Sony, Pre-owned games and DRM

[BlazedWithPower]

I don't like it but I don't think that'll stop them. Unfortunately we'll be seeing more and more of this.

 

[Timmibal]

I don't care, said Pierre, I'm from FRANCE. As long as they try to deprive me of basic ownership rights, I don't care about their profits.

Used game sales are old as dirt, and the industry should've had plenty of time to adapt to them.

Name me one other industry where the owners of the IP actively have to develop ways to prevent their own products from being used by other companies to compete with the legitimate sale of their product.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

That is the exact argument we hear time and time again "well the devs don't get money from used sales" so yeah, apparently this what alot of people expect.

What Gamestop has done is take a legal business model and build a very profitable business out of it. That's perfectly legal and it should be because in the end, that's what the game companies do.

A legal business model which is straight up parasitic, hiding behind the very rights you seek to defend, and is the unquestionable CAUSE of the reactionary policies by publishers which seemingly cause you so much anger, and you don't see anything wrong with it?

One don't say "I recall figures" if you have NO PROOF BEHIND IT.

I have an anecdotal account from an ex-manager of an EB games outlet here in Australia who puts the average figure around 5 resales per traded title. An account which I have no reason to disbelieve. There was also a link from a subsequent article in one of the many, many other threads relating to this issue which put the average figure at 4.6. I do not take arguing on the internet seriously enough to waste my time finding it.

Also, you mad.

Don't compare video games to books, film and music? Sorry, but from a sales & legal perspective video games are very comparable.

OK, why not? No, really. What good reasons do you have?

OK, firstly, I refer of course to the resale of these mediums only. I probably should have stated that in more detail but at the time I didn't feel it necessary. My mistake, sorry for any confusion.

Secondly, Aside from the fact books are limited quantity items, Artists and Authors are paid advances, Musicians earn the majority of their income from concerts, and film studios seem to completely disregard dvd sales in favour of box office figures? The biggest and smelliest elephant in the room is the sales practice itself.

Ever successfuly tried to return a CD or DVD to a retailer without proof of purchase? Ever seen a trade-in special on blu-ray players when you trade in 100 DVDs? Ever seen a used DVD and CD retailer focusing on top 40 charts?

The commercial Used Game market is the only one to behave as it does. I cannot think of a single industry in the world which so bald-facedly abuses the spirit of customer's rights.

To give an example verbatim from an earlier post I made on the issue. Say the publisher ships 1 million copies of NewAwesomeGame, the development team relying on a percentage of those sales. The chain notices the title sold 100,000 units by day 2, and so places that title on a 'preferred trade' list. Promotions within the store actively ENCOURAGE customers to return the game, usually alongside other new titles for a reduced sale price of a completely unrelated title. These used copies are then sold in DIRECT COMPETITION with the remaining 900,000 units, usually at a reduced price. When the sale arc begins to slow, the retailer sends back the remaining unsold NEW units to the publisher for credit against future purchases (I would imagine whilst wearing their cheesiest trollfaces), whilst keeping the used copies in store and gradually reducing the price. So Producers ARE losing money, because they are now obligated to honor the credit against the next title released to the retailer.

As has been reiterated ad-nauseum, the PRIMARY difference is this ACTIVE pursuit by the retailer to regain used stock.

Retailers are not your friends. Is there anything wrong with game trading between consumers? Absolutely not, I believe it is an integral part of what helped build this industry into the titan it is becoming. But when retailers take advantage of the consumer's rights for their own protits, to the detriment of the people who actually (fuck, I can't belive I have to point this out) MADE THE GODDAMN THING IN THE FIRST PLACE, by attacking their ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME of COURSE publishers are going to have to find ways to curtail it. Of COURSE devs are going to look to DD services, Day 1 DLC and DRM. Of COURSE quality of releases is going to suffer. And of course YOU the consumer are going to get fucked in the ass by the result.

And to then turn around and defend the very goddamn business model which causes the problem in the first place, just because it's a few bucks cheaper? Boggles the fuckin mind, it does.

 

[Chibz]

Name me one other industry where the owners of the IP actively have to develop ways to prevent their own products from being used by other companies to compete with the legitimate sale of their product.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Lots of industries have a used market. From cars to movies to books. Actually, I buy my games used from the exact same source that I buy my used films. The used book store is right down the street. It's just that most industries ADAPTED to their used market. Game publishers seemingly didn't. And if they don't, they deserve to be annihilated.

