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

Forums - Gaming - Do you agree with companies trying to rid used game sales?

 

Do you agree with companies trying to rid used game sales?

Yes 51 18.15%
 
No 167 59.43%
 
A little 34 12.10%
 
a lot but not completely 28 9.96%
 
Total:280
mike_intellivision on 31 January 2012

I wonder if any retailers will not carry a system that does not accept used games.

There were rumors about the PS3 being that way ... it never happened.

Unless all go that route, it puts a system at a competitive disadvantage. (Consumer -- Should I buy on System Z for $60 and no resale value or AlphaGame for $60 where I can resell for $30).

PC games generally are cheaper -- in my opinion because you don't have that retail increment. And that uncertainty -- as well as the uncertainty of whether or not a game will work with you system -- does not help PC game sales.

Finally, for those who hate GameStop, it does offer a seven-day, no questions asked, used game return policy. That is where I have picked up a lot of marginal games because if they suck, I am not stuck.

Mike from Morgantown



      


I am Mario.


I like to jump around, and would lead a fairly serene and aimless existence if it weren't for my friends always getting into trouble. I love to help out, even when it puts me at risk. I seem to make friends with people who just can't stay out of trouble.

Wii Friend Code: 1624 6601 1126 1492

NNID: Mike_INTV
Around the Network
theprof00 on 31 January 2012
RolStoppable said:
theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:

Pretty sure he meant tens of millions of new games sold. 

Which... he's probably right.

At least until something like steam shows up on consoles... though even then while sales will go up revenue will go down.

The advantage of steam is it's ability to run sales for everyone everywhere and in general great price elasticity.

It's not true at all that ridding the secondary market would result in less games being sold because in a market of adversity, opportunity arises.

The reality is that game prices may have more swing, more "greatest hits" titles available, the return of extended demos, cloud computing, piracy, etc.

In fact, I'm going to start working on my proposal, because should the secondary market disappear, the market would be ripe for it.

If the used games market is no more, either sales of new games will go down or prices of new games will go down. In both cases it hurts publishers more than it helps them (ultimately their goal is to sell more games at the same price), hence why it's a stupid idea to put a stop to used games.

Even one extra sale of a game at 50$ makes up the revenue for 5 other games.

The question is, would a ten dollar drop and inability to buy used games, contribute to at least more than 16.7 new game sales increase.

With gamestop making many hundred million in revenue, and most of the profit coming from used, exactly how many used games do you think they sell? I would venture that GS sells twice as many used games as new games. I'd say that probably 60-75% of their revenue is all used games. So, if there are X amount of used games sold per year, and gamestop selling Y percent of them, if we were to extrapolate and find z number of used games sold, can the increase in new games sales be greater than 16.7% of z?

With 25B$ of annual revenue in games, and assuming that 2ndary market = even a modest 25% of that, then every .1% increase over 16.66% would equal 6m$.

So, if the industry were to even reduce price by 16.7%, and sell at least 16.8% more new games, then the result would be a net profit.

But like I said, there's a market to even expand that increase dozens upon dozens of times over.



Damnyouall on 31 January 2012

You are talking out of your ass. And you don't get macro economics and elasticity of demand.

(Is it against the forum rules to say "talking out of your ass" when applicable? If so, kindly inform me and I will edit this post to say the same thing with other words).



"Well certainly with the Xbox 360, we had some challenges at the launch. Once we identified that we took control of it. We wanted to do it right by our customers. Our customers are very important to us." -Larry "Major Nelson" Hryb (10/2013). Note: RRoD was fixed with the Jasper-revision 3 years after the launch of 360

"People don't pay attention to a lot of the details."-Yusuf Mehdi explaining why Xbone DRM scheme would succeed

"Fortunately we have a product for people who aren't able to get some form of connectivity; it's called Xbox 360,”-Don Mattrick

"The region locking of the 3DS wasn't done for profits on games"-MDMAlliance

Damnyouall on 31 January 2012
RolStoppable said:
Seece said:
Yeah I do, hope they succeed

I don't agree with their reasoning, but I too hope they succeed, because I want to see them go down.

