The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Next-Gen.Biz: Every Time a Used Game is Sold, God Kills a Kitten
Battman23
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8632&Itemid=2
Next-Gen.Biz Editor Colin Campbell has written an interesting editorial on used games and their effect on the gaming industry. He argues that the used games business is hurting the gaming industry as a whole. Now, I am wondering what the PA community, as a whole, thinks about his argument here. Personally, I believe that used games, like anything else, have a good and a bad side.
FROM MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE:
TL;DR
Editor of Next-Gen.Biz writes a slightly pissy article about how he thinks used games hurt the gaming industry.
Read the article and post your opinion. Feel free to argue my opinions as well.
Next-Gen.Biz Editor Colin Campbell has written an interesting editorial on used games and their effect on the gaming industry. He argues that the used games business is hurting the gaming industry as a whole. Now, I am wondering what the PA community, as a whole, thinks about his argument here. Personally, I believe that used games, like anything else, have a good and a bad side.
FROM MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE:
- About 20% of games sold are used. (90% of this 20% are over 1 year old and are under $20)
- Trade-ins are a HUGE supporter of pre-orders. This is big. Think about what a pre-order is. It is a guaranteed order that provides the publisher with the sale of a NEW game (for which they receive a percentage of).
- Used game stores (GameStop, local shops, etc.) provide a service, to parents especially, that Wal-Mart and Best Buy cannot. That service is in the form of a knowledgeable (or semi-knowledgeable) staff that can, and will, help consumers choose the best games.
- His argument (see spoiler) regarding used games on sale the day after it is new is absolute garbage. The ONLY time this happens is with crappy games. My local GS didn't see a used copy of Halo 3 for at least a month (same for Gears of War, any Zelda, or Madden).
- Let's count the NEW game purchases I would not have if it were not for trade-ins: Rock Band, Call of Duty 4, Bioshock, Gears of War. Without trade-in bonuses and the like I would have bought maybe one of these titles (and definitely not Rock Band). Instead, I purchased all of them NEW, which gives the publishers and developers their cut. So what will it be: their cut from ONE game or FOUR games. (Before I get jumped on for the trade-in talk, please do not get confused about who gets paid from the sale of a new game. If a new game is sold the publisher gets paid. Period. (GameStop does not give publishers "trade-in credit", they give them CASH.)
TL;DR
Editor of Next-Gen.Biz writes a slightly pissy article about how he thinks used games hurt the gaming industry.
Read the article and post your opinion. Feel free to argue my opinions as well.
EDITOR'S VIEW: Used Games are Damaging
By Colin Campbell
In the first of a weekly opinion column Next-Gen.Biz editor-in-chief Colin Campbell takes a look at the trade that's costing this business over $1 billion a year.
Image Last week GameStop announced Holiday sales up 45%. Games retailers en masse are whoopin’ it up, selling heaps of games. Which is wonderful for them, because, due to the lucrative used-games business they get to sell those little boxes of joy all over again.
The silent fury of publishers toward their retail “partners†is a palpable force in game industry politics. Retailers such as GameStop, with its powerful network of 5,000 frontline stores, are coining up to $1 billion a year in used game revenues in North America alone. Add Europe and you’ve got to think about almost doubling that number.
Publishers don’t see a dime, nor even a eurocent of the money.
And they’re not happy. Especially because there isn’t a darned thing they can do. Both the law and the balance of power within the game industry presently favor the sell-it-again retailers.
There’s an awful lot of revenue that isn’t being ploughed back into development or into marketing.
In its last full fiscal year Gamestop's sales and earnings were up over 70%, and it’s certain that 2008 will be even more lucrative. High retail earnings are a sure sign that the business as a whole is prospering. But the problem for publishers – one that they only really articulate in private – is that retail gets to prosper just that little bit more than everyone else.
GameStop’s used business is said to account for a third of sales and almost a half of profits. It generates twice as much percentage margin on used games than on new games.
That’s an awful lot of revenue that isn’t being ploughed back into development or into marketing. All that money goes to GameStop, which doesn’t make games. GameStop opens stores in malls, sticks up shelving, hires inexpensive, unskilled local youth and sells product.