A legal business model which is straight up parasitic, hiding behind the very rights you seek to defend, and is the unquestionable CAUSE of the reactionary policies by publishers which seemingly cause you so much anger, and you don't see anything wrong with it?

Actually, day 1 DLC? Pretty much inexcusable (With very few exceptions). Online passes? (They technically count as day 1 DLC) can be excused with some exceptions. Look at MK9. They're still releasing DLC characters, that aren't day 1. They make money off most used sales.

I have an anecdotal account from an ex-manager of an EB games outlet here in Australia who puts the average figure around 5 resales per traded title.

Anecdotal Evidence. Don't even need to read further.

And to then turn around and defend the very goddamn business model which causes the problem in the first place, just because it's a few bucks cheaper? Boggles the fuckin mind, it does.

You... Realize that EB Games/Gamestop isn't the entirety of the used game market, right? A used game store, practically down the street from me, deals using the 50-100 system. Sometimes giving slightly more than 50. They pay you half of what they sell the game for. If you trade them in, they cut the tax off the sale as icing on the cake.

Within walking distance of my home there's EASILY five shops that sell used games. And none of them flat out rip off people who sell or buy from them. And I've yet to get an answer regarding my question(able) purchase if used game sales are to be frowned on/banned.

I'll ask you, as well.

Here's a question for you. Answer it if you can. I bought a copy of a game I love for the 360. However, I bought it second-hand from someone who owns a used game shop. BUT, this copy was completely new. Unopened, in shrink wrap. Even came with a rather nice custom faceplate.

You seem to be more... ignorant about this market than anything. Which is unfortunate.

 

[Epona]

A legal business model which is straight up parasitic, hiding behind the very rights you seek to defend, and is the unquestionable CAUSE of the reactionary policies by publishers which seemingly cause you so much anger, and you don't see anything wrong with it?

The key word is LEGAL. Now, why are publishers fighting against a LEGAL business model trying to take money that does not belong to them? The cause of the publishers reaction to the used market is greed, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Timmibal]

Lots of industries have a used market. From cars to movies to books. Actually, I buy my games used from the exact same source that I buy my used films. The used book store is right down the street. It's just that most industries ADAPTED to their used market. Game publishers seemingly didn't. And if they don't, they deserve to be annihilated.

And none of those markets actively compete against the sales of new products.

Used cars - Wear and tear, minimal warranty.
Books - Titles often out of print.
Films/Music - often niche market material not commonly available until the advent of digital distribution.

Used Games directly compete against new product.

Anecdotal Evidence. Don't even need to read further.

Because getting such a report in person is so much less belivable than reading it on John Q. Neckbeard's blog. I'm putting forward a point of view, not writing a doctoral thesis dear.

You... Realize that EB Games/Gamestop isn't the entirety of the used game market, right? A used game store, practically down the street from me, deals using the 50-100 system. Sometimes giving slightly more than 50. They pay you half of what they sell the game for. If you trade them in, they cut the tax off the sale as icing on the cake.

Within walking distance of my home there's EASILY five shops that sell used games. And none of them flat out rip off people who sell or buy from them. And I've yet to get an answer regarding my question(able) purchase if used game sales are to be frowned on/banned.

Then if I were you, I would not move for all the money in the world, because whatever town that is sounds pretty sweet.

You seem to be more... ignorant about this market than anything. Which is unfortunate.

I've worked in retail, logistics, sales - both retail and commercial, as well as technical support services for all of the above. If it's connected by a Point of Sale and potentially has a retard on one end I've been in the guts of it, or am good friends with someone who has. I would LOVE for my conclusions to be born purely of ignorance.

Here's a question for you. Answer it if you can. I bought a copy of a game I love for the 360. However, I bought it second-hand from someone who owns a used game shop. BUT, this copy was completely new. Unopened, in shrink wrap. Even came with a rather nice custom faceplate.

Sounds like a lure for a semantic argument, but I'll bite. If it's got all the original seals and shrink-wrap, how can it be used?

