WHY are used video games bad?

[Woodsey]

Greedy?

If people were using my product, of course I would hope that I actually saw the money from each person using it. That's not greedy, that's called wanting to be paid what you are owed.

Just as a matter of interest,
How would you relate this to other used goods sales in entertainment?

Like books for example. I buy a book, maybe even from a USED books store, and then I sell that to a friend, who gives it to another person, who maybe sells it from their garage.
Several people are experiencing the work, it was only retail purchased once.

The only PROBLEM with used-game sales (aside from aforementioned greed) is that retailers are the ones who do the used game selling. Meaning they're only selling what they would have anyway, but don't have to pay developers.
Which of course, SHOULD be illegal.

Well again, obviously you'd want people to buy new copies. I wasn't arguing against second-hand sales, just against the notion that developers are greedy for wanting to see the money from the work they've done. Just because its been done for a long time with books doesn't mean publishers or writers are overly happy about it.

 

[Valdus]

So what if they make no money fron 2nd hand products? Boo hoo, very few companies make money out of 2nd hand products. Considering that games are pretty goddam expensive and that we're already being charged in others ways (DLC content already on the disk anyone?) I think they can afford to miss out.

I think this is the reason why so many developers are moving to subscription based games (Like MMORPGs) and digital downloads - because it keeps them in control of the games. They like the idea that they can take our games at any time and not be able to lend them to friends or sell the older copies to someone who might actually enjoy the damm thing. They're just trying to exploit us plain and simple.

I don't know about you but I've never bought a DVD I could only play on 3 DVD players then be unable to play it on any others. I've never bought a book with several chapters missing that I have to pay extra to get. I've never bought a T.V that I have to pay extra for if multiple people in my house want to watch it.

And what's more I've never bought any of these things then watched their manufacturer's whine like little children when I sell them second hand. Do they not even see the advantages this can offer?

My first FF game was a 2nd hand copy of FF7 - I bought all newer FF games up to 10-2 as soon as they came out because I got hooked on the series. I can honestly say I wouldn't have bothered if I hadn't been hooked by FF7 (something which is worth noting since more and more of the unimaginative dolts in charge seem to think that the only good IP is reused IP). What's more 2nd hand games tend to be lower quality due to scratches on the disk or other problems. Do you know what happens if these problems cause a good game to become unplayable? Whenever it happens to me I tend to buy a newer copy in hopes that it will work better. It only takes one little piece of gameplay or one cutscene to go wrong before the game can't be played - and if the game is any good you're not going to just want to leave it.

But no, forget any advantages you may have by doing that. Let's forget that you sell a product made for entertainment that could be passed around just as easily as other forms of entertainment. Let's forget that you aren't special little snowflakes and are in fact made of the same shit as everyone else and lets instead whine like little babies when the harsh reality of the buissness world bites you in the ass.

You want to make money Mike West? How about you get off your ass, do some goddam work and actually earn some money from it. Newsflash game developers - if you make a good product it sells, if you make a bad one it does not - quite acting like bad reviews, 2nd hand sales or piracy are actually making a recognizable dent in your cocaine piles.

[/rant]

 

[Timmibal]

Oh god... So many fallacies... Let's just grab the closest one to hand.

No they don't. Let's say a developer creates 100 copies of a game, and sells it for $10 each. If they sell all 100 copies, they have $1,000, and there are 100 players playing the game.

Now, let's say that someone decides they're through with the game. They've gotten all they can out of it, and don't want to play it anymore. Now, the developer still has their $1,000, but there are only 99 people actually playing the game.

Now, let's say that that person decides to sell it to a used game store. The store now has that used copy of the game, the developer still has $1,000 and there are only 99 people playing the game.

Now, someone buys the game from the used store. The developer has their same $1,000, and there are again 100 people playing the game.

At no time did the developer lose any money, either from money being taken from them, or from more than the original number of copies being in service. In no other industry do you hear anything even remotely like this. Ford doesn't whine because someone bought one of their cars used. You don't see clothing manufacturers picketing outside Goodwill because they're selling used clothes. Virtually every item that is sold that isn't consumed or destroyed has some form of way to recycle them to let others use them once the original owners are done with them. Why should games be so special?

