Volition's Jameson Durall says banning pre-owned games is "fantastic" [Escapist]

[Aussie2B]

Yes, what a wonderful idea, let's mass produce a product that becomes completely worthless, unusable trash once the original purchaser is tired of it. Let's just fill up our landfills even more and make our society even more wasteful. That's really the path to the future. Thrift stores are just evil, what with how they encourage people to reuse and recycle and save money too.

These developers need to grow the balls to admit the real problem here. It's not "used game sales"; it's GameStop. GameStop has a monopoly, and they have the developers bending over getting reamed. They've completely manipulated the system to make greater profits on used sales than new, which is hurting the developers and consumers alike. If they focused on selling new games as they should, game developers wouldn't care about the used sales at independent stores, thrifts, pawns, between friends, etc. I hate to turn this into another anti-GameStop discussion, but they're seriously at the root of this.

[Leo_A]

I'm all for attacking GameStop, but I don't see the point when they've done nothing wrong to warrant the attack. GameStop isn't the problem here. It's the publishers and developers.

[Aussie2B]

I already explained how they ARE the problem here. They make more money off of used sales than sales of new games, which is NOT how it should be, and because of that, they put more effort into moving used goods, even if a game launched just a few days prior. This takes a huge chunk out of the sales of new copies that should be taking place. This is why developers are complaining. They're not losing money because a Goodwill is selling a copy of their game months or years later. It's all because of GameStop. If they made more money selling new games or if they had some kind of restrictions on how/when they could sell used copies (at the very least, not trying to convince customers to go with a used copy over a new one three days after launch just to save 5 bucks), we wouldn't see developers/publishers so concerned about used games.

[kedawa]

If gamers would just sell their games privately instead of trading them for peanuts at Gamestop, that wouldn't even be an issue.

[Gamereviewgod]

at the very least, not trying to convince customers to go with a used copy over a new one three days after launch just to save 5 bucks

Any how many games are being traded in within days of release? The biggest sales period are the first two weeks, maybe three. If there are so many used copies coming in and going out, that's not GameStop's fault. There doesn't need to be a restriction. For $5, I'd be more willing to splurge on a new copy anyway. I'm sure many do too.

And even if they're buying used, there are other avenues of revenue now (DLC, download spin-offs, gamerpics) so the point it moot. If used games are such a concern, then smaller companies would be fighting them too, but they're not.

GameStop hasn't changed anything. Gamestop has grown alongside the industry.

[Robocop2]

I already explained how they ARE the problem here. They make more money off of used sales than sales of new games, which is NOT how it should be, and because of that, they put more effort into moving used goods, even if a game launched just a few days prior. This takes a huge chunk out of the sales of new copies that should be taking place. This is why developers are complaining. They're not losing money because a Goodwill is selling a copy of their game months or years later. It's all because of GameStop. If they made more money selling new games or if they had some kind of restrictions on how/when they could sell used copies (at the very least, not trying to convince customers to go with a used copy over a new one three days after launch just to save 5 bucks), we wouldn't see developers/publishers so concerned about used games.

Why is that not how it should be? Many many things are far more profitable used for the second had seller than a new one. The margins on new product is usually significantly smaller than used, at least as far as the retailer is concerned. Any company is in business to make money in the most efficient, profitable manner which in this case, is used games at least for GS and the like (There is more than one major retailer out there that deals in used games yes?). Yes they pay peanuts to the consumer but that' s the consumer's fault for taking them up on that. GameStop hasn't manipulated the system. If anything the companies should be glad they exist to take in used games as trade and offer additional bonus credit for new pre-orders sometimes. I would wager that helps more than it hurts publishers.


The real problem is not the seller, its the product. Used games have become a scapegoat for the huge losses that companies suffer and I think an all to convenient one. They have to sell them for a certain price to recoup their expenses but if the consumre is not willing to pay that amount then perhaps a different business model is needed. Perhaps GS could extend an olive branch and offer to put a hold on selling pre-owned copies of a newish release for x days but they shouldn't be forced to do that. And even if they did, I expect that used games would still be the evil cause of new game problems.

