disolitude said:
Not true. When a used games is traded in, it takes a potential sale away from a new game. You can have an endless cycle of users trading used games for other used games and only gamespot making money in the process. Also you can trade games at Best Buy and buy a TV for example. I've done it... |
I assume you mean GameStop 
Anyway, depends on the consumer segment you're looking at. Those with low annual income are more likely to buy used and only used, but that doesn't mean they'd buy a significant number of new titles if they had the choice. More likely they'd find a cheaper alternative or turn to piracy to get their games.
People that buy both however (mid-income), are more likely to buy a used game if it's a relative unknown (e.g. new IP or poor marketing campaign). It's cheaper and reduces the risk for the customer. If that customer likes that game they're more likely to purchase other titles from the franchise/developer as well as DLC for the game itself. It's the same logic that's used for Steam sales. Some people may only buy games when they're on a Steam sale but many others get sucked into franchises and become long-term customers.
As badgenome says, there's also those that trade back games so they can purchase new releases which further fuels sales for publishers.
Also, some of those with lower income are younger gamers (e.g. students) that in in a few years time will have a significant pool of dispoable cash. If you've sucked them into franchises via used games, when they have the cash they're more likely to purchase the next iteration new.
Blaming used games is simply an easy target for the industry's own inadequacies and is short-term thinking. If you need to blame the used market then you need to look at your business model as it's obviously flawed.
