Poll: It is Time to Fix Game Prices

[viking97]

games ought to be cheaper, but your system is pretty awful. 45-50 i'd be fine with paying for launch titles, but after a month on shelves they should go down to 30 or so.

then again i do most of my shopping on steam, the land of 50% off sales every other nanosecond

 

[FateOrFatality]

You all earn the right to complain about game prices once you've lived in Australia. Generally, we pay twice as much as those in the U.S, and our dollar is worth more than theirs.

 

[silversnake4133]

For me, I think it should be fixed and I think a game should not be priced how long it's been on shelves and whether or not it is on a shelf. I think we should price games based on several factors. What type of game is it? Is it a AAA game? AA game? Indie? Has the game been given high expectations? What is the targeted audience? How big is that audience? How much "content" does the game have?

I think all of these factors, and probably several others should be considered. If a game like Section 8 comes out with a very small interest level and no big names tied with it, not to mention nothing but multiplayer fun. This would price it at something like an Arcade game. A game like Mass Effect should have the full retail price [The current $60].

The factor of content is very difficult to measure, which the genre of the game and its audience can help define.

Uh, you do realize that the "factors" you mentioned are concepts/titles that can't warrant a price tag just for existing. It's kind of like trying to justify charging 20$ for an apple because it was picked by a certain gardener on a Tuesday while it was raining. Pricing items has its own guidelines put forth by people called "PRODUCERS". Even before a game/production is written or developed aside from a plot line and a working title. The big wigs of the company meet with one another to discuss certain aspects of the game and production cycle during the earliest stage of development. This is generally where schedules are developed and ideas are run by the producers who will ultimately approve or decline the idea. If an idea is approved, the producers will develop a budget that they are willing to allow for production and marketing. This is where prices will eventually be drawn, and in some countries, depending on taxes, currency exchange rates, and all that good stuff, prices for individual sale will vary.

Since the budget for a game is made WAAAAAYYYY before it is even put into full-blown production, they can't give the game it's price tag based on how "good" the game is because it wasn't even made yet. And being "good" or "bad" is an opinion. What one person may see as a masterpiece, another will think it's a piece of trash. Same goes for expectations and demographics. These people don't know essentially who is going to buy the game or how well it will pick up with the public. That speculation is even harder to guess today because of how fucked the economy is. Also, why would you have "Genre" decide how expensive or cheap a game is? That's like discrimination against the game. "Oh you're a shooter so you're going to be marked down. Oh, here's an RPG, that's going right up there in the expensive category." Yeah, not a lot of sense there.

So in short, no I do not believe it is "time to fix game prices" because there really isn't anything to be "fixed". Prices are worked out of a set budget, not determined when the game is shipped to gaming stores. That would just be stupid and screw up everything financial in the gaming industry, and as a result, big name developers wouldn't turn over profits and Indie developers would essentially "sell out" over night.

Trust me, this is one can of worms that is best left ALONE! Just stick to keeping to your own budget. If you can afford it and want it, great. Buy it. If you don't have the money, but want it. WAIT FOR A PRICE DROP! If you don't want it at all, don't buy it! Simple economics here.

 

[Wintermoot]

I actually like the current pricing system
want it on the day it,s released? 60$
want to pay a little less? wait a while and pay 20$ on steam.

 

[DanDeFool]

Why do we need to fix the prices? If the price is $60, then I take the game to counter and give them $60 and I get to take it home with me. Clearly, the prices work perfectly fine.

I mean, maybe if the price was $60, and I took the game to the counter, and they expected me to give them a lemur, or a barrel of rice in exchange, then clearly the prices would not be working correctly, and would need to be fixed.

...

What?

 

[drisky]

I'm on the side of capitalism, games are not a necessity, any problems you have with game prices can be shown with your wallet. I normally wait for sales and reduced prices. I also play at lot of free games.

If I am going to complain about something it will be rising prices of necessities that can't be created by a start up company, like fuel. Its hard to avoid buying it completely and there are no small company alternatives.

 

[Orekoya]

I have nothing against current market prices for video games, my problem is with how the industry looks at early adopters as the backbone of the industry yet they continue to punish said backbone with such disregard. They do little to nothing to incentivize being an early adopter but a great deal for the late comers with price drops, dlc bundled complete edition. Either pay 60 at launch and pay for dlc individually or wait a year or two for it to be 30 with all the dlc free of charge. It doesn't take long for the notion to catch on and then people will let themselves have a few lean years then gorge on a more complete, less-buggy (afterall the patching is usually done by then) game market at a fraction of their old gaming budget.

