Is the second hand market really bad for the industry ?

[Babitz]

No it's not destroying the industry and neither is piracy. It's just the greedy publishers.

 

[Zaik]

I dunno.

Pirating has been going to destroy the music industry any minute for like 10 years now, and yet they're still churning out trash at an alarming rate.

Point is, you can't really take their word for it.

 

[Savagezion]

The industry is fighting back... quietly.

I actually did know that project 10 dollar was effecting Gamefly. I was surprised no one answered sooner. I offered that more as bait into the conversation and surprisingly it took a while for anyone to respond to it. I recently did some digging in that area and figure I know why that is being kept under the rug.

However, what are the implications of this on the other side of the spectrum? It is going to cost you about 20 bucks to rent a game just to see if you want to buy it. How many games has rentals help sell? The fact that customers now will receive even less for trade in for their game they bought thus having less money to spend towards games. How big of a turn off is it going to be to most gamers to have to deal with codes every time you buy a new game? The installation process is already irritating gamers. These are things publishers are not taking into account.

Used sales are not ripping apart the industry as some would have you believe. Have a look at this financial evaluation on Gamestop.

Whole article: http://www.violaadvisory.com/files/GME_Positive_2H10_Fundamentals.pdf

Figure 4 below compares the growth of New Software vs. used software over the last 8 years.
While the company does not provide explicit used software revenue figures, we estimate that
80% of the revenue reported in its Used Products segment can be attributed to used software.

 

[loc978]

Spoiler: SNIP

It's mostly bad for yourself.
Buying used in game shops is like piracy that you have to pay for.

You either support the people who make those games for you, or you don't. If you don't, the how doesn't matter to anyone but you.

No ! it's not like piracy, buying the game second handed is a totally legitimate way for buying a game, piracy is basically theft.

No, it isn't theft, because nobody else has something missing.

It's simple logic: whether you don't play at all, or play and pirate; the effect on the industry is the same: no money is made. And if you do pirate, nobody even has to know.

Only buying an unused copy makes a difference to anyone in the game industry. Between the other alternatives, there is no difference that matters.

There is the legality of the matter, but copying games in the privacy of your home doesn't interest the police and rightly so. There exist important matters.

4 options:

1. You can be a useful fool like me and buy games first hand; join an altruistic minority that carries the entire game industry on their backs for everyone else to enjoy.

2. You can be both clueless and useless, while wasting your money in used game shops.

3. You can pirate like a smart kid would. Doesn't contribute, but no harm done either. That's how almost all gamers start, even the first type.

4. You can trade games directly with other gamers, which is both legal and smart, but that usually means doing some of 1 or 2 aswell.

Think about this though. For a used sale to exist, a sale would have first been made. Then, say, Gamestop bought it back. The person often puts it towards a new game, as I mentioned in my above post. We can argue about the affects of Piracy (I hate it, personally), but I argue that used games have a net positive on the industry due to all the money flowing around.

All the profit Gamestop makes, is money that the customer cannot spend on games, so NO.

There often won't even be a 1:1 new sale for a used sale. Used games can go through Gamestop for several iterations.
The customers then typically buy a used game for the games they trade in, while putting in more of their own money.

There is no positive effect for the publishers and develoipers. Follow the money: it goes to Gamestop.

I never said always. However, as I posted with ACTUAL numbers, it often does

According to Gamestop's annual report for fiscal 2010, and the president of Gamestop, they purchased over $1 billion in used products from gamers, $750 million of which was used on new product in the same visit. Extrapolate those numbers across the entire retail space, and you're looking at at least $1 billion dollars the used market injects directly into the new market. That's $1 billion dollars gamers got to spend on new games that they didn't previously have. Now imagine all those extra customers buying DLC.

So used games have no positive effect? At all? I think this shows that this isn't the case.

You post some numbers, but you don't realise they prove the opposite of what you claim.

Firstly, it only says they puchased over 1 billion, but it doesn't say for how much they sold those same 2nd hand games. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that number is much higher. 5 billion is a reasonable guess considering they sell for 10 times as much, as that they give you.

They gave 1 billion. They took 5 billion.

Oh no! They are a business! They made money! Quick, call the Justice League! Batman will stop them!

Joking aside, I think I get what you are saying. I just diagree with the "demonize Gamestop" line of thought. If someone makes money legally, I'm all in favor of it. And that's all they are doing. They are helping to create sales that would not have existed in the first place.

