Edge-Online: Next Xbox Will Require Always-On Internet, No Used Games.

  • 179 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

People who bought games that had an Online Pass quite literally asked for this to happen and have no right to complain. Gamers spent this entire generation explicitly telling companies to keep nickel-and-diming them and then act surprised when the companies do just that.famicommander

Buying the game new at retail meant the online pass came at no extra charge. The online pass was simply a way for software companies to generate revenue from used game sales; it was not some additonal cost.

If the issue is voting with our collective wallets, then we should all purchase new software because that is currently the only model that ensures that the people who make the games we play and love get financial recompense for their efforts.

 

#52 Posted by BranKetra (48625 posts) -
I do not want a console like that.
#53 Posted by c_rakestraw (14682 posts) -

Wasn't there similar rumors regarding the next Playstation system doing the same thing, trying to limit or completely remove second hand game sales? I always prefer to buy my games new, but I can't say I'd like to see used games go away completely, not to mention rentals going away too. It's going to be an interesting year, regardless._Dez_

Yep. Was talk of some sort of "license" for each individual game, a la PC games. Obviously that never came to fruition, though.

Most of this sounds like BS, to be honest. Locking out used sales would likely go down poorly with retailers (GameStop especially), and adding some sort of always-online functionality would essentially cut their potential audience in half.

#54 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

[QUOTE="LongZhiZi"][QUOTE="SulIy"]Yes, MS and Sony are going to purposefully cut off millions upon millions of potential customers for completely arbitrary reasons, because they hate money, obviously. Come on, guys... use some common sense. We've done this dance before.Vari3ty

This is coming from the company that thought it could break into the PC online-gaming space by charging money and providing a lower quality service than what was already out there (and free, to boot). I put nothing past Microsoft in terms of idiotic ideas.

This. The fact that they still charge for multiplayer gaming says more than enough about their arrogance. 

That's not arrogance, it's simply good business because plenty of people (myself included) have no problem shelling out a paltry fee for the service.

#55 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

Edge seems overly confident about this. Now they are running an article talking about what this means for Sony. They are heavily implying that Sony wont be blocking used game sales. Keep in mind that even though Sony has filed some patents and researched on blocking used games, the SCEA CEO Jack Tretton pretty much ruled out blocking used games in an interview last year.

I have a hard time believing that MS will go through with this, but Edge seems way too sure about their source and as far as anti-consumer companies go, MS is right up there when it comes to sh*tting on the consumer.

I really really hope Sony doesn't charge for online play next gen, and allows used games sales. This news has completely destroyed all the hype I had for the PS4 reveal, now I am just scared and am expecting PS Gold and online DRM.

#56 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -
When did everyone wake up and realize live is taking avantage for you. I argued for years against it and ill I got back in return was "I am proud to pay for their service, blah blah blah". Glad Sony showed a much better way to create a service, one that benefits the gamer not takes advantage of them and offers all the basic services for free as they should be.
#57 Posted by guynamedbilly (12965 posts) -
Have games writers just completely given up any shred of integrity en masse? They don't know anything and they proclaim it as fact.
#58 Posted by TacticalTimbo (15 posts) -
I'm gobsmacked reading this thread, why can't people discuss their dislike for a particular console; surely it's perfectly reasonable for someone to start a thread discussing anything they find bad, or indeed good, about a console. Okay, crude insults and threatening comments are totally unacceptable; but besides that anything goes imo. I'm privileged enough to own, pretty much all the consoles (bias free), I'd therefore be riled to learn that I may not discuss my dislikes of a certain system, on a commercial forum; I've almost never felt the need to, but if I did, I'd like to feel I could. As for you S0lidSnake, I dislike your tone, why should someone be discriminated against just because their membership doesn't go back as far!? If there are going to be rules, these rules should be for everyone to follow and not just a portion of the user base; anything else is elitist and unfair!
#59 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

No second hand sales = No game trades

No game trades = less money to spend on games

Less money to spend on games = Less games being bought day one

Less games being bought day one = Lots of developers out of work

Systems_Id

Yeah, but secondhand sales hurt new games sales on days 2-9,999 because Gamestop actively pushes people away from buying new. It makes Gamestop more money so they are within their rights to do it, but it wouldn't be shocking if developers/publishers reacted to Gamestop's aggressive attempt to cut them out of the picture.

#60 Posted by rragnaar (27023 posts) -

Edge better be right with their rumors or they are likely to be in trouble.  I'm surprised that investors pay close enough attention to react to this so quickly.

#61 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

I'm gobsmacked reading this thread, why can't people discuss their dislike for a particular console; surely it's perfectly reasonable for someone to start a thread discussing anything they find bad, or indeed good, about a console. Okay, crude insults and threatening comments are totally unacceptable; but besides that anything goes imo. I'm privileged enough to own, pretty much all the consoles (bias free), I'd therefore be riled to learn that I may not discuss my dislikes of a certain system, on a commercial forum; I've almost never felt the need to, but if I did, I'd like to feel I could. As for you S0lidSnake, I dislike your tone, why should someone be discriminated against just because their membership doesn't go back as far!? If there are going to be rules, these rules should be for everyone to follow and not just a portion of the user base; anything else is elitist and unfair!TacticalTimbo

Calm down. How do you know what the thread title was when the thread was first created? It was clearly inflammatory and resulted in quite a few insulting comments with people telling him to go back to systems wars and such. So it's obvious that it wasn't inspiring discussion.

I have no problems with people voicing their opinions, in fact I encourage people to speak out. It makes these forums more interesting, but the original thread title was just way too much.

Lastly, I am not one of those people who go into threads and tell others if their thread should be a blog. If I think a certain post is blog worthy, i just dont click on it or let it be. I was defending Bear's thread because I think everyone should be able to make threads like that. I dont care if a regular makes it or a newbie. It doesn't bother me one bit. I am just more likely to read it if it's a forum regular.

#62 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

Edge better be right with their rumors or they are likely to be in trouble.  I'm surprised that investors pay close enough attention to react to this so quickly.

rragnaar

The stock market is a joke. Just last week Apple posted record sales, record profits and their stock still went down $150.

#63 Posted by Systems_Id (8155 posts) -

[QUOTE="Systems_Id"]

No second hand sales = No game trades

No game trades = less money to spend on games

Less money to spend on games = Less games being bought day one

Less games being bought day one = Lots of developers out of work

CarnageHeart

Yeah, but secondhand sales hurt new games sales on days 2-9,999 because Gamestop actively pushes people away from buying new. It makes Gamestop more money so they are within their rights to do it, but it wouldn't be shocking if developers/publishers reacted to Gamestop's aggressive attempt to cut them out of the picture.

The question you have to ask is why the used market for videogames is so lucrative in the first place? It's because dropping $60 on a game is a lot of money. What do people do to allieviate this? They trade in their games in to subsidize the purchase of new ones. What happens when gamers are no longer able to trade in used games because they're worthless? They start buying less games and that's bad for everyone. Most gamers today barely buy anything that isn't a huge AAA game. What do you think will happen when gamers aren't able to sell back their games?

Unless games automatically start at impulse purchase prices i.e. $20-$30 the industry as a whole is going to be in for a world of hurt when gamers as a whole start cutting back on their purchases. 

#64 Posted by JML897 (33125 posts) -

I just saw something Jeff Gerstmann said on Twitter that I don't think has been mentioned yet. Instead of flat-out banning used games, what if Microsoft is planning on creating a system like the online pass? Used games could work, but you would have to spend and extra $10 to unlock the game if it's used.

I still wouldn't like that at all but it seems like that route would be less console suicide-y.

#65 Posted by juradai (2783 posts) -

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="Systems_Id"]

No second hand sales = No game trades

No game trades = less money to spend on games

Less money to spend on games = Less games being bought day one

Less games being bought day one = Lots of developers out of work

Systems_Id

Yeah, but secondhand sales hurt new games sales on days 2-9,999 because Gamestop actively pushes people away from buying new. It makes Gamestop more money so they are within their rights to do it, but it wouldn't be shocking if developers/publishers reacted to Gamestop's aggressive attempt to cut them out of the picture.

The question you have to ask is why the used market for videogames is so lucrative in the first place? It's because dropping $60 on a game is a lot of money. What do people do to allieviate this? They trade in their games in to subsidize the purchase of new ones. What happens when gamers are no longer able to trade in used games because they're worthless? They start buying less games and that's bad for everyone. Most gamers today barely buy anything that isn't a huge AAA game. What do you think will happen when gamers aren't able to sell back their games?

Unless games automatically start at impulse purchase prices i.e. $20-$30 the industry as a whole is going to be in for a world of hurt when gamers as a whole start cutting back on their purchases. 

 

Who are these people that are buying games at $60? You simply have to wait 30 days, sometimes sooner, and they drop to roughly $39-$49. On top of that, those that are buying the new release games used are paying $55.99. Not much of a cost savings if you ask me. I don't agree with the $60 a game argument.

#66 Posted by Bigboi500 (29951 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

I don't purchase used games and personally, I think the used market has gotten a tad out of hand, which meant at some point, something like this might happen.

And really, where is the alternative? PC gaming already has this type of constriction tethered to most software and if this is true, it seems likely Sony would follow suit.

So what? I'm going to use the Wii U as my only gaming machine?

I might as well not game at all if that is the proposed solution.

Also, people need to remember that the digital distribution model is essentially the future. My hope is that there will be price incentives to download games directly, making this issue moot.

Grammaton-Cleric

A lot of people save a TON of money through buying used. Places like Amazon and Gamefly frequently offer drastic reductions on used games that are in excellent condition, and sometimes very rare and only attainable that way. I'm talking $10, $20 and sometimes as much as $30-$40 dollars off original retail prices. If that stops then a lot of people are going to buy a lot less software because of this.

So what if people cease buying used software?

Do you not realize that developers and publishers currently see ZERO revenue from used game sales?

The only viable argument for used game sales is that they can subsidize the purchase of new games. Unfortunately, none of the major retailers who traffic in used game sales have ever offered up data to demonstrate just how much and how often used gaming contributes to new software purchases.

That's not entirely true. Used game purchases generate interest in new titles, like sequels for instance. Also, a lot of people who buy used games also purchase new ones, like myself. This will hurt new game sales too, especially since people can't share them with friends and family. Knowing they can't trade them in, and that they're stuck with that new game forever, they are much less likely to spend that $60 + tax.

#67 Posted by Systems_Id (8155 posts) -

 

Who are these people that are buying games at $60? You simply have to wait 30 days, sometimes sooner, and they drop to roughly $39-$49. On top of that, those that are buying the new release games used are paying $55.99. Not much of a cost savings if you ask me. I don't agree with the $60 a game argument.

juradai

Who are these people buying games at $60? The vast majority of all game sales are within the first week of a game's release. Why do you think preorder bonuses are so common?

#68 Posted by Bigboi500 (29951 posts) -

Edge seems overly confident about this. Now they are running an article talking about what this means for Sony. They are heavily implying that Sony wont be blocking used game sales. Keep in mind that even though Sony has filed some patents and researched on blocking used games, the SCEA CEO Jack Tretton pretty much ruled out blocking used games in an interview last year.

I have a hard time believing that MS will go through with this, but Edge seems way too sure about their source and as far as anti-consumer companies go, MS is right up there when it comes to sh*tting on the consumer.

I really really hope Sony doesn't charge for online play next gen, and allows used games sales. This news has completely destroyed all the hype I had for the PS4 reveal, now I am just scared and am expecting PS Gold and online DRM.

S0lidSnake

You know, Sony isn't Microsoft's conjoined twin. They don't have to be EXACTLY like their competition, so maybe just like with this gen, Sony will do more for their fanbase than Microsoft.

#69 Posted by ReddestSkies (4087 posts) -

Considering that Microsoft is absolutely awful at digital distribution, I would be surprised if they actually go through with that idea.

The currently huge used game market is bad for the industry; it's probably much worse than piracy. People who are actually willing to pay for games are giving money to Gamestop and not to developers/publishers. I think that the best way to fight the used game market is to offer every game digitally with a discount compared to brick and mortar, basically to force a shift towards digital distribution and to literally kill Gamestop, as it wouldn't be able to compete through prices against a good digital distribution system.

Preventing the sale of used games, or making it more difficult, is not the way to go. All it does is piss off customers without giving them alternatives to what they're used to.

#70 Posted by Maddie_Larkin (6521 posts) -

Hmm, This is not really good news if true. To block used games completely is something that goes against the most basic consumer rights most places in the world. Even the "you are buying a license" way was challanged fast and seems like overrules (this be on the PC side)

On a legal scale I am unsure how well this will fly.

Nevertheless this is sad news if true, MS would be shooting themselves in the foot, and actively pushing potential buyers towards thier competitors.

If this is NOT true, then Edge have potentially harmed the image of MS for the sake of Chok Journalism, which I HOPE will cost them dearly. Generally gaming journalism have suffered a great deal this gen alone, so I am not sure if I even care to belive this untill more sources claim the same.

