Support NeoGAF

[AdmiralViscen]

Ya right, you obviosuly dont shop at the stores i shop at. All 3 of my local EBgames typically have the same old crap used selection ever week, I wish the second hand selection turned over as fast as the new releases.
You think that if I trade in 3 old gamecube games for say,the newest Zelda game, that those 3 old GC trade ins will sell before 3 more copies of the new Zelda game do? Kids especially can use trade ins to get more games when their parents are spent out. It brings more revenue into the game industry. The mark up on new games is pretty narrow and these stores use trade in to keep in the red and keep new stock on the shelves.
Plus, and this is a big one, it's the only way to get all the disconinued / out of print games, which is another driving factor to get customers like me to constanly visit the store . I don't always need to go to EBgames to see what "new" games are out. Sometimes I'm hoping to find an old gem, and if not I see what else is new.
Old trade ins = more new titles being sold.

So, those games will never be sold? Did it ever occur to you that you see the same sort of games there because people are constantly trading in the same sort of games?

SOME DAY, someone will decide to buy the game you trade in, and that will be -1 to new sales of that game. If these used games weren't selling, then the stores wouldn't be so happy to take them off your hands.

I don't see how it matters if your 3 old GCN games will sell before 3 more copies of the Zelda game you chose to buy. How is that relevent? The point is that if you traded in Pikmin 2, Paper Mario 2, and Mario Sunshine, people who come in looking for P2, PM2, or SMS are going to eventually buy your old copies rather than a brand new copy of P2, PM2, or SMS that's still going for 30-40 bucks. Those are three lost sales for Nintendo.


By the way, I'm not siding with the companies whining about this. I think they're stupid. I'm just talking simple math, here. Anyone who thinks used game sales have zero impact are kidding themselves.

 

[biggreenmachine]

I don't see how it matters if your 3 old GCN games will sell before 3 more copies of the Zelda game you chose to buy. How is that relevent? The point is that if you traded in Pikmin 2, Paper Mario 2, and Mario Sunshine, people who come in looking for P2, PM2, or SMS are going to eventually buy your old copies rather than a brand new copy of P2, PM2, or SMS that's still going for 30-40 bucks. Those are three lost sales for Nintendo.


I'm just talking simple math, here. Anyone who thinks used game sales have zero impact are kidding themselves.

If I want to buy a new game and I don't have the money I can trade games in to finance a puchase= +1 game sold
If i can't trade games in then I can't get said new game = -1 less game sold.

If a new release game is traded in enough to effect sales of the game new than there is likely a problem with the game, so the devs deserve to feel the burn.

Your whole line of logic is like saying that used car trade ins hurt new car sales when infact if you couldn't trade your old car in directly to the dealership for credit there would likely be less new cars sold

 

[Matlock]

Blah, blah blah... I've read this crap before and let me tell ya 1 thing: People trade games in to buy new games. Simple. How can this hurt the games industry or its creativity?

I sell games to buy things other than games.

 

[inpHilltr8r]

Geometry Wars is $5.

Welcome to the thin end of the wedge. Don't worry too much though, the losers here will be retail, and the winners will be the platform holders, publishers and developers. Punters will probably end up paying about the same for games, even taking resale into account, because they drive the final price, by what they're prepared to pay. Leastways that's the theory.

Learn to let go of the material incarnations of digital objects.

 

[biggreenmachine]

I sell games to buy things other than games.

Really, EBgames in Canada won't give cash for games, only credit. Myself, I don't even trade games in unless they are an unsightly stain in my collection, and If I do sell games It's always to fund more for my collection. I have noticed that their stock of used X-box games grew huge before the 360 came out. I'd think that most gamers wouldnt want to trade games in unless it was for the promise of better games, but hey maybe thats a hardcore and broke gamer way of thinking.

 

[Tarazet]

So, those games will never be sold? Did it ever occur to you that you see the same sort of games there because people are constantly trading in the same sort of games?

SOME DAY, someone will decide to buy the game you trade in, and that will be -1 to new sales of that game. If these used games weren't selling, then the stores wouldn't be so happy to take them off your hands.

I don't see how it matters if your 3 old GCN games will sell before 3 more copies of the Zelda game you chose to buy. How is that relevent? The point is that if you traded in Pikmin 2, Paper Mario 2, and Mario Sunshine, people who come in looking for P2, PM2, or SMS are going to eventually buy your old copies rather than a brand new copy of P2, PM2, or SMS that's still going for 30-40 bucks. Those are three lost sales for Nintendo.


By the way, I'm not siding with the companies whining about this. I think they're stupid. I'm just talking simple math, here. Anyone who thinks used game sales have zero impact are kidding themselves.

