Oh they changed that then?  They used to just sell rental copies at 5-6X the normal amount because they figured it'd be easy for people to screw with the numbers and fraud them out of rental sales.

They have to get a cut of the rental or we woudn't get so many statistics on rental every week ( if they were just selling the copies for more the rental revenue for movies woudn't increase every week, it would just be an upfront fee).

Heck for some movies still the only revenue is sales of DVD and rental as not every movie comes out in the theater...

I can't see how with your model the rental business would be profitable seeing how for huge movies most Blockbusters have hundreds copies of the movie and they rent them mostly the first week it comes out...( which is one issue with gamefly right now, they can't afford to buy as many copy of a game as people are asking for and as a result if many people ask for the same game the week it is released, quite a few of them actually have to wait a while before getting it...)

As I see it the main difference/gripe is that the very same store that will sell you a game will also function as a re-sell outlet for used games.

For all other media (that I can think of) this is not the case. So HMV only sells new DVDs, Borders only sells new books, etc. There is of course a second hand trade but it takes place away from new media.

However the difference I see is that (for the most part) people buy a film because they like it and intend to keep it to re-watch, therefore re-sell rate I'm pretty sure is less than games. Ditto for books (to an extent although selling on books, trawling through used books in second hand bookstores, etc has been acceptable and part of industry for ages now). CD's re-sell too but again not as much as games.

Games however I think a majority of players don't return to once they've played through it (with exception of online games of course). And as games are far and away more expensive to buy there is a much more driving desire to re-sell a game once completed. Hence why re-selling games is both more common and has more value. People can be returning games within weeks of purchase for re-sell on, which is very unlikely with a DVD or book. Books tend to hit re-sell market during clearouts of piles of books, ditto for DVDs and CDs.

So while Braben is unrealistic to expect used games to vanish he does have a valid point which is that games are the only medium where within a very short period of time (a week or less even) you could buy a game second hand that has just released and is still on the shelves full price. This is what he's complaining about as it is likely (at least for some titles) that the second hand re-sell cannibalizes the full price sales. This doesn't really happen anywhere else. You're not going to walk into HMV a week after The Dark Knight launches and have the choice of buying it full price or cheaper for a used copy. But with a game you very likely could have that possibility

Summary:

1) I think re-selling of games is fine

2) I do think used / new should be very clearly separated

3) Perhaps (big perhaps) if a game is re-sold very quickly (i.e. returned within first three months of release) then the developer, etc. should get part of sale value from retail.

4) After a period of time though (assuming 3 above is viable) the developer is going to have accept the game has made its sales and they are out of the loop for re-sale or even just passing on of games to friends, etc.

people say that the games should be better and cheaper that the problem is crap 7hour games selling full price if this was the case why are most popular selling used games the best ones take most stores that sell a new product that is usually all they sell .shoe,dress, toy stores etc selling new and second hand together don't think so.
the problem is most retail with a second hand sales component tend to separate the new sales from the used IE you buy a new car at a new car sales lot and your used cars at a used car lot . even when the used cars lots are owned by a car sales company that sell traded cars they tend to keep both sides separate they might be located close to each other but not mixed. so
separation is key . if you say its because of bad games overpriced look at the production values we want in our games today hundreds of people on the credits you are not sure about game rent it or use a store with a7day return policy plus great games sold at a lower price point are as likely to be pre owned as any other

Ah actually it appears Rental compies do pay royalties.... but on a montly basis based on what movies they have in stock, and not based on every time a movie is rented.

http://www.crc-scrc.ca/english/downloads/PACC_eng.pdf

At least in Canada.

Q. How do you spot a flailing industry?
A. Look for decisions made to benefit the industry at the customer's expense.

Used goods are not a threat to a healthy industry. They only threaten an industry where new goods have a decreasing level of value to consumers. Furthermore, attempting to block sales of used goods will not help any industry. Such an act tends to drive people away from the industry out of discontent with these draconian policies, and generally causes customers to resent the industry with increasing intensity as time goes on.

