New way to sell used games

[TrevHead (TVR)]

It seems that someone has plans to sell used games by postal and give publishers a cut for each game. What do you guys think of it? would you use it?

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/3653 ... _A_Cut.php

[Specineff]

I've tried the same with all the hoes I got pregnant. So far none have sent me a cent.

[TransatlanticFoe]

I never trade games in, and have only taken a couple of games back to the shop in my life (and that was because they were shit). Actually, that's kind of a lie because I traded in the horseshit shovelware which came bundled with my Wii for £15 off Metroid Prime Trilogy - but again, it was a case of games I didn't want because they were terrible.

Personally, I hate the "play it, finish it, trade it, repeat" culture gaming has today. You're basically renting games and that mindset helps put draconian DRM in place on PC games - which means it's only your game until you need to connect to a server somewhere to activate it.

The price difference between pre-owned games and new retail games is nowhere near enough to entice me into buying pre-owned games - £5-10 off for the privilege of something that's probably been beaten up a bit by the previous owner? I'll only buy a second hand game if the game's out of print.

You don't ditch an album once you've listened to it a few times, or a movie once you've watched it - so why do the same with a game?

Anyway, trade-ins do happen so this is a good move because at least some money makes its way back... although it does say "publisher" rather than "developer". It's a bit like music in that I'd rather the money go back to the people who created it rather than the people who marketed (or didn't, in the case of some labels and publishers) it. But publisher gets more money so can put more games out or take a risk on something which isn't going to sell well, so it can only be a good thing - we don't want publishers focussing only on the core markets and ignoring the niche.

[Specineff]

I just don't see why they should make money again on something they already got fully paid for. Last time I checked, neither Ford or Toyota get a cut when anyone trades their old cars in, or sell them to someone else. Nor is my English teacher receiving a royalty whenever I translate a document and get paid for it.

[TrevHead (TVR)]

Me I see it both ways, the selling of 2nd hand collectables on ebay is fine but they way Gamestop aggressively competes with new games isnt helping us the gamers or the gaming industry. If both the buyer and the seller get a good price im all for the publisher getting a small cut, as some of that money will get put back into development. Maybe devs wont be so inclined in creating tacked on online multiplayer for single players games in a hopeless attempt to stop gamers from selling their game once theyve beaten the single player campaign.

[Blackbird]

I buy quite a few used games because I simply cannot afford to pay the full retail price on new games very often. I can get a dozen or more cart only GBA games for the same price as a single new X360 game.

However, the main problem with buying used games is that I don't get to support the game's developer at all. All that money goes directly to whoever's selling it. I don't mind it so much if it's an individual, but a lot of times that money is going straight into GameStop's pocket, not to the developer as I would like. I'm all for this if it lets me buy, say, a used Intelligent Systems game and actually get some money back to them so they can keep making games and have an incentive to localize more titles.

[xbl0x180]

I buy a lot of used media (books, cds, videos, and video games) and I buy a lot of new stuff. However, one thing I will not pay for are downloads. I'll download it for free, though

[TodayIsForgotten]

The problem with the views in this thread are the reason this probably won't work. Using the car analogy its pretty much impossible to download a car (saving for future) or copy a car to share with someone else. The car industry puts out a new car every year. At what they are priced they probably already make the new and used car sale.

On one end of the spectrum I understand where artists, video game and movie makers are coming from. This is their craft. 50,000 people bought a cd and 8 million got it from other means (download, friend, used). The artists made roughly $50,000 in cd sales and potentially could have made a couple million. Of course, because something can be downloaded or is had for cheap doesn't correlate to a sale. It's human nature to want shit for free or dirt cheap.

On the other end. Why should anything have a price? I'm not going to spend 2 bucks or 50 bucks on something that isn't good, likewise if an amazing game was dropped to 10 bucks - I'm still not inclined to buy it. It will not affect my sale. Although, something over-priced will never see my money.



Greed has over-ridden the industry. It's a bit like athletes crying over 10 million dollars in their contract or holding out for another 50 million to play a fucking game. I don't go to movies and i don't seek out movies. But if i can get a movie for free there's a good chance i'll watch it. Even though it doesn't make it right if i say, "well, even though i would never watch or buy _____ its ok for me to steal/download/whatever anyhow.

Most companies complaining about lost sales are companies that are already well off and those other companies that complain of lost sales obviously need to grasp reality and understand their product wasn't good to begin with. Art should be appreciated for nothing and any sales that come from it should be appreciated and cherished.