You deflate your own point. When you trade in games for cash, that is an incomplete transaction. You have not canceled any sales yet - if there is still a new copy there on the shelf, there is still a chance for the customer to buy it instead of the used one, and the publisher and developer will make money. And there are millions of used games on shelves all over the country not being sold, day after day. In the absence of any other encouragement, pretty much anyone will have the sense to pass them up - it's only because of Gamestop's constant harassment that they sell as much as they do.

But when you sell on Ebay, you take money directly from a potential buyer and the publisher has no chance to profit.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

EA should just buy Gamestop and Electronics Boutique and be done with it.

 

[daegan]

SOME DAY, someone will decide to buy the game you trade in, and that will be -1 to new sales of that game. If these used games weren't selling, then the stores wouldn't be so happy to take them off your hands.

There are plenty of games that are literally impossible to find new.

Should people not be able to play, say, Beyond Good & Evil? Just because only a finite amount was produced? It doesn't make financial sense for most publishers to endlessly produce their titles. It never will.

If used games were being resold for 5 dollars, people would be trading them in for 2 dollars. No one would trade in a 20 dollar game for 2 dollars.

Actually, people do. And some used games do go for $5.

 

[biggreenmachine]

You deflate your own point. When you trade in games for cash, that is an incomplete transaction. You have not canceled any sales yet - if there is still a new copy there on the shelf, there is still a chance for the customer to buy it instead of the used one, and the publisher and developer will make money. And there are millions of used games on shelves all over the country not being sold, day after day. In the absence of any other encouragement, pretty much anyone will have the sense to pass them up - it's only because of Gamestop's constant harassment that they sell as much as they do.

But when you sell on Ebay, you take money directly from a potential buyer and the publisher has no chance to profit.

I don't think it could be said any better than this.

 

[anotheriori]

simple math:

Trading in P2, PM2, and SMS for Zelda
+1 sold new game
-3 sold new games (P2, PM2, and SMS compete against their new versions)
net: -2 sold new games

Trading in P2, PM2, and SMS for cash
0 sold game
-3 sold new games
net: -3 sold new games

So it does there is an effect (negative depending on perspective).

 

[Tarazet]

simple math:

Trading in P2, PM2, and SMS for Zelda
+1 sold new game
-3 sold new games (P2, PM2, and SMS compete against their new versions)
net: -2 sold new games

Trading in P2, PM2, and SMS for cash
0 sold game
-3 sold new games
net: -3 sold new games

So it does there is an effect (negative depending on perspective).

Only if the used games sell! You know that huge bin of PS1 and/or N64 games that never seems to go anywhere? How many of those do you suppose were traded in for $5-8 around the time the PS2 or Gamecube came out?

 

[Mama Smurf]

At $20, that would make used games $5 or $10. You'd pay the $20 when you could get it used for $5?

Maybe, morally, you would, but I bet 90% of the people would pay the $5 instead.

What AdmiralVsomething said:

If used games were being resold for 5 dollars, people would be trading them in for 2 dollars. No one would trade in a 20 dollar game for 2 dollars.

 

[MoxManiac]

ou listed 6 AAA gaf approved games released over the course of the generation, how many of those do we get a year? I think people in this thread are talking about the hundreds of other games that get released a year, are mediocre in quality, bomb, fill up the shelves with used and clearanced copies, and the publishers are now complaining about.

I can't speak for anyone else, but it isn't just GAF approved AAA titles that i've gotten a lot of milage out of. For example, I played the fuck out of Dynasty Warriors 5 for months, and am still playing it and 5XL. I also play a lot of RPGs and SRPGs (ones that have compelling gameplay, anyways) and those tend to last me awhile.

 

[Xellotah]

For a game to be a used game purchase, it would have to be a new game purchase first. Really the biggest deterrent to buying a game at full price, is the knowledge that the game will likely drop in price within 2 weeks (ala. POP:TTT )

 

[Archie]

HEY I DIDN'T READ THIS THREAD BUT I SAW A PICTURE OF THE REVOLUTION

ISN'T IT AWESOME I LOVE THE REVOLUTION GUYYYZ

are you like the anti drinky?

 

[WindyMan]

The last couple of threads on this, I made a point that you can get (as an example) 4 new games for the price of 2, and all the publishers involved get their money. Trade-ins and used games can work in such a way to increase new game sales.

It's true that a used game sale means that a new game isn't being bought, but think of it this way: If there wasn't a used version of a game available, would that person have bought the new version at all?

It may hurt the publisher, but it helps the industry.

 

[biggreenmachine]

The last couple of threads on this, I made a point that you can get (as an example) 4 new games for the price of 2, and all the publishers involved get their money. Trade-ins and used games can work in such a way to increase new game sales.

It's true that a used game sale means that a new game isn't being bought, but think of it this way: If there wasn't a used version of a game available, would that person have bought the new version at all?