Sadly however I am not so sure that this is wrong, ALOT of 3rd party Publishers have requested this throughout this gen, just look at the amount of interviews and comments they have made over the years. And if someone like Activision or EA, gives the Ultimatum of "either do, or miss out on the games" I think Even MS or Sony will Fold and give what has been requested. I can see atleast EA possibly doing this (no I do not have anything against EA, but you talk about the Publisher which sropped having thier games on steam over what I consider smaller issues, which basicly cut them off from a great deal of gamers on that specific platform, so I think they coult potentially make such claims).

If this happens, it still is to be seen if it will be an advantage or a detriment to the Consoles, IF all games are cheaper, then I do not really see the problem (cold as may be). If the prices are the same or higher then they are now, then it is to a great detriment.

All in all, I will hold my breath and watch.

#71 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="Systems_Id"]

No second hand sales = No game trades

No game trades = less money to spend on games

Less money to spend on games = Less games being bought day one

Less games being bought day one = Lots of developers out of work

Systems_Id

Yeah, but secondhand sales hurt new games sales on days 2-9,999 because Gamestop actively pushes people away from buying new. It makes Gamestop more money so they are within their rights to do it, but it wouldn't be shocking if developers/publishers reacted to Gamestop's aggressive attempt to cut them out of the picture.

The question you have to ask is why the used market for videogames is so lucrative in the first place? It's because dropping $60 on a game is a lot of money. What do people do to allieviate this? They trade in their games in to subsidize the purchase of new ones. What happens when gamers are no longer able to trade in used games because they're worthless? They start buying less games and that's bad for everyone. Most gamers today barely buy anything that isn't a huge AAA game. What do you think will happen when gamers aren't able to sell back their games?

Unless games automatically start at impulse purchase prices i.e. $20-$30 the industry as a whole is going to be in for a world of hurt when gamers as a whole start cutting back on their purchases.

Yes, the middle is dropping out of retail, but that is due in large part to rising development costs/genre expectations (people don't just want a campaign, they want online play), DLC (which can keep online and single player games fresh) and most importantly of all, the popularity of online.

A decade ago a guy who played through say, DMC might give somewhat similar games like God of War and Zone of Enders a look. Nowadays many popular games have online components and strings of DLC. As a result there is a bit of an MMO effect. Competing against an established game with a community is damn hard, you don't just need to be better, you need to be so much better you draw people away (which hasn't worked out real well for those who sought to directly compete with WoW).

I agree with you that unproven guys who want to make inroads need to resist the temptation to spend stupid money in an attempt to run with the big dogs and they need to sell their game for less than the $60 max price. One sees quite a few quality games which don't try to do everything but cost less than even the pricetags you named in the download arena.

#72 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

That's not entirely true. Used game purchases generate interest in new titles, like sequels for instance. Also, a lot of people who buy used games also purchase new ones, like myself. This will hurt new game sales too, especially since people can't share them with friends and family. Knowing they can't trade them in, and that they're stuck with that new game forever, they are much less likely to spend that $60 + tax.

Bigboi500

There is no formula or evidence to quantify the assertion that used sales stir up fervor for sequels to pre-existing games.

None.

Most games that are successful enough to generate sequels can be easily purchased, new, at retail for a low price so even assuming you were correct, the used market isn't crucial to the proliferation of hype for an upcoming sequel.

However, the notion that a game cannot be easily re-sold might affect those who don't purchase games with the intention of keeping them. The problem is that we have no data as to what percentage of such consumers make up the overall market space.

#73 Posted by xxBenblasterxx (70 posts) -

Is this really a fly in the ointment? Or are we simply seeing the future of games retail, is this a hard shift that we are all eventually going to have to make. another 8 years from now we may be looking back at how 'Used Games Sales' were more harm to the gaming public than help, if the monetary constraints upon developers is a severe as made out due to pre-owned games. 

 

Still I'm going to reserve judgment on which camp i'll be placing my next-gen £££ until we get something more concrete. 

#74 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

When did everyone wake up and realize live is taking avantage for you. I argued for years against it and ill I got back in return was "I am proud to pay for their service, blah blah blah". Glad Sony showed a much better way to create a service, one that benefits the gamer not takes advantage of them and offers all the basic services for free as they should be.dvader654

I recently purchased six months of XBL for 20 dollars and also got 1600 marketplace points in addition to the discount.