 

[Kapol]

Name me one other industry where the owners of the IP actively have to develop ways to prevent their own products from being used by other companies to compete with the legitimate sale of their product.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Lots of industries have a used market. From cars to movies to books. Actually, I buy my games used from the exact same source that I buy my used films. The used book store is right down the street. It's just that most industries ADAPTED to their used market. Game publishers seemingly didn't. And if they don't, they deserve to be annihilated.

I've always hated this comparison. "Other business have used markets, so why would it have such a large impact on games?" That seems to be the general idea. Let me ask you something, how well do you think automotive manufacturers are doing right now? With so many people losing jobs over recent years because these companies are losing a lot of money, I don't think that's the best place to compare it to. I know because my father actually lost a job he'd had for more 30 years because of how bad the auto industry was. Auto manufacturers are losing a lot of money, and that's closing a lot of places down. It's especially bad in the state I live in, Michigan, which had been such a big part of the auto industry.

Plus, cars are much easier to make then a video game. With cars, most of the parts are assembled via factory lines. Even the parts are becoming more and more assembled on lines. This means that other then materials and upkeep, there isn't that much to spend on paying employees. Video games, on the other hand, need a large group of people working for years to release a AAA title. That requires a much greater investment upfront. Not to mention that they sell their product for much less of a profit per unit sold. How many games do you think a company would sell to make the same profit a auto manufacturer would make on a single car?

As for the 'used movies/books/etc,' they don't really have anything even close to Gamestop. There is no single company completely focused on selling used movies, books, or any other media I can think of. There are some more local sorts of stores, or smaller chains, but nothing even close to the widespread influence of the used game market. That's not even going into the fact that Gamestop has a monopoly over the used video game market in the US. It's largest opponant, GameCrazy (which I liked much better) was put out of business long ago now. But that's going away from the subject a bit.

Plus, DVDs and books require much less of an investment for a new copy. For a new DVD or Blu Ray, you may pay $25 or so tops (for a movie, it can be quite a bit more for TV shows, though it normally isn't too much more), and less then that for a book. You may save a bit on a used copy, a few dollars, but is the risk of getting a bad copy and having to return it for a new one worth a couple of dollars of savings? To many, it isn't. Plus, the movie industry and the book industry aren't doing so well either. Movies make most of their income on theaters for big-budget productions and TV shows have TV to make some money back. Books are suffering from lack of people reading more then anything, though digital distribution is making it a bit easier on them I think.

The only reason they don't have the same sort of things that games have (day 1 DLC and such) is because they really can't do anything like that without having a massive backlash. What could you take out of books to make a new copy a better deal? How about DVDs? Maybe special features, which many don't care about anyways?

My point is that it seems a bit silly to compare what the game industry is going through with juggernauts like Gamestop taking a lot of their profit to other industries when each industry is unique. And even if they weren't, most of the examples people point aren't are suffering industries as well. So that makes your argument good... how?

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

I don't like it. They are charging money for online if you buy used. What they should do instead is do what Bad Company 2 did. And make you a vip and get free maps and things like that. And if you want in you have to spend money, or buy new

 

[Timmibal]

A legal business model which is straight up parasitic, hiding behind the very rights you seek to defend, and is the unquestionable CAUSE of the reactionary policies by publishers which seemingly cause you so much anger, and you don't see anything wrong with it?

The key word is LEGAL. Now, why are publishers fighting against a LEGAL business model trying to take money that does not belong to them? The cause of the publishers reaction to the used market is greed, nothing more and nothing less.

Because it DOES belong to them! Developers and Publishers have just as much right to fight resale which directly competes with new game sales as they do to fight against piracy, because the arguments against them are the same. If Piracy is bad because it robs the lawful owner of the IP of their only method of income, then used games MUST be held to the same standard. Forcing the industry to attack the problem obliquely because of legal loopholes regarding the nebulous duality of software as licensed product or purchased good can only hurt the consumer.

 

[Epona]

A legal business model which is straight up parasitic, hiding behind the very rights you seek to defend, and is the unquestionable CAUSE of the reactionary policies by publishers which seemingly cause you so much anger, and you don't see anything wrong with it?

The key word is LEGAL. Now, why are publishers fighting against a LEGAL business model trying to take money that does not belong to them? The cause of the publishers reaction to the used market is greed, nothing more and nothing less.

