Poll: Would you buy a console without ability to sell used games?

[Batou667]

What you seem to be forgetting (just like everyone else that keeps using this as an argument) is that gamestop dont just take in your old game and burn them out back. They sell them again. The money might stimulate the sale of a new release, but it absolutely kills the shelf life of the merchandise.

If they are preventing a 30 dollar sale by giving 10 dollars towards a new sale that is still a loss.

Of course they don't burn the preowned games; they sell them. Yes, that then potentially prevents a full-price sale, but if a person walks into the shop and couldn't afford to buy a full-price game anyway, then that sale was never going to happen. That person is going to leave with a preowned game, or empty-handed.

We can broadly divide console gamers up into two groups: those who prefer to buy games at launch for full-price, and late adopters who for whatever reason (lack of money, not impulse-buyers, whatever) tend to buy games later on when they've dropped in shelf-price or start becoming available preowned.

The first group of "fad gamers" currently enjoy a system where they can play the new releases, and when the next big thing comes out they can trade in their older games to fund this. If preowned games were banned, you'd expect to see these fad gamers buying fewer games.

The second group of late-adopters benefit from being able to buy more games and for a cheaper price. Ban preowned games and this group will also tend to buy fewer games, or find themselves priced out of the hobby altogether.

(This is why I mentioned that even somebody who exclusively buys preowned games is still contributing to the new games market, as the late-adopters and fad-gamers have a kind of symbiotic relationship. Anybody who claims that buying preowned is technically the same as pirating is talking out of their hat.)

What won't happen is a situation where gamers magically find they have more disposable income to continue their current purchase habits but at full-price and with no chance of ofsetting cost by trading in or buying preowned.

The result in my opinion would be that gamers would simply buy fewer games and tend to not take a risk on a new franchise. This would lead to a stale market dominated by big-name AAA sequels and indies or smaller devs would struggle to gain a foothold - bad for diversity, bad for creativity, bad for the devs and bad for the gamers. Nobody wins except the publishers.

 

[vinniebarx]

I wouldn't touch the console, I'm a student and I have to watch the amount of money in my bank. I'll only get a brand new game if I desperately wanted it, otherwise I wait for it to go down in price and find a pre-owned copy. Or I trade in my games to raise funds. I'd only consider it if the games that are new to next gen consoles are lower in price, £40 is a hefty price for anything, especially games nowadays which feature a 5 hour campaign and a standard multiplayer.

Plus the reason I would get a certain console is only if my friends have the same, then we can borrow games from each other. Banning used games is a bit over zealous and would put me off entirely. Rather just TF2 on my mac for the rest of my days.

 

[Zac Jovanovic]

I'm very unlikely to be buying a next gen console regardless. I've pretty much completely moved to the "master race" during this console generation.

While I played on the 360 I bought new, so if for some reason I decided to buy a nextgen console it probably wouldn't affect me.

Between modern PCs being affordable as they are, and decent console exclusives coming out of once in a blue moon,as someone who doesn't care even slightly about television (I haven't turned it on in months) I pretty much have no reason to play on a console. I've kept a single 360 controller to use on my PC for games where it's suited better than KB/M though even that I rarely touch.

 

[tippy2k2]

I went ahead and voted Yes but with a few warnings. I very rarely buy used games (I don't look down upon those that do but I don't think it's good for the industry) but I do think it would be a very bad idea for them to cut out the used games industry.

Like it or not, not everyone is in my position and either has the patience to wait for the games to naturally drop in price or have the income to buy them until they plummet in price. I think that in one gesture, you would be eliminating...totally unscientific but I'd guess you'd be eliminating 1/4 of your audience outright. That many less gamers means that much less money being pumped into the industry (even if 9/10 of their games bought are used, very few gamers NEVER buy new).

So while I personally wouldn't care about this change, without the competition to help encourage price drops, the industry may decide to get greedy and decide to leave prices alone. I'd really like to think that Draech is onto something and companies would realize that Valve (a company who'm I don't like in terms of developer but I do like in terms of business) is the shining example but all it would take is a few of the big names to decide they like keeping a 3 year old game at $60 and the industry would collapse onto itself...

If the game industry stuck to what's going on now (most games take about 7 months before they begin dropping in price) I would be perfectly fine with this but the industry has to realize that they're playing with fire. They make a mistake and burn too many people and you might burn down your own house.

 

[blackdwarf]

If there weren't any used games, there would be a lot of games I would never bought new, so that would be a lost sell. I bought the first Batman Arkham game as a used copy. I loved that one, so that resulted in a purchase of the sequel in the week of release. Sure, they didn't got the money I spend on the first game, but otherwise they wouldn't got the money I spend on the second game. And I like to borrow games from friend, which I never would play otherwise, which also can result in a purchase of the actual game or sequel.

If a console would not allow that stuff, I have a good reason not to buy that console. I would be surprised if they did add that feature.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I'm a PC guy, but I like to keep a Sony console around for God of war and such.

I find the idea pretty bothersome, but it's not necessarily a deal-breaker provided that a substantial amount of the price tag is taken off(which I have real doubts about), and ideally given to me as a download rather than as physical media. I've had boxed copies of games only to find that they have steamworks, which makes the box and CD almost entirely useless immediately after you've given steam the code.

I hate the clutter and the knowledge that it's dead-weight just waiting to be thrown into a land-fill.

So, yes. Provided that they make me an offer that is appealing, and not only a change for the sake of profiteering.

 

[Nazulu]

Definitely not. I borrow games when I can't get the perfect info to find out if they're worth it. That's one of the few things that I love about consoles. I shouldn't have to blow heaps of money on games when I want certain games for a big party too.