At any given time, you can nab a year subscription card for between 30-40 dollars, which comes out to between 2.50 and 3.50 per month.  

I like XBL and have no problem paying such a nominal fee for a service I consider to be excellent.

#75 Posted by Bigboi500 (29951 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

That's not entirely true. Used game purchases generate interest in new titles, like sequels for instance. Also, a lot of people who buy used games also purchase new ones, like myself. This will hurt new game sales too, especially since people can't share them with friends and family. Knowing they can't trade them in, and that they're stuck with that new game forever, they are much less likely to spend that $60 + tax.

Grammaton-Cleric

There is no formula or evidence to quantify the assertion that used sales stir up fervor for sequels to pre-existing games.

None.

Most games that are successful enough to generate sequels can be easily purchased, new, at retail for a low price so even assuming you were correct, the used market isn't crucial to the proliferation of hype for an upcoming sequel.

However, the notion that a game cannot be easily re-sold might affect those who don't purchase games with the intention of keeping them. The problem is that we have no data as to what percentage of such consumers make up the overall market space.

People who trade thier games for store credit to buy new games says otherwise.

#76 Posted by c_rakestraw (14682 posts) -

I just saw something Jeff Gerstmann said on Twitter that I don't think has been mentioned yet. Instead of flat-out banning used games, what if Microsoft is planning on creating a system like the online pass? Used games could work, but you would have to spend and extra $10 to unlock the game if it's used.

I still wouldn't like that at all but it seems like that route would be less console suicide-y.

JML897

Wouldn't that still require an online connection, though? So it would still be somewhat suicidal.

#77 Posted by juradai (2783 posts) -

[QUOTE="juradai"] 

Who are these people that are buying games at $60? You simply have to wait 30 days, sometimes sooner, and they drop to roughly $39-$49. On top of that, those that are buying the new release games used are paying $55.99. Not much of a cost savings if you ask me. I don't agree with the $60 a game argument.

Systems_Id

Who are these people buying games at $60? The vast majority of all game sales are within the first week of a game's release. Why do you think preorder bonuses are so common?

Exactly.That's on them. They have no room to talk about the price of games if they are simply feeding the beast. My point being is that the $60 price tag is not discouraging people from buying them at that price which also seems to indicate that it isn't a top reason people buy used games. Lowering prices for new releases would not have as much of an impact on eliminating used game sales as one might think.
#78 Posted by Systems_Id (8155 posts) -

[QUOTE="Systems_Id"]

[QUOTE="juradai"] 

Who are these people that are buying games at $60? You simply have to wait 30 days, sometimes sooner, and they drop to roughly $39-$49. On top of that, those that are buying the new release games used are paying $55.99. Not much of a cost savings if you ask me. I don't agree with the $60 a game argument.

juradai

Who are these people buying games at $60? The vast majority of all game sales are within the first week of a game's release. Why do you think preorder bonuses are so common?

Exactly.That's on them. They have no room to talk about the price of games if they are simply feeding the beast. My point being is that the $60 price tag is not discouraging people from buying them at that price which also seems to indicate that it isn't a top reason people buy used games. Lowering prices for new releases would not have as much of an impact on eliminating used game sales as one might think.

I beg to differ. It's not discouraging them because gamers can already trade in their unwanted games and buy Call of Duty for $30 or $20 instead of the full $60 if they so choose. And I greatly beg to differ that lowering prices on games wouldn't eliminate the used games market. The used DVD/Blu-Ray market is basically non-existent since movies are basically impulse purchase priced.

#79 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

People who trade thier games for store credit to buy new games says otherwise.

Bigboi500

Grammaton is smarter than that. :P He's already pointed out that there is no way for us to know how much of that store credit goes towards purchasing new games. For all we know, it could be used for buying used games. 

Tough arguing with this guy I know. :P He thinks of everything!

#80 Posted by Bigboi500 (29951 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

People who trade thier games for store credit to buy new games says otherwise.

S0lidSnake

Grammaton is smarter than that. :P He's already pointed out that there is no way for us to know how much of that store credit goes towards purchasing new games. For all we know, it could be used for buying used games. 

Tough arguing with this guy I know. :P He thinks of everything!

Is he the Dark Knight, or the Joker? :?

