Used Game Sales "Killing" Single Player Titles
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Blade is, of course, correct. There's no guarantee that prices would go down.Blade_125 said:
However, given that the second hand market does cause there to be less revenue from any given title, it is also certainly the case that titles that were considered marginal, but worth gambling upon, are now viewed as no longer worth gambling upon.
Funding games is not an act of charity. If you want publishers to take risks, then they must be making a lot of money with other titles. Same way with books. If publishers don't make a lot of money with the occasional best-sellers, they won't be able to publish the 90% of books that aren't guaranteed best-sellers.
So Greg's article is partially correct.
However, it may well be that being able to purchase AAA games at used prices is a lot more important to many players than the existence of a large number of second or third tier experimental titles. That's up to the player.
Certainly for a lot of readers, it's a lot more important that they can get current best-sellers as ultra-cheap e-books than whether there's a viable publishing model to allow new writers to get published over the next decade.
Games CANT be released on lower prices on DD.Tenbob said:
If a publisher does that retailers refuse to stock it, see? the problems games could be released on digital downloads for much lower prices but they cant because of gamestop.
So gamestop
1:forces people to buy used.
2:keeps DD prices higher than they should be.
Well, that's, I mean, obviously, that's because of piracy I mean that's every reason behind a PC problem right?Mr. Omega said:
They're not greedy, their protecting themselves from those damn, dubious pirates!
You smells that smells kids? Take a DEEP smell there, that smell, is pure, 100% organic BULLSHIT at it's finest.
..They do? When I worked in GAME, we stocked both new and old games (granted, this was five years ago), and I remember being able to buy re-used games back in 94'rolfwesselius said:
I find it sad that every time this particular piece of bait is dangled before all the fishies, all the fishies clamour for a bite of the hook.
Even though they know that the hook is there, they still bite the bait and wriggle furiously once caught.
Even though they know that the hook is there, they still bite the bait and wriggle furiously once caught.
Shush, you're talking sense and presenting facts.Kwil said:
That is like to upset a lot of people who make it their hobby to complain and wave around their self-entitlement.
As much as I'd love the idea of 100% digital distribution for consoles (I fully embraced it on PC long ago, without ever looking back), the problem with consoles and their market is that many people still prefer their physical copies of their games, heck, even some PC gamers (a minority mind you) still prefer to hold their filthy mitts on some physical copy of the game.Ralen-Sharr said:
Also, many console gamers don't have their consoles connected to the internet 24/7 like a normal PC user, also, they'd need a bigger harddrive standard to hold as many of their beloved games as they can.
As much as I'd love to embrace the idea of digital distribution on consoles, there's still a long way to see that happen sometime.
Ignorant perspective that does not respect economics is ignorant. The ability to resell a game ADDS VALUE to it, thus increasing the likelihood of an initial purchase in the first place. Not having the ability to resell the game means less value, which in turn makes the consumer less likely to purchase the game in the first place. Perhaps these industry types are frustrated by the difficulty of making a hit game, but then, one can always blame their customers. That worked for the music industry, right? Oh wait, it didn't. As much as gamers have a sense of entitlement, so too do developers it seems.
I see a good load of side-taking on this one for sure. On the one hand we have an industry that feels hamstrung by gaining zero resale revenue, on the other we have people who simply do not have the money to buy new and have to wait months for the used price to drop more than 10 dollars.
I would like to add another side to this discussion, it is sort of my side. I buy games, new or used for my own personal enjoyment (like we all do), however, I almost never sell off my older games. I am an old bastard in the gamerworld and I like to keep shelfs of my conquests, from NES to current.
What I am asking here is, where do I fit in this economical discussion, I don't sell off my games thereby giving no chance for resale, but at the very same time I feel I have to save and scrimp here and there just to afford a DS game (usually 20-30 dollars) let alone a console game almost double the cost.
I also have to point out that because Gamestop and other places track which games get good reception and which games are dead in the water and price the used games as such. Fatal Frame (PS2) and its sequals are STILL $30 at Gamestop, because they are pretty good games. So what disturbs me is sometimes the difference between new and used after months of waiting can still be only $10, which I admit, makes buying a new game enticing because I know for sure it hasn't been handled violently.
I would like to add another side to this discussion, it is sort of my side. I buy games, new or used for my own personal enjoyment (like we all do), however, I almost never sell off my older games. I am an old bastard in the gamerworld and I like to keep shelfs of my conquests, from NES to current.
What I am asking here is, where do I fit in this economical discussion, I don't sell off my games thereby giving no chance for resale, but at the very same time I feel I have to save and scrimp here and there just to afford a DS game (usually 20-30 dollars) let alone a console game almost double the cost.
I also have to point out that because Gamestop and other places track which games get good reception and which games are dead in the water and price the used games as such. Fatal Frame (PS2) and its sequals are STILL $30 at Gamestop, because they are pretty good games. So what disturbs me is sometimes the difference between new and used after months of waiting can still be only $10, which I admit, makes buying a new game enticing because I know for sure it hasn't been handled violently.
Simple advice. It's just too bad that wouldn't do anything to solve the problem.RoseArch said:
Right now the big issue is that a game retails for $60ish and then GameStop sells the used copy for $55 ish. Let's just say that games start retailing for $40. Awesome, right? Except now GameStop, and those using their pricing model (which is pretty much everyone that sells used games), will just sell their used copies for $35. More new copies might be sold overall, sure, but the core problem remains the same. Far too many people choose to pay the barely lower price instead of the full price they could easily afford and GameStop makes the lions share of the money over repeat transactions.
I don't know that I agree at all with what the article says. Games have an established market value that has already largely gone down in price over the years as a whole. The game companies making more money, rightfully or not, isn't going to mean that any prices will be lowered because $60 will still be the market value of a game.
I do, however, see where their math is coming from. Sell 5 copies of a game at $60 and get full profit on each copy, or sell 1 copy and have GameStop sell the other 4 for barely less than retail price and have them pocket the revenue. Not counting the actual behind the scenes numbers and just looking at the totals it's blatantly obvious. Game company makes $3oo or Game company makes $60 and GameStop makes $220 (4 x $55).
Anywho, as for those claiming digital distribution will solve everything, I'm afraid that's not really the case. It would kill the used game market, but selling something online doesn't guarantee any prices will drop at all. Once again, market value is market value. Also, for those who live in places like Canada, where internet usage is soft capped with harsh penalties for going over your monthly alotment, I would imagine forced DD would actually mean less games get purchased as opposed to more.
It worked like this in the nes daysRealitycrash said:
(not real sales numbers)
1:retailer purchases 1000 copies.
2:retailer sells all games stock.
3:buys another 1000 copies.
Rince and repeat until demand drops.
How it works today.
1:Gamestop buys 1000 copies.
2:Gamestop sells all copies.
3:Gamestop buys back almost all the new copies
4:Gamestop runs out of new copies and keeps selling the used copies.
They Kept those 1000 in circulation and when those sell out they refuse to buy any new copies so when you come in for a copy the only copies they have are used copies.
Fine, so you are saying that games today have far less replay value than they used, is that right? For I never traded my games in, back in the NES-Days, and I sure as hell don't trade them in now either. Almost all games I want to keep in my library. I understand that people DO trade them in, but every single fucking one of them? Really?rolfwesselius said:
