Developers standing up to gamestop ?

Used games depreciate more like used novels--they still work fine, minus some cosmetic wear and tear, but they lose their relevance because they rely in large part on timeliness and novelty to surprise and engage the user. Once a game or novel is surpassed by newer and better product, or once the surprise has been spoiled by wide dissemination, the consumer places less value on it. GTA 3 lost almost all its value by the time San Andreas came out, and those old Stephen King novels don't find many new readers these days. Especially in the case of games, new technology and new conventions render the old obsolete.

Cars experience the same sort of depreciation just by sitting on the lot for too long. Would you buy a never-been-driven 1992 model of [insert favorite car here] for what it cost new? No. You could get something more efficient, more powerful, more stylish, and more featured for the same price.

Trying to curb depreciation by screwing the consumer out of things he's used to is the worst way to go about it. You need to add value. If you have to rely on restricting the consumer's market power, someone who is making products that people want to buy is going to eat your lunch.

I don't understand where your going with this. I don't see any company screwing the consumer out of things they are used too. This isn't used books or used cars. These are the exact same product being repackaged and sold sometimes days after it was just released for less than a new product.

Used cars work because 1) cars eventualy break down and need periodic maintance which benfits the producer of the car. 2) newer cars are out that offer better features , newer modeling and what not .

If you look at the used car market in the early 2000s (mabye late 90s) dealerships and car companys started offering used certifed programs. This was a way of combating 3rd parties from making moeny off used cars. You also don't see a 3 week old car sitting on a lot used for less than the cost of a brand new one. It takes months and most likely years to see used cars of the same model year. Most likely when they come off lease.

It doesn't work with used books either. Used books aren't a big deterent for new books. most of the time on paper backs your looking at a 2-3 price diffrence and with paper backs the quality of the spin and pages is sub par after a single reading. The value comes in with hardcover books. Those often retail for $20 or more and the used verisons are $10-15 less. But that is what the paper back is in answer too (amongst other things). It comes out a few months after the hardcover and is priced cheaper.

Games don't have these options. Games only have price drops to help recoup sales , however there is a used copy already on sale at a lower price point. Its actually hard for me to think of a single product creative product that doesn't have additional lines of revenue . Music not only has cds and digital downloads , it has concerts . Movies have thearters , then dvd , then premium cable / paper view and then basic cable in which to profit off of. Games don't have this chance. So what are they to do about it ? Right now they are adding additional content bundled with new games to get someone to go out and buy it new. I don't see how this is a problem , the other day I bought cinderella on bluray and they gave me a little alarm clock that my little cousin is in love with it. Is that a thign that used dvd buyers should be upset with ?
 
So, who's gonna stand up to "developers"? ;)

I don't think anyone has to yet. Gears of war cost me $60 launch day. It provided me about 16 hours of singe player / co-op and at least another 100 hours of multiplayer. A movie in thearters would set me back $11 for 2 hours on average.

I think games are a great value compared to other forms o entertainment.
 
But games don't stay that price forever. Gears of war is $40 and Resistance is $30.


If you buy them used I am sure you can find them less then $20 even. I strictly play single player only, no multiplayer or online gaming. So I really don't care if the game is previously owned by someone else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you buy them used I am sure you can find them less then $20 even. I strictly play single player only, no multiplayer or online gaming. So I really don't care if the game is previously owned by someone else.


The point is that you don't have to pay full price for the new game and if you wait the price of the game will allways come down. Getting rid of used games doesn't mean the price will allways be $60. New games have allways droped in price.
 
No one is outlawing anything with this. They are just making it more apealing to buy new.

This is absolutely correct as far as things like the Rock Band 2 down loadable content goes. The original game is in my opinion still worth the $60 and comes with a ton of features that most people wanted. Before this promotion was announced, people were very happy with the price. Now they have also found a way to make it appealing new - and it is by adding value to the original game. They even provided a way for you to pay for that value if you did something like got the game from a friend after he finished. That in my mind is a great way to tackle this problem.