Worse, the used games business restrains the market by keeping new game prices high and by depriving the publishers of investment income. In the long-term, it’s not such a great deal for consumers.
Image All the more galling is that significant percentages of publisher marketing cream is skimmed by retailers as “market development funds†which are essentially marked up in-store ads – often tied into the amount of stock a retailer orders.
Timing is a big issue. If used games began turning up in specific used-game stores months after initial on-sale date, it wouldn’t be too bad. Nobody is going to complain about games turning up for sale in second-hand stories months after they have ceased to be hot.
But games often turn up second-hand days after on sale date, and can be marked down by as little as $5 off the original asking price. They’re being sold alongside the new product. Given that the retailer is giving Johnny Consumer a store-credit of no more than $15 to $20 for his game, you can see who is making out big on this.
So the publisher-paid ads are paying to promoting hot new games that the publishers spent millions developing but for which they paid dick after the first sale.
But, what the heck, GameStop gets to keep selling the games again and again and again. So much so that a used game sale is way better for GameStop’s bottom line than a new game. Take a walk into a game store and you’ll see where the priorities lie. Used game boxes generally sit central and close to the register or close to the front entrance.
You have to wonder if this is a system that anyone could describe as being fair and just.
Used game sales are, in fact, a separate business to the game industry, one that is parasitical and offers little or no benefits to the business as a whole. If you look at the share-of-effort or the share-of-investment or the share-of-creativity that goes into making a game and bringing it to market, you have to wonder if this is a system that anyone could describe as being fair and just.
The retailers – when they deign to comment on this issue at all – say they have to sell used games in order to make up for the fact that margins on new games are so slender. Or they claim that used games are good for the business.
Daniel DeMatteo, GameStop's boss once said, “The used games business does not cannibalize sales of newer video games. As a matter of fact, it does the opposite. We continuously increase the market for new games by allowing customers to trade in games that they are no longer playing. The used games business puts currency in people's hands."
This is sophistry. It assumes that customers who are in the business of trading in games will spend their money on a new game, rather than on a cheaper used one.
Let’s be clear. Games retailers are in the business of maximising retail floor-space. They are in the business of selling games. Period. They have no responsibility towards the financial wellbeing of their suppliers. Retailers care for the publisher as McDonalds cares for the cow.
And, for consumers, the short-term benefit of legally buying almost-new games at cut-price rates is undeniable. Consumers are absolutely right to seek the best deal that they can. They are doing nothing wrong.
So the real losers here are publishers, developers and the non-retail game industry eco-system. That is, the part of the business that actually generates content.
But, you say, if the publishers are having their throats cut, they aren’t exactly going bust. Well, no, but that misses the point. Publishers are not in the business of just staying in business. They need to grow.
This is a business that is already stifled by the high-risk factor of publishing games and the difficulty in turning a profit, both of which are exacerbated by the used games business. It is, in my view, indisputable, that with the added revenues otherwise lost to used sales, publishers would be able to invest more in product development and market growth.
Alas, publishers know better than to kick up a stink about the situation. They are in a position where antagonizing massive retail customers would be a terrible idea. Clearly, any argument that retail might be harming the game industry (by depriving its source of content of revenues) is going to be rebuffed.
Likewise, consumers who think they’re getting a great deal, would rebel at the very idea of losing access to slightly cheaper used games.
It is indisputable, that with the added revenues otherwise lost to used sales, publishers would be able to invest more in product development and market growth.
Legally, there’s little room for manoeuvre. The First Sale Doctrine protects resellers from shifting copyrighted content – which is why it’s okay to buy second-hand books or records. Games are seen in the same way by the law, even though games are different.
Unlike books and other media, games have a short life in the hands of consumers. Books, DVDs and CDs are keep-ables, sometimes for years. Games, once they’re played out, are often not.
What’s more, games packaging tends to stay in good condition (especially if sold back to the retailer a mere week after sliding off the presses) so a used game looks like a very attractive deal against a new game. Console games are also less copy-able than PC games, which, curiously, the sell-it-again retailers don’t sell used (unlike console games, it's not legal, falling under special legislation brought in to protect business software makers ).
