PS4 Not Playing Used Games, What Is This Hobby Coming To?

[kedawa]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about; returning a used game you don't like. The same game, bought new, returned in the same time frame, gets you less credit than the one bought used.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

You're missing the point. You should get the same amount of credit for the game regardless of whether you bought it used or new.
You're returning a used game either way, but if you bought it new, they give you far less than if you bought it used.
That's just not right.

So, you're not saying that you should get the full retail price back on the new game, only that you should get $20 credit for the new game traded in and $20 credit for the same title that is purchased used?

That's fair.

Also, I'm fairly certain that outside of the 7-day return policy on used product, that's how it works, no?

Also, the only reason for the 7-day policy on the used game is that there's no physical distinction between that used game if it's resold. They very well can't reseal/resell a new game that's been purchased, taken home, opened, handled and returned. (Yes, I know, insert requisite argument about GameStop gutted games here).

[Daria]

You're missing the point. You should get the same amount of credit for the game regardless of whether you bought it used or new.
You're returning a used game either way, but if you bought it new, they give you far less than if you bought it used.
That's just not right.

That's because one of those things is a return and the other is a trade in. Would you prefer that Gamestop didn't let you return used games in full?

Edit: That reminds me, way back when I worked for Gamestop I was always amused by the customers who would try to return a game with the excuse "But I didn't like it". In those cases I would remind them that we were not a rental service and if they would like to "try before they buy" than they should go to Blockbuster first.

[Ed Oscuro]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about; returning a used game you don't like. The same game, bought new, returned in the same time frame, gets you less credit than the one bought used.

Kind of like cars, huh?

[j_factor]

I totally disagree with technology that makes games harder to resell, but I do understand the frustration of the development studios (there *are* other studios besides EA out there). Gamestop is strongly eating into their profits - if a single copy of a game gets sold 10 times at Gamestop, the developer makes money once and Gamestop makes money 10 times. That hardly seems fair - Gamestop is just serving as a bloated middleman, and plenty of people are more than happy to throw game studios under the bus to save $5 on a game (after 'selling' some other game back to Gamestop for a fraction of what they originally paid).

Like I said previously, this patent really isn't going to go anywhere. It's probably as much defensive as anything else, preventing Nintendo or Microsoft from doing something similar without paying license fees. In a perfect world, if there were a way to preserve first sale doctrine and cut Gamestop down to size, then I'd be all for that.

Used games have been around for eons, and it didn't used to be such a big issue. Sure, used games weren't exactly big in the 80s, but they've been big for quite a while. We weren't having these discussions 10-12 years ago. Why is that? Is it just because Gamestop has emerged as the only major chain dealing in used games, after mergers and closures, allowing them to be seen as the sole face of used game sales, and therefore some kind of bogeyman?

Frankly, I don't give a shit if Gamestop is eating into their profits. I'm a consumer, not a shareholder. Put out something that makes me want to buy it, and I will do so. Dicking around with blocking used sales makes me want to buy your product less, not more. I don't really care what's "fair", either. That's not really any of my concern, or anyone else's who's not in the industry. We're not going to gather 'round all the game companies, sing Kumbaya, and evenly distribute our money.

[G-Boobie]

Perhaps, but emulation is full of faults, look at something like Sega Saturn emulators for example.

All emulators get better over time. They'll get there. It's the only real way to preserve this stuff long term: your NES, 2600, Odyssey II, and Vectrex will all die eventually.

I have a Steam library of 150 games or so: if I do not redeem a code, then I can gift a purchase or trade it, but otherwise? Once I've bought the game, I'm completely unable to do anything with it other than play it. I cannot trade it in. I cannot sell it. This is probably the way of the future, like it or not.

Some of that is mitigated by being able to download it as many times as I want as I upgrade my computer or re-install an OS, but digital downloads destroy the weird used games market which has caused so much fuss. You can often get them on sale at used game prices and there's no incentive to take something off the market because the overhead is non-existent for publishers.

