You know, the funniest thing about you saying Microsoft is doing it "for the developers", is that Microsoft apparently has the least developer friendly digitial service out there right now. They don't even allow for self publishing, something even NINTENDO allows now. Microsoft isn't doing this for the developers, it's doing it for the PUBLISHERS. More importantly, they are doing it for the big multi-billion dollar publishers, not some "little guy" who's struggling to make it.

You're right. Publishers ARE becoming more risk averse. But this has little to do with the used game idustry, and EVERYTHING to do with the increased costs associated with bigger, more graphically advanced games. THAT'S the problem. That was the problem LAST generation.  Hell, everything remaining the same, publisher profits would drop ten percent in the absense of a used game market:

http://www.destructoid.com/using-science-to-learn-the-effects-of-killing-used-games-254913.phtml

It is simple economics. A higher price tag means fewer people will buy. The used game market provides a WIDE variety of advantages to gamers, including offering a lower threshold for people to get into gaming, providing competition with new games to encourage publishers to eventually lower their prices, providing gamers a way of playing out of print releases, and giving gamers a way to recoup some of the money spent on one game to put towards another.

Killing this advantage won't "save" the industry, it would only make the situation worse. What publishers need to do is solve the BUDGET problem, not the imagined used game problem. No matter how dead used games are, publishers aren't going to suddenly become less risk averse with their $20 million games. Not making their money back on that would still hurt a LOT. They are still going to be very risk averse, and if they don't significantly lower the price for consumers, they will become more risk averse to, because if they buy a game they don't like...well, tough. Something you really need to realize is that there is more to a game's value then the initial $60 spent and the subsequent experience: there is also the potential resale value should a gamer decide to trade it in or sell it, which can be anywhere between $10-$30 dependng on what the gamer decides to do.

I, as well as every person I know, buy games with this in mind. I LOVE buyig my games digitally. I think being able to purchase a full retail game off the internet and have it download straight to my console where I will be able to access it conveniently forever is a great thing. I accept that there is no way to resell because it's a digital game, and in most cases I've also bought it for a reduced price. But when it comes to a game I am unsure of, an experience that I'd like to try but not one I'd necessarily want to be stuck with forever, I'll buy it physically because  I know I can resell it or trade it later. All of my money is not lost. I recently bought a completely new IP with a female protagonist that has been averaging in the 6's, "Remember Me", BECAUSE I know I can resell it later. It has made me less risk averse, and more willing to buy something I would have NEVER bought digitally. My friends rely heavily on game trade ins to buy new games, games they never could have afforded otherwise. In the current game environment, the used game market is NECESSARY.

If publishers want to save the industry, if WE want this industry to do better, publishers need to lower the barrier of entry, not raise it. Game budgets need to be drastically lowered, either by making smaller games, releasing game episodically, not focusing SO MUCH on improved graphics, developing tools to make game development cheaper, etc. There IS no silver bullet solution, especially not killing usedgames, and I will not pretend that I have one. But it is game budgets that are the problem, and game budgets that need to come down.

Thankfully, it sounds like MS isn't really killing used games, but its restrictive solutions aren't much better. The great thing about most digital services is that they sell their games for a reduced price or offer some kind of incentive, something even Nintendo does on Wii U with their deluxe program. If MS doesn't come up with similar pricing for physical games...they are boned.

And this is the problem. Gamers who only want big budget, "AAA" titles.

Big budgets. This isnt Hollywood, this is the videogame industry. Leave the big budget stuff to the developers and publishers who can afford to do it. Middle teir devs and smaller devs are trying to do this and it isnt working. This is why we are seeing studios close and why we are seeing layoffs.

I for one am uber-excited for The Last of Us. Its a big budget, high quality game. On the other hand, I can still appreciate the likes of Castle Crashers, Don't Starve and Minecraft. I can still go out and buy Valkyria Chronicles and Ni no Kuni.

The industry shouldnt be all about how good the game looks, it should be about how compelling the gameplay experience itself is. Better games will sell more units and build fanbases.