You’ll note, big-chain booksellers and big-chain music-sellers don’t fill their show-floors with used stock. Neither books nor CDs carry large margins, but the likes of Barnes & Noble seem to manage just fine. Why is that?
Image You could make the argument that used games are keeping consumers playing games that they otherwise wouldn’t buy; keeps them interested. But that just doesn’t add up. These are not consumers who are looking for any cut-price entertainment experience. These are very often core, knowledgeable consumers who play a lot of games. They are taking a better deal because they can. If they save $10 on a nearly-new title, good luck to them. That’s $10 they can spend on another nearly-new game.
There is also the argument that consumers buy more new games because they know they can get some money returned by selling the titles back to the store. Again, this ignores the fact that the used game business is offering consumers a pretty good reason not to buy any new games in the first place, or at least to buy as few new games as possible.
If you work in the game industry – as opposed to the retail industry – this is all bad news. This is, from top to bottom, a story of how games that are hot right now are selling in large numbers, with none of the revenues going back to the makers of the games.
Sure, retailers serve a necessary role, albeit one that is not specific to the game industry (selling games and selling shoes is much the same skill-set).
My argument here is not against the way they do business (I’d do the same in their position). My argument is rather, in favor of publishers quickly finding alternatives that don’t damage the game industry as a whole.
If the publishers could do something about used games, they would, in a heart-beat. No publisher I know has a single good thing to say about the used games business. The only people who like it, are the ones who profit from it.
Remember the rumor that Sony was contemplating selling PS3 games as non-sell-on-able licenses? It never came to pass, but a licence-based model would be a highly desirable outcome for all the hardware companies and third party publishers. This won’t happen because there are way too many legal and publicity-based barriers.
Which is why online, digital distribution is growing so fast. This is a market stripped of messy boxes or resell issues. It has a much more fluid pricing structure and a lighter cost burden. This is also why publishers are increasingly keen to sell base units of games relatively cheaply (at retail) with revenues that can be bolstered by downloads. (You can guess what the retailers have to say about that model.)
The publishers are using technology and the purchasing trends that underpin them, to fight back against a system that is grossly unfair to their businesses. It will take many years. But it will take.
In the meantime, retailers and consumers will collude to deny revenues to publishers and developers of which they, rightfully, deserve a share.
By Colin Campbell
In the first of a weekly opinion column Next-Gen.Biz editor-in-chief Colin Campbell takes a look at the trade that's costing this business over $1 billion a year.
Image Last week GameStop announced Holiday sales up 45%. Games retailers en masse are whoopin’ it up, selling heaps of games. Which is wonderful for them, because, due to the lucrative used-games business they get to sell those little boxes of joy all over again.
The silent fury of publishers toward their retail “partners†is a palpable force in game industry politics. Retailers such as GameStop, with its powerful network of 5,000 frontline stores, are coining up to $1 billion a year in used game revenues in North America alone. Add Europe and you’ve got to think about almost doubling that number.
Publishers don’t see a dime, nor even a eurocent of the money.
And they’re not happy. Especially because there isn’t a darned thing they can do. Both the law and the balance of power within the game industry presently favor the sell-it-again retailers.
There’s an awful lot of revenue that isn’t being ploughed back into development or into marketing.
In its last full fiscal year Gamestop's sales and earnings were up over 70%, and it’s certain that 2008 will be even more lucrative. High retail earnings are a sure sign that the business as a whole is prospering. But the problem for publishers – one that they only really articulate in private – is that retail gets to prosper just that little bit more than everyone else.
GameStop’s used business is said to account for a third of sales and almost a half of profits. It generates twice as much percentage margin on used games than on new games.
That’s an awful lot of revenue that isn’t being ploughed back into development or into marketing. All that money goes to GameStop, which doesn’t make games. GameStop opens stores in malls, sticks up shelving, hires inexpensive, unskilled local youth and sells product.
Worse, the used games business restrains the market by keeping new game prices high and by depriving the publishers of investment income. In the long-term, it’s not such a great deal for consumers.