 

[xPixelatedx]

Yes $60 is too much; gamestop's existence and success is factual evidence of that. Now I hear rumors prices may go up even further, and that could very well be the second game-industry crash we see as it will only increase gamestop's profits and not the publishers. They need to change their business model, and by that I mean charge much less and get more sales (like with the business model of cell phone games). People don't mind paying $1 to buy a game that may be utter crap, so they take the chance anyway blowing more money then they realize on games most of them aren't even going to play a second time. It is obviously absurd to think console games should be $1, and that's not the point I am trying to make. It's the idea that people will spend more money if they feel less of a risk with each purchase. I am not paying $60 for something unless I am 100% certain it is going to be amazing. I was more willing to take a chance with new PS1 games (many of which were $40) and I endured the regular $50 for PS2 games, even though it did hurt a lot more getting a dud. Now that games are $60 I just can't find anything appealing, or at least anything I want to risk my money on. The chance of loss is too high. I would think anywhere from $40-$50 would be fair for new games. The extra sales will more then make up for the bucks they shaved off the price. The best part is that would simultaneously hurt Gamestop financially. Gamestop gets 100% profit from used game sales, and if new games were $40, they would have a hard time trying to give them a used price that would also keep them in business, especially since the difference between $30/$35 and $40 is so minimal I think people would just surrender to buying new if just for getting an immaculate disc.

The problem is that now the industry has essentially gotten huge (to the point it is on par with the movie industry), and with it's growth in size it's greed followed. Greed is good, it is what makes companies strive to earn profit and deliver us these goods we enjoy, however at some point it also becomes a fault. You simply cannot convince such people that charging less for their products might actually earn them more money, they can no longer see things in that grand a scope, and because of that we now have the PlayStation Vita. Some people bought it, the people who really do have the disposable income to do whatever with, ...and look how small a portion of gamers this turned out to be. Things need to change, and I hope Sony is watching very carefully the catastrophe they are making for themselves.

 

[General BrEeZy]

im kinda not digging paying 60 dollars for a game anymore, but i dont buy all the time, so i guess im ok? haha

 

[Zoomy]

I saw the title and thought; "surely not man!? Price fixing has clearly been happening in The Industry for frigging years. Well, it's not exactly publicly known if it's been happening or not, but I doubt anyone would be surprised". Then I read the post and realised you meant "fix" as in "repair".

For me, I think it should be fixed and I think a game should not be priced how long it's been on shelves and whether or not it is on a shelf. I think we should price games based on several factors. What type of game is it? Is it a AAA game? AA game? Indie? Has the game been given high expectations? What is the targeted audience? How big is that audience? How much "content" does the game have?

I disagree. Currently, a game can cost the same now as it did on launch, meaning consumers have to wait ages for a price drop (which can take ages if it happens at all), hope a sale comes 'round (unpredictable) or get it pre-owned (which greedy short sighted publishers in their ivory towers are trying to stop).

In most other industries, the price of content drops as time marches on, and that's what we need. For example, Pokémon Diamond/Pearl comes out for £30, the normal price of a DS game. Then Platinum comes out, and the price doesn't change. Then HG/SS come out, years afterwards, and D/P can still be seen in most places for £25-30. That's full price or near enough for a game that was made obsolete. Twice. About the time Black/White came out, I only saw them pre-owned, but even then the price was still >£15 in some shops. To me, I think reducing the price of titles based on shelf time would not only fix this style of madness.

Also, "I think a game should not be priced how long it's been on shelves and whether or not it is on a shelf" Does that mean you support downloaded titles costing the same as retail? Because there's a dozen things wrong with that statement if so.

Then there's the problem of pricing based on perceived value. If a system was implemented (by who?) that made it so certain titles were automatically reduced, we'd see one of two things:

1. People taking a chance on a newer title because it's cheaper.
2. People rejecting a title out of hand because "cheaper" means "worse" most of the time.

Will the 1s outnumber the 2s to the point where they're making the same money than if they stuck to the default pricing? I'm no economist, but I doubt it. And then there's the idea of pricing games based on "high expectations". Feck that. Sequels generally tend to have more buzz than wholly new IPs, so under this scheme they'd be priced more. But sequels also have the habit of being creatively stagnant to the point where they're basically the same as the original (see; Modern Warfare).