Also, we are throwing around hypothetical dollars for sales that might not have existed in the first place

It's may not a crime to dupe fools, but you're still a fool if you do business with them.

Gamestop don't create sales. Someone who will buy a used game for $55, will also buy a new game for $60, if the used option is taken away. He'll buy 9 games out of 10, out of the same budget.

Oh, goody, you are making a statment of objective fact. In debate that means I get to say this: Prove it. The burden of proof lies with he who proclaims, not he who denies.

People will buy games for $60. Proof: pick any early sales charts. Hits will sell millions in the first couple weeks.

Here's a hint: you can't.

And even if you don't accept that. There's also common sense. 10% is not signifcant enough an amount to make much difference.

Just as I cannot prove piracy = a lost sale, you cannot show that 9 times outta 10 the person would have bought new.

You cannot prove that because it's implausible. People cannot spent money they don't have in the first place. Kids.

But humor me: You don't think people should be able to trade in games they don't want any more? What if they don't like the game? They're stuck with it?

I think it would be nice if people were actually smart and cut out the middle man who is ripping them off. Trade directly with other gamers.
Wishful thinking, but I can still call people out for their idiocy.

Spoiler: snip

In order of your points
1) That still does not prove the person who only spent $50 is willing to spend $60. Further, if these hits do sell millions the first week, then why are they concerned with used games?
2) It's enought now, I would say that much. And +10 from $50 is actually 20% if you have the Power Up Rewards program.
3) And a lot of time, the people I see buy used are those who don't have the money to buy new. Your logic hurts itself. How can THEY spend money they don't have
4) Ripping them off? I get great games at Gamestop for lower prices. They've helped me in the past greatly. I wish people would stop demonizing Gamestop that some games sell well because they are good, some sell well despite being bad, some sell poor despite being good, and some games sell poor because they are bad.

Pure opinion here, buuut... if one is quibbling over $10 when buying a new AAA game in the current market, they're probably better off not buying new games. You can buy it used in the second week for $55 or $50... or you can wait a few months and possibly get it for $40 or less. People looking to save money shouldn't expect to have their entertainments so soon. Gamestop feeds on the American sense of entitlement.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

-Holy wall of text, Batman!-

I fail to see how this is such a hard concept to understand: You pay money to publishers/devs --> You get more games you like; You pay money to GameStop and its ilk --> You get less games you like.

Hey, don't get me wrong: I buy new almost all the games I get. But I loathe this mentality of "Hey, we made something! We should get money on the resale!" It happens nowhere else on anything and I refuse to see First Sale Doctrine compromised. Because that will be used against us in other industries.

My argument is this: If you can truly say you've never ever gotten anything second hand without sending money to the people who made it, yes, you can claim moral high ground. But otherwise, you're just as bad as us.

The legality of the matter is immaterial to the argument.

Very important. I argued that by selling used, people put money towards merchendise, often new. Go look for my post on Gamestop.

In case of films: These cost about the same to make/market as a game, do you see a used market on cinema tickets?. That's where movies make the most money, why aren't people complaining that they "already paid" to see a movie and they can just give the ticket to a friend?

I CAN give a ticket to a friend. He can't do much with it because it's expired, but it's because it's expired he cannot do anything with it. Games don't get used up, now do they? If I buy a DVD, I can lend it to a friend because he has already paid for it. Your point about movies making most money on their launch is true. However, if what I heard is correct, games make the most of their money around that time as well.

To quote Jim Sterling (And thank God for him) "Make your game worth $60 or f*** off"
Really, Jim has written about it in the past.

My final point is this: Gamestop does not hold a gun to your head and demand you trade in your games. For there to be a lot of used sales, there have to be a lot of new sales. I don't buy used very often (Like, perhaps 2 or so in the last year, and one was Oblivion) but I don't call them "As bad as pirates". I, in fact, will not do business with devs who do that, and if I do, you better be sure I will buy used. Gaming is not needed for life. I want to see it succede. But used sales are the wrong target.

Also, this argument is rather moot. If you aren't going to shop at Gamestop, it's not as if they lost any money. And it's not as if devs will sue over this. For good or evil, the First Sale Doctrine will be held up as a shield by Gamestop and most courts I think will go with it. However, all this has reminded me is that I need to reserve my copy of ME3 and perhaps pick up a nice, used, game. TTFN: Ta-ta for now!