It may hurt the publisher, but it helps the industry.

For sure. I know that if a game cost me $50 and that it had no possible resale value I would be waay more picky with my selections which would result in me buying alot less games in general. I look at video games as an investment even though most games lose value they usualy can retain a decent amount making them seem like they arent such a source of money drainage, which of course they are. :lol

 

[Mario]

Its hard to gauge the actual impact, but I definitely think the used game trade is hurting the industry (besides retailers and consumers in the short term), probably moreso than other issues such as piracy.

The biggest part of the problem is that the retailers are incented to sell second hand stock over new stock because they make bigger margin on used games. This is seen in how retailers like EB make used games so accessible, to the point where sometimes its hard to see where the new games are easily. Its also seen in how some retailers push consumers into buying used games over new games when a customer brings a new game to the counter (something I have seen first hand).

Fundamentally, every sale of a used copy of a particular title is potentially taking away royalties from the publisher/developer, especially when the consumer would have paid full retail for a game but bought a used copy instead because it was available. I'll agree that some portion of those sales wouldn't have happened without the game being available at a lower price point, but then again these are "new copy" sales that the publisher/developer might have made in the future when the retail price point dropped to that level.

The people that I think are impacted by this practise the most are those developers and publishers who are developing/publishing solid, but not best in class or "classic" titles. Such titles may have strong appeal to a certain section of the market, but inevitably such titles get returned if some don't like them or after they have been beaten. Pretty soon after release then you end up with a reasonable number of copies available used. That can potentially start impacting the sales of new copies in a big way, as new customers may be less willing to spend full retail on something other than a AAA title, especially if the retailer is pushing you in that direction. A title having a higher tradein potential combined with consumers not wanting to risk their dollars on a less than AAA product makes for a vicious circle.

It could be argued that trading in allows more new games to be bought, but I can really only see this being beneficial to larger publishers with a broader portfolios with strong franchises. If people are trading in random games to buy EA games, then thats great for EA. If people are trading EA games in to buy more EA games, then thats still good for EA. If people are trading in Madden 06 to buy Madden 07, then thats still good for EA. If people are trading in game Y from publisher X to buy somebody else's games, then that is bad for publisher X.

In this sort of climate, its hard to see how marginal or experimental titles could get ahead. Big budget, me too titles, sequels, and licensed games geared towards the mass market are then the more appealing way to go, especially when establishing a new brand or franchise is fundamentally hard anyway.

Some solutions as I see them are

1. make sure the new games are better than everything else out there (hard for smaller players)
2. provide real incentive to hang onto games for the longer term (downloadable content, expansion packs etc)
3. direct digital distribution (ala Steam, Xarcade)
4. subscription based revenue models (ala paid MMORPGs)
5. alternate revenue streams (ala Massive, premium downloads)
6. retailers stop or are stopped selling used games (consumers and retailers wouldn't be happy)


Perhaps some employees of game retailers could elaborate on the sales policies of their respective chains with regard to used titles? I'd be interested to know whether I am overstating the allure of used game sales to retailers or am otherwise misunderstanding the model.

Edit: interesting point, biggreenmachine. I wonder how wisespread that viewpoint is.

 

[Suburban Cowboy]

And Sony, with your idea about making it so PS3 games can only play on their owners system (I can't remember the link to the story); Double FUCK YOU.

They can go the DS Animal Crossing route and just make the internet portion exclusive to a single piece of hardware.

 

[anotheriori]

Only if the used games sell! You know that huge bin of PS1 and/or N64 games that never seems to go anywhere? How many of those do you suppose were traded in for $5-8 around the time the PS2 or Gamecube came out?

Although there isn't any proof, the chances of these games selling is quite better then their new counterparts. From you N64 example, that $5-8 probably gets resold at $15-20 used price whereas new (out of print) would be still $49.99. That period of transition from N64/PSX to PS2/Gamecube is short period in comparison with the 5+ years current console cycle also, so while they might have lost a minor amount on PS1/N64 buybacks they're making a killing on PS2/GC software. If it was up to retailers they probably wouldn't sell new games at all if possible.

While some/most of GAF wouldn't touch used alot of casual/average gamers will take just a working disc no questions asked if its saves them $5, I know i work in retail.

 

[WindyMan]

If people are trading in game Y from publisher X to buy somebody else's games, then that is bad for publisher X.

I can just as easily say that another set of people are trading in game W from publisher Z and buying publisher X's games. Bad for publisher Z, but good for publisher X in this case.

Like you said, it's hard to gauge the actual impact of things. I work at THQ, and this was brought up at a meeting. It was said that there's no hard data that used games help or hurt the industry. It could be one of those half-full/half-empty kind of things.