I'm not saying it's an optimal solution, but it's probably where we're headed.

There's also the possibility that they decide not to use the technology. I think the same rumor was going around shortly before the PS3 launched.

[Bojay1997]

Used games have been around for eons, and it didn't used to be such a big issue. Sure, used games weren't exactly big in the 80s, but they've been big for quite a while. We weren't having these discussions 10-12 years ago. Why is that? Is it just because Gamestop has emerged as the only major chain dealing in used games, after mergers and closures, allowing them to be seen as the sole face of used game sales, and therefore some kind of bogeyman?

Frankly, I don't give a shit if Gamestop is eating into their profits. I'm a consumer, not a shareholder. Put out something that makes me want to buy it, and I will do so. Dicking around with blocking used sales makes me want to buy your product less, not more. I don't really care what's "fair", either. That's not really any of my concern, or anyone else's who's not in the industry. We're not going to gather 'round all the game companies, sing Kumbaya, and evenly distribute our money.

Except that even when they do put out something people want to buy, people buy it used or pirate it or rent it and deprive them of any profit from that subsequent purchase. While I agree with you that we have no obligation to provide subsidies or support for the game industry, it's extremely naive to assume that simply creating a great product will solve all their problems. Similarly, used game sales are driving more and more DLC which is hurting those of us who buy new and hate having to pay more to own the "full" game. I don't know what the solution is, but I have no doubt that the days of physical media are numbered.

[Daria]

Eh. I've said it before, when physical media is made obsolete is when I'll stop collecting new games. I'll still play games, and occasionally buy them (on sale) but there won't be a driving need to own everything. I also won't be squeamish about pirating a game to "try it out" first. I rarely pay for pc titles as it is, unless I really like them. My collection however will focus on purely "retro" games, maybe even branch out into vintage computer and import titles. I don't see this as the end of the world.

[CRTGAMER]

You're missing the point. You should get the same amount of credit for the game regardless of whether you bought it used or new.
You're returning a used game either way, but if you bought it new, they give you far less than if you bought it used.
That's just not right.

That's because one of those things is a return and the other is a trade in. Would you prefer that Gamestop didn't let you return used games in full?

Edit: That reminds me, way back when I worked for Gamestop I was always amused by the customers who would try to return a game with the excuse "But I didn't like it". In those cases I would remind them that we were not a rental service and if they would like to "try before they buy" than they should go to Blockbuster first.

The used game policy is in place to encourage used game sales over new. This includes the try and if you do not like it then return it. I think its a great sales tool, employees who chastise customers on this do not belong there. So what if a customer might abuse it, the point is the return visits to the store and possibly add on sales.

Most used games I keep anyways and prefer buying as complete with manual and case. I do at times return a game, this is useful to get a game complete thru multiple location purchases some which might take longer then a week to locate.

As for new games, I don't think any store would honor the "free rental" program.

[kedawa]

That's because one of those things is a return and the other is a trade in. Would you prefer that Gamestop didn't let you return used games in full?

I would prefer they give $55 credit for returning the $60 game within that same 7 day period, since it is now used, and worth(by their own pricing scheme) $5 less.
They're keeping all the money and selling what you returned for $55 in either case.

[duffmanth]

[QUOTE=Bojay1997;1946627]Except that even when they do put out something people want to buy, people buy it used or pirate it or rent it and deprive them of any profit from that subsequent purchase. While I agree with you that we have no obligation to provide subsidies or support for the game industry, it's extremely naive to assume that simply creating a great product will solve all their problems. Similarly, used game sales are driving more and more DLC which is hurting those of us who buy new and hate having to pay more to own the "full" game. I don't know what the solution is, but I have no doubt that the days of physical media are numbered.[/QU

One solution is game studios have to find ways to get game development costs under control. Prices of console games can't keep going up $10 with every new generation of consoles, it's not sustainable. People buy used because new games cost too much and game studios can't seem to figure this out. Their response is to make gaming even more expensive with DLC, collector packs, and this online pass bullshit. Game studios aren't doing themselves any favors by doing these things. Some common ground has to be found where the studios are making money, but the consumer isn't being ripped off.

