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

[MrPopo]

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.

I think rentals had an impact on those companies back then. People could go to Blockbuster or their local video store to rent games for the weekend.

Personally I have never rented games so I don't know how large of a factor that is. One could consider Gamestop to be the modern equivalent of "renting at Blockbuster".

As I understand it (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), rentals fall under one of two plans. The first is the rental place pays many times the retail price of the item to gain the rights to rent it out. The second plan is a profit sharing, such as the publisher gets $1 for every $4 rental. Both cases are quite different from the publisher side compared to how Gamestop works today.

[Retrogamer0001]

Another reason I choose to buy used games instead of new is the overall value of the product - sure, I'll pay 59.99 upon release, but that game quickly drops in value over the course of only a few months. I see it constantly - where is the incentive to spend sixty bucks when I'm clearly just throwing it out the door? Dead Island is a great example of this kind of thing - that was out for, what, six weeks before the price was cut permanently in half? I guess my point is that MOST used games don't retain their value very well, and without that incentive, there is no reason for me to buy new games over used.

[pepharytheworm]

Couldn't one argue that if retailers couldn't sell used anymore, that a good portion of retailers would start making less profit and start closing stores down, which in turn makes less places where you can buy new games, which then makes games harder to find, and then ends with less new being available and sold?

[RyaNtheSlayA]

Couldn't one argue that if retailers couldn't sell used anymore, that a good portion of retailers would start making less profit and start closing stores down, which in turn makes less places where you can buy new games, which then makes games harder to find, and then ends with less new being available and sold?

To some extent I guess. Walmart and Target sure wouldn't. Local game stores that don't carry retro could possibly suffer.

[BoringSupreez]

Couldn't one argue that if retailers couldn't sell used anymore, that a good portion of retailers would start making less profit and start closing stores down, which in turn makes less places where you can buy new games, which then makes games harder to find, and then ends with less new being available and sold?

To some extent I guess. Walmart and Target sure wouldn't. Local game stores that don't carry retro could possibly suffer.

I think those stores would either adapt by becoming retro game stores, or just sink.

[Regginmad]

Couldn't one argue that if retailers couldn't sell used anymore, that a good portion of retailers would start making less profit and start closing stores down, which in turn makes less places where you can buy new games, which then makes games harder to find, and then ends with less new being available and sold?

Which is why the "what if game x needs 150k sales to succeed and only gets 50k sales" argument doesn't hold water. There is a good chance that without seeing any value from their older games, gamers wouldnt have enough money to help the game reach either mark. gamestops high profit on used games is only more proof that a lot of people benefit from being able to get some type of value out of a game once they are done with it. Without that, there are a lot fewer dollars being spent on games in general, new or used.

[Zing]

You sell 50,000 units, and wind up declaring bankruptcy and shutting down. Yet you can see from XBL and PSN logins that 150,000 unique systems have played your game.

I found this example humorous. In the context of used game sales, this example would have 50,000 people selling the game used twice. If the game is so bad that 100,000 people decided it was not worth owning, then the developer does not deserve to be rewarded in any fashion.

[isiolia]

Which is why the "what if game x needs 150k sales to succeed and only gets 50k sales" argument doesn't hold water. There is a good chance that without seeing any value from their older games, gamers wouldnt have enough money to help the game reach either mark. gamestops high profit on used games is only more proof that a lot of people benefit from being able to get some type of value out of a game once they are done with it. Without that, there are a lot fewer dollars being spent on games in general, new or used.

Depends on the individuals in general. The point I've made with it is, again, that there's a balance. A used sale, in and of itself, does not help the developers - but there's that chance that it indirectly results in additional new sales. The larger problem for developers with Gamestop's current model is the degree to which they push used sales.

Gamestop's high profit margin on used games has absolutely nothing to do with people seeing a benefit on used games though. That they can credit people $20 and sell a game for $40 is a better testament to how much people will pay (or, rather, not recoup) for the sake of convenience. If used game buyers and sellers dealt with one another directly, buyers would pay less, and sellers would get more. Not to mention that the used price is often what, 10% less than new? Not really much of a savings for the customer, just a lot more profit for the store.

I found this example humorous. In the context of used game sales, this example would have 50,000 people selling the game used twice. If the game is so bad that 100,000 people decided it was not worth owning, then the developer does not deserve to be rewarded in any fashion.

Or they just finished it. I was just using small numbers and very obvious disparities to make a point. The real-world example, and developer complaint I had in mind was that of Heavy Rain, which sold two million with around three million players (here). As the article there even points out, there are plenty of unknowns there too - rentals, loaned copies, whatever, so the case isn't airtight by far, but it does demonstrate there there is some truth to it.

[Ivo]

I can make an abbreviated version of this post if anyone wants.

A. If ten people play that copy, (...) the fact is that the company still only got paid for one copy.

B. The original buyer gets the credit for supporting the developer because however they arrived at the decision to do so, their transaction was the one that actually contributed. Buy new? Buy used? They chose new. All subsequent owners chose used, and because of that, the developer saw no additional money from their purchase.