EDIT: However, I see this is an issue people are never going to agree on, so let's agree to disagree

Spoiler

Brofist, bro!

 

[Sarah Frazier]

Selling used games a day or two after they've been released? Yeah, I can see how that would muddle sales numbers and profits.

Selling used games that have been discontinued? Sometimes that's the only way to get those kinds of games, or by using some kind of emulator. They're usually discontinued because the system changed and it wasn't compatible, or it didn't sell well enough to keep making new copies of, so the only way to get that game is through used copies or 'pirating'.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I agree with the idea behind used sales.

This guy over at destructoid hit the nail on the head with it

Where is the balance, exactly? The used game market benefits publishers, all the available numbers prove that without a shadow of a doubt. According to Gamestop's annual report for fiscal 2010, and the president of Gamestop, they purchased over $1 billion in used products from gamers, $750 million of which was used on new product in the same visit. Extrapolate those numbers across the entire retail space, and you're looking at at least $1 billion dollars the used market injects directly into the new market. That's $1 billion dollars gamers got to spend on new games that they didn't previously have. Now imagine all those extra customers buying DLC.

So where is the fairness or the balance in charging people for doing something that benefits the industry? Find anyone in the industry saying the used market costs them money, instead of costing them potential profit, with actual numbers to back that. You wont, because the numbers prove the opposite. The publishers are losing *potential* short term profit, they are still making tons of money, they simply want to make more.

Where is the balance in punishing consumers when consumers are spending more and more on games every year. Gaming is pulling in twice the money as it was 6 years ago, and the number continues to rise. The industry is booming, there is no shortage of consumer support and cash. If the industry wanted to balance things out, they could pass some of those massive profits gains onto the consumer in the form of savings. Of course, despite the fact that gaming is making more money that it has ever been by miles, gaming is getting more expensive for the consumer.

The consumer is already on the losing end of the scale, all the weight is plopped on us. Now, to balance the fact that we make tons of concessions for an industry growing hugely on our dollar, we have to make another concession to them at our expense? Doesnt make sense.

How many books take 20 million and over to produce?

Gaming is a high stakes industry, and unlike movies, they don't have cinemas to make their cash. They rely on first sales, a direct to DVD release.

I'm not quite getting your point. Are you saying that just because something costs a large amount of money to make that it doesn't get FSD protection? Or that people should feel bad about buying used rather than new?

Also, they have about a week or so at launch to make their money before used games start coming in. That's where I'm told they make most of their money

Gaming is unique in its economy, its NOT like any other medium that has come before it

Again, books are like nothing else. What other medium do you find it where you hold paper in your hands and visually scan for information? All forms of entertainment are "unique". And yet we compare them to one another. We just won a court case that says we get the same First Amendment protection as other mediums. Why should we be treated differently in terms of used sales.

Is the second hand market really that problematic?

No, it isn't.

In fact, a thriving second hand market is a strong indication of a healthy primary market. Game companies apparently don't want a strong and healthy market in which to survive, so they are trying to kill video games as a medium. Shine on, you crazy diamonds.

BINGO! This guy gets it.

And as I mentioned before, I find it funny how some people here try to justify piracy, yet are very anti-used games. That just does not follow. One is a legal sale and transer of liscence. The other is a crime.

EDIT: It also gets people interested in IPs. If my friend wasn't able to get Mass Effect second hand from me and then buy it second hand himself when he liked the game, he never would have bought Mass Effect 2 new and then got all the DLC.

No, people would wait and buy from the used games. The first sales are those with cash, but rarely do people have enough cash for multiple games. You keep trying to equate games to other industries. Gaming's economy is NOTHING like other industries, and does NOT have the same room for error other industries have. I am saying it doesn't have enough room to support used game sales, books being unique is a flawed excuse at best. Just because every other industry has used sales doesn't mean gaming can support it as well. There is a lot of money thrown around, and little to no safety net.

I doubt I'm going to change your mind: but humor me.

Why can they not support used sales? Because of the ammounts of money being thrown around? That is a weak excuse at best. I've seen the volume of games being put out, and quite frankly, a lot of them aren't very good. Perhaps if they made better use of the money they had they wouldn't have the same problem. Furthermore, gaming has been making tons of money; more than it ever had. And now, all of a sudden, used games cannot be supported? I don't see why not.

