It is moves like these idiot companies are wanting to make that will (not if) destroy this industry. Greed can only work in this manner when it is oil companies. Video Games died in the 80's and I wouldn't be surprised if things start tanking again in the next 10 years.

The company (or companies) that step up and defend the consumer will ultimately lead the once it all collapses again.

Dodece said: There arguments are ludicrous, because they ignore a simple truth about economics. Reselling lengthens a potential market. While restrictions curtail a potential market. Prohibiting a secondary market will only result in reducing the market as a whole while also limiting the primary market. Worse yet it can result in strengthening the black market which indeed is a zero sum game for providers. The majority of those who buy or sell used games are those who are of limited means. They cannot afford to pay top dollar regardless. So placing them in a position which will strongly encourage them to opt out, or to turn to illegal sources. Just isn't good for the markets long term prospects. What always goes ignored in these debates is the fact that the used market spreads the load. When someone sells a used game that money is most often going into buying a new game, or paying for something that is necessary. Which may well mean that person will have more money to spend on gaming at a later date. The person who will buy that used game is going to be able to game within a budget. That means they may not be able to buy all of the games they will play new, but they will undoubtedly buy a few. Removing the used market through anything close to heavy handed tactics is going to be disastrous for the game market. All it is liable to do is create a back lash. Where gamers abandon individual titles, the market itself, or feel compelled to get titles through underhanded means. Online passes are eventually going to devalue the titles they are attached to. Resellers are going to reduce their prices accordingly taking into account the added cost to the buyer. I am not saying the industry isn't going to move this way, but it would indeed be a foolish move. Coming down so hard on the consumers is going to backfire on them. I wouldn't purchase a game that had a online pass, because I just do not buy games that devalue so quickly. Yes I buy and sell, but I also buy new. Without the used market I can be honest I couldn't afford to game.

Xxcellent Dodece.. Not just this, but anybody in here that agree with Joeycool mentality . When you purchase anything with hard earned money, it becomes YOURs and you can do whatever you want with it( within legal grounds). This Industry has no right police what we do with are products after purchase ... and Online passes and day 1 DLC is a crime . I am disheartened to see ppl willing to allow the Industry to organize it in a way that benefits them 1st.

twesterm said: HappySqurriel said: If I'm only going to buy one game this month and my friend/family member is also only going to buy one game this month but we decide to trade games after we've completed them, how does this represent money lost to the publisher? The maximum number of sales they could get is 2 and they received 2 sales, where is the lost sales? Why is it "wrong" to do with videogames what has always been done with books? Should the book publishers be able to shut down libraries because they're cutting into their bottom line? You may only buy one game this month, but what about next month?  If you hadn't borrowed that game couldn't you still buy it next month?  Or the month after that? If you're borrowing a game from a friend there's obviously a want to play it.  That want may not be enough to buy it new, but you're still getting something from it and you're getting something for nothing.  In the case of lending the publisher and Gamestop miss out on the sale. That all said, I'm fine with used games and even lending games, I'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic.  It's your license so it's yours to sell, lend, or even give away.  What isn't right is two people using the license at the same time.

But two people using the license simultaneously is impossible, unless we're talking about very old CD PC games. It hinges on the willingness of the lendor to give up their ability to play the game at will, which in turn introduces the new element of cost there (e.g. they paid for this and now they don't get to play it)

twesterm said: HappySqurriel said: If I'm only going to buy one game this month and my friend/family member is also only going to buy one game this month but we decide to trade games after we've completed them, how does this represent money lost to the publisher? The maximum number of sales they could get is 2 and they received 2 sales, where is the lost sales? Why is it "wrong" to do with videogames what has always been done with books? Should the book publishers be able to shut down libraries because they're cutting into their bottom line? You may only buy one game this month, but what about next month?  If you hadn't borrowed that game couldn't you still buy it next month?  Or the month after that? If you're borrowing a game from a friend there's obviously a want to play it.  That want may not be enough to buy it new, but you're still getting something from it and you're getting something for nothing.  In the case of lending the publisher and Gamestop miss out on the sale. That all said, I'm fine with used games and even lending games, I'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic.  It's your license so it's yours to sell, lend, or even give away.  What isn't right is two people using the license at the same time.

