THQ Joins the Used Game Fight

[That Eeyore]

The continued maintennance of the authentication servers are a problem many see with some forms of PC DRM. The companies can't run those uathentication servers forever, they may decide it's no longer cost effective, or go under. Essentially, you'd have games that have an entire chunk of them completely inaccessable.

Of course, the motive for a measure such as this is to make buying a game second hand less viable, but it's not just retailers who deal in used games who will be hurt by this. Take people who can't even afford to buy used, and have to rent their games. If they have to pay for their rental, go home, then pay another five dollars to enjoy their game to the fullest, how long do you think they'll keep renting. Game rentals will no longer be viable, so rental chains such as Blockbuster may stop carrying games, and Gamefly could very well go under, so there goes the sales those companies provide for the copies they buy to rent out.

Even for those buying new, this could be bad. Recently, my XBox 360 had to be sent in for repair, and we instead got a replacement console. We had pre-ordered Brutal Legend, and so were giving the Love Giver DLC Guitar for use in-game. After we had our system replaced, we no longer had the guitar, and we have no idea how to get it back. So, what happens when someone has a system break and has to replace it, but still has to pay the fiver even though they still have the copy they bought new?

 

[Don't Poke My Bobcat]

To those stating that they won't support the publishers that endorse such practices;

a) You weren't supporting them in the first place if this news affects you

b) You're cutting your nose off in spite your face, and handicapping the selection of games that you can play.

I completely agree with this; with brick and mortar rental, Lovefilm and the second hand market running rampant it's about time developers/publishers alike reacted.

I use Lovefilm for games I'm curious about but have no desire to own, and I still agree with what's happening here. To the developer, obtaining the game via other means than brand new is piracy.

I'm personally getting very, very bored of this whiny sub culture we've developed, with everyone expecting everything (or close to it) for free.

Reality check - if a business is no longer viable they cease to trade. So as much as you ***** and moan, this "evil deed" keeps developers in the game and enables them to carry on making products for you to leech.

 

[shadow skill]

To those stating that they won't support the publishers that endorse such practices;

a) You weren't supporting them in the first place if this news affects you

b) You're cutting your nose off in spite your face, and handicapping the selection of games that you can play.

I completely agree with this; with brick and mortar rental, Lovefilm and the second hand market running rampant it's about time developers/publishers alike reacted.

I use Lovefilm for games I'm curious about but have no desire to own, and I still agree with what's happening here. To the developer, obtaining the game via other means than brand new is piracy.

I'm personally getting very, very bored of this whiny sub culture we've developed, with everyone expecting everything (or close to it) for free.

Reality check - if a business is no longer viable they cease to trade. So as much as you ***** and moan, this "evil deed" keeps developers in the game and enables them to carry on making products for you to leech.

Oh yes publishers exist independently of the people who buy their products...Oh wait no they don't! What kind of a person whines about customers complaining about being screwed and is a-ok with a publisher whining about profits they are in no way entitled to? I don't want to deal with codes that have expired by the time I go to purchase a game. But of course how dare I wait until the price drops to something I can afford. With services like Gamefly there would be nothing to stop the publishers from simply removing the DLC codes from the boxes thereby rendering the savings from Gamefly pointless. To the publisher people not buying games is equivalent to piracy, if they so much as see game footage.

 

[SniperWolf427]

It looks like this is the future, kids. I suggest you get used to it.

*Ba-dum pish*

In all seriousness, I have no problem with this new solution. The developers need to make money and this is an understandable way to do it. It's much preferable to intrusive DRM, the apparent solution to piracy.

And the 3 - 4 dollars you save buying used is never worth it anyways.

A lot of used games I buy you don't find on sale anymore. I highly doubt if I am buying it used because I can't find it new that they are going to continue to still offer the downloads.

Besides what happens in the future if I want to play my games and they no longer have their authentication servers online, or the downloadable content up. Wanting to add to a game is one thing. Taking away functions is another entirely.

