to a publisher and developer's bottom line then why would they take steps to push people towards new games purchases through initiatives?

If this were a truly symbiotic business relationship then I could see publishers, developers, and retailers working through this issue like business partners because it benefits all parties involved proportionately.

[Dave Long]

I've been trying to to explain this to people for years. Developers and publishers don't want to listen to the cold hard truth that gaming exploded around the time Gamestop started taking trade-ins... which in turn boosted new games sales.

Take 'em away and you sell even less new games.

[Neuromancer]

Lets look at this issue from the cold lens of business. If the used games business of the scale that Gamestop and Best Buy delivers real/substantial benefit to a publisher and developer's bottom line then why would they take steps to push people towards new games purchases through initiatives? If this were a truly symbiotic business relationship then I could see publishers, developers, and retailers working through this issue like business partners because it benefits all parties involved proportionately.

If the used games business of the scale that Gamestop and Best Buy delivers real/substantial harm to a publisher and developer's bottom line then why wouldn't they just stop doing business with them? Because the fact is it's of far greater benefit to the publishers to work with them.

I think publishers and developers just like bitching and moaning about used game sales because it's an easy bugaboo that they can blame for their games not doing well, instead of taking a good hard look at why so many consumers trade in their games instead of holding on to them.

[scitek]

Then why, if that's the case, are publishers looking to kill trade ins?

Because they have no idea how the hell to make money, as evidenced by their bleeding it away this entire generation.

[AndrewDean84xX]

What game devs should do then is offer their own trade in programs to reduce the price of the next game from them. Outside of that, Gamestop will remain KING.