What if there's a new game that comes out the following month that he wants to buy, thus not being able to buy the second game that he borrows from a friend? Maybe he didn't plan on playing the game his friend bought, but saw his friend playing it and became interested in it and didn't justify spending full price on it. Now, that second game may reduce in price after one month, or it may not, but the interest in the new game outweighs the interest in the friend his game bought.

Basically, just because someone is borrowing a game from a friend doesn't mean he was going to buy it new. The price for a new game might not drop until a few months later, which might make the person lose all interest in it and that person's interests in new games increases.

twesterm said: HappySqurriel said: If I'm only going to buy one game this month and my friend/family member is also only going to buy one game this month but we decide to trade games after we've completed them, how does this represent money lost to the publisher? The maximum number of sales they could get is 2 and they received 2 sales, where is the lost sales? Why is it "wrong" to do with videogames what has always been done with books? Should the book publishers be able to shut down libraries because they're cutting into their bottom line? You may only buy one game this month, but what about next month?  If you hadn't borrowed that game couldn't you still buy it next month?  Or the month after that? If you're borrowing a game from a friend there's obviously a want to play it.  That want may not be enough to buy it new, but you're still getting something from it and you're getting something for nothing.  In the case of lending the publisher and Gamestop miss out on the sale. That all said, I'm fine with used games and even lending games, I'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic.  It's your license so it's yours to sell, lend, or even give away.  What isn't right is two people using the license at the same time.

It only works out to a missed sale if it can be demonstrated that another copy of a game would have been sold if trading did not occur. The videogame publishers that want to make the argument that trading has a substantial impact on game sales should be able to quantify the sales increase they've seen from the death of videogame rental stores (like Blockbuster); and, Being that people who rented videogames demonstrated a willingness to pay for the content, the sales loss associated to trading games should be estimated at being substantially less than that.

Beyond that, there are many games I have lent-to and/or brought over to friends houses that translated into additional sales for a publisher; with Guitar Hero 3 (in particular) I know of 5 people who would have never bought the game had I been unable to "trade" it. These additional sales are never factored into the black-magic "lost sale" calculation of publishers.

 

There is a pattern I have noticed (and I'm certain other people have aswell) that good game series tend to have increasing sales as long as quality is maintained until they hit a saturation point. I suspect that a large portion of "new" buyers of sequels buy in because they were exposed to the series through one of the channels that these publishers are trying to close. It seems to me that preventing these actions could easily translate into lower future games for a series with minimal gains for the current iteration.

Galaki said: Joelcool7 said: It isn't not doing anything to cut down on used software sales is a bad business decision. All these factors should be addressed by a smart business rather then allowing yourself to lose millions of potential customers. The rest TL;DR The keywords is "potential customers". It's not all black and white. Have you consider that these potential customers wouldn't have bought the game in the first place? And as some above mentioned, he wouldn't know of FF had he not borrowed them from his friends. My first ever RPG was actually Final Fantasy (ONE) on the NES. I borrowed it from my friend and beat it. Had it not for that, I wouldn't even care or know what Final Fantasy is all about. They would have lost 1 "potential customer" here. Have you ever heard of "If it's not broken, don't fix it"? Guess what. EA (first) tried to forcefully "fix" it and I have completely ignore every single game they've released in the last couple of years.

Yes I'd take that into consideration. However I have never actually bought a game because I borrowed it, either rental or from a friend. The games I did buy were ones I played at a friends house or saw someone playing and got interested. In fact in all my life I don't think I have bought a single game that I rented.

Marketing is far more effective in selling a title to a consumer then lending would be. The loss of say 10% of those lent or pre-owned sales is still a drop in the bucket compared to the profits the publisher could be making if they abolished used game sales and reduced lending and rentals.

Problem is it is broken, when a perfectly good high quality title loses money when it should have at least broken even you know there is something wrong with the way the industry works. Psychonaughts is a perfect example the game was easily a higher quality title then the majority of software from other publishers and even first parties. Yet the game failed to break even, there is no excuse for its failure other then their is something wrong with the industry. Especially when I know the title was selling very well used at EBGames.

