No used games, but all new games retail at $39.99

  • 93 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by rumbalumba (2880 posts) -

What if all next-gen consoles blocked the ability to play used games, but all new games launch at $39 or less. Is that a compromise everyone is willing to agree on??

#2 Posted by finalstar2007 (25334 posts) -

No, i dont buy used games BUT i sell the games i dont want to be able to afford new games so if there are no used games then no one will buy my used games which means not enough money to buy new ones.

#3 Posted by NoirLamia777 (2166 posts) -

I wouldn't be able to borrow from friends or lend games out.  Just dumb.

#4 Posted by nutcrackr (12723 posts) -
That would never happen, if anything the new console games would hit $70
#5 Posted by Bigboi500 (30295 posts) -

I'm down with it, but the greedy suits wouldn't be in a million years.

#6 Posted by Thefatness16 (4672 posts) -

Still wouldn't go near it.

#7 Posted by lamprey263 (24415 posts) -
I'd do $40 digital, MS and Sony should consider this as their best way to combat used games, consumers will purchase digital to save money, that's a benefit since it cuts down on production, distribution, retailer cut, and most importantly that's one less used tangible copy that may end up on the used game market that will later cut them out of revenues.
#8 Posted by xhawk27 (7358 posts) -

You can't buy an used game from Gamestop for that price unless it's a year old or more. 

#9 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

No, i dont buy used games BUT i sell the games i dont want to be able to afford new games so if there are no used games then no one will buy my used games which means not enough money to buy new ones.

finalstar2007
Which means quicker price drops and more sales.
#10 Posted by campzor (34932 posts) -
considering i dont buy used games (maybe the ODD ODD ODD RARE OCCASION [never]) This would be cool
#11 Posted by Masenkoe (4888 posts) -

I wouldn't be able to borrow from friends or lend games out.  Just dumb.

NoirLamia777

#12 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43072 posts) -
I wouldn't mind.
#13 Posted by 15strong (2806 posts) -

That would be fine by mean.

How would Gamefly handle if Microsoft and Sony banned used games?

#14 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -
No. It still stops me from selling games I don't want, stops me from borrowing games, and stops me from loaning games.
#15 Posted by silversix_ (14978 posts) -
69.99 per game and not able to play used games is more what is likely to happen. Just move to pc's if you aren't a 12 year old...
#16 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -
69.99 per game and not able to play used games is more what is likely to happen. Just move to pc's if you aren't a 12 year old...silversix_
Let me get this straight, if MS/Sony block used games, move to pc which already blocks used games?
#17 Posted by Cherokee_Jack (32198 posts) -
I don't think publishers would be too stoked about that.
#18 Posted by BPoole96 (22803 posts) -

I'd be okay with that. $40 is a reasonable price for most games. Few games have justified their $60 price for me. Ironically, some of the game I got at a much later date for less than $10 would have been worth the $60 if I had bought them new (such as the Witcher 2 and Deus Ex: HR)

#19 Posted by xhawk27 (7358 posts) -

No. It still stops me from selling games I don't want, stops me from borrowing games, and stops me from loaning games.AmazonTreeBoa

If you sell them to Gamestop they will cheat you. 

#20 Posted by psymon100 (6138 posts) -

No, i dont buy used games BUT i sell the games i dont want to be able to afford new games so if there are no used games then no one will buy my used games which means not enough money to buy new ones.

finalstar2007

If they acted like Steam, occasionally having >50% off etc, I'd probably spend about the same and I adopt many money saving frugal behaviour's including ones like finalstar's. 

#21 Posted by Cherokee_Jack (32198 posts) -

[QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"]No. It still stops me from selling games I don't want, stops me from borrowing games, and stops me from loaning games.xhawk27

If you sell them to Gamestop they will cheat you. 

Gamestop doesn't have a monopoly on the used market. Before I had a job, I paid for a lot of my new games by reselling on eBay.
#22 Posted by rumbalumba (2880 posts) -

I don't think publishers would be too stoked about that.Cherokee_Jack

 

Why not? a lower price point would most likely generate more sales at the very least. Hell, a $40 price point might even increase the average sales of games during their launch. a 500k Day 1 game might not even just have to be exclusively for COD now, given that price point.