Image All the more galling is that significant percentages of publisher marketing cream is skimmed by retailers as “market development funds†which are essentially marked up in-store ads – often tied into the amount of stock a retailer orders.
Timing is a big issue. If used games began turning up in specific used-game stores months after initial on-sale date, it wouldn’t be too bad. Nobody is going to complain about games turning up for sale in second-hand stories months after they have ceased to be hot.
But games often turn up second-hand days after on sale date, and can be marked down by as little as $5 off the original asking price. They’re being sold alongside the new product. Given that the retailer is giving Johnny Consumer a store-credit of no more than $15 to $20 for his game, you can see who is making out big on this.
So the publisher-paid ads are paying to promoting hot new games that the publishers spent millions developing but for which they paid dick after the first sale.
But, what the heck, GameStop gets to keep selling the games again and again and again. So much so that a used game sale is way better for GameStop’s bottom line than a new game. Take a walk into a game store and you’ll see where the priorities lie. Used game boxes generally sit central and close to the register or close to the front entrance.
You have to wonder if this is a system that anyone could describe as being fair and just.
Used game sales are, in fact, a separate business to the game industry, one that is parasitical and offers little or no benefits to the business as a whole. If you look at the share-of-effort or the share-of-investment or the share-of-creativity that goes into making a game and bringing it to market, you have to wonder if this is a system that anyone could describe as being fair and just.
The retailers – when they deign to comment on this issue at all – say they have to sell used games in order to make up for the fact that margins on new games are so slender. Or they claim that used games are good for the business.
Daniel DeMatteo, GameStop's boss once said, “The used games business does not cannibalize sales of newer video games. As a matter of fact, it does the opposite. We continuously increase the market for new games by allowing customers to trade in games that they are no longer playing. The used games business puts currency in people's hands."
This is sophistry. It assumes that customers who are in the business of trading in games will spend their money on a new game, rather than on a cheaper used one.
Let’s be clear. Games retailers are in the business of maximising retail floor-space. They are in the business of selling games. Period. They have no responsibility towards the financial wellbeing of their suppliers. Retailers care for the publisher as McDonalds cares for the cow.
And, for consumers, the short-term benefit of legally buying almost-new games at cut-price rates is undeniable. Consumers are absolutely right to seek the best deal that they can. They are doing nothing wrong.
So the real losers here are publishers, developers and the non-retail game industry eco-system. That is, the part of the business that actually generates content.
But, you say, if the publishers are having their throats cut, they aren’t exactly going bust. Well, no, but that misses the point. Publishers are not in the business of just staying in business. They need to grow.
This is a business that is already stifled by the high-risk factor of publishing games and the difficulty in turning a profit, both of which are exacerbated by the used games business. It is, in my view, indisputable, that with the added revenues otherwise lost to used sales, publishers would be able to invest more in product development and market growth.
Alas, publishers know better than to kick up a stink about the situation. They are in a position where antagonizing massive retail customers would be a terrible idea. Clearly, any argument that retail might be harming the game industry (by depriving its source of content of revenues) is going to be rebuffed.
Likewise, consumers who think they’re getting a great deal, would rebel at the very idea of losing access to slightly cheaper used games.
It is indisputable, that with the added revenues otherwise lost to used sales, publishers would be able to invest more in product development and market growth.
Legally, there’s little room for manoeuvre. The First Sale Doctrine protects resellers from shifting copyrighted content – which is why it’s okay to buy second-hand books or records. Games are seen in the same way by the law, even though games are different.
Unlike books and other media, games have a short life in the hands of consumers. Books, DVDs and CDs are keep-ables, sometimes for years. Games, once they’re played out, are often not.
What’s more, games packaging tends to stay in good condition (especially if sold back to the retailer a mere week after sliding off the presses) so a used game looks like a very attractive deal against a new game. Console games are also less copy-able than PC games, which, curiously, the sell-it-again retailers don’t sell used (unlike console games, it's not legal, falling under special legislation brought in to protect business software makers ).
You’ll note, big-chain booksellers and big-chain music-sellers don’t fill their show-floors with used stock. Neither books nor CDs carry large margins, but the likes of Barnes & Noble seem to manage just fine. Why is that?
