By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - EA's Strategy to Counter Used Games Sales

Malachi on 27 February 2010

Kasz, the reason why most of the moron on this thread that see it as a good thing look at it by thinking about the buyer of used game, not the seller. What they fail to see(most likely due to advanced mental retardation) is that by screwing the used game market they are actually screwing the seller(the consumer who buy new) not the buyer of used game -Afterall if there is no used game market that market has no consumer so if you kill that market which consumer is the most hurt? The nonexistent one or the one who actually buy the game new?- by reduction the value of what he buy. 

It is say that a car lose almost half it's value the moment you take it out of the dealer parking lot, in the same way that game is going to lose 15$ of it's value the moment the buyer put it in and unlock that content. Again, in this scenerio, which one is the most hurt? The actual consumer or the hypothetical used buyer?

That why no other "industry" is dumb enough to get rid of the used market, because the people hurt the most by its dead are the one who actually buy and pay full price for your product. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.



Persons without argument hide behind their opinion

Around the Network
Kirameo on 27 February 2010
JaggedSac said:
Kasz216 said:
JaggedSac said:
Kasz216 said:

Untrue.  Afterall it works that way with books, where the words stay the same and CDs... which sound the same.

To think otherwise is to not understand the basic value of the used market to new markets... there are MANY more effects than the simple one you mentioned.

 

For example, Say i'm not sure I want to buy this game that is 60 dollars... however I know if I don't like it... I can return it for 30.


Now instead of wasting 60 dollars i'm only wasting 30... because I can resell the game.

Now instead say because of this content's exclusion I can only sell it back for 15 or 20.  My risk is now 35-40 dollars.  Perhaps this is too big of a risk.

 

Or in general I don't think videogames are worth 60 dollars, but I can beat the game in a week and get back 30... because once I beat a game generally i'm never going to back to play it again... by making less of the initial expierence buyable you are taking away value in my resale.

I must say, this person would be better off renting games.  30 bucks is two months at GameFly, two months to finish the game with no late fees.  If they are such smart consumers, perhaps they should examine more of their options.

Which is the market Gamefly tries to tap into, but doesn't that succesfully. If they did there wouldn't be much of used game market at all.

So renting isn't a better option than paying $60 for a game and selling it back for $30 after a week?  I can rent a game for $5 for at least a week.  Some places let you have it even longer.  That seems like the better idea to me.  Perhaps people are just stupid.

That's just what I was thinking reading that.



 

Kasz216 on 27 February 2010
JaggedSac said:
Kasz216 said:
JaggedSac said:
Kasz216 said:

Untrue.  Afterall it works that way with books, where the words stay the same and CDs... which sound the same.

To think otherwise is to not understand the basic value of the used market to new markets... there are MANY more effects than the simple one you mentioned.

 

For example, Say i'm not sure I want to buy this game that is 60 dollars... however I know if I don't like it... I can return it for 30.


Now instead of wasting 60 dollars i'm only wasting 30... because I can resell the game.

Now instead say because of this content's exclusion I can only sell it back for 15 or 20.  My risk is now 35-40 dollars.  Perhaps this is too big of a risk.

 

Or in general I don't think videogames are worth 60 dollars, but I can beat the game in a week and get back 30... because once I beat a game generally i'm never going to back to play it again... by making less of the initial expierence buyable you are taking away value in my resale.

I must say, this person would be better off renting games.  30 bucks is two months at GameFly, two months to finish the game with no late fees.  If they are such smart consumers, perhaps they should examine more of their options.

Which is the market Gamefly tries to tap into, but doesn't that succesfully. If they did there wouldn't be much of used game market at all.

So renting isn't a better option than paying $60 for a game and selling it back for $30 after a week?  I can rent a game for $5 for at least a week.  Some places let you have it even longer.  That seems like the better idea to me.  Perhaps people are just stupid.