I agree with A. That is not the issue here, and why in my string of examples in the other thread, the 2nd example is two brothers go and buy a (new) game together, which (I hope is obvious) means they are BOTH contributing to the industry.

Please note that I am not arguing that the game industry is better off with the existence of the used games market. I named the other thread "Why buying used supports the industry", not "Why the existence of the used market supports the industry".

Keep in mind that the opposite of "buying used" is NOT "buying new", it is "not buying used" and THAT doesn't support the industry at all (imagine the money just went for other entertainment option). That alone isn't sufficient to prove that buying used does support the industry of course but that is why I have the consistency checks that I've been discussing.

Whether the existence of the market supports the industry or not overall is very hard to prove as it gets into whether they sell more games total due its existence.
But conversely it isn't trivial to prove that the industry would be better off without the used games market existing, because while there are obvious negative aspects that can lower sales, there are also positive aspects that can drive sales and you would need to account for both of those properly. If all the aspects were negative then of course the existence would have to be overall negative, but that isn't the case at all (although the guys from the industry often like to make it look like it is). One of the positive aspects of the used games market for the industry is that it enables people to buy games cheaper, thereby competing better with other options. So if they could remove the used games market AND they sold additional new copies cheaper (like Steam does, basically), then it becomes MUCH easier to prove that removing the used games market is all upside for the industry (go ask Valve).



B. is just wrong though (it has to be wrong because it is inconsistent), and THAT is the point I've been trying to make. The used buyers must also get "credit". Would the used game buyer support the industry *more* if he got the game new and never sold it instead? Of course! But that is not the point! It doesn't mean that him buying the game used is not supporting the industry at all.

The "original buyer" chose new, but ALSO CHOSE TO SELL IT (and therefore transferred part of the "credit" for buying new). If you buy new and don't sell it you can get full credit, sure. If you sell it you can't. If you sell it for PROFIT, then you would have to get zero credit - just like the middle men get no credit for supporting the industry.

I really don't see how this is so hard to understand. I'll put it in another way to highlight the inconsistency in not transferring credit: if you don't transfer credit to used buyers, there would be no difference between an original buyer that never sells the game, and an original buyer that does sell the game. That doesn't make sense!



To MrPopo: your non-transfer logic is still inconsistent when you include middle men, unless you are just not stating things in a way that are clear enough. Thank you for answering my previous question - you thought at step 3 there is no "credit" to the brother because his money wasn't involved initially (if I understand you correctly). What if he paid me in advance then (before getting the game), and why do you think that matters? If I willingly give him a free loan, why does he get "credit" in one case and not in the other?

Ivo.

[MrPopo]

The "original buyer" chose new, but ALSO CHOSE TO SELL IT (and therefore transferred part of the "credit" for buying new). If you buy new and don't sell it you can get full credit, sure. If you sell it you can't. If you sell it for PROFIT, then you would have to get zero credit - just like the middle men get no credit for supporting the industry.

I really don't see how this is so hard to understand. I'll put it in another way to highlight the inconsistency in not transferring credit: if you don't transfer credit to used buyers, there would be no difference between an original buyer that never sells the game, and an original buyer that does sell the game. That doesn't make sense!

See, this is where I disagree. The original buyer who sells it is the same as the original buyer who keeps it is the same as the original buyer who loses it is the same as the original buyer who throws it away when his toddler breaks it.

To MrPopo: your non-transfer logic is still inconsistent when you include middle men, unless you are just not stating things in a way that are clear enough. Thank you for answering my previous question - you thought at step 3 there is no "credit" to the brother because his money wasn't involved initially (if I understand you correctly). What if he paid me in advance then (before getting the game), and why do you think that matters? If I willingly give him a free loan, why does he get "credit" in one case and not in the other?

Ivo.

I'm probably just not stating things clear enough. There are two primary parties involved with a new sale: the developer and the customer. The developer wants to sell their game and the customer wants to buy that game. However, it is not logistically feasible for the developer to maintain their own sales and distribution network. Enter the middleman, such as a retail store. He acts as an intermediary to bring the two primary parties together, and gets compensated as a result. There are two models for this interaction: consignment, where the developer maintains legal ownership until the sale occurs and thus maintains the financial burden, and standard retail, where the store takes ownership and the financial burden. However, in both cases the store exists for the purpose of bringing these two parties togehter. A Gamestop used sale is very similar, however in this case the primary parties are customer one and customer two and Gamestop is bridging the gap between the two with a MASSIVE commission for doing so.

Going to your brother scenario, really my view on it is that the difference between supporting and not supporting is whether or not you are making the effort to ensure your dollars go to the developer. So if you buy solo new, or you buy joint new, or in the scenario where the brother gives money to be part of the original purchase and become the sole owner after you finish your playthrough. By contrast, if he were to purchase the game from you after the fact he has no idea where his dollars are going.

I think that's been the point that keeps getting us going in circular routes. I look at support as voting with your dollars to say that you want more of game X or games from company Y.