Yeah except the Wii business would never make up for the lost HD ones...

Especially as it is right now the business where Gamestop is the weakest..( Wii is strongest at Wallmart).

That and Nintendo's games don't fit well with Gamestop model. Their value does not decline fast and customers hold on to them.

Gamestop likes games with huge first week sales, this allow them to fill mostly preorder, not have any backstock issue and later on to sell used games to customers as they are 'out" of the new ones...

Anyway even a successfull shift to Wii U would not make up for the lost business and a retailer like Gamestop would not be able to survive without that lost business..

And companies like Amazon are all ready to fill in the void......( Amazon does not mind selling low margin products, they made a successfull business out of it).

Look at it this way. If profit from a game sale goes to a publisher, then it generally gets re-invested in game development. Or at least some portion does.

If profit from a game sale goes to Best Buy, the money gets re-invested in... what? Shelves? A new Best Buy location? Unhelpful staff? 

Is it anti-consumer to undermine trade-ins? Sounds like publishers could knock only $5 off the digital purchase of a new release and give consumers a better deal than Best Buy's $4 credit. As a bonus, you wouldn't even lose the right to play the game.

The used games debate will be pointless soon anyway

I understand completely actually, I just like returning the used games for full refund.

just want to point out that 4$ trade in value is simply because people could have bought arkham city new at bestbuy for 10 bucks with a coupon. This basically killed the trade in value of the game everywhere. Even amazon has a very low tradein value now. While other games have far more reasonable trade in values.

I still think that the average consumer is still oblivious to the online pass and that they are just seeing a cheaper initial price. I doubt that used games will go away next generation, but digital distribution will help in getting rid of it.

Wouldn't that be 1000% profit margin ? 

sorry this is a stupid example.

for $5 extra i would buy the new one.

If it was $4 trade in and sold for say $20. then there be a decent argument.

12 years ago I went to a gamestop and bought UN Squadron for the SNES, used. The used games market has existed for a long time, but only now it has some sort of negative impact on this industry. Developers have to realize that people don't care to trade in their games for such a low value because to them (consumers) these crappy games don't have any value at all. There is only a handful of games out there that could be considered evergreen games.

Why should I keep a game I'll never touch again? Why should pay 60 USD for a game I'll only play through once? People have to understand that the consumers are never to blame, neither are Stores like gamestop that see great business opportunities in a declining industry.

Look at it this way: If they merely rented titles, wouldn't they also put money back in?  They could actually continue to fund support for titles in question, and upgrade them.  

Reality is that this is irrelevant to what publishers will or will not do.  They do what they think they have to do, to keep people interested, and then charge whatever they can charge to maximize interest.  They could, rather than go, "Boo hoo hoo, used game sales suck" and try to say it is the same as piracy, end up making games people won't trade in.  It isn't my problem if you think the idea is to make a play through once interactive move, and sell it for $60.    Reason why publishers won't knock $5 off is that they charge what the market can bear, not what seems "fair".

You can find a decent number of games people don't trade in either, here:

http://boardgamegeek.com/

They also have the ability to sell them on EBay, if they don't like them.