The majority of the money that is gained by selling a game back to a store or on ebay etc. goes right back into video games. If the used games market gets shut down, it won't lead to higher sales of new games, but to lower sales. We are talking about at least tens of millions of games sold less per year. It will become harder to establish new IPs, because gamers will try to get the most bang for their buck and that means they will invest in the safe bets, the known IPs.

I like you :)



"Well certainly with the Xbox 360, we had some challenges at the launch. Once we identified that we took control of it. We wanted to do it right by our customers. Our customers are very important to us." -Larry "Major Nelson" Hryb (10/2013). Note: RRoD was fixed with the Jasper-revision 3 years after the launch of 360

"People don't pay attention to a lot of the details."-Yusuf Mehdi explaining why Xbone DRM scheme would succeed

"Fortunately we have a product for people who aren't able to get some form of connectivity; it's called Xbox 360,”-Don Mattrick

"The region locking of the 3DS wasn't done for profits on games"-MDMAlliance

theprof00 on 31 January 2012
Damnyouall said:

You are talking out of your ass. And you don't get macro economics and elasticity of demand.

(Is it against the forum rules to say "talking out of your ass" when applicable? If so, kindly inform me and I will edit this post to say the same thing with other words).

It's only against forum rules when you don't provide any real argument.

You seriously think that not only will nearly half the market's revenue simply "disappear" but that new game sales would decline as well? Oh lawdy.



Around the Network
theprof00 on 31 January 2012
RolStoppable said:
theprof00 said:

Even one extra sale of a game at 50$ makes up the revenue for 5 other games.

The question is, would a ten dollar drop and inability to buy used games, contribute to at least more than 16.7 new game sales increase.

With gamestop making many hundred million in revenue, and most of the profit coming from used, exactly how many used games do you think they sell? I would venture that GS sells twice as many used games as new games. I'd say that probably 60-75% of their revenue is all used games. So, if there are X amount of used games sold per year, and gamestop selling Y percent of them, if we were to extrapolate and find z number of used games sold, can the increase in new games sales be greater than 16.7% of z?

With 25B$ of annual revenue in games, and assuming that 2ndary market = even a modest 25% of that, then every .1% increase over 16.66% would equal 6m$.

So, if the industry were to even reduce price by 16.7%, and sell at least 16.8% more new games, then the result would be a net profit.

But like I said, there's a market to even expand that increase dozens upon dozens of times over.

I have to agree with Damnyouall. You are pulling numbers out of thin air in order to make it look like you wrote something intelligent.

So I'll ignore the majority of your post and just tackle the one important question at the top. As it is in the case of Gamestop (I hope I have this right), they buy used games from people for $30 and sell them for $55, new copies for $60. This means a gamer who makes use of the used games policy of Gamestop, effectively buys his games for $25 or $30 (depending on if he buys a used game or a new copy). A price drop of $10 across the board for new games would bring them to $50, down from $60. So the gamer we are talking about would now have to pay twice as much for his games as before.

The result is that he will buy less games and everyone else that is like him will do the same. The majority of new games will then move into the bargain bin at a quicker rate than now which will have a significant negative impact on the video game industry.

New games are only full price when brand new.
And the used games they sell are generally only 5-10 dollars cheaper than the new ones, and in the case of Call of Duty (which is almost always out of stock used) they sell it for 3$ cheaper.

So your point is invalid.

Furthermore, gamestop doesn't give people 30$ for games, they give them around 12-17.

I hesitate to call you out of touch, but it doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about.

Gamestop earns 2.5B in used game sales annually. You think that 2.5B is just going to disappear instead of people paying 10-20$ more?

But you are right about the numbers. They actually only make 26% of their revenue on Used games. It's in profit where it become >50%.



Acevil on 31 January 2012
theprof00 said:
RolStoppable said:
theprof00 said:

Even one extra sale of a game at 50$ makes up the revenue for 5 other games.

The question is, would a ten dollar drop and inability to buy used games, contribute to at least more than 16.7 new game sales increase.