[j_factor]

Except that even when they do put out something people want to buy, people buy it used or pirate it or rent it and deprive them of any profit from that subsequent purchase. While I agree with you that we have no obligation to provide subsidies or support for the game industry, it's extremely naive to assume that simply creating a great product will solve all their problems. Similarly, used game sales are driving more and more DLC which is hurting those of us who buy new and hate having to pay more to own the "full" game. I don't know what the solution is, but I have no doubt that the days of physical media are numbered.

It's not simply creating a great product. If other things are really eating into their profits, the onus is on them to do something about it. Adapt or die. I remain skeptical of this supposed crisis, however.

Like I said, used sales have been around a long time, so how come it's only suddenly a huge problem for the industry as of a couple years ago? Piracy has always been a problem, though I'm not sure how much of a "problem" it really is. It's pretty hard to pirate PS3 games, isn't it? Yet that doesn't seem to result in proportionally better game sales compared to other platforms. By contrast, PSX games were super easy to pirate. And renting? That's gone down, if anything.

Everyone's an amateur industry analyst these days. I refuse to join the chorus of crocodile tears over those poor, defenseless game corporations losing profits to big mean Gamestop. I'm not Gamestop's biggest fan, but Gamestop didn't put THQ out of business.

If they get rid of used games, they've lost my business. Period. If you (general you, not you, personally) genuinely don't mind, that's cool. But apologism over it, and scapegoating Gamestop in the process, is ludicrous. When the game industry considers going in that direction, they will have to consider the balance between any recovered profits and the loss in profits from losing the business of people like me. If the former outweighs the latter, I will certainly not like it, but so be it.

[Bojay1997]

It's not simply creating a great product. If other things are really eating into their profits, the onus is on them to do something about it. Adapt or die. I remain skeptical of this supposed crisis, however.

Like I said, used sales have been around a long time, so how come it's only suddenly a huge problem for the industry as of a couple years ago? Piracy has always been a problem, though I'm not sure how much of a "problem" it really is. It's pretty hard to pirate PS3 games, isn't it? Yet that doesn't seem to result in proportionally better game sales compared to other platforms. By contrast, PSX games were super easy to pirate. And renting? That's gone down, if anything.

Everyone's an amateur industry analyst these days. I refuse to join the chorus of crocodile tears over those poor, defenseless game corporations losing profits to big mean Gamestop. I'm not Gamestop's biggest fan, but Gamestop didn't put THQ out of business.

If they get rid of used games, they've lost my business. Period. If you (general you, not you, personally) genuinely don't mind, that's cool. But apologism over it, and scapegoating Gamestop in the process, is ludicrous. When the game industry considers going in that direction, they will have to consider the balance between any recovered profits and the loss in profits from losing the business of people like me. If the former outweighs the latter, I will certainly not like it, but so be it.

Actually, considering inflation, games are cheaper than they were a decade ago even at full MSRP. A $50 game in 2003 is the equivalent of a little over $62 in 2013 dollars. Games are much cheaper than they were in the 1980s and 90s where I can recall spending $50-$60 for NES and SNES games. That's over $100 in today's dollars. People just are looking to always get things cheaper. There's nothing wrong with that, but it largely killed the music business and turned touring into the only real viable source of revenue for recording artists and so now you have outrageously priced tickets for concerts in many cities.

I don't agree that this is all some industry spin to justify higher prices, DLC and online passes. I've actually looked at the annual reports for a number of video game publishers and developers and the numbers aren't pretty. Programmers and other talented people make a lot more proportionally than they did 20 years ago because there is so much more demand for their skills in other industries. Similarly, game companies and studios tend to be located in technology hubs like California where real estate, utilities, taxes and overhead are much higher than other places. Cost of living is higher too resulting in higher wages. I suppose they could start outsourcing more to other countries (I realize some publishers already do this) just like the hardware manufacturers do, but software has always been a very strong American business and I'd personally like to keep it that way.