Except that's not what happens. 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. You can return CDs and DVDs to the retailer, but when was the last time you saw a music store encourage you to do so, let alone LET you do so without a whole mess of T&Cs? Used CD and DVD stores exist, but isn't their primary market niche imports and out of stock products?

And books are a blatant falliacy. The author is usually given an advance against the first printing of future sales of his/her book. They've made their money before the books even hit the shelves. The risk is entirely on the shoulders of the publishing house.

(NB. Obviously the figures are exaggerated for effect. Don't be a dick on the maths.)

 

[TelHybrid]

Maybe developers and publishers want the money for the product they made, rather than some cheap shit saving about £3 buying a used copy of a game launched very few days ago, and sending all of the money to the retailer. Just a thought.

Oh boo fucking hoo, they charge £40 for their games, they make more than enough money. Perhaps if their games weren't so expensive, people wouldn't HAVE to buy them pre-owned.

When games are £40 new in store, it's usually only £3-5 less to get it used, and none of the money made from a used sale goes to the publishers and developers, you know, the people responsible for the game... perhaps they'd like some money for the product they make?

As for the price, games are more expensive to make these days. They're more complex, they require more time and better tech, all of these resources cost money. Guess what, games still are the same price they were back in the 90s. I remember seeing Super Mario 64 being sold for £50. My Copy of Clay Fighter 63 1/3 still has the £49.99 price sticker.

Maybe games wouldn't be £40 if more people bought new and didn't decide to save a sodding measly £3 and buy used.

 

[jowo96]

It's cuts into the developers potential profits considerably if people are buying second hand because the money from the second hand sale obviously does not go to them

There's not one bit of evidence that supports if you take away the second hand market, the developer's profits would increase.

No, but it's common sense, if there is a cheaper way to get any product customers will always be inclined to go with the cheapest option, that's the second hand market.
But that is irrelevant seeing as there is nothing much developers can do against the second hand trade besides digital distribution and DLC. DRM is a possibility but it's often ineffective and/ or restrictive to the customers freedom of use.

 

[Gindil]

It's cuts into the developers potential profits considerably if people are buying second hand because the money from the second hand sale obviously does not go to them

There's not one bit of evidence that supports if you take away the second hand market, the developer's profits would increase.

No, but it's common sense, if there is a cheaper way to get any product customers will always be inclined to go with the cheapest option, that's the second hand market.
But that is irrelevant seeing as there is nothing much developers can do against the second hand trade besides digital distribution and DLC. DRM is a possibility but it's often ineffective and/ or restrictive to the customers freedom of use.

No, that seems to confuse a number of variables. Competition of time, competition of product, cheaper alternatives (in this case, kongregate or newgrounds), along with various other incentives to first buyers can assist in a number of areas to keep profits with original developers. Further, there's more evidence that people are 50% more likely to go to the original developers before turning to piracy. In almost all cases, piracy can be turned away if the price is cheaper than what someone forecasts. The value of the game isn't directly related to the price.

 

[Wintermoot]

if you buy used games 100% of the money goes to the store whilst on a new sell around 50-60% (don,t know the real percentage) to the developer.
personally I would like to see all new releases on steam but we don,t live in a perfect world.

 

[Netrigan]

Don't worry, it's only developers(publishers) looking to fish more cash out of your pockets.

A whole $5 more... the greedy bastards.

If used games were a lot more affordable, I'd buy more of them. But if given the choice between a $60 new game that will almost surely work or a $55 game which I might have to return as defective.... $60 game every time.

Only time I buy used is when it's the only copy available.

Seems to me that the most attractive part of the Used Game market is the selling. Lots of people seem to turn those $60 games into bargain games by re-selling them as quickly as possible. It becomes the most affordable way of playing new releases on Day One.

 

[jowo96]

It's cuts into the developers potential profits considerably if people are buying second hand because the money from the second hand sale obviously does not go to them

There's not one bit of evidence that supports if you take away the second hand market, the developer's profits would increase.

