CNN Money: Best Buy Selling Used Games

[Evil Avatar]

CNN's newest Game Over Column (http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/30/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/index.htm) has word that Best Buy has started a pilot program selling used games and reports are that they intend to roll out the program in all of their 700+ stores in the next two years. Game developers like Epic's Mark Rein aren't happy. "To have them resell the games, with developers having no participation, that's just wrong. That's just fleecing us."

[camberiu]

I guess it sucks to be Mark Rein. :D

[51|RandoM]

Just change the EULA on your software to forbid 3rd party transfer of license.

Then let best buy do it anyways for a few months.

Then sue the shit out of them and pretend to work on duke nukem forever for the rest of your life.

[Orphiuchus]

I bought a used TV from my cousin a few weeks ago, am I stealing from sony?

[peeweejd]

i bet ford and GM are pissed about people buying used cars too...

THe next step is CD Key type things with online activation... you heard it here first..

[51|RandoM]

I love all of the retarded comparisons people like to make when trying to deal with used software.

Guess what guys, you LICENSE software and you OWN TVs and CARS.

The car is a really bad example, because GM continues to make money off of the car regardless of who owns it, assuming they buy GM parts for it.

[Everlost_MI]

Sooooo...I can take back my opened PC/console games then? That way they'll put them on the shelf and sell them as pre-owned? ;)

[Ernst_Jager]

Regardless if some consider it a license, if I can physically hold it in my hands....it's mine. If I want to put it in a rocket and shoot it into space or bury it 20 feet in the ground I should be able to. A guy at work told a funny joke the other day and I repeated it to someone else. Could he sue me?

[civx]

Regardless if some consider it a license, if I can physically hold it in my hands....it's mine. If I want to put it in a rocket and shoot it into space or bury it 20 feet in the ground I should be able to. A guy at work told a funny joke the other day and I repeated it to someone else. Could he sue me?

That's a stupid analogy.


Stop being stupid.

[Danin]

Guess what guys, you LICENSE software and you OWN TVs and CARS.

I don't see anything resembling a EULA or any other liscencing agreement attached to any console game I've ever purchased.

[IagoTheHunted]

I guess it sucks to be Mark Rein. :D

OK I'm a developer so I'm not exactly impartial. But this sucks for everyone, not just Mark Rein. Personally I don't give a fuck if any of that money makes it back to me personally, but it SHOULD go to funding the next project and allowing us to keep making good games. Just ask yourself this, would you rather see more games, or more Best Buy outlets? Right.

[Varsity]

Regardless if some consider it a license, if I can physically hold it in my hands....it's mine. If I want to put it in a rocket and shoot it into space or bury it 20 feet in the ground I should be able to. A guy at work told a funny joke the other day and I repeated it to someone else. Could he sue me?
You can do that...to the CD. You can't do it to the license though. And no, you can't (legally) resell the CD with no license. ;)

[Claus DuBois]

I hope this includes PC games as well. I'm all for it. It will be nice to give EB/Gamestop some competition in the sceondary market so that maybe the trade-in values will increase a little.

[Sloth]

I buy used movies, but typically only buy new games. I also don't ever trade in games, even if I don't play them anymore I prefer to have them as part of my overall collection.

[IagoTheHunted]

(Also people are forgetting that gamestop (and soon BestBuy no doubt) love to pass off used games as new ones. Right now at gamestop ALL the shelf copys of games are used if they have 'em, the only new ones are behind the counter, and sometimes they're reluctant to let those go even when asked, or that's been my experience.)

[CrysDark]

Here are a few reasons why software companies hate this.

They do not make any money on the sales of used games.

A customer who would have purchased a new game, buys a used one, so no profit there.

Used game sales are not tracked, so forcasts for sales get all screwed up.

Gamestop RIPS YOU OFF on the games, givng you 5 dollars that they turn around and sell for 35-40.

I personally think it's a tragedy that little Billy saves his allowance for "Sucky EA Game A" and when he goes to sell it back, the game he purchased for 50 dollars 2 months ago, will get paid 5 dollars by the stores, it is not even fair market value, on E-bay you could at least get 25.

[Zeal]

Developers are just mad that most people won't be willing to pay $60 a pop for a game.

[Tennistoad]

again...Hey stupid developers..make your games teh same price as cd's dvd's etc and don't worry about reselling. Or maybe make your game collectible for some reason. I don't know but stop your whining. I don't see valve worrying about best buy reselling Hl2.
;-)

[Zombosis]

Shhhhhh everyone, shhhhh...
You hear that?
That's the sound of EB/Gamestop's upper management structure shrieking in horror... It is a glorious sound.

[CrysDark]

again...Hey stupid developers..make your games teh same price as cd's dvd's etc and don't worry about reselling. Or maybe make your game collectible for some reason. I don't know but stop your whining. I don't see valve worrying about best buy reselling Hl2.
;-)


There is an error in your analogy. To produce a game costs Millions of dollars in time, salary, distribution, and whatever. Where with music, it's 5 guys in a room singing, or with movies most of thier production costs are made up in theaters.

[Vulture]

Well this is no different than reselling a book really. And Half Price Books and the Author's Guild can't agree on what's fair either.

/I see more activiation keys in the future with periodic checks with authentication servers in our future.

[Tennistoad]

Shhhhhh everyone, shhhhh...
You hear that?
That's the sound of EB/Gamestop's upper management structure shrieking in horror... It is a glorious sound.

What are you insane..where do you think best buy is gonna get their first batch of used stock.... I know where from those overflowing bins in the front of every EB and Gamestop.

/Eb wins again...just like gamespot.. lol

[Evil Avatar]

OK I'm a developer so I'm not exactly impartial. But this sucks for everyone, not just Mark Rein. Personally I don't give a fuck if any of that money makes it back to me personally, but it SHOULD go to funding the next project and allowing us to keep making good games. Just ask yourself this, would you rather see more games, or more Best Buy outlets? Right.

I guess you missed the little blurb I included in the news item... the part where I said,

"Mark Rein (who already got their money when the game was sold the first time)"

I think that money you are asking about is the money the developer got when the game sold the first time. A used copy of a game can't exist without a NEW copy having been sold first.

I do understand where Mark is coming from with this... because us authors went through the same thing several years back when Amazon.com started listing used books right there on the same page as a new copy of the book. Why would you spend $7.00+ for a paperback when there is a little blurb under it that says, "Buy it used for $.10".

You wouldn't - and when I'm counting on every sale to try to convince my agent and publisher to carry my next book it is just a total shot in the face for Amazon.com to sell a cheaper used book on the same page as my new book.

But, that is the way it is. I can't stop them from running a business - a business that was being savaged by Ebay sellers selling their used books and Amazon.com getting no money at all from the sale.

I would rather a place that sells games continue to sell both new and used games than to stop carrying them at all (like has been happening with PC games) because the profit margains are so slim on new products.

Perhaps what needs to happen here is that publishers need to start lowering their profit margin? For a normal retail product like a comic book, the seller is getting a 50% - 55% discount off the retail price. If that isn't happening for games (and I'm hearing from readers like GunnyMo that it isn't), then the problem is greedy publishers and not retailers who are just trying to make a buck.

