Whelp, another reason to boycott Capcom.

[Erik_Twice]

Yes, from a strict perspective of goods this is nothing special. But it does cut in to the sales of new titles in a dramatic fashion.

But there's nothing special about that economic impact. It doesn't "cut" into sales because there was nothing to cut, the right to sell what you own was always here.

And even if it did "cut" into sales, there's nothing wrong with that. The creators get what they deserve, the fact that they could get more by removing the basic economical right of selling what you own is kind of irrelevant, we would also see more sales if we forced people to buy games every month but that's pursuing means not goals.

This is like lesbians. It sucks that you can't date them but it's not like you were intitled to do so in the first place =P

BTW, sorry if I sound harsh, it's not my intention, Mr Popo =P

[isiolia]

I dont know about people on here. But there have been times, when I decided to delete my save file and start over. I have done this a few times, when i either got side tracked and haven't touched the game in say a few months or i wanted to start over and do better the 2nd time around. FUCK THAT!!!

As has been mentioned though, this isn't really that kind of game.

This would be more like some of Capcom's fighters where you'd unlock characters, colors, and so on by playing the game. It'd be like picking up a used copy of Marvel vs Capcom 2 and finding that the entire roster was available because the previous owner(s) had put the time in to unlock it. With stuff like that...it's harder to say for sure that you'd wipe it out. I doubt I would.

I fail to see why that is a problem at all. Many people want to sell what they own and many people are willing to buy it from them to become the new owners of the commodity. Nothing special.

It's simply a narrow focus. Sales numbers and profits for the publisher/studio only come from new games. Most retail products would be the same. However, few tend to have quite the retailer focus that games tend to lately. Best Buy isn't exactly trying to branch out into used TV sales, or used computers - but they've got used games on the shelf. You don't walk into a Bed Bath & Beyond and expect to see half the shelf space occupied by slightly cheaper used merchandise - but at Gamestop it's normal.

The problem is that, from the perpective of the developers, a used sale might as well be a pirated sale. They get no money from it. Yet you have major retailers building their business around high-margin used sales that don't put money back in the pockets of the folks who actually created the product. Given how many studios we see closed due to not turning a profit...it's actually pretty relevant.

Not saying that it's right for devs to cripple used sales - eventually, the game will be out of production, and that's all there'll be. However, you can easily see why they'd prefer sales to be of new copies.

[Ivo]

I totally lost my huge post

I'll sum it up:

1. used sale = lost sale is a fallacy (just as pirated game = lost sale).

2. buying new cars is actually harsher than buying used, I would say. You pay quite a premium for buying new in cars.

3. movies and books are more similar to games than cars, and in movies you naturally expect to pay a premium for seeing it right when it is released. Old movies even show for free in TV (where "free" is really "ad supported"). For used games you also need to wait a bit to play them, like in books (the respective industries also try to control lending and re-selling when they can, of course).

4. buying used is probably more common than pooling together, I agree. But many brothers and friends effectively pool together without doing it explicitly, by lending them (and I'm sure developers also want to curb that).

5. The gamer that buys used may have instead less games paid full price, but in the absence of the used market he may also instead have 0 games paid full price as he may find the value for money to make it not worth it - he may go to other entertainment options that do not give ANYTHING to the industry (buying used gives something, despite what the industry likes to claim). There is no shortage of free games.

6. The total impact in industry is very hard to establish. For it to be a negative impact the total amount they take with the current situation would be smaller than the scenario where the used game market does not exist. I believe that for that to occur you need many more "time limited players" than you have "funds limited players" and I don't think that is the case. "Funds limited players" are not going to give more money to the industry in the absence of the used game market - they may play less games, or they may even decide to give up commercial games. "Time limited players" might buy new instead of used, but if they are time limited (making them less likely to "waste time" with lower quality free games, for example) they may already be buying their games new and not re-selling them currently. So... Maybe the used game market helps the industry despite what the industry claims / believes.

7. The industry (at least segments of it) are very worried about iPhone games. Wonder why? Perhaps it is because they think/know that that commercial games are a tad overpriced. Used game market cuts that a bit so maybe it is helping them without them knowing. Perhaps the industry should spend less money in cutting edge graphics, refine gameplay and sell the games at lower prices (like many indie devs and digital only games are doing). You can't even say "it doesn't sell" at the moment because obviously iPhone games can sell a lot of units and they do not have cutting edge graphics. But I'm a biased retro gamer of course.

Ivo.

[MrPopo]

Yes, from a strict perspective of goods this is nothing special. But it does cut in to the sales of new titles in a dramatic fashion.

But there's nothing special about that economic impact. It doesn't "cut" into sales because there was nothing to cut, the right to sell what you own was always here.

And even if it did "cut" into sales, there's nothing wrong with that. The creators get what they deserve, the fact that they could get more by removing the basic economical right of selling what you own is kind of irrelevant, we would also see more sales if we forced people to buy games every month but that's pursuing means not goals.