 

[Aprilgold]

Your terrible system is terrible.

You're asking publishers to voluntarily mark down shitty games, basically placing a giant sticker on the box saying "this game blows!"

What do you care if Section 8 costs $60? If you want it, you buy it, if you don't, you don't. If you kind of want it, wait for a price drop. If it sells as poorly as you expect, the price drop will happen quickly. Why are publishers obligated to essentially make the price drop instantaneous?

Knock it off with your entitlement issues. I'm so sick of this attitude of "if I can't afford it, it's too expensive."

Be more selective about what games you buy.

The pricing is fine. It's essentially what it's always been.

Actually the pricing isn't OK, a 2 hour game should not be 60 fucking dollars. Thats all I'm going to say on the matter.

Take a look at the Christmas steam sale for Skyrim. Everybody who hadn't yet bought it for $60 was going NUTS for it when it reached $40.

Other then 1 or 2 games that I buy on launch (because I support/trust the developer), I often wait until I can get the game $40; and short of few AAA-AAA-AAA games [thats right.. Triple-Triple-A games] that's 2-3 months down the road.

I never by used - because if you are buying used, you are basically saying I'm legally pirating the game. I don't have a problem people trading games, because no 3rd party company is getting money out of the swap - but buying used is shafting the developer on your hard earned money by giving it to a 3rd party company that doesn't deserve it.
I'd rather hear people pirate a game, then buy used from gamestop/bestbuy; but I'd still better rather people buying it new in the first place.

New -> Pirates -> Buying used scum.

$59.99 is hard to imagine paying a game for, $49.99 is bearable, but $39.99 is nearly always an easy buy - I think the sweet spot for new games should be $34.99

I'm sorry but that incorrect. FUCKING INCORRECT! A pirated copy of a game can be made 9,000 times over for free, a used game can only be bought once and can only be used on one disc, is used Movies worse then Pirated movies? Which one can only be used once and which one can be used a infinited amount of times? Used games are not the problem, places like Gamestop are the problem.

Used games is legal for a reason, but places like Gamestop are the problem, not the consumer. If I bought Skyrim used and the game was broken, well thats the risk I get for buying used. Buying used is completely random on if the game works longer then a regulary bought disk.

Saying that Piracy is not worse then Used Games is factually incorrect, its the buisness model like Gamestops that hurt game sales more then used or piracy ever will. They essentially live off of the sale of used games. I couldn't even buy a game new from there once because they were all "used" which was code for "new, but we call them used to take the money."

 

[thiosk]

I'm amazed games aren't MORE expensive. I remember dragging my mother to Toys R Us to purchase Super Mario 3 brand new for 50 dollars during release week.

The 60 dollar thing for the BIG titles is a very new thing.

Looking at how food prices have skyrocketed in the interim, i think game purchasers have it pretty good.

 

[balanovich]

Alright escapist. I am going to try and accomplish this. This thread is going to be asking the very simple question. Should the way we price games be fixed? Should the way we sell games be fixed? What about marketing and such?

Answer the poll please and if you wish, give an explanation on your reasoning and if you wish the pricing should be fixed, how so? Perhaps we can actually form a new method to price games.

For me, I think it should be fixed and I think a game should not be priced how long it's been on shelves and whether or not it is on a shelf. I think we should price games based on several factors. What type of game is it? Is it a AAA game? AA game? Indie? Has the game been given high expectations? What is the targeted audience? How big is that audience? How much "content" does the game have?

I think all of these factors, and probably several others should be considered. If a game like Section 8 comes out with a very small interest level and no big names tied with it, not to mention nothing but multiplayer fun. This would price it at something like an Arcade game. A game like Mass Effect should have the full retail price [The current $60].

The factor of content is very difficult to measure, which the genre of the game and its audience can help define.

My method is not fully thought out but that's what this thread is for.

Damn it! Why is it that I make a post about something, in this case, a price system for games, and my thread is greatly ignore and unpopular. Then someone else makes a more or less connected and the thread is popular !?

Anyway. I don't like your idea because. Quality and game time is very subjective and personal. This is what I think should be done. It's a revised version of my first one that wasn't popular.

The idea is that you pay for as much as you play. Let's assume that a 60$ game should give you 60 hours of gameplay. You download the game for free and then you pay 1$ for every hour you play, to maximum of 60 $ So If the game sucks you don't pay much.