Some solutions as I see them are

1. make sure the new games are better than everything else out there (hard for smaller players)
2. provide real incentive to hang onto games for the longer term (downloadable content, expansion packs etc)
3. direct digital distribution (ala Steam, Xarcade)
4. subscription based revenue models (ala paid MMORPGs)
5. alternate revenue streams (ala Massive, premium downloads)
6. retailers stop or are stopped selling used games (consumers and retailers wouldn't be happy)

I agree with these points for the most part. Allow me to elaborate on them further, if I may.

1. This shouldn't be a problem for anyone. If a game is good and is marketed correctly it should do well. (Aside: Psychonauts wasn't marketed correctly, in part because Majesco just wasn't big enough to properly publish it. That's a shame, really.) It's not going to get any easier with the PS3 and 360. I pray that Revolution will be the promised land for smaller developers and publishers.

2. This will help if a game is good to begin with. Resident Evil 4 is a good example; I'm holding on to that puppy and intend on playing it again in the future, and I don't need to download anything. Downloadable content to extend the life of a game is a good idea, but only if you don't have to pay that much for it. Dropping $60 on a next-gen game, then being asked to pay another $5-10 a few months later may not work for mediocre games.

3. This is the future of the games industry. For games to be as mainstream as movies, they're going to need to be sold online and downloaded to your console. Xbox Live Arcade and Nintendo's Virtual Console services are the first step toward this. To use those fancy colon-anology things to compare the current movie industry to the future game industry,
Theater release:Game disc release:VD releaseownloadable game release.
Still have the fancy boxed game for those who want the stuff, then make it available to download for a lower price to everyone else a few weeks later. Fewer (or no) trade-in games because people will want to hold on to the "rare" game discs.

4. I don't really see this becoming mainstream on the consoles, unless PC games are ported to the consoles with success. The PSO games did well, but I'll hold judgement until I see how well FFXI does on the 360.

5. In-game advertising. It's already begun, and it's going to get worse. Scary thing is, we want it in our games. It makes it "more realistic." That's a load of crock if you ask me.

6. If publishers want to stop people from buying used games, they need to make the new games more appealing. Registration swag is good (Nintendo is starting to get this right in America). But the best way to do it is to have new games be $10 less instead of $10 more, and to keep that the price until it reaches Greatest Hits status. People always say, "I'll wait for the price drop." If the price never drops, they'll need buy the game at the easier-to-swallow price. Publishers can do a better job of rewarding the consumer for buying their games new, and lowering the price is the first step toward that.

Retailers will stop selling used games when people stop buying them. That will only happen when publishers give people more than enough reasons to buy new instead of used.

 

[Mario]

I can just as easily say that another set of people are trading in game W from publisher Z and buying publisher X's games. Bad for publisher Z, but good for publisher X in this case.

Sorry, I should have been a little more clear. I meant to imply publisher X was the opposite of someone like EA - smaller product range and no strong franchises. In this sort of case, I believe through straight mathematics based on the size and quality of their portfolio they would be statistically disadvantaged in that people would be unlikely to pick their games up on the back of another publishers tradein compared to the number of people trading in their products and buying used copies of their titles.

2. This will help if a game is good to begin with. Resident Evil 4 is a good example; I'm holding on to that puppy and intend on playing it again in the future, and I don't need to download anything. Downloadable content to extend the life of a game is a good idea, but only if you don't have to pay that much for it. Dropping $60 on a next-gen game, then being asked to pay another $5-10 a few months later may not work for mediocre games.

I was thinking more along the lines of content downloads like Wipeout Pure. I'm sure there were a few people who would have considered trading in the title if it weren't for the fact that they knew new content was dropping for free every few months.

4. I don't really see this becoming mainstream on the consoles, unless PC games are ported to the consoles with success. The PSO games did well, but I'll hold judgement until I see how well FFXI does on the 360.

Subscription services are kind of associated mainly with MMORPGS right now, but I can see them slowly spreading to other genres, perhaps on a pay as you play basis (low or free up front cost, pay microtransaction per online game?).

Thats a big mindshift for the average consumer though. I've seen countless examples of people who can't accept the MMORPG model - "I've paid for the game already, why do I have to keep paying for it?"

Retailers will stop selling used games when people stop buying them. That will only happen when publishers give people more than enough reasons to buy new instead of used.

I imagine it would only happen with legislative intervention, so pretty unlikely. Though isn't something like this happening or already in place in Japan? I recall reading something only a few weeks ago on the subject...


On the anecdotal side, I was chatting to one of the members on our board about this earlier in the week. He is also involved in a reasonably sized publisher which has just done a deal giving them access to distribute their products via a digital distribution channel. They were contacted by a large game retail chain who was concerned about the impact that would have on retail sales of their products. Apparently, the retailer didn't have much to say when the publisher brought up the subject of used games however

 

[Brofist]

And Sony, with your idea about making it so PS3 games can only play on their owners system (I can't remember the link to the story); Double FUCK YOU.

you believed that?