Used game sales aren't new, but the scale at which they have been expanded is something fairly recent. Gamestop didn't engage in major expansion until the past decade including a merger with EB and in the past three years, they have been particularly aggressive about adding new locations. It's similar to the rapid expansion of Starbucks that not only killed many small coffee chains and shops, but also drove coffee sales to record levels as the convenience of having a gourmet coffee shop on every corner got more people into the habit of buying $4 coffee every day. I'm frankly amazed at how often I hear co-workers and friends talk about buying and trading in used games to Gamestop, many of whom would never have bought used a few years ago simply because before Gamestop they didn't have an easy way of doing so outside of maybe Ebay and to a lesser extent, video rental chains like Blockbuster or Hollywood Video.

I agree that Gamestop shouldn't be faulted for pursuing a lucrative business model just like Apple shouldn't be faulted for the fact that single song downloads have replaced whole album sales. That doesn't change the fact that the very existence and success of Gamestop's business model is significantly impacting the bottom line of publishers and developers.

[Daria]

The used game policy is in place to encourage used game sales over new. This includes the try and if you do not like it then return it. I think its a great sales tool, employees who chastise customers on this do not belong there. So what if a customer might abuse it, the point is the return visits to the store and possibly add on sales.

Most used games I keep anyways and prefer buying as complete with manual and case. I do at times return a game, this is useful to get a game complete thru multiple location purchases some which might take longer then a week to locate.

As for new games, I don't think any store would honor the "free rental" program.

Yeah I was referring to returns on new games.

[Gameguy]

Actually, considering inflation, games are cheaper than they were a decade ago even at full MSRP. A $50 game in 2003 is the equivalent of a little over $62 in 2013 dollars. Games are much cheaper than they were in the 1980s and 90s where I can recall spending $50-$60 for NES and SNES games. That's over $100 in today's dollars. People just are looking to always get things cheaper. There's nothing wrong with that, but it largely killed the music business and turned touring into the only real viable source of revenue for recording artists and so now you have outrageously priced tickets for concerts in many cities.

With technology if you have to take inflation into account to justify that something is a good deal today then it's really not. Every other type of technology gets cheaper as time goes on, except for games which tend to stay around the same price.

Compare how much it costs to buy a new laptop today and one 12 years ago. You can get one today for around $1000 give or take, 12 years ago $2000-$3000 was normal. A new flat screen TV today costs less than similar ones 5 years ago. Computer storage gets larger and cheaper all the time. These are the things consumers think of with anything electronic or technology based. They don't care about taking into account inflation, just actual listed prices. Paying $60 for a game today when they paid $60 for games 20-30 years ago doesn't sit that well with most people, that's why people tend to trade in or sell their games when they're done with them rather than just keeping them in a basement like old toys.

[WCP]

It's so weird that PC gaming doesn't allow used games at all, and nobody seems to give two shits about that. I'm normally against this movement away from physical media, but with the PC, I don't seem to care. With my physical console games, I'll usually buy them used, and then I'll resell them when I know they are about to start collecting dust.

With the PC, I can't buy used games, and I can't resell my games, but I don't even care about it. The reason, is that the prices of PC games fall so fast that I feel like I can be patient and wait for the Steam sales. Wait for the Amazon download sales, wait for the GamersGate and Green Man Gaming sales. I'm somewhat of a hypocrite, because I was always crying about how they are taking away our rights with all this digital crap, but then the truth is, if they make things cheap enough, I don't give a fuck. I'm perfectly content as long as it's super cheap. I'm in the minority of gamers that are drifting about 2 years behind current times anyways (with my current backlog), that patience is something I have in spades. I can sit around and wait and wait and wait for those price drops, and then when the price is so freaking low that it's a crime not to buy it, then I'll buy it.