No, but it's common sense, if there is a cheaper way to get any product customers will always be inclined to go with the cheapest option, that's the second hand market.
But that is irrelevant seeing as there is nothing much developers can do against the second hand trade besides digital distribution and DLC. DRM is a possibility but it's often ineffective and/ or restrictive to the customers freedom of use.

No, that seems to confuse a number of variables. Competition of time, competition of product, cheaper alternatives (in this case, kongregate or newgrounds), along with various other incentives to first buyers can assist in a number of areas to keep profits with original developers. Further, there's more evidence that people are 50% more likely to go to the original developers before turning to piracy. In almost all cases, piracy can be turned away if the price is cheaper than what someone forecasts. The value of the game isn't directly related to the price.

If there are no second hand sales then the potential customers would then only have the original copy as a legal option so this will affect profits, the extent to which the profits are affected will obviously change from game to game, but the fact of the matter is that there will be an effect on the profits regardless of how much and that is why developers are not fond of second hand purchasing while other factors are present the other factors are not the subject of discussion.

O.T. I'm not sure I would agree that it's a bigger problem than piracy but there's certainly more that can be done to combat it than with piracy

 

[Rienimportant]

It's not the consumer's job to support the industry. It's the consumer's job to get as much as he can for as little as possible.

I can't afford to pay for all the games I want at full price, and if there was no used market, I probably wouldn't buy at all. However, there is a used market, and it's a legitimate industry on its own. The reason the developers hate it is because they can't get the money from it.

Wait so you're not supposed to support the industry which creates the "legitimate industry" of the used market? Yeah sure it's legitimate. It's your game, you paid for it, do whatever the fuck you want with it. But if the dev's stop making new games because everyone only buys used because they don't want to pay full price, or they'd have to cut back on how many games they buy if they paid full price, there goes your used games market. It'll stagnate, no new titles, only resale of old games, and over-entitled gamers will continue to ***** about how there are no new titles for them to play. Yeah you should look for deal prices, ways to economize your spending. But you can't expect the industry to make anything new if you won't FUCKING PAY FOR IT. (Apologies for the caps and swearing up there)

I don't have a problem with your last part about it being your property, you can do what you want. So I removed it to make the post less page-filling quotey.

 

[GothmogII]

It's not the consumer's job to support the industry. It's the consumer's job to get as much as he can for as little as possible.

I can't afford to pay for all the games I want at full price, and if there was no used market, I probably wouldn't buy at all. However, there is a used market, and it's a legitimate industry on its own. The reason the developers hate it is because they can't get the money from it.

Wait so you're not supposed to support the industry which creates the "legitimate industry" of the used market? Yeah sure it's legitimate. It's your game, you paid for it, do whatever the fuck you want with it. But if the dev's stop making new games because everyone only buys used because they don't want to pay full price, or they'd have to cut back on how many games they buy if they paid full price, there goes your used games market. It'll stagnate, no new titles, only resale of old games, and over-entitled gamers will continue to ***** about how there are no new titles for them to play. Yeah you should look for deal prices, ways to economize your spending. But you can't expect the industry to make anything new if you won't FUCKING PAY FOR IT. (Apologies for the caps and swearing up there)

I don't have a problem with your last part about it being your property, you can do what you want. So I removed it to make the post less page-filling quotey.

Has it been mentioned yet that that it is purely the fault of the publishers/developers themselves who did not have the foresight to set up conditions to ensure that they would receive a cut of the sales made off of used games?

For one thing, I'm only vaguely aware of how game stores purchase their stock, but it usually follows like this:

Game Store purchases product from seller (i.e. manufacturer/publisher/developer, whomever is handling this). This means, at that point the good is ALREADY PAID FOR ONCE

Meaning the the developer etc. has already been paid for their efforts.

The contention here though, is that while the dev/publisher is getting paid once, the Retailer (game store) is getting almost twice (or more in many cases) this in return via used sales.

The dev/publisher is not some noble creative genius seeking only to get what they're due, they want to get paid twice too, can't really blame them, who wouldn't? But desiring so puts them on exactly the same level as those awful greedy retailers.