#23 Posted by StrongBlackVine (8418 posts) -

I don't buy used games and rarely sell games so I would love this...

#24 Posted by Cherokee_Jack (32198 posts) -

Hell, a $40 price point might even increase the average sales of games during their launch. a 500k Day 1 game might not even just have to be exclusively for COD now, given that price point.rumbalumba

I don't think there's a ton of elasticity there. If you would buy a game at launch for $40, you would probably buy it at $60. Game prices will still go down post-release (if a bit slower) so waiting a month or two will still pay off if you aren't desperate for the game.

#25 Posted by rumbalumba (2880 posts) -

That would never happen, if anything the new console games would hit $70nutcrackr

 

Never happen? Minecraft sold CoD numbers at $10. we're not paying for the disc, but what's inside the disc. if by selling a product at $40 a piece nets you higher sales numbers by units than it would if it were $60, then why not? 500,000 units at $60 = $30 million. 800,000 units at $40 = $32 million. add the fact that no sale will be lost due to used games. Heavy Rain "lost" 1 million units because of used game sales. It might even yield a much higher revenue since more people might buy it during its lifetime, plus more people forced to buy it new. A discounted price down the line ($19.99, for example) is a much higher number than what publishers will get with used game sales ($0).

#26 Posted by xhawk27 (7358 posts) -

[QUOTE="xhawk27"]

[QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"]No. It still stops me from selling games I don't want, stops me from borrowing games, and stops me from loaning games.Cherokee_Jack

If you sell them to Gamestop they will cheat you. 

Gamestop doesn't have a monopoly on the used market. Before I had a job, I paid for a lot of my new games by reselling on eBay.

selling them on Ebay is the best, but that takes more time to do so. 

#27 Posted by rumbalumba (2880 posts) -

[QUOTE="rumbalumba"]Hell, a $40 price point might even increase the average sales of games during their launch. a 500k Day 1 game might not even just have to be exclusively for COD now, given that price point.Cherokee_Jack

I don't think there's a ton of elasticity there. If you would buy a game at launch for $40, you would probably buy it at $60. Game prices will still go down post-release (if a bit slower) so waiting a month or two will still pay off if you aren't desperate for the game.

 

Are you for real or faux real? "If you would buy a game at launch for $40, you would probably buy it at $60." Is it me or you got it backwards? It should be "If you would buy a game at launch for $60, you would probably buy it at $40."

Also, I know a lot of people who are willing to buy at $40 but DEFINITELY not at $60. How many times have we heard people going, "I'll buy it, but probably when it comes down to $40 or less"? It just means people are willing to buy the game if it were cheaper, and a lot of people are like that. And what do they end up doing? Buying the game used, for a cheaper price, because that retail price from Gamestop or Bestbuy is taking too long to drop or is waiting for a holiday to kick in.

Save the fact that it would also mean $39.99 will also go down in price, and anyone wanting a much cheaper game will get ti faster than just waiting for $60 to come down.

#28 Posted by Cherokee_Jack (32198 posts) -

Are you for real or faux real? "If you would buy a game at launch for $40, you would probably buy it at $60." Is it me or you got it backwards? It should be "If you would buy a game at launch for $60, you would probably buy it at $40."

Also, I know a lot of people who are willing to buy at $40 but DEFINITELY not at $60. How many times have we heard people going, "I'll buy it, but probably when it comes down to $40 or less"? It just means people are willing to buy the game if it were cheaper, and a lot of people are like that.

rumbalumba

When you know the price is only going to drop, you're less likely to buy it on day 1 no matter what that day-1 price is. People see $15 games come out on Steam and say "Looks good, but I'll wait for a sale."

#29 Posted by Ly_the_Fairy (8652 posts) -

When I was a kid, growing up, there is no way I could have gamed as much as I did without renting, borrowing, or trading games with people I knew.

I'm can afford all my games new now, but I have to think of all the children out there who can't afford games. Those children will become fans of games just like me, and support the industry heavily later in their life.

No used games is not good for the industry.

#30 Posted by tagyhag (15867 posts) -
Lol $40. I'm used to paying <$10 so no.
#31 Posted by ActicEdge (24492 posts) -

A lot of the costs in a $60 game are marketing, production and distribution. Unless they cut development costs significantly and streamline production and distribution, $40 games is a dream. 