With gamestop making many hundred million in revenue, and most of the profit coming from used, exactly how many used games do you think they sell? I would venture that GS sells twice as many used games as new games. I'd say that probably 60-75% of their revenue is all used games. So, if there are X amount of used games sold per year, and gamestop selling Y percent of them, if we were to extrapolate and find z number of used games sold, can the increase in new games sales be greater than 16.7% of z?

With 25B$ of annual revenue in games, and assuming that 2ndary market = even a modest 25% of that, then every .1% increase over 16.66% would equal 6m$.

So, if the industry were to even reduce price by 16.7%, and sell at least 16.8% more new games, then the result would be a net profit.

But like I said, there's a market to even expand that increase dozens upon dozens of times over.

I have to agree with Damnyouall. You are pulling numbers out of thin air in order to make it look like you wrote something intelligent.

So I'll ignore the majority of your post and just tackle the one important question at the top. As it is in the case of Gamestop (I hope I have this right), they buy used games from people for $30 and sell them for $55, new copies for $60. This means a gamer who makes use of the used games policy of Gamestop, effectively buys his games for $25 or $30 (depending on if he buys a used game or a new copy). A price drop of $10 across the board for new games would bring them to $50, down from $60. So the gamer we are talking about would now have to pay twice as much for his games as before.

The result is that he will buy less games and everyone else that is like him will do the same. The majority of new games will then move into the bargain bin at a quicker rate than now which will have a significant negative impact on the video game industry.

New games are only full price when brand new.
And the used games they sell are generally only 5-10 dollars cheaper than the new ones, and in the case of Call of Duty (which is almost always out of stock used) they sell it for 3$ cheaper.

So your point is invalid.

Furthermore, gamestop doesn't give people 30$ for games, they give them around 12-17.

I hesitate to call you out of touch, but it doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about.

Gamestop earns 2.5B in used game sales annually. You think that 2.5B is just going to disappear instead of people paying 10-20$ more?

But you are right about the numbers. They actually only make 26% of their revenue on Used games. It's in profit where it become >50%.

Not exactly right. For example, right now if I trade in the two month old assassin creed game, I would recieve $25 dollars. Within a week of release you will see that the TIV (Trade in Value) for Final Fantasy XIII-2 will be $25-30. Trade in Value prices for a new game that is a week old or two weeks old typically is around the 25-30 range for strong brand titles. 



 

theprof00 on 31 January 2012
Acevil said:
theprof00 said:
RolStoppable said:
theprof00 said:

Even one extra sale of a game at 50$ makes up the revenue for 5 other games.

The question is, would a ten dollar drop and inability to buy used games, contribute to at least more than 16.7 new game sales increase.

With gamestop making many hundred million in revenue, and most of the profit coming from used, exactly how many used games do you think they sell? I would venture that GS sells twice as many used games as new games. I'd say that probably 60-75% of their revenue is all used games. So, if there are X amount of used games sold per year, and gamestop selling Y percent of them, if we were to extrapolate and find z number of used games sold, can the increase in new games sales be greater than 16.7% of z?

With 25B$ of annual revenue in games, and assuming that 2ndary market = even a modest 25% of that, then every .1% increase over 16.66% would equal 6m$.

So, if the industry were to even reduce price by 16.7%, and sell at least 16.8% more new games, then the result would be a net profit.

But like I said, there's a market to even expand that increase dozens upon dozens of times over.

I have to agree with Damnyouall. You are pulling numbers out of thin air in order to make it look like you wrote something intelligent.

So I'll ignore the majority of your post and just tackle the one important question at the top. As it is in the case of Gamestop (I hope I have this right), they buy used games from people for $30 and sell them for $55, new copies for $60. This means a gamer who makes use of the used games policy of Gamestop, effectively buys his games for $25 or $30 (depending on if he buys a used game or a new copy). A price drop of $10 across the board for new games would bring them to $50, down from $60. So the gamer we are talking about would now have to pay twice as much for his games as before.