[Leo_A]

I already explained how they ARE the problem here. They make more money off of used sales than sales of new games, which is NOT how it should be...

You didn't explain anything about why they're the problem. So they make more money off used games than new and concentrate on it and have grown their business? The last I knew, that was free enterprise at work and there was nothing wrong with it.

All that your explanation provided is a possible partial explanation of why the industry is now paying more attention to used game sales as GameStop's business has grown and they've seen the money they're raking in (And incorrectly assume that every dollar spent on a used game is a dollar they're owed and didn't get). But you've failed to explain why their focus on used games is inherently wrong and why they're to be blamed for the situation.

Saying it should be a specific way doesn't make it so. That's not an explanation in the slightest.

I never really got this analogy, car manufacturers still get money as they sell replacement parts for those older cars. And it's not like that 3 year old car you're trading in is still being sold new. It's like complaining that someone is trading in a copy of Halo 1 to buy a copy of Halo 3, but they're actually complaining about people selling or trading in Halo 3 when Halo 3 is still a new release. I don't think developers deserve a cut on used games but this example just doesn't work as a comparison. Used books are a better example, but I don't hear many people complaining about used book stores or libraries either.

The situation isn't any different in the world of videogames. Microtransactions, single use unlock codes such as online passes, subscription fees, ingame advertising revenue, and I'm sure other ways have made it increasingly possible for console manufacturers, developers, and publishers to make money after the initial sale of a game. That applies to original buyers and those that bought the game second hand, just like the parts replacement business for automobile manufacturers.

[The 1 2 P]

I think publishers need to start trying different pricing models. They have dlc for multiplayer maps and single player add on missions but now they need to experiment more with retail prices. Once they come down from that $60 price tag I think theres a chance they can attract more early adopters.

[Aussie2B]

There's nothing wrong with free enterprise until a company becomes a monopoly, and GameStop is darn near close to one. They're basically the only chain brick and mortar video game store in town. If they wanted to exclusively sell used games, then wonderful. Bring back the old stuff too and I'd shop there a heck of a lot more. But the problem is that, in terms of a single company, I'm sure publishers see more sales via GameStop than through any other, yet GameStop actively DISCOURAGES the sales of new games. Now that's an abusive relationship if I've ever seen one.

I don't really care if someone thinks that's fine or not. My point is simply that it's clear as day that when developers/publishers complain about "used game sales", as they're apt to do in recent years, what they're really complaining about is GameStop. And personally, I have a little more sympathy for the people who create the games I love than the corporate bigwigs at GameStop, so I'd rather see a more fair relationship between them than to simply tell the developers to suck it up.

[Press_Start]

These developers need to grow the balls to admit the real problem here. It's not "used game sales"; it's GameStop. GameStop has a monopoly, and they have the developers bending over getting reamed. They've completely manipulated the system to make greater profits on used sales than new, which is hurting the developers and consumers alike. If they focused on selling new games as they should, game developers wouldn't care about the used sales at independent stores, thrifts, pawns, between friends, etc. I hate to turn this into another anti-GameStop discussion, but they're seriously at the root of this.

If they believe Gamestop's used sales are hurting them, what's going to stop them from blaming brick n' mortal stores like Digital Press?
If they believe Digital Press's used sales are hurting them, what's going to stop them from blaming ad sites like Craigslist?
If they believe Craiglist ads are hurting them, what's going to stop them from blaming Game forums and trade sites like here?
If they believe Gaming forums are hurting them, what's going to stop them from blaming every gamer that trades, borrows, sells, and every method that doesn't involve buying new games?

When you put Gamestop on trial for used game sales, you put all of us on trial.

My point is simply that it's clear as day that when developers/publishers complain about "used game sales", as they're apt to do in recent years, what they're really complaining about is GameStop. And personally, I have a little more sympathy for the people who create the games I love than the corporate bigwigs at GameStop, so I'd rather see a more fair relationship between them than to simply tell the developers to suck it up.

So, you tell one snake to stuff it down his throat while charmed by the other snake.

