Sony joins EA and Ubisoft in considering limitations on used games

[Gradthrawn]

That's possibly the most sensible solution yet! Of course that'd be painful competition with the BnM stores. Maybe then they'd come up with a compromise with $5 going to the publisher per resale or somesuch?

I honestly forgot about the publisher, despite the publisher being the main issue here, not the platform holder. But yes, I think you have the right idea there. Make a joint publisher/platform holder system. Separate per publisher programs would be too disjointed and confusing (who do I send my game into? etc). And with the platform holder's participation, you can make the trade in reward a universal currency (for the platform, at least). Split the proceeds from the used game re-sales (majority to publisher?).

 

[corduroygt]

How much do publishers and Sony get for a used game sales these days ?

Many people sell used games help fund their new game purchases though.

 

[NavNucST3]

Many people sell used games help fund their new game purchases though.

Really? How often have you looked at GME's financials?

 

[patsu]

I did that just once (MLB The Show 2009 -> MLB The Show 2010). I can see it make sense for many other folks, especially when wives/mothers start complaining about storage space.

The "open our own used game channel" approach sounds more like a scorch earth, heavy weight solution to something the retailers and the rest can work out.

 

[Gradthrawn]

The "open our own used game channel" approach sounds more like a scorch earth, heavy weight solution to something the retailers and the rest can work out.

Retailers have worked it out. And that's the problem publishers have, me thinks.

 

[eastmen]

So people are complaining that developers want to get paid. Used sales are just a way to rob the devs. Unlike movies and music games only have one source of income.I'm suprised that it didn't happen sooner

 

[Xenus]

Indeed and those that trade in used games tend to buy more used games. So without the console companies or devs finding ways to control used games sales they need to rely on high initial sales or really long legs and good replay value to recoup their money. On the bright side if they can find a way to properly control used game sales without screwing the customers is the process niche titles are more likely to exist as profitability is more likely plus the FF's and such would gain more money recovered from the mass used selloffs that exist a week or so after the game first appeared in Japan.

 

[tha_con]

These practices will eventually force GameStop to reevaluate their business model and eventually disappear. It may take time, but this will honestly be for the better of everyone. IMO.

 

[wco81]

Or you could argue that if they priced their products lower, people wouldn't need to buy them used (or to a certain extent, pirate it).

A lot of new game sales are from people who count on being able to re-sell the game and recoup some of their outlay once they finish the game. That's another issue for the developers, maybe they need to provide a better value in terms of replay-ability, longevity.

Incidentally, that is one reason why there will be resistance to downloads-only strategy, especially at full retail price. Imagine in the next gen, one console is DD-only while another is still selling media and they're priced the same. Which one will more consumers support?

 

[Xenus]

Hell if the publishers can ensure getting a certain cut of every sale they might lower prices back down. Unlikely unless one company does it to undercut another but still. Either way as long as they find a solution that gives devs a cut of a greater amount of sales that doesn't hurt the consumer as well it's good for the industry.

 

[wco81]

They could try selling the games at $20 and then selling extras like online play for $10, achievements for $10, etc.

That would expand the market who buy the games at launch and then if they have compelling extras, they would see revenues from those features.

 

[Scott_Arm]

The used game market has always existed, even with pinball and billiards. I don't buy into the argument that because games are digital, the experience does not degrade. In a sense, it does degrade, because the online communities shrink as the next games come out, not to mention the newer games have better graphics, more features etc. Sure, there are some great early titles, but for the most part the games get better in each year of a consoles lifespan. Over time, the games simply have less value, like anything else. This is all bullshit entitlement, and nickel and diming. These publishers know that used games are a part of the market, so if they don't like it then adjust their finances and product to fit the market. Don't kill a completely legal and consumer friendly market. People sell houses, cars, books, magazines, movies, music, furniture, sports equipment, clothing and the original manufacturer doesn't get anything. Is that fair? YES. Should video games be treated differently? NO.

Going this route can only be bad. There are games I'm on the fence about and would consider buying used. Would I bother if this came through? Hell no. Gamestop isn't the only used market in town. Craigslist, Ebay, Kijiji are all great places to get cheap used games. Sure, Gamestop overcharges for used games. People are idiots for buying them. I trade in my games religiously to pay for my new games. I never keep them. My favourites get traded in like the rest. If I can't trade in my games for any real value, I'll simply stop getting so many games. I have finite dollars to spend, so what's likely to happen is I'll buy a few core titles I want, and take less chances on other things.