As for the loss of some upset customers, honestly the loss is not enough to justify not cracking down. Sorry Galaki but software sales for EAGames titles have grown since they implemented these forceful measures! Proving either a ton of people just magically realized how great EA titles are or there recent measures to boost sales are in fact working. It would appear what ever customers did leave EA more were brought in.

Also the only reason you can avoid EA is because other publishers haven't taken these measures. UbiSoft began taking similar action to fight pirates and they too haven't seen a huge hit if any. In the end you will not stop buying games if these measures are introduced across the board by every publisher. In the end gamers will still buy the games and the benefits of eliminating the used game sales out weigh the cons.

I have plenty of ideas that could reduce used game sales while barely effecting the consumer. The first is to have the title only playable on five different units. This would allow the consumer to lend his copy out a few times but prevent him from selling it used through GameStop. After it has been used one five different consoles a demo version is playable on all future units. Meaning the sixth person to borrow the game could indeed play the game just not the whole thing. This would drive that consumer to purchase the full game once he has a chance.

Then there is the finances argument. That argument doesn't fly with me, I make so little money yet I still buy a new game every month or so. I know of many gamers who still buy brand new games each month despite being on poverty level incomes. Then say you are thrifty well game retail prices drop in most cases within a year of launch, often games drop as low as 39.99$ by the end of the first year, if you include Black Friday and Boxing Day sales then poor and low income consumers can still buy all the great new games and probably cheaper then they could used in the first place.

The price difference for a used title is usually only 5-10$ if someone wants the game badly enough to buy it used then they want it badly enough to spend the extra ten bucks. As I said they could also go on BlackFriday or Boxing Day and get the games brand new cheaper then they sell used.

thranx said: they they can choose to not support gamestop by not letting them sell their games. You act as though its the poor ole game industry. They are big boys and can make their own choices, if they choose to support gamestop by letting them sell their games that is their choice. If its such a problem for the industry why dont they choose to not sell to gamestop? They can also choose to harm their games in the eyes of consumers by placing online cards or first day dlc on the disk etc. Its their choice to make.

No they couldn't. A. Gamestop would still sell used copies of the game regardless of whether the publisher sold their product to GameStop, B. GameStop has a huge market share in game retail they control the market to not sell in GameStop would be to lose millions in potential sales and in the end it wouldn't accomplish anything.

If publishers had another option they would take it, but GameStop/EBGames controls the industry and without their support the publisher will lose out big time. Not to mention as I said GameStop wouldn't stop selling the game used so it would accomplish absolutely nothing for the publisher!

Also the only way this harms their games in the eyes of the consumer is because the consumer can choose to support a publisher who does not crack down. However with UbiSoft and EA both starting to crack down Activision is next and all the other publishers will begin to do so as well. It isn't smart business to allow used sales and lending to cut into potential sales.

Mr Khan said: HappySqurriel said: If I'm only going to buy one game this month and my friend/family member is also only going to buy one game this month but we decide to trade games after we've completed them, how does this represent money lost to the publisher? The maximum number of sales they could get is 2 and they received 2 sales, where is the lost sales? Why is it "wrong" to do with videogames what has always been done with books? Should the book publishers be able to shut down libraries because they're cutting into their bottom line? If only businesspeople understood economics...

They do.  They just know the average person doesn't and that they can use this knowledge to push on consumers plenty of shit they wouldn't of accepted otherwise.