[rapoon]

I buy quite a few used games because I simply cannot afford to pay the full retail price on new games very often. I can get a dozen or more cart only GBA games for the same price as a single new X360 game.

However, the main problem with buying used games is that I don't get to support the game's developer at all. All that money goes directly to whoever's selling it. I don't mind it so much if it's an individual, but a lot of times that money is going straight into GameStop's pocket, not to the developer as I would like. I'm all for this if it lets me buy, say, a used Intelligent Systems game and actually get some money back to them so they can keep making games and have an incentive to localize more titles.

I too buy a lot of used games. 99% of the time I purchase them off Amazon sellers and I've been very pleased. Out of the ~50 used games I've purchased, only 1 arrived in inaccurate condition (as stated by the seller).
I fucking hate Gamestop and haven't given them a dime in years. I never sell my games, even the ones I hate or am bored as shit with. For people who don't mind playing a game for a bit then selling it, I think the idea
linked in the OP is clever and will/can be successful.

....one thing I will not pay for are downloads....

Same here with one exception. There are a couple of low-key musicians I like that release a track or two via download only; I'll toss them $2-3 for a couple of songs.

[brentsg]

Art should be appreciated for nothing and any sales that come from it should be appreciated and cherished.

Using that line of thinking "artists" won't be programming games because they'll have to go work at McDonalds so their families can eat.

[xbl0x180]

I buy quite a few used games because I simply cannot afford to pay the full retail price on new games very often. I can get a dozen or more cart only GBA games for the same price as a single new X360 game.

However, the main problem with buying used games is that I don't get to support the game's developer at all. All that money goes directly to whoever's selling it. I don't mind it so much if it's an individual, but a lot of times that money is going straight into GameStop's pocket, not to the developer as I would like. I'm all for this if it lets me buy, say, a used Intelligent Systems game and actually get some money back to them so they can keep making games and have an incentive to localize more titles.

I too buy a lot of used games. 99% of the time I purchase them off Amazon sellers and I've been very pleased. Out of the ~50 used games I've purchased, only 1 arrived in inaccurate condition (as stated by the seller).
I fucking hate Gamestop and haven't given them a dime in years. I never sell my games, even the ones I hate or am bored as shit with. For people who don't mind playing a game for a bit then selling it, I think the idea
linked in the OP is clever and will/can be successful.

....one thing I will not pay for are downloads....

Same here with one exception. There are a couple of low-key musicians I like that release a track or two via download only; I'll toss them $2-3 for a couple of songs.

I shoulda rephrased it. If I knew the proceeds were directly going to the makers of the games/music/comics/books/etc., then I'd pay. The thing about downloading video games is that I don't have any of my consoles hooked up to on-line, so in order to download, I'd have to go through microdick's on-line registration and other bulls**t - just like itunes, which I don't use either.

[Specineff]

I still don't see the logic of it.

I like to support artists (that's why I have bought original blu-ray movies brand new, to ensure the money goes to them, as well as brand new retail copies of games like R-Type Command so that Atlus keeps on bringing games like that to America.), but let me use another analogy here:

Fine, the car concept is not valid. Let's take a painting. I paid the artist for it. It's basically an unnecessary object that lacks moving parts and is only "active" when me or someone else looks at it. Do I have to pay the artist a chunk of the money I get if I sell it to my brother?

It's art. The artist spent time making it. He worked on it, and used his creativity to make that idea a tangible object. It's true that my brother could have bought a new painting from that artist, but he wanted THIS specific painting, and wanted to pay me for it. Why should it be different with games?

Please don't think I'm arguing for the sake of arguing. I just don't see what type of criteria games deserve that make their creators different from those of movies, music or photographs. If Gene Simmons is not entitled to some money when I resell a KISS CD, why should Infinity Ward or Tri-Ace be?

[xbl0x180]

I still don't see the logic of it.

I like to support artists (that's why I have bought original blu-ray movies brand new, to ensure the money goes to them, as well as brand new retail copies of games like R-Type Command so that Atlus keeps on bringing games like that to America.), but let me use another analogy here:

Fine, the car concept is not valid. Let's take a painting. I paid the artist for it. It's basically an unnecessary object that lacks moving parts and is only "active" when me or someone else looks at it. Do I have to pay the artist a chunk of the money I get if I sell it to my brother?