That notion that they'd have to 'cut-back' and not make as many games is pure bull too. As I've said, they've already been paid, now they want their seconds.

 

[Stammer]

You can change it up a bit. Imagine if no one but one person watched TV. TV'd be dead. :3

Imagine if only one person bought music and everyone else just ignored music. Singer's/Bands would be screwed.


I can keep going on, but in the end, your arguement hinges on an unrealistic situation. Last time I checked, people are still buying games. Wouldn't be a 'used game' market if people weren't buying games in the first place.



Not to mention, if only one person bought games and others bought used, there wouldn't be a used game market. There'd be the one guy who bought the game, saling it to someone, who when they were done would then need to sale it to keep this 'used game' buying going.


So, enebidbly, people would forgoe gaming for the rare chance to get a discount on a game that's probably dysfunctional from how many people it got passed on from.

That's actually not even close to what I was saying. I was saying that if one person bought the game new, and he took it back, someone bought that copy used, and he took it back, and so on, there could be 100 people buying and playing the game, but the developers only see return on ONE of those games.

If 50% of the people who buy games buy used, then the developing companies only see 50% (or maybe a little more than) of the profit they would otherwise make. And when you're talking about in the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars, that 50% is a HUGE deal.

If it took you $500,000 to produce a game and you sold $400,000 worth of copies, you'd be out $100,000, and would be pretty pissed to realize that half of your games sold were sold used so you could have made $800,000 off of it and seen a profit of $300,000.

 

[apollo278]

I think even new game sales have no benifit for developers after the first few weeks. Say gamestop buys 100 copies of portal 2. They sell all these copies in the first 3 days so they order 75 more. These copies sell out in 6 days so gamestop buys 50 more because they are still selling quickly. They sell 35 in the next 3 weeks and the rest have their prices reduced because no one is buying them anymore. Eventaully they finnaly sell all their copies of portal 2 but they do not order anymore becuase no one will buy them. So those last 50 copies do not benifit the delelopers because they do not cause gamestop to order anymore copies of portal 2.

This also makes think used games are not that bad too because developers make most of their money at launch before there are even any used games. Even if you get rid of used games most of the that would buy them would wait for the prices of the new ones to be lowered which will not make the developers any money. Also gamestop is not going to buy extra copies to sell to people that want to pay less because once the price drops to 50 dollars gamestop is actually losing money on those games.
Also here is a link to a video about used games.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqNRBm0szc4&feature=mh_lolz&list=LLWw_p0MGZ9TI

 

[StarCecil]

It's not the consumer's job to support the industry. It's the consumer's job to get as much as he can for as little as possible.

I can't afford to pay for all the games I want at full price, and if there was no used market, I probably wouldn't buy at all. However, there is a used market, and it's a legitimate industry on its own. The reason the developers hate it is because they can't get the money from it.

Wait so you're not supposed to support the industry which creates the "legitimate industry" of the used market? Yeah sure it's legitimate. It's your game, you paid for it, do whatever the fuck you want with it. But if the dev's stop making new games because everyone only buys used because they don't want to pay full price, or they'd have to cut back on how many games they buy if they paid full price, there goes your used games market. It'll stagnate, no new titles, only resale of old games, and over-entitled gamers will continue to ***** about how there are no new titles for them to play. Yeah you should look for deal prices, ways to economize your spending. But you can't expect the industry to make anything new if you won't FUCKING PAY FOR IT. (Apologies for the caps and swearing up there)

I don't have a problem with your last part about it being your property, you can do what you want. So I removed it to make the post less page-filling quotey.

You're completely missing the point. It isn't my duty as a consumer to support the developers, per se. It's my duty to get what I want, how I want it, for as little as possible. That's why used games are as popular as they are: you get what you want, how you want, for much less than any other legal avenue.

The developer's job is to make a profit. The best way to do that, is to provide the consumer with a product they find valuable enough to buy. Shoes, cars, TVs, movies and games all fall under that umbrella, with variations between the industries.

We've reached a point where the consumers are challenging the value of the product being produced at the pricing its being offered.

