Is the Used Game Market Damaging the Industry?
- Thread starter archangelmorph
- Start date
Like price games lower?
Gamestop may depend on the used games business to be in business, much less generate profits.
I don't think the margins on new games are that high for them. And they're unable to really compete with the big discount chains -- Walmart, Best Buy, etc. on price alone.
When I worked at a videostore, a smaller operation, none of the revenue went back to the film studios. That's the Blockbuster deal, but from what I understand Blockbuster pays almost nothing for the product they put on their shelves, where the smaller operations have to put up the full cost.
Not sure. Maybe some incentives to registering a new game like points that can be redemmed for something.
I don't understand how anyone would be willing to sacrifice their rights to resell a used product for any dollar amount. I don't have an infinite amount of space in my home for games, and I don't want to throw them all in the garbage when I run out of room. If I don't sell them, I'm at least going to give them away, and in that case it's another "lost sale" according to the publishers. Complaining about a very well established market is idiocy. They've had the same thing for books, records, cassettes, VHS, CDs, DVDs and games for ages. How is this suddenly a problem? Bad business practices on the part of the publishers.
Not sure. Maybe some incentives to registering a new game like points that can be redemmed for something.
Edit: I'm not talkng about the retailers offering incentives,I'm talking about the publishers offering incentives.The retailers don't need to offer incentives to buy new games.
I wish it would become standard to offering goodies when you pre-order. Ebgames/Gamestop is responsible for most of those pre-order goodies but the publisher should be the one that does it for all retail stores.
But they don't need to. Despite all the warez and secondhand trading/selling that goes on and how much of that is actually lost sales from people that wouldn't have bought it brand new anyway the money the games industry is making speaks for itself.
But they don't need to. Despite all the warez and secondhand trading/selling that goes on and how much of that is actually lost sales from people that wouldn't have bought it brand new anyway the money the games industry is making speaks for itself.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Well the license method naturally works better when digital distribution is present and it's coming...
Then you don't need to worry about your limited shelf space. The only problem with this for me is the fact that publishers are unlikely to lower the prices even when the product has fewer features (no resell) and the logistics costs are cheaper. I don't have a problem with people having to pay for something they use to the creator/publisher of that product/service despite of my "rights" or despite how things have been in the past. Consumer trade between other consumers is one thing and I have no desires to make it go away, but in my opinion the publishers should force other businesses to hand them a cut from the used games business.
I'm not a collector myself and usually I only own 2-3 games at a time, but I wouldn't have problem paying less for new games in digital form and never have to bother selling them and I would get to keep the old games in the process. I for one can't understand how that is so hard to understand, but whatever.
For the most part the price is the same across the board on new releases.
Well, I kind of understand, but I don't think it's practical. None of the consoles have the storage space necessary to have downloadable games, and probably won't when the next generation of games hits. With PS3 using Bluray, games will be huge and you'd need a mighty fast internet connection and a hell of a lot of storage. Digital distribution of games will still be the minority, I think.
The idea of having cheap digitally distributed games is a good way for the publishers to encourage more sales, it just isn't practical for a lot of people.
I don't think the publishers have any rights to dip into used game sales through shops like Gamestop or EBGames.
In the US, the big chains will more likely offer discounts, like a $10 gift card at release, or maybe an outright discount of $10 or more a few weeks after release.
Games stores chains don't do that as much. One obvious reason? They have used games sales to protect so if they have sales on new games, that pushes used games prices lower.
Another reason is the big discount stores are more likely to use sales on games as loss-leaders, to get people into stores where they can buy other stuff which carry higher margins.
Plus they have more buying power so if they wanted to drive games stores out of business, they can underprice them and buy in higher volume.
Games stores chains don't do that as much. One obvious reason? They have used games sales to protect so if they have sales on new games, that pushes used games prices lower.
Another reason is the big discount stores are more likely to use sales on games as loss-leaders, to get people into stores where they can buy other stuff which carry higher margins.
Plus they have more buying power so if they wanted to drive games stores out of business, they can underprice them and buy in higher volume.
I think software licenses infringe on people's rights. What other product out there do you license, but
a) You have to pay the full price before you can even read the license.
b) You don't actually have to be aware or demonstrate awareness of the terms of the license before agreeing to it.
c) There are no termination conditions, merely a one-time fee and an "until we feel like taking it away" term of use.
d) You buy the license at a retailer, which retailer is completely unable to explain to you the terms of the license before purchase. Seriously, next time you're in Best Buy ask the check-out girl to explain the terms of the license of MS Office before you buy it.
e) There are no signatures involved.
If someone tried to lease a car or an apartment to you that way, he'd probably have his license to do business taken away, possibly even do jail time. But no, software is special and magical because it's digital and electronic and the way of the future, so little things like apprising customers of the terms and conditions prior to purchase can go right out the window. Screw consumer rights, the future is here!