Last time I bought a new car, the dealership included several thousand dollars worth of service. Things like taking it to a paint shop to fix some minor imperfections near the door handles, the first 3 service appointments, delivering the car to my house, and a host of other little things. If I buy the car from my neighbor Bob down the street, I don't get those things. I don't get angry at the car dealership for not providing them - rather I see it as some of the value added in buying a new car. I still don't always buy new cars, just like I still wouldn't stop buying used games if this started on all games. It would just mean an extra value judgment for me - is the extra price worth the extra content?

If things like this keep developers making games, then I'm all for it. It is much better to do things like this than go the litigation/legislation route like the music industry.
 
....Nba live has a feature that requires a code to be put in. After the free code is used the only way to get it is to pay $20 for it.

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2008/10/02/playstation-store-update-54/

just a correction but EA says that $20 is erroneous and the cost is $9.99


We’ve heard that there’s some confusion around NBA LIVE 365. I wanted to let you know that if you buy the game NEW, you’ll have a card in the case with a special code on it. That code is specific to your Gamertag / PSN name and gives you NBA LIVE 365 FREE all season long (starting October 27th).

For those who do not
purchase NBA LIVE 09 NEW, we’ve made it easy for you to get NBA LIVE 365. On both the XBOX 360 and the PS3, NBA LIVE 365 retails for 9.99. This can be purchased via the XBOX LIVE Marketplace or the Playstation Store. Currently, the price listing is correct on the XBOX LIVE Marketplace, but it’s incorrectly marked 19.99 on the Playstation Store. We’re working to get this corrected as soon as possible, but rest assured, the price is 9.99! We hope you enjoy NBA LIVE 09 made fresh daily all season long!
 
Do they?

Wal Mart and Best Buy must move a lot of units.

But Gamestop has a virtual monopoly among retailers specializing in games. In many countries.

In the US, their main value may be the ability to preorder, which the publishers probably like a lot.

Some of the bigger chains are doing preorders too but probably not to the extent GS has.
 
The fact that some developers and publishers are actively courting Gamestop to assist in first-day sales (bonus levels in both FarCry2 and LittleBigPlanet for pre-ordering, both of which I'm taking advantage of) would seem a strong counter to the thread title.
 
Says who? Most new game sales come through gamestop still. Publishers aren't happy, but they'd be a lot less happy if Gamestop weren't there.
where did you get that figure from? i hope you're not drawing it from gamestop's literature or sales figures. their entire profit model is based off of buying & selling used games. they may be the "largest video game specific" retailer; but i seriously doubt they sell the most new games. I know Wal-Mart used to hold about 1/4 of game sales (all of them being new) & GameSpot sales are mostly used & account for about 8% (used alone) of game sales. Now think about that, that's 8% less new game sales that their entire growth model is tailored for. 8% less return for developers of the games

their whole model discourages new game sales unless they can be recycled into used game sales. I'd direct you to the "WhistleblowerZero" series of 9 videos; but it seems GameSpot has forced youtube to remove them.

The fact that some developers and publishers are actively courting Gamestop to assist in first-day sales (bonus levels in both FarCry2 and LittleBigPlanet for pre-ordering, both of which I'm taking advantage of) would seem a strong counter to the thread title.
Many music studios try to court MTV & Clear Channel; that doesn't mean they're good for the music industry. It just means they're good at holding their demographic hostage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Isn't it really interesting that people automatically assumes used game market is bad for developers and the industry in general?
 
Isn't it really interesting that people automatically assumes used game market is bad for developers and the industry in general?

That's what the industry themselves have said. There's been lots of dev interviews over the last couple of years where they claim the used market is effectively stealing the bread from their mouths.

The devs see the game stores buying one copy of a game, and then making money selling it over and over, while the dev only gets money for the first new sale.
 
Isn't it really interesting that people automatically assumes used game market is bad for developers and the industry in general?

I'm sorry, but did you not read the thread? Gamestop is like a parasite on the gaming industry.

How do you think the auto industry would feel if customers looking to buy a new car had salesmen trying to sell them used cars instead?
 
it's pretty simple realy... game stop makes about $5 on a new game and upward of $25 for used. it's not rocket science to figure that's where their revenue stream comes from and that the one copy resold over and over to new end users does not find an extra dime into the devs pockets.

IOW, they ONLY exist due to the used market and for the used market.

other retail chains who do not sell used will/would suit publishers just fine.
 
Back
Top