Developer calling Used game sales #1 issue in the industry..

[final fight cd]

If they think everyone is stupid enough to pay $60.00 or more for something that has 0 resale value, the publishers must have rocks in their head.

i don't agree with this.

i buy 140 dollar running shoes two to three times a year. these have absolutely no resale value and i ONLY wear them to run in. and millions of others do this same thing. people buy 2k dollar TVs. in a year they are worth probably half that and in 8 years they are worth only a fraction of what bought at. and the list can go on.

for the most part, i don't think many people buy shit with the intent to sell later to recoup part of their money back. at least that isn't what i do nor anybody else that i know. if that was the case, people would just rent games. and isn't game fly and netflix a booming buisness? and i do believe people would keep buying games forever if there was no resale value in them.

[isiolia]

Video games are and always should be considered a product, not a service.

Video games have a long, storied tradition of being a service over being a product. Arcade machines were created to offer game time in exchange for money.

[o.pwuaioc]

Video games are and always should be considered a product, not a service.

Video games have a long, storied tradition of being a service over being a product. Arcade machines were created to offer game time in exchange for money.

One aspect of video games does not a "long, storied tradition" make. The vast majority of video games for the past 20 years has been in the form of products.

[corn619]

If they think everyone is stupid enough to pay $60.00 or more for something that has 0 resale value, the publishers must have rocks in their head.

i don't agree with this.

i buy 140 dollar running shoes two to three times a year. these have absolutely no resale value and i ONLY wear them to run in. and millions of others do this same thing. people buy 2k dollar TVs. in a year they are worth probably half that and in 8 years they are worth only a fraction of what bought at. and the list can go on.

for the most part, i don't think many people buy shit with the intent to sell later to recoup part of their money back. at least that isn't what i do nor anybody else that i know. if that was the case, people would just rent games. and isn't game fly and netflix a booming buisness? and i do believe people would keep buying games forever if there was no resale value in them.

Used running shoes have never had any resale value where video games have always had a resale value in the past. Also, I don't necessarily buy shit with the intent of recouping my money either. However, it is nice when you can when your done with it. I bought a HDTV for around $1000 a few years ago and sold it for $400 last year. It was nice to have that $ to defer the cost of buying the newer one. I've also to date sold about $1000.00 worth of old games I don't play anymore on ebay to help fund a few a few automotive projects I've got going. Maybe most people will buy games that have no resale value in the future, I have no idea nor do I really care. Its just I won't be.

Video games are and always should be considered a product, not a service.

Video games have a long, storied tradition of being a service over being a product. Arcade machines were created to offer game time in exchange for money.

Yes the video game business started as a service and evolved into a product as home consoles started to invade homes in the 80s. Now its devolving back into a service. Sounds like a step back for the consumer, not a step forward doesn't it?

[flamepanther]

Yes the video game business started as a service and evolved into a product as home consoles started to invade homes in the 80s. Now its devolving back into a service. Sounds like a step back for the consumer, not a step forward doesn't it?

Home consoles started in the '70s, so it's a step even farther back.

[corn619]

Yes the video game business started as a service and evolved into a product as home consoles started to invade homes in the 80s. Now its devolving back into a service. Sounds like a step back for the consumer, not a step forward doesn't it?

Home consoles started in the '70s, so it's a step even farther back.

Thanks for the correction man. I feel ashamed of myself for such a typo on a retro game forum!

[GSZX1337]

I'm surprised no one in the industry [that I know of] has suggested a Net-Flix/Red-Box type agreement. Make a deal with GameStop and maybe some other big retailers to not carry your game used to 28 days.

[Flake]

I'm surprised no one in the industry [that I know of] has suggested a Net-Flix/Red-Box type agreement. Make a deal with GameStop and maybe some other big retailers to not carry your game used to 28 days.

Good luck getting anyone to agree to that!

"Dear Gamestop,

I noticed recently that you are making money by exploiting my mistakes. Please stop doing that for 28 days and thus lose said revenue to a competitor with whom I will not make this agreement with. In return I give you nothing.

Sincerely,
A bunch of people without a clue who think their product is somehow special"

[Key-Glyph]

This has been a fascinating discussion.

Two things that bother me about encouraging buying new while simultaneously discouraging "second-hand gaming" is 1) the amount of physical garbage it produces and 2) the isolationist mentality it promotes.

Buying something used means one less unwanted object in the landfill, and in my opinion, that's wonderful. Of course, going digital would sidestep this issue altogether, but I still prefer physical objects and hope I'll always have that option. I appreciate it when anybody puts in the extra mile to find a new home for something they'd otherwise be tossing. Also, as it was so aptly put by Inazuma:

It's the only form of ownership we have left. Physical media gives us some rights and control. ... We are quickly reaching the point where all games will be download only and we will have no ownership, control or rights at all.

Discouraging "second-hand gaming" pushes the agenda that sharing is evil and that everyone should own their own individual copy of everything. I don't agree with this. (I work in a library.) Going purely digital does the same thing, as some people have previously mentioned. It happens with e-books too: you download a novel to your personal device, but if your friend wants to borrow your copy, they have to borrow your entire device. A lot of these files aren't transferrable, or only allow limited extra downloads to other machines.

I think gaming companies should acknowledge that players will share, should factor that into their budget decisions, and plan fair ways to cope instead of trying to smother it. What if companies agreed to pay a consumer for returning their used game to them? They can make money reselling their own used games, discouraging the trashing and gifting of their previously-owned items. If a solution like this is just too inconvenient for them, I have no sympathy. I think that they should be happy that people would rather spread their materials around than trash them -- among other things it's respectful on their behalf. I also seriously believe that "second-hand gaming" is in their interest. For example, I do not own a single console I bought myself without playing it at a friend's house first. The ability to preview certain systems and their games swayed me to buy the ones I liked, and the inability to preview others kept me away from them -- even ones I now know I would have loved.

I would like to know how the profits are distributed between the company and the developer. If the developer is getting a small percentage in royalties and the company is raking in the big bucks in an unfair proportion, then the developers should demand more power and control in the equation. If the issue is unfairness within the system, it shouldn't be blamed on the consumers. Fix the system in a way that benefits the people responsible for generating the product. The companies should be the ones thanking their lucky stars that brilliant developers are giving them access to their services, not the other way around.

[SuperAnthony64]

If they think everyone is stupid enough to pay $60.00 or more for something that has 0 resale value, the publishers must have rocks in their head.

i don't agree with this.

i buy 140 dollar running shoes two to three times a year. these have absolutely no resale value and i ONLY wear them to run in. and millions of others do this same thing. people buy 2k dollar TVs. in a year they are worth probably half that and in 8 years they are worth only a fraction of what bought at. and the list can go on.

for the most part, i don't think many people buy shit with the intent to sell later to recoup part of their money back. at least that isn't what i do nor anybody else that i know. if that was the case, people would just rent games. and isn't game fly and netflix a booming buisness? and i do believe people would keep buying games forever if there was no resale value in them.

Have you ever browsed craigslist?

No shit you arent going to sell old worn sweaty shoes. I dont go to the supermarket and buy packs of chicken legs and hold on to them till they reach a high price. Its certian items that hold value, video games, comics, cards, stuff that has limited print runs. Hell, look at used school books. Why buy new when you can get the same book for less. Also are you telling me you will never trade in your current car at a dealer to get money off your new car?

If the developer cared about the gamers/customers they would release free dlc to keep them occupied or offer a buy back program. "Dont like the game? Trade it back to us for some money back and we will sell it certified used." But no. Its easier to bitch about "Oh, we could of made a hundred Kajillion dollars if everyone in the world bought our game. Oh feel sorry for us and death to gamestop for selling our games used. We wont mention that we got our money from said used game already so we are just gonna trash the second hand market."