Penny Arcade on Buying Used

[Griking]

There's a new blog entry and comic about purchasing used games and it's effect on developers. It's a pretty interesting read and I think I agree with them as much as I'm a consumer and like saving money. No matter how you look at it though I think that big changes are in the cards

http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/25/

[Zapf]

A pair of guys who gets a large amount of ad revenue from game companies defending shitty practices of said game companies well I never! This is almost as embarrassing to read as their comic on the ubisoft drm.

[Zapf]

How does digitpress feel about gabe and tycho literally calling it a fucking black market.

[Robocop2]

It is obviously in the publishers best intrest to cater to new purchasers and I can see why at least in some ways they wouldn't care what happens to used consumers. As their primary revenue stream is from new purchases. Though they still stand the chance to sell DLC to the used consumers. I can see offering some sort of incentive to persuade people to buy new. However I can't see how intentionally gimping a game just because its a used game is good business practice. It would be like a car company causing the radio in a car to automatically be rendered useless simply because you bought it used. Equating the used market to piracy is ludicrous though.

[Swamperon]

I can see what they're saying, and ethically I more or less agree with it. But my wallet and ever lowering bank balance argue differently and more effectively.

Also, I imagine they get sent a great deal of games/PR material for free so it probably isn't so much of an issue for them.

Used games shouldn't be banned, or users penalised for buying them. What will happen when people buy the same game 5 years down the line and it's missing content which is of no fault to the buyer who can no longer buy the game new? (Well, not much but you see the point)

Perhaps games shouldn't be so expensive in the first place? Movies on average cost far more than games to make, yet you can see it at the cinema and buy the dvd together for a lot cheaper than buying a game at launch.

[portnoyd]

How does digitpress feel about gabe and tycho literally calling it a fucking black market.

Uh, no. That's not even close to what they say. They said it's hard to go against the publisher's viewpoint, knowing people in the industry. Whether or not they are biased based on ad revenue is a moot point - you'll never know for sure.

Here's the mail I sent into the fray yesterday:

Most used games at Gamestop have stickers on the spine, missing components and general damage. As someone who makes it a point to take care of their games (not just limited to collectors, of course), a used copy can be completely unappealing. New games ensure that I get everything that came with the game and in good condition (a caveat applies to gut copies, which I will turn down). In my situation, the publisher argument is largely irrelevant. I automatically support the publishers because I find used games less than optimal.

As far as saving money, if I'm going to save $10 on a game, I'll wait until I can save $20 or more when the game inevitably drops in price as it gets older. I have many other games to play in the meantime. If I want something new when it comes out, Amazon is a much better choice than Gamestop so the new/used issue never comes into play for me. High profile games also come with a $20 gift card for preordering so the game drops to $30-$40 right off the bat, Amazon does not take any money upfront on preorders, no tax (being in NJ) and free super saver shipping or dirt cheap release day shipping as options? Why would I even set foot in a Gamestop?

I do see THQ's position as one of misdirected hostility. If used games are hurting them that bad, shouldn't they be allocating more copies of their games to stores that don't deal in used product? Don't squeeze the consumer in this situation. Realize you control the supply and consumers have many options to get your games. Assuming I'd buy a used game, I'd rather find Gamestop out of stock and having to go elsewhere than finding my game is not 100% functional as advertised.

[Richter Belmount]

How does digitpress feel about gabe and tycho literally calling it a fucking black market.

I Is Outragedz!

[Zapf]

Uh, no. That's not even close to what they say.

Third panel of the comic

edit: I really like amazon's thing now though (and I guess walmart just started doing it as well, preorder Metroid: other M and you get a 20 dollar eGift Card). I preordered ssf4 i think, got a 10 dollar gift card, used that on smg2 and got a 20 dollar gift card, then I used that on deathsmiles.

[SegaAges]

There are threads started all the time about how much GameStop sucks. If you don't like it or don't support them, don't shop there.

I agree with Portnoyd. There are many great options out there for buying new games (and even buying used games). Pinning it all on GameStop at this point is a little dumb.

[izarate]

How does digitpress feel about gabe and tycho literally calling it a fucking black market.


Where did they say that? O_O Podcast?

[portnoyd]

Third panel of the comic

Did we read the same comic? I don't think we did.

[SegaAges]

They talk about a parallel economy, but I would not go so far as to infer that they meant black market.

[portnoyd]

The comic, in general, seems off focus from the news post. PA really is hit or miss these days.

Off topic, I always thought it was odd that the PA guys never go to their own forums.

[YoshiM]

Third panel of the comic
What I get out of the comic is that THQ and the like are insinuating that the purchasing of used games can be seen as a "black market" to THEM because they aren't seeing a penny in used game sales. The PA crew themselves aren't calling it a "black market", it's just that they are saying if the developers aren't supported-who's gonna make the games you like?

That said, you have to step back and look at the bigger picture beyond the boundaries of your TV screen and realize that THQ and the PA crew have a point. If developers/publishers aren't supported by buying new, then you run the possibility of not getting the games you like. Granted, the system doesn't always work (where awesome games fall through the cracks and never get properly supported) but that's just how it is.

I think what really makes the situation sticky is not the fact that games are being sold used (as that's been going on forever in some form or another) but the fact that a single company rakes in MILLIONS on the sale of used games while trying to sell some of the same games brand new at the same time. Think about it: you got a person who's looking at the latest Madden with a sticker price of $59.99 and then a used copy right next to it for $55.99. If that person has an Edge card, knock another $6 or so off and you're already saving $10-11. It's no wonder that THQ and such are getting peeved and this is probably one of the reasons why there are so many "big specials" with the huge games ($X gift cards, percentages off, etc.).

Personally, I try to support the developers by buying new. If it's something high-profile I'll really like (Demon's Souls, Uncharted 2), I'll pick it up. Otherwise I'll wait for a sale (and before anyone says anything-the developers still get supported, just not with as much cash. Still better than used for them).

Of course, if the game is no longer available "new" (as in regularly produced), then used is the only option.

[Pete Rittwage]

I've logically thought through the situation, and I have to agree that it really is similar to piracy in some aspects, but not completely.

Only GameStop makes any the money off the used game sale, and they publisher is then left to provide the services to a new "customer" that didn't pay them for anything. It could be argued that the original purchaser isn't using the services anymore, so it doesn't cost the publisher any more money to provide services to the "new" owner. It could also be argued either way that the buyer would or would not have bought the game at the new price if the used one wasn't available. GameStop pushes used games, and not at any sort of bargain price- they are maximizing their profits on the situation.

I have always disagreed with renting games, even back when Nintendo was the "evil empire" fighting against it. It isn't really fair that video stores could buy one copy of the game and rent it to 500 people who will then never buy it, and pocket all the profit minus the sale of one copy. In the movie, industry, it's different, you can't go rent a (legitimate) DVD the day a movie comes out, so they're profits are protected for several months from this, but games aren't setup that way.

