Do you feel bad about buying new(ish) releases used?

[MrPopo]

I don't understand this charity mentality. There is a similar debate in the boardgaming world in regards to buying games from your local store at MSRP or buying online at a 30-40% discount.

When an item is being sold by a store at a discount it doesn't affect the profits taken in by the creator (unless they sell under consignment).

The boardgame situation is about keeping local stores alive via an indirect charity. In the same way people think video game development could disappear if people don't buy new, some people think incentives for boardgame development would take a huge dive if all local game shops ceased to exist.

The fact is, high retail prices are actually supported by used game sales. If games had literally no value after purchase (as with digital downloads, or online-only accounts), then the perceived value of the new games would clearly drop. I suspect the system would not support the average retail game with $60 price tags if there were no method of defraying the cost via a used sale. There are very few games that can pull off the "charge $60 with no resale value" angle, and most of them have the Blizzard logo on the box.

The board game situation is a level removed from the video game situation, I'd argue. The concern there is that the current local distribution model is what drives sales. With video games it's much more direct; if you don't buy new then your money isn't going to the developers.

I disagree with your assertion that the used market is what drives the high cost of games. First off, you have the simple economic reality that a game needs to make back a certain amount of money to offset the development costs. If you drop the price by 1/3 then you need to sell an additional 50% in order to make the same amount of money. Dropping the price in general can get you more sales, but driving an increase of sales to that degree is another matter. Secondly, game sales had no problems in the NES and SNES era when the used market wasn't nearly as developed. The average gamer of that era wasn't thinking that they could get back $30 on their copy of Street Fighter II, so the secondary market wasn't a large factor in the value of the game.

To be clear, my issue isn't, and has never been with, used sales in a vacuum. A large portion of my retro library is used games because that's the only way to get them without paying out the nose and that money not being passed on to the developer. My issue is with the institutionalized used market pushed by Gamestop that has led to the mentality of renting a new release for a month or two for $20.

[Ivo]

Arguably, the cost of a game isn't for the "copy", it's for the experience.

You can't resell the experience of watching a movie in a theater (legally, anyway), or sitting at a sporting event or concert, but a ticket to gain entry to those things still has value.

I think it's less a matter of the market not standing for the prices without a resellable token, and more that there'd just need to be a shift in perception.

You can certainly sell DVDs of movies, CDs of live performances, and if you have a season ticket to several sporting events I think it is legal in most cases to sell them after watching the first ones.

Conversely, it is a grey area to sell MMO game accounts, and after you "experienced" a month of it you cer can't sell that month.

[Ivo]

The board game situation is complicated as in many cases the stores serve as the place where the gamers gather and use to play. Think of it as server costs for games with online support. If the stores close, you may have to go to one of the gamer's house which is not necessarily possible. That is why many board gamers advocate buying at physical stores, to subsidize those "server costs".

I maintain that is is factually wrong to state that people that don't buy new aren't contributing with THEIR money to the developers. That statement comes from flawed reasoning that proves itself inconsistent with a few situations (I can present some).

I also disagree that the used market drives the high cost of games, but I think it is pretty naive to ignore that more copies are sold at that high cost because of their re-sale value allowing buyers to distribute that cost to other buyers.
Also of note: games today are probably a bit cheaper than they used to be when you adjust for inflation (that may not surprising considering that cartridges were quite expensive to produce back then, and optical media is much cheaper now - but conversely the production of games has shot up in average cost).

While I don't really like Gamestop, I don't see the issue with the mentality of "renting" a new release for a month or two for 20 USD. That seems like quite a good deal for the industry.
Movies are comparable in cost, no? They get what, 5 USD per viewer average Considering also DVD sales and other stuff, I don't know, raise that to 10 USD per viewer average considering also pay per view TV and advertising on free TV channels when?
Games are going to be passed on, on average what, 2 or 3 times? 4 or 5? Consider the average game is owned by 6 people over its time (which is a pretty big assumption, lots of people don't sell their games, and those that do sell them, how many people buy used and then re-sell it). Dividing a full 60 USD by 6 is over 10 USD per "viewer". Exactly how is that unfair again? If the problem is games only appeal to a limited audience (and therefore the same average "per viewer" amount is not enough) is raising the price of admission really helping them reach a higher audience, or maybe the games industry should be more humble and lower the budget of most games instead (the Wii games sold well to a wider audience and they didn't push the graphics envelope).

Ivo.

The board game situation is a level removed from the video game situation, I'd argue. The concern there is that the current local distribution model is what drives sales. With video games it's much more direct; if you don't buy new then your money isn't going to the developers.

I disagree with your assertion that the used market is what drives the high cost of games. First off, you have the simple economic reality that a game needs to make back a certain amount of money to offset the development costs. If you drop the price by 1/3 then you need to sell an additional 50% in order to make the same amount of money. Dropping the price in general can get you more sales, but driving an increase of sales to that degree is another matter. Secondly, game sales had no problems in the NES and SNES era when the used market wasn't nearly as developed. The average gamer of that era wasn't thinking that they could get back $30 on their copy of Street Fighter II, so the secondary market wasn't a large factor in the value of the game.

To be clear, my issue isn't, and has never been with, used sales in a vacuum. A large portion of my retro library is used games because that's the only way to get them without paying out the nose and that money not being passed on to the developer. My issue is with the institutionalized used market pushed by Gamestop that has led to the mentality of renting a new release for a month or two for $20.