When they stop supporting the authentication servers, it is highly unlikely that they'll even support the multiplayer.

Games that are old enough to no longer be in print won't have much of an online community regardless. But you'll just have to pay 5 dollars to access the multiplayer if you want to that badly. That brings the total cost of that old game from ten to fifteen dollars.

 

[Don't Poke My Bobcat]

Oh yes publishers exist independently of the people who buy their products...Oh wait no they don't! What kind of a person whines about customers complaining about being screwed and is a-ok with a publisher whining about profits they are in no way entitled to? I don't want to deal with codes that have expired by the time I go to purchase a game. But of course how dare I wait until the price drops to something I can afford. With services like Gamefly there would be nothing to stop the publishers from simply removing the DLC codes from the boxes thereby rendering the savings from Gamefly pointless. To the publisher people not buying games is equivalent to piracy, if they so much as see game footage.

I'm sorry, I'm missing the point here - and I'll illustrate it better.

If you do not buy the game new, the publishers do not care about your feelings. You are not helping them in any way.

As the used car market is used so often as a comparison to the gaming market (how ludicrous this is, considering one is transport and one is entertainment but that's a different day) I'll use it here:

If I buy a used car I accept the items that are missing from it at brand new. You can do the same to buying a used game. Or on a personal note, would you work a job for someone else to be paid? Not as in licensing or sub contracting, as in you receiving no money at all from performing a task (or to make it even more accurate as an analogy, sometimes you get paid an hourly wage, sometimes you don't). That is essentially what is happening for the publishers.

It's an incredible lack of maturity and basic understanding of corporation and economics that such blinkered views can exist.

 

[manaman]

It looks like this is the future, kids. I suggest you get used to it.

*Ba-dum pish*

In all seriousness, I have no problem with this new solution. The developers need to make money and this is an understandable way to do it. It's much preferable to intrusive DRM, the apparent solution to piracy.

And the 3 - 4 dollars you save buying used is never worth it anyways.

A lot of used games I buy you don't find on sale anymore. I highly doubt if I am buying it used because I can't find it new that they are going to continue to still offer the downloads.

Besides what happens in the future if I want to play my games and they no longer have their authentication servers online, or the downloadable content up. Wanting to add to a game is one thing. Taking away functions is another entirely.

When they stop supporting the authentication servers, it is highly unlikely that they'll even support the multiplayer.

Games that are old enough to no longer be in print won't have much of an online community regardless. But you'll just have to pay 5 dollars to access the multiplayer if you want to that badly. That brings the total cost of that old game from ten to fifteen dollars.

So fixated on multiplayer. I don't even like multiplayer. I was just speaking in general. All the games that require calling home for you to play them these days. How the games are released bare bones and then having the content drip fed back in through DLC.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

I can't say I'm exactly against this, and I certainly think this is better than that whole DRM nonsense, and I have a tendency to buy games new anyway, so it doesn't affect me much.

Not that I've bought anything in a while, so I actually managed to miss most of the furore.

 

[SamStar42]

Okay, publishers, let me tell you something.

Used game selling has been going on for generations, and considering you already make bazillions from normal people buying from old brick and mortar shops I think it's a tad unfair how you try to single out people who just want the game a bit cheaper. I can understand things like Cerberus Network, one use codes for DLC that's not important but is useful and can still be bought, but not things like online play. Who the fuck is going to buy UFC Undisputed just for the single-player?

I can understand DLC that you can get by buying new, something fun/useful but not strictly neccesary, but taking off major parts of the game? That's slightly ridiculous. If you want less people buying used, how about you take £5-£10 off the game? I only buy pre-owned because of how cheap it is.

Used game buying is no where near as bad as piracy, and considering without buying used I'd only have enough money for about half of the amount I have, it creates problems for people my age and with my amount of money. This would mean rental stores would continue to lose more money as well - even though they already are rapidly.

For the £40 it would cost to buy UFC Undisputed 2010, I bought Fallout 3, GTAIV, Mirror's Edge, Dead Space and BioShock. Why should I buy games for £40 when I can get them for £10 less on eBay, the only difference being opened?

 

[SniperWolf427]

It looks like this is the future, kids. I suggest you get used to it.

*Ba-dum pish*

In all seriousness, I have no problem with this new solution. The developers need to make money and this is an understandable way to do it. It's much preferable to intrusive DRM, the apparent solution to piracy.

And the 3 - 4 dollars you save buying used is never worth it anyways.

A lot of used games I buy you don't find on sale anymore. I highly doubt if I am buying it used because I can't find it new that they are going to continue to still offer the downloads.

Besides what happens in the future if I want to play my games and they no longer have their authentication servers online, or the downloadable content up. Wanting to add to a game is one thing. Taking away functions is another entirely.

When they stop supporting the authentication servers, it is highly unlikely that they'll even support the multiplayer.

Games that are old enough to no longer be in print won't have much of an online community regardless. But you'll just have to pay 5 dollars to access the multiplayer if you want to that badly. That brings the total cost of that old game from ten to fifteen dollars.

So fixated on multiplayer. I don't even like multiplayer. I was just speaking in general. All the games that require calling home for you to play them these days. How the games are released bare bones and then having the content drip fed back in through DLC.

I'm sorry? The entire issue is regarding multiplayer authentication codes, so I really don't see how it would be unreasonable for me to bring up multiplayer in my argument.

Regardless of that, I don't even see why you care if you don't like multiplayer. As of right now, this doesn't affect you, nor does it have anything to do with "bare bones" products or even DLC.

And about the calling home thing; I believe you should direct your argument towards Ubisoft and DRM.

 

[shadow skill]

Oh yes publishers exist independently of the people who buy their products...Oh wait no they don't! What kind of a person whines about customers complaining about being screwed and is a-ok with a publisher whining about profits they are in no way entitled to? I don't want to deal with codes that have expired by the time I go to purchase a game. But of course how dare I wait until the price drops to something I can afford. With services like Gamefly there would be nothing to stop the publishers from simply removing the DLC codes from the boxes thereby rendering the savings from Gamefly pointless. To the publisher people not buying games is equivalent to piracy, if they so much as see game footage.

I'm sorry, I'm missing the point here - and I'll illustrate it better.

If you do not buy the game new, the publishers do not care about your feelings. You are not helping them in any way.

As the used car market is used so often as a comparison to the gaming market (how ludicrous this is, considering one is transport and one is entertainment but that's a different day) I'll use it here:

If I buy a used car I accept the items that are missing from it at brand new. You can do the same to buying a used game. Or on a personal note, would you work a job for someone else to be paid? Not as in licensing or sub contracting, as in you receiving no money at all from performing a task (or to make it even more accurate as an analogy, sometimes you get paid an hourly wage, sometimes you don't). That is essentially what is happening for the publishers.

It's an incredible lack of maturity and basic understanding of corporation and economics that such blinkered views can exist.

Well for one thing videogames and cars are both commodities so the comparison is completely valid on that level alone. Secondly a car need only be used for a day to actually be used. There are used cars that haven't even had time to appreciably wear, just like there are used games with some scratches or missing boxes. So who are you trying to lecture about economics again? Other commodities don't have functionality removed from them requiring an extra ten dollars if you don't buy them new. They lose things because of what the people who owned them did. Not something the manufacturer planned in advance of any sale.

In the real world when the creator sells their product, their power over that particular copy of the item ends. They aren't working for someone else to get paid, they have already performed their task, it is over and done with.

 

[manaman]

I'm sorry? The entire issue is regarding multiplayer authentication codes, so I really don't see how it would be unreasonable for me to bring up multiplayer in my argument.

