Publishers and their used games gripes.

[Regginmad]

If they made the new games more attractive by adding new content to the core game, it would be seen as providing more to those willing to buy new. By just gimping the used game, they seem to want more payout for the same amount of work.

Thing is, this will backfire when people who trade in games no longer get as much as they used to, and have less to spend on games new or used. This will only trigger more cost saving measures.

[MrPopo]

Incentivizing would imply giving something additional to the new game purchaser not penalizing the used games consumer.

That is the difference between the Mass Effect 2 solution and the online pass solution. With ME2 new users got the DLC for free. I'll be the first to say I prefer that option to the second on philosophical grounds. But since I buy everything new it doesn't affect me one way or the other.

But let's phrase the online pass announcement another way: "From now on we are requiring you to purchase a one-time subscription to play our games online, in order to cover the costs. However, as an incentive to those who buy games new we will include a coupon inside to get a free subscription for the online play." There, now we're not screwing the used customers, we're incentivizing the new customers.

[Regginmad]

Incentivizing would imply giving something additional to the new game purchaser not penalizing the used games consumer.

That is the difference between the Mass Effect 2 solution and the online pass solution. With ME2 new users got the DLC for free. I'll be the first to say I prefer that option to the second on philosophical grounds. But since I buy everything new it doesn't affect me one way or the other.

But let's phrase the online pass announcement another way: "From now on we are requiring you to purchase a one-time subscription to play our games online, in order to cover the costs. However, as an incentive to those who buy games new we will include a coupon inside to get a free subscription for the online play." There, now we're not screwing the used customers, we're incentivizing the new customers.

Thats really just polishing a turd. Online play was included in the package in the past. To discontinue that is to remove a constant feature for fans of Madden or Smackdown or any other game this begins to apply to.

[MrPopo]

Here's the other problem. If they reduced the price of all new games by $10, then Gamestop will just reduce their used prices by $10 and still take in money hand over fist. And I suspect the rate of used vs. new sales wouldn't change much by it. The real root is that Gamestop does everything they can to convince you to funnel as much of your money soley through them, instead of letting some of it get to the publishers, because the returns are better for them.

[ZeroAX]

Here's the other problem. If they reduced the price of all new games by $10, then Gamestop will just reduce their used prices by $10 and still take in money hand over fist. And I suspect the rate of used vs. new sales wouldn't change much by it. The real root is that Gamestop does everything they can to convince you to funnel as much of your money soley through them, instead of letting some of it get to the publishers, because the returns are better for them.

They should just stop sending Gamestop merchandise, or even better, sell the games to Gamestop for a much higher price than they do other retailers.


Actually come to think of it, they can give much better profit margins to retailers that don't sell used games, so that way they sell more new games, and people can trade them among each other without Gamestop getting involved.

[MrPopo]

Here's the other problem. If they reduced the price of all new games by $10, then Gamestop will just reduce their used prices by $10 and still take in money hand over fist. And I suspect the rate of used vs. new sales wouldn't change much by it. The real root is that Gamestop does everything they can to convince you to funnel as much of your money soley through them, instead of letting some of it get to the publishers, because the returns are better for them.

They should just stop sending Gamestop merchandise, or even better, sell the games to Gamestop for a much higher price than they do other retailers.


Actually come to think of it, they can give much better profit margins to retailers that don't sell used games, so that way they sell more new games, and people can trade them among each other without Gamestop getting involved.

I'm actually not sure they're allowed to do that. They might be able to, but I'd have to dig much deeper into commerce law to determine it than I'm willing to.

[jp1]

Here's the other problem. If they reduced the price of all new games by $10, then Gamestop will just reduce their used prices by $10 and still take in money hand over fist. And I suspect the rate of used vs. new sales wouldn't change much by it. The real root is that Gamestop does everything they can to convince you to funnel as much of your money soley through them, instead of letting some of it get to the publishers, because the returns are better for them.

They should just stop sending Gamestop merchandise, or even better, sell the games to Gamestop for a much higher price than they do other retailers.


Actually come to think of it, they can give much better profit margins to retailers that don't sell used games, so that way they sell more new games, and people can trade them among each other without Gamestop getting involved.

I could respect that strategy. At least it isn't an attack on the consumer. They won't do it though because unlike the consumer Gamestop probably wouldn't just bend over with a smile.

[ZeroAX]

I'm actually not sure they're allowed to do that. They might be able to, but I'd have to dig much deeper into commerce law to determine it than I'm willing to.

I'm pretty sure it is legal to sell your product at different prices to different people. Look at super market suppliers

[AppleQueso]

I'm actually not sure they're allowed to do that. They might be able to, but I'd have to dig much deeper into commerce law to determine it than I'm willing to.

I'm pretty sure it is legal to sell your product at different prices to different people. Look at super market suppliers

There's a difference between two different retailers having different prices and one retailer changing their prices based on the customer. Even then the latter example isn't really the same thing as what they're proposing publishers do to gamestop.

Either way, I suspect that if it were legal to do so, it would already be done.

[ZeroAX]

Either way, I suspect that if it were legal to do so, it would already be done.

You'd be surprised how short sighted business men can be from time to time.