Sony and GS gets $ for GS selling game new.
GS gets $ for selling it used.
= OK.
Sony and GS gets $ for GS selling game new.
Sony gets $ for selling it used.
= Not OK?
You're right, it is kind of dumb.
But I think it would have a lot to do with the "Big corp is bad!" mentality. To a degree it would be true, they would be cutting out the middle man and lots of people could lose their jobs because of it. But at the same time they have every right to profit off the fact that their product is being sold twice, once new and once used. As I said I think they would have to be willing to do the whole thing for less or else people would get uptight about it.
The publishers will be hesitant to do anything that would be direct competition to GameStop's business. Without a majority consensus amongst all the publishers to be willing to halt business with GameStop, the threat of being selectively locked out of the retail market is too large. This is why you see that empty cardboard packaging which allow you to buy a digital games on the hangers at retails stores.
It is far easier and more efficient for publishers to simply move to a digital-only market. They are working on it and so far it seems to be successful. This is why GameStop has entered the digital-distribution market.
They could do it... but it just seems kinda wrong. Would you sell your used furniture back to Ikea to then be sold again? I can't think of an exact reason why it would be bad, but it just seems so. They've sold the product, and it's now the public's to do what they want.
sabrage wrote:It would take a hefty investment to create the kind of infrastructure that Gamestop already has. I doubt anyone here (in the States at least) is more than 10 miles from a Gamestop.
More like 30 miles, but yes. Anyhow, I'd prefer that the console companies stay out of the used game market. I'm fine with them selling new games, but I think the used market is better off as it is.
prfsnl_gmr wrote:There is nothing feigned about it. What I wrote is a display of actual moral superiority.
Weekend_Warrior wrote:
They already got their money from the original purchaser. Why should they get paid twice for the same game?
I'm scratching my head here... what do you mean?
If I buy a Sony tv and later decide to sell it to someone else, should Sony get a percentage part of that money?
Bunch of fucking cry babies in this game industry. Lower the cost of new games and you will see a higher percentage of people buying new games. But we're in a recession right now so people are being smarter about their money and choosing to wait for price drops and/or to buy it used for a fraction of the price. But instead, the game industry seems to think adding shit like online passes and one-time use codes is the only way to stop it. But in the end it's only going to hurt them more cause the piracy and hacker rate will only increase in return.
"Welcome to the circus of values!"
Currently Playing: Crysis (360), Destiny demo (PS3), Roadblasters (MAME)
Weekend_Warrior wrote:If I buy a Sony tv and later decide to sell it to someone else, should Sony get a percentage part of that money?
if you are selling it back to Sony then yes. I don't get the issue here. Whoever is doing the reselling would get the business. Like I said GameStop pushes used games because they get a nice profit on it. You buy a used game from them, and then sell it back to them, they get to sell it again. What would be the difference really if Sony sold the same game twice then?
Weekend_Warrior wrote:
They already got their money from the original purchaser. Why should they get paid twice for the same game?
I'm scratching my head here... what do you mean?
If I buy a Sony tv and later decide to sell it to someone else, should Sony get a percentage part of that money?
Bunch of fucking cry babies in this game industry. Lower the cost of new games and you will see a higher percentage of people buying new games. But we're in a recession right now so people are being smarter about their money and choosing to wait for price drops and/or to buy it used for a fraction of the price. But instead, the game industry seems to think adding shit like online passes and one-time use codes is the only way to stop it. But in the end it's only going to hurt them more cause the piracy and hacker rate will only increase in return.
I think lowering the cost of new games would have a minimal impact on new game sales. People who buy used would still buy used because it's cheaper than new.
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
MrPopo wrote:
I think lowering the cost of new games would have a minimal impact on new game sales. People who buy used would still buy used because it's cheaper than new.
I'm gonna go ahead and disagree. You get a game like Halo 4 come out brand new at $30. I bet we would see at least double the number of pre-sale orders and maybe triple the sales numbers for the first couple of weeks from previous Halo games.
Believe me, people always want to buy and play the newest, hottest games... but $60 is a tough pill to swallow. But for something like $30, I myself could find a way to work that into my budget. I think many others could, too
"Welcome to the circus of values!"
Currently Playing: Crysis (360), Destiny demo (PS3), Roadblasters (MAME)
MrPopo wrote:
I think lowering the cost of new games would have a minimal impact on new game sales. People who buy used would still buy used because it's cheaper than new.
I'm gonna go ahead and disagree. You get a game like Halo 4 come out brand new at $30. I bet we would see at least double the number of pre-sale orders and maybe triple the sales numbers for the first couple of weeks from previous Halo games.
Believe me, people always want to buy and play the newest, hottest games... but $60 is a tough pill to swallow. But for something like $30, I myself could find a way to work that into my budget. I think many others could, too
I agree with you both. If all new games came out at $30 on day one I think we'd see a lot more immediate sales obviously. Hell $40 even, as that tends to be my sweet spot for non-I-must-have-it-right-now games.
But on the flip, if I knew that a new game was going to be $30 but that caused the used copy to be $15 or $20 a month later, then I'd probably still be buying two used games rather than one new one.