Regardless of that, I don't even see why you care if you don't like multiplayer. As of right now, this doesn't affect you, nor does it have anything to do with "bare bones" products or even DLC.

And about the calling home thing; I believe you should direct your argument towards Ubisoft and DRM.

I was just saying you where fixated completely on it to the exclusion of everything else. As in all the points I made where about various aspects of various different DLC, and DRM schemes (which this one in a long line of many) especially DLC as a tactic to sale new.

That said, you would have to be crazy to think this is just about multiplayer. That's just what they choose to leave out of this game. These tactics of leaving things out of copies to milk more money out of people is a crock because it really all leads up to one thing. Publishers having complete control of what, when, and how you play. They can remove advertised features, charge your per play, whatever they want. That's the future people are worried about as people become more and more comfortable with the idea "It's their product they can do what they want, and if you don't like it don't play it" I mean sure thoughts like that work great when it's your neighbour or someone on the same playing field with you.

 

[Mr. In-between]

Who wants to play their shitty game anyway? I think the last semi-entertaining game that THQ made was WWF No Mercy for the N64 and even then, it was only marginally entertaining when you and 3 friends would create your own characters.

THQ can blow me.

 

[SniperWolf427]

I'm sorry? The entire issue is regarding multiplayer authentication codes, so I really don't see how it would be unreasonable for me to bring up multiplayer in my argument.

Regardless of that, I don't even see why you care if you don't like multiplayer. As of right now, this doesn't affect you, nor does it have anything to do with "bare bones" products or even DLC.

And about the calling home thing; I believe you should direct your argument towards Ubisoft and DRM.

I was just saying you where fixated completely on it to the exclusion of everything else. As in all the points I made where about various aspects of various different DLC, and DRM schemes (which this one in a long line of many) especially DLC as a tactic to sale new.

That said, you would have to be crazy to think this is just about multiplayer. That's just what they choose to leave out of this game. These tactics of leaving things out of copies to milk more money out of people is a crock because it really all leads up to one thing. Publishers having complete control of what, when, and how you play. They can remove advertised features, charge your per play, whatever they want. That's the future people are worried about as people become more and more comfortable with the idea "It's their product they can do what they want, and if you don't like it don't play it" I mean sure thoughts like that work great when it's your neighbour or someone on the same playing field with you.

Agreed, and that would be outrageous. However, right now it is nothing more than the developers wanting to get paid whenever people play their game. If one person buys it new and around thirty people buy it used, that's 60 dollars that the company sees, even though 31 people have played the game. This is a much better alternative to DRM or being entirely unable to purchase used games, wouldn't you agree?

Besides, it is five dollars. That's the cost of lunch for one day.

 

[jpoon]

Won't be buying this shitbag game, or anything from THQ for that matter. This is what greed will get you, a bunch of pissed off customers.

 

[manaman]

Agreed, and that would be outrageous. However, right now it is nothing more than the developers wanting to get paid whenever people play their game. If one person buys it new and around thirty people buy it used, that's 60 dollars that the company sees, even though 31 people have played the game. This is a much better alternative to DRM or being entirely unable to purchase used games, wouldn't you agree?

Besides, it is five dollars. That's the cost of lunch for one day.

I don't agree, why should games work differently then every other form of copyrighted media?

You don't think you should be sending a publisher $5 when you read that book from the library do you, or $5 when your friend loans you their set of Harry Potter books do you?

Software publishers, and most specifically game publishers are trying to change public perception on what is right and wrong for a buisness, they each in turn try news schemes to keep developers under their leash, and money rolling in from consumers. Rather then trying to change with the times, they are trying to change the times.

 

[SniperWolf427]

Agreed, and that would be outrageous. However, right now it is nothing more than the developers wanting to get paid whenever people play their game. If one person buys it new and around thirty people buy it used, that's 60 dollars that the company sees, even though 31 people have played the game. This is a much better alternative to DRM or being entirely unable to purchase used games, wouldn't you agree?