Because it DOES belong to them! Developers and Publishers have just as much right to fight resale which directly competes with new game sales as they do to fight against piracy, because the arguments against them are the same. If Piracy is bad because it robs the lawful owner of the IP of their only method of income, then used games MUST be held to the same standard. Forcing the industry to attack the problem obliquely because of legal loopholes regarding the nebulous duality of software as licensed product or purchased good can only hurt the consumer.

No it doesn't belong to them.

When a customer buys the game ownership is transfered to the customer. When the customer sells the game to Gamestop, Gamestop becomes the owner and when they sell it, they deserve 100% of the money.

Publishers get to make money from one time per copy of a game. They do not get to double dip.

Buying used games =/= piracy. Please, get your head examined!

 

[Timmibal]

No it doesn't belong to them.

When a customer buys the game ownership is transfered to the customer. When the customer sells the game to Gamestop, Gamestop becomes the owner and when they sell it, they deserve 100% of the money.

Publishers get to make money from one time per copy of a game. They do not get to double dip.

Absolutely, but the flaw in your argument is that it is the RETAILER who is double dipping, the publisher's just trying to get a decent single dip. In a fair system, Used games should not be sold in direct competition with new titles.

But since they are, the publishers and developers have every right to dictate the material available to second hand copies, and since everyone's so keen to keep the fallacious analogies going, just like automobile manufacturers have the right to refuse warranty service to second hand vehicles.

By all means, let stores trade in second hand copies of older titles, but do you really not see the sheer craziness presented when a new title is presented in direct competition with itself? Especially, again, when the new sale is the only form of income for the IP holder?

Buying used games =/= piracy. Please, get your head examined!

I did not say it was. Only that if the impetus for fighting piracy is the minimization of loss to the lawful owner of the IP, then used games should be held to the same standard and IP holders should not be penalized for approaching it in the same fashion.

 

[Something Amyss]

Pre-owned games make distributors lose way more money then piracy does. Yes, it's everyone's right to buy and sell used games, but really, I don't blame them for fighting this system.

I'd like to see some concrete proof of that. Considering we cannot even get the industry to agree how much money they're losing to piracy, I'm betting you have no factual basis for making the claim that used sales costs more.

Besides, we have the right to something, but you have no problem with companies actively attempting to circumvent that right?

 

[TurboPanda]

Being a student who has a 360 library made up of almost entirely used games i admit this sucks but i at least see why they're doing it.

Most items that get resold depreciate over time because they do not work as well or look as nice as when they were new. Games however are software and don't degrade over time. If i put my copy of super smash bros melee into my GameCube it will still work as well as the day it was bought despite being almost 9 years old. If i bought a car that was 9 years old it might be rusty, the engine wont't be as efficient and it will be more likely to break down. The The problem is that there is almost no incentive to buy a game new apart from getting it at launch.

Also you only need a pass to access online functions. You know, the things that developers need money to run.

 

[Epona]

No it doesn't belong to them.

When a customer buys the game ownership is transfered to the customer. When the customer sells the game to Gamestop, Gamestop becomes the owner and when they sell it, they deserve 100% of the money.

Publishers get to make money from one time per copy of a game. They do not get to double dip.

Absolutely, but the flaw in your argument is that it is the RETAILER who is double dipping, the publisher's just trying to get a decent single dip. In a fair system, Used games should not be sold in direct competition with new titles.

But since they are, the publishers and developers have every right to dictate the material available to second hand copies, and since everyone's so keen to keep the fallacious analogies going, just like automobile manufacturers have the right to refuse warranty service to second hand vehicles.

By all means, let stores trade in second hand copies of older titles, but do you really not see the sheer craziness presented when a new title is presented in direct competition with itself? Especially, again, when the new sale is the only form of income for the IP holder?

Buying used games =/= piracy. Please, get your head examined!

I did not say it was. Only that if the impetus for fighting piracy is the minimization of loss to the lawful owner of the IP, then used games should be held to the same standard and IP holders should not be penalized for approaching it in the same fashion.

If you don't think new games should be sold aside used games, then tell the publishers to stop sending games to Gamestop. Did you think Gamestop was stealing new copies from the warehouse and then selling them? No, the publishers send new copies to Gamestop.