#81 Posted by juradai (2783 posts) -

I beg to differ. It's not discouraging them because gamers can already trade in their unwanted games and buy Call of Duty for $30 or $20 instead of the full $60 if they so choose. And I greatly beg to differ that lowering prices on games wouldn't eliminate the used games market. The used DVD/Blu-Ray market is basically non-existent since movies are basically impulse purchase priced.

Systems_Id

Sure, people can trade their games in for new games. Is there data that can prove how often this is done? What about those that trade in their games for those very same new releases that Gamestop is selling used? That's quite an assumption to make that the majority of all new release sales are from people trading in their games. 

I also think that lowering the price point for games will merely lower the price point for used games which only causes the margins to decrease. The difference bewteen DVD/Blu-ray and games is that the DVD/Blu-ray market is competing against digital platforms such as Netflix, Hulu, HBO Go and Youtube. People are able to access their movies and shows in different ways using many different media channels. You also have to consider movie rentals in the equation. Look no further than the popularity of Red Box. DVD/Blu-ray had no choice but to lower the initial price point in order to compete, however, it had nothing to with the used market.

#82 Posted by Archangel3371 (15655 posts) -
If and when the used game is negated I really don't think it'll alter the market all that much. On the one hand you'll have those that sell and trade games buying fewer games but on the other hand you'll have those who purchase used games buying them new instead. I really doubt it'll be as cataclysmic as some people might think.
#83 Posted by wiouds (5206 posts) -

If and when the used game is negated I really don't think it'll alter the market all that much. On the one hand you'll have those that sell and trade games buying fewer games but on the other hand you'll have those who purchase used games buying them new instead. I really doubt it'll be as cataclysmic as some people might think.Archangel3371

I agree.

I do not see companines removing the "anti-pirating" actions go away at those time.

#84 Posted by The_Last_Ride (71840 posts) -
i won't be buying it if it only requires online
#85 Posted by c_rakestraw (14682 posts) -

Is he the Dark Knight, or the Joker? :?Bigboi500

He is both... and neither -- at the same time!

#86 Posted by juradai (2783 posts) -

If and when the used game is negated I really don't think it'll alter the market all that much. On the one hand you'll have those that sell and trade games buying fewer games but on the other hand you'll have those who purchase used games buying them new instead. I really doubt it'll be as cataclysmic as some people might think.Archangel3371

My thoughts as well. For those using the used game market in order to by new releases will either find another avenue or simply wait for a price drop. MS or Sony may even find a way to nuture that demographic by offering digital game rentals. Regardless, if the used game market is removed people that want to play games will pay even if they end up paying more than what they are used to.  

#87 Posted by rragnaar (27023 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]Is he the Dark Knight, or the Joker? :?c_rake

He is both... and neither -- at the same time!

So he's Clayface.
#88 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

People who trade thier games for store credit to buy new games says otherwise.

Bigboi500

Grammaton is smarter than that. :P He's already pointed out that there is no way for us to know how much of that store credit goes towards purchasing new games. For all we know, it could be used for buying used games. 

Tough arguing with this guy I know. :P He thinks of everything!

Is he the Dark Knight, or the Joker? :?

He's the poster PGD deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll argue with him. Because he can take it. Because he's not just a poster... he's a silent moderator... a walking thesaurus. The Grammaton Cleric. 

#89 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

[QUOTE="Archangel3371"]If and when the used game is negated I really don't think it'll alter the market all that much. On the one hand you'll have those that sell and trade games buying fewer games but on the other hand you'll have those who purchase used games buying them new instead. I really doubt it'll be as cataclysmic as some people might think.juradai

My thoughts as well. For those using the used game market in order to by new releases will either find another avenue or simply wait for a price drop. MS or Sony may even find a way to nuture that demographic by offering digital game rentals. Regardless, if the used game market is removed people that want to play games will pay even if they end up paying more than what they are used to.  

The used game market is around 28% if Gamestop's quarter earnings are any indication. That's a huge chunk of the pie. And that doesn't even include the new game sales that are funded using store credit earned from trading in games. You take that out and you will have an already fragile industry collapsing on itself. 

#90 Posted by juradai (2783 posts) -

[QUOTE="juradai"]

[QUOTE="Archangel3371"]If and when the used game is negated I really don't think it'll alter the market all that much. On the one hand you'll have those that sell and trade games buying fewer games but on the other hand you'll have those who purchase used games buying them new instead. I really doubt it'll be as cataclysmic as some people might think.S0lidSnake

My thoughts as well. For those using the used game market in order to by new releases will either find another avenue or simply wait for a price drop. MS or Sony may even find a way to nuture that demographic by offering digital game rentals. Regardless, if the used game market is removed people that want to play games will pay even if they end up paying more than what they are used to.  