#32 Posted by rumbalumba (2880 posts) -

[QUOTE="rumbalumba"]

Are you for real or faux real? "If you would buy a game at launch for $40, you would probably buy it at $60." Is it me or you got it backwards? It should be "If you would buy a game at launch for $60, you would probably buy it at $40."

Also, I know a lot of people who are willing to buy at $40 but DEFINITELY not at $60. How many times have we heard people going, "I'll buy it, but probably when it comes down to $40 or less"? It just means people are willing to buy the game if it were cheaper, and a lot of people are like that.

Cherokee_Jack

When you know the price is only going to drop, you're less likely to buy it on day 1 no matter what that day-1 price is. People see $15 games come out on Steam and say "Looks good, but I'll wait for a sale."

 

save the fact that today's $15 games on steam aren't the same as today's $60 games you see on retail. again, are you faux real? by that logic, there are no difference in people's perception, reaction, and willingness to buy a product that retails at $100 and the same product that retails at $50, which is entirely FALSE. 

 

you're saying that people will have the same "oh i'm going to buy it later" reaction to a TV launching at $3000 and the same TV launching at $500.

 

"When you know the price is only going to drop, you're less likely to buy it on day 1 no matter what that day-1 price is." honestly, that's not even a valid argument.

#33 Posted by rumbalumba (2880 posts) -

A lot of the costs in a $60 game are marketing, production and distribution. Unless they cut development costs significantly and streamline production and distribution, $40 games is a dream. 

ActicEdge

 

Huh? it doesn't take $60 to manufacture the disc, the manual, and the case. what are you smoking? i've already said, $60 x 500,000 units sold = $30 million, and $40 x 800,000 units = $32 million. You're assuming sales won't go any higher even if games were cheaper. I totally disagree. 

#34 Posted by ActicEdge (24492 posts) -

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

A lot of the costs in a $60 game are marketing, production and distribution. Unless they cut development costs significantly and streamline production and distribution, $40 games is a dream. 

rumbalumba

 

Huh? it doesn't take $60 to manufacture the disc, the manual, and the case. what are you smoking? i've already said, $60 x 500,000 units sold = $30 million, and $40 x 800,000 units = $32 million. You're assuming sales won't go any higher even if games were cheaper. I totally disagree. 

You didn't get the point I'm making, I'm not saying it costs $60 to make the disc, case and distribute. I'm saying those costs are built into the price. $60 prices cover development, marketing, manufacting, distribution, operating costs and retailer profit. You really think shaving $20 off the price of a game when retailers barely break even carrying games to begin with is going to solve the problem? Are you serious?

If publishers wanna make money they need a none shhiititttit business model and pricing structure. They need to embrace fair DD prices, they need to offer incentives to buying new that buying used can't get you and its not an extra armour piece or a new map. Games depreciate in value so fast that used sales hurt profit in the first 2 months the most. Capcom doesn't give a damn if I give away my extra copy of RE5, its worth is pretty none existant at that point in time.

#35 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (19818 posts) -

No, i dont buy used games BUT i sell the games i dont want to be able to afford new games so if there are no used games then no one will buy my used games which means not enough money to buy new ones.

finalstar2007
Get a job. 'Nuff said.
#36 Posted by rumbalumba (2880 posts) -

[QUOTE="rumbalumba"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

A lot of the costs in a $60 game are marketing, production and distribution. Unless they cut development costs significantly and streamline production and distribution, $40 games is a dream. 

ActicEdge

 

Huh? it doesn't take $60 to manufacture the disc, the manual, and the case. what are you smoking? i've already said, $60 x 500,000 units sold = $30 million, and $40 x 800,000 units = $32 million. You're assuming sales won't go any higher even if games were cheaper. I totally disagree. 

You didn't get the point I'm making, I'm not saying it costs $60 to make the disc, case and distribute. I'm saying those costs are built into the price. $60 prices cover development, marketing, manufacting, distribution, operating costs and retailer profit. You really think shaving $20 off the price of a game when retailers barely break even carrying games to begin with is going to solve the problem? Are you serious?

 

Wrong, because not every game costs the same. Gran Turismo 5 cost much, much more than inFamous to make, yet they both retail at $60 a piece. Again, you're assuming sales numbers would be the same even if games were cheaper.