I cannot let my friends borrow my games nor can I sell them without a huge hassel.  Seriously a friend has to be on my list for 30 days to 'borrow' a game? dafaq? And by borrow I mean keep because you're only allowed to do it once. Like really, me and including many other people I know like to sell our games when we completely beat them or get tired of them, but with this xbone policy it's impossible.

Yeah dude, the second hand sales will discontinue the COD series altogether. 

How much do used game sales take away from new game sales? Has anyone documented that?
All I have ever seen is GameStop data showing how trade-ins are used to fund NEW game purchases, which would HELP the industry.
What is killing developers/publishers is making games that cannot make a profit even if they sell 3 million copies (eg Tomb Rader). Stopping/limiting/restricting used game sales will not help that kind of situation. If anything, it would lessen how much money was out there to buy new games, depressing their sales and further harming developers.


Mike from Morgantown

Publishers will price games for the maximum profit. Right now they have more leniency in game pricing BECAUSE of the used game market. Every used game bought required a new game to be bought, and the money received from that used game purchase is more likely to go into another new game. Consequently, publishers can price their games at a higher price because they know the low-waged demographics are able to get games used and those who can afford it will get the game new. Now if the used market isn't there. Publishers would have to decrease the cost of their games, because they are not only missing out on an entire demographic, but those who do purchase games new will not have anywhere to sell them in order to buy even more new games. So not only does demand decrease, but so does the ability for those whom do demand new games to purchase them decrease. If a publisher doesn't decrease the cost of the game, then sales will be affected detrimentally. Overall, the market would shrink because there would be less supply and less demand. In digital downloads, as evidenced by Steam, pricing is far more competitive. There are often discounted deals on older games, and packages to purchase. Overall, PC gaming is much less costly. This is how the transition to only downloadable software will work without destroying an entire demographic and shrinking the market. 

@OP, I appreciate you wanting to protect all the great development teams out there that provide us with hours and hours of entertainment.

But it's just not worth handing over our rights as consumers to keep afloat a punch of developers/publishers who made some poor business decisions, or, in some cases, simply made a great game no one wanted. It's not our job to protect the video game industry. It's our job to buy the games we like. And it's our right to resell them afterward if we so choose.

I think many video game fans have convinced themselves that they are the guarantors of the industry. It just doesn't work that way. If you want to support a particular developer, buy its games, tell your friends, pledge some money to Kickstarter, write a blog post, etc. Don't forfeit your rights as a consumer.

It's the publishers that can't manage their budgets and expectations. And now you want all gamers to give up their ownership rights and right of first sale as a sort of bailout?

It's only right that they be able to charge per experience given, not the physical discs sold.
No it's not, they are not theater performers. They're making a product that is mass reproduced and sold as a commodity.

No one seems to have a problem with app store games not being sharable.
Most people have no problem with paying 0.99 to a few bucks for a convenient instant downloadable game.
Most people have no problem with paying up to $15 for a downloadable title as they know up front what the limitations are and that it is unlikely that these smaller games that sell in lower quantities will make it to shops.
Plenty of people have a problem with paying $50-$60 for a digital download.

In all actuality, an anti-used game policy is what is needed to keep the gaming industry alive. We all know that with improved graphic fidelity,  the cost to develop a game will also increase.
False, tools get easier to use. Cross platform games will be easier to pull off. Many people are happy with todays graphics with a boost in performance, like the pc counterparts of many multi platform games. It's all up to the developers to manage their budgets.

Why do you think so many developers are making first person shooters? Why do you think that many developers are making sequels instead of new IPs?
They would make more money of me by making new IP's. I tend to trade in sequels as they're usually not unique experiences and there is no point in hanging on to the previous one. If they take right of ownership away I would not buy them at all, or at least wait until they hit sub $15 on a digital sale.

I wouldn't mind paying $70 for a game that is worth it and I get to own. Ni No Kuni, GT6, Dark souls, games I play for 50+ hours are easily worth that. However only if I have the option to recoup money if it turns out I do not like it as I thought I would.
I do have a problem with paying $60 for an 8 hour repetitive lineair campaign with limited replay value. If they want to make throw away experiences with usage restrictions they should also price them as such.

If you're business is doing badly, last thing you should do is raise prices and/or offer less value.

Am I the only one who read this in a Stephen Colbert voice ?