Maybe game publishers should take the movie theater concept and open "gaming centers" where they charge you to play the new game, but it is unavailable for home purchase for a few months.

That sounds like the old arcade days, so bring it back!

-
Pete

[sidnotcrazy]

If game companies were so upset about the second hand market why not stop selling to Gamestop and other retailers who sell used games.

I think I understand both viewpoints, but if I buy a game, its mine to do with as I please. That is if its a physical copy. Just like if I bought a car, its mine. I can throw a game off a roof if I so choose to do so. That is the way it should
be.

I never worry about buying used games, or buying new games. If I see a game that I want, at the price I can afford, I buy it.

PA are just expressing how they feel about it,

[Ze_ro]

if I buy a game, its mine to do with as I please. That is if its a physical copy. Just like if I bought a car, its mine. I can throw a game off a roof if I so choose to do so. That is the way it should be.
I agree with this. Obviously games aren't cars... but you don't see companies whining about this stuff in other markets like used movie or CD sales.

It amazes me that there's not more concern that digital sales cannot be resold. I would have thought there'd be some kind of law about that, at least in the United States.

--Zero

[jb143]

I think I understand both viewpoints, but if I buy a game, its mine to do with as I please. That is if its a physical copy. Just like if I bought a car, its mine. I can throw a game off a roof if I so choose to do so. That is the way it should be


True to a point. You can't make and sell copies of the game. The code itself is licensed. You own a license that limits what you can do with it. Some software licenses you can't legaly transfer to other people. Most high end buisness software is like this and the downloadable game market is too. Console games aparently aren't. The used car market works because everyone knows that a new car severely depreciates in value as soon as it's driven off the lot. Not so with games.

I can see both sides as well, but I rarely buy anything for new systems as it is. Most of my Wii games came from thrift stores or garage sales. I guess they run black markets as well ;)

[brykasch]

Points-

1. Gamestop gets heaped on this wayyyy to fucking much, ebay is NEVER mentioned in these diatribes by company heads. Ebay/Craigslist do just as much.

2. If the companies have so much of an issue with it why do they continue to have special promotions with gamestop for codes etc with pre-ordering?

3. I think if companies focused on making quality titles that couldn't be beat in 12-15 hours it wouldn't be as much of an issue as well. Learn to release games at better times instead of dumping everything in the fall/christmas selling period.

4. I don't buy a ton used I wait for price drops to hit 20 dollar range usually, but you take away used game sales people will jstu wait for price drops, or use game rental services.

5. You don't see car companies railing against used car sales

6. Someone paid for the game already once, there is no reason they deserve a second slice of compensation, whats next they hit up the garage sales too?

[Griking]

Here was my response;

I understand that buying new will help a developer and buying used will not but it's sometimes hard to opt for the new copy of a game that's two years old over the used copy that's $20 less. That's being said I'm much more likely to purchase the new copy when the title is still new and Gamestop charges only $5 less for the used version. Ultimately I always WANT to buy new but we're all on budgets and games cost so much nowadays. I think that the gaming industry as a whole needs to respond to the used game issue rather than a few individual companies. A also believe that there needs to be compromises. For me to agree to never purchase used again here are my terms;

* A new copy of a game should never be more than $39.99, $49.99 if it's a hot anticipated title. Yes I know that you'll make less per game but the unavailability of used copies means that you'll most likely sell many more copies of the game which will more than make up for the price reduction.

* Follow Steam's lead and drop prices a considerable amount after the game's been out for a while and make them all available for download.

* Promise to keep multiplayer servers up for a pre-announced amount of time. Why should I purchase new over used when I won't be able to play online anyways?

* Provide an easy way for me to transfer my purchased games over to a new console should my old one break or if I upgrade to a newer better model.

If the game companies agree to these terms then I won't have a problem with them tying games to specific consoles or requiring one use codes for in game features such as multi play.

[GrandAmChandler]

PROTIP:

Stop charging customers $60 for "Roster updates" and people will be more likely to buy your shitty game. Or more likely to take a chance on an underdog game. (See NFL2K5.) Why are new releases $60? Why not $50 like the Wii? Because they can.

I buy cheap like Portnoyd, or used if possible. If it's a game I play a lot online (CoD, Halo, etc.) Then of course I am going to buy new. Anyone notice any first party publishers doing this bullshit don't buy used or else you get punished? Sony & Microsoft need to slap the bullshit out of EA, THQ, Activision and all the rest. Does this even exist on the Wii? DS? PSP?

[shopkins]

I have serious doubts that the new game market would be as big as it is now if it wasn't for the fact that the people who buy new do it with the knowledge that they can turn around and get some of their money back a few weeks later. It's a huge incentive to buy things as soon as they come out instead of waiting for price drops or being more cautious about your purchases and it's good for the industry.

It's ridiculous to rail against it as if this is theft. It's like freaking out because someone sold a car you sold them and got some money out of it instead of junking it. When you buy a car there's an expectation you'll probably get some trade value out of it when you get another one. This is just the way things work and I refuse to be made to feel guilty about it or feel like I'm somehow hurting the game industry because I'm not wasteful enough with my money and goods.

[Zapf]

That said, you have to step back and look at the bigger picture beyond the boundaries of your TV screen and realize that THQ and the PA crew have a point. If developers/publishers aren't supported by buying new, then you run the possibility of not getting the games you like. Granted, the system doesn't always work (where awesome games fall through the cracks and never get properly supported) but that's just how it is.


Used sales may not help in the immediate term, but that's a really short sited view of the situation. I bought super mario galaxy 1 used, and I enjoyed it enough to get the next one (the discount I got from amazon was also a factor, but still). People borrow games from friends and often enjoy it enough to buy their own copy. Why would I want to ever give money to that company if my experience with their previous games was limited by them arbitrarily turning chunks of their game into one-time consumables?

In the end, this will hurt the new owners who value the ability to trade in their games for new ones just as much as the people who bought it used. The consumer will not win.

[CelticJobber]

As someone who likes to have his games complete and in good condition, I very rarely buy used games (especially when they're only $5-10 cheaper than a new copy).

But it seems weird that movie companies, car companies, and any other industry where used products thrive seem to have no problem with used sales of their products.

Only videogame publishers/developers seem to have a problem with used sales, which makes me think the people in charge of those companies are extraordinarily greedy.

[ScourDX]

Perhaps these developer should create a buy back their own game and give out coupon to customer for their next title purchase.