I don't really own it. It's more like a rental, or a lease, but I don't mind because I'm buying my games for about 5 bucks each, which is how much Blockbuster charges you to rent a game for a week or so, and I'll definitely get my 5 bucks worth.

The thing is, we know that PS4 and Xbox Next and Wii U aren't going to be anything like that. We will never see games like Rage being sold for 4 bucks, or Limbo being sold for $2.50. A sale to those companies is $14.99 or $19.99. You won't see anything sub $9.99 unless it's some super indy stuff.

[Bojay1997]

With technology if you have to take inflation into account to justify that something is a good deal today then it's really not. Every other type of technology gets cheaper as time goes on, except for games which tend to stay around the same price.

Compare how much it costs to buy a new laptop today and one 12 years ago. You can get one today for around $1000 give or take, 12 years ago $2000-$3000 was normal. A new flat screen TV today costs less than similar ones 5 years ago. Computer storage gets larger and cheaper all the time. These are the things consumers think of with anything electronic or technology based. They don't care about taking into account inflation, just actual listed prices. Paying $60 for a game today when they paid $60 for games 20-30 years ago doesn't sit that well with most people, that's why people tend to trade in or sell their games when they're done with them rather than just keeping them in a basement like old toys.

I disagree with your argument as it applies to software. Unlike hardware that can be produced with automation, low wage labor in foreign countries and advances in technology at the manufacturing level, there is not yet a truly automated way to create complex gaming or other software code. In fact, programming and development teams have gotten bigger and bigger as software has become more complex. You're right that the general public, especially younger people, perceive software and media as far less valuable than in the past and therefore have no issue pirating it, copying it or otherwise getting it for next to nothing. That mentality has the potential to completely kill the video games business just like it has music and DVD/Blu Ray manufacturing. The reality is that people don't want to pay anything for games and that's just not a sustainable model. Those people aren't going to buy more games if you drop MSRP to $40 or even $20. They will simply think of games as even less valuable and not worthy of paying anything to own. The music and DVD industry already tried slashing MSRP over the past few years and sales continued to fall. The same thing will happen with games if the industry takes the lower MSRP approach.

[Gameguy]

I disagree with your argument as it applies to software. Unlike hardware that can be produced with automation, low wage labor in foreign countries and advances in technology at the manufacturing level, there is not yet a truly automated way to create complex gaming or other software code. In fact, programming and development teams have gotten bigger and bigger as software has become more complex. You're right that the general public, especially younger people, perceive software and media as far less valuable than in the past and therefore have no issue pirating it, copying it or otherwise getting it for next to nothing. That mentality has the potential to completely kill the video games business just like it has music and DVD/Blu Ray manufacturing. The reality is that people don't want to pay anything for games and that's just not a sustainable model. Those people aren't going to buy more games if you drop MSRP to $40 or even $20. They will simply think of games as even less valuable and not worthy of paying anything to own. The music and DVD industry already tried slashing MSRP over the past few years and sales continued to fall. The same thing will happen with games if the industry takes the lower MSRP approach.

Companies need to think more like consumers rather than ask consumers to think more like them. If it's something tangible like physical media, I'll think of it like hardware. If it's something online as download only with nothing physical at all, I think it's completely worthless. As for computers, I assumed operating systems and drivers for hardware were still written by human beings and supported with regular free updates. Still the costs for computers and hardware are cheaper than ever before even with this software support.

I used to buy DVD box sets brand new all the time. I stopped when companies didn't bother to finish releasing the rest of the series. I bought every DVD release of several Disney Afternoon shows as well as numerous box sets for other older shows, there's several shows that are only missing one volume from being the complete series. I saw on the Shout Factory forums one of the main staff justifying why they couldn't finish releasing the final volumes to some series as the sales weren't as high as they hoped for the previous volumes, he basically blamed consumers for not buying enough copies of previous volumes. All I know is that I feel like an idiot spending hundreds of dollars on these box sets when the series are incomplete, now I refuse to buy any box set of a show until the entire series gets released. If it doesn't happen I don't need to buy it, it would be available online in some form anyway. I mean if I have to download the rest of it, why not just download the entire thing? I'd rather have a proper release but if it's incomplete it's not what I want. I didn't mind buying these box sets at release for full price, but seeing them drop in price quickly while I'm waiting for the rest to be released makes me want to wait for the price drop everytime.