Since most games are below average and/or are very short. Most devs would say it wouldn't be financially viable. To that I say two things:
1-Eat shit you stupid incompetent retard! Make good games if you want to make money. This system allows you to be paid proportionally to the quality of your work! It's how it should be ! The only reason why you can't be in favour of this is that you know that you are making money with unsatisfied customers.

and is a calm and rational voice I ad
2-Let's make the limit... 80 or 90 $ because, a good game deserve a good reward, and It's only normal that some people don't like a game.

 

[Savagezion]

No game should cost over $40. Want to know why?

A movie blockbuster movie costs $100-200m to make. A AAA game currently costs ~30m. L.A. Noire was toted as a big freakin deal for costing 60m. GTA4 had a big hoopla made about how it cost 100m but most of it was for music contracts.
Movies on the other hand, charge $9 for a theatre ticket and $20 for the DvD. So for $30 bucks you can go to the theatre and see the movie and own it on DvD. This not only recoups the cost of the budget but most often, dips into profit.

This would effectively have more people buying games simply because they are affordable. As well, it would cut down the mark-up on used games the industry acts like they care so much about.

Oh hey, I can cherry pick numbers and invent logic too!

My favorite movie is 2 hours long. At your prices, we'll call that $30.

I played Skyrim for 140 hours. My fancy logic says that Skyrim should cost $2100!

What are you on about? This isn't "invented logic" it is mathematics. Green Lantern, a movie that received massive critical bashing cost 200 million to make. It recouped it in the theatres and is currently competing for the TOP of DvD sales for the past couple weeks making an additional 54m in profit. This is a movie that has been lambasted by fans and a 200m dollar budget is a big deal.
Uncharted 2 cost 20 million to make. That's it. Movies that are released straight to DvD can pull a $30m budget out of a studio. Considering the creators gets roughly 50% of the $60 they charge, 750,000 sales makes their money back. Generally speaking 1 million sales is considered a success in the video game market. (1 million sales can generate a sequel) A "hit" is over 2m sales.

L.A. Noire boasted the fact that it was a $50m game like that was some ridiculous amount of money on a game. People like to claim GTA4 as the $100m game but most of that money was for music licensing contracts, not game production.

If movies can pull in over $200m charging $30 for a theatre experience and a DvD, a game that cost $50m to make can afford to drop their price to $40 in the sake of making it up in volume. I ain't making up logic here. Go to box office mojo, look around at movie budgets, break out your calculator and see for yourself.

No game should cost over $40. Want to know why?

A movie blockbuster movie costs $100-200m to make. A AAA game currently costs ~30m. L.A. Noire was toted as a big freakin deal for costing 60m. GTA4 had a big hoopla made about how it cost 100m but most of it was for music contracts.
Movies on the other hand, charge $9 for a theatre ticket and $20 for the DvD. So for $30 bucks you can go to the theatre and see the movie and own it on DvD. This not only recoups the cost of the budget but most often, dips into profit.

This would effectively have more people buying games simply because they are affordable. As well, it would cut down the mark-up on used games the industry acts like they care so much about.

Without a source, I'm slightly sceptical of your data, but even assuming it's true, there's one big factor you've overlooked. A lot more people watch films than play games.

With a film, the only thing between you and it is the cinema ticket (or DVD cost). A game requires a console or a decent PC, and a much bigger time investment.

Smaller target audience = higher prices charged as developers/publishers attempt to make their money back.

Movies are more affordable. It is as simple as that. Blue ray players are expensive right now but people are buying them to play their $20-$30 DvD's on aren't they? And there ain't a real big difference in DvD>Blueray. Not the same caliber of difference between PS2>PS3>PS4. Those are real changes. I have a blueray player and some bluerays thanks to my PS3, and there honestly isn't much difference between blueray and DvD. I buy bluerays despite the fact I know this because it doesn't bend me over a barrel like the games industry.
When I spend $60 on a game I better fuckin' like it. Period. You wanna know why piracy is so high? Because people want to know what you expect them to shell out $60 for considering all the shit games and shovelware out there. People like Peter Molyneux lying through his damn teeth on press releases. Commercials showing you cutscenes and cinematics and not gameplay. There is too much deception in this market because no one questions it and the impotant part is:

People aren't buying into it. Literally.