 

[eastmen]

Or you could argue that if they priced their products lower, people wouldn't need to buy them used (or to a certain extent, pirate it).

A lot of new game sales are from people who count on being able to re-sell the game and recoup some of their outlay once they finish the game. That's another issue for the developers, maybe they need to provide a better value in terms of replay-ability, longevity.

Incidentally, that is one reason why there will be resistance to downloads-only strategy, especially at full retail price. Imagine in the next gen, one console is DD-only while another is still selling media and they're priced the same. Which one will more consumers support?

What would they price them at ? If they priced a new game at $50 instead of $60 then gamestop would price the used game at $45 or $40. IF the priced it at $40 then gamestop would price it at $35 or$30.

THe used market will allways be there taking sales.

As for people trading in to get new games. I see gamestop trying to preven that. Thier edge card gives you 10% more when you trade in and 10% more when you buy used. Gamestop wants to get you into a cycle of dependence with them.


Lets say you want COD MW BOs coming out this holiday. The game is $60 new and $55 used. Not a big deal. However you want to trade games in towards it. So you have $40 worth of games and an edge card. THe edge card gives you a nice $4 towards either verison but it makes the used verison is now $49.50 . So all someone would have to do is lay out $5.50 for a slightly used game vs $10.50 it doesn't sound like much but that can e a dinner for someone Not to mention that a few months after release it will still be $60 retail and under $40 used.

The used game market has always existed, even with pinball and billiards. I don't buy into the argument that because games are digital, the experience does not degrade. In a sense, it does degrade, because the online communities shrink as the next games come out, not to mention the newer games have better graphics, more features etc. Sure, there are some great early titles, but for the most part the games get better in each year of a consoles lifespan. Over time, the games simply have less value, like anything else. This is all bullshit entitlement, and nickel and diming. These publishers know that used games are a part of the market, so if they don't like it then adjust their finances and product to fit the market. Don't kill a completely legal and consumer friendly market. People sell houses, cars, books, magazines, movies, music, furniture, sports equipment, clothing and the original manufacturer doesn't get anything. Is that fair? YES. Should video games be treated differently? NO.

I don't get your examples. Pinball had a large cost of entry not to mention a huge floor space. Billards did have used tables to compete with but if the table was messed up it could be very costly to fix and I don't recall many used billard shops around. But if your billard table or your pinball machine was broken or didn't work when you took it home there weren't dozens more at the store ready for you to go and swap out.

ing this route can only be bad. There are games I'm on the fence about and would consider buying used. Would I bother if this came through? Hell no. Gamestop isn't the only used market in town. Craigslist, Ebay, Kijiji are all great places to get cheap used games. Sure, Gamestop overcharges for used games. People are idiots for buying them. I trade in my games religiously to pay for my new games. I never keep them. My favourites get traded in like the rest. If I can't trade in my games for any real value, I'll simply stop getting so many games. I have finite dollars to spend, so what's likely to happen is I'll buy a few core titles I want, and take less chances on other things.

All used game sale avenues will have this sales tax added on. It wont go away.

Perhaps if your on the fence about the game you can simply wait a few months for the price to drop instead of buying it used because next time the developer wont be there making that game for you to buy used.


I was eh about left 4 dead 2 and i waited and got it for $10 bucks. I was eh about batman and i got it for $20 bucks. ALl brand new.

 

[-tkf-]

So people are complaining that developers want to get paid. Used sales are just a way to rob the devs. Unlike movies and music games only have one source of income.I'm suprised that it didn't happen sooner

It´s not about robbing developers, it´s about robbing the customer.

What you are suggesting is that we should only be allowed to rent games and not own them.

Someone tried this with movies when the DVD was young, luckily they fell on their face and paid a hefty price. This will only push more against the industry and "force" more to just steal the games.

Create awesome games with replay value and keep them alive with free DLC , that will help reduce the problem with people selling used games. Though i don´t see the problem at all, you bought it, it´s yours to sell to others.

 

[eastmen]

It´s not about robbing developers, it´s about robbing the customer.

What you are suggesting is that we should only be allowed to rent games and not own them.

Someone tried this with movies when the DVD was young, luckily they fell on their face and paid a hefty price. This will only push more against the industry and "force" more to just steal the games.

