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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why don't publishers strike time limit based anti used games deals with retail?

The used game debate is a bit of a double edged sword for anyone who cares about the industry.

From a gamer's perspective if publishers/platform holders completely prevent or severly restrict used game sales it obviously removes  value from our game purchases, and also comes bundled with a slew of side effects like preventing/restricting trading, loaning, private sles, etc. It's also bad in that it  takes a ton of money out of the retail pipeline which is used for new game purchases. But from the developer/publisher side, the arguement that used games eat directly into their new game sales is equally valid. So what can be done to help solve this delema? Obviously, based on recent events, an anti-consumer draconian based DRM system isn't going to fly with gamers. 

My question is this then, is there any way publishers/platform holders could strike a deal with retail to restrict resales on games for the first 1-2 months of a game's retail life? Anyone who follows gaming knows most games are extremely front loaded sales wise to the first few months of their retail life. Therefore; a logical solution for solving the used game 'problem' could be to try and combat sales during this time frame by working with retail. I'm genuinely interested in an exploration of this topic from a business stand point. 

Why hasn't this been explored? Anyone know how much a store like game stop makes on trade ins of games only 1-2 months into their retail life, say verses 3+ month old games? How much/what would a publisher have to offer them to prevent them from buying back new games in the first month or two? Are the interests of the retailer who sells used games and the publisher completely opposed when it comes to this?

Anyone have hard info/statistics on this? I honestly think gamers might  get behind, or at least be tolerant of, something like this if it ment they give up very little and protect/support the creators that make their games. 

Around the Network

GameStop and others would accept less money from the consumer. People would be angrier at this than DRM.

People would get confused. Not everyone keeps tracks of release dates and thus, people would be confused when they found out they couldn't trade in their games. Add to that possibly varying times of not accepting used games and it's just a mess. I do like the idea, though, because it only cuts into Gamestop's etc. earnings and doesn't directly strike against the possibility to sell your games (you can still sell your games privately). It would just require a pretty big ongoing informative campaign to work so people would not get confused.