[Mangar]

I imagine that every industry, be it Cars, Movies, Books, etc... - Would put a stop to "used" sales if they could. They simply lack the ability to do so based on consumer backlash, and the inability to really "Punish" the consumer for his used purchase. It's not as it Ford can remove "Air Conditioning" from used car sales in order to force people to buy new. This isn't even a new concept, as film studio's essentially tried the same thing way way back when DvD's first came out. The competitor at time was a format called DiVX - Which among other issues, allowed companies to sort of "lock" a purchase to an individual DiVX player, AND require a constant net connection in order to watch a movie you owned. It was heavily supported by multiple film studios, and the Circuit City chain of stores. Luckily, DvD won that battle....

This is just another episode of corporate America shitting on the average consumer in order to squeeze that last extra dollar out of him. Really nothing new, and if the companies profit margin improves during this experiment, you can pretty much guarantee that others will follow suit. The only way to fight it, is to simply not buy the product or pirate it.

[G-Boobie]

A pair of guys who gets a large amount of ad revenue from game companies defending shitty practices of said game companies well I never! This is almost as embarrassing to read as their comic on the ubisoft drm.

Boy, are you ever confused. This isn't gameFAQs; you must have clicked the wrong Google search link.

Here's the sad reality of the situation: if people don't buy new games, then developers close up shop and we don't get rad new games. That seems pretty simple to me. The THQ guy was dead fucking right. If your money isn't getting baack to him somehow, then why should he care about you?

Internet entitlement. Christ.

[Mangar]

Here's the sad reality of the situation: if people don't buy new games, then developers close up shop and we don't get rad new games. That seems pretty simple to me. The THQ guy was dead fucking right. If your money isn't getting baack to him somehow, then why should he care about you?

I don't mind people supporting the decision, I just hate when people invent, and pull absolute bullshit from their ass and call it "Reality" or somehow put them forth as facts.

THQ Has been making some of the absolute shittiest games I've ever played since the days of the 8-Bit NES. Somehow, they have managed to stay in business during this entire period, and have not "closed up shop" despite used game sales taking place during this entire period. Making your entire post completely incorrect and inaccurate.

[izarate]

Counterpoints :cheers: (not really...)


Points-
1. Gamestop gets heaped on this wayyyy to fucking much, ebay is NEVER mentioned in these diatribes by company heads. Ebay/Craigslist do just as much.


eBay/craiglist doesn't have employees steering you away from buying a new game.




2. If the companies have so much of an issue with it why do they continue to have special promotions with gamestop for codes etc with pre-ordering?


Good question.



3. I think if companies focused on making quality titles that couldn't be beat in 12-15 hours it wouldn't be as much of an issue as well. Learn to release games at better times instead of dumping everything in the fall/christmas selling period.


Agreed. I hate the dry seasons.




5. You don't see car companies railing against used car sales


Of course not since a used car would still require replacement parts and services from the company and most dealers have an "used cars" section anyway. They do resent third party service providers though.




The "one time use" code for online features seems like the best compromise here since that way they can get money from the second sale if the buyer decides that such features are worth paying for. After all the argument seems to be that they have to provide an online infrastructure for such "second sales".

[Zapf]

Boy, are you ever confused. This isn't gameFAQs; you must have clicked the wrong Google search link.

Here's the sad reality of the situation: if people don't buy new games, then developers close up shop and we don't get rad new games. That seems pretty simple to me. The THQ guy was dead fucking right. If your money isn't getting baack to him somehow, then why should he care about you?

Internet entitlement. Christ.

Yep, the right of first sale being eroded is totally just gamefaqs internet bitching.

[heybtbm]

99% of the games I buy are new. Usually from Amazon. Ever since I found a bunch of "smudges" and several pubic hairs inside a copy of Tekken 5 at Gamestop...I haven't gone back.

In the rare instances where I buy a current-gen used game, I shop at the local mom & pop game stores.

[Gamereviewgod]

Man, the book industry must be PISSED those libraries are giving out their product for free every day across the country...

Seriously though, there's no sympathy here from me. I don't buy many new games. Maybe five a year. I simply don't see $60 in value. Cutting out the online portion for used buyers is ridiculous, as a person buying a used copy doesn't add to their server cost. It's simply another way to take advantage of a consumer populace who is ready and willing to accept $15 map packs, when only two of the maps are new. This has nothing to do with used games.

The industry put itself here. The "need" for 10 hour experiences is a huge problem. Want to solve it? Make games that are three-four hours, cut down on your development costs, charge us what the movie industry does for home video ($20-$30). Problem solved. People can buy more games, people can play more games, they can take risks more often, and if a game flops, oh well. There's another title in the line because the cost is so much lower. Gamers need to get off this high horse about associating time with value, but that's another topic.

I mean seriously, I'm playing Mafia II. I have literally driven for an hour, shot two people, and done a pointless fetch quest. That's two hours of gameplay. This game is nothing but filler because they have to pad it with garbage to meet some arbitrary length. The same goes for Alan Wake, which continued time and again to assault me with the same enemies in the same forest every two minutes, all to slow me down so it seems longer than it is. I'm not paying $60 for these experiences.

There is room for long games. The Mass Effects of the world are great. But think about the last time a game truly gave you a full 10-hour experience without filler or padding. They rarely happen.

[Gooch3008]

I think anyone or any company who complains about not getting paid for the same product over and over and over are freakin' greedy.

[Hep038]

If you make a good game people will buy it new regardless. You make a average game some people are going to wait and buy it used. It really is that simple. And if THQ wants to punish people who buy their used games well watch out, you might get your wish and they will stop buying your games all together. This sounds like the music artits crying about not getting royalties on used CD sales. You made money the first time you sold it, asking to get paid every time it exchanges hands is just greed.

[Gamereviewgod]

And another thing... (this topic really pisses me off)...

Beyond the preservation aspect which should really have collectors worried with all of this "exclusive" content being locked out, doing the online pass lowers resale value... which goes towards new games.

So, I have Madden 11. Didn't care for it. I try to sell it on eBay so I can get some money for Halo Reach, but don't you know, I'm lucky if I get $40 already two weeks after release. So, not only are they screwing used customers, destroying brand loyalty, they're shooting themselves in the foot because now it's not as easy as trading up.

NHL 11 has 159 pieces of DLC. 159. You're telling me they give a rats ass whether that copy was new or used? They get paid plenty of times over. If they had such an issue with this, they would sever all ties with Gamestop, but they just keep coming back. That used model is too important even if they don't see it from way up high. Down here, that's how many can afford this industry.

[Bandicat]

I really have a hard time seeing the whole "used video games are evil" argument as anything more than greed and whining from the game companies.

While it is true that developers do not get any revenue from used games sales, the argument is lame and ridiculous. Any industry that produces a good that is meant to be used more than a few times has no doubtingly experienced consumers (AKA Their customers) selling said goods used to someone else. I cannot think of one industry that has failed because of this.

