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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Do you believe there´s some truth to the anti used games rumor?

ClassicGamingWizzz said:
sony and microsoft ofcourse with the support of the devs will end the used games maket , if nintendo dont go with them i dont know if it´s good or bad move for them


i think it would help nintendo, but it would hurt them if sony and ms game prices went down



Around the Network
JGarret said:
RolStoppable said:
I'd like them to be true, but neither Microsoft or Sony would be that stupid.


Imagine if the Wii U was the only console that doesn´t have this anti used game practice...would it be the 'perfect' excuse for 3rd parties not to release their games for it?

Remember that recent thread about those members working for EA? Yeah... the ones working for Sony and Microsoft are taking this into concideration now.



I think the important word in the thread title is "some". Publishers probably are putting some pressure on the console manufacturers to implement something like EA's online pass. They won't get rid of used games sales altogether.

Personally I see them pushing for something more like Steam on PC where you can register your physical game on PSN/Live and effectively subscribe to that game on your account making the disc redundant. Anyone trying to play that disc will get limited content (e.g. no acheivements, no multiplayer etc.) unles they unlock it by buying a serial code and "subscribing" to the game. However, I think it'll be completely optional to register your physical game.

Not sure they'll have the infrastructure to implement that next gen either actually.



Fayceless said:
Guess what? Math time!

The used game market is 10% of the new game market in the U.S. (according to NPD) Let's say that, between direct used sales (ebay, garage sales etc) and indirect (GameStop, Best Buy etc) gamers who buy games with the money end up with 1/3 of that. (it's probably a bit higher) Of that 1/3, perhaps 1/2 goes to buying new games. So around 1.5% of the NEW game market is a result of the used game market. That seems small, but it's important for later.

Next, consider how much of used game sales go directly to, well, used game sales. Much of the rest of that 1/3. So we'll call 15% of the used game sales a direct result of used game sales (the industry fuels itself). Publishers can't have this money, because it doesn't exist if there's no used game market. (technically speaking, the "wealth" wouldn't exist, either way they can't have it)

Now, let's assume that publishers receive all of the remaining money (that is, the money that gamers do not receive from sales), which is equivalent to 7% of the new game market. Adjusting for that 1.5% of the new market that would evaporate with the demise of used games, and publishers share of the market is...105.5% of the current-day market. Without taking into account other things (for example, how many new games do game store employees buy with the money that was spent on used games? another .5% could perhaps be taken off, but that's hard to figure)

If we assume only a 5% increase in revenue(personally I think that's a bit high), you can be sure gamers, and developers for that matter, won't see any benefit of eliminating used game sales. In order for games to be $10 cheaper, (~83% of today's prices) revenue would have to increase by at least 20% (as 83.33 x 1.2 = 100). When the total value of the used game market is only at 10% of new games, you can see how this is entirely impossible.

Some people believe, surely, that it's all in the unit numbers. If the number of used game sales translated to new game sales, profits would increase drastically. However, it's absurd to assume people will spend more money on games than they already do. It's not about how many people buy a game, it's about how much they spend on games. You can't create money from nowhere, people will simply buy fewer games.

What WILL happen is this: People will play fewer games. People will be more reluctant to buy new games from un-established franchises or developers. Developers will ultimately be less willing to take risks, and gaming will stagnate without a drastic overhaul. (as PC gaming would be stagnant if not for services like Steam which changed the gaming landscape, and the arrival of flash and facebook games)

1. "During the course of the year the company made $1.6 billion from sales of new hardware, and $113.6 million in gross profit; $4.04 billion from new game sales, of which $839 million was profit; and $2.6 billion from second-hand sales, of which $1.2 billion was profit"

Gamestop makes roughly 69% more profit on 65% smaller sales, meaning that adjusted, (1.968B) USED games are worth roughly 43% more than new games. ie; they pay you 43% less than your game is worth.

2. There will NEVER be NO USED GAMES. What there will be, is an "activation cost". This will result in a short term drop in value of used games market based on the largest used dealer, gamestop, as they try to defer lost profits by paying less. Gamers will gravitate toward ebay and craigslist. Then trade-in values will go back up. Prices for buying used games will instead go down, as the market shifts the price ratio to compensate for the "activation cost" and trade in restrengthening.

Your idea about used games only being 10% is extremely hopeful, and even so, if that 10% turns into new games, you're looking at a huge increase in developer revenue.

Additionally, the factor of digital distrubition only increases the profit margin of a game's sales.



The anti used market strategy should be digital distribution or making games people actually want to keep...



"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." -My good friend Mark Aurelius

Around the Network
theprof00 said:

1. "During the course of the year the company made $1.6 billion from sales of new hardware, and $113.6 million in gross profit; $4.04 billion from new game sales, of which $839 million was profit; and $2.6 billion from second-hand sales, of which $1.2 billion was profit"

Gamestop makes roughly 69% more profit on 65% smaller sales, meaning that adjusted, (1.968B) USED games are worth roughly 43% more than new games. ie; they pay you 43% less than your game is worth.

2. There will NEVER be NO USED GAMES. What there will be, is an "activation cost". This will result in a short term drop in value of used games market based on the largest used dealer, gamestop, as they try to defer lost profits by paying less. Gamers will gravitate toward ebay and craigslist. Then trade-in values will go back up. Prices for buying used games will instead go down, as the market shifts the price ratio to compensate for the "activation cost" and trade in restrengthening.

Your idea about used games only being 10% is extremely hopeful, and even so, if that 10% turns into new games, you're looking at a huge increase in developer revenue.

Additionally, the factor of digital distrubition only increases the profit margin of a game's sales.

1. Yes, that's why I've only assumed (conservatively) that 1/3 of used game revenues finds its way into the hands of consumers.  Most people sell to stores, not directly to other people, and they get a rather small portion of the value.


2.I understand the "activation" cost, but the fact is it's a move against the used games market.  They want to destroy it for very flawed reasoning.  The main point to be made is this: You cannot make the "pie" bigger, you can only increase your slice of the pie.  And there's really not that much more to gain, especially considering the nature of second-hand markets. (the money IN that market tends to stay in that market and fuel that economic activity)

And finally, no, that 10% isn't "hopeful" it's NPD numbers from 2009 I believe.  A bit old, but it's what I could find.  It may have shifted to 15% or so since then, but even then, it's not nearly enough for gamers to see any real benefit. (again, take into account the movement of money that creates that wealth that the publishers envy so much)

If I have a choice between PC or console, I go console, because I know I can sell it later.  I'm buying a product, I should be able to do what I want with it. And I should never have to worry about somebody trying to lock me OUT of using a product I LEGALLY bought.  That's ridiculous.  It's a product like any other, and should be treated as such.



Don't see it happening.



Don't see it happening.