[Gamereviewgod]

I don't really care if someone thinks that's fine or not. My point is simply that it's clear as day that when developers/publishers complain about "used game sales", as they're apt to do in recent years, what they're really complaining about is GameStop.

The only publishers actively complaining are the mega-pubs: EA, Ubi, Sony, etc. If this was anything other than a pretend problem, everyone would be on board, but others see the value in GameStop. And if EA and crew have a problem, then stop giving GS exclusives, but they don't.

And personally, I have a little more sympathy for the people who create the games I love than the corporate bigwigs at GameStop, so I'd rather see a more fair relationship between them than to simply tell the developers to suck it up.

You'd rather support the corporate bigwigs at the major publishers then, because that's where the profits of these supposed anti-used policies are going, not to the devs.

[TonyTheTiger]

There's nothing wrong with free enterprise until a company becomes a monopoly, and GameStop is darn near close to one. They're basically the only chain brick and mortar video game store in town.

There are anti-trust and collusion laws in place for a reason. GameStop doesn't come close to triggering them as far as I'm aware. Now we can argue whether or not the laws in place appropriately deal with what they're designed to deal with (certainly a valid issue far beyond the scope of a mere game store) but that goes back to hating the game rather than the player. If you think GameStop is a monopoly or close to one and, as a result, is bad for the public, then focus the energy on fighting the institutions that allow that negative entity to exist (or at least perpetuate it's "evils") in the first place rather than the entity itself, which is merely playing by the rules it is presented with. If you're convinced GameStop is bad then at least identify it as a mere symptom of a greater issue, whatever you think that may be. While I may not necessarily agree, the argument will at least be aiming at a more appropriate target.

[Leo_A]

There's nothing wrong with free enterprise until a company becomes a monopoly, and GameStop is darn near close to one. They're basically the only chain brick and mortar video game store in town.

What difference is it if one retailer dominates brick and mortal videogame stores or if it's a dozen different chains of comparable size? I don't see the significance or the relevance to the topic at hand.

[TonyTheTiger]

These developers need to grow the balls to admit the real problem here. It's not "used game sales"; it's GameStop. GameStop has a monopoly, and they have the developers bending over getting reamed. They've completely manipulated the system to make greater profits on used sales than new, which is hurting the developers and consumers alike. If they focused on selling new games as they should, game developers wouldn't care about the used sales at independent stores, thrifts, pawns, between friends, etc. I hate to turn this into another anti-GameStop discussion, but they're seriously at the root of this.

If GameStop's practices are actually a problem (which still hasn't really been established) then that's merely a symptom of the greater cause. GameStop is playing the game by the rules that were set and it just so happens that the most effective way to play the game involves stepping on the toes of publishers. Fact is, new games don't offer a substantial cut for the retailer. Notice how games work differently than DVDs. You never really hear this about movies. Disney isn't going around complaining about used Blu-ray sales.

I'm not exactly saying that the game market should be a 1:1 match of the DVD market in terms of how pricing works. But if GameStop is so ungodly awful then why aren't more people looking at the things that allow GameStop to work that way rather than just pointing the finger at the company itself?

For a gaming analogy, it's like how if somepony is playing a fighting game and his opponent busts out a game breaking infinite combo and instead of either moving to a better game that doesn't have that kind of bullshit or demanding better from the developers he instead complains that his opponent is being "cheap" when all he's doing is playing the game in the best way it allows. He's playing to win, which is the whole point of a fighting game. It's why banning is so frowned upon in the competitive community and only done in the most isolated cases.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. If there happens to be some fatal flaw in the system that allows GameStop to exploit a loophole then fix the goddamn loophole, whatever it is. And if everypony is content with how the system works (pricing, distribution, etc.) then they shouldn't complain when people, or entities in this case, play the game in the most efficient way possible. You know, playing to win. GameStop is the guy dominating the Street Fighter machine while publishers are the scrubs yelling how throws are cheap and how he blocks too much. Either learn to play the game, move to a different game, or keep losing. Another option, provided you're in the position to do so, is to fix the exploit if there is one or to demand it from whoever is in such a position.