The used game market is around 28% if Gamestop's quarter earnings are any indication. That's a huge chunk of the pie. And that doesn't even include the new game sales that are funded using store credit earned from trading in games. You take that out and you will have an already fragile industry collapsing on itself. 

If Sony and MS don't remove it altogether then I think they will try to move it into their control. Speaking strictly business, Gamestop is a middle-man nuisance. If I were MS or Sony I would try everything in my power to move that aftermarket revenue stream into my domain and cater to it. However, I don't think it will cause a massive collapse if the used market is removed.

#91 Posted by Jbul (4835 posts) -

I really doubt this is true -- it'd have too much of a negative impact on consumer perception of the machine.  Like it's been stated in this topic several times, people simply won't buy the machine if the possibility of lending it to a family member or friend is out of the picture.   It's just asinine.  That's part of the fun of having a console.   PC gaming can survive this because you can find recently released PC games digitally, typically at -%50 or more.

 

Speaking from personal experience, I've bought games I was on the fence about because I knew even if I didn't like the game, I could always trade it and return some of my investment.  This would be absolutely suicidal of Microsoft, and would only increase pirating and bring about an intense loathing and bitterness from the gaming community at large.

#92 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

That's not entirely true. Used game purchases generate interest in new titles, like sequels for instance. Also, a lot of people who buy used games also purchase new ones, like myself. This will hurt new game sales too, especially since people can't share them with friends and family. Knowing they can't trade them in, and that they're stuck with that new game forever, they are much less likely to spend that $60 + tax.

Bigboi500

There is no formula or evidence to quantify the assertion that used sales stir up fervor for sequels to pre-existing games.

None.

Most games that are successful enough to generate sequels can be easily purchased, new, at retail for a low price so even assuming you were correct, the used market isn't crucial to the proliferation of hype for an upcoming sequel.

However, the notion that a game cannot be easily re-sold might affect those who don't purchase games with the intention of keeping them. The problem is that we have no data as to what percentage of such consumers make up the overall market space.

People who trade thier games for store credit to buy new games says otherwise.

Do you grasp, at even the most elementary level, what data and evidence actually are?

We know people trade-in games to subsidize the cost of new software but what we don't know is how much of the consumer base these people represent or how much of that subsidy buoys the new game market.

And your notion that the used market is some manner of propellant for upcoming sequels is wholly illogical and mind-numbingly redundant. If a game has already sold well enough to spawn a sequel then the interest for that sequel already exists, regardless if people buy a used copy of the earlier game.

And again, why purchase a used copy when you can nab the majority of older software dirt cheap and factory sealed?

#93 Posted by Rattlesnake_8 (18414 posts) -
I wont be buying it if you have to be online all the time. I don't want to b ALWAYS online. What if the connection drops? What if your ISP has the network down for maintanence? What if it goes down during a storm? I'm sure it's all just false, there is no way they would do that. The majority of people still don't have access to broadband. If you live in a small town or out in the country your only option is satellite (which is impossible for gaming) so unless the only want people in major cities (Excluding college kids and anyone with a bad connection to buy their system)... if it's true their system will fail.
#94 Posted by c_rakestraw (14682 posts) -

And again, why purchase a used copy when you can nab the majority of older software dirt cheap and factory sealed?Grammaton-Cleric

Convenience. Lot easier to find a newly released game cheap as a used copy a than factory-sealed one. If you don't want to wait for price reductions, used is the only option. From there, could just become a case of habit.

Could also be that there are some sort of "membership" benefits to buying used. The now closed Game Crazy chain of games stores had something like that. Join their "MVP" program and you'll get big discounts on used games. Wouldn't be surprised if that was driving used sales at certain retailers.

#95 Posted by dkdk999 (6738 posts) -
They can't be that stupid, if they are PC gaming will simply become even more popular. And lets not underestimate microsoft's stupidity though.
#96 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]And again, why purchase a used copy when you can nab the majority of older software dirt cheap and factory sealed?c_rake

Convenience. Lot easier to find a newly released game cheap as a used copy a than factory-sealed one. If you don't want to wait for price reductions, used is the only option. From there, could just become a case of habit.

