By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
theprof00 on 31 January 2012
Edit Thread
RolStoppable said:
theprof00 said:

Because you're saying that people buy new and sell their games a week later. That isn't true on a large scale, especially not for the demographic you're specifically referring to (value conscious), because they are completely wasting money. That means, your logic doesn't add up. You show me one person who buys new and then trades it in for any reason within a week, and I'll show you someone who is completely NOT in the value conscious market.

You're right, they wouldn't give 12-17 for a game that came out a week earlier, but then again, who in their right mind would do that? If they're so stripped for cash, they should be buying used and returning the game in a week for full refund.

Yes there is. But not 6B$+ worth of disappearing money.

1B$ annually. That money helps devs so much, am I right?

Thankfully, gaming is an addiction.

No, I am not saying that. I said I couldn't believe that even very recently released games would only be worth $12-17 for Gamestop.

Where does the $6 billion figure come from? I can't remember it being mentioned before.

This guesstimated $1 billion doesn't help developers directly, but it helps them regardless. With the used games market, gamers can afford to take risks in their purchases (because a $60 turd gets you at least $25 back which softens the blow) and have the ability to try out IPs they wouldn't have considered otherwise with the possibility that they become fans of the game and the developer. Like I said in my first post in this thread, without the used games market the big franchises would only get bigger while new IPs will be left to die. That isn't a healthy market.

6B$ is the currently valued 25B$ video game market extrapolated from being 26% of gamestop's annual revenue. Gamestop alone is 2.5B in revenue.

Yes, but in assuming that we are talking about very recently released games, you make two assumptions:

a) the game was purchased "new"
b) the game completely warrants a near immediate return.

According to cognitive dissonance, paying more for a game makes you appreciate it more and critique it less harshly.
Plus, your entire argument is rather stiffly balanced on the market remaining exactly the same as it is now, without compensation for the loss of the used market, like more demos, smaller budgets, more creativity, better income for devs.