I forgot to post this but a poster from NeoGAF brought forth compelling evidence that wiping out the used game market would hurt far more than it would help.

Link here.

[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?

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.

 

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?

[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. 

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

I've been guessing $499 out of Sony and MS. $350 or $399 for the bad version that no one really wants and $499 for the one with the real hard drive/network/controllers/whatever.

syztem

No way either of them charge over $399 after the disasterous start the PS3 had.

Very, VERY excited to see what Sony has in store for gamers. All of the rumors and speculation concerning Orbis has me believing Sony learned from the mistakes they made with the PS3. 

Please don't mess this up, Sony. All you have to do is lead and the industry will follow you. Make the case for conventional gaming by forming a rebuttal to all the extraneous horseshlt present today. Focus on games -- that's what got you here, and that's what will safely carry the market forward. 

Shame-usBlackley

That and not charge over $400 for the damn thing. 

Oh how I would love for Sony to go for the juggular and release the PS4 at $350.

I've always known that Nintendo excels with handelds.

So here's my question; if they are so good with the handelds, then why don't they just drop the console side of things and focus solely on handhelds? They are obviously the kings of handhelds, IMO.

Metamania

Consoles generally still make them a lot of money despite any tepid sales. Hell I think the Gamecube made Nintendo a tidy profit despite selling worse than the N64.

My issue with Nintendo is that they take all the wrong risks.  They are willing to spend money on R&D for oddball controllers, and unwilling to invest in games that aren't a sure thing.  They rely on two things: their tried and true franchises as well as low budget games that have broad appeal to nongamers.  They've let great IPs like F-Zero fall by the wayside in favor of an F-Zero minigame in Nintendoland.  Imagine if F-Zero U was a Wii U launch title with graphics on par with WipEout.  It would have sold great and would have been an awesome graphical showcase for the system.

When they decided that 'gameplay is more important than graphics' and that their business model could survive on their core Nintendo fanbase as well as soccer moms, they didn't realize that their core base likes good graphics and that soccer moms don't buy games in the same numbers that we do.  Nontraditional gamers also don't care about new hardware.  My mom wants a Wii, she doesn't want a Wii U.  Meanwhile Nintendo is about to get left behind again by companies who realize that graphics and gameplay aren't mutually exclusive.

rragnaar

I'd like to quote this again just in case any Nintendo reps are listening.

Because 18-35 white males still make up the most consistently profitable part of the game industry.