Saying that no new games will be created due to people buying used, is like saying no new cars will be produced because people are buying used. There will always be a portion of the population who will want to buy the newest model with all the new features unavailable in previous model years. The same thing is true for games. There will always be people to design and build these new cars, just like there will always be developers to create new games.

The free market has been at work in the video game industry for at least 20 years, yet we continue to see new and innovative games created. There has been no shortage.

Lastly, on the other side of the developers aren't supported argument: Retailers such as Gamestop, EB and even Digital Press employ lots of people with their business model. When you buy used games from these retailers, you are supporting the employees of that company.

[G-Boobie]

Yep, the right of first sale being eroded is totally just gamefaqs internet bitching.

I never said that. What I said is that if the CEO of THQ doesn't see any money from you, he's right to not give a shit about you as a customer. What are you going to do about it, not buy any more of their games? You're not buying them anyway.

Claiming that the penny arcade dudes are in the pocket of games companies because their opinions differ from yours is retarded and belongs on gameFAQs. I stand behind that statement.

[DonMarco]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm always damn certain when I use the used market. I completely understand how my wallet speaks to the industry. Every month I buy a new game and a new strategy guide to support the companies I really like. $80 a month for a single college guy who works and doesn't drink beer is not a lot.

However! The times I buy new games used are reserved for special occasions. For the upcoming Call of Duty: Black Ops, I can get my CoD fix and not give a damn penny to Activision. Seriously, after the year they had and all the IW guys getting fired?? Buying Black Ops off some random on eBay puts money in their pocket. Money they can use to buy another 360 game, pay rent with, or buy a beer. Whatever, you know?

On a personal note: I just sold seven games on eBay tonight... I "made" easily three times what GS would have offered me on trade-in. I'm using the proceeds to buy Halo Reach (new) and Dead Rising (new) because that's how I roll. I haven't traded a game at GS in years and encourage my friends to do the same. Anything they want to buy used I point out they can get for a few bucks cheaper online (or just trade for it). Nothing against GameStop in particular, when Best Buy/Target/Wal-Mart get in on the action, I'll be avoiding them, too.

[kupomogli]

I don't care about used games sales because the majority of the time people will be buying it new anyways. There can only be an amount of used sales equal to those that are new and not all people are going to sell the game. Only if those people who bought used resell it will it generate more used sales.

I however don't like companies putting extra preorder DLC because of this. Why don't they just print a certain percentage of their projected sales with the DLC on disc and then the rest with people requiring to download it off PSN or XBL if they want it. Enough for those that preorder and others who get it when it's full price.

[Red Baron]

One of my friends buys games new all the time. After he beats them, he sells them/trades them in and uses the money to buy more new games. (And non-collector game savants that do it like he does aren't too uncommon, really.)

In another friend's case, he can really only afford used games for last-gen systems, as he doesn't even have the new ones anyway.

If there was no reselling of games, in the former case, the companies would actually be getting _less_ revenue, and in the latter case, would merely continue to get zero revenue.

In any case, even among the more thrifty people I know, a lot of them aren't too keen on saving just $5-10 bucks on a mostly new game. There have been enough problems with used games that most people really will pay just a bit more for the really new one. If they're going to wait for the used one, they're going to wait until it's _really_ cheap, which is most likely so far down the line that it'd have been impossible to find a new one anyway and the company probably stopped caring by then.

..While slightly off-topic, but still a part of the 'used games not having the full package' deal, I'm personally dissappointed that video games are moving towards a "Time limit" style of build where a game begins to lose functionality as years pass and it no longer has access to online features. I have games like MGS3 where they no longer have their online multiplayer, the original X-Box live is now gone, and I suspect with the march of time that even games from this system will eventually be left in the dust and not have access to things like their DLC.

As a collector that does like to play my older games, it just makes me sad that this generation may not be quite as 'timeless' as past generations, and that this trend will continue to worsen.

[CDiablo]

Red Baron hits the nail on the head! If game companies find a way to eradicate used sales new game sales will plummet. Why is it that the anti used crowd act as if the sellers of their games always spend their money on non videogaming goods?

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

*EDIT* Gah! Not a unique thought on the subject ... Red Baron and I are on the same page.

Here's my two cents anyway.

When "THE Gamestop/used game sales" conversation comes up do we ever take into consideration that there is a yearly percentage of gamers who trade in games to Gamestop (or other used game reseller) and use either 100% or some other smaller percent of their "store credit" toward brand new product?

That being said, there MUST be a percentage, very likely a large percentage of new game sales seen by developers/publishers via the used game market.

Yes, if it's a 1:1 cash purchase of a used game, the publisher sees no profit at all, but if a consumer is trading in 5 games for 1 copy of the latest WWE game from THQ, even though Gamestop is essentially footing the purchase (and will profit off of those used games, whatever they may be) THQ is going to see their dollar value in sales for that game.

Anybody who works in game retail knows that some people depend on that system to maintain a cyclical value/purchase system that keeps their cash input relatively low ... yes, most of those people are ultimately "losing" money in the cycle, but to those in those circles, a lower cash-out-of-pocket sale for that new $60 game seems to be something that they're comfortable with/prefer.

Personally I saw the error of those ways a long long time ago (basically when I started working for Funcoland in 1997) and I haven't traded in games at a used retailer for the purpose of buying a new or used game since that time.

But, the point I'm getting at is that as much as some game companies chastise Gamestop ... I'm SURE that there's a very significant margin of sales of brand new games that they're making BECAUSE OF the used game/trade in model. Yes, long-term once the product that they want to sell new cycles back into the market used it probably does cut into sales ... but there still has to be a chunk of their yearly profit that wouldn't exist at all if people weren't able to take part in the used game marketplace.

Bottom line, the used game market feeds a portion of new game sales. I think it's probably significant, but even if it's not a lot, it's something worth acknowledging.

I'm really not strongly opposed to either side of the argument ... I do see the damage that the used game market does to publishers looking for pure profit ... but I also think that if physical media exists there can not be an expectation that people will buy games and never ever part with them ... and when people part with things they paid $60 for, there's going to be an expectation of recouping something. Not every person is an obsessive collector/hoarder ... in fact most people are anything but.

[Tupin]

I really only buy used games when they are out of print and aren't available new. What is the games industry going to do about that? I want their product, they don't give me a way to support them by buying it, so I have to buy it from someplace that has it.

[exit]

I can see where the developers are coming from, but with a lot of the crap that's been coming out recently, they should really step back and look at some of the products that they are releasing. Like others have said, if every game wasn't released at a $60 price tag, then more people would be willing to jump the gun and buy a game they'd normally wait for to drop in price. Otherwise they need to quit complaining and stop releasing games that were half finished because they wanted it out the door by a certain date.