If the developers want to cut out used game sales, they have to increase the value of a new product. Offering free DLC is one way (though debatable), locking out certain features is another (though again, debatable).

But, at the end of the day, when I spend my money I'm not doing it to explicitly support and industry - and neither are you. I'm spending it on a product I want. Gamestop has just figured out how to provide that product in a manner I find to be preferable to the developer.

 

[boag]

It's not the consumer's job to support the industry. It's the consumer's job to get as much as he can for as little as possible.

I can't afford to pay for all the games I want at full price, and if there was no used market, I probably wouldn't buy at all. However, there is a used market, and it's a legitimate industry on its own. The reason the developers hate it is because they can't get the money from it.

Wait so you're not supposed to support the industry which creates the "legitimate industry" of the used market? Yeah sure it's legitimate. It's your game, you paid for it, do whatever the fuck you want with it. But if the dev's stop making new games because everyone only buys used because they don't want to pay full price, or they'd have to cut back on how many games they buy if they paid full price, there goes your used games market. It'll stagnate, no new titles, only resale of old games, and over-entitled gamers will continue to ***** about how there are no new titles for them to play. Yeah you should look for deal prices, ways to economize your spending. But you can't expect the industry to make anything new if you won't FUCKING PAY FOR IT. (Apologies for the caps and swearing up there)

I don't have a problem with your last part about it being your property, you can do what you want. So I removed it to make the post less page-filling quotey.

Has it been mentioned yet that that it is purely the fault of the publishers/developers themselves who did not have the foresight to set up conditions to ensure that they would receive a cut of the sales made off of used games?

For one thing, I'm only vaguely aware of how game stores purchase their stock, but it usually follows like this:

Game Store purchases product from seller (i.e. manufacturer/publisher/developer, whomever is handling this). This means, at that point the good is ALREADY PAID FOR ONCE

Meaning the the developer etc. has already been paid for their efforts.

The contention here though, is that while the dev/publisher is getting paid once, the Retailer (game store) is getting almost twice (or more in many cases) this in return via used sales.

The dev/publisher is not some noble creative genius seeking only to get what they're due, they want to get paid twice too, can't really blame them, who wouldn't? But desiring so puts them on exactly the same level as those awful greedy retailers.

That notion that they'd have to 'cut-back' and not make as many games is pure bull too. As I've said, they've already been paid, now they want their seconds.

Agreed, Think about it from the retailers perspective as well.

If the developers and distributors sell a shitty but overly hyper game to retailers, the retailers will tend to lose money if they are stuck with the excess stock of shitty games.

 

[Timmibal]

Has it been mentioned yet that that it is purely the fault of the publishers/developers themselves who did not have the foresight to set up conditions to ensure that they would receive a cut of the sales made off of used games?

For one thing, I'm only vaguely aware of how game stores purchase their stock, but it usually follows like this:

Game Store purchases product from seller (i.e. manufacturer/publisher/developer, whomever is handling this). This means, at that point the good is ALREADY PAID FOR ONCE

Meaning the the developer etc. has already been paid for their efforts.

The contention here though, is that while the dev/publisher is getting paid once, the Retailer (game store) is getting almost twice (or more in many cases) this in return via used sales.

The dev/publisher is not some noble creative genius seeking only to get what they're due, they want to get paid twice too, can't really blame them, who wouldn't? But desiring so puts them on exactly the same level as those awful greedy retailers.

That notion that they'd have to 'cut-back' and not make as many games is pure bull too. As I've said, they've already been paid, now they want their seconds.

Agreed, Think about it from the retailers perspective as well.

If the developers and distributors sell a shitty but overly hyper game to retailers, the retailers will tend to lose money if they are stuck with the excess stock of shitty games.

Sorry guys, incorrect. The publishers, and by extension the developers are only paid CONDITIONALLY on releases. As I said before, the retailer retains the right to RETURN bulk stock to the publisher as credit against future releases. Because retailers artificially inflate their stock level by actively encouraging trade-ins of popular titles, and then encourage used sales over new at the till (See WhistleBlowerZero's rant on youtube for gamespot's ridiculous policy on used games) the publisher then has to account in its future shipments for the credit already owed to these retailers. This means less money to the publisher, which often means the developers percentage of their future titles is affected also.