Create awesome games with replay value and keep them alive with free DLC , that will help reduce the problem with people selling used games. Though i don´t see the problem at all, you bought it, it´s yours to sell to others.

You can do whatever you want with your discs. However the developer has he right to charge you for added services if they want to. So you can buy madden and play the single player, but if you want to use thier match making and other features that are hosted server side they will charge you for it. If you feel the cost is to much , then don't buy the online and enjoy the single player content.

In the future it wont matter because there wont be any selling with DD only.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The used game market has always existed, even with pinball and billiards. I don't buy into the argument that because games are digital, the experience does not degrade. In a sense, it does degrade, because the online communities shrink as the next games come out, not to mention the newer games have better graphics, more features etc. Sure, there are some great early titles, but for the most part the games get better in each year of a consoles lifespan. Over time, the games simply have less value, like anything else.

Yes, and that's reflected in retail discounting, but that's obsolesence and not devalue by use. That's coming into effect over a much longer term span than the issues with second-hand sales, that sees people trading in a new game a few weeks or couple of months after release when a title is still hot. Why should I buy FFXIII now if in two weeks it'll be available second hand, while still be a new title reflecting the besst possible now? That's very different from buying FFXIII in two years time when FFXV is coming out.

Perhaps if used-game sales were limited to having to be a year old before they could be passed on, your position would be fair, creating a choice between the latest, greatest games and the older, not quite as good games...but then that's what Platinum/Greatest Hits games do anyway. If you want to wait, you can get it cheaper and new.

Now having said that, there's a good case that if the game is online strong, and people are selling it early, then there's an issue with the game. eg. MAG was common as muck on eBay when it luanched as lots of people bought it, tried it, and found it wasn't to their liking. It'd be unfair if they couldn't sell it on to recover their costs, and that's one of the advantages of a healthy resale market, more speculative purchasing. MAG got as many sales as it did even if the intiial discs traded hands several times until they found some [strike]chumps who liked that god-awful game[/strike] appreciate players. As a personal example I regret buying KZ2 for it's online component and it's single player wasn't worth it to me. I wish I had traded it earlier. MAG did my head in and was the first game I ever traded, didn't get a great price on it, but that did enable me to get Borderlands that was way more fun.

As ever, there's a balancing act needing to balance the legitimate interests of shoppers with the legitimate needs of developers and publishers. And as ever, rather than all get together and come to some fair consensus, both sides draw themselves up opposite each other and only argue their position without understand the opposition's side and seeing what's right about their arguments.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I still don't see any legitimate reason for publishers and devs to try to limit or curb the resale market. If they can't recoup their costs in the market that exists, then they need to change their product. What they're trying to do is only going to hurt the consumer, and potentially backfire and damage their own game sales. If I buy a game and do not like it, why shouldn't I be able to sell it to someone else? Why should I be stuck selling an arbitrarily devalued product because certain features are only usable by the original owner? It doesn't make any sense. You know, I think if people sell their bikes, they shouldn't be allowed to sell them with a bike seat. They should have to take the seat off and then sell it. It's only fair if the person buying the used bike has to buy a new bike seat, to help support the bike industry. If they go this route, they'd better clearly label the games so customers know that online features are only available to the original user.

 

[Xenus]

Scott you're missing the point a bit here. Gamestop already arbitrarily decreases it's value. They give you some odd amount of money they came up with from lord knows where then turn around and sell it for $20 dollars or more profit in the case of newer games. The only difference here is publishers will have the option of getting some of that profit through internet codes if they want. Plus retail has the incentive to prop up new game prices for longer then they should to make more money then they should off used games in the present present market.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Scott you're missing the point a bit here.

Yes, it's not just the publishers and the consumer, but the merchants too. Taking Scott's bike example, if you went into a Bike shop to get a new bike, and was offered a brand spanking new bike for $1000, or exactly the same bike for the same condition 2nd hand for $800, which would you buy? That doesn't happen for 2 reasons - 1) Bikes get wear and tear which means to buy second hand, you will be buying a lesser product. There are advantages in buying new. 2) Bike's are a long term investment. You don't buy a bike now to sell it a month later to buy the next model bike. Typically a bike is used until it's well worn, and bike shops don't get lots of returns to pass on.

Incidentally, can eBooks be passed on to other people, or have they zero resale value?

 

[Xenus]

Not only that but in the case of Gamestop they will give you $400 for the bike a month old or less then turn around and sell it for $800.