Image You could make the argument that used games are keeping consumers playing games that they otherwise wouldn’t buy; keeps them interested. But that just doesn’t add up. These are not consumers who are looking for any cut-price entertainment experience. These are very often core, knowledgeable consumers who play a lot of games. They are taking a better deal because they can. If they save $10 on a nearly-new title, good luck to them. That’s $10 they can spend on another nearly-new game.
There is also the argument that consumers buy more new games because they know they can get some money returned by selling the titles back to the store. Again, this ignores the fact that the used game business is offering consumers a pretty good reason not to buy any new games in the first place, or at least to buy as few new games as possible.
If you work in the game industry – as opposed to the retail industry – this is all bad news. This is, from top to bottom, a story of how games that are hot right now are selling in large numbers, with none of the revenues going back to the makers of the games.
Sure, retailers serve a necessary role, albeit one that is not specific to the game industry (selling games and selling shoes is much the same skill-set).
My argument here is not against the way they do business (I’d do the same in their position). My argument is rather, in favor of publishers quickly finding alternatives that don’t damage the game industry as a whole.
If the publishers could do something about used games, they would, in a heart-beat. No publisher I know has a single good thing to say about the used games business. The only people who like it, are the ones who profit from it.
Remember the rumor that Sony was contemplating selling PS3 games as non-sell-on-able licenses? It never came to pass, but a licence-based model would be a highly desirable outcome for all the hardware companies and third party publishers. This won’t happen because there are way too many legal and publicity-based barriers.
Which is why online, digital distribution is growing so fast. This is a market stripped of messy boxes or resell issues. It has a much more fluid pricing structure and a lighter cost burden. This is also why publishers are increasingly keen to sell base units of games relatively cheaply (at retail) with revenues that can be bolstered by downloads. (You can guess what the retailers have to say about that model.)
The publishers are using technology and the purchasing trends that underpin them, to fight back against a system that is grossly unfair to their businesses. It will take many years. But it will take.
In the meantime, retailers and consumers will collude to deny revenues to publishers and developers of which they, rightfully, deserve a share.
Battman23 on
0
Posts
Thank you sir, for typing my thoughts for me
Even better, go to Gamestop. It's $35 used!
Better yet, I'm not even kidding!
http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=916068
Still, used games give many people a second shot at out of print games or quality must own games like this one. Though to be honest if you look carefully at all the big box stores you should be able to find at least a few copies of the Player's Choice edition of Melee.
Used games aren't the real threat to developers. Publishers are. They take waay too big a chunk. If you can become your own publisher, however, then you can rule the world. Digital Distribution works for Valve, helped get them out from the thumb of their publisher. The system does need to evolve, but how and when are a bit shady.
On the other hand, I am a college student, and I buy games for the cheapest price available to me, which often involves used games. I think the best approach long-term is digital distribution of games, but that's obviously not viable in the current market.
I mean, imagine if (perhaps the next generation or two), developers had a Steam-like product for consoles. They could sell their games for 10$ cheaper, which would allow semi-poor kids like me to buy it, while letting "richer" (read: normal people with real jobs) people buy it in droves. This is best fo the developer. Maybe it could even benefit online publishers (people who specialize in online distribution). Does it cut out Gamestop? Yeah.
I would argue 110% that people don't care about Gamestop, they simply go there because it is the best option available. I would also argue that Gamestop is a necessity for elderly people right now, who can't/won't shop online. However, in a decade? In a decade, the "elderly" will be our parents. I know my parents can shop online, and I think that in a decade almost the entire American populace will be able to.
I buy new games, but only at prices I can afford. I got Bioshock for £22.50 new, Assassins Creed for £25, Mario Galaxy for £25, Endless Blue for £20, GH III Wii for £55 and Mario and Sonic at the Olympics for £25.
If it's more than £30, it's very unlikely I will buy the game. If you have an RRP of £50 and try and sell at that then I'll be buying 2nd hand.