Joelcool7 said: Galaki said: Joelcool7 said: It isn't not doing anything to cut down on used software sales is a bad business decision. All these factors should be addressed by a smart business rather then allowing yourself to lose millions of potential customers. The rest TL;DR The keywords is "potential customers". It's not all black and white. Have you consider that these potential customers wouldn't have bought the game in the first place? And as some above mentioned, he wouldn't know of FF had he not borrowed them from his friends. My first ever RPG was actually Final Fantasy (ONE) on the NES. I borrowed it from my friend and beat it. Had it not for that, I wouldn't even care or know what Final Fantasy is all about. They would have lost 1 "potential customer" here. Have you ever heard of "If it's not broken, don't fix it"? Guess what. EA (first) tried to forcefully "fix" it and I have completely ignore every single game they've released in the last couple of years. Problem is it is broken, when a perfectly good high quality title loses money when it should have at least broken even you know there is something wrong with the way the industry works. Psychonaughts is a perfect example the game was easily a higher quality title then the majority of software from other publishers and even first parties. Yet the game failed to break even, there is no excuse for its failure other then their is something wrong with the industry. Especially when I know the title was selling very well used at EBGames. As for the loss of some upset customers, honestly the loss is not enough to justify not cracking down. Sorry Galaki but software sales for EAGames titles have grown since they implemented these forceful measures! Proving either a ton of people just magically realized how great EA titles are or there recent measures to boost sales are in fact working. It would appear what ever customers did leave EA more were brought in. Also the only reason you can avoid EA is because other publishers haven't taken these measures. UbiSoft began taking similar action to fight pirates and they too haven't seen a huge hit if any. In the end you will not stop buying games if these measures are introduced across the board by every publisher. In the end gamers will still buy the games and the benefits of eliminating the used game sales out weigh the cons. I have plenty of ideas that could reduce used game sales while barely effecting the consumer. The first is to have the title only playable on five different units. This would allow the consumer to lend his copy out a few times but prevent him from selling it used through GameStop. After it has been used one five different consoles a demo version is playable on all future units. Meaning the sixth person to borrow the game could indeed play the game just not the whole thing. This would drive that consumer to purchase the full game once he has a chance. Then there is the finances argument. That argument doesn't fly with me, I make so little money yet I still buy a new game every month or so. I know of many gamers who still buy brand new games each month despite being on poverty level incomes. Then say you are thrifty well game retail prices drop in most cases within a year of launch, often games drop as low as 39.99$ by the end of the first year, if you include Black Friday and Boxing Day sales then poor and low income consumers can still buy all the great new games and probably cheaper then they could used in the first place. The price difference for a used title is usually only 5-10$ if someone wants the game badly enough to buy it used then they want it badly enough to spend the extra ten bucks. As I said they could also go on BlackFriday or Boxing Day and get the games brand new cheaper then they sell used. thranx said: they they can choose to not support gamestop by not letting them sell their games. You act as though its the poor ole game industry. They are big boys and can make their own choices, if they choose to support gamestop by letting them sell their games that is their choice. If its such a problem for the industry why dont they choose to not sell to gamestop? They can also choose to harm their games in the eyes of consumers by placing online cards or first day dlc on the disk etc. Its their choice to make. No they couldn't. A. Gamestop would still sell used copies of the game regardless of whether the publisher sold their product to GameStop, B. GameStop has a huge market share in game retail they control the market to not sell in GameStop would be to lose millions in potential sales and in the end it wouldn't accomplish anything. If publishers had another option they would take it, but GameStop/EBGames controls the industry and without their support the publisher will lose out big time. Not to mention as I said GameStop wouldn't stop selling the game used so it would accomplish absolutely nothing for the publisher! Also the only way this harms their games in the eyes of the consumer is because the consumer can choose to support a publisher who does not crack down. However with UbiSoft and EA both starting to crack down Activision is next and all the other publishers will begin to do so as well. It isn't smart business to allow used sales and lending to cut into potential sales.

1) You say Gamestop/EBGames rules the market, but most of their profits come from used game sales. You eliminate that from them and they start to lose money, then they ultimately decide to withdraw from the market, thus having one less option for publishers to sell games (which is definitely their biggest market in the US).

2) Psychonauts sold poorly because of the used game market and lending? Just because the used copies were selling well at one Gamestop, doesn't mean all the stores saw increased sales of used copies. Maybe there was a lack of advertising? There are many factors for a game not selling well besides the used market.

3) Having a new copy of the game only usable on up to five systems? Let's say it's a very popular local multiplayer game and the person who owns the game has more than 4 friends. They take turns going over each others' houses and all five chances are used. Now, two of those people have their systems broken down and they buy new systems. Now, they can't play that game on their new systems because the five chances are already used.

Well a lot of people buy a game used and then buy the sequal new?


Imo Used games allow the game base to expand dramatically.

Would I have ever played Uncharted 2 if I could not get it for 10 dollars?
Now I think I will get U3.

disolitude said: Digital distribution will take care of all these supposed problems that are cutting in to game studio profits...

Nah.  Companies will just complain that it only "looks" like there was no change (or actually probably downward sales) because of a mass unproven increase in piracy... on the basis that clearly they should be selling more, therefore it's a problem.