Why did the customer buy a game they should have known they wouldn;t like? If they hate FPSs why would they buy an FPS all becasue its hyped, they should know they hate the genre. So its not the publishers fault that the customer was an idiot and bought into hype from the media and their friends who like the genre. It is completely the customer's idiocy.

@ noname2200

I don't have the patience (or skill) to argue with you point by point, but I’ll at least give my opinion.

Comparing game sales to "DVDs, books, cars, homes, jewellery, and every other consumer good in the world", in my opinion, doesn't fly. Are any of the aforementioned goods created for a large sum of money and sold for a loss 100% of the time, with the creators hoping that they will eventually break even and receive profit? No. Most goods are created for peanuts and sold for a profit right from the beginning.

Video games most closely resemble movies. Movies are multi-million dollar endeavours that not only recoup their costs through theatre tickets, but through DVD sales as well. Why would it be so wrong for Jaffe to feel that the current system needs a revamp? Why should he settle with GameStop eating up his profits right from the beginning when movie developers and producers have more leeway before the used market takes off? I doubt he would be opposed to keeping the current system but with new games initially released as 6 month DD exclusive, like movies essentially are.

You said it yourself: "If they can't make do with what they have, they need to reconsider how they do business", and sadly, I don't think it's possible for everybody to be happy in this industry without major structural changes taking place. Developers shouldn’t be the ones to suffer due to the incompetence of the industry.

I apologize for not really addressing any of your points directly, but I just found it easier to give my general opinion.

So based on that stat EVERY person that has bought the game sold it to someone else. Which is probably a bit off from the truth. Devs need to stop making shitty games with no replay value. That way people wouldn't resell it.....and used gamers would be forced to buy new or (most likely) wait for a price drop.

they are only right because a salesmen's job is to hold their hand and sell a product that the customer wants. even if said customer hates FPSs, if they say the want the game even after a salesmen pitchs the product to make sure its correct for the customer, we have no right to not sell the game to them under the belief they will hate the game. So it falls onto the customer's wants to make their purchase what they want, its just that the product they select might not be right because of their choice and lack of understanding or common sense in this instance.

No, because hype is intended to get people to buy, even those who would not necessarily be interested in the game, hype isn't about educating consumers, its about generating demand, in addition you're assuming that people who buy the games already know what genres and games they like before they play them.  By assuming that consumers are stupid you're in fact hurting your own future potential, consumers are the lifeblood of any compnay and insustry, if you can't sell your product or service then you go out of buisness, so yes its your failure when a consumer walks away unhappy, it was your job to make sure that you gave them waht they wanted.

So, wait a second. It's a developer's fault that they made a fantastic game, but someone bought it when it didn't appeal to them? You'e arguing that the developer somehow failed and should be punished, even if they make a fantastic product, because of what some consumers think. You can't please everyone, and you certainly can't stop people from buying your products, but that doesn't mean publishers and developers should be chastised for it. Let's take Nintendo, who is in my opinion, the best developer in the industry. If they put out a great game like Twilight Princess or Super Mario Galaxy, should they suffer from used game sales? Those are two incredible games, but some consumers might not like them. It's not a failure because Nintendo failed to appeal to a person they don't even know. That's just a consumer who should buy some other game. You may have someone that has never played a shooter before. They buy a shooter, decide that it isn't the genre for them, and return it for used sale. Then, a devoted shooter fan goes to the store, and buys the used copy. You're basically arguing that a developer failed in some way if they didn't appeal every last person who bought their product, even though they have no control of that. They can't please everyone, but they can release amazing products. And they shouldn't be punished for that.

I (personally) don't believe that used games have much of an impact on the sales of new games ...

The people who buy a new game and trade it in quickly to recover some of their investment are highly likely to use that money to buy another new game in the near future; and, although used game prices start off being close to the price of the game new, few people buy used games until the price drops to a level where there is a noticeable savings for buying a used game. Part of the reason why trading in games seems like such a rip-off (buying your game for often less than half what they sell it for) is because the game they buy today will typically be discounted several times before it is sold months down the road.

Now, I highly doubt that the person who is buying a used videogame at $30 or $20 would really translate into a new game sale at $60 or higher.

What I do think that the used game market demonstrates is that a lot of gamers do not place the value of a videogame at $60 and are trading in games or buying used games to make the price of a game more in line with their value level. If games were less expensive fewer people would see the value in trading them in, and more people would be willing to pay full price for the games. I could be wrong with the price level, but I suspect that if videogames were $20 few people would bother to rent, trade, or steal games and quite a few people would be willing to buy several times as many games; and overall, revenue levels for the industry on the whole could increase dramatically.

The assumption that people only sell games that they didn't enjoy is an oversimplification of the issue in order to put blame on the developers. People sell games for all kinds of reasons, and many just sell them as a matter of course because they can and it helps them buy the next one. Every used game is not a failure on the parts of the developer.

Ah, but hype doesn't educate consumers, it just generates demand, see the publishers aren't educating consumers on what content is in a game, which is why people buy many games on hype rather than on actually playing and loving it.