• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

If your next-gen console forbids used games, will you spend more money total?

Less by a significant margin. There are only a few franchises I buy games for no matter what. While I don't tend to buy games used, I do tend to sell them towards purchases I wouldn't have gotten otherwise.
 
Dunno how common this sentiment is but I only trade in games when I buy new ones because it's convenient. And I usually only buy games at launch because I'm impatient :) If there was no Gamestop I wouldn't trade them in.

I'd still buy the same number of games if trade ins died. I never really replay most of my games and don't care about collecting that much, so essentially I've lost money by not trading them immediately after I've finished them. I suspect a large amount of people do not think like this and are basically doing the opposite. Buying used, and not at launch. Or buying new and trading in right away after they're done.
 
Less. I've had so many spontaneous used games buys from here on GAF it's ridiculous. I've probably bought more used games off of fellow GAFers in the past 6 months than I bought at retail in the past year.
 
Won't buy a single next gen console if they don't allow used games. I'll stick to buying games under $5 on steam. Unless they offer great discounts like Steam, then I'll reconsider.
 
Less, I buy a lot of games, most of them new. I however buy them under the context that if I hate it, I can sell it off. If I no longer have that option (or the option is severely hindered) then I'll just have to be more picky in general. Would be a shame though, I also won't pay money for stuff I know I won't get to play down the line if servers get shut down, so the game would have to be so appealing that the mere experience is so good that i'm willing to dispose of the money to have it a limited amount of time.
 
RiverBed said:
because they have too (market sustainability).
Click to expand...

Could you elaborate a little further for me? It looks like you're suggesting that the same people who said games have to be $60.00 to remain sustainable are going to turn around and offer the same products for less, simply because they have no competition from a secondhand market that would typically put downward pricing pressure on their products from day 1.
 
I think I would spend about the same. I would just wait until the prices dropped to reasonable levels for the games I want. Forza 5 can't stay at $60 forever, can it... CAN IT? I think I will be waiting a long time for price drops, nothing like it is now.
 
Tempted not to buy a console with this issue. I just realized that I've picked up a significant portion of my video game library from Gamefly sales. That means that I will likely buy less games unless game pricing changes radically. I don't buy a game over $20 unless it's extremely special. Don't let that make you think I don't contribute... I still spend a large amount of money on games, simply because I buy so many.
 
noquarter said:
Right now where can you buy games from? Gamestop, all sorts of retail stores, your friend, Blockbuster, eBay, Craigslist, the Buy Sell Trade thread, trade through Goozex, trade through CAG, buy from the guy at work, etc.

Now, get rid of used games and where can you buy? Gamestop, all sorts of retail stores, um, if your friend didn't open it yet and play it, him.

Do you see how short the list got? Now, if there are only a select few places you can buy games, who are they competing with? All the main sources that undercut those sources are gone. Why will they charge less? You have one choice now to play, buy new. Where is the incentive to lower the price? New is $60.

Now can you show me where the price decrease is going to come from? They will clearance them out, same as now, why lower it more?
Click to expand...

But the list didnt get very short. "All sorts of retailers" is still on that list. You just took off eBay and other secondary markets, and honestly prices aren't always better there than from retailers. You would have as much competition (or possibly more) as there is in the PC game market, where people aren't complaining about a lack of competition.

There is a HUGE incentive to lower the price. If they just charge $60 for every game, and you can't buy cheaper games elsewhere people will buy less games. People will not magically start spending more money on games at the expense of other things if all prices are suddenly increased.

Finally, do games not compete with each other? Will the publishers have no say in how much their games cost?

Saying there will be "no competition," or that "Steam prices are lower because there's more competition" doesn't make any sense.

I would argue that the net price of a console game might be less than that of the same game on Steam, because it has residual value. Once you take that away, you just increased its price. When you increase prices, unless we're talking about some life necessity the sales of that product will generally go down, absent other changes in demand. So prices naturally would come down to meet consumer demand and budgets. If they don't, sales decline and companies suffer. They will lower prices before that happens, especially since they are no longer losing sales to the used market.

All of this presupposes that used game markets will disappear. Both MS and Sony are telling us that won't happen.
 
Ace Harding said:
Explain to me how there will be less competition, and how suddenly people will be willing to spend more money on video games than they would in a scenario where used games are allowed as they are now. That would be a really neat trick.

Also please explain how Reaganomics relates to our posts in any way.
Click to expand...