 

[Not Lord Atkin]

Well if there was a choice between two consoles, one of which included the anti-ued games technology, I'd be strongly inclined to go for the other one. it all really depends on the overall quality of the system itself and the games available for it but a used game functionality would constitute quite a strong point in one system's favour.
In other words, imagine PS4 blocked used games but the new Xbox didn't. All Microsoft would need to do then would be to advertise the fact and that would be enough to give them a huge advantage.

 

[hazabaza1]

Sure.
I don't sell games and I rarely buy pre-owned anyway.

 

[Trucken]

The problem with blocking used games goes beyond buying and selling though. Borrowing a game from a friend is out, and even bringing your game to a friends house to play is out. Why shouldn't I be allowed to play my game on a friends console?

If the console blocks games that have been use in another console I probably won't buy it. I'll probably go Master Race full time.

 

[spartan231490]

Hell no. I don't even buy all that many games used, but the idea that the gaming company could dictate that I can't sell my game to another person is bullshit. Also, I tend to get a lot of my games when it's way too late to get them new. For example, I'm planning on going to my local gamestop in a couple days to pick up a copy of fallout: 3. So, while used games aren't a huge part of my collection, I buy them often enough that I'm not going to buy a console that somehow prevents them.

 

[Mouse_Crouse]

I honestly don't even see it happening, the courts have upheld time and again the right to sell (and transfer ownership of) physical property.

 

[Myndnix]

I probably wouldn't buy a console that couldn't play used or rented games. I don't buy (or rent) them often, but it's a principle thing.
And if every console up and decided to do this, I'd just switch over to PC gaming full time.

 

[MrBenSampson]

Most of the games I've bought in the past year are for the PS2. Factory sealed PS2 games are often listed for hundreds of dollars, so getting my hands on the games that I want would be impossible if used games were not an option.

If the next Xbox and Playstation are incapable of playing used games, then the consoles will become near useless once we're into the 9th generation. If I didn't get new copies of the games I wanted while they were still available, then the opportunity to play those games will be gone forever. Of course there will be the option to download the games directly to the console, but I doubt that those servers will always be there. Retro gaming might not be possible with 8th gen consoles. I'm already worried about losing access to the patches for my Xbox 360 games. Skyrim and Red Dead Redemption were barely functional at launch.

If it's true that the next Xbox will require an internet connection in order to function, then the consoles will be bricked the day that Xbox Live is shut down. That's unacceptable, considering that many people will have invested thousands of dollars into the hardware and software.

If I can't play used games, and/or need to be connected to the internet at all times, I might as well join the master race.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

If there weren't any used games, there would be a lot of games I would never bought new, so that would be a lost sell. I bought the first Batman Arkham game as a used copy. I loved that one, so that resulted in a purchase of the sequel in the week of release. Sure, they didn't got the money I spend on the first game, but otherwise they wouldn't got the money I spend on the second game. And I like to borrow games from friend, which I never would play otherwise, which also can result in a purchase of the actual game or sequel.

If a console would not allow that stuff, I have a good reason not to buy that console. I would be surprised if they did add that feature.

This, so much this.

What people (Publishers) need to realise is that there are a few bad things about the used game industry sure, but there are also good things about it too. Killing it would impact on the gaming industry as a whole in a negative way. I hope they see this and don't implement the ban on used games in the next gen of consoles.
Then again, I'm not sure I will even be bothering with the next gen consoles....I wanna build me a shiny new gaming rig

 

[ugeine]

I can justify spending forty pound on the odd game or two that I know I'm going to play to death, but it's too high for the rest. Fifteen to twenty pounds would be the highest I'd pay for something I wasn't sure I'd enjoy.

Shame, because I've got into quite a few games that way, but there you go.

 

[GonvilleBromhead]

I certainly wouldn't. Not that I trade in much, but simply because I prefer to be a few months behind on releases, both as a silly habit from PC gaming - would usually be two years behind simply because of the cost of buying a future proof rig, but mainly because I see no reason to spend £45 on a game, when in a few months time it will £25. And frankly, by the time it gets to a reasonable price, the only option is often second hand (though of course if there is a new copy that is at an acceptable price I will purchase that over second hand).

And of course my overiding reason is matters of principle. If they think they should be allowed to make rules about a consumers use of a product, then logically I must therefore be allowed to make rules regarding what they are allowed to do with the money I give them

 

[Batou667]

And you disarmed your own argument last post.

Price drops isn't something that needs Used games to happen. Again Steam is proof of this.

Sure. But when the next Xbox comes out, if it does go the route of one-use software licenses and an increased emphasis on downloaded/streamed games, what do you think the odds are that Microsoft will price the games fairly, pass on the saved distribution and packaging costs to the consumer, and let the price decay in line with traditional shelf price? In my humble estimation: a snowball's chance in Hell. Microsoft are money-grubbing bastards and turning the software market into a price-fixed monopoly will just be a license for them to print money. I daresay that the creators of Steam are a little more ethical, but even they're encouraged to stay competitive by the existing new/preowned market system.

So no one is arguing that they will magically get more income. I am arguing that the new market it self would take up that spot some the used did before. Like the PC market. Where games have a CONSIDERABLY longer shelf life because there isn't a used market killing that perspective of a long sale. [snip] If we can move the consummation of games to be more spread over a longer period I see that as being generally better.

Really? Why?

Making games a one-user-license sets a dangerous precedent. Film rentals and preowned record/CD shops haven't been the death of the film and music industries, have they? Even the rampant piracy that affects film/music more than games hasn't really hurt them. What the games industry needs is a similar kind of model: cheaper per-unit price tag (say £20/$30 as standard), more choice and diversity, and ideally a single platform in the near future. What's being proposed here - bringing videogames inline with expensive software suites like Photoshop or Office - is an ill-fitting solution and sure as hell isn't doing anything positive for gaming's mainstream image or penetration.