Sure, they can legally institute things like Project Ten Dollar and PSN pass, no one has said what they are doing is illegal. What we take issue with is this belief among people like you that used sales = loss for publishers or that publishers deserve money from used sales. I also think that things like online passes are just double dipping cash grabs (still legal though) as there will only be one player online per copy at a time. If online play is free for those who buy new, then the online fee was paid when that copy was sold new. Changing hands costs nothing extra to the publisher.


It has been pointed out many times that piracy =/= lost sales. The game industry is wrong to make that claim either for piracy or used sales.

 

[Epona]

Being a student who has a 360 library made up of almost entirely used games i admit this sucks but i at least see why they're doing it.

Most items that get resold depreciate over time because they do not work as well or look as nice as when they were new. Games however are software and don't degrade over time. If i put my copy of super smash bros melee into my GameCube it will still work as well as the day it was bought despite being almost 9 years old. If i bought a car that was 9 years old it might be rusty, the engine wont't be as efficient and it will be more likely to break down. The The problem is that there is almost no incentive to buy a game new apart from getting it at launch.

Also you only need a pass to access online functions. You know, the things that developers need money to run.

They get that money when the copy is sold new. When the game changes hands there is still only one person per copy playing online.

 

[Timmibal]

It has been pointed out many times that piracy =/= lost sales.

Well that's one point we can agree on.

 

[TokenRupee]

Pre-owned games make distributors lose way more money then piracy does. Yes, it's everyone's right to buy and sell used games, but really, I don't blame them for fighting this system.

Besides, there are way worse ways to fight this. Check Steam and other PC DRM systems - once you activate the game on one account, you can't transfer it anywhere else, regardless of the way it was purchased.

So this is still way better.

Seriously. If you buy games that are kinda new, why not just spend 10% more and get the game new? And if you're buying old games on eBay for a few quid, online components aren't usually worth it anymore anyway.

Only difference with Steam is that they have plenty of sales or offer the games cheaper while others don't.

Honestly if dev studios werent being closed down because their game didnt sell enough, layoffs werent routine and if we got more new ip's and more genres because people didnt think only a few types of games were profitable, then i would be in favor of used games. Used movies arent a great comparison because of the cinema thing and books are relatively inexpensive to produce. Sure buying old games used is fine, but those games wouldn't be affected by an online pass. I think all gamers should wait till they can afford to buy new. Digital download will probably be better for the industry( if they can get pricing right), but i enjoy having a hard copy.

I think more gamers would try to be new if they didn't charge the same price for every game, regardless of quality. Or at least lower the base price.

 

[Chibz]

And none of those markets actively compete against the sales of new products.

Used cars - Wear and tear, minimal warranty.
Books - Titles often out of print.
Films/Music - often niche market material not commonly available until the advent of digital distribution.

Used Games directly compete against new product.

Actually, used films/music often does compete against the new product. The used game store (that also sells films) has films in stock that can be called direct competition for the new product. Used games also suffer from wear & tear. Sort of like films/music do. Plus the risk of getting a bad copy.

Because getting such a report in person is so much less belivable than reading it on John Q. Neckbeard's blog. I'm putting forward a point of view, not writing a doctoral thesis dear.

I don't listen to anecdotal evidence because of how unreliable it is.

Then if I were you, I would not move for all the money in the world, because whatever town that is sounds pretty sweet.

The next town over has THREE used shops. One of them here is actually a moderately large chain in this province.

Sounds like a lure for a semantic argument, but I'll bite. If it's got all the original seals and shrink-wrap, how can it be used?

I guess "used" is a bad term. The better term would be "second hand". I have no idea how long it's been sitting in his back room.

I've always hated this comparison. "Other business have used markets, so why would it have such a large impact on games?"

The automotive industry is in rough shape due to general incompetence. As for games being harder to produce? Someone theoretically has to design these cars.

Besides. I know lots of games that are mass produced by machines.

Spoiler: Sometimes without any human intervention at all

I'll level with you. Used game sales don't have a massive impact on the video game market. Especially not the massive impact that the greedy CEO's say it does.

Ever notice? The companies that SHOULD be more heavily impacted by used game sales are the ones complaining. The smaller, poorer ones that almost need every sale never say a word...

As for rewards?