Trickle down economics is exactly what you want to happen, but we saw that it doesn't work. You want them to charge less for games, when in reality they will not do it. In other words the rich got richer in Reaganomics (publishers), yet it never trickled down to the middle or lower class (gamers). They will not charge less then 60$ new for a game because we are use to that price, why charge less? Especially if you get rid of the second hand market. You are blissfully ignorant of how the world works if you think that games will become cheaper if they cut out the used games. Really blissfully ignorant. The reason PC games are cheap or can be cheap is because their is competition. On consoles this is not so, you get one store digitally to buy things from, not 5 different ones. Cut out the used games and gamestop no longer has a reason to exist as the margins on new games and hardware is to low to sustain any sort of retail shop.
 
Less.

I'd be disinclined to spend money on games that can't be resold and that may one day be unplayable. That proposition holds less value than games of this generation that you can choose to keep and play forever or resell. It's that simple.
 
njean777 said:
Trickle down economics is exactly what you want to happen, but we saw that it doesn't work. You want them to charge less for games, when in reality they will not do it. In other words the rich got richer in Reaganomics (publishers), yet it never trickled down to the middle or lower class (gamers). They will not charge less then 60$ new for a game because we are use to that price, why charge less? Especially if you get rid of the second hand market. You are blissfully ignorant of how the world works if you think that games will become cheaper if they cut out the used games. Really blissfully ignorant. The reason PC games are cheap or can be cheap is because their is competition. On consoles this is not so, you get one store digitally to buy things from, not 5 different ones. Cut out the used games and gamestop no longer has a reason to exist as the margins on new games and hardware is to low to sustain any sort of retail shop.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to sound like a dick, but this post doesn't make any sense.

I am fully aware of what trickle-down economics is. It has nothing to do with my earlier post or the concept I am talking about. If there is any connection, you failed to show it.

I am not talking about publishers volunteering to lower prices because profits are up. I'm talking about very simple economics.

There are a finite number of dollars available to be spent on video games. Unless you want to argue that games are some incredibly inelastic product, where people will continue to purchase the same quantity when prices increase, then I assume you'd have to agree that if prices were increased, people would buy less games. This very thread supports that concept. If prices were increased on one console only, that console would fail spectacularly.

Microsoft - and the publishers that will likely offer software on the Xbone - are companies with a single common interest: growing profits.

If people start purchasing less of your product because prices increased and they can't afford to buy the same quantity as before, that should be a cause for concern. If that's happening at the same time that you are getting more money per purchase than you were, that would drive any company that likes money to reduce prices. By lowering prices relative to when you used to have a used game market, you can actually make more money.

If instead they said "fuck it" and kept prices at $60 (for no reason other than to be dicks I guess?), they would absolutely fail unless publishers and Sony colluded to keep prices artificially high. Because they are also competing with Sony.

That all also assumes Microsoft has absolute control over game prices, which they will not. Presumably publishers will have a say, as will retailers (just as they do now). There is competition.

And "the reason PC games are cheaper is because of competition?" Sorry but that is utter nonsense. If anything, there is LESS competition on PC's, not more. There are many more places from which I can purchase Xbox and Playstation games than there are places I can purchase PC games. I don't see that changing, since retailers will continue to sell PS4 and Xbone games. Plus, the two consoles compete very directly with one another.

The reason PC games are cheaper is because if they were more expensive companies would make less money. Period. If it were suddenly possible to buy and sell used PC games, the average prices of new PC games would likely increase, because the real net cost to the consumer would be less (as games actually had some resale value).
 
Ace Harding said:
I don't mean to sound like a dick, but this post doesn't make any sense.

I am fully aware of what trickle-down economics is. It has nothing to do with my earlier post or the concept I am talking about. If there is any connection, you failed to show it.

I am not talking about publishers volunteering to lower prices because profits are up. I'm talking about very simple economics.

There are a finite number of dollars available to be spent on video games. Unless you want to argue that games are some incredibly inelastic product, where people will continue to purchase the same quantity when prices increase, then I assume you'd have to agree that if prices were increased, people would buy less games. This very thread supports that concept. If prices were increased on one console only, that console would fail spectacularly.

Microsoft - and the publishers that will likely offer software on the Xbone - are companies with a single common interest: growing profits.

If people start purchasing less of your product because prices increased and they can't afford to buy the same quantity as before, that should be a cause for concern. If that's happening at the same time that you are getting more money per purchase than you were, that would drive any company that likes money to reduce prices. By lowering prices relative to when you used to have a used game market, you can actually make more money.