[Mr_Snuffle]

If this happens, goodbye retail distribution, hello online distribution. This could simply make it unprofitable to sell games retail.

Meh, fine by me, I like online distribution. It's the way things are going to head anyway.

[Evil Avatar]

Look at the upside... once Best Buy starts selling used games that is one more place we can cross off our list of places to buy games. ;)

[Felonous]

The developers can kiss my ass.

Do you hear me Mark Rein??? KISS MY ASS!

Yes it's a license. But I OWN the COPY of the software that I licensed. And if I want to flush it down the toilet, so be it. If I want to sell it to a friend for a burger, so be it. If I want to sell my copy to Best Buy so that they rape some moron who pays 80% of the original cost of the game for a used copy, SO FUCKING BE IT!

[Tennistoad]

Hey these dev's should be lucky that most libraries don't carry their games, Heck I get 80% of my dvd's from the library and all books. when the library doesn't have a book or dvd I want they will order it. I spend almost nothing on those 2 and still get to watch and read what I want. Of course I'm 6months behind the times on these 2 things but I do have enough money to pay my bills.

[bapenguin]

hmm...What's their pricing structure? Is it 44.99 for a preowned new title. If so...go fuck yourself Best Buy...wait...no....Go fuck EB....

Just read the article....45 bucks...wtf is wrong with these companies.

34.99....that's the sweet spot.

[MasterEvilAce]

There is an error in your analogy. To produce a game costs Millions of dollars in time, salary, distribution, and whatever. Where with music, it's 5 guys in a room singing, or with movies most of thier production costs are made up in theaters.
5 guys in a room singing?? For a garage band, yes... but there's a lot more to it than that for real recording contracts

Movies cost millions of dollars, too. Movies are basically the same as games, except you have to pay a lot more people.. if anything it costs more to make a movie than a game. You have camera men, sound men, stage hands, actors, royalties, marketing, editing... all this shit.

[doubtingthomas]

There is an error in your analogy. To produce a game costs Millions of dollars in time, salary, distribution, and whatever. Where with music, it's 5 guys in a room singing, or with movies most of thier production costs are made up in theaters.

Actually, music isn't just five guys singing. It's guitar and drum techs, producers, studio time, tons of equipment, engineers, managers, lawyers, advertising budgets, record labels, etc. Along with salary, distribution, etc.

Games shouldn't be $50 plus.

[XenonCJ]

This works in just the opposite way for subscription based games like WoW. You still end up paying the company that made the game.

If game compaies were smart they'd make you log on and pay a subscription to play even single-player games. Maybe send you a new game every few months... or something... Not that I would like that idea...

[dr_wily]

if a dude wants to buy a used game for 45$ instead of 50$ new then let them be stupid.. darwin will sort it all out later.

[DCJoeDog]

The developers are mad because they won't get paid multiple times for the same object being sold over and over, but EVERYTHING depriciates over time, and if someone wants something new THEN they will go out of their way to get a new copy. But I, and most people I know, are NOT made of money, and we get almost exclusively used games. They play just like the new copies on the walls but with half the price, and that whole custumer service thing is a joke, if I have a problem I go right back to the store, tell them what's what and then I either get another copy of the game or store credit. So developers need to shut the fuck up and and instead tell the publishers to stop being so damned greedy. If you want to beat piracy and the 2nd hand market, sell your games at a price that getting a new copy isn't a complete ripoff, OR sell as normal but after a month drop the price drastically.

All the games I own are about 3-6 months behind but, as said so precisely by another poster above me, I have money to pay my bills.

[bean19]

What I'm surprised about is all the 5 to 10 hour games with very little replayability that are published with the expectation that players will spend $50 on them. Sure, I might buy this title when it bottoms out in price to $10 or so, but I'll otherwise just rent it. On the other hand, I buy a ton of games that provide me with around 20 to 50 hours of gameplay for $50 without blinking an eye.

This is exactly why I don't own MK: Shaolin Monks or Ultimate Spider-Man right now. They are rentals, not good purchases. . .

Btw, if Best Buy doesn't do this, then Gamestop will, and if Gamestop doesn't do it, then mom & pop local game pawn shops will, and if they don't do this then www.half.com and ebay will.

I do think that Best Buy adopting this program will hurt overall sales. The thing is, Grandma is more likely to buy two $10 games than she is to buy a brand new $50 game. . . even if it is the one her grandson begged for, it just will FEEL like a ripoff. Especially if her son wants Call of Duty 2, and grandma can find Call of Duty one and this other WW II game for $30 less. That's just one plausible story, but the reality is that shoppers will be more likely to check out discounts than they otherwise would be.

However, I don't know how successful Best Buy will be. Have you ever tried to return anythign to them. They have like one person working returns and each transaction seems to take like 15 minutes to complete. I can just imagine how slow they will be to handle the trade in of multiple game titles.

[ChypeFlux]

Well this is no different than reselling a book really. And Half Price Books and the Author's Guild can't agree on what's fair either.

/I see more activiation keys in the future with periodic checks with authentication servers in our future.
Um, no. How often does someone call up/contact the publisher for technical support on a book? Rarely if ever, especially compared to how often someone requests tech support for software.

So yeah, I bet used software would not be as popular if it was 'buy/use at your own risk'. As in, you can forget getting any tech support with your used purchase.

Seems fair enough to me. Either that or charging for the tech support.

[omnithrope]

Why the fuck would the developers get two cuts?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I hate Best Buy, but the developers don't deserve a thing for second-hand game sales.

[omnithrope]

Either that or charging for the tech support.

Or:

* Get rid of tech support completely. I've got no problem with that.
* Only give out tech support to the person that registers the game. Duh.

I'm sure there are many options...

[DCJoeDog]

Or:

* Get rid of tech support completely. I've got no problem with that.
* Only give out tech support to the person that registers the game. Duh.

I'm sure there are many options...


Exactly, make it WORTH registering your NEW copy of the game to get tech support, and if you opt-out of the FREE tech support, that's your own choice to do so.

[XxSATANxX]

*yawn*

We've been down this road.

You may and it's LEGAL to sell used games/music/books/movies.

As the maker it's legal to take that market away.

You may buy used Windows CD's.

Not sure anyone can argue that a flourishing used biz does anything but help new sales.

Okay adding to my already long list of asshole things I'm not going to support.

Starforce,Securerom,Massive ads in games, STEAM,Insane DRM,Inxs,Massacre of the faries, John Romero , Duke Nukem 3D, Derck S----,Blu ray,BF2, G4 Tech TV, Matrix anything, Star Wars, V-chip, Gabe Newell, Rental cars with spy chips, black helicopters and now any developer who thinks we can't buy his stuff used.

Just wait cut off used and give the Pirates all the reason they need to gut you.

[Vulture]

Um, no. How often does someone call up/contact the publisher for technical support on a book? Rarely if ever, especially compared to how often someone requests tech support for software.
...Seems fair enough to me. Either that or charging for the tech support.

Since we are talking about games software, the common valid reason to call tech support is because the publisher did not test it. (flame me, but directx has it uses).

