| HappySqurriel said: It is possible that the person buying a used copy of the game might have bought it new if it wasn’t available used; but it is also possible that the person who sold it as a used copy wouldn’t have bought it if they couldn’t sell it. In other words, the the loss of sales from the used game market is hardly 1 to 1. Now the solution is to go in the direction that few/no companies are willing to and to encourage digital distribution by passing the savings onto the consumer. If you’re no longer paying the distribution and manufacturing costs, no longer paying for localized marketing, and you don’t need to cover the retailer mark-up you can easily afford to sell a game for (roughly) 1/2 price. With the reduction in cost the game seller no longer feels the need to recover spent money, the game buyer no longer feels the need to save money on a title, and they both would buy "new" copies of the game. |
Exactly... but what they seem to be doing is attempting a re-education of gamers to accept a decrease in their rights while keeping game prices unchanged. They do this via progressively more restrictive DRM (a few years ago you got unlimited installations, today you get 15 installs, in a year you get 5 installs, then 3, etc.).
They may not succeed entirely, but it's probably better for their profits than immediately doing it the way you proposed.
I for one do not agree with what they're doing, which is why, for example, I wouldn't buy a game on Steam at full price. I like Steam and its convenience, but this doesn't mean I'm willing to accept a non-resellable item for the same price. I do this as a matter of principle by the way, because I don't resell my games (or at least I haven't done so yet).
My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957
