Is the second hand market really bad for the industry ?

[Pat8u]

I bought oblivion used after finishing that I bought morrowind from steam and I've preorderd skyrim
so maybe it doesnt It might hurt sales

 

[Pat8u]

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

They don't get the money despite their reuseable product being sold, so the way they look at it, they just lost a sale to a used game.

Again, this has ben the case for a long time, and now it's a big issue ?

Well, it's been a big issue for a long time, but before there was no way to do anything about it because games were not always connected to the Internet. For the record, second hand sales have been under fire before. In some places, Japan included, they've been banned outright at times. This is a conflict as old as the gaming industry, regardless of what side of the issue you find yourself in, if any.

Aaand I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that games cost sixty bucks since forever (N64 games were 70 bucks at times), while inflation has almost doubled the price of everything else during the same period. At the same time the budget of the average game has gone from 200k to 20 million.

tetris used to be 50$ and now its free so can you imagine buying tetris for that price?

 

[GrimHeaper]

Gamestop can make a 300-400% profit off of used sells you tell me?

 

[StriderShinryu]

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."

I don't mind the ideas you propose, but there's no hypocrasy at all in the situation you describe because you're essentially talking about apples and oranges. The Supreme Court ruling was about the allowance of mature content to exist in videogames sold without a new unnecessary law limiting their sale to minors. In this, games and movies/TV/music/etc. are the same. They all should be allowed to contain mature content without requiring a law to do what parents already should be doing (and what the majority of stores already do). They are all protected speech.

The used game debate has nothing to do with the content of the games and thus has nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling. For what it;s worth, every single game could be Hello Kitty and the debate would be the same. The fact is there is a major difference in how the game industry works on the sales end and how the other listed industries work. The other industries have multiple revenue streams to offset the used market, and even then most/all of them have attempted to fight back against the used market at various points. Videogames rely on a new copy sale. Outside of the occasional piece of DLC, which often costs the developers extra to create anyway, they don't have any other revenue streams and thus are hit harder by used sales, particularly in predatory situations where the used seller uses the GameStop pricing model (and most do).

 

[Entreri481]

The Used market is pretty much fine, and while Ubisoft won't admit it, they do rely on used sales to a degree.

Truth is that when people trade games they finished to get credit, they're more than likely going to put it towards new merchandise, meaning future new sales. And those people who buy Used games may enjoy those games so much they save up for the sequels.

There's a few more aspects to it, but despite the economics for luxury goods like games, the industry is doing pretty well from my perspective.

I think this is largely false, your in a store full of used games, you go and buy a used game, it's much more likely that you'll take the trade in credit and get another used game.

 

[AgentBJ09]

The Used market is pretty much fine, and while Ubisoft won't admit it, they do rely on used sales to a degree.

Truth is that when people trade games they finished to get credit, they're more than likely going to put it towards new merchandise, meaning future new sales. And those people who buy Used games may enjoy those games so much they save up for the sequels.

There's a few more aspects to it, but despite the economics for luxury goods like games, the industry is doing pretty well from my perspective.

I think this is largely false, your in a store full of used games, you go and buy a used game, it's much more likely that you'll take the trade in credit and get another used game.

Having worked in Gamestop as long as I have, that's what people do about 70% of the time. They trade in games they don't want anymore, and often put that towards new title reserves. So yes, they do give up used games to earn towards new ones.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

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."

I don't mind the ideas you propose, but there's no hypocrasy at all in the situation you describe because you're essentially talking about apples and oranges. The Supreme Court ruling was about the allowance of mature content to exist in videogames sold without a new unnecessary law limiting their sale to minors. In this, games and movies/TV/music/etc. are the same. They all should be allowed to contain mature content without requiring a law to do what parents already should be doing (and what the majority of stores already do). They are all protected speech.

The used game debate has nothing to do with the content of the games and thus has nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling. For what it;s worth, every single game could be Hello Kitty and the debate would be the same. The fact is there is a major difference in how the game industry works on the sales end and how the other listed industries work. The other industries have multiple revenue streams to offset the used market, and even then most/all of them have attempted to fight back against the used market at various points. Videogames rely on a new copy sale. Outside of the occasional piece of DLC, which often costs the developers extra to create anyway, they don't have any other revenue streams and thus are hit harder by used sales, particularly in predatory situations where the used seller uses the GameStop pricing model (and most do).

My point is this: I agree. Video games are like any other form of media. However, the phrase "like any other form of media" carries with it a few things. It just bothers me that some gamers and publishers want it both ways. They like every part of that phrase that benifits them, but any part they don't they want discarded. You can't have only the parts of capatalism that you like, dear reader. And therein lies my point. All media forms have dealt with used sales without punishing the consumer. And video games rarely do that. If you give something extra to someone who buys something new, that's fine. Heck, Zaeed alone made the Cerberus Network worth it to have to type in the code or. If you lock out fetures that are advertised, such as online play in a shooter, that's not cool, bro.

I'd argue that they could do a lot to curb used game sales, the first of which would be charge less for "lesser" games. Rather than, for the most part, $60 for new games. Or give people who buy new a discount on DLC within a certain time period. Not only would that give people a reason to hold onto their disks, but also a reason to buy DLC.