If instead they said "fuck it" and kept prices at $60 (for no reason other than to be dicks I guess?), they would absolutely fail unless publishers and Sony colluded to keep prices artificially high. Because they are also competing with Sony.

That all also assumes Microsoft has absolute control over game prices, which they will not. Presumably publishers will have a say, as will retailers (just as they do now). There is competition.

And "the reason PC games are cheaper is because of competition?" Sorry but that is utter nonsense. If anything, there is LESS competition on PC's, not more. There are many more places from which I can purchase Xbox and Playstation games than there are places I can purchase PC games. I don't see that changing, since retailers will continue to sell PS4 and Xbone games. Plus, the two consoles compete very directly with one another.

The reason PC games are cheaper is because if they were more expensive companies would make less money. Period. If it were suddenly possible to buy and sell used PC games, the average prices of new PC games would likely increase, because the real net cost to the consumer would be less (as games actually had some resale value).
Click to expand...

Wow, you and reality do not get along do you? No competition on pc's are you smoking crack? Apparently because you are dead wrong. There is GOG, Amazon, Origin, Desura, Gamersgate, Greenman Gaming, Gamestop themselves, etc. Yep no competition. You need to go back to history class and see what happens when you cut the middle man out of the equation.

Also no the publishers will not cut the price on games, you really think that after 7 years of 60$ being the norm that they would suddenly stop charging 60$ when they have been doing it for the last 7 years? Really you think this? Cuz if you do I wish I shared your optimism.
 
njean777 said:
Wow, you and reality do not get along do you? No competition on pc's are you smoking crack? Apparently because you are dead wrong. There is GOG, Amazon, Origin, Desura, Gamersgate, Greenman Gaming, Gamestop themselves, etc. Yep no competition. You need to go back to history class and see what happens when you cut the middle man out of the equation.
Click to expand...

Dude. Read my post again. Did I say there is no competition in PC game marketplaces? No. There is plenty of competition, as you note.

But there is also at least the same amount of competition on consoles, possibly more (though that's irrelevant to my point).

You said:
njean777 said:
The reason PC games are cheap or can be cheap is because their is competition. On consoles this is not so, you get one store digitally to buy things from, not 5 different ones.
Click to expand...

So explain - how is there not competition on consoles? There are many, many places from which I can buy console games. Not only that, but there are multiple consoles that compete with one another. That's all I said.

njean777 said:
Also no the publishers will not cut the price on games, you really think that after 7 years of 60$ being the norm that they would suddenly stop charging 60$ when they have been doing it for the last 7 years? Really you think this? Cuz if you do I wish I shared your optimism.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do. And I already explained why, and you are simply saying the same thing you said before. Either you don't understand what I'm saying, don't care, or can't provide a solid rebuttal. Or all three.
 
pvpness said:
Could you elaborate a little further for me? It looks like you're suggesting that the same people who said games have to be $60.00 to remain sustainable are going to turn around and offer the same products for less, simply because they have no competition from a secondhand market that would typically put downward pricing pressure on their products from day 1.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's the other way around: The publishers ARE the problem. If one keeps raising the price to cover for their work ( and keep it going) they are doing something wrong. The problem with re-sales, rentals, MP passes, studios closing after releasing a game that sold over a million copies, etc. are all indicative of a real problem.

Games MUST be cheaper, and different payment policies/systems MUST be created or else studios and publishers will keep finding themselves without work regardless of how good their product is.

I expect the end of the coming generation will be different (regarding pricing and sale options) than how it will start. Just look at how different it is now compared to when this gen launched- and that is with in one generation.
 
LOLNO

I'd end up spending way less. Most of the new games I buy is because I trade my old ones towards them.

That buffer of credit gives me more purchasing power as a consumer.
 
less, first because I won't buy that console, second, because I won't buy the games to play on said console
 
It'll probably stay about the same. I mostly buy day 1 new and sales that happen after a couple months.

Rarely ever trade in or buy used.
 
I won't spend anything on consoles that have used game shenanigans but I'll likely redirect funds towards GoG, Steam, and games for other consoles and handhelds.
 
mkotechno said:
It's a paradox because if my next-gen console forbids used games it is not my next-gen console.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. I refuse to pay 59.99 for long term rentals that require daily check ins. If they want me to rent games then charge me rental prices.

I have a back log on the vita and PS3 that will keep me busy for a while. There are also games coming out on the PS3/Vita that I would like to get.
 
I buy all new games and don't trade in but I won't buy a console that's online only or a console that doesn't allow used games unless this allows for deep discounting of new games.
 