Besides, it is five dollars. That's the cost of lunch for one day.

I don't agree, why should games work differently then every other form of copyrighted media?

You don't think you should be sending a publisher $5 when you read that book from the library do you, or $5 when your friend loans you their set of Harry Potter books do you?

Software publishers, and most specifically game publishers are trying to change public perception on what is right and wrong for a buisness, they each in turn try news schemes to keep developers under their leash, and money rolling in from consumers. Rather then trying to change with the times, they are trying to change the times.

To poke fun at you for your earlier comments, I should say that I don't go to the library, and I fucking hate Harry Potter. But that would be inappropriate.

In all seriousness, I fail to see how this is that big of a deal. I don't know why everyone feels so self-entitled that they believe everything has to be a good fucking deal for them. Other people need to make livings, and I have no issue in contributing to this. You are looking at the "What ifs" of the scenario. The idea that this will develop into some sort of global conspiracy to destroy our consumerist rights.

I look at it as the devs trying to make five bucks off of the damned game that they made in the first place.

There are certainly much worse scams in the history of the world, and indeed, much worse goings on in the games industry in general.

 

[shadow skill]

Agreed, and that would be outrageous. However, right now it is nothing more than the developers wanting to get paid whenever people play their game. If one person buys it new and around thirty people buy it used, that's 60 dollars that the company sees, even though 31 people have played the game. This is a much better alternative to DRM or being entirely unable to purchase used games, wouldn't you agree?

Besides, it is five dollars. That's the cost of lunch for one day.

I don't agree, why should games work differently then every other form of copyrighted media?

You don't think you should be sending a publisher $5 when you read that book from the library do you, or $5 when your friend loans you their set of Harry Potter books do you?

Software publishers, and most specifically game publishers are trying to change public perception on what is right and wrong for a buisness, they each in turn try news schemes to keep developers under their leash, and money rolling in from consumers. Rather then trying to change with the times, they are trying to change the times.

To poke fun at you for your earlier comments, I should say that I don't go to the library, and I fucking hate Harry Potter. But that would be inappropriate.

In all seriousness, I fail to see how this is that big of a deal. I don't know why everyone feels so self-entitled that they believe everything has to be a good fucking deal for them. Other people need to make livings, and I have no issue in contributing to this. You are looking at the "What ifs" of the scenario. The idea that this will develop into some sort of global conspiracy to destroy our consumerist rights.

I look at it as the devs trying to make five bucks off of the damned game that they made in the first place.

There are certainly much worse scams in the history of the world, and indeed, much worse goings on in the games industry in general.

You know this whole mess started from the idea that piracy equaled lost sales. We already have seen a progression of this line of logic to used game sales. They already got paid for the game they made, what right do they have to be paid again? It's not as if they rendered a service unto the second person who bought the game.

 

[SniperWolf427]

Agreed, and that would be outrageous. However, right now it is nothing more than the developers wanting to get paid whenever people play their game. If one person buys it new and around thirty people buy it used, that's 60 dollars that the company sees, even though 31 people have played the game. This is a much better alternative to DRM or being entirely unable to purchase used games, wouldn't you agree?

Besides, it is five dollars. That's the cost of lunch for one day.

I don't agree, why should games work differently then every other form of copyrighted media?

You don't think you should be sending a publisher $5 when you read that book from the library do you, or $5 when your friend loans you their set of Harry Potter books do you?

Software publishers, and most specifically game publishers are trying to change public perception on what is right and wrong for a buisness, they each in turn try news schemes to keep developers under their leash, and money rolling in from consumers. Rather then trying to change with the times, they are trying to change the times.

To poke fun at you for your earlier comments, I should say that I don't go to the library, and I fucking hate Harry Potter. But that would be inappropriate.