I've ask this before and I've never gotten any answer: If used sales are such a problem, can you point to a dev or publisher who went under because of them and not by the fact that they made poor games or games they did not market well?

EDIT: Jim Sterling has written on this much better than I have.

 

[Altorin]

of course it's good for the industry. It lets you trade in games you don't want to play for usually (the figures are about 75% as was posted before) spend those money on new games. New games sales figures fall pretty drastically after a few weeks, but that's GOOD. They make all of their money back and then some before the end of those 3 weeks, unless it's a really shitty game with a ridiculous budget, and even then, they usually do.

Publishers are making money hand over fist, and unless you WORK for one of these "hard done by publishers" you really need to can it about attacking second hand sales. You're a consumer. You should be fighting for the best deal you can, otherwise you're just failing. If you want to argue that the "developers" don't see any money from used games, it's true, but they don't really see any money from new games either - they get paid up front for making the game. the money that "goes to developers" that you hear passed around is the publishers making back their money that they've already paid the developers to make the game. Sometimes there are bonuses for great selling games, but great selling games will sell great whether there is used sales or not.

Now, I'm not really defending GameStop here, I'm defending the idea of used games in general. If you want a compromise, say that for a month after the release of a game, gamestop can't relentlessly try and downsell their used copies. After that, have at it, That's when all the money is made off a game anyway.

 

[Leoofmoon]

Really its how you lookat it, if more companys did what ubie did then we wouldent have a problem, The reason 2nd has stores are there are for the consumers not the companys! not to mechon, the still keep track of many units sold and how many where traded back. capcom is just over reacting to this because well there kinda stupide. I loved LP2 and the resident evil sires but the problem is they dont have a good DMR system and most of the time they treat there fans like shit.

 

[Timmibal]

Awesome post

Sir, I wish to subscribe to your motherfucking newsletter. That was epic.

Now Altorin, Don't think I'm picking on you here, your post just outlines a few of my disagreements, and it's easier to quote one person than half a dozen.

of course it's good for the industry. It lets you trade in games you don't want to play for usually (the figures are about 75% as was posted before) spend those money on new games.

Whilst I get where you're coming from on this, the industry disagrees. What good does EA see in their stock being diluted for the sake of a Lionhead sale? These are still competing companies at the end of the day, after all.

New games sales figures fall pretty drastically after a few weeks, but that's GOOD. They make all of their money back and then some before the end of those 3 weeks, unless it's a really shitty game with a ridiculous budget, and even then, they usually do.

Sorry, not the case. Console games which rate a physical release are big titles. There have been a number of game companies which have been dissolved because their game bombed, and a lot of those were not 'shitty' by any stretch of the imagination. Game design is a high risk industry for all involved, which is probably why publishers are so vehemently anti-resale. You don't want to be risking hundreds of millions on a project just to have your sale point distributor pissing in the pool. Does it have a negative effect? That's the point of contention, but in my opinion it certainly does NOT help.

Publishers are making money hand over fist,

They might be making a lot of money in gross terms, but they're not exactly deeply in the black. In fact up until a couple of years ago, EA was losing money. There's even an article here in the escapist which outlines it. This is even with the madden yearly rebrands.

You need to remember that the publisher is footing the bill to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars for major releases. That's hundreds of millions they have just ONE source of return on. Even DLC is an investment, they still have to pay for its development and release, and still have to give MS/Sony a chunk. Is it so incomprehensible for them to be protective of their solitary source of income?

and unless you WORK for one of these "hard done by publishers" you really need to can it about attacking second hand sales. You're a consumer. You should be fighting for the best deal you can, otherwise you're just failing.

I really strongly disagree with this. There is such a thing as being a conscientious consumer, especially if you care about the future quality of the product you purchase.

A fantastic example is the salmon industry in the USA. Farmed Salmon brought the price down for consumers, but created issues with the continued health of the wild salmon, and the intensive farming practices resulted in a lower quality of meat to the consumer. If the people who buy games don't make the effort to ensure quality games are supported, then the only thing we will get is the 'farmed' games. The safe bets. The Maddens, marios and brown shooters, with a plethora of nickel and diming DLC that would put Zynga to shame.

If you want to argue that the "developers" don't see any money from used games, it's true, but they don't really see any money from new games either - they get paid up front for making the game. the money that "goes to developers" that you hear passed around is the publishers making back their money that they've already paid the developers to make the game. Sometimes there are bonuses for great selling games, but great selling games will sell great whether there is used sales or not.