But they AREN'T removing your right to sell what you own. What they are doing is creating a distinction between new and used titles for a consumer that exists for pretty much every other consumer item out there, but not for games.

[dsheinem]

What they are doing is creating a distinction between new and used titles for a consumer that exists for pretty much every other consumer item out there, but not for games.

It doesn't exist for music, books, or movies, which are much "closer" to games than a car, clothing, housing, etc...

[Erik_Twice]

However, you can easily see why they'd prefer sales to be of new copies.

They can prefer it, but they are still not entitled to it.

There's nothing more to say. Developers don't own Gamestop's games so there's no reason for them to see a single cent of any sale Gamestop may make. The commodity is in Gamestop's hands and they can do whatever they want with it.

[Jamisonia]

books, textbooks especially gripe about the same thing. The primary reason for multiple editions of textbooks are to make the value of used books plummet. Its actually quite a racket they have going on college campuses. Textbook publishers court professors into requring the newest edition of their textbook, which often has little changes. The changes are usually just cosmetic, or they rearrange chapters, add very little new information. The professors require the expensive new edition, which causes old editions to have no value.

[Erik_Twice]

Yes, from a strict perspective of goods this is nothing special. But it does cut in to the sales of new titles in a dramatic fashion.

But there's nothing special about that economic impact. It doesn't "cut" into sales because there was nothing to cut, the right to sell what you own was always here.

And even if it did "cut" into sales, there's nothing wrong with that. The creators get what they deserve, the fact that they could get more by removing the basic economical right of selling what you own is kind of irrelevant, we would also see more sales if we forced people to buy games every month but that's pursuing means not goals.

But they AREN'T removing your right to sell what you own. What they are doing is creating a distinction between new and used titles for a consumer that exists for pretty much every other consumer item out there, but not for games.

Our previous posts and this one are not related. You were claiming that there was a problem and that problem was the volume of used sales and I was adressing that.

Your post is non-sequitur, I never claimed they don't have the right to fuck up their own products and remove replay value. They can make cartridges self-destruct if they want to. But this doesn't have anything to do with what we were talking about.

[Jamisonia]

However, you can easily see why they'd prefer sales to be of new copies.

They can prefer it, but they are still not entitled to it.

There's nothing more to say. Developers don't own Gamestop's games so there's no reason for them to see a single cent of any sale Gamestop may make. The commodity is in Gamestop's hands and they can do whatever they want with it.

It seems to be they should just refuse to sell to Gamestop. Gamestop pushes their used copies over the publishers new copies. I recently bought a PS3 and got a few games with it. When I asked for the games she automatically pulled out the used versions, and I had to ask and even argue for the new copies. IMO, its not worth the $5 Gamestop knocks off the price for a used copy.

If Gamestop wasn't able to carry the new product, there would be less opportunity for consumers to buy a used copy of game. Thats seems like a better solution than restircting saves.

[MrPopo]

What they are doing is creating a distinction between new and used titles for a consumer that exists for pretty much every other consumer item out there, but not for games.

It doesn't exist for music, books, or movies, which are much "closer" to games than a car, clothing, housing, etc...

Music and movies, sure. Books... they'll have noticeable wear and tear. And I already mentioned the ridiculously long tail on movies. They aren't even in a position to be sold used until you're at the tail end of the sales curve, so it's much less of a factor. Similarly music initially gets radio play to make up a significant amount of revenue. I don't know if labels get a cut of concert sales; I know the artists do. So yes, movies and music being sold used are similar to video games, but video games are almost entirely getting their revenue through consumer sales (yes, there's rentals, but I'd doubt those are as lucrative as movie rentals are). And as much as people complain about DLC, it's a good way for them to recoup some of the money they lose to used sales. Whether or not it gets taken too far is a different discussion.

There's nothing more to say. Developers don't own Gamestop's games so there's no reason for them to see a single cent of any sale Gamestop may make. The commodity is in Gamestop's hands and they can do whatever they want with it.

I agree. So they're left to come up with ways to make the Gamestop option less attractive.

books, textbooks especially gripe about the same thing. The primary reason for multiple editions of textbooks are to make the value of used books plummet. Its actually quite a racket they have going on college campuses. Textbook publishers court professors into requring the newest edition of their textbook, which often has little changes. The changes are usually just cosmetic, or they rearrange chapters, add very little new information. The professors require the expensive new edition, which causes old editions to have no value.

Yeah, this is a mechanism already in place. Textbooks are in a bad spot since the majority of them contain static knowledge. A book on classical mechanics isn't going to suddenly have a need to incorporate new discoveries we have about it. At most they'll have better problems in the homework section. So if a textbook publishing company wants to survive they have to create a reason for people to purchase their new items. If they didn't, they'd just publish an initial run of books, close shop, and let that run of books get continuously recycled in the campus book stores.