And yes I do get tech support on books, Oracle Manuals almost always have CDs and the authors really want to know if something does not work. So they welcome tech support as a means of perfecting their product.

But yes only the registered user should get tech support and the retail seller should have to sell "as is" or pay the publisher for another registration card enabling "support services".


/I forgot about tech support for games because last time I called was in the 20th century. Google is your friend ;)

[GunnyMo]

(Also people are forgetting that gamestop (and soon BestBuy no doubt) love to pass off used games as new ones. Right now at gamestop ALL the shelf copys of games are used if they have 'em, the only new ones are behind the counter, and sometimes they're reluctant to let those go even when asked, or that's been my experience.)

That's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. You've obviously never BEEN in a Gamestop/EB. Huge amounts of wall space are dedicated to new games, all marketing is designed for new games and all reservations/promos (GI aside) are for new games. Maybe if you actually paid attention when you went shopping you'd realize this.

[GunnyMo]

Perhaps what needs to happen here is that publishers need to start lowering their profit margin? For a normal retail product like a comic book, the seller is getting a 50% - 55% discount off the retail price. If that isn't happening for games (and I'm hearing from readers like GunnyMo that it isn't), then the problem is greedy publishers and not retailers who are just trying to make a buck.

You are 100% correct, Evil. :) Most new games give retailers, of any brand, a scant $5-$10 profit...at the most.

I see no difference between used games, dvds, books or anything used being resold. As Evil says, they make their money when the NEW item sell. You cannot, on anything used, get unlimited return whenever that item is sold. Do garage sales have to send a kick back to every maker of the stuff they are selling? No.

[GunnyMo]

Um, no. How often does someone call up/contact the publisher for technical support on a book? Rarely if ever, especially compared to how often someone requests tech support for software.

So yeah, I bet used software would not be as popular if it was 'buy/use at your own risk'. As in, you can forget getting any tech support with your used purchase.

Seems fair enough to me. Either that or charging for the tech support.


C'mon, the only software that needs "tech support" is PC. I've been in video game retail for a long time and I've never had anyone ask me for a tech support number for a game. Why? Because they can exchange it where they bought it. Even big box stores like Best Buy will exchange a bugged game (cd defect for example) for the same one.

The tech support argument against used console titles is flawed at it's best.

[ChypeFlux]

Since we are talking about games software, the common valid reason to call tech support is because the publisher did not test it. (flame me, but directx has it uses). I think that's a valid point for console titles, and I'm not so much concerned about resale of them, but it's less clear when it comes to PC titles. I mean, how many possible hardware configurations could you assemble and could you guarantee that they'd all work as planned? It's simply not possible to test every permutation. And it's not entirely uncommon for developers to get flamed for bad drivers, which is really someone elses problem.

And yes I do get tech support on books, Oracle Manuals almost always have CDs and the authors really want to know if something does not work. So they welcome tech support as a means of perfecting their product.Riiiight. The vast majority of books sold are surely Oracle Manuals. And anyway, how often do you find up-to-date Oracle books in a used book store? I rarely do...probably because most people will hold onto a good reference book for a year or more. And by that time, the reference may be out-of-date and so it's not a hot commodity anyway.

With a game, someone might play it for two weeks and then sell it off.

So no, if you are talking about resale of PC games, you still have yet to convince me that it's somehow like books or other media that are commonly resold.

[Citizen Philip]

The number of ignorant posts regarding, Game Developers, Publishers, Distribution and Retail Store in this thread boggles the mind.

I'll give you a hint: Those who get the most money are the one's further down the chain. Developers are occasionally publishers and distributors are usually retail.

If you compare the gaming industry with movies or music, you should spend more time reading what is said here and other boards than posting. When's the last time you've heard of music company or movie studio going bankrupt and closing their doors?

There is no problem with selling used games, but some of these posts are just so retarded.

[Zombosis]

That's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. You've obviously never BEEN in a Gamestop/EB. Huge amounts of wall space are dedicated to new games, all marketing is designed for new games and all reservations/promos (GI aside) are for new games. Maybe if you actually paid attention when you went shopping you'd realize this.

If that's what it's like at your local, then that means the manager of your nearest EB/Gamestop is on upper management's hit-list and won't be there much longer.
EB/Gamestop wants 100% of their sales to be "pre-played" because thats where they make their money. The fact that Best Buy wants to tap into this bodes poorly for the EB/GS merger, which only happened so that the 2 companies combined would just barely match the marketshare percentage of Walmart/Target/BestBuy.
While I hate to see big business eat the world, anything that makes EB fall is ok in my books.

[jacktion]

Well, lets say you make a game. And your company makes 5 million dollars, then someone else works out a scheme to make 500 million dollars off of your game but they don't break any laws. Even though legally, nothing is wrong, wouldn't that bother you?

Wouldn't you be annoyed by someone raking in the dough from a product you created, and you see nothing of it?

[frederec]

If you compare the gaming industry with movies or music, you should spend more time reading what is said here and other boards than posting. When's the last time you've heard of music company or movie studio going bankrupt and closing their doors?

Constantly. I listen to somewhat indy music. Buy hundreds of dollars worth of cds every month. I also watch record labels start from a couple of bands, grow to be reasonably sized, then fizzle and die within a few years. It happens. Just like with games, you notice these things if you're far enough into your scene. It's only if you watch the big guys that it's not as noticeable. I'm sure the same is true for people who don't keep up hourly with game news.

To produce a game costs Millions of dollars in time, salary, distribution, and whatever. Where with music, it's 5 guys in a room singing, or with movies most of thier production costs are made up in theaters.

Haven't movies been making most of their money in recent years from DVD sales? I thought I've read a number of times that this is part of the reason the theater-DVD turnaround has gotten so fast and theaters are all panicking at dropping ticket sales. And the music thing is cute, but others have already talked about that one.

I look at all this as further transitions to bring games closer in line with books, music, tv, and movies. They are all entertainment products, they all have their huge budget releases and their more indie outlets. It's just people keep trying to treat games as different seemingly just because they're new and the rules haven't been set yet. Used products encourage sales of new products. It helps the people with less money, or who are cheap, to buy things they wouldn't have otherwise. I think people arguing otherwise are too short-sighted to see this.

[frederec]

Well, lets say you make a game. And your company makes 5 million dollars, then someone else works out a scheme to make 500 million dollars off of your game but they don't break any laws. Even though legally, nothing is wrong, wouldn't that bother you?

Wouldn't you be annoyed by someone raking in the dough from a product you created, and you see nothing of it?

The difference is that for them to make those 500 million dollars, you would have already have had to make close to that. It's not like they've taken your product or your item and kept you from making any money. You've made money on that item, and they're allowing people to spread it around when they're done with it. I also think if people get a used game and like it enough, they'll be more likely to buy a sequel or related game new when that comes out.

[Claus DuBois]

.........I do understand where Mark is coming from with this... because us authors went through the same thing several years back when Amazon.com started listing used books right there on the same page as a new copy of the book. Why would you spend $7.00+ for a paperback when there is a little blurb under it that says, "Buy it used for $.10".