#37 Posted by ActicEdge (24492 posts) -

[QUOTE="finalstar2007"]

No, i dont buy used games BUT i sell the games i dont want to be able to afford new games so if there are no used games then no one will buy my used games which means not enough money to buy new ones.

DragonfireXZ95

Get a job. 'Nuff said.

You think the people who make up most of the buying market for video games make tons of dispoable income? You really think that. Video games as a hobby appeal to the lowest common denominator easily. You're not special man, not at all.

#38 Posted by ActicEdge (24492 posts) -

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="rumbalumba"]

 

Huh? it doesn't take $60 to manufacture the disc, the manual, and the case. what are you smoking? i've already said, $60 x 500,000 units sold = $30 million, and $40 x 800,000 units = $32 million. You're assuming sales won't go any higher even if games were cheaper. I totally disagree. 

rumbalumba

You didn't get the point I'm making, I'm not saying it costs $60 to make the disc, case and distribute. I'm saying those costs are built into the price. $60 prices cover development, marketing, manufacting, distribution, operating costs and retailer profit. You really think shaving $20 off the price of a game when retailers barely break even carrying games to begin with is going to solve the problem? Are you serious?

 

Wrong, because not every game costs the same. Gran Turismo 5 cost much, much more than inFamous to make, yet they both retail at $60 a piece. Again, you're assuming sales numbers would be the same even if games were cheaper.

Well duh, that's why we have to have different pricing structures but you're just plain stupid if you don't think the development of a title is not budgeted towards how many new copies they can sell on a $60 model.  Game sales (for new games) are going to go up with no used game purchases sure. It however doesn't mean that that is going to offset the reduced profits made by selling games for 67% of their current price considering that games are made by people and the most talented people go to where they can make the most money. You aren't going to reduce development and keep the quality of your game the same without maintaining that talent and by cutting their maximum ceiling of profit, they'll just go somewhere that won't.

#39 Posted by Ly_the_Fairy (8652 posts) -

[QUOTE="finalstar2007"]

No, i dont buy used games BUT i sell the games i dont want to be able to afford new games so if there are no used games then no one will buy my used games which means not enough money to buy new ones.

DragonfireXZ95

Get a job. 'Nuff said.

Where does that leave kids.

Also, there are people with jobs who still live in low-income households.

Gaming is a hobby that people have come to love, and be a part of because they could afford to rent, borrow, or trade, and it shouldn't just be stripped from them.

#40 Posted by StrongDeadlift (5180 posts) -

I would support this.  Very few games this gen are worth $60, unless they are one of the major multiplayer games (Halo, Cod) or have alot of content (Skyrim, RDR, Batman, Mass Effect, etc).  

 

Too many $60 7 hour movies that are worthless after the first playthrough, which in an overwhelming majority of cases, isnt THAT great to begin with.  

#41 Posted by ActicEdge (24492 posts) -

I would support this.  Very few games this gen are worth $60, unless they are one of the major multiplayer games (Halo, Cod) or have alot of content (Skyrim, RDR, Batman, Mass Effect, etc).  

 

Too many $60 7 hour movies that are worthless after the first playthrough, which in an overwhelming majority of cases, isnt THAT great to begin with.  

StrongDeadlift

Regardless of a price factor, time is also a variable too and even with cheaper games the time investment people can put into the hobby is still going to limit potential sales. There are tons of cheap ios, android and DS/PSP games out there that people still don't buy in droves because if you are not a dedicated gamer, why should you have a backlog of 10 games? 

#42 Posted by whiskeystrike (12068 posts) -

Would still not buy

too anti-consumer

#43 Posted by rumbalumba (2880 posts) -

 

Well duh, that's why we have to have different pricing structures but you're just plain stupid if you don't think the development of a title is not budgeted towards how many new copies they can sell on a $60 model.  Game sales (for new games) are going to go up with no used game purchases sure. It however doesn't mean that that is going to offset the reduced profits made by selling games for 67% of their current price considering that games are made by people and the most talented people go to where they can make the most money. You aren't going to reduce development and keep the quality of your game the same without maintaining that talent and by cutting their maximum ceiling of profit, they'll just go somewhere that won't.