There is no better way to destroy your product than to try to take away the rights of your users. The more basic the right being denied, the more devastating the effect.

This is only one of many issues that is slowly making the once lucrative game industry (which attracts artists and creative types) into an industrial practice of churning out carbon copy games.

RPGs, and any game where the value is primarily in the first play through are *severely* harmed by the resale business -- enough such that publishers tend to avoid them (not entirely, of course, since if you weed out all the competition this way, anyone who tries is bound to make at least some money). A game almost has to have multiplayer play to be warranted a permanent "keeper", and not re-enter the retail market at a used price.

Used games are one of the main reasons publishers are unwilling to take risks, and unwilling to make forays into new gaming territory, except in rare circumstances -- they cannot afford to. The price of a new game has hardly gone up since the NES days -- from about $40 to only $50 or $60, whereas other typical retail items have gone up *considerably* more in price. Used games are a problem -- one of the only things holding back the tide of resales is the ultra-low prices price-gouging places like GameStop are willing to pay for used titles.

Used games should be sold with a royalty, IMO. Heck, places like GameStop make most of their profits from used game sales, and the original authors of those titles don't see a dime of it.  GameStop, the middleman, profits hugely from the artists who create these works, and the artists lose their jobs in return.  This hurts the industry immensely.  The vast majority of people working in the games industry have been doing so for less than 5 years.  The burnout rate is fantastically high, because the pay generally sucks, and the work is just as hard as the rest of the tech sector.  I cannot even begin to explain how valuable an experienced engineer, artist, or designer is in the games industry, and can't even fathom how much better the average quality of games would be if there were a significant number of experienced folks to hire -- i.e. that wanted to stay in the industry.

Ask yourself these questions, if you think used games sales, without some sort of royalty agreement, etc., are a good idea:

* Why make a console backwards compatible, when its largest effect is to hurt new game sales, and thus, your licensing income?

* Why make RPGs, or games where the storyline and single-player, first-play experience is the primary focus, when most of the people who will enjoy your work will do so at no benefit to you *at all*?

* Why bother with physical media, when you can permanently attach downloaded games to a single system to avoid this issue? Thus, if the hardware dies... the user has to pay again (unless you offer multiple licenses with a single purchase, like PSN does)

* If you work in the games industry, why stick around, if the pay sucks, because your publisher cannot afford to pay you a decent salary?  The work is literally rocket science if you're an engineer, and the same goes for the other disciplines.  There are lots of other jobs for people of that skill level and education that pay much better.  Bugs == more from new folks.  Boring carbon copy games == more from new folks,  Boring stories == more from new hires,  Lame art == more from new hires, etc..  Experience is everything.

We were both right, I did some research.

The way the business worked back in the VHS age in the US is that rental copies would cost a lot more but studio would get no cut out off rentals.

The way it now works for Blockbuster ( who controls over 25% of the US market) is that Blockbuster gets the movies for close to nothing, keeps 60% of the rental fee for themselves and pays the other 40% of the rental fee to the studio. So it's a little different from Canada....

Advantage of the new system being like I said in another post is that you don't have to limit the number of copies of new movies you get due to huge upfront fees and are able to better satisfy the customer's demand...

I don't see why the video gaming insdustry coudn't adopt a similar system for rentals...

I couldn't agree more. This can be attributed to customers who'd rather support a game store than developers for $5 in savings. I know people want to save money where ever they can but seriously, once the shrink wrap is removed the value drops AT LEAST $20. Anyone willing to pay $55 for a used game that was $60 new is foolish.

Yeah, that's how it works for me.  Most of my purchases are in the 35 and under range.

Of course during the PS2 era i bought all sorts of 10 dollar and under games based on a whim to see what they were like.

I mean if it amused me for an hour and a half it equals a movie in a theatre right?