[MrPopo]

The board game situation is complicated as in many cases the stores serve as the place where the gamers gather and use to play. Think of it as server costs for games with online support. If the stores close, you may have to go to one of the gamer's house which is not necessarily possible. That is why many board gamers advocate buying at physical stores, to subsidize those "server costs".

True enough. I'm honestly not up enough on the board game scene to really say anything intelligent about it.

I also disagree that the used market drives the high cost of games, but I think it is pretty naive to ignore that more copies are sold at that high cost because of their re-sale value allowing buyers to distribute that cost to other buyers.

Do you mean that the ability to resell means that more people are willing to pay the current cost? I agree with you. However, I disagree that this fact is a factor in pricing. Let's be honest, the pricing has been pretty static (ignoring inflation, which you mention) for several decades now. Games have always had a standard price, and some games might be sold at a premium (account for special chips in SNES games) or a discount (cheap localized title). Really the reason that the price hasn't changed is that there is no reason to do so. Steam and the like have become interesting experimental venues for dynamic game pricing, as their copies are generated on-demand and thus don't have to account for the various forces involved in physical releases that are part of what encourage the price inertia.

While I don't really like Gamestop, I don't see the issue with the mentality of "renting" a new release for a month or two for 20 USD. That seems like quite a good deal for the industry.
Movies are comparable in cost, no? They get what, 5 USD per viewer average Considering also DVD sales and other stuff, I don't know, raise that to 10 USD per viewer average considering also pay per view TV and advertising on free TV channels when?

Movies make their money through the following methods (in rough chronological order)

• Theatrical release (main goal of making back production costs)
• Airlines and PPV
• Rental
• Home release
• TV licensing

They really wring the rag dry in terms of monetizing films. Games, by contrast, only have home sales and rentals and suffer from certain realities (especially modern games) which damage their ability to have a large tail like movies do. For example, your average console FPS is based around its multiplayer and in many cases it isn't as much fun to play one year after release, due to the multiplayer community shrinking. Another one is technology improvements (graphics and otherwise) which can make games seem dated to your average consumer. Movies, for the most part, don't have a similar time constraint to their enjoyment. Now, it's possible for games to have a long tail on them (look at Nintendo titles) but these tend to be the exception, rather than the norm.

Games are going to be passed on, on average what, 2 or 3 times? 4 or 5? Consider the average game is owned by 6 people over its time (which is a pretty big assumption, lots of people don't sell their games, and those that do sell them, how many people buy used and then re-sell it). Dividing a full 60 USD by 6 is over 10 USD per "viewer". Exactly how is that unfair again? If the problem is games only appeal to a limited audience (and therefore the same average "per viewer" amount is not enough) is raising the price of admission really helping them reach a higher audience, or maybe the games industry should be more humble and lower the budget of most games instead (the Wii games sold well to a wider audience and they didn't push the graphics envelope).

As I've said, I'm totally sympathetic to the notion that the price of games could come down. But as I pointed out above, your calculation only mirrors a single segment of the entire movie monetization pipeline. Games have reached movie-level budgets but don't have movie-level avenues of returns, so naturally the publishers are worried when a business such as Gamestop cuts so heavily into their potential sales. One other difference between movies and games is that movies get resold to the same customer all the time (sees it in the theater, rents it, buys it) but games tend not to (remakes aside).

[Zing]

I am not saying that prices are based on resale value. I am saying that the current prices are not sustainable without potential resale value. I strongly suspect that the industry would be critically harmed if games were no longer able to be resold, unless there was a substantial lowering of MSRP.

[MrPopo]

I am not saying that prices are based on resale value. I am saying that the current prices are not sustainable without potential resale value. I strongly suspect that the industry would be critically harmed if games were no longer able to be resold, unless there was a substantial lowering of MSRP.

They were sustainable back in the old days when people weren't reselling at the drop of a hat. And it cost more back then too.

[DinnerX]

I am not saying that prices are based on resale value. I am saying that the current prices are not sustainable without potential resale value. I strongly suspect that the industry would be critically harmed if games were no longer able to be resold, unless there was a substantial lowering of MSRP.

They were sustainable back in the old days when people weren't reselling at the drop of a hat. And it cost more back then too.

The market has changed a lot though. Would the CoD types still buy new if they can't resell?

[swiftzx]

I kinda feel bad when I buy used, and like JT said, I like buying games directly from indie developers. That being said, I only buy new Nintendo games, since they retain their value well and are consistent with the quality of their titles.

[MrPopo]

I am not saying that prices are based on resale value. I am saying that the current prices are not sustainable without potential resale value. I strongly suspect that the industry would be critically harmed if games were no longer able to be resold, unless there was a substantial lowering of MSRP.

They were sustainable back in the old days when people weren't reselling at the drop of a hat. And it cost more back then too.

The market has changed a lot though. Would the CoD types still buy new if they can't resell?

Excellent question. These are the same people who pay $10 for a map pack. Then again, I don't see losing the CoD types and the games they support as a bad thing.

[pepharytheworm]

I am not saying that prices are based on resale value. I am saying that the current prices are not sustainable without potential resale value. I strongly suspect that the industry would be critically harmed if games were no longer able to be resold, unless there was a substantial lowering of MSRP.

They were sustainable back in the old days when people weren't reselling at the drop of a hat. And it cost more back then too.

So even though used are sold more often, new sales are up also. People are buying a lot more new game now then they ever did in the 70s-90s. I personally buy around 12 new games a year maybe more. My brother who isn't much of a gamer around 5. Now let's compare that to my father who bought maybe 2 new games a year for his Atari 2600.