1. My copy of Deathsmiles had a custom faceplate for my 360, and a sound track.
2. My new copy of Ocarina of Time 3D gave me a code for club nintendo which (when registered first few days) is going to give me a rather large sound track. Oh and 60 club nintendo coins total.

Used game sales actually can be beneficial to a company. Earth Defense Force 2017 came out, but my BF and I missed the window of opportunity to buy it used. However, he bought it used. He played it, I got a chance and we both enjoyed it. We enjoyed it so much when the sequel came out (Insect Armageddon) we both had it preordered, picked it up first day. It can attract new fans into a series that might not otherwise try it.

Another question. If we can no longer sell our games to someone else, what rights DO we have as consumers? Can I... bring my game over to my BF's house? How about lending? Can I lend my copy of a game to a friend? Once you start stripping away our rights, what is or isn't allowed become hard to distinguish.

I think more gamers would try to be new if they didn't charge the same price for every game, regardless of quality. Or at least lower the base price.

You should check out budget games. They tend to sell for $40 at most.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

It has been pointed out many times that piracy =/= lost sales.

Well that's one point we can agree on.

So, just to be clear, you don't care about piracy, but used sales are eeeevvvviiiillll? Then I should say used sales =/= lost sales. *Turns up snark levels* You've no proof that they would have bought it new, don't you?

My point is this: First Sale Doctrine. I am not willing to make one exception because there cannot be only one excpetion. A lot of people I know who like music buy used CDs. Music Labels have been trying to get money off of that with no results. I like what we can do with books now which I think is a fair compromise: You can get it digital or physical. And we can do that with Games on Demand as well. But stop messing around with FSD and we're golden.

Besides, as Jim (And thank the good lord for him) has said in the past, used sales put more money into the industry. Most people who trade in games buy another game with that. In short, just relax.

Also, I've asked this before, but can you name ANY Publisher or Dev who has died out due to used sales? I've asked this before but got NO answer.

 

[Savagezion]

Name me one other industry where the owners of the IP actively have to develop ways to prevent their own products from being used by other companies to compete with the legitimate sale of their product.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Lots of industries have a used market. From cars to movies to books. Actually, I buy my games used from the exact same source that I buy my used films. The used book store is right down the street. It's just that most industries ADAPTED to their used market. Game publishers seemingly didn't. And if they don't, they deserve to be annihilated.

I've always hated this comparison. "Other business have used markets, so why would it have such a large impact on games?" That seems to be the general idea. Let me ask you something, how well do you think automotive manufacturers are doing right now? With so many people losing jobs over recent years because these companies are losing a lot of money, I don't think that's the best place to compare it to. I know because my father actually lost a job he'd had for more 30 years because of how bad the auto industry was. Auto manufacturers are losing a lot of money, and that's closing a lot of places down. It's especially bad in the state I live in, Michigan, which had been such a big part of the auto industry.

-snip-

As for the 'used movies/books/etc,' they don't really have anything even close to Gamestop. There is no single company completely focused on selling used movies, books, or any other media I can think of. There are some more local sorts of stores, or smaller chains, but nothing even close to the widespread influence of the used game market. That's not even going into the fact that Gamestop has a monopoly over the used video game market in the US. It's largest opponant, GameCrazy (which I liked much better) was put out of business long ago now. But that's going away from the subject a bit.

First, Gamestop does NOT have a monopoly. People need to quit saying that. There are tons of used games outlets in the US. Hell, I can undercut their prices on ebay with the games I buy and don't want anymore. PLus, by only offering games at only 5 bucks less than a new copy, they are actually discouraging used games sales. You are gonna pay 5 that bucks in taxes.

