With Microsoft officially revealing the details of its used games offerings last night online, the Xbox One has come under attack from gamers and members of the press. While Microsoft is allowing the playback and re-sale of used games at approved retailers after the publisher has enabled the trade-in, there are elements of the new console that will limit the ability to share or trade games with friends. And the way Microsoft has handled this situation has been a lesson in how not to launch a new console.

So far, most of the vitriol against Microsoft has come from the games press and the always-important gamers. I decided to ask a veteran game developer his thoughts on the whole Microsoft used games controversy. Warren Spector is well-known to the gaming community for pioneering interactive storytelling in games like Deus Ex, System Shock and Thief. He’s also platform agnostic at the moment, not working on any games for Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo or any other platform.

Over the past five years or so, Spector and his Junction Point Studios created the Disney Epic Mickey franchise, an innovative game series that resurrected Oswald the Lucky Rabbit and introduced the game maker’s expertise to a much broader family audience. It also kept Spector on a fairly short leash when it came to answering questions with a Disney PR rep nearby.

With the unfortunate closure of Junction Point by Disney Interactive earlier this year, Spector is able to speak his opinion on topics like used games.

“Hey, if we didn’t overcharge for our product — guess what —  people wouldn’t have to buy used games,” Spector told me. “The game industry is always talking about how we’re bigger than movies, and in terms of revenue we probably are, but good God, I don’t know this for sure but I would bet a lot of money that more people saw Up in its opening weekend than played Call of Duty. And the reason our games generate so much revenue is because we’re stupid enough to charge $60 for a box or $50 for a download or something. You need used games because most people can’t afford those prices.  They’d just buy fewer games and play fewer games, and the fact that there are more people playing Call of Duty and Halo and Deus Ex and whatever through used games — come on, it’s not hurting us.”

Spector added that used games are great PR because they build the gaming audience.

“Used games allow more people, specifically younger people, to become game fans because of the lower price point,” he said. “It keeps some brick and mortar businesses in business, which is a good thing. And the reason it’s so pervasive is because we overcharge. To be frank, every other medium allows it. You can buy a used book. You can buy a used movie. You can buy a used CD. Why the hell are we different? I have got no problem with used games. I’ve bought plenty of used games. Whatever.”

Spector joked to me before answering this question that he might never get another job in the industry by answering it honestly, but I applaud him for his candor. And I think he’s just won over even more fans from the gaming community. Having such a respected game maker speak out on the positives of used games is good to hear.

So often the arguments that I’ve heard from people against used games is that it hurts the industry. Piracy hurts the games industry – and every other industry. The sale of used games, movies, books or music don’t. Today there are so many new gaming platforms and so many new ways to enter the gaming space as a fan, from free-to-play online games like Trion Worlds’ Rift to Riot Games’ League of Legends to smartphones and tablets to Smart TVs. At the same time, there are more opportunities for game developers to create content and connect directly with their fans digitally, or through Kickstarter funding or any other of the new business models.

Even Spector told me he’s most excited about mobile as a game developer, which says something when he’s spent most of his life overseeing huge teams making huge games. So the good news for gamers is there are more ways to play games and access them than ever before. And the big consoles, while still important, are losing their importance in the overall industry. And that’s a trend that’s likely to continue over time.

And the best news of all of this is that we get to vote with our wallets. Don’t like Xbox One and its walls, buy a PlayStation 4 or an Oculus Rift or a Steam Box or a Galaxy 10.1 tablet. There are plenty of other options out there today besides Microsoft. I didn’t have those options as a kid where it was Genesis or Super Nintendo. So gamers can take advantage of today’s technology and the choices they open up and Microsoft, which has made its choices, will have to live with them.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2013/06/07/warren-spector-said-if-publishers-didnt-overcharge-for-games-people-wouldnt-have-to-buy-them-used/

True, but Epic Mickey sucks.

I agree 100%. People wouldn't have to buy used if games cost less from the get-go. That is a big part of the reason why I think games will get cheaper in general when the inevitable digital only era arrives.

I agree with him about used games supporting new games and serving to grow the industry. However, I really wish people would stop comparing other industries which use different models to generate revenue. It's kind of silly and it bugs me. The film industry, for example, gets a huge share of its revenue from the box office, which is something the gaming industry does not have. Just stop the bad comparisons already if you want people to take your reasoning seriously.

Still, yeah, if used games went away then you'd have a lot less gamers in the long run, I think. Many people just wouldn't be able to afford it. Those people would go from buying a few new games a year to dropping out of gaming, except perhaps cheap mobile games.

so DVD and music is not comparable? what of books?

Hell I'd go digital only (thus removing all used games) if they were only say $30 from the start. I'd even buy more games overall.

Digital games should be cheaper.  However, I'm not sure physical games being reduced greatly in price would be all that a thing for the industry in general.  You'd still have a lot of people trying to get their cut, only that cut would be greatly reduced.  With digital, you have a lot less fingers in the pie.

I could see retail going down to $50 for a new game, perhaps even $40, but below that and I think we'd run into developers not getting enough to sustain themselves.  After all, if new games cost $40, you'd still have GameStop selling used games for $35.

how can you compare a book with a game? a book is written by one person. the only real costs are production costs of every single book and maybe advertisement. a game costs already 50 million before the game is on disc.

and more important, a used book is really used. a used game is what? still the same numbers on the disc which present you a perfect picture on your screen. there is not really a difference between a used or new game. that's why gamestop can sell used games for prices which are not much lower as for new games and that's why people still buy them, because there is no difference except maybe 10 bucks less in price. 

You're definitely right about that. The only real way for game to become reasonably priced are by eliminating physical copies all together and cutting out all of the middle men. I think that's exactly why Steam does so well and has such cheap game sales all of the time.

yeah, i think it doesn't work. if retail games would cost only 30 bucks at release, sales would have to be more than twice because the distribution did still cost the same per disc. do people really believe the whole industry would sell more than twice the amount of retail games with a price of 30 dollar?