Answer: Cooties. I'd never buy a used book sight unseen and that hasn't been scanned with a blacklight. I don't have a phobia, but I do know that one hell of lot of people basically live like trolls, only washing their hands when forced to at gunpoint. The thought of reading a paperback that I purchased from some booger-eating toe-picker is too much to stomach. Your new book royalites are safe with me. ;)

[screwtape]

That's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. You've obviously never BEEN in a Gamestop/EB. Huge amounts of wall space are dedicated to new games, all marketing is designed for new games and all reservations/promos (GI aside) are for new games. Maybe if you actually paid attention when you went shopping you'd realize this.
At my local EB, I bought a used copy of Fable for Xbox. There were no new copies on the shelves. I took the game home only to find it wasn't Fable, but some kind of bonus DVD for Fable. I returned the disc, they apologized for the error and said they'd give me store credit. I asked if they had any copies of Fable, and they said no. After browsing the Xbox section for about 10 minutes, I asked specifically if they had any new copies of Fable. The clerk reluctantly said yes, and got it from the storeroom in the back.

And PC games? 95% of the rack are used games. The new games (apart from the newest of the new releases) are literally 30 feet in the air, on shelves high up on the ceiling. I can barely see the titles because of the distance and angle the boxes sit, so I'm mostly stuck browsing the used section. If I'm able to squint enough to find a new game I want way up high, the employee acts all pissy when he has to go in the back to get a ladder.

It sounds like the stores in your area are quite different.

[rickmus]

again...Hey stupid developers..make your games teh same price as cd's dvd's etc and don't worry about reselling. Or maybe make your game collectible for some reason. I don't know but stop your whining. I don't see valve worrying about best buy reselling Hl2.
;-)

Stupid developers? Tell me, how much money does it take to produce the content for a Music CD vs a Video Game?

[pdeupree]

again...Hey stupid developers..make your games teh same price as cd's dvd's etc and don't worry about reselling. Or maybe make your game collectible for some reason. I don't know but stop your whining. I don't see valve worrying about best buy reselling Hl2.
;-)

I always love this argument. Put aside, for a moment, the argument about how many CD players are in the market, versus how many XBox's, PS2's, or PC's capable of running a modern game. Put aside, for a moment, the cost of development for a game and the fact that game development costs keep rising due to adapting to new technology.

All of the above aside, the fact is that people are PIRATING THE LIVING HELL OUT OF MUSIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know this topic is about resale, but given the fact that pirates use the exact same arguments as above, the problems are also the same. The fact that music is probably pirated more than games partly has to do with how easy it is to pirate music, but it also points out that the cheaper price of music doesn't mean a darn thing.

All of this being said, I'm a developer but I'll have to admit that, if the game resale market remains as it is, I'm not that worried about it. If I and others I know have the choice between a game for $45 used, or $50 new, I'll buy it new. In addition, almost every game launched these days has a week 1 shelf price of $38.

Unless they start selling used games for $15 less than the same game new, I don't know that it will ever take that huge a chunk out of sales, and the fact is that the guy selling used games also sells new games, so it's in their best interest to sell those new games, as much as it is to sell the used ones.

I used to buy used CD's, but to be honest the main reason I did that was because there were many CD's that were hard to find new that I wanted. Even then, saving $2 on a CD that might not be in the greatest of shape ends up not being worth it.

In the grand scheme of things, however, if the resale market does succeed in taking money out of developers pockets to the point where it's just not profitable to spend the money on developing quality games, then the developer will just have to adjust accordingly. This would mean either folding up shop so that only the mega-developers like EA can continue to make games, or taking short cuts on quality to save money.

[SMES]

There is an interesting thing to think about that is an extention of the used game question, and that is which company do we want to profit the most, and what are the implications of such a question.

As game development costs rise, the first conclusion some might make is that you should raise the price of the product to compensate. But anyone who has taken Econ 101 knows that the price of goods is dependant upon many things, and price of production is not a major consideration. What the market will bear and other factors of supply and demand are to be considered. I remember paying $79.99 for Dragon Warrior 4 for the NES. Now everyone is getting bent out of shape about anything higher than $49.99. But it doesn't matter how bent out of shape internet kids get if they can raise the price of games and people buy them anyway.

The problem in this case is the used market. The used market actually is very similar to game piracy in the eyes of the developer. However, unlike piracy, reselling used copies of a game is legal right now. So developers are posed with a number of problems:

1: If we raise prices, will that drive people do pay $5 less for a used copy instead of paying more? Is the cost/benifit ratio in our favor if we do this?

2: If we drop prices, will it sell more games, or are the same used buyers in #1 going to pay $5 less for a used game no matter how low the new game price is?

3: If we change the EULA to prevent legal used game sales, or inact strong CD-Key authentication measures to accomplish the same thing, will that fuel the flames of the pirate market the way the war on drugs fuels the illegal drug trade? Unlike illegal drugs, there is still a legal alternative to game piracy in this case, so will people flock to pirated games in retaliation or buy the legal copy? Will the used game buyers turn into game pirates, or will they turn into new game buyers?

The # of used game buyers who turn into new game buyers (minus) game buyers who stop buying because the authenication procedure makes them mad, and/or start pirating instead (equals) the part of the market that game companies must worry about.

These and many other economic questions are what game companies are faced with. Despite what any of us say here on a message board, these are the questions companies are most concerned with, and this is how decisions are made to make Madden 06 instead of "innovative gamble X"
If the costs of game development go up, and more people start buying used games, then either game funding (and by extention, quality) will suffer, or the company will downsize/go out of business/etc.

Back to my first question: the truth is that Gamestop/EB think they have the right idea by buying used games for $5 and selling for $40. This is because if they sold used games for 40% off the new price to compete with ebay, they would be exposing the whole game market to lower prices. Right now, there are a lot of people who don't go to Ebay to buy games for whatever reason.

Gamestop/EB and soon Best Buy don't compete with Ebay. Both the people who buy used games for $40 and the people who sell for $5 are not ebay users. Because there is so much pure profit in selling used games, EB/Gamestop are doing it as much as they can while the market lasts. However, this hurts the game makers and thus hurts the industry which they rely on to stay in business.

Retail outlets stay in business/profit from them. If they drop the price of their own used games, then the bottom will fall out of the game market. Ebay prices will drop even lower, new game prices will suddenly seem way too high at 49.99, and the only games that will be made are the safest bets with the leanest development budgets possible. These are the realities of controlling a market, from both game company and retail perspective.

The solution is for retail to sacrifice the lucrative power-used game selling market, which of course nobody is going to do, especially now that big box places are starting to do it as well.

[Citizen Philip]

Constantly. I listen to somewhat indy music. Buy hundreds of dollars worth of cds every month. I also watch record labels start from a couple of bands, grow to be reasonably sized, then fizzle and die within a few years. It happens. Just like with games, you notice these things if you're far enough into your scene. It's only if you watch the big guys that it's not as noticeable. I'm sure the same is true for people who don't keep up hourly with game news.


I imagine the difference between Indy Music and most game development is: With $4000 you have enough insturments to start creating music.