 

[mrklaw]

fuck off.

Does the second hand car market stifle car makers? Or does it allow people to try out a manufacturers ware at less financial risk, potentially opening up a relationship to future purchases?

Does the second hand music market stifle artists and record labels? Or does it introduce people to new sounds they hadn't heard before, leading to purchase of more new music?


Why should games be any different? I guess its a little odd that they sell used in the same store as new, but thats the same for franchised car dealers. Perhaps they should have dedicated used games shops.

But you can't ban it.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

If publishers are so worried about the used market eating into their bottom lines, outside of digital distribution and management, the only way to stop it is to drop the prices of new games to a certain point, thus forcing retailers who look at the fat margins they have on used games to keep a certain level of pricing for resales. At some point, they can coexist more comfortably. The problem is timing and the issues of transition for retailers and users alike. Of course, this means that publishers will get even more lean on the way they fund (non-internal) developers...which is already fucked up.

 

[Mario]

Does the second hand car market stifle car makers?

Maybe it does. Most cars are very samey. But then car makers still benefit from the sale of used cars because they get to supply parts.

The purchasing dynamics, number of products/competitors and brand loyalty of the car market are very different from games though, so hard to compare the two (the music example is better).

Does the second hand music market stifle artists and record labels?

Maybe it does. A lot of people complain about the blandness of mainstream music. But then artists/labels have revenue streams outside of retail. And most mainstream music stores I have been into don't offer any used music (though I don't know what the norm is for the US and Europe).

 

[MightyHedgehog]

A lot of people complain about the blandness of mainstream music.

Isn't the designation of being mainstream equal to being bland/average in music, anyway?

 

[Xrenity]

Geometry Wars is $5.

PS. and a 400 dollar console

 

[Son of Godzilla]

fuck off.

Does the second hand car market stifle car makers? Or does it allow people to try out a manufacturers ware at less financial risk, potentially opening up a relationship to future purchases?

Does the second hand music market stifle artists and record labels? Or does it introduce people to new sounds they hadn't heard before, leading to purchase of more new music?


Why should games be any different? I guess its a little odd that they sell used in the same store as new, but thats the same for franchised car dealers. Perhaps they should have dedicated used games shops.

But you can't ban it.

Both your examples suck. New v Used in autos doesn't apply because there is an actual quality difference between New and Used, giving a legitimate reason to be loyal to the brand and not the price tag.

The music bit is better in that it's comparing digital (For the sake of the comparison) medias where new and used are identical, but it still doesn't apply. It's much much easier for second hand retailers to accumulate an comprehensive catalog of a video games than it is music (And thus lodge their Exactly The Same Except Five Dollars Cheaper With A Glaringly Ugly Tag wares on the shelf right next to new copies). There's tons of reasons for this, from the simple fact that theres a shitload of music, to the fact music is generally priced such selling back to secondhands isn't overwhelmingly appealing nor is risking the money on the New and Shiny overly risky.

This is, in my opinion, one of the ways in which XBLA and similar services triumph. I don't mean the obvious impossibility of returning a game, but the mass availability of demos along with extremely cheap pricing.

And Gamestop/EB/Whatever ARE dedicated used game shops. You go into whatever used music chain you can find, and they will have a limited amount of space with new releases but the majority of the place is for used. Same story with game shops.

 

[Flo_Evans]

I disagree. In EB and gamestop all of the used games they have are shitty games. If you want to find a copy of a good game that is out of print you have to go to ebay.

Used games are not what is hurting gaming. Whats hurting gaming is 'formula' games. IF you loved GTA you'll love crappy carjacking game XXIII people trade in these games cause they are shit. I don't think I've ever seen someone trading in a copy of Valkyrie Profile at EB.

 

[Koren]

They can go the DS Animal Crossing route and just make the internet portion exclusive to a single piece of hardware.

What happens if you change your hardware ? (due to failure, or because you buy a new model ?)

 

[DjangoReinhardt]

I have a hard time believing the second-hand market for games has a negative net impact on the industry for the simple fact that the people with vested financial interests haven't made any serious effort - in the U.S., anyway - to shut it down, be it through legislation or something like that nonsense Sony proposed. Publishers like money far too much to let this fly under the radar for so long if it matters. Likewise, does anyone really think the RIAA has just overlooked used CD sales or is sitting on their ass while the labels lose money?