Yes, that's exaclty my point actually... people are stupid in this regard. It'd make more sense to be in one a gamefly type service, but that's generally not the case. Hell pretty much any game like God of War or something that's single player only should probably be rented via something like gamefly rather then bought for the majority of the public. Not me, I go back and get the feeling to play games i didn't even like that much the first time. Regardless, this is a HUGE part of the market as can be seen just by how many games get sold back. Ironically it's also why used games probably don't hurt as much as people think. Between a 60 dollar game and a 55 dollar used game... 5 dollars isn't much for the average person. As was just seen in the DICE videos IO posted, for an average consumer... 12 dollars and 20 dollars are about the same. The same is true for 55 and 60... it just plays to a very small audience. The vast majority of those resales are going to come later on when the difference is huge or they stop stocking new games.

Kasz216 on 27 February 2010
Malachi said:

Kasz, the reason why most of the moron on this thread that see it as a good thing look at it by thinking about the buyer of used game, not the seller. What they fail to see(most likely due to advanced mental retardation) is that by screwing the used game market they are actually screwing the seller(the consumer who buy new) not the buyer of used game -Afterall if there is no used game market that market has no consumer so if you kill that market which consumer is the most hurt? The nonexistent one or the one who actually buy the game new?- by reduction the value of what he buy. 

It is say that a car lose almost half it's value the moment you take it out of the dealer parking lot, in the same way that game is going to lose 15$ of it's value the moment the buyer put it in and unlock that content. Again, in this scenerio, which one is the most hurt? The actual consumer or the hypothetical used buyer?

That why no other "industry" is dumb enough to get rid of the used market, because the people hurt the most by its dead are the one who actually buy and pay full price for your product. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.


Calling people names is harsh... but it very much does reduce the value to the new buyer... not add it when it's day one stuff. (Or anything nearby that date that obviously could of just been put on the disc fairly easily.

Kirameo on 27 February 2010
Malachi said:

Kasz, the reason why most of the moron on this thread that see it as a good thing look at it by thinking about the buyer of used game, not the seller. What they fail to see(most likely due to advanced mental retardation) is that by screwing the used game market they are actually screwing the seller(the consumer who buy new) not the buyer of used game -Afterall if there is no used game market that market has no consumer so if you kill that market which consumer is the most hurt? The nonexistent one or the one who actually buy the game new?- by reduction the value of what he buy. 

It is say that a car lose almost half it's value the moment you take it out of the dealer parking lot, in the same way that game is going to lose 15$ of it's value the moment the buyer put it in and unlock that content. Again, in this scenerio, which one is the most hurt? The actual consumer or the hypothetical used buyer?

That why no other "industry" is dumb enough to get rid of the used market, because the people hurt the most by its dead are the one who actually buy and pay full price for your product. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

 

They are not hurting anyone. They are adding value to new copies, not taking away value from used copies.



 

Around the Network
JaggedSac on 27 February 2010

Can anyone look up the current resale value of ME2? I am lazy, but it is using the same method of DLC as BF:BC2.



Kasz216 on 27 February 2010
Kirameo said:
Malachi said:

Kasz, the reason why most of the moron on this thread that see it as a good thing look at it by thinking about the buyer of used game, not the seller. What they fail to see(most likely due to advanced mental retardation) is that by screwing the used game market they are actually screwing the seller(the consumer who buy new) not the buyer of used game -Afterall if there is no used game market that market has no consumer so if you kill that market which consumer is the most hurt? The nonexistent one or the one who actually buy the game new?- by reduction the value of what he buy. 

It is say that a car lose almost half it's value the moment you take it out of the dealer parking lot, in the same way that game is going to lose 15$ of it's value the moment the buyer put it in and unlock that content. Again, in this scenerio, which one is the most hurt? The actual consumer or the hypothetical used buyer?

That why no other "industry" is dumb enough to get rid of the used market, because the people hurt the most by its dead are the one who actually buy and pay full price for your product. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

 

They are not hurting anyone. They are adding value to new copies, not taking away value from used copies.


Except for the fact that in the previous game such stuff was given away for free to all. I mean lord knows if Valve started charging people for class updates in team fortress 3 that weren't bought through digitial distribution... people would be pissed.