It's art. The artist spent time making it. He worked on it, and used his creativity to make that idea a tangible object. It's true that my brother could have bought a new painting from that artist, but he wanted THIS specific painting, and wanted to pay me for it. Why should it be different with games?

Please don't think I'm arguing for the sake of arguing. I just don't see what type of criteria games deserve that make their creators different from those of movies, music or photographs. If Gene Simmons is not entitled to some money when I resell a KISS CD, why should Infinity Ward or Tri-Ace be?

I don't think you're arguing. You have a valid point. I think the issue comes from a potential lost sale from the artist(s) if more people were to buy their used products from other people.

For example, using the same artist example. Let's say this artist only makes the same painting with the same materials, same colours, same technique, same dimensions, etc. If you were to buy one of these paintings at full retail (taking into account the artist's overhead business costs), then the artist was compensated for his work. Now, if you were to go ahead and sell the painting to your brother, the artist lost a sale to you (and you don't have the overhead business cost of producing the painting).

[TransatlanticFoe]

Please don't think I'm arguing for the sake of arguing. I just don't see what type of criteria games deserve that make their creators different from those of movies, music or photographs. If Gene Simmons is not entitled to some money when I resell a KISS CD, why should Infinity Ward or Tri-Ace be?

The problem is that, unlike other media, major retailers devote large space in their shops for pre-owned games. Space which could go towards stocking new copies of more varied games.

You can't even walk into Game to pick up Mario Galaxy or Zelda because there's a rack of an arbitrary top 20, some more recently released games then anything that's more than 6 months old is in the pre-owned section... which is the same size as the new section. Although the initial selection and shelf space is larger, PS3 and 360 follows a similar trend. The floorspace in the middle of my local Game store is entirely pre-owned games, with a few racks for budget PC titles.

HMV is getting in on the act too, albeit their pre-owned sections are roughly 50% the size of the new retail sections. With independent stores long since destroyed, the only places on the high street for games in the UK are HMV, Game and Gamestation (which I've not set foot in one of since they stopped selling retro).

It's that retailers have embraced pre-owned as a means of making money for themselves which is the problem. On the high street, you've got a captive audience - and when you aggressively push your trade-in deals, it only enhances your pre-owned sales. It's not that pre-owned shouldn't exist, it's just that it shouldn't be given equal coverage by major retailers because it limits the number of new games which can be sold. You don't see the major players doing that with music or video, so absolutely games need special treatment here because they're a somewhat unique case compared to their close cousins in media.

See also publishing costs, licensing costs as to why the people who actually make the game can't afford to have their income dented by pre-owned copies being sold on aggressively without them seeing a penny of it. The little guy can just about compete in the music industry, but he's being hit hard in video games.

[TrevHead (TVR)]

I think much of my mindset comes from been a PC gamer for years. With how much the PC games industry has changed over the years with Steam and digi download and how software is sold not like a car but as a license to 1 user / PC / company. Also I with DRM and how 2nd hand PC games made almost extint, im certanly of the opinion that this has contributed greatly in keeping the PC game industry alive and making the comeback that it is atm.

While console gamers argue that the 2nd hand market allows then to save money and buy games cheap, im not so sure that the 2nd hand market is good for customers (expect collectors on ebay). As in the UK atleast PC games at retail / amazon (not so for AAA digi download) drop in price very quickly so that its easy to buy most PC games at 2nd hand prices anyway.

Im not saying that consoles should go the same way as PC (Consoles are different to PC and tbh I like having the choice of 2nd hand even though Ild rather buy brand new) but imo it wouldnt be half as bad as what many ppl make it out to be atleast when it comes to what ppl are paying for their games.

To answer my own question the problem is that each console doesnt have a long lifespan where as PC does so 2nd hand is a must for retro gamers and collectors. But with console slowly moving to digidownload this problem might be moot. Although I wonder if loosing 2nd hand has helped keep PC retail alive. Im sure that console publishers are keen to get onto digi download with gamestop making more money than they are.

[kernow]

To answer my own question the problem is that each console doesnt have a long lifespan where as PC does

I don't personally agree with this, consoles have a pretty long lifespan nowadays whereas a 6/7yr old PC ain't gonna be playing many modern games.

[TrevHead (TVR)]

To answer my own question the problem is that each console doesnt have a long lifespan where as PC does

I don't personally agree with this, consoles have a pretty long lifespan nowadays whereas a 6/7yr old PC ain't gonna be playing many modern games.

You misunderstand me mate, I was talking about backwards compatabilty, maybe I should of made myself clearer.