Second, Comparing used games to movies and books is perfectly acceptable. The way the creators are paid is similar, distribution is similar, and risks are similar. Libraries alone should be putting authors and publishers out of business as you don't even have to buy the book by this logic. Additionally, almost all book stores have a "used books" section. Movies cost twice as much as games to make and only have a few months before it goes to $1 theaters and DvDs to recoup that cost. However, according to the logic that many people are using in the used games debate, no one EVER goes to the theater to see a movie twice. I have paid 80 bucks for the first Uncharted. I bought it new and later traded it in to help me buy GTA4 (which I couldn't do if I didn't get 20 bucks off due to the trade in) Then I later bought it back for ~$25. By trading in it helped me support 2 titles instead of only 1. Now, whoever bought my copy of Uncharted chipped in with me to support GTA4 - they just don't get a say in who we supported because they got no say in my transaction and we vote with our dollars. I got 2 games when I could only afford 1.5, and voted with my dollars twice. He got a game for 5 bucks cheaper when he had the money for 1 game. (And we don't know what his budget was.) As much as I love Naughty Dog, I bought from them already and I had options. Had I not traded in Uncharted, there honestly is a good chance I would never have gotten GTA4 because I didn't even care for it much. So Rockstar benefited from additional support in this scenario thanks to the used game market.

Plus, DVDs and books require much less of an investment for a new copy. For a new DVD or Blu Ray, you may pay $25 or so tops (for a movie, it can be quite a bit more for TV shows, though it normally isn't too much more), and less then that for a book. You may save a bit on a used copy, a few dollars, but is the risk of getting a bad copy and having to return it for a new one worth a couple of dollars of savings? To many, it isn't. Plus, the movie industry and the book industry aren't doing so well either. Movies make most of their income on theaters for big-budget productions and TV shows have TV to make some money back. Books are suffering from lack of people reading more then anything, though digital distribution is making it a bit easier on them I think.

What? The movie industry is booming right now and setting records - just like the gaming industry. The top 10 grossing movies of all time consist of quite a bit that were released in the last few years, including Avatar which cost 300 million to make. A "triple A" movie with a "low budget" is between $60-80 million. The most expensive game production cost to date was 50 million. Yet Avatar's ticket sale $10 and the DvD sold for $20. ($15 on release week.) So why exactly are games $60? Because they know we will pay it. Game companies would sell more games and put a hurt on the profit margin in used games by lower the cost of a new game. As I said, the lower the price point, the larger you potential market. But they don't want to and instead are going to try and wipe out the used game market. It's a bluff or a dumb strategy but the rewards are greater if they manage to pull it off, and some people are buying into their bullcrap.

My point is that it seems a bit silly to compare what the game industry is going through with juggernauts like Gamestop taking a lot of their profit to other industries when each industry is unique. And even if they weren't, most of the examples people point aren't are suffering industries as well. So that makes your argument good... how?

The gaming industry isn't suffering as bad as the opposing side is offering. Black Ops made more money than Avatar and it cost a tiny fraction of the price and that doesn't include the map packs. WoW and Farmville are unrivaled in the entertainment industry. Most AAA titles pull in a good profit. most 'AA' do as well. The gaming industry has many ways it could combat used games but it would rather just put a nix on it as it is more in their favor that way and until that happens they have to "ham up" the "woe is me" card to get as many people on their side as they can. Saleswise, this is the best strategy to use as it is "justifying their pricepoint" and should always be attempted before combating the market with a price drop, especially of this magnitude.

If I wanted to sell you, say a watch (that I cost me $5) for 40 bucks and you knew somewhere you could get the same watch for $5 less than my asking price, my best strategy is to try and SELL you on the fact that this watch is better than that watch. Not offer it to you for $25-30 right away despite that is still profit for me. I could do this a multitude of ways. First, I would try to convince you it is not the same watch. I could say this watch is the newer model and has more features. (Pre-order bonuses) If you still say no, I could say that the other watch will cost you more money in the long run and offer a warranty. (Project 10 dollar) If you still say no, I could play off your morals and demonize the other salesman and say he had stolen the watch from me earlier that week but I can't prove it so I can't call the cops on him because he also forged a receipt. ("Used games are piracy" publicity) If you still say no, I can continue to try and justify my position and the longer I do - the better. In the long run I always have the option to offer you the same watch for $30 bucks or even $10 really and cut out all possibility for the other guy to really offer his deal and have it be worth his time. (Which isn't worth doing honestly.) But most people will jump on board at at $20-30 if you r justification didn't work. But the price drop is the last think you should do as that is what a salesman does.
Salesmen rarely talk people into buying what they normally wouldn't. They make people spend as much as they can for a product. That is why it is commission based usually, a lot of times the higher the price, the more the salesman gets paid. A good salesman doesn't waste time trying to "sale ice to Eskimos" he sales ice to Mexicans and milks every dime he can out of it.