Cynar said:
Same. Industry is going to be in for a wake up call.
Click to expand...

What scares me here is how does the industry react? Do they go to producing only a few games a year that revolve around franchises that are annual great sellers? Or do they try to look smaller and more often?
 
Ace Harding said:
Dude. Read my post again. Did I say there is no competition in PC game marketplaces? No. There is plenty of competition, as you note.

But there is also at least the same amount of competition on consoles, possibly more (though that's irrelevant to my point).

You said:


So explain - how is there not competition on consoles? There are many, many places from which I can buy console games. Not only that, but there are multiple consoles that compete with one another. That's all I said.



Yes, I do. And I already explained why, and you are simply saying the same thing you said before. Either you don't understand what I'm saying, don't care, or can't provide a solid rebuttal. Or all three.
Click to expand...

You said there was less competition in the pc marketplace, which is not true.You can also go to most of these retail stores and buy the pc copy as well. Also if they took away used games then you have far less competition. You can buy it new from BB or other retailers sure, but long gone will be the days where you can get it new for 39.99 or used for 29.99. It will be 39.99 everywhere.

I really dont care what you are saying because it is a load of BS, history has proven that having a monopoly or in other words "cutting out your competition" hurts consumers more then it helps, LOOK UP ROCKEFELLER,MONSANTO AND LEARN. You think that these companies care what you want when we have seen this gen that they dont care about you, or me, or any gamer one bit. They care about their bottom line more then their customers. DLC, Season pass, Online passes, annualized sequels, etc. You are being blind to make a point, yet you offer no reason why game prices would come down, you try to claim simple economics. Well I hate to tell you that there is no such thing. Taking out competition is not good nor is it ever really beneficial to anybody but the publishers and developers. Just as Rockefeller did in the early 1900's. There is a reason this country (US) has anti-trust laws.

I mean EA even claimed game prices need to come down, and did they do that this gen? Nope. MS on their online store still has games that cost almost full price when you can get a used copy for 20$ at gamestop. I mean come on, you really need to think about what you are saying. I am not even sure why I am arguing as history has proven my points and has proven yours woefully wrong.

I am also aware that sure new games go on sale for cheap at retailers sometimes, but if the game I want isn't on sale that week or month or whatever, then I am shit out of luck am I not?
 
Will buy exactly the same as this gen... and the last.

ONLY Games I buy used are classics that I missed when I was on my parents dime. Since I am a few console generations removed from that, I cant see how it would impact future game purchases.

I MUCH prefer just waitin a week (maybe 2) and finding the game on sale. Most games can be found for $10-15 less that soon after.

BUt if its a game I really want... well then U just buy it day one for full price... cuz I really wanted it.
 
I am a senior citizen here on Gaf at the age of 45 and I have never bought a Used game before, so this has no impact on me whatsoever. I have traded a shit load in, but never bought used.
 
I like this thread. This question cuts to the core of the used game debate, and demonstrates the fallaciousness of the central assumption industry players are making by restricting used game sales: that new game sales will rise enough to compensate for the lack of new game sales that were made possible by reselling. I think that the current state of the market isn't very healthy, but restricting reselling will only cause it to contract further.

The thing I hope people keep in mind is that this issue is not isolated to people who buy and sell used games, or even just people who play on consoles. Even if you play exclusively on PC and never resell or buy used, if consoles suffer, you suffer. If you play games on a tradtional format, this affects you directly.
 
While I do buy used games, I tend not to spend over $40 on a new game (which isn't as hard as it may seem). Most games drop in price within a matter of weeks. So I imagine, if there is a fee for used games, I'll always buy new, but wait until prices drop to something I believe is acceptable. Since I usually have a backlog, I'll likely spend between $15-$30 on most new games anyway.

For example, I just bought Arkham City for $16. Far Cry 3 was $30 a few days ago on Amazon and I'll wait for that price again before I buy it. I'll wait for Bioshock Infinite to be $30. I'll wait for Assassin's Creed III to get below $25 (which it did a few days ago). So it's not difficult to spend a reasonable amount of money on new games without going bankrupt. My problem now is that I almost never keep a game unless I'm playing the multiplayer or I see significant replay value (like a Skyrim). If there are used game fees, not many people are going to want to buy used, which means it will be more difficult to sell my games and use the money for new games.

So, sort answer is about the same.
 