Except you want to keep those developers around to make future good games. You know the expression 'killing the cow for the milk'? You're not going to see those developers getting future funding if the return on the publisher's investment is lacking. The money is not going directly into the dev's pockets in all cases, true, but you ARE investing in their future projects getting greenlit.

Now, I'm not really defending GameStop here, I'm defending the idea of used games in general. If you want a compromise, say that for a month after the release of a game, gamestop can't relentlessly try and downsell their used copies. After that, have at it, That's when all the money is made off a game anyway.

I would say no corporate resale at all. If they want to set up 'trading clubs' with a monthly fee or the like and let customers go nuts, I say more power to them. I am a very firm supporter of a customer being able to trade, sell, or gift any product given to them to another person. Hell, let them even trade licenses and transfer MMORPG accounts. But no business resale, as their business practices prove that it will be abused.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I doubt I'm going to change your mind: but humor me.

Why can they not support used sales? Because of the ammounts of money being thrown around? That is a weak excuse at best. I've seen the volume of games being put out, and quite frankly, a lot of them aren't very good. Perhaps if they made better use of the money they had they wouldn't have the same problem. Furthermore, gaming has been making tons of money; more than it ever had. And now, all of a sudden, used games cannot be supported? I don't see why not.

I've ask this before and I've never gotten any answer: If used sales are such a problem, can you point to a dev or publisher who went under because of them and not by the fact that they made poor games or games they did not market well?

EDIT: Jim Sterling has written on this much better than I have.

They can support used sales, they cannot support used sales that:
a) directly compete with "first-day" sales within even the first week or 2-3 days after a game was released.
b) grows bigger and bigger and is 50% of the revenue of certain retail chains... a "used sales" market that directly competes with the main market and might outsell it in the near future is not sustainable.
c) You still have the choice to ignore games you don't like and not give those devs any money if they're bad.

It's noone's job or obligation to support a parasitic industry at a personal loss on some kind of pretense that people have a "right" to it and they'll destroy it if they can (and are pretty much doing so).

Jim Sterling is a talentless hack and is only out for attention, you're not doing yourself any favors by constantly quoting and/or reffering to him...

Alright, again, humor me.

What would you do about used sales and second-hand retailers?

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Oh, goody, you are making a statment of objective fact. In debate that means I get to say this: Prove it. The burden of proof lies with he who proclaims, not he who denies. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

The proof of his statement is inherently obvious in the claim as his claim was based on math. If I have a budget of 600 USD and am looking at a series of ten new games that retail for 60 USD and 11 used games that retail for 55 USD, I find that I can purchase ALL of those new games or ALL of the used games and exactly meet the budget. The point is simple enough to understand: that the discount offered for purchasing used when a game is reasonably popular and recent is quite small equating to less than a 9 percent savings.

Here's a hint: you can't. Just as I cannot prove piracy = a lost sale, you cannot show that 9 times outta 10 the person would have bought new. And they likely won't, as I posted above, if they don't have the money the can get by trading your games in.

A person is perfectly willing to spend 55 USD on a used game and it does not take an enormous leap of faith to assume they would spend 60 USD on a new game. In the last console generation, games cost 50 USD and when new games suddenly cost 60 USD we found that not only were people still willing to pay 20 percent more for each and every game, but they did so in greater numbers than ever before.

Unlike the piracy argument, this one does not rely on the fundamental difference of getting something at no cost and effectively zero risk but is rather a choice between two price points only marginally different. Sure, the rules of the market indicate that given two identical products the market will favor the cheaper one but you'll note that the claim you attack included the hypothetical scenario where the was no used market.

Prove that people would buy a $55 dollar game rather than a $60 one. Or, if you are a member of that club you they, it's $50 insted. $10 is a rather large difference.

Yes, that used market offers a discount. I don't think anyone would claim otherwise. And when the two products are effectively identical, the market will generally favor the cheaper product.

But humor me: You don't think people should be able to trade in games they don't want any more? What if they don't like the game? They're stuck with it?

That actually has little relevance to the claim that was made and at this point you start wading into very murky waters where it is impossible to really make an absolute claim.