ActicEdge

 

Again, you're assuming profit won't go up (heck, even less) if games were cheaper. I've already shown, that a $40 game which sold $800k has a higher profit margin than a $60 game which sold 500k. I don't understand why you'd  have to reduce development costs just because it'll be a $40 game. It's not impossible to keep the same development costs and launch at a lower price. That is only problematic to games that cost too much to make and have a finished product that is crap. Their expected sales are tied in to $60. Heck, it could be that there may have no change at all ($60, lower sales and $40 higher sales but in the end, profits are equal). Still, I'm banking on more profits than they would have at the $60 + used market.

#44 Posted by ActicEdge (24492 posts) -

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

 

Well duh, that's why we have to have different pricing structures but you're just plain stupid if you don't think the development of a title is not budgeted towards how many new copies they can sell on a $60 model.  Game sales (for new games) are going to go up with no used game purchases sure. It however doesn't mean that that is going to offset the reduced profits made by selling games for 67% of their current price considering that games are made by people and the most talented people go to where they can make the most money. You aren't going to reduce development and keep the quality of your game the same without maintaining that talent and by cutting their maximum ceiling of profit, they'll just go somewhere that won't.

rumbalumba

 

Again, you're assuming profit won't go up (heck, even less) if games were cheaper. I've already shown, that a $40 game which sold $800k has a higher profit margin than a $60 game which sold 500k. I don't understand why you'd  have to reduce development costs just because it'll be a $40 game. It's not impossible to keep the same development costs and launch at a lower price. That is only problematic to games that cost too much to make and have a finished product that is crap. Their expected sales are tied in to $60. Heck, it could be that there may have no change at all ($60, lower sales and $40 higher sales but in the end, profits are equal). Still, I'm banking on more profits than they would have at the $60 + used market.

This basic math you are doing is flawed. Retailers don't make much more than 7-8 dollars on games SOLD AT $60 and due to the fact that in general they will not sell an entire shipment of a game at full price selling games is a break even at best model. Used games exist so that they can still actually profit off of the concept of selling games at all. You kill used games and lower the average price all you are going to see is that games are going to be in a lot lower stock because selling 800k of a game over 500k is a 60% increase in sales just to reach the same milestone. You think that stores are going to carry 60% more titles that they make less money on per title that they can't subsize at all? Are you serious. What the hell are you failing to grasp about thist? You make the games cost $40 and they have absolutely no profit margin regardless. 

#45 Posted by NeonNinja (17318 posts) -

Nope.

If it's one game per machine/account you better make like Steam and hook up fat discounts. $5, $10, $15 and $20 games are easy to take when tied to one account. But otherwise I'd like the ability to be able to swap games with my buddies. If not, then screw it.

#46 Posted by TheEpicGoat (2006 posts) -

I can dig it.

#47 Posted by NeonNinja (17318 posts) -

To be completely honest, if we go fully digital than game prices need to be $20.

Runic Games states in this article that by selling Torchlight II at $20 on Steam they would receive just as much money from each sale if they sold a $60 boxed copy.

So if used are games are out of the question than I want discs out as well. If they make the same amount from each copy sold at a third of the price when going digital than we need more of these pricing models. Anything higher is just stupid. (I do not pay $60 for games, and always wait for the next sale, because this crap is way too overpriced).

#48 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

A lot of the costs in a $60 game are marketing, production and distribution. Unless they cut development costs significantly and streamline production and distribution, $40 games is a dream. 

rumbalumba

 

Huh? it doesn't take $60 to manufacture the disc, the manual, and the case. what are you smoking? i've already said, $60 x 500,000 units sold = $30 million, and $40 x 800,000 units = $32 million. You're assuming sales won't go any higher even if games were cheaper. I totally disagree. 

You speak as if a game is released at a permanent price and that those 300k gamers will never ever buy the game even when the price drops. Games release at $60 because many people are willing to pay that price, people who dont want to pay full price will wait. The people who make the pricing decisions are most likely much more qualified than you.
#49 Posted by munkeypoo45 (3220 posts) -

meh. it's better but i would still want to be able to borrow and lend games to and from friends. 

#50 Posted by ultraking (6904 posts) -
sounds good to me. I don't collect games so no skin off my back