Definitely not. So many of the games I buy are <$20 impulse buys. I'd still buy games, but 99% would be purchased weeks or months after release when they're at $40 or $30. So yeah, I'd spend way less money on games if used games were blocked.
 
njean777 said:
You said there was less competition in the pc marketplace, which is not true.You can also go to most of these retail stores and buy the pc copy as well. Also if they took away used games then you have far less competition. You can buy it new from BB or other retailers sure, but long gone will be the days where you can get it new for 39.99 or used for 29.99. It will be 39.99 everywhere.

I really dont care what you are saying because it is a load of BS, history has proven that having a monopoly or in other words "cutting out your competition" hurts consumers more then it helps, LOOK UP ROCKEFELLER,MONSANTO AND LEARN. You think that these companies care what you want when we have seen this gen that they dont care about you, or me, or any gamer one bit. They care about their bottom line more then their customers. DLC, Season pass, Online passes, annualized sequels, etc. You are being blind to make a point, yet you offer no reason why game prices would come down, you try to claim simple economics. Well I hate to tell you that there is no such thing. Taking out competition is not good nor is it ever really beneficial to anybody but the publishers and developers. Just as Rockefeller did in the early 1900's. There is a reason this country (US) has anti-trust laws.

I mean EA even claimed game prices need to come down, and did they do that this gen? Nope. MS on their online store still has games that cost almost full price when you can get a used copy for 20$ at gamestop. I mean come on, you really need to think about what you are saying. I am not even sure why I am arguing as history has proven my points and has proven yours woefully wrong.

I am also aware that sure new games go on sale for cheap at retailers sometimes, but if the game I want isn't on sale that week or month or whatever, then I am shit out of luck am I not?
Click to expand...

First, calm down.

Second, you didn't answer my question. How would console game markets have less competition than PC markets if used game sales were eliminated, in any reasonable next-gen scenario?

When you answer that, explain how anybody this next gen could possibly have a monopoly in any sense of what that word actually means (let alone comparable to real monopolies in history like Standard Oil).
 
Ace Harding said:
First, calm down.

Second, you didn't answer my question. How would console game markets have less competition than PC markets if used game sales were eliminated, in any reasonable next-gen scenario?

When you answer that, explain how anybody this next gen could possibly have a monopoly in any sense of what that word actually means (let alone comparable to real monopolies in history like Standard Oil).
Click to expand...
There will be less competition then on the PC simply because PCs allow for more than one digital store. Is there going to be more than one digital store on next Gen consoles? So you have digital, which is where they probably want you to buy (no physical goods to make, no worry about selling your game, etc) or traditional retail minus used games, so the same places that sell PC games. Is there some other place that sells console games that I'm not thinking of? PC has a few different digital stores, all trying to get your money. How do they do that, offer you sales and other services.

A true monopoly will not really happen since there will not be an entire industry that is run by one company, but every Xbox game will be controlled by Microsoft. Your options are to allow Microsoft to set all prices, not just new prices, and buy those or not game with Microsoft. Same with Sony.

Now why would you say that publishers would lower the price of games? You say that if they don't sell they will be forced to lower the price, but they could be doing that now and getting all this money that will be flowing their way next Gen. There is no reason that they couldn't try to release a game for less than $60 dollars on something like XBLA or actually talk to the console makers and see if they could go release $40 games. Does this happen now? Why will it happen when the consumer has fewer options to purchase games?

I'm sorry I didn't respond to you earlier, had a long post written, but my phone died. Oh well.
 
Interesting to read through this. If you don't all lie or cheat yourselves, there is actually not a chance that blocking used game sales will increase the amount of money gamers spend on games.

This wasn't about economics, but it is obvious the publishers won't get more money than is spent in total on games, no money from used games will find its way into new purchases.

Retailers will probably suffer from this and the money spent on one certain game will probably just be stretched on a longer timeframe instead of a huge peak on release.

Even without the bad press and without those who just refuse to buy such a console this sounds like a crackpot idea. This is probably just stating the obvious, but I was interested how this would turn out reducing it to the most basic question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I will boycott next-gen consoles if they are digital-only, what about you?
2 3 4 5 6
262
784
Gexxy1 replied
What new 1st Party games will start Next Gen?
41
785
yogaflame replied
Next-Gen PS6 and XBOX |OT| Console Tech Thread Redux
|OT|  2 3
138
377
Audiophile replied
  • Poll
Will PS6/Xbox next finally offer true next-gen graphics?
2 3 4 5 6
264
3K
Baemono replied
Are you willing to get your next-gen gaming fix via "The Cloud" if local hardware becomes too expensive?
2 3 4 5 6
272
3K
Ceallach replied
Top Bottom