I'll always buy the games I really want new and usually on it's release day, no questions asked. Otherwise I'll wait until the game drops in price, or I'll pick it up used if it's something that I'm only mildly interested in. Again if they are willing to release a solid product, then I'll be willing to buy it full priced, otherwise I'll just keep my money in my pocket.

[Jisho23]

This is why I tend to like digital purchases since it, at the very least, assures me that the developer will see more returns (provided the game sells) than a retail release. It throws a real wrench into the used game debate (although piracy, especially on pc, is a bit more of an issue).

I am a little ambivalent toward used games. Usually if I can get a game new at a store I will, but I have no qualms buying a game used that is out of print, harder to find, or I know the developer won't exactly keel over and die if I buy used (larger publishers, etc.).

[Griking]

As someone who likes to have his games complete and in good condition, I very rarely buy used games (especially when they're only $5-10 cheaper than a new copy).

But it seems weird that movie companies, car companies, and any other industry where used products thrive seem to have no problem with used sales of their products.

Only videogame publishers/developers seem to have a problem with used sales, which makes me think the people in charge of those companies are extraordinarily greedy.


That's not a real fair comparison. When you buy a used car the original manufacturer doesn't really offer much in the way of additional value like a game manufacturer does when they host servers and pay for bandwidth so their customer can play online. If car manufacturers had expenses to cover every time a car was sold used by an unauthorized dealer I'm sure that we'd be hearing about it.

[Griking]

I think anyone or any company who complains about not getting paid for the same product over and over and over are freakin' greedy.

It's not about them getting paid multiple times for the same copy, it's about them having to provide back end support for people who aren't their customers.

[kedawa]

If game companies were so upset about the second hand market why not stop selling to Gamestop and other retailers who sell used games.


I do see THQ's position as one of misdirected hostility. If used games are hurting them that bad, shouldn't they be allocating more copies of their games to stores that don't deal in used product? Don't squeeze the consumer in this situation. Realize you control the supply and consumers have many options to get your games. Assuming I'd buy a used game, I'd rather find Gamestop out of stock and having to go elsewhere than finding my game is not 100% functional as advertised.

The idea that they could somehow 'control supply' is absurd. It's not like THQ ships used copies of their games to GS. Used games come from customers, and those customers will continue to sell their games to GS regardless of where they bought them.

Refusing to supply the used game stores is only going to lose them new sales. Used sales will continue as long as there's a physical product.

[Gameguy]

So what are people supposed to do when they don't want a game anymore? Throw it in the trash and polute landfills unnecessarily? There will always be used copies floating around, even if someone just donates their old stuff to charities or other kid friendly organizations.

I guess if anyone really wants to support developers then they shouldn't buy any used games for older systems either. Just buy a current emulated version on a current system like the Wii's Virtual Console or a current port of an older game on a handheld like Chrono Trigger DS.

Really with games I think developers are asking too much. They think every game is like a classic movie or music album that can keep staying in print for decades and people will still buy it. I personally think most games are more like trash movies or fad bands that are marketable at the time but age horribly and are very quickly forgotten. Specifically I mean they'll be forgotten by most people, there will always be people(like collectors) who will be interested in games when nobody else will, just like there are still people interested in crappy low budget 70's/80's movies that most people today won't give a shit about. They shouldn't really expect games to be marketable for that long, they should recoup the money quickly(like movies at the box office do) and anything after that is just gravy.

And to that reply from a developer;

Unlike the movies, we do not have a theatre release. That boxed copy on the shelf (or digital download) is our only means of revenue generation.
They used to be called arcade games, people would pay to play a game and just leave when they were done. When people got bored with a game it would be replaced with another one(just like with films), there weren't used ones floating around when they were still current and bringing in money. Arcade games were great when they were better than what current consoles would offer, go back to making arcade games that are better than home games and maybe you won't have to worry about used sales.

[emceelokey]

Publishers need used game retailers, which all the specailty video gaming stores are, as an avenue to sell their games, and the used retailers need the new games so that people can trade in their old games so that the store can stay open. The reason a place like Gamestop can survive is because the fact that people don't want to pay full price for a game so they trade stuff in to get a new game cheaper or buy a used game at the lower price but they are the yin and yang to each other.

I'm willing to bet that a Gamestop next to a Target sells more new games than the Target does and will sell more used games than a pawn shop right next to that. It's a part of gaming culture.

Almost everytime I've traded in a game, the credits went to new games, sometimes pre orders, but on the other hand, the times I've stepped into a used game store without anything to trade, I typically buy used games.

Publishers get nothing from used games sales and retailers probably get less than 20% profits in new games sales so once again they somewhat cancel each other out.

The used game / new game thing will forever be argued but I think the publishers are leaning in the wrong direction with the online lockouts and making people pay just to play on line.

If the problem is that money isn't going their way with the used sales then maybe they can sell the game directly online or maybe even partner with Amazon or something where they will sell a new copy of the game for $15 less than MSRP. It may be $15 less but they're getting all of my $45 and I won't even consider getting a used copy.

They need to make me want to buy a new version and not make me want to not buy a used version.

I think EA is doing a really good job with Battlefield Bad Company 2 right now with the "VIP" status of people buying a new version on launch. The "VIP" status is a great feature in which I believe there have been 5 significant updates since the game came out and it's nice not having to worry about wether or not I want to download the new maps or mode or what not.

That's what companies need to do to sway people to buy a new version of a game. Letting them know that they're going to get future content either free or at least early plus a bonus item or two will sway me to get a new versionm but if I buy a used version and I only get to play online for 24 hours and then they want me to pay $10 tjust to continues to play online... That game is being returned within the 7 day limit and that game is on my black list. If I didn't want to pay $60 for Smackdown vs Raw 2011 in the first place than I'm sure as hell ain't going to pay an extra $10 on the used price just to play it online.

I'm curious as to what they're eventually going to do to games that are a primiraly single player experience.

If the publishers want more money then sell the games directly at a lower price. Cut out the middle man. If not, they can probably thank Gamestop for the extra 20,000 copies they sold because people traded some stuff towards the purchase of the new game.

[Sothy]

Back in the day I was cool with Gabe and Tycho. Like literally played Tribes and shit with them. One of them "forget which" actually sent me some earl grey tea and "ahem" other shit. They are now uber rich and out of touch with normal gamers. Not saying they sold out really, just shit man they eat caviar with Cliffy B. Might make someone think weird.

They are still really cool dudes I think, just like hey I used to get drunk with this dude in High School and now he is the CEO of some company I work at and acts like he doesn't know me.

[brykasch]

Couple extra points-

1. You want to make sure people buy new, then make it worth our while, Dragon's Age did a good job of it and hey it was a good game to boot, so I bought it new, and have bought every DLC minus 2 at this point as well. You want to put a online code etc, that's fine I care little about online play, I don't have every waking hour to practice so i can beat some cellar dweller, I play friends and that's it on the rare occasion. I will buy NBA2k11 used, simply because fallout vegas and fable 3 come out around the same time and I can't justify paying 60 bucks for a game that will sit on a shelf for two months. I want it for having jordan etc in the game, not for online play. Now if it affects roster updates too, then we have a issue.