New games are the ice and we are all the Mexicans and they are trying to hold firm on their original price point because this isn't a sale where you can tell this person one thing and that person another. This is collective and that is much trickier. Some of us are harder sales than others because we smell bullshit and as much as some people think they are good at it, work in sales and you will know most people buy into it. That's why politics are rooted in it. That's why companies like EA have large marketing departments and spend tons of money on it.

 

[Timmibal]

So, just to be clear, you don't care about piracy, but used sales are eeeevvvviiiillll? Then I should say used sales =/= lost sales. *Turns up snark levels* You've no proof that they would have bought it new, don't you?

Goddammit, you try and find an amicable common ground... *mutter mutter*

No, I have no proof they would have bought it new, but I have abundant proof that now they never will. The same cannot be said for filesharing. The 1:1 loss can be argued with much more conviction against used sales than it can for filesharing.

My point is this: First Sale Doctrine. I am not willing to make one exception because there cannot be only one excpetion. A lot of people I know who like music buy used CDs. Music Labels have been trying to get money off of that with no results. I like what we can do with books now which I think is a fair compromise: You can get it digital or physical. And we can do that with Games on Demand as well. But stop messing around with FSD and we're golden.

Maybe the situation is different there in the states, but I have not seen anything even remotely resembling a used CD market that was not completely focused around out-of-circulation titles and niche market items.

Also, I've asked this before, but can you name ANY Publisher or Dev who has died out due to used sales? I've asked this before but got NO answer.

Does a developer have to die out before their claims that used sales are hurting will be listened to? To be perfectly honest, I haven't seen an indie title released on physical medium for a good long while now. Most of the indie titles I have seen have been exclusively DD.

First, Gamestop does NOT have a monopoly. People need to quit saying that. There are tons of used games outlets in the US.

They have the biggest slice of the pie, and have proven themselves adept at enveloping and consuming smaller retailers. The statement is not without merit.

Second, Comparing used games to movies and books is perfectly acceptable. The way the creators are paid is similar, distribution is similar, and risks are similar. Libraries alone should be putting authors and publishers out of business as you don't even have to buy the book by this logic. Additionally, almost all book stores have a "used books" section. Movies cost twice as much as games to make and only have a few months before it goes to $1 theaters and DvDs to recoup that cost.

No. Developers are given a budget, not advances. Even then they still have to see the game turn a profit before they see returns. Your taxes cover the licensing fees relating to library books. Books are limited quantity items. And the fact that movies even have the capacity to recoup their investment at the box office puts them far and away in front of the games industry, who are soley reliant upon that store price point.

What? The movie industry is booming right now and setting records - just like the gaming industry.

Which is why EA, one of the Juggernauts of the industry, is only JUST starting to turn its sales figures around? New sales are way, WAY down against outlay.

The top 10 grossing movies of all time consist of quite a bit that were released in the last few years, including Avatar which cost 300 million to make. A "triple A" movie with a "low budget" is between $60-80 million. The most expensive game production cost to date was 50 million. Yet Avatar's ticket sale $10 and the DvD sold for $20. ($15 on release week.) So why exactly are games $60? Because they know we will pay it.

Why are porn films $90-$120 a copy? Because the market is much, MUCH smaller than the mainstream movie industry. They have to charge that much because their target audience is that much smaller. Now I've said in the past that distributors are taking the games industry for a bit of a ride as far as the price point goes, and believe me, as an Australian paying $120 for a new release, I am the FIRST to call a publisher on wanton profiteering (And have done so in the past). But we come back to the normative appeal. The games industry has ONE source of income. New sales over the counter, wether that be digital or physical. Any attack on that point is going to result in pricing pain for the consumer.

Did you know that if you buy a game from gamestop you are not buying it from the publisher. They do not see a single penny from you purchasing that game. Gamestop gets 100% of the money that you paid. Do you want to know when the publisher got paid? Two weeks ago when that game got delivered to the store. Your arguement does not only apply to the used game market but also to anybody who is not the publisher.

Look up conditional purchase and get back to me. Gamestop gets credit against unsold stock. Do you think they're returning used titles? Don't make me laugh, Publishers are essentially buying back all the new sales they lost to resale.