Phoenix Arrow said:
First of all, you say games don't deserve any different treatment that films and book get... but that's the point. Who buys second hand films or books?
When I was younger, about half of my books were second-hand; buying new cost at least twice as much. Admittedly, I have never purchased a second-hand movie, but I've also purchased very few movies. I've never been into a video rental store that didn't have a rack of recent used movies and a box or more of older used movies.
Your appliance example is certainly more apt, since appliance resales are generally done through newspapers or the internet, rather than in brick-and-mortar stores; however, they do still occur.
Phoenix Arrow said:
The only thing that is bought second hand as much as video games is cars and if Mercedes sell a car, they'll get 100% of that money. Capcom would get 30%
You seem to not understand how this works, so I'll try and help. Mercedes designs, builds, and sells their cars; they own or rent every resources that goes into the process. Another way to look at this is that they take 100% of the risk, and receive 100% of the profit, which makes a whole lot of sense.
Let's look at the game development cycle. Do you know of many game developers who can afford to own or rent all of the resources that go into making a game? The answer is likely that you are aware of a couple that could afford it. The others go to a publisher and try to convince them that this project has merit, and if the publisher funds it they will make back what they put in. Now, the publisher can't JUST make back what it puts in, it has overhead, and it also funds games that will fail (not intentionally, but not every idea ends up being a good idea once fully realized). So the publisher agrees to fund their game, and sets the terms to which the developer must agree if they want the funding. The developer isn't getting ripped off, they are entering into a voluntary contract.
Let's jump forward to when the game is done and the discs are printed, and we need to distribute it. Most publishers don't actually own brick-and-mortar stores, and many don't even own digital distribution networks. So they need game retailers to attempt to sell their games. The retailer needs to pay for staff, so they take a cut of the revenue of selling the game.
You see, because different components of the products life cycle are owned/funded by different groups, each group takes a cut of the revenue of the sale, and hopes to turn a profit.
You may be shocked to hear this, but this model is actually very common. Writers can't afford to not have income for years while they write their book, so they approach publishers take a risk and pay them for their work. Publishers don't own book stores, so they ask the book stores to stock their books, and the book store pays employees. It's everywhere, and it's beautiful; individuals and corporations entering into voluntary contracts for mutual benefit.
Phoenix Arrow said:
As for acting like retailers are heroes for having the charity to buy back games at 10% of the price they sell it as preowned... you almost made a good point.
If the original customer trades in a game for money or store credit, it's more likely that they will buy a game in the future. I don't think retailers act like they have charity, it's a shrewd business decision.
Phoenix Arrow said:
Companies should buy back their own games and sell them on their website as preowned, that's not a bad idea. But noone would bother. Selling something to a retailer is just easier.
If the publisher offered a higher percentage of the original purchase price in credit/money, then people would be bothered. Let's take your 10% number, and assume the publisher offered 20% and to pay for shipping (let's say a sticker comes in every game they publish). The game's owner now has a strong incentive to make the minimal effort of wrapping up the game, slapping on the sticker, and dropping it in a mailbox. Publishers choose not to do this, possibly because they don't think they can't make money competing with retailers. Regardless, they do not offer the service and retailers do.