The market could be bigger, you just have to give consumers some reason, any reason, to buy into it. Obviously, their marketing isn't working. (Nintendo is toying with it though with plenty of $20 titles on the Wii and DSi)

Higher prices = smaller target audience. It's a vicious cycle really. Consumers will not be the ones to break it either. Charge $100 for games tomorrow and watch a ton of gamers quit buying new releases. Drop it to $40 tomorrow and watch the market grow. Better yet, drop it to $30-35 and watch consumers stand in Wal-mart deciding if they want the DvD or the game.

This hobby is too expensive to "test the waters" and see if you like it. I might enjoy collecting rare old movie posters but it is too expensive for me to "try" and see if I like it. Games carry a heavy pricetag and a HUGE library. Just because you played one game doesn't mean you have seen everything the hobby has to offer. In order to really look at what this medium has to offer, you are going to spend some big money. That is a PROBLEM with the industry, not with consumers.

 

[Yopaz]

Games are expensive to make because we, the consumers demand better graphics, we demand HD resolution. We want games to get better, but we complain about the price.

Are games really tha<t expensive? You complain about game prices closing to 60 bucks. Here most Xbox 350 and OS3 games cost around 100 when they are released.I can pay 20 bucks for a movie and have entertainment for 2 hours. I can pay 100 bucks for a game and often have 10 times the entertainment just for a single playthrough.A game that lasts 10 hours will give you a value of 6 bucks an hour. Xenoblade has given me a value of far less than 1 dollar for each hour.

You also need to understand the market. Should game companies sacrifice their income without cutting expenses? Should game companies make us pat less when they know we're willing to pay the full price? The market doesn't work that way. A mega corporation like Activision doesn't care about pleasing us. They care about getting their money and as long as they do there's no need to change.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I don;'t believe in government control of prices on things like this and I don't think a collusion of publishers would be a good idea either so I say let the market roll and don't introduce some new enforced system to control things since that could wind up becoming a bigger problem in the end.

 

[scar_47]

The market sets thr price it works and has done so since people started bartering for goods and services, honestly if you don't feel a game is worth 60$ then wait for the price drop games with lower sales drop faster essentially do to the market rejecting the game at that price point. It works because it allows for maximum mutual benefit the devs and publisher get all they can for their product while consumer's are allowed various price points allowing them to be comfortable with their purchase. It works trying to tier a system only adds layers of confusion and creates extra work driving up costs.

 

[Rack]

Absolutely, and the games market is digging itself in a stupid mess around it. The reason we have so much problem around Piracy, second hand sales and sequelitis is that games are too expensive for anyone to just "take a punt". You can't sell Portal for $60 and creating Portal 2 straight off the bat is an insane risk for publishers.

Through digital distribution we want to see games for $20-$40 (depending on the amount, not quality of content) and online passes for $10-20. That means multiplayer games that are designed to be played all year would be about the same price (the market can clearly bear it) but smaller experimental games would be much cheaper. We also need to see more games offering chapter 1 for a low price.

 

[Guffe]

There's no use in trying to fix it.
The publishers have put money into making this game, triple A games as someone said are around 20-30 miljon to make and to cover that + make some win in it and be able to pay the wages of every worker who's been working on the game (that's not just 3 or 4 guys) and start making the next one so that we can continue playing. Then if games must be around 50-60$ at launch then so be it. If you can't afford every game you want choose with more care which games you buy.

 

[viranimus]

Man I wish the logic of behaving as if we do not concede to every whim the publishers whimper out as having a sense of socialistic entitlement would cease because it is simply not logical.

Yes, there is something very wrong with the pricing structure of how the game industry operates. The cost of games are


The problem is, they are high, because of consumer idiocy. The people assigning the prices know and manipulate this fact. They have people blindly accepting a derpy 60$ pricetag under the false pretense that its reflective of the flagging economy, poor game sales, piracy , used, etc. They raise the price citing these reasons, and the consumers accept it not because its right or justifiable., Its because of their idiotic sense of entitlement that they think they have a right to pay what ever the publisher demands as MSRP with little other justification than "I WANT IT" and laud that ability of wastable income as some sort of badge of superiority over those who dont.

Reminds me of being a kid, seeing my sister grab the last can of soda knowing I was thirsty and having the intention of gulping down every last drop as loud and obnoxiously as possible just to piss me off.


Now as for the pricing structure. The overall structure works fine provided that the industry does not break it by trying to wrongly kill the used/rental market. Most games of a certain tier of quality come out at the same price, and the price is dictated by used sales as the less people want to sell copies the longer it will take for saturation of used copies to force the cost of a new copy down. If the game is crap, most people want to get something back out of it seeings how they are not allowed to return it. To the used reseller, if they find themselves in an abundance of used copies, they will drop the cost to try to move them, thus forcing the MSPR down. That is the market regulating itself.