What the problem boils down to is the conflict between the consumers desire to pay as little as possible for something they want and the creators desire to make as much money as possible. These two base objectives are in direct competition. The used market for video games certainly serves the consumer to an extent by offering relatively small discounts along with a market for items consumers have drained of perceived value. The trouble is, this market in total favors neither the consumer nor the creator. The end consumer gets a mild discount on a game - a win for one party. One previous consumer gets an amount of money well under half of what they paid for the game - something that could easily be recognized as a terrible return on investment. The store gets double the money back and the creator, by default, gets nothing.

The thing is, games are not the first example of where people have tried to get money after that initial sale. Movies and music have entire alternate markets offering something the exchangeable commodity cannot. Traditional art often relies upon copies and prints to make money beyond the initial piece. High end consumer items often continue to make money with clever warranties and repairs. Other items are protected from such a market by virtue that they lose their value incredibly quickly. You rarely see people selling used food for example.

Video games are unique in all of this in a few ways. First, it is an example of a product that the consumer purchases yet does not own. They purchase a limited use license. Second, it represents a product that can easily be mutable. While few would stand by and say that the consumer doesn't have a right to resell the game, a great many seem to implicitly claim that the developers have no right to make money on this market.

It is the used market that has driven the DLC process so heavily. It is the used market that stand behind project 10 dollar. When you look at a market where a game might be played by a 3 people but only one of the pays for the game in an era when it takes millions of first time sales to cover the cost of the game, such a prospect is a little daunting. But, for the first time, the person who looks at such grim statistics needs not see a grim inevitability but rather a market they can profit from.

Is the used market "evil"? No. But it does foster activity that is often confused for evil. What's more, it is seen as a bastion of consumer right when the reality is simply that if you sell your games to a company, you are very bad at recognizing a good deal. And if this is the case, well I have to say I simply do not feel bad when such a person purchases a used game only to find they have to spend an extra ten bucks once they get home with it. Sure, you should be able to sell your games, but perhaps you should demand you get a better cut before you do. Or, as a better sales dynamic, why not consider selling your games personally, a scenario where you could easily make more per game all while getting it into the hands of a second consumer for a lower total price on their end? Sure, the developer still gets the shaft, but at least the consumers aren't.

And that really is my position. It isn't that used sales are evil; they just encourage companies to figure out how they can get money from a second sale. The person who buys a used game isn't evil, they just naturally want to pay less. The company who buys games for half the price they sell them back to the public aren't evil, they've simply realized that the people who sell games have no capacity to spot a fair deal. Each party is acting in accordance with how we expect them to act. A game company who made no effort to monetize the used market is far closer to evil since they are violating the trust placed in them by financial backers to make as much money as possible. A used game store that offers bigger cuts to both sides of the used market without market pressure insisting they do precisely that is guilty of the very same sin. And consumers who sell games at a fraction of their actual worth aren't evil just because they have no eye for a bargain if only because in doing so they are able to play more games. If there is one fundamental rule of the market it is simply that any time someone gets a good deal, someone else is being screwed. That doesn't make any part of it inherently evil; it just means you need to play your side as clever as possibly to ensure you aren't the one left holding the bag.

 

[floppylobster]

All the money I get from selling my games goes back into buying new games. Lately I have had some trouble selling my 2nd hand games such as Command & Conquer 4. So there's $60NZ (that I would have got 2nd hand) that no publisher is getting now. And on top of that, if I can't resell it I'm not paying full price for it. So I may buy your game, but only when it's down to $35NZ.

The second hand system works, but they should stop allowing big retailers to sell second hand games. Big retailers don't put as a big of an order for titles if they think they can also sell 20 copies second hand. So just stop the retailers dealing in second hand goods. Let the consumers buy and sell on places like ebay and the money stays in the market. They're really losing revenue from the big chain stores who previously would buy 50 copies but will now only get 30, and on top of that they don't buy older titles off them because they try to source them second hand for much cheaper.

Ban retailers selling second hand goods. They're retailers. They should retail.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Alright, again, humor me.

What would you do about used sales and second-hand retailers?

Pretty much what they are doing right now and are going to do in the future:

1) Introduce unique keys to a majority of games, either make them a requirement for the online portion of a game or any major content updates or make them an "Activate once" kind of deal even for the SinglePlayer part which Steam/UbiSoft etc. are kind of doing (which might not go over too well with a lot of consumers but they'd get over it the same way they did for paying a 10$ licensing fee to the console manufacturer with every game, a 50$ a year Subscription for Online plays and loads of "DLC content" that should be free, most console players are sheep)...