Games won't ever fully die off, it may just go back to being freeware or small releases created by hobbyists but it won't be gone. I actually won't mind if this happens, most modern console releases don't interest me at all anyway.

[j_factor]

Actually, considering inflation, games are cheaper than they were a decade ago even at full MSRP. A $50 game in 2003 is the equivalent of a little over $62 in 2013 dollars. Games are much cheaper than they were in the 1980s and 90s where I can recall spending $50-$60 for NES and SNES games. That's over $100 in today's dollars. People just are looking to always get things cheaper. There's nothing wrong with that, but it largely killed the music business and turned touring into the only real viable source of revenue for recording artists and so now you have outrageously priced tickets for concerts in many cities.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the post you quoted, I didn't say anything about retail prices.

But since you brought it up. I think games were more likely to vary in price a decade ago. $50 was the most common MSRP, but it was far from universal. There were lots of $20, $30, and $40 games back then. There were even a few $10 games like The Italian Job and Ball Breakers. $10 in 2002 is equal to $12.80 in 2012 and I'm not seeing any new releases for $12.99. Nowadays, there are very few exceptions to the $60 rule, aside from new editions of previously existing games.

NES and SNES games were more expensive because they were on cartridge. Computer games during that time were certainly not nearly that much.

Used game sales aren't new, but the scale at which they have been expanded is something fairly recent. Gamestop didn't engage in major expansion until the past decade including a merger with EB and in the past three years, they have been particularly aggressive about adding new locations.

The merger with EB expanded the name "Gamestop" only. It didn't expand the business, if anything it slightly shrunk it as some locations were closed, being deemed too close to each other.

It's similar to the rapid expansion of Starbucks that not only killed many small coffee chains and shops, but also drove coffee sales to record levels as the convenience of having a gourmet coffee shop on every corner got more people into the habit of buying $4 coffee every day. I'm frankly amazed at how often I hear co-workers and friends talk about buying and trading in used games to Gamestop, many of whom would never have bought used a few years ago simply because before Gamestop they didn't have an easy way of doing so outside of maybe Ebay and to a lesser extent, video rental chains like Blockbuster or Hollywood Video.

I guess this is a regional thing, because out here, the number of Gamestops today is definitely not greater than the former number of Babbages + EB Games + Funcoland + whatever else.

I agree that Gamestop shouldn't be faulted for pursuing a lucrative business model just like Apple shouldn't be faulted for the fact that single song downloads have replaced whole album sales. That doesn't change the fact that the very existence and success of Gamestop's business model is significantly impacting the bottom line of publishers and developers.

Yeah, well, so are lots of things. *shrug*

The music and DVD industry already tried slashing MSRP over the past few years and sales continued to fall.

I don't remember that happening, they cost about the same as they always have.

[IHatedSega]

I hope this would prevent games from being $60 and being "upgraded" every year. Get Capcom and Madden to wake up and stop that madness. Of course the PS4 is going to be an expensive system to work on. I dont see this being a good situation for anyone.

Its like, if they did this then games should be cheaper, but this systme is going to be expensive for AAA titles to be able to impress people. Small developers may out sell the bigger ones. Or at least smaller games compared to bigger games.

I fear the industry this coming generation will become too expensive for a lot of developers and consumers to afford. This would have to lead to lower priced games, but somehow I dont see that happening, and its turning a TON of people off to buying it. (if the PS4 in fact doesnt allow used second hand bought games to be played)


Oh yeah, and I just though of another thing, if you want to play a game at a friends house you have to lug your system there with you instead of just the game.