The industry is also at fault for making games "disposable" - creating the belief that it's not worth keeping anything, because backwards compatibility will be broke in 5 years, and in 6 months the new version will be out.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
As long as people have had goods to possess they have sold/traded them for new goods or someone else's used goods. Games are no different and is exactly why whatever gaming company that sued to stop the sale of used games lost. Think of it this way: if I want to trade game X for game Y, I have to find someone with game Y who wants my game X. That's a pretty tough task at times. That's where Gamestop fits in, effectively bringing everyone who wants trade together to facilitate the transactions. Except instead of me and you simply handing each other the games we want to trade, they use money. Currently they're the most efficient method in the market and if they didn't exist people would move on to the next most efficient method of trading.
And the idea that GS/EB "steal" from developers implies gamers would buy the game new if they couldn't trade/buy it used. Not true. This may be the case for some, but the majority who weren't willing to pay full price with the option of buying used probably aren't going to change their mind when you take the option away. If anything, Gamestop opens the market further by allowing those who can't afford new games now or are unsure if they like a game to get in at a reduced cost which may lead to them jumping in on new games in the future.
And, you know, replay value.
If games had a longer lifespan then people wouldn't trade them in as much, and besides the used game market is GREAT for sports games because you can get last year's Madden's and NBA2k for dirt cheap when the new iteration is out.
And no, I don't feel bad for buying Madden used because fuck EA right in their EArs. I wouldn't be buying it at all except it's the only 'official' NFL game around.
It's life, get over it I think.
The 'probem' is entirely the industry's own making. Videogame sales are incredibly top-heavy - nearly all copies of a game sold will be in the first few weeks (notable exceptions are on the DS). Games are rarely lowered in price and few get on to the Platinum / Player's Choice system - which doesn't even exist for the new consoles.
There's this absurd belief that reducing prices as time goes on will lower sales; most other industries seem to find otherwise.
Totally, but strangely that makes me think games are better for being shorter. I would never sell PoP: Sands of Time, because it only take 10 hrs to play through, but some 80 hr JRPG is never getting played again, so I'm happy to put it up on ebay or whatever.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
I'm not really talking about JRPGs where the game is completely linear, or even content that changes the main story of the game. I'm talking more optional content which can be sidequests or different gameplay modes and minigames, something to interest the player to keep the game.
Of course, the ultimate replay value would be multiplayer but not all games are suited for that.
This is because I can't stand the thought of anyone else's sticky fingers being on my stuff. Shrink wrap or I walk away.
Germs, guys. They're everywhere.
What isn't kosher is the way Gamestop does it. Five dollars less than the price to buy a game new? Fuck that. Oh, and you'll give me fifteen dollars for this game that you're going to slap a $45 used price on? Pfft.
There will be no used market is publishers would fucking keep their popular games in print.
Or online? O_o
I thought we were talking exclusively about brick and mortar here?
Otherwise the whole argument holds no water.
How do you know the people who made the shrink wrap didn't have germs?
Or for that matter there were germs on the discs before they were shrink wrapped in their cases?
Craigslist and eBay were mentioned.
If we're talking exclusively brick and mortar, we may as well just define that as Gamestop.
He's suggesting that the 20 cheap, second-hand games I bought last year I would still buy new if there was no alternative, and no way of financing through trades. He is wrong. I wouldn't buy them at all if that were the case. It's called having a budget you stupid prick.
If so, a developer has lost out. The 'industry', he's arguing, would prefer you to buy 10 new than 20 used anyway.
Budget appeased.
My own argument is that while there is nothng wong with getting yourself the best deal, the more responsible option is to buy new, just as in other markets buying fair trade produce, or goods manufactured from sustainable sources is more responsible. By doing so you are supporting the industry in a more direct fashion.
While I would likely have bought 1-3 more new games (yay for devs), the way the second-hand market works is that, if I didn't buy 3 games off Johnny, he's less likely to buy Halo 3 as he doesn't have the funds from his sale to me. The second-hand market co-exists and in some ways finances the brand new market.
I sure as hell would be less inclined to buy a new car if I couldn't sell my old one.
In your example, four sales become only two sales as far as the developer and publisher is concerned.
Monaro: While used does in some cases fund the new market, the latter would still be better off if the former didn't exist. This is the guy's point. It's a stupid point, but it isn't flat out wrong.