 

[Flo_Evans]

edit: dp

 

[DjangoReinhardt]

Whats hurting gaming is 'formula' games. IF you loved GTA you'll love crappy carjacking game XXIII

Funny thing is that R* is the biggest offender by a considerable margin:

GTA III
GTA III: 2 (Vice City)
GTA III: 3 (San Andreas)
GTA III: 4 (Liberty City Stories)

You can bet your ass these are coming soon:

GTA III: 5 (Vice City Stories) - more or less already announced
GTA III: 6 (San Andreas Stories)

 

[Flo_Evans]

Funny thing is that R* is the biggest offender by a considerable margin:

GTA III
GTA III: 2 (Vice City)
GTA III: 3 (San Andreas)
GTA III: 4 (Liberty City Stories)

You can bet your ass these are coming soon:

GTA III: 5 (Vice City Stories) - more or less already announced
GTA III: 6 (San Andreas Stories)

no way. I am not even talking about excessive sequals. (see DW, tony hawk, tomb raider) for every sequal to a succesful game there are 5 crap knock off released.

 

[Mario]

Isn't the designation of being mainstream equal to being bland/average in music, anyway?

Well, it could be argued the videogame market is the same. The mass market seems happy to lap up sequels, licensed titles, and knock offs.

The "lack of innovation" in gaming is being supported by the majority of consumers, as it is in music it would seem.

I disagree. In EB and gamestop all of the used games they have are shitty games. If you want to find a copy of a good game that is out of print you have to go to ebay.

Well, depending on your definition of "shitty", that was one of my points. Those games that don't appeal to everybody or are lower quality than the top tier probably get hurt the most because a larger proportion of purchasers will return the title and create a stock of used games for future purchasers to tap into.


For another example of retailers pushing used games over new copies, I have just checked GameStop.com for one of our company's titles (74% Gamerankings average score though reviews go as high as a very over the top and generous 98% so overall not too shabby but by no means top tier). Although the title was only released last September, I can see for example that you can no longer order that particular title new at all through Gamestop.com. They are however offering it used on backorder for only US$2 less than the full retail price. That means if you want this game from Gamestop you can't get it new, even if you want it, not even if you are prepared to wait for them to get a new copy back in stock.

Its not a question of them preferentially selling you the used copy because thats all they have in stock as you have to backorder it used. Its probably not a question of them only being able to sell the game at a lower price point because its barely at a lower price point (only $2 less). It probably comes down to the fact they can make a lot more money selling it used, and the relatively low volume of new copies they might be selling otherwise don't warrant them even trying to sell it new.

Good economics for Gamestop.com, but that sucks from my perspective

 

[biggreenmachine]

Both your examples suck. New v Used in autos doesn't apply because there is an actual quality difference between New and Used, giving a legitimate reason to be loyal to the brand and not the price tag.

The music bit is better in that it's comparing digital (For the sake of the comparison) medias where new and used are identical, but it still doesn't apply....
And Gamestop/EB/Whatever ARE dedicated used game shops. You go into whatever used music chain you can find, and they will have a limited amount of space with new releases but the majority of the place is for used. Same story with game shops.

Sorry but your music example sucks too. Reason: CDs hold a consitant value that is relatively = across the board. They don't launch the new ABBA CD at 39.99 then drop it to 29.99 while they are selling the new Blondie cd at 14.99. Video games have an active economy whereas CDs have a set price range.
CD's don't typically become discontinued after 2 months like games do ala Phonix wright.
CDs don't become less desirable after say 6 months or a year causing price drops and demand dropout which makes retailers pockets hurt with overstock.

Where I come from (Canada) CDs always launch cheaper (say 14.99) when they are new and then increase to a standard catalog price (say 19.99) when they are no longer new.
Infact, Lets take my Phoenix wright example (Ya I love it, so what) It costs around $50+ dollars on Ebay right now and it can no longer be bought at any retailer in my city. Does this some how hurt Capcom? Obviously not, but hopefully it sends the message to them that they should print another batch.

Bottom line is that second hand games sales help the average game only shop iout of the red and also allow them to offer a wider selection to customers. They help the shops, they help the gamers, they help the industry go round. The publishers need to sop sitting back in their Porsches thinking of all the ways that they are not making enough money.

 

[WindyMan]

no way. I am not even talking about excessive sequals. (see DW, tony hawk, tomb raider) for every sequal to a succesful game there are 5 crap knock off released.

Funny you mention Tony Hawk, because it would be the perfect candidate for downloadable content. Release a next-gen Tony Hawk game, and every month or so offer a free download with more story mode goals, and then every 4 months offer up a pack of new levels for $5-10.

Tony Hawk's game engine is unparalleled. As long as Activision can mix things up with it, it doesn't get boring. If after a year of me buying a TH game I have twice as many levels as I did when I had bought it, then I would be quite happy.