Let's see that again. The retailer aggressively attempts to create the 'hyped game' stock situation boag outlined in order to maximize the profits made on SOMEONE ELSE'S IP. This isn't publishers and developers double dipping, this is them attempting to get their fair share in the first place! I agree with the right of the customer to do what they like with property they have legitimately purchased, but this is not about a person gifting a game to someone else, or selling on their old titles on e-bay or similar. This is a case of Retailers parasitically abusing your rights for their own bottom line, I would say to the eventual detriment of all.

 

[Frotality]

eh...developers want more money of course, but sellers of used games do also abuse the system in ways that leave the devs with less money than they should get. the problem isnt buying used games, you buy all the used games you want; the problem is manipulative business practices regarding used games. id imagine said practices arent something that devs/publishers can do anything about directly, so they try to discourage used sells from us the rightful consumer instead.

kind of a vicious cycle thing going on.

 

[kayisking]

I think this calls for a song: <youtube=WCkOmcIl79s>

As always, it's about cold, hard cash.

 

[cryofpaine]

Oh god... So many fallacies... Let's just grab the closest one to hand.

No they don't. Let's say a developer creates 100 copies of a game, and sells it for $10 each. If they sell all 100 copies, they have $1,000, and there are 100 players playing the game.

Now, let's say that someone decides they're through with the game. They've gotten all they can out of it, and don't want to play it anymore. Now, the developer still has their $1,000, but there are only 99 people actually playing the game.

Now, let's say that that person decides to sell it to a used game store. The store now has that used copy of the game, the developer still has $1,000 and there are only 99 people playing the game.

Now, someone buys the game from the used store. The developer has their same $1,000, and there are again 100 people playing the game.

At no time did the developer lose any money, either from money being taken from them, or from more than the original number of copies being in service. In no other industry do you hear anything even remotely like this. Ford doesn't whine because someone bought one of their cars used. You don't see clothing manufacturers picketing outside Goodwill because they're selling used clothes. Virtually every item that is sold that isn't consumed or destroyed has some form of way to recycle them to let others use them once the original owners are done with them. Why should games be so special?

Except that's not what happens. 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. You can return CDs and DVDs to the retailer, but when was the last time you saw a music store encourage you to do so, let alone LET you do so without a whole mess of T&Cs? Used CD and DVD stores exist, but isn't their primary market niche imports and out of stock products?

And books are a blatant falliacy. The author is usually given an advance against the first printing of future sales of his/her book. They've made their money before the books even hit the shelves. The risk is entirely on the shoulders of the publishing house.

(NB. Obviously the figures are exaggerated for effect. Don't be a dick on the maths.)

I'll grant you that. However, there's nothing that refutes my earlier point. Whether they sold their 1000000 copies because there was an active used game market, or because prople thought it was too expensive, there are still 1000000 copies currently being used, and they were paid for every one of them. Sure, maybe without the encouragment, fewer people would have traded it back, and more people would have bought it new. But i doubt it's a significant figure. How many people do you know that turn a game in after only a couple weeks? Unless the game was bad. But good luck trying to find a used Portal 2 right now. People usually keep their good games long enough that anyone who would have bought it at full price has already done so. And if competitively priced, a person will always go for new vs. used. No worries about scratches, missing instructions, etc. It's basic supply and demand. The stores can nudge it in their favor a little, but not much. You have four groups: those that are always willing to pay full price, those that will pay full price if there aren't better deals, those that only pay full price if there's no better offers, and those that never pay full price. 1 and 4 aren't impacted no matter what you do, and 2, 3, and 4 are restricted by the supply of used games. If there's enough people giving up their games that makes a big impact, it says they weren't good in the 1st place.

 

[Zac Smith]

Catch 22, Companys want your money, you want the game for as cheap as possible. The game developers and publishers don't recieve any money for the sale of used games, that goes to the retailers. Movie Bob did a whole episode on this in his Game Overthinker show, people should go check it out, quite insightfull.