The result is that he will buy less games and everyone else that is like him will do the same. The majority of new games will then move into the bargain bin at a quicker rate than now which will have a significant negative impact on the video game industry.

New games are only full price when brand new.
And the used games they sell are generally only 5-10 dollars cheaper than the new ones, and in the case of Call of Duty (which is almost always out of stock used) they sell it for 3$ cheaper.

So your point is invalid.

Furthermore, gamestop doesn't give people 30$ for games, they give them around 12-17.

I hesitate to call you out of touch, but it doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about.

Gamestop earns 2.5B in used game sales annually. You think that 2.5B is just going to disappear instead of people paying 10-20$ more?

But you are right about the numbers. They actually only make 26% of their revenue on Used games. It's in profit where it become >50%.

Not exactly right. For example, right now if I trade in the two month old assassin creed game, I would recieve $25 dollars. Within a week of release you will see that the TIV (Trade in Value) for Final Fantasy XIII-2 will be $25-30. Trade in Value prices for a new game that is a week old or two weeks old typically is around the 25-30 range for strong brand titles. 

Oh right, as long as you turn in the game as soon as you get bored of it, (1-2 months) then you'll get 25$, in which case, why aren't you simply using gamefly, or just renting games?

Plus, you didn't even buy that assassin's creed game new, did you? Unless, you're seriously telling me that you're only value conscious by selling your games, and opt out of buying used games for shits and giggles,



Acevil on 31 January 2012
theprof00 said:
Acevil said:
theprof00 said:
New games are only full price when brand new. 

And the used games they sell are generally only 5-10 dollars cheaper than the new ones, and in the case of Call of Duty (which is almost always out of stock used) they sell it for 3$ cheaper.

So your point is invalid.

Furthermore, gamestop doesn't give people 30$ for games, they give them around 12-17.

I hesitate to call you out of touch, but it doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about.

Gamestop earns 2.5B in used game sales annually. You think that 2.5B is just going to disappear instead of people paying 10-20$ more?

But you are right about the numbers. They actually only make 26% of their revenue on Used games. It's in profit where it become >50%.

Not exactly right. For example, right now if I trade in the two month old assassin creed game, I would recieve $25 dollars. Within a week of release you will see that the TIV (Trade in Value) for Final Fantasy XIII-2 will be $25-30. Trade in Value prices for a new game that is a week old or two weeks old typically is around the 25-30 range for strong brand titles. 

Oh right, as long as you turn in the game as soon as you get bored of it, (1-2 months) then you'll get 25$, in which case, why aren't you simply using gamefly, or just renting games?

Plus, you didn't even buy that assassin's creed game new, did you? Unless, you're seriously telling me that you're only value conscious by selling your games, and opt out of buying used games for shits and giggles,


Oh I rarely buy used games, i was just saying how that isn't necessarily correct. 



 

theprof00 on 31 January 2012
RolStoppable said:
theprof00 said:

New games are only full price when brand new.
And the used games they sell are generally only 5-10 dollars cheaper than the new ones, and in the case of Call of Duty (which is almost always out of stock used) they sell it for 3$ cheaper.

So your point is invalid.

Furthermore, gamestop doesn't give people 30$ for games, they give them around 12-17.

I hesitate to call you out of touch, but it doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about.

Gamestop earns 2.5B in used game sales annually. You think that 2.5B is just going to disappear instead of people paying 10-20$ more?

But you are right about the numbers. They actually only make 26% of their revenue on Used games. It's in profit where it become >50%.

Why do you call my point invalid when you yourself confirm that I got those numbers right (in your first paragraph)?

I highly doubt that Gamestop gives people only $12-17 for games that just came out a week or two earlier.

There's certainly money that is going to "disappear", if there's no used games market anymore. In order for Gamestop to sell used games, they first need to buy used games from their consumers. So Gamestop pumps at least $1 billion annually in the video games market. Money that wouldn't be there to spend, if there was no used games market.

Also, having to suddenly pay $10-20 more per game isn't an easy pill to swallow for most gamers. People are quick to drop their hobby when It's becoming too expensive.

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.