 

[AdmiralViscen]

Your whole line of logic is like saying that used car trade ins hurt new car sales when infact if you couldn't trade your old car in directly to the dealership for credit there would likely be less new cars sold

No, because you trade in ONE old car to buy ONE new car. So everything is kept in balance. You trade in three or more games to get ONE new game, resulting in a loss of three or more new game sales down the line.

See also:

For another example of retailers pushing used games over new copies, I have just checked GameStop.com for one of our company's titles (74% Gamerankings average score though reviews go as high as a very over the top and generous 98% so overall not too shabby but by no means top tier). Although the title was only released last September, I can see for example that you can no longer order that particular title new at all through Gamestop.com. They are however offering it used on backorder for only US$2 less than the full retail price. That means if you want this game from Gamestop you can't get it new, even if you want it, not even if you are prepared to wait for them to get a new copy back in stock.

Its not a question of them preferentially selling you the used copy because thats all they have in stock as you have to backorder it used. Its probably not a question of them only being able to sell the game at a lower price point because its barely at a lower price point (only $2 less). It probably comes down to the fact they can make a lot more money selling it used, and the relatively low volume of new copies they might be selling otherwise don't warrant them even trying to sell it new.

Same thing happened when I tried to buy DMC3 a few months back. GameStop no longer carried it. They tried pushing a used copy on me. I left, and got it new at Best Buy. A lazier person would have resulted in a -1 for Capcom's sales.

 

[biggreenmachine]

No, because you trade in ONE old car to buy ONE new car. So everything is kept in balance. You trade in three or more games to get ONE new game, resulting in a loss of three or more new game sales down the line.

You dont think theyd take 3 cars for trade in if you had them? :lol Seriously, like I stated in my last post, games, like cars, have a fluctuating price point almost like turnips .
Try and think of it this way: Scenario 1

Little tommy trades in 3 ps2 games and buys 1 new game = 4 games sold in the industry (1 new game to pub, 3 used games, which will inturn (obviously, i guess :lol ) resell right? Okay lets see:

1 new +$50 To pubs
3 used buy backs + $50 in Moms pockets (and of course right back out again)
3 used games resell + $90 for ABGameshop

= a net positive of $190 "industry" dollars

Now scenario 2:

Little Tommy says "Mom, I want the new Ps2 game that I've heard all the kids talking about and I want it so bad mom, Please?"
Mom says " Fuck Tommy ! No god damned way, I just bought you 3 new Ps2 games in the last month. Now lets add up the totals:

O games sold = zero "Industry" dollars generated

 

[Kiriku]

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1689109,00.html



Lots of good points here--games have gotten easier and shorter, prices have crashed...and the secondhand market is booming...making more "safe" productions necessary instead of anything majorly new or innovative...

I agree games have become easier in general, but shorter? Why would you say that? I mean, sure...there are a few high-profile games that are short (although I think it's debatable whether or not it's because of the style of the game), but I wouldn't say games in general are shorter nowadays. Much the opposite...I mean, look back at NES games for example. SNES/Genesis. And I don't see much of a difference compared to last gen (PSX/N64/Sat). Unless of course you're saying that higher difficulty = long-lasting games.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

It does stifle creativity but I'm too much of an asshole to buy new games.

 

[Acosta]

I will keep it simple to avoid a long discussion like the last time, that I don´t have time for.

If there should be a second hand market, the profits must go to publishers and studios, that are the makers of the game. As simple as that.

The money for the ones that worked on it, it´s not so hard to understand. If retailers don´t want to understand that, they will be the ones to blame when industry develop ways to defending its products.

Ah, and please, don´t copmpare this to any other second hand market. It´s not the same a car or a house, that you are the full propietary, than a videogame or any computer program.

 

[biggreenmachine]

If there should be a second hand market, the profits must go to publishers and studios, that are the makers of the game. As simple as that.
The money for the ones that worked on it, it´s not so hard to understand. If retailers don´t want to understand that, they will be the ones to blame when industry develop ways to defending its products.

So Pubs can get paid over and over again for the same physical copy of a game.... Ummm..

Not to the chains of retail outlets that are doing them the duty of selling/promoting their products to the consumers?


I'd be all for games not being able to be resold whatsover, but they would have to slash the prices drastically of New games and offer a money back guarantee for a limited time. When I buy a game at $50 it is always with the notion that if it licks balls I am able to resell it fast at a reasonable loss and move on or under a worse scenario liquidate my collection for rent (not thats thats ever happened but I do think about them as liquid assets). But to have that same $50 game be a a complete financial right off just to try/play it, count me out.

 

[Ranger X]

Used games are definetely hurting the industry and sometimes people don't realise what is exactly happening.

I'm lazy to write and i've found an interesting article that brings the same points of argument that i would.