In all seriousness, I fail to see how this is that big of a deal. I don't know why everyone feels so self-entitled that they believe everything has to be a good fucking deal for them. Other people need to make livings, and I have no issue in contributing to this. You are looking at the "What ifs" of the scenario. The idea that this will develop into some sort of global conspiracy to destroy our consumerist rights.

I look at it as the devs trying to make five bucks off of the damned game that they made in the first place.

There are certainly much worse scams in the history of the world, and indeed, much worse goings on in the games industry in general.

You know this whole mess started from the idea that piracy equaled lost sales. We already have seen a progression of this line of logic to used game sales. They already got paid for the game they made, what right do they have to be paid again? It's not as if they rendered a service unto the second person who bought the game.

Say you are a game studio. You sell your brand new game, Robot Zombie Stripper Palooza to one person, Steve, for the price of 60 dollars. Steve plays and enjoys your game and then sells it to his local Gamestop for 30 dollars not even two weeks later. Gamestop takes that game and puts it back on the shelf with a price tag of 55 dollars. Joe comes along, buys that game, and enjoys it as well. He takes it back two weeks after that. The game is still considered new, so Gamestop gives him 30 dollars as well and sells it for 55 more to Tim. Tim does the same thing two weeks later. You get the idea...

You, as the developer, have seen only 60 dollars from that. You got paid once, but at least two (usually even more) people have enjoyed your game. That is certainly not fair for you.

 

[Woe Is You]

And just like that, I love THQ more, and continue to look forward to their publishing of Saint's Row 3.

I... fail to see how this benefits the customer at all. I mean, the folks buying their games new won't be getting any carrots and anyone involved in the second hand business is basically getting pissed on.

You, as the developer, have seen only 60 dollars from that. You got paid once, but at least two (usually even more) people have enjoyed your game. That is certainly not fair for you.

Okay, let's go through the numbers and refute this notion that used games are bad for the industry.

A few quick metrics, first: Gamestop in recent filings (I think FY 08, but may have the year wrong; I'm certain it's within a back-of-envelope calculation) made a gross margin of about 27%. That is, For every dollar of revenue they take in through the till, they paid about $0.73 to whomever sold them the game. For a new game like Final Fantasy XIII, that's about 15%; for a used copy of the same game, they paid somewhere in the $25-30 range to sell at $54, and they bought back enough copies of Barbie Horse Adventures (that never sold) to reduce the total take from the used profits down a few points. If I were to show my work, the record would show that about half the chain's profits come from used games, but only one fourth of the chain's SALES come from used games. For every used game sold at the standard new game pricing point, THREE new games are sold at a figure 10% north of that mark.

All of this means that if used games went away, the new games market would, in a vacuum, gain no more than about 30-35% in sales. It simply CAN'T gain more from the market share of used games because, well, that pretty much reduces market share in used games to zero.

But there's more to it than that. When Gamestop or rivals give a gamer $25-30 in credit for their game, what does he do with that money? That's right, he BUYS MORE GAMES. And as we've seen, 75% of the time, those will be new games. Get rid of the used game market, and those sales are, at best, cut in half - because game churn lowered the cost of entry on new games to a used game plus $30, and not having the credit means that the gamer has to save up twice the cash to get his new game.

So now we're down to an upper bound of 15-18% gain in sales from the elimination of used product from the chain, and we haven't even touched on the most obvious problem from a developer's standpoint: the killing of the game store. Used sales keep game stores afloat. They provide half the revenue for a chain like Gamestop; get rid of it and they can keep the lights on or they can staff the store, but they can't do both. Before used games flooded the market, retailers enjoyed margins of 30% or more from distributors, but margins for retailers dropped as the pressure to hold the line on end pricing met higher costs from the studios. If gross margin drops to 15-18%, Gamestop will either diversify in a hurry or hemorrage.