2. I would love to see the numbers of % of trade ins to reserves of NEW product.

3. I have never been pushed to buy a used copy in gamestop when I wanted a new copy. if its not sealed I don't buy it end of story when it comes to new, not this well we just opened it , but no one played it crap that some of the locations have/do still use.

[lagartija_nick]

In order for a game to be used it had to have been sold new at one point. I don't get why videogame companies feel they still have a right to make money on the same product twice. Once its sold it the product does not belong to them anymore, they made their money.

The way things are going, book companies are going to cry that if you buy a book and read it twice you are stealing from them. You should purchase a new copy of that book everytime you read it.

[portnoyd]

The idea that they could somehow 'control supply' is absurd. It's not like THQ ships used copies of their games to GS. Used games come from customers, and those customers will continue to sell their games to GS regardless of where they bought them.

I never said they should allocate used games to Gamestop, I said new, nor did I say they could control who we sell to. Read.

They very much can choke off Gamestop's supply of new games and allocate more to the Best Buys, Targets and Walmarts of the world. If this bothers them so much, that's what they should do.

Never considered the rolling trade-in to new cycle. Interesting point that I doubt THQ has even thought of. They seem to just assume everyone can pay full price. Once again, out of touch with reality.

[dra600n]

From what I've noticed and seen - if a new release game is any good, people will buy new. Think about Guitar Hero. After the first one blew up, the preorders at GameStop were redicilous. For GH3, the stores near me were PACKED, and all 3 were maxed out on preorders alone.

If these devs are bitching about used games being sold and people making a "profile" (more like recouping some of their $$ on a game that they don't like), then they should never sell their car, their house, movies (dvds/vhs) or anything of that nature.

The devs work for a company, so the profits don't go to the dev's themselves, they go to the company in which hired those devs to pay to program said game(s). Now, I took a quick look at THQ's website, and from the looks of it, they don't make anything exceptional for games. To me, their games are crap. It just goes to show that the shitty companies will whine about it while the companies that actually make good games (Square Enix, Nintendo, Sega {more or less, or at least use to} and so on) don't bitch about resale on used games.

If you buy a brand new house, you're supporting the contractors/builders who built it. If you sell it 3 years later, should you be giving the builders any more $$? Hell no. You bought it, you own it. Same thing goes with media. You don't own the material per se, but you own the media in which it came on, so you can do as you please with it, such as reselling it, destroying it, or letting it collect dust on your shelves.

[shopkins]

That's not a real fair comparison. When you buy a used car the original manufacturer doesn't really offer much in the way of additional value like a game manufacturer does when they host servers and pay for bandwidth so their customer can play online. If car manufacturers had expenses to cover every time a car was sold used by an unauthorized dealer I'm sure that we'd be hearing about it.

I disagree. I understand any objections to pirates playing online, but with legitimate new games they've agreed to support that one particular copy of the game for at least a while with online infrastructure. Why should it matter who plays it? Why shouldn't you be allowed to transfer your right to use that infrastructure along with the physical media when you sell it?

There have been some good points made in this thread that THQ would be wise to heed. Especially the stuff about how used game trade-ins support new game sales. From what I've seen most people who trade to Gamestop do get store credit and put it directly back into games, mostly new games.

I also wonder, like others have, what they expect us to do with their games when we beat them after 10 hours or so and find they have no replay value. Throw them away? That seems very wasteful.

[Fuyukaze]

I wonder how much money they make off large discounted titles? Stuff that started off at $60 and get discounted down to $20? Kinda certain they aint making any money there either. THQ, they get no money from me but that's because they release nothing I'd want to buy anyways. I do believe this entire debate is going to put people on diffrent sidelines. Myself, I'm going to continue buying the new games from the companies I want to support and buy the used for the games I cant afford to pay full price for or find new.

[Jisho23]

I wonder how much money they make off large discounted titles? Stuff that started off at $60 and get discounted down to $20? Kinda certain they aint making any money there either. THQ, they get no money from me but that's because they release nothing I'd want to buy anyways. I do believe this entire debate is going to put people on diffrent sidelines. Myself, I'm going to continue buying the new games from the companies I want to support and buy the used for the games I cant afford to pay full price for or find new.


I have a feeling they are still making money. A copy sold is a copy sold. When the price drops its probably because they are just trying to get rid of the game and get ANY money back they can. A game sitting on shelf is 1 game the publisher is not making any money on.

[Nature Boy]

I think the thing that would really piss me off if I were a developer or publisher is the EB/Gamestop "would you prefer a used copy to save $5" line you get at that particular retailer.

(It ticks me off anyway, as for $5 I still *always* prefer to get new, as it's *always* in much better condition and I am a collector after all).

That is *specifically* taking money out of their pockets. I don't care what business you're in - if you see that going on, you're going to get pissed off.

Having said that, I refuse to get worked up about it personally on either side of things.

[Griking]

I disagree. I understand any objections to pirates playing online, but with legitimate new games they've agreed to support that one particular copy of the game for at least a while with online infrastructure. Why should it matter who plays it? Why shouldn't you be allowed to transfer your right to use that infrastructure along with the physical media when you sell it?
.

And here in lies the controversy. Some developers aren't agreeing to support a single copy of a game regardless of who's behind the gamepad. They want to provide their back end services to only the original customer. Their customer. A person who buys a used game isn't their customer.

Like most other forms of media nowadays, we're not really purchasing a DVD or a CD as much as we're purchasing licenses to listen to or play these forms of media. The DVDs that we get from the store are really nothing more than the delivery method that the developers use to get their products to us. You can be certain that if they were able to efficiently stream these games directly to our consoles like they can do the smaller games on Xbox Live they would.

[jb143]

I have always disagreed with renting games, even back when Nintendo was the "evil empire" fighting against it. It isn't really fair that video stores could buy one copy of the game and rent it to 500 people who will then never buy it, and pocket all the profit minus the sale of one copy. In the movie, industry, it's different, you can't go rent a (legitimate) DVD the day a movie comes out, so they're profits are protected for several months from this, but games aren't setup that way.


I don't think that's the way it works. Up until the past decade, video rental usually came before retail to maximize profits. Also, the companies renting out movies have to buy licences from the studios to to so. And I think they pay royalties as well. I'm not sure about game rental but I would imagine something similar is in place, otherwise I'm sure they would have been complaining about it for years now.

All the Penny Arcade "article" & comic and the CVG article seem to saying is that THQ doesn't view people who only buy used games as their customers. That makes sense to me. I don't exactly agree that it 'cheats developers' but they also have the right to put restrictions on the licensing side of things. That also doesn't mean that it's a good idea though.