Spoiler: Suggestions on how to repair pricing structure

Now there are ways of repairing this structure. Giving retailers the means to be re compensated for returned items due to inferior quality would be a massive step without massive change. Another step would be to Change the structure of the games themselves. Such as having developers create a game that they MSRP for 20$, but is only the core engine of the game plus a few hours 10-20% current levels of content. More than a demo but not a lot more. Then allow for DLC to fill in the content at REASONABLE pricing points that can be put on sale. That way you reduce the overall cost to developers for developing content in the core game. You reduce the entry point for the gamer, so they are going to be more willing to purchase the game as 20$s is a lot easier to swallow than 60$. Then, that core engine and basic content act as the extensive demo for the player to see if they like the core gameplay/graphics/esthetics, etc. If they do, then buying DLC modules will become a no brainer because they like the core mechanics they will gladly buy to see more content in those core mechanics. If they dont, the developer has saved on developmental cycles by not producing such a long game, and they can either quickly bust out content packs for DLC (as all the primary tools are in place) if all is going well, or they can quickly transition to a new and likely more lucrative future project if the current game is not selling well. Plus this helps retailers not get quite as many returns, It helps the publishers by reducing the valid impact on retailers with a lower entry MSRP. It helps the publisher by generating revenues via DLC. It eliminates the publishers concern about the used market because every copy sold has generated the profit from the original sale, and a used copy would still see the bulk of profit originate from the DLC sale, not the original sale. It allows consumers to have direct impact on the publishers quality. It also allows the developers to save time and resources by not having to constantly rebuild assets and tools. If the game they produced is lucrative, they will be able to churn out content for it using the same toolsets they used to create the core mechanic game. Then if you get a years worth of solid content compiled (IE 4 DLC packs or 40 hours of content) At the end of the year, it gives them the freedom to repackage the "season" as one stand alone entity much like Seasonal DVD releases.

Then, with the beginning of the next year, prepare to launch an Expansion of content with the same 20 or so hours of base content. You do not require the prior season to play this new season, but having a prior season save file is obviously advantageous because it allows you to transfer in game benefits over to the new season. This transition acts as both a breaking point, and a bridge of the content. It acts as a breaking point because this new expansion launches major game/bug fixes (outside of what initial launch would require)to the core mechanics, but works as a stand alone expansion, for which a new series of DLC can be built around. It saves the production team from having to rebuild ALL assets from the ground up by letting them reuse many existing assets from the prior season, and focused on only building new assets that are needed for the new content.It also gives you the freedom to do what tv series do and draw a large portion of content as call back material that has already been produced in the prior season, reusing what has already been produce reduces production. It acts as a bridge of calling back to events from the previous season, while setting up the separation that will create the stand alone nature of this new season.

Now this notion, consider a tv series like say Dexter. You hear from friends that Season 1 is good, season 2 is kind of Meh, but season 3 is phenomenal. In this structure it would allow you to buy the seasons you want, provide you with enough visual backstory to follow the story at the beginning of each season with the new season Expansion, while only encouraging you, not requiring you to buy all the prior seasons. Retail copies would only be either the initial game, or individual season expansion, OR the end of the season compliation package. DLC is where bulk of the content is sold, and that is always sold in an online only fashion.

Possibly what we may in essence see evolve out of The old Republic or Basically a modification Bethesdas recent model with Fallout and TES expanded into a television "season" model, only with consumer controls to keep them honest with the quality and quantity of content they are producing vs the prices they are charging.

What it in effect accomplishes is that it lowers the entry point to the consumer making purchasing new less of a risk. It lowers the risk inherent to the retailers by reducing the initial payout to the publishers for stock (50$ is a lot to pay for anyone, even retailers). It allows the game developer to focus on producing content, instead of producing engines and assets that make up the largest bulk of production costs. It lowers the risk involved to the publisher by not using extensive developer resources by producing too much content that may or may not sell well until it is established what actually works. It would give publishers a reason to LIKE used markets because the retail copy is only the teaser to get people in the door, with most of the money being generated by controlable DLC content. It also gives the consumer much more control to dictate directly to the publisher by rewarding what they like, and punishing what they dont with a much faster downtime.