Of course, XBox Live and PSN Store will help pick up the slack in game sales to a degree, but if Gamestop sees its margins cut in half and folds or even cuts back its videogaming profile in favor of a more meaty lineup of product, you're still going to see lessened visibility in thousands of locations translate into massive drops in sales. If Retailer A sells 5000 copies of a game and Retailer B sells 5000 copies of the same game, and Retailer B closes shop, Retailer A isn't going to sell 10000 copies of the game. They'll sell 8000 or fewer. I've opened stores; I've closed competitors. Smart.

So if you gain 15% of customers from killing used sales, but you hurt your distribution network to the degree that 20% fewer people purchase your product, what the hell have you accomplished?

 

[shadow skill]

And just like that, I love THQ more, and continue to look forward to their publishing of Saint's Row 3.

I... fail to see how this benefits the customer at all. I mean, the folks buying their games new won't be getting any carrots and anyone involved in the second hand business is basically getting pissed on.

You, as the developer, have seen only 60 dollars from that. You got paid once, but at least two (usually even more) people have enjoyed your game. That is certainly not fair for you.

Okay, let's go through the numbers and refute this notion that used games are bad for the industry.

A few quick metrics, first: Gamestop in recent filings (I think FY 08, but may have the year wrong; I'm certain it's within a back-of-envelope calculation) made a gross margin of about 27%. That is, For every dollar of revenue they take in through the till, they paid about $0.73 to whomever sold them the game. For a new game like Final Fantasy XIII, that's about 15%; for a used copy of the same game, they paid somewhere in the $25-30 range to sell at $54, and they bought back enough copies of Barbie Horse Adventures (that never sold) to reduce the total take from the used profits down a few points. If I were to show my work, the record would show that about half the chain's profits come from used games, but only one fourth of the chain's SALES come from used games. For every used game sold at the standard new game pricing point, THREE new games are sold at a figure 10% north of that mark.

All of this means that if used games went away, the new games market would, in a vacuum, gain no more than about 30-35% in sales. It simply CAN'T gain more from the market share of used games because, well, that pretty much reduces market share in used games to zero.

But there's more to it than that. When Gamestop or rivals give a gamer $25-30 in credit for their game, what does he do with that money? That's right, he BUYS MORE GAMES. And as we've seen, 75% of the time, those will be new games. Get rid of the used game market, and those sales are, at best, cut in half - because game churn lowered the cost of entry on new games to a used game plus $30, and not having the credit means that the gamer has to save up twice the cash to get his new game.

So now we're down to an upper bound of 15-18% gain in sales from the elimination of used product from the chain, and we haven't even touched on the most obvious problem from a developer's standpoint: the killing of the game store. Used sales keep game stores afloat. They provide half the revenue for a chain like Gamestop; get rid of it and they can keep the lights on or they can staff the store, but they can't do both. Before used games flooded the market, retailers enjoyed margins of 30% or more from distributors, but margins for retailers dropped as the pressure to hold the line on end pricing met higher costs from the studios. If gross margin drops to 15-18%, Gamestop will either diversify in a hurry or hemorrage.

Of course, XBox Live and PSN Store will help pick up the slack in game sales to a degree, but if Gamestop sees its margins cut in half and folds or even cuts back its videogaming profile in favor of a more meaty lineup of product, you're still going to see lessened visibility in thousands of locations translate into massive drops in sales. If Retailer A sells 5000 copies of a game and Retailer B sells 5000 copies of the same game, and Retailer B closes shop, Retailer A isn't going to sell 10000 copies of the game. They'll sell 8000 or fewer. I've opened stores; I've closed competitors. Eyeballs still move product. Especially yours, Andrew Oliver. Ain't nobody picking up ARE YOU SMARTER THAN A FIFTH GRADER at midnight release parties.

So if you gain 15% of customers from killing used sales, but you hurt your distribution network to the degree that 20% fewer people purchase your product, what the hell have you accomplished?

You have accomplished fuck all because you have caused a massive market contraction. ^_^