[Zapf]

I never said that. What I said is that if the CEO of THQ doesn't see any money from you, he's right to not give a shit about you as a customer. What are you going to do about it, not buy any more of their games? You're not buying them anyway.

Claiming that the penny arcade dudes are in the pocket of games companies because their opinions differ from yours is retarded and belongs on gameFAQs. I stand behind that statement.

Its the same bad attempt at being even handed they tried pulling with the ubisoft drm comic. This shit aint without precedent. I've already made my points about the short sightedness of not caring about potential customers because they arent buying your current game right this second.

[CRTGAMER]

Download Rental Management
The risk here is games purchased are not permanently owned. Look at DRM and DLC right now. When the next x2 Gen consoles take over, don't hold your breath to be able to restore an older purchased download or regain back that extra download content, that should be in the purchased disc in the first place. Even more of a stab to the consumer is what UBI Soft and Valve Steam is doing and what Sony is proposing. A regular disc based game purchased new or used needing online verification to play! That game may not work years from now as support stops.

[BetaWolf47]

While I agree with THQ, their tactics are pretty underhanded. If you want to sell new copies of a game, make the NEW copy more appealing, not the USED copy less appealing.

I really feel for this generation of gamers. During the NES - Gamecube eras, we could do whatever we wanted with our games. Pirates and Gamestop are driving developers to screw over the consumer these days.

The problem is that Gamestop actually doesn't buy many copies of a game brand new. This way, gamers are often forced to buy it used. THQ should be targeting Gamestop, not us.

[Zapf]

They buy what they can get sold quickly I would imagine (esp through preorders) - profit margins on new games are fucking awful, and its not worth it for a game only store to have too much of that stuff just sitting.

[ScourDX]

Maybe developer should look into add physical perks to their game instead of DLC. I look at Atlus business model and they make me want to spend money on their product.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Game companies are spoiled brats, not as bad as the RIAA or MPAA but getting damn close, and Gamestop is a shitty store... Both will eventually feedback onto themselves.

The End.

[Griking]

While I agree with THQ, their tactics are pretty underhanded. If you want to sell new copies of a game, make the NEW copy more appealing, not the USED copy less appealing.
I'm curious how you'd do something like this. the game experience quality of a new game is the same as that of a used game unless you don't allow used game purchasers access to certain features. Or are you talking about something like a more interesting packaging? I know that it's not always the case but I can usually find used Collector's Edition versions of games with all of their extras unless its something rare. What would you suggest they do to make new copies more desirable?

[emceelokey]

...What would you suggest they do to make new copies more desirable?

I think the "VIP" pass is a great way to entice people to buy new. If every new copy of Call of Duty (or whatever) came with a pass code that gave me access to a few weapons out of the gate, an exclusive weapon and a free map pack, then that would pretty much cover the potential $15 I would save on a used copy and I'd be more than happy to buy new.

On the other hand though, I bought Call of Duty: World at War used and that was the first game I really got into online because I didn't have high speed internet up until then. I had no interest in online shooters before and I only bought that game because I found the collector's edition complete for the price of a regular used version. I honestly didn't understand what the big deal was all about with this game... until I played it online for the first time.

After that I was hooked. I ended up buying all the map packs, and even buying a new GOTY edition of COD 4 all because of the used game I bought. If I only had 3 days from the moment I first logged online to play that game online, I may not have had a chance to really get into it and 3 days might only be 8 hours worth of game play, and I may not have had a chance to really understand and experience the game and I probably wouldn't pay a $10 fee to have full access to play it online.

That's why I don't like making the used games unappealing. With COD:WAW. Activision made $45 off of me from the map packs. If I had to pay $10 initially, I probably wouldn't have gotten into the game in the first place so a used game can be a great way to get people into the game, into a franchise, into a company in general.

And the online component to COD is crucial to the success of the series. The single player component is a mere after thought when it comes to the success of COD. The consistent 200,000+ people that are online at any give time most likely didn't buy that game for the single player aspect of the game and now the companies are trying to exploit that and I think that's the wrong path.

[ScourDX]

I think the "VIP" pass is a great way to entice people to buy new. If every new copy of Call of Duty (or whatever) came with a pass code that gave me access to a few weapons out of the gate, an exclusive weapon and a free map pack, then that would pretty much cover the potential $15 I would save on a used copy and I'd be more than happy to buy new.

On the other hand though, I bought Call of Duty: World at War used and that was the first game I really got into online because I didn't have high speed internet up until then. I had no interest in online shooters before and I only bought that game because I found the collector's edition complete for the price of a regular used version. I honestly didn't understand what the big deal was all about with this game... until I played it online for the first time.

After that I was hooked. I ended up buying all the map packs, and even buying a new GOTY edition of COD 4 all because of the used game I bought. If I only had 3 days from the moment I first logged online to play that game online, I may not have had a chance to really get into it and 3 days might only be 8 hours worth of game play, and I may not have had a chance to really understand and experience the game and I probably wouldn't pay a $10 fee to have full access to play it online.

That's why I don't like making the used games unappealing. With COD:WAW. Activision made $45 off of me from the map packs. If I had to pay $10 initially, I probably wouldn't have gotten into the game in the first place so a used game can be a great way to get people into the game, into a franchise, into a company in general.

And the online component to COD is crucial to the success of the series. The single player component is a mere after thought when it comes to the success of COD. The consistent 200,000+ people that are online at any give time most likely didn't buy that game for the single player aspect of the game and now the companies are trying to exploit that and I think that's the wrong path.

I think DLC is a worst form of reward their loyal customer. So I got a map, big deal. I want something that tag I OWN THIS DLC MAP proof in piece of paper sign by CEO of Activision so I can auction off and brag about how I am a loyal customer. Perhaps they should do what Square Enix are doing, having people register game on their website and get perks like ipod touch. Company should think about outside of DLC. The only way people will continue to buy new game only if they have something worth while in return.

[DreamTR]

This rant from the game companies has been around forever. Same can be said for anything you buy NEW. ANYTHING. Furniture, clothing, ANY intangible goods can be compared to this and this argument has been going on forever so there is nothing new here.

Only ways the companies can change their "profit margins" around is to:
A: Put codes on games that can only be used/transferred once so the games are useless (like PC games or stuff like Phantasy Star Online from other systems, or something where you have to purchase the code from the publisher if you buy a game used or something)

B: Make everything downloadable. 20-25 Years this is going to happen anyway, this is good and bad, because you will see the return of mom and pop places but it's going to be tough to get anything outside of a Wal-Mart or Best Buy (and yes, GameStop will be out of business by then or most of them...)