2) Push for digital sales, especially with the coming generation of consoles... either demand from Microsoft/SONY to let other stores onto their platform (the Wii-U seems willing), or at least allow to sell my games through their Online store additionally to Retail, in which case I would not have only solved the "used sales" problem, but also managed to get a much higher profit margin on every software sale of either 60/70% or 100% depending on if I use my own store or Microsoft's/SONY's and have to pay em something instead of the measly 30-40% I'd get from Retailers anyway.

3) Try to influence the legislation to allow companies to get a percentage from the used sales or pass some bullshit law to outlaw used sales of "licenses" or whatever and put a lot of money behind it.

But then I'm not being paid to think of anything original xD

I could see all of those but 3.

Again, FSD. If you do that, what's to stop used sales having to pay the original creator for everything? That's not a taunt, I really want to know.

My biggest problem with the hate on used sales is hypocracy on the part of gamers. A few weeks ago, we were saying "Our medium is just like books, TV, movies and DVD's. They get the First Amendment to protect them". Now it's "We are nothing like books, tv, movies, and DVD's. We cannot support used sales."

But in the interest of fairness, I will disclose a compromise and an idea

1) Gamestop waits 3-4 weeks after launch before they sell a title used. After that, all bets are off. That gives them a chance to still make money, while allowing the game corp to make money as well then.

OR

2) Work with DLC to make more game sales new. Lets say game A is getting released, and they plan to have $35 worth of DLC out over the course of 5-7 months. When buying new, you have a chance to buy a "online pass" of sorts for, say $25, and get all the DLC when it comes out. That rewards people for buying new. If you got it used, you can get the same code for, say $30. Both ways give people a reason to hold onto their disks for the next few months. Thus, at launch, there will be fewer used games competing with the new games. And at the end, when people DO sell off their games, it gives people a chance to play them and buy the DLC at full price if they want. Kinda combine the "Rockstar Pass" with "Cerberus Network". I would be fully behind this plan. If you think ?Oh, but then they would lose money because they wouldn?t make as much money on DLC?, consider this: If I spend $25 on content that is yet to come, I am most likely going to keep the game. This reduces the number of games resold, which will make them more money, because there are fewer copies of the game to buy used. Gamestop can still make money on sales from the kind of people who play a game in 3 days and return it for resale in order to get a new game, and devs/publishers give people more of a reason to want to keep the game if they like it.?

 

[gabe12301]

Escapists am I missing something here ? is there a reason to justify all this ?

It's like this you walk into the store with your 50 to 60 dollars ready to buy a game. You get to the counter and are about to pay for it when the cashier ask you if you would like to buy the used version. You choose to buy the used version for 5 dollars less. You saved 5 dollars but the company just lost 50.

Plus trading games is not like trading other items, If you buy a used book the pages may fall out, If you buy a used television it may not last as long, But when you buy a used game, as long as it's not scratched it's perfectly fine. It will run perfectly just like a new copy.So there's really no downside to buying used games to limit them like other things. Gamestop wouldn't be in business if games degraded with use.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

[URL="http://www.joystiq.com/2008/02/05/gamestops-used-game-sales-data-in-beautiful-chart-form/" (title,target)]Yes[/URL].
To be redundant and better elaborate my point, I shall explain.
Gamestop is one of the biggest game dealers on earth (probably THE biggest, actually). Below, you can see how their used game sales compose more of the profits than anything else, counting as a whopping 44% of it.

These are not units sold, but gross profit. They sell them at a marginal mark off the new price, usually a measly $5 difference, down from $60 to $55. How that constitutes a reason to sell without a case, manual, or guarantee of actual operation upon purchase is beyond me, but it's a huge amount made back to Gamestop. Compared to the meager refund given for "trade-ins", the profit from resale as a used copy is roughly $35 to $40 a game. Remember, they can do this OVER and OVER again, especially with a hot title like COD that maintains its market value much longer.
You may say that this is good for the sales part of the industry, but since I define the industry as the whole establishment of game producing and selling, it is equally awful for the industry.
It doesn't balance out, though, much like seeing an athlete as a whole person and wondering why it's a bad thing to blow off their legs, the industry is entirely reliant on the producers. Crippling them means that in the face of increasing demand for AAA games, less and less can be made, sales go down, and the whole damn ship sinks.
TL;DR, it's horrid for the industry.