That would make you against the free market, not for it. Do you think Nike should be able to tell you whether you're allowed to play basketball in their cross trainers? Should Chevrolet be able to tell you that you're not allowed to drive your car in Chicago? Should Levi Strauss be able to tell you that you can't wear their jeans on Tuesday?
They are goods that people buy and covered under the same set of rights. I'll consider this software license thing something other than a complete infringing on my rights when buying a software license means sitting down with a rep, going over the contract, and signing on the dotted line before purchase. Until then, it's an illegal boondoggle that simply hasn't been properly prosecuted yet.
Companies have the right to not offer free service to secondhand owners. Used guitars are generally not covered by the warranty. If publishers want to find some way to refuse patches or access to online servers to secondhand software, more power to 'em. That's a service that they're not obligated to provide to secondhand owners. However, they do not have the right to forbid secondhand ownership entirely.
So what? No manufacturer exists to help eBay resellers make money. I guess we should ban eBay. Chevy doesn't exist to help used car dealers make money, so let's ban them too. The problem, the one you're not seeing, is that the desires and goals of corporations do not define our rights! If users lose the right to resell the product, then they don't own it. And if you're not selling, but only leasing and licensing, every other industry in America is held under much, much more stringent guidelines and regulations than the all-holy, sacred software industry.
Yes, you do. That's the definition of property rights. Whose IP is your car? Whose IP is your clothing? Whose IP is your house?
I get frustrated because no one seems to care about their rights except when it's about sex, which I consider to be very, very myopic. You don't want people taking away your property rights.
Last edited by a moderator:
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
I have to say that I am heartened and encouraged that most people on this forum have opted to promote consumer freedom over socialism and restricting the used game market. Kudos to you guys. 
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Something being free is not only tied to what the consumer can do. I believe that in a totally free market the corporations also has rights and in this case tieing the product to the first user, nobody is forcing you buy anything that you don't want.
I'm only talking about video games when I say that I don't really care about property rights or not having the ability to sell my games as long as the total costs of the product during its lifetime remains the same to me, and if I'm able to play it whenever I like.
I am more worried that the consumer money goes to the source rather than to these game stores and I'm willing to remove some of my rights to quarantee that, for example I'm keeping my Mass Effect copy, because I don't want some random dude playing it without Bioware benefitting from it, that way I'm trying to protect my right to get great games in the future too.
I quess we just have to disagree with this whole thing, whereas you see licence method as some sort of catalyst which starts a chain reaction opening a portal straight to hell, I see a future where most likely the revenue stream of videogames will be slightly more logical benefitting the creator side of the chain. The one that matters imo.
That's not a right corporations have under the free market, because it abolishes property rights entirely. Since the principle of the free market is built on the assumption of property rights, no property rights = no free market. A "license" that is invisible to the user until after purchase is a violation of that principle as well, because a market in which outright deception is a tolerated practice is not truly free (that's why free markets ironically require governments). I'm not intrinsically against licenses, but current licensing practices trample all over our rights. Producers have the right to sell goods, offer services, and enter contractual arrangements with customers. If you want to maintain control of your property, don't sell it. Contract it out. Software companies want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to sell their product, but they want to keep control of it, so they bury secret, bogus contracts in it that you only have access to after purchase, because they know if they actually contracted software legally, hardly anyone would buy software.
Some of us do not look at video games as a sacred, immune space where the normal rights and privileges of being a citizen of a free society no longer apply or should be sacrificed by that society in order to help someone else make more money. That's because if software companies can take away your rights because they feel it helps them get richer, then any company can.
Exactly.
Put in the same situation publishers would never choose to give away any advantage.
I dont get how people try to say we shouldn't have the right to resell whatever we purchase.
If you buy a house, you want to have the ability to sell it at some point. Same thinking can be applied to anything. If you spend your money on something, its only fair that you own the thing, and thus is free to do whatever you want with it.
If you buy a house, you want to have the ability to sell it at some point. Same thinking can be applied to anything. If you spend your money on something, its only fair that you own the thing, and thus is free to do whatever you want with it.
Irrelevant whether you have the right or not but there is an obvious difference between reselling a house and reselling games.
When you resell a house most likely you will replace that "product" with another house or another apartment. If you sell a particular game or not, you dont buy it again. You just reduce a unit of sales for the developer because its you who sold a unit and not him.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
I'm not saying that we shouldn't be able to sell our games! I think trade between normal consumers is just fine, but when retail stores sell games on the street again and again with huge margins the situation is imo a bit more complicated. I find it wrong that the developer/publisher doesn't get a cut from these sales, when after all they have shared 100% of the risks and labor of creating that title so I think its only fair that they get something out of it too.
Used games business is not much better than piracy to the industry, and for the record I'm not against piracy, because pirates have eye patches... It hurts the industry and that's good enough reason for me to dislike it...
I mentioned that I personally wouldn't have a problem with digital distribution model that would tie the software to only be playable on purchasers machine(s), but in general I have nothing against trade between normal consumers.
Similar threads