Also, games aren't cars.
Radikal_Dreamer: The guy isn't complaining about games that can't be bought new, so don't even try to use that as a legitimate argument. He's complaining about used games hurting sales in the initial sales period.
Let me tighten up my example, and stick with me through it.
Say a retailer gets 30 copies of a game on launch day. All 30 sell, and 4 are returned (after being opened and used) that day or the next. The games still sold as new, so the devs / pubs still saw those 30 sales, right? The 4 games returned are just early shots at selling used products for the retailer.
Hmm, on second thought, I guess this comes down to how a retailer handles returns of this nature. In the above situation, if those 4 returns undo 4 sales for the devs / pubs, would it be foul play on the retailer's part to suddenly mark them as used? That definitely robs the industry a bit.
I... I wasn't arguing anything. I was just stating my buying habits when it comes to used games, and how I'm basically trying to help the developer with my purchase when I can.
Indeed, but there is a correlation.
Some people buy with the intention of selling later. If you were unable to sell the game off after you finished it, would you be less inclined to buy it? You might rent or not bother at all.
Would EA sports titles see a drop in sales if owners couldn't sell their last-year copy?
I bought 4 FPS games to see which one would replace BF2 as my next great PC game. I would then sell the 3 that didn't make the cut. In this example you could say the New market benefited as who's to say the guys that bought my cast-offs would have bought new? If I didn't have that out clause I'd have not bought all 4, I'd have spent more time on Demos or perhaps cut back my options.
What the hell does this mean?
Also EBStop employees crack me up. They talk about how they work in the gaming industry. I'm like, damn, you work at a pawn shop.
That being said, I don't feel it's my obligation, in a capitalist society, to fill the pockets of any coorporation.
Last week I bought Resistance for 19 euros, while it's still being sold new for 65 euros. O_o
If I'd bought that at full price, I would have felt like I was stealing from my own wallet. The difference is just too substantial.
Lately I've been buying a few PS2 titles as well, but I've purchased Platinum versions, almost exclusively. Simply because of the huge difference in pricing. If the initial price of games were lower, I'd buy more games new, but as it is, I just can't afford it.
I do, however, try to buy games that try something new and support small/indie developers, because they're not backed by huge coorporations with fat pockets.
Henroid: If used sales only came into play after all new copies were sold, then yes, he'd have no point in this article. But what's actually happening is retailers take returns and sell used as soon as they are able. They have every right to do so, and since they make a greater margin on used items, they will continue to do so (and we have the right to buy them used, since it's cheaper for us, too).
Only it takes sales on new titles away from the publishers/developers. Unless a title will eventually sell out regardless (and how many titles actually manage that?) the developer has lost out. It decreases demand for new titles to an extent that smaller print runs are advisable than if used didn't exist, and higher prices need to be charged on each in order to cover costs.
It isn't my favourite argument, but he has the theory right.
Monaro: I doubt sports titles would see that much of a drop, since folks are only getting a few quid for them by the time the new one's on the horizon. Is an extra five dollars really going to make a difference in a sale for that demographic?
Well see, this I can understand. But again, I don't see high profile games getting returned soon enough to have an impact on new sales. As for the more niche games, that may be a SOL situation. They will get sold, eventually, and maybe the price will drop. But that's what business is all about.
The tone of this article isn't really about the industry being hurt, it kinda sounds like he's saying the industry is being crippled by this. Which isn't the case. Hurt sales? Sure. But it isn't going to leave a gaping wound in the industry.
These are perceptive posts.
The DVD industry has nowhere near the same levels of preownership. Why? Because they don't topload sales, they lower prices sensibly and most of the older stuff is easily available.
Really, the industry needs to sort itself out and stop whining.
Would he advocate the oft-rumored PS3 idea of signing a game to only work on the initial machine that loads it?
This is another question I have about this article. Can you point to me where a game dev or publisher said that used games are a bad thing? I never hear about it (and as such, I assume it to be something they don't concern themselves with too much).
Yes, let's make video gamers less social. Such a horrible idea of a rumor.