Could also be that there are some sort of "membership" benefits to buying used. The now closed Game Crazy chain of games stores had something like that. Join their "MVP" program and you'll get big discounts on used games. Wouldn't be surprised if that was driving used sales at certain retailers.

Perhaps, but I would imagine that, at best, the issue of price and convenience is a case-by-case issue since some games are easy to find cheap and factory sealed while others, not so much.

I nab new quality software (and some junk) at prices well under ten dollars on a continuous basis thus I've never seen the advantage of buying used unless it is something incredibly rare.

And on newer software, the used discount is a joke. Most games, almost without fail, can be purchased for 39.99 or less within a few weeks of release and sometimes much sooner.

#97 Posted by roulettethedog (10971 posts) -

If true, I will skip the 720 /whatever it is called.

#98 Posted by Bigboi500 (29951 posts) -

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]And again, why purchase a used copy when you can nab the majority of older software dirt cheap and factory sealed?c_rake

Convenience. Lot easier to find a newly released game cheap as a used copy a than factory-sealed one. If you don't want to wait for price reductions, used is the only option. From there, could just become a case of habit.

Could also be that there are some sort of "membership" benefits to buying used. The now closed Game Crazy chain of games stores had something like that. Join their "MVP" program and you'll get big discounts on used games. Wouldn't be surprised if that was driving used sales at certain retailers.

Kind of reminds me of Gamefly, where you can get "used" games that are actually brand new in some cases, @ $10 cheaper on day one. I got Ni No Kuny like that for $50 with free shipping. Same for Far Cry 3.

 

I know I'd be much less inclined to buy most titles like that day one @ full price. Microsoft would be bone-headed to require activation codes in their games and miss out on all those sales. No matter how somebody looks at it, companies like red box, Blockbuster, GameStop and Gamefly still have to purchase those games to begin with, and they add up.

#99 Posted by c_rakestraw (14682 posts) -

Perhaps, but I would imagine that, at best, the issue of price and convenience is a case-by-case issue since some games are easy to find cheap and factory sealed while others, not so much.

I nab new quality software (and some junk) at prices well under ten dollars on a continuous basis thus I've never seen the advantage of buying used unless it is something incredibly rare.

And on newer software, the used discount is a joke. Most games, almost without fail, can be purchased for 39.99 or less within a few weeks of release and sometimes much sooner.

Grammaton-Cleric

The problem, I think, is that most folks don't want to wait to get the latest and greatest big release. They want it the very second it comes out, so if they can get it at a discount -- even a very poor one -- they'll jump on it. That's how GameStop has single-handedly been able to make a hugely profitable business out of used games. Because games are expensive, anyone will take any savings they can get. I don't like it -- prefer buy new whenever possible so that I know the game will work (had enough bad experiences to stop trusting used games will work just because they're being sold) and to try supporting the developers however possible -- but it works.

Hell, with how antagonistic lot of people have become toward publishers and developers DLC and online pass practices, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of used game sales were born out of malice.

Kind of reminds me of Gamefly, where you can get "used" games that are actually brand new in some cases, @ $10 cheaper on day one. I got Ni No Kuny like that for $50 with free shipping. Same for Far Cry 3.Bigboi500

I'm renting Ni no Kuni from GameFly now (great game!), and I could buy from them for $38 with the $5 dicount coupon and 10% discount I've got. Kinda ridiculous how cheap they let you buy games for.

#100 Posted by Pedro (21072 posts) -

There is no formula or evidence to quantify the assertion that used sales stir up fervor for sequels to pre-existing games.

None.

Most games that are successful enough to generate sequels can be easily purchased, new, at retail for a low price so even assuming you were correct, the used market isn't crucial to the proliferation of hype for an upcoming sequel.

However, the notion that a game cannot be easily re-sold might affect those who don't purchase games with the intention of keeping them. The problem is that we have no data as to what percentage of such consumers make up the overall market space.

Grammaton-Cleric

There are no evidence to say to the contrary so, that point is rather mute. However, here is an undisputed fact, used games exist because of the purchase of new games. Gamestop has created a system for gamers in which used games sustains the purchase of newer games. A person can trade in an old game for a reduction in price for the new game, it gives value to the new game purchase. Once this value is removed, the purchase of new games would be jeopardize and folks would be more like steam users where they purchase the bulk of their games when they are drastically discounted.