Kasz216 on 27 February 2010
KylieDog said:
Malachi said:

Kasz, the reason why most of the moron on this thread that see it as a good thing look at it by thinking about the buyer of used game, not the seller. What they fail to see(most likely due to advanced mental retardation) is that by screwing the used game market they are actually screwing the seller(the consumer who buy new) not the buyer of used game -Afterall if there is no used game market that market has no consumer so if you kill that market which consumer is the most hurt? The nonexistent one or the one who actually buy the game new?- by reduction the value of what he buy. 

It is say that a car lose almost half it's value the moment you take it out of the dealer parking lot, in the same way that game is going to lose 15$ of it's value the moment the buyer put it in and unlock that content. Again, in this scenerio, which one is the most hurt? The actual consumer or the hypothetical used buyer?

That why no other "industry" is dumb enough to get rid of the used market, because the people hurt the most by its dead are the one who actually buy and pay full price for your product. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

 

Oh god another one talking about other markets like they are the same as the video game one.  Nearly all other markets have used good that physically are inferior to new ones.  Video games are not, a used game in 90% of cases is as good as a new one.

 

If people stop selling games used people will have to buy new ones.  It is that simple.  Don't pretend like they won't, most used games cost only a small amount less than new copies.  It isn't like used games are incredible amounts cheaper.   In UK a new game is £40 and used copy £35.  From what I've seen Gamestop in US is $60 new and $55 used, people will cough up the extra 5.  I'm sure you'll say something like ebay is cheaper but it is retail stores like these where the majority of used games business is done and where the hurt to the gaming industry is.

 

edit: By the way calling people morons and mental retards is very cool, honest.


You do realize you've just ruined your arguement here by saying from what you've seen most people will cough up the extra 5 dollars. I mean how many sales do you actually think are made for 55 dollars compaired to new sales?

JaggedSac on 27 February 2010

Lets just do a recap here, I am losing focus on the main points of contention:

Why is BF:BC2 going to have lower resale value?



Kirameo on 27 February 2010
Kasz216 said:
KylieDog said:
Malachi said:

Kasz, the reason why most of the moron on this thread that see it as a good thing look at it by thinking about the buyer of used game, not the seller. What they fail to see(most likely due to advanced mental retardation) is that by screwing the used game market they are actually screwing the seller(the consumer who buy new) not the buyer of used game -Afterall if there is no used game market that market has no consumer so if you kill that market which consumer is the most hurt? The nonexistent one or the one who actually buy the game new?- by reduction the value of what he buy. 

It is say that a car lose almost half it's value the moment you take it out of the dealer parking lot, in the same way that game is going to lose 15$ of it's value the moment the buyer put it in and unlock that content. Again, in this scenerio, which one is the most hurt? The actual consumer or the hypothetical used buyer?

That why no other "industry" is dumb enough to get rid of the used market, because the people hurt the most by its dead are the one who actually buy and pay full price for your product. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

 

Oh god another one talking about other markets like they are the same as the video game one.  Nearly all other markets have used good that physically are inferior to new ones.  Video games are not, a used game in 90% of cases is as good as a new one.

 

If people stop selling games used people will have to buy new ones.  It is that simple.  Don't pretend like they won't, most used games cost only a small amount less than new copies.  It isn't like used games are incredible amounts cheaper.   In UK a new game is £40 and used copy £35.  From what I've seen Gamestop in US is $60 new and $55 used, people will cough up the extra 5.  I'm sure you'll say something like ebay is cheaper but it is retail stores like these where the majority of used games business is done and where the hurt to the gaming industry is.

 

edit: By the way calling people morons and mental retards is very cool, honest.

You do realize you've just ruined your arguement here by saying from what you've seen most people will cough up the extra 5 dollars. I mean how many sales do you actually think are made for 55 dollars compaired to new sales?

If most used games sales are made from those that are, let's say, 15$+ cheaper then if the consumer buys the DLC he would essentially be paying the same as the one who bought it new getting the same value.