$4000 is maybe two computers. Which was cool and fine back near the start of the industry, which also shared the same studio space as most indy bands: namely the garage. An indy band may "borrow" the use of a studio to get a slick CD put together, but they certainly don't have to buy it.

The base-line investment to start up any kind of development studio is at least an order of magnitude greater than those needed by a band or a small label.

[frederec]

I fear when console games start requiring cd key or online authorization. As soon as I get a brand new computer game, I unwrap it, install it, then go and crack it. I like supporting people who make games, but I also want to play them without them treating me like a criminal. I am your customer, I want to give you my money when you make things I like. Don't act like I'm robbing you. Incidently, I also almost never buy or sell used games.

[ChypeFlux]

Agreed, many of the top games cost 10 million or more to develop and market. And the level of complexity demanded in next-gen games is only pushing that number higher.

So I can see why developers/publishers might be worried...games are costing us more to make....we can't really raise the prices....and game resale is about to go primetime. Each on their own might not be that big of a deal, but the sum of these factors and others I couldn't be bothered to mention have some people in the industry wondering how things will pan out.

Sure the market will adapt, but how many more top-notch development houses need to hit the chopping block first?

[SMES]

The fact that music is probably pirated more than games partly has to do with how easy it is to pirate music, but it also points out that the cheaper price of music doesn't mean a darn thing.

That is a bold statement to make, but since we're making bold statements I'll make one too. I think the ease of piracy has a lot more to do with music piracy than you think.

Video games are gigabytes of data that only play if you hack (mod) the system they play on. Much more difficult for the average person to download and then turn into something that they can play.

Music has an entire market of MP3 players designed to be able to take advatage of easy music piracy. I've never seen an Apple "play PS2 games you download off the internet" system next to the ipods on the shelf at best buy.

Computer games have a similar but admittadly easier to break security system in the form of keys and authentication, but EVERYONE I know downloads MP3s. Of the smaller number of the people I know who play games, only a couple of them play pirated games. All of these pirated games are PC games.

I know people out there pirate console games, but I pass 100 people on the street every day who pirate music.

The reason CDs are less expensive than games has to do with consumer expectation. An album has been about $15 bucks on average for so long that when we see it on sale for $10 it seems like a good deal. Same with videogames. The most extravagant games may cost a lot more to make than the average cd, but that has less to do with why games are about 50 bucks and cd's are about 15, because prices are determined by companies studying the market and pricing things to sell as many as possible at the highest price possible.

If 80 or 90% of the game buying public boycotted games in a huge public movement to force all new games to $39.99, then you can bet that games would drop to 39.99. But it's ridiculous to think that the game buying market is going to suddenly do that. Instead, businesses thrive on the ability to figure out and maintain the "sweet spot," the highest price that their product will sell well in their market without public outrage.

[AspectVoid]

At my local EB, I bought a used copy of Fable for Xbox. There were no new copies on the shelves. I took the game home only to find it wasn't Fable, but some kind of bonus DVD for Fable. I returned the disc, they apologized for the error and said they'd give me store credit. I asked if they had any copies of Fable, and they said no. After browsing the Xbox section for about 10 minutes, I asked specifically if they had any new copies of Fable. The clerk reluctantly said yes, and got it from the storeroom in the back.

And PC games? 95% of the rack are used games. The new games (apart from the newest of the new releases) are literally 30 feet in the air, on shelves high up on the ceiling. I can barely see the titles because of the distance and angle the boxes sit, so I'm mostly stuck browsing the used section. If I'm able to squint enough to find a new game I want way up high, the employee acts all pissy when he has to go in the back to get a ladder.

It sounds like the stores in your area are quite different.


I think your area is just screwing you over. I've been in a dozen different EB Games/Gamestops in my area, and all of them give more room and better placement to new games. Add to that that the "Used" PC game market in this area is (if you're in one of the good EB Games) one whole shelf. Not case. Just shelf.

But yeah, it sucks to be you.

[doubtingthomas]

I imagine the difference between Indy Music and most game development is: With $4000 you have enough insturments to start creating music.

$4000 is maybe two computers. Which was cool and fine back near the start of the industry, which also shared the same studio space as most indy bands: namely the garage. An indy band may "borrow" the use of a studio to get a slick CD put together, but they certainly don't have to buy it.

The base-line investment to start up any kind of development studio is at least an order of magnitude greater than those needed by a band or a small label.

If you go grab 1000 random CD's, 999 of those cost a hell of a lot more to make than $4000. I don't want to come off all holier than thou here, but I have a degree in Music Business. I don't pretend to know anything about the costs of making a game, but the comparison between the costs of making an album, releasing, and promoting it and of making, releasing, and promoting a videogame is a lot more valid than some posters think.

[ChypeFlux]

If you go grab 1000 random CD's, 999 of those cost a hell of a lot more to make than $4000. I don't want to come off all holier than thou here, but I have a degree in Music Business. I don't pretend to know anything about the costs of making a game, but the comparison between the costs of making an album, releasing, and promoting it and of making, releasing, and promoting a videogame is a lot more valid than some posters think.
I would imagine that 90% of all games on the market today (minus, say GBA games) cost more than $1 million to make, release and promote.

And yeah, I pulled the percentage out of my ass :) , but I know of a couple of next gen titles with budgets of at least $15 million....

I mean, figure a team of 45 people working for 2 years and each person on the team averages $75,000 a year. You do the math...and that only covers the salaries of making the title...add into that benefits, operating costs, manufacturing costs, and advertising, etc... and I think we would agree that making a game is in a different realm than making a music CD.

[SMES]

And yeah, I pulled the percentage out of my ass :) , but I know of a couple of next gen titles with budgets of at least $15 million....

And thus we see the problem with pulling numbers out of one's ass ;)

Just kidding. I understand your point, but it is important to realize that game budgets will only go up as long as the company is pretty sure they are going to make it back and then some. The only games with 15 million dollar budgets are the ones they know are going to sell a lot. The only music albums with big production values relative to the average album are the ones the music industry knows will sell well.

The unfortunate thing is that even today it is very possible to make a fantastic music album on a relatively low budget. But this generation, low budget games are going to be much more obvious compared to the well polished ones. Let's say $50 thousand goes into making "Super 3D Tetris Mah Jong Solitare 500 game pack- now with bump mapping and shaders!" and $15 million goes into metal gear solid 4. Which one is the safer bet? How about $5 million to develop a new IP or $5 million to develop Madden 07. Things get complicated very quickly.

[Herald42]

Personally, I like a lot of games that cost less to make. You know what game I've gotten the most out of recently? Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together for the PS1. The last game I purchased was NFL 2K5, used for $5.99.

Throwing more money at it doesn't necessarily mean the product will sell a lot. In fact, the more you throw into it, and the higher your price stays, the less I will want to purchase your product. I don't buy new games 9 times out of 10, because those 9 are things not worth $50.

Also, consider shelf space, especially for PC titles. How quickly is a game that doesn't sell perfectly dropped from the shelves? If there were no used games, I'd have never found my beloved copy of Tactics Ogre for the PSOne. Imagine it were a PC title, and I'd even have less of a shot, given the PC's average shelf life.