Have a read, it's worth it (don't forget to change pages at the bottom right)

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/26/3

 

[mrklaw]

Ah, and please, don´t copmpare this to any other second hand market. It´s not the same a car or a house, that you are the full propietary, than a videogame or any computer program.

why not? sure it has differences, but at the end of the day the consumer is buying a product that a publisher is selling. Fairly similar to music or DVD for example - you are buying the right to access an intellectual property for personal enjoyment.

I can resell my DVDs or CDs without money going back to the original publisher.

Perhaps a better question would be - why are games handled by retail so differently to other media?

Why not keep stock of old games and move them to an 'archive' pricepoint? CDs do have different price points depending on when they are launched - older CDs are often priced higher than new releases

 

[Azih]

First off the argument that a lot of used games don't sell so it doesn't harm the new games market is bull. Have you *seen* the used games that don't sell? They're crap. Just because NFL Quarterback Club languishes on the shelf doesn't mean that used games that are actually in demand aren't being sold. The fact that decent used games on the shelf are so scarce isn't because they don't exist, it's because they GET SNAPPED UP FAST when they could have been sold new, this hurts the game publishers and developers because that is money they never see.

Hell just look at the crazy amount of space EB has been devoting to used games for the past couple of years. It's gotten insane and the clerks push the used games like crazy as well. This is being pushed because it WORKS, tons of used games are being sold and every dollar that is spent on used isn't being spent on new. Used games are pure profit, but only for EB shareholders. Frankly EB shareholders can go sit on it, I want my money to go to the people who took the risk and actually created the games.

This can easily be headed off in one of two different ways

1) Publishers start their own buyback programs to entice people to sell the publisher their used games directly in exchange for sweet credit on a brand new game from the same publisher, and the publisher starts selling the used games for a discount themselves. Essentially cut out the greedy and destructive middle man.

2) The greedy and destructive middle man grows a freaking brain and sends 10% or so of the proceeds from every used games sold to the apporpriate publisher. Everybody wins.

Now option 2 is the smartest for everyone concerned but somehow I doubt that this would ever occur to the dumbass profit addled EB board of directors.

 

[WindyMan]

why not? sure it has differences, but at the end of the day the consumer is buying a product that a publisher is selling. Fairly similar to music or DVD for example - you are buying the right to access an intellectual property for personal enjoyment.

I can resell my DVDs or CDs without money going back to the original publisher.

Perhaps a better question would be - why are games handled by retail so differently to other media?

Why not keep stock of old games and move them to an 'archive' pricepoint? CDs do have different price points depending on when they are launched - older CDs are often priced higher than new releases

The difference here is that CDs and DVDs are $20 or less, and games are $20 and up. If you spent $50 for game and you knew you could get $15-20 back for it in a few weeks, of course you're going to trade it in. CDs and DVDs are cheaper, so you would only get a few dollars back for a trade in, if at all. Most music stores let you trade in several CDs for one new one. Only at that point does the store think the trade in is worth it.

If games had a lower MSRP, the would also have a lower trade-in value, which encourages buying new and discourages trading one or two old games for one new one. If a game was $20 or $30, your first thought wouldn't be to trade it in for a new game because a resell value would be lower.

There's also the fact that games don't age well. Music from the 60s and 70s are still worth paying $15 an album for, but can you imagine trying to pay even $20 for an average N64 game today? That's just 6 years ago. Until the majority of games can retain their value for 5+ years in the same manner than a DVD can, this problem will always exist.

 

[biggreenmachine]

Used games are definetely hurting the industry and sometimes people don't realise what is exactly happening.

I'm lazy to write and i've found an interesting article that brings the same points of argument that i would.

Have a read, it's worth it (don't forget to change pages at the bottom right)

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/26/3

An interesting read but the writer comes off as rather biased. Example:

Pirce margains for buy backs. Fact: Hot games in the first month of their cycle that cost $50 will often be bought back at $30. He uses a $20 game being bought at $3 which is definatley not the average and would indicate a non desirable game not a new title.

Used games are flooding the tech support with "wheres my serial number" calls. Ebay may affect this but Gamespot/Eb or any other boutique shop wont buy games without serial keys or install instructions for that mater.

However he does admit that because the Boutique shops are at a disadvantage to the big box stores they have to carry a wider selection of games new and used. This to me settles the original question well...
It is the Big box stores that only carry the hits that stiffle creativity and the used games market in boutique shops offers gamers wider selection of titles and also helps keep the boutique retailers in business and competeing with the Wal-marts of the world, thank fucking christ or else we'd all be buying our games in the big boxers dealing with whatever top 20 best sellers they have in stock.

 

[Azih]

Alright biggreenmachine cherry picking points out of the article doesn't refute it. Especially when for 1) you're just countering his hypothetical example with your own and for 2) um, you're not refuting the point at all