Not saying this is what will happen, but consumers basically not having the right to sell their own games is asinine. We sell used Cds, books, cars, clothes, whatever....


Now on to something that makes NO SENSE, the complaints about PRICE being a factor here? Um...$49.99 and $59.99 now for games is a JOKE. That is NOT expensive. We were paying these prices for NES games in the late 80s. We had to pay $69.99 and UP for some SNES and Genesis games. You ever seen prices on games in Japan back in the day on some stuff? 9,800 Yen and UP on a lot of games in the 90s.....

With inflation the way it is, and with minimum wage increased, EVERYONE and their mother has game systems and multiple games and can afford them. Not everyone was able to back in the days (Remember Colecovisions at what, 299, 399 and people making like $3 an hr minimum wage? LOL..

Games cost MORE to make than they did in those days. Honestly I'm shocked ANYONE makes a profit these days with production being ludicrous in the millions of dollars. If games sold tons of copies back in the day for $50 with a team of less than 5 you can only imagine the profit margins back then but price is not an excuse now. IF anything games should be HIGHER priced IMO, but people are spoiled (like arcade goers expecting to pay 25cents for games NOW like they did in the early 80s...the value of a dollar is not the same) with the pricing we are accustomed to.

Downloadable content/options online are sometimes the only way companies MAKE money these days, I understand completely why they do it and it is the next wave, but the bottom line is there is a way for the game industry to change this to their way, but it depends on what companies decide to start doing something like this to test the waters.

[Gameguy]

Now on to something that makes NO SENSE, the complaints about PRICE being a factor here? Um...$49.99 and $59.99 now for games is a JOKE. That is NOT expensive. We were paying these prices for NES games in the late 80s. We had to pay $69.99 and UP for some SNES and Genesis games. You ever seen prices on games in Japan back in the day on some stuff? 9,800 Yen and UP on a lot of games in the 90s.....

Games cost MORE to make than they did in those days. Honestly I'm shocked ANYONE makes a profit these days with production being ludicrous in the millions of dollars. If games sold tons of copies back in the day for $50 with a team of less than 5 you can only imagine the profit margins back then but price is not an excuse now. IF anything games should be HIGHER priced IMO, but people are spoiled (like arcade goers expecting to pay 25cents for games NOW like they did in the early 80s...the value of a dollar is not the same) with the pricing we are accustomed to.
You're forgetting, back then games were on cartridges which cost more to manufacture. I feel a main reason why people don't want to pay as much now is because of the mentality that CDs are cheap to manufacture so the games should be cheap too. I remember with Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, the game came in a big box with a ton of inserts including a replica of the grail diary(it was awsome). What do PC games come with now? Just the discs in a case or paper sleeve, instructions on a PDF file. I feel less inclined to buy games new now unless they're dirt cheap.

It's like buying solid wood furniture. People would feel comfortable with spending $100 on a table if the wood cost $80 and the labour cost $20, but people would be reluctant if the wood cost $20 and the labour cost $80. It's just something about human mentality. People complain about auto repairs, plumbers, electricians, all for the same reason. With labour you never know if the labour costs are high because the person was incompetent and took 3 times as long as he should have to do the work, or if the person was just greedy and wanted a high amount, or if the labour costs were actually reasonable. People just hate paying for labour.

As for arcade games, back when they were a new thing the only way to play the latest most advanced thing was to pay a quarter for each play. Now why would anyone want to spend more than that to play a game once? There's so many other alternatives to spend money on, everyone has a computer now so they can download anything they want(legal or otherwise). Why would anyone be glad to spend more today for an arcade game? As technology becomes more advanced it becomes cheaper, the costs to use that technology should also go down over time.

Remember John Romero's Daikatana? John Romero kept hiring more staff to work on the game, from what I've read it cost 40 million dollars to make. Games shouldn't just be priced higher to cover whatever the production costs are, developers need to find ways to keep production costs down so games can be profitable. Find ways to make games better with less people, that's really the only thing I can suggest. Whenever Nintendo releases a new Mario or Zelda game it becomes a best seller, I don't see Nintendo having a problem with sales. For other companies, if your title isn't going to be as good as a Mario or Zelda game anyway, make it with less people.



What about having incentive programs instead? Like every game comes with a voucher, for every 3 vouchers you mail in you can get a rebate of $10 or so. Or have a different voucher with it, for every 10 you mail in you can get a free game. I seem to remember some companies doing it in the 90's, it might be more appealing to customers instead of restricting content. Reward new purchasers instead of punishing used purchasers.

[Swamperon]

What about having incentive programs instead? Like every game comes with a voucher, for every 3 vouchers you mail in you can get a rebate of $10 or so. Or have a different voucher with it, for every 10 you mail in you can get a free game. I seem to remember some companies doing it in the 90's, it might be more appealing to customers instead of restricting content. Reward new purchasers instead of punishing used purchasers.

I have wondered why more companies don't do this. Nintendo does with its Club Nintendo points. Some of the stuff you can get is quite nifty, I got the Super Mario Galaxy Sountrack and you can also swap them for Wii points so you can even get free games.

I'm not sure how much this compels people to rush out and buy new games (and used games often come with them), but a modified version of this could work well.

[kedawa]

The funniest thing about all of this to me is that the loss of online play only makes the pirated version that much more appealing, as it now has the same functionality as a used legit copy.

I never said they should allocate used games to Gamestop, I said new, nor did I say they could control who we sell to. Read.

They very much can choke off Gamestop's supply of new games and allocate more to the Best Buys, Targets and Walmarts of the world. If this bothers them so much, that's what they should do.

Never considered the rolling trade-in to new cycle. Interesting point that I doubt THQ has even thought of. They seem to just assume everyone can pay full price. Once again, out of touch with reality.
I know what you meant. My point is that they can't control the supply of used games, which are far more profitable for GS to sell than new games.
Nothing they do will prevent their games from being resold by GS.
The only thing they would accomplish by holding out on them is removing the option of buying a new version of their game from GS, giving the customer the choice of either buying a used copy, or buying a different new game altogether. Either way, it's a lost sale for THQ, but not for GS. I doubt many customers would go elsewhere to get the game new, especially if they're buying their games with trade-in credit.

[G-Boobie]

snip.

While this is true, no consumer product has had a nationwide company specializing in the sale of second hand goods like Gamestop. They're without precedent. Yes, there are used cars, furniture, etc. etc. etc., but they're entirely different business models. As you pointed out, games are expensive to make, and even if they're not on cartridge (unless we're talking DS), the added cost of developing on HD systems more than makes up for cheap optical media. Then lets not forget bandwidth costs, server costs, patching, and so on.

Gamestop posts massive profits every year. How many industry professionals lost their jobs last year? How many studios closed, or canceled projects? I'm not saying that publishers and developers are completely in the right here, but I can totally see where the anger and frustration comes from.