[Mark Rein]

Folks,

The entire quote was: "We pay to be in Best Buy's flyers, we pay market development funds. Publishers drive gaming traffic to these stores. To have them resell the games, with developers having no participation, that's just wrong. That's just fleecing us."

I am using publishers and developers interchangeably here because we're partners in the income of our games. We pay to drive traffic to these stores, we pay MDF (market development funds), we pay for end-caps, we pay to be in newspaper circulars, we pay to advertise the games and we pay to develop the games in the first place. For all that effort and expense what happens when you walk into a place like EB? They push used copies on you and make you feel like a criminal when you ask for a new copy - which is sometimes, as people pointed out in this thread, already opened for you. THIS is what is I was talking about when I said they're fleecing us. I'm not talking about someone selling their used game to another person over E-bay or selling their used game at a flea market. I'm talking about large-scale game resales at the places we're paying to drive customers to based on the expectation that they will buy a game we actually make money from. That's wrong and its very disheartening to see it potentially spreading to big-box stores like Best Buy. At my local EB a huge amount of the prime shelf space is devoted to used games.

Put yourself in our shoes. You spent millions of dollars to make a product and you pay handsomely to advertise it at a certain store. Then you run online servers at your expense, you build a tech support infrastructure, you make additional FREE content for the game, you support it beyond with improvements and upgrades. People who want your game go to the store, they actually buy your product and you don’t get a penny. Wouldn't you be upset? What’s the difference between that and piracy? Does that make you want to lower the price or raise it for people who do buy it new? If we made subscription-based games like World of Warcraft it wouldn’t be a big deal because I'd be happy to get those customers' money. Do you want every game to go that route? If developers can't make reasonable income from retail - more games are going to start charging subscriptions and tether you to their servers so you can play if you have an online connection whether it is a single player game or not. That's essentially what Valve is doing with Half Life2. Don’t think this can only happen on PC. It is going to happen on console too. I can see a day when console makers decide the only way to make money building console is to put them online.

I don't like paying $50 for a game. I think the real way to grow the market is for the price of games to come DOWN. I personally spearheaded our efforts to work with Atari to sell UT2004 for $10 less than competing games and offer additional discounts to buyers of UT2003. I did that because I thought we could sell more at the lower price. Take2 sells their excellent NHL 2K6 hockey game for only $20 but if resales grow dramatically, to the point that every third or fourth sale is lost to a used copy, they won't be able to sustain that pricing and they will be forced to raise it. I want to someday pay $20 for new games. That won't happen if publishers and developers are cut out of the majority of the sales of their own products or if users turn to rentals instead of purchases.

Someone in this thread was saying the way to beat this is to price games lower but if you have resales & rentals without compensation, you price games lower, and you fail to grow the market then you go bust. Growing the market would be a win-win situation for everyone.

I want to make more money by selling a LOT more games not by selling for a higher price. Large scale game rentals and resales are going to keep the prices of new games artificially high and stall the price reductions on new game console hardware as well because their ability to reduce the price of the console is directly related to the size of the market and the amount of royalties the hardware manufacturers can bring in through game sales. The hardware guys don't make any money on rentals and resales either so that's money in the system that isn't going to help subsidize hardware prices. All of that turns into a vicious cycle that keeps industry prices higher. Remember when VHS movies cost $70 to buy and VCRs cost over $1,000? The video game industry is still at that level. This hurts the smaller more innovative developers a lot more than it affects the makers of Madden and Mario and causes publishers to take even fewer risks.

[SMES]

I mean, figure a team of 45 people working for 2 years and each person on the team averages $75,000 a year. You do the math...and that only covers the salaries of making the title...add into that benefits, operating costs, manufacturing costs, and advertising, etc... and I think we would agree that making a game is in a different realm than making a music CD.

Yes of course, the scale is different. But all that matters is that the companies can accurately predict how many people are going to buy it. If a game company knows 400,000 people will buy a 50$ game, and music industry knows 75,000 will buy a 10-15$ CD, then both industries know how much money they can put in.

But new music groups and new game IPs are both risky, and it's getting even riskier in the game market.

The Xbox 360 idea I heard presented a while ago sounded promising, with game companies shopping their demo and testing it with customers by letting them download demos on xbox live and stuff, and getting reactions. A step in the right direction.

[ChypeFlux]

Well, if you did the math, you'd realize that the hypothetical game dev. team I described is approx $7 million US just for salaries...and my figures are typical from the titles I've seen in development.

And when you factor in all of the other costs, such as a licensing an engine/technology and advertising, I would be surprised if we'll see many next gen titles appearing on the shelf for less than $10 million US. And I'm sure there will be top-tier games costing at least double that.

But all that matters is that the companies can accurately predict how many people are going to buy it. If a game company knows 400,000 people will buy a 50$ game, and music industry knows 75,000 will buy a 10-15$ CD, then both industries know how much money they can put in.
Well yes, being able to predict the number of sales is good, but with the much higher cost of game developement, the risks of being wrong are much higher. Which I believe will lead publishers to follow a more formulaic approach to which titles they will fund...oh wait, that's already happening.. ;)

[Conner Dain]

It's been said before but I'll repeat it for people (like Civx) who call others stupid because they suffer the stupid affliction to a terminal degree: When I buy something - I OWN it. Regardless of whatever legal tiny text the developer\publisher forces on me. When I'm tired of it, I can sell it. Again, regardless of the legalese that was forced on me. When I walk into Best Buy or CompUSA or anywhere and buy software, IT BECOMES MINE TO USE AS I SEE FIT. Yes, I have certain limitations. And I am happy to live within any REASONABLE limitations. See, there's this thing called a REAL WORLD. In the real world, I buy something. IT'S MINE.

Sorry for the repetitive nature of this rant. But it's obvious that some stupid people (like Civx) must read something several times before it kicks in.

[SMES]

Well yes, being able to predict the number of sales is good, but with the much higher cost of game developement, the risks of being wrong are much higher. Which I believe will lead publishers to follow a more formulaic approach to which titles they will fund...oh wait, that's already happening.. ;)

Yes, of course. If you go back and read my other posts in this thread you'll see it's already been discussed, but of course Mark Rein said it pretty well himself just now.

Big box retailers are pitting themselfs against game companies the same way that makes of MP3 players are pitting themselfs against the music industry. It is not a direct assault, it's more of a subversion. You could argue that Apple is trying to expand the market with online purchases/itunes, but the ipod plays illegal MP3's the same as legal ones. Nobody I know would buy an MP3 for a dollar if they can find it on a peer to peer server for free.

As I pointed out, and Mark confirmed, companies are in a tight spot. They can raise the cost of product and potentially push more people to used games or they can lower prices as a gamble and end up being undercut by used games anyway. Then they are still losing customers to used games, and they are stuck at a low price and can't afford to make next gen games any more. The reality is that the used game market is bad for everyone.

Gamers are some of the most internet savy consumers and they buy and sell on ebay for relatively fair used prices. The "buy for $5 and sell for $40 just because we're a big company and can get away with it" mentallity is bad for everyone in the end.

[Conner Dain]

From another perspective, it might be nice if people didn't behave like sheep. Years ago, I used to sell used book to a company called Half-Price Books. (There are several of them in the Dallas area and I don't know if they are national.) They would give me MUCH less than a dollar for a gently-used paperback. I could not help but notice that they would sell the same paperback for half the NEW retail price. This didn't seem fair to me. So I stopped selling them books. I'd rather donate books to the library and get a tax break.

But many people are happy to sell them books for nothing. That's because they are sheep. Same thing with games. If gamers simply didn't give in the lust for a new game (or whatever), they wouldn't sell used games. They wouldn't be able to get them cheap so they couldn't make a profit.

[CrysDark]

I was commenting on the fact that the poster had said games should cost as much as dvd's and music.


The jist of what I was trying to get across was that with music, there are more ways for the makers to get money, they go on tour, sell cd's, sell merchandise, all for something that is relatively cheap to produce when compared with Making a GAME.

The same applies to the movie industry. Movies may be more expensive to produce, however, they make their money back (most of the time) in the theater. The film industry get thier profits from Post break even ticket sales, dvd's, merchandise.

The game industry however has ONE revenue stream (maybe two if you count the insignifcant merchandise sales)

That is why games cost more than dvd's/cd's. That is why it's unfair to sell to a buyer for 5 bucks less for a game that was repurchased for 2.95 credit/ 1.00 cash. It is unfair to the game industry because they depend on that money to keep making more games.

[GunnyMo]

I still fail to see how selling used games cuts into publisher/developer profits. New games drive customers into stores, not used. New games are advertised on tv. New games are what we have thousand person launch parties for; not used. Most of the wall space in stores, even used sellers, is dedicated to new games. Many, many, many, etc. customers still insist on buying new games. For a billion dollar industry that has surpassed movie box office receipts, is about to pass up music and will most likely run right over dvd sales in the near future I don't see publishers/developers are hurting for cash. Perhaps it is the publisher that is hording all of the money and the developer is getting the short stick from them.

I work in this industry and, to be quite honest, I buy new whenever I can. I'll only buy used, in perfect shape, when it is a title that is out of print and is no longer available new. Which brings up another point: if a game is no longer in print because the publisher doesn't want to make it anymore how can you complain if someone buys it used? They don't have a choice.

Used is used. As Evil pointed out, publishers/developers made their money selling it new. Once that new game is sold it is no longer the property of the maker to generate money for them.

[SMES]

That is why games cost more than dvd's/cd's. That is why it's unfair to sell to a buyer for 5 bucks less for a game that was repurchased for 2.95 credit/ 1.00 cash. It is unfair to the game industry because they depend on that money to keep making more games.

Yup, totally agree. But again, if four times as many people started buying new games, they could cut the prices of the games. The price of something has a lot to do with the size of the market and expectations of the market. I hate to repeat myself but people have interesting ideas about "why games cost more or less than this or that." The music industry and the game industry both regulate pricing, sometimes with mixed results.

Of course games have to cost enough to keep the industry afloat, but if they were priced lower then the size of the industry might shrink, or it might change the way they make games or the type of games they make. If you think that the reason new games are priced the way they are is anything but the result of a carefully conceived corporate pricing structure then you're kidding yourself.

[GunnyMo]

Remember when VHS movies cost $70 to buy and VCRs cost over $1,000? The video game industry is still at that level.

And yet the prices came down and the used VHS/DVD market is huge. What am I missing here? I'm not trying to be a smart ass but I do remember those days. Those prices have dropped dramatically and, unless I'm wrong, movie studios don't receive a kickback from used VHS/DVD sales.

Video games are now mainstream and will continue to grow by leaps and bounds. VHS was not mainstream when it started and look at it now (the same goes for DVD). Movies cost as much, and many times much more, than video games to make but they aren't screaming for a piece of the used action (not that I've heard anyway).

I don't have the industry knowledge you do from a developers point of view but from a consumers point of view these two industries seem fairly similar.

[SMES]

I still fail to see how selling used games cuts into publisher/developer profits ...I don't see publishers/developers are hurting for cash. Perhaps it is the publisher that is hording all of the money and the developer is getting the short stick from them.

It's easy to see revenue numbers going up and assume that means things are getting better. This may be true, and maybe this whole problem isn't all that serious. But as Mark pointed out, if a greater percentage of people start buying used instead of new, it will boost the revenue of places like best buy but not of developers.

I work in this industry and, to be quite honest, I buy new whenever I can... Once that new game is sold it is no longer the property of the maker to generate money for them.

Lets hope everyone feels that way, especially if/as the market expands. And I'm not saying that it's not fair to buy and sell used games. The issue is that when best buy (and maybe soon target and wal mart) start selling used games with a business model aimed at making as much profit as possible, then it will damage the industry. As it is, I can go into an EB/Gamestop and get a used copy of a game a few days after it's released. With a distribution network the size of best buy/wal mart/etc, big retailers will become the bottleneck where the majority of game industry money goes, suffocating even the well off publishers.

[DCJoeDog]

Solution: Developers/Publishers distribute only to stores who do NOT have a resale policy in force

ONLY, if they lower the prices on games aswell. You can't keep all the money and be SUPER greedy, which is what I think most people hate about publishers. they save money anywhere they can but instead of lowering the price they pocket the money.

does that seem fair to the consumer at all?

[GunnyMo]

You make some good points, SMES. However, I would like to point out that you can't have a used game unless it was new to begin with. ;) That simple equation right there tells me that the industry will be fine. It also tells me that publishers have finally clued in that the used market is very lucrative and now they want a piece of that pie as so many others do. They are a symbiotic relationship now: Customer buys a new game, beats it, trades it in (creating a used game) and buys another new game. I see this day in, day out, 365 days a year.

Simple logic says (to me, anyway) that the used market will never surpass the new market because, again, it has to be new before it's used.

[DCJoeDog]

You make some good points, SMES. However, I would like to point out that you can't have a used game unless it was new to begin with. ;) That simple equation right there tells me that the industry will be fine. It also tells me that publishers have finally clued in that the used market is very lucrative and now they want a piece of that pie as so many others do. They are a symbiotic relationship now: Customer buys a new game, beats it, trades it in (creating a used game) and buys another new game. I see this day in, day out, 365 days a year.

Simple logic says (to me, anyway) that the used market will never surpass the new market because, again, it has to be new before it's used.

It's like the developers/publishers think that the resellers have an infinite supply of used versions of new games. they don't, there can not be more used copies than new games, EVER!! Plus, most people keep their games, new or used, so that takes those copies out of the equaltion

what do publishers do when they need more copies to sell, they make more, what do resellers do when they need more copies to resell, they as for more new copies to then in turn MAKE more used games.

so, where's the problem here again??

[rickmus]

You make some good points, SMES. However, I would like to point out that you can't have a used game unless it was new to begin with. ;) That simple equation right there tells me that the industry will be fine. It also tells me that publishers have finally clued in that the used market is very lucrative and now they want a piece of that pie as so many others do. They are a symbiotic relationship now: Customer buys a new game, beats it, trades it in (creating a used game) and buys another new game. I see this day in, day out, 365 days a year.

Simple logic says (to me, anyway) that the used market will never surpass the new market because, again, it has to be new before it's used.

The point Mark is trying to make is that the video game publishers pay for the ad in the Best Buy flyer, pay for the shelf space so that you see it on the end, pay for other things. If we are paying for that, yet Best Buy is trying to push a used copy, then it would appear that Best Buy is getting a two for one deal.

Ever wonder why publishers don't sell their games cheaper on their own web sites? Retailers get upset if they were to do that. Ultimately, this will push the online distribution model even further.

[GunnyMo]

As games become more mainstream then perhaps that relationship between publishers/retailers will change when it comes to marketing. Who knows? Publishers don't pay for used advertising. There are no big, banner ads for "Come buy Halo 2 used!" *sponsored by Bungie*.

Again, I bring up my point: a retailer cannot, in any way, shape or form, sell more used copies than new because the game has to be new before it can ever become used. The publisher will make their money long before the retailer makes any money off of the used item. It seems to me it's a circular argument.

[LilAbner]

I work for Best Buy and we were the first store in the country to do this (we started in Feb.).

At the time, we sold NO used game for more than $9.99...problem was you wouldn't get crap for a relatively recent game, so we had to do away with the whole $9.99 thing. However, we are still way lower than the EB/GameStop cartel. For example, if I trade in a game that's still selling for $49.99 at EB/GameStop, the bastards are gonna sell it for only $5 less. At our store, we mark the price down to at least $39.99, sometimes $34.99.

BTW, I sold an old Monopoly board game at a yard sale a few months ago and just received a strongly worded letter from Parker Bros. complaining they didn't get a cut. ;-)

[Mephistopheles]

Again, I bring up my point: a retailer cannot, in any way, shape or form, sell more used copies than new because the game has to be new before it can ever become used. The publisher will make their money long before the retailer makes any money off of the used item. It seems to me it's a circular argument.

No matter how it is spun I can't blame the developers/publishers for feeling more than a little uneasy about game resales. A sale of a used game in place of a new one is a sale lost from where the developer/publisher sits. They've already got pirates gnawing on their income and now the retailers want in as well?

Also, have you considered the resale of already resold games? It seems pretty reasonable to expect that someone might buy a game used, beat it, and then take it back to the store for trade in. The retailer then resells again for similar profit margins as the first resale and the developer/publisher effectively loses another sale.

I dislike inflating game prices as much as anyone but I don't really understand all the hate being directed at developers for their trepidation regarding mainstream game resales. I think their concerns are reasonable and it wouldn't hurt to try and see things from the perspective of the people who provide us with our hobby.

[Deadend]

I just read the new issue of the Escapist, where a number stuck in my head. That 80% of new game sales are in the first 2 weeks. That is a fucked up number. Is it related in a way to used game sales? Possibly.

Hell, used game sales are ruining the game industry in Japan... well that and extreme overpricing.

I can think of possibly as an alternavite for Publishers themselves to get in on the game-reselling front. Or if several big publishers (Microsoft, EA and Activision would do nicely) decided to Just Say No to stores that sell used copies of their games.

Yeah a game has to be sold once before it is used, but there are the used-game crowd at stores, they buy used, sell the used game, buy another. Their sales and prefences are not counted, they play the game, they pay for it. It feels a bit unfair to me.

At the same time, remember that the Game Industry is also nowhere near as large as the Music industry. Halo 2 can only sell as many copies as there are Xboxs. Also, most games DO NOT sell well. It's a hit driven Industry where the dudes who make the shit you get on your screen get the smallest cut.

Do you see anyone at Bungie living like a fucking rockstar because Halo 2 sold well? No, but a CD sells a million copies at $10 a piece and the people behind it are filthy rich.

The Used Games... are a symptom of the problem with the Video Game Industry. The main problem is that devlopers do not get their share.

Valve has the right idea, Fuck the Retail. (well, they fucked the publisher, but retail is a start). Start advertising online sales direct to dev/publisher. On IGN they have a 'buy-it button' it sends you to EBGames.com.

Mark Rein, don't you think that little link should sned people to you? to buy your game?

On the PC games side... fuck retail, most stores carry nothing anways. Most people who play new PC games are already in the know about games and can surf the web. Mail them a box or download the game to their system. It doesn't matter how we get the game, as long as we get it fast.

Like I said earlier, the only way to stop the retail stores from selling used games is to stop selling the games to them. Make the retailers have used games only, but it has to be across many companies. Even though EA alone could do it if they told EB games "well, your not getting Madden '07 or anything until you quit selling used copies of our games," it could work.

Oh, and quit it with the new system every 5 years shit. throwing down $300 on a system that someone may only buy $400 in games for gets real old, and stops quite a few people from playing games. Slow the release cycle of systems and the sales will pick up as more people WILL end up owning the system.

[51|RandoM]

The size/complexity of game content is steadily increasing, but the game prices aren't. Something has to give.

You could turn out a pretty good doom map in a day or two, if you were familiar with the tools. Try doing that with a Source game.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Seems fair enough to me. Either that or charging for the tech support.

Have you ever called a tech support line? If the company doesn't have a local branch (which of course most do not), then you get this:

"Thanks for calling Big Company X. Please wait 30 minutes for one of our ten representatives who barely speaks your language."

Hell, some companies that have local branches still make you call a shitty customer "service" line for support. *looks at Alltel*


Answer: Cooties. I'd never buy a used book sight unseen and that hasn't been scanned with a blacklight. I don't have a phobia, but I do know that one hell of lot of people basically live like trolls, only washing their hands when forced to at gunpoint. The thought of reading a paperback that I purchased from some booger-eating toe-picker is too much to stomach. Your new book royalites are safe with me. ;)


Eww. I never thought of that before! To think I just bought a used textbook today. I may have to avoid that in the future. Speaking of getting screwed - anyone else here have to buy college textbooks? Every company that publishes and sells them should be shot. Greedy bastards.


Agreed, many of the top games cost 10 million or more to develop and market. And the level of complexity demanded in next-gen games is only pushing that number higher.


Yes, but CDs and movies still cost more to put on the market. This is of course counting only mainstream, wide releases. People in this thread using indy music as an example are being silly. What about indy games? Those cost about as much to make, if not less, and probably make about the same amount of money, at least in the percent of the market that they grab.

A high profile game may cost 10 million to make, but a big name movie can cost over 100 million, or even more. I don't have numbers on CDs, but I know they don't cost $4000. ;)


Oh, and quit it with the new system every 5 years shit. throwing down $300 on a system that someone may only buy $400 in games for gets real old, and stops quite a few people from playing games. Slow the release cycle of systems and the sales will pick up as more people WILL end up owning the system.


AMEN!!! Do you know what movie sales would be like if a new format came out every 4-5 years? Or music? Sales wouldn't be nearly as high as they are. Sure we get new formats with those, but not nearly as quickly, and the transition isn't nearly as jarring.




I know this is an outdated